Stir Up! Stir Up! It's the SORs!

With the introduction of yet more bureaucratic red tape, or should that be pink tape, under the heading of the Sexual Orientation Regulations, the Government is bending itself into yet more unorthodox contortions in its attempt to do right by this country's minorities. Inevitably, orthodox, Catholic, traditionalist and almost all other Christians save the liberal and most of the Anglican establishment are once more on a crusade against what is perceived as yet another demon of secularisation. Anthony Browne has written a story in the paper and I've done a commentary to which a friend has emailed a response: "I read your analysis today with interest. I hardly think that getting BA to hold a review ( far less apologise, compensate or reinstate Eweida) and the Government backtracking on quotas on faith schools on actions that were pressing against natural justice is letting power go to people's heads.  The SORs are a monstrous infringement of conscience and religious freedom. Ann Widdecombe is right. On this occasion I can't agree with you."

  The danger the churches and other religious groups fear is that, once again, in its attempts to appease one particular lobby group, the Government will end by discriminating against another, the religious. Examples of what they fear is that Christian police officers might be forced to attend events such as gay pride. Wild and windy Irish priest Fr Leonard has posted his views on it, as have Oxford student housing guru Jock Coats and Catholic Ticker. Thanks to Christopher Lamb for this photo, see his comment below for its relevance to this post...

Leaders of some of Britain’s biggest black churches are just some of those threatening civil disobedience over the Government's plans to introduce the new gay rights. Black church leaders are accusing Tony Blair of casting black worshippers “back into slavery”.

The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Birmingham, Vincent Nichols, this week accused the Government of an “aggressive reshaping of our moral framework.” The Catholic Church is warning of a rebellion by schools, charities and adoption agencies, claiming the regulations will lead to an “inversion of family morality”. The Church of England’s Bishop of Rochester, Dr Michael Nazir-Ali, backed Archbishop Nichols. Interestingly, though, then Arcbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu, will be staying out of this one, at least for the time being.

The Government has been charged with using Northern Ireland as a test bed after it forced through the controversial new rules banning all discrimination against homosexuals and transexuals ahead of the rest of the UK. Politicians and religious leaders from the province are outraged that the government used its direct rule powers to lay down the new legislation. The law - which would for example make it illegal for a Christian printer to refuse to print a leaflet promoting gay sex, or a religious bed and breakfast owner to refuse custom to a transexual couple - will come into force in the province on January 1st. Although no date has been set to implement the policy in the UK, next April is being talked about as a possibility.

The Lawyers' Christian Fellowship is leading the campaign against the regs. Black church leaders who had campaigned for the government to allow faith-based conscientious objections are so alarmed that out a whole page advert in The Times this week warning about the impact. Anglican Mainstream has reproduced the text of the ad. Under the umbrella of the Evangelical Alliance, a group of church leaders from across the ecclesiastical spectrum has met in London this week to prepare a strategy against the regulations. But they are hampered slightly in that no-one knows yet precisely what shape they will take as the detail has yet to be published.

What is known is that they will make it an offence to refuse to offer goods or services to someone because of their sexuality. The rules are being introduced under powers granted to the government by the Equality Act, passed by the Westminster parliament earlier this year.  The Northern Ireland office insists that the province is not being used as a guinea pig for controversial legislation, but that it held a different consultation process to the mainland. In England, there were 3000 responses to the consultation on the legislation, while in Northern Ireland there were just 373 responses. The government says that meant it could process the legislation in Northern Ireland quicker than in England.

Christian campaigners say the new regulations will force them to act against their conscience.
Bishop Alfred Williams, of Prophetic Voice Ministries, an influential grouping of black-led churches, said: “These regulations infringe the human right to expression of religious belief. In African culture, homosexuality is seen as debased. By our Christian values it is a sin. I am certain that black people will take to the streets over this. It will paralyse the economy. Black Muslims will protest also, it won’t just be Christians.” He condemned the Government for planning to introduce the regulations in the same year that it will commemorate the abolition of the slave trade. “My grandfather was a slave. These regulations are a new form of slavery. They will enslave our conscience.”

On his blog, Peter Ould writes: "The deeper problem with the act has been highlighted by the Lawyers’ Christian Fellowship who argue that since the law allows for prosecution if an individual felt that they had “been subjected to a ’humiliating or offensive environment’”, that means that if I stand up and give my testimony of healing from sexual brokeness or preach on the subject of homosexuality and somebody in the congregation who self-identifies as gay finds it offensive, I could be prosecuted. Or take it further (and I haven’t seen this argument anywhere else so I claim the rights!!!) - Could I be prosecuted for refusing to give Communion to somebody who I knew was willfully engaging in gay sex and not repenting? Would that mean that their dignity had been violated even though I was exercising traditional Christian (and Anglican) discipline?"

Meg Munn, Deputy Minister for Women and Equalities, wrote to The Times this week in response to the advertisement from the black church leaders. She said the regulations will provide "effective protection" from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in the provision of goods and services. "In developing the regulations the Government received a large number of responses and it is clear that there are deeply held views on all sides. We are seeking to strike a balance between protecting the rights of religious groups and preventing discrimination against lesbian, gay and bisexual people. In a diverse society, achieving a legal framework that balances fundamental rights is very complex. This is a Government, and country, which has a proud record of tackling discrimination wherever it exists. But it is also a country which has a proud record of respecting people from all faiths and none."

She continued: "There are a number of misconceptions about what these regulations will cover and what is being considered. For example, no-one is proposing that schools will have to promote homosexuality or that a priest will have to bless same sex couples. But at the same time, the vast majority of the British public would surely agree that is wrong for a gay teenager to be refused emergency accommodation after being thrown out of their family home on the grounds that they had chosen to tell their parents about their sexuality or for lesbian and bisexual people to be denied access to essential healthcare. It is right that there should be a public debate on these complex and difficult issues, but that debate should be conducted in a calm and measured way rather than through inaccurate and wild speculation."

Update: I understand that Ms Munn's office has been so besieged with protests over these regulations that she is asking anyone who is not calling her on a constituency matter to desist. I trust all readers of this blog will respect this minister's desire not to be troubled by the thousands who disagree with her. This link will take you to the numbers that you are requested not to call.

This is one that will run, and run, and run, and run..... as usual, lots of excellent links and comment on Thinking Anglicans.

Comments

[Jock Coats]

Peter Ould wonders whether he could be "prosecuted for refusing to give Communion to somebody who I knew was willfully engaging in gay sex and not repenting?"

Maybe, maybe not, but he's sure as hell going to have to answer to a far higher power than the courts of this land for making a judgement on another sinner's state of grace at the point of receiving communion.

[Christopher]

"Bishop Alfred Williams, of Prophetic Voice Ministries, an influential grouping of black-led churches, said: “These regulations infringe the human right to expression of religious belief. In African culture, homosexuality is seen as debased. By our Christian values it is a sin. I am certain that black people will take to the streets over this. It will paralyse the economy. Black Muslims will protest also, it won’t just be Christians.”

So it seems what these people like Bishop Alfred Williams intend is completely to reverse Jesus Christ's teachings when he said " Do not judge, so you yourself will not be judged". If I were him and believed what he purports to believe, I'd really be in fear and trembling come Judgment Day. It makes you wonder how much he really believes in the religion he preaches.

[J Pearce]

“My grandfather was a slave. These regulations are a new form of slavery. They will enslave our conscience.”

Ironic, given that TB has only just got around to apologising for the first lot…Bishop Williams and his ilk are on slightly dangerous ground, though. As he says, homosexuality is seen in Africa as debased. But female genital mutilation is perfectly acceptable. Draw your own conclusions.

SOR's, eh? Sound painful, don't they? In principle, I can't really see why Christians would get so exercised. After all, my understanding of "provision of goods and services" implies some form of monetary transaction. I can't see why traders or service providers - regardless of their moral orientation - would object to taking money off someone or being paid:

(adopts Basil Fawlty voice) "I'm sorry, I cannot accept your payment for these expensive goods, because you appear to be a homosexual".

Not going to happen, is it?!

If these regulations stray into voluntary areas, though, I can forsee a problem...

[Peter O]

Fair call Jock, but so then will hordes of Anglican priests down the ages.

And for the record I haven't ever refused anybody Communion, but I want to know where I stand if I followed the rules and did so.

[Alistair McBay]

I think Christianity has reached a new low this week, taking out a full page advertisement in a national newspaper demanding the right to practise prejudice and discrimination against a section of the UK community.

What would Jesus do? Well, if he ever came back (and I think you all know my views on that one) it's a safe bet on the basis of him seeing that advert that he wouldn't choose to be a Christian.

[Jock Coats]

Follow the rules?

What rules?

Certainly in the absence of a sacrament of reconcilliation in the Anglican Church I don't see how any priest can make such a call, unless said sinner is sinning right up to the communion rail right before everyone's eyes. And what would constitute such? One often sees young couples heading up the aisle to communion hand in hand. Would that count if the two hands were of the same gender, say?

Which is the greater sin against the Holy Spirit? Loving someone in a way the quality of which love is not open to others to question, not experiencing it? Or prejudging said Spirit's Grace in that lover or their beloved? I know which side I would be inclined to err on. "Rules" or no rules.

There again, I am personally careful to pass a church by on the other side of the road if I know the congregation or minister to be of an evangelical conservative bent who might even wonder about making such a call! And were I to inadvertantly stumble into one, on discovering it I would take the advice offered in the Gospel and shake its dust off my shoes on the way out!

[Rosemary Behan]

Christopher, it has always interested me that immediately after Jesus warns us about 'judging' others, He tells us not to give dogs what is sacred, or throw pearls to pigs .. and I ask myself, how can I discern who is who without doing a bit of 'judging?'

[George]

I am in favor of equal rights for homosexuals and bisexuals, including within the Church. (I am an Episcopalian.) I do not know the full provisions of the SORs, but I am very much afraid that they will, in the long run, do the opposite to what is intended. Civil rights legislation did that in the U.S. where I live. In spite of what you usually hear, good progress was being made toward voluntary integration. Before the Supreme Court decision in 1954, the Medical College of Virginia had voted to integrate. After the decision, they voted to remain segregated. People do not like having something "shoved down their throats" and Afro-Americans lost the support and friendship of a large percentage of the white population which would otherwise have been on their side. A backlash occured. I advise my homosexual friends here not to push the issue too hard and cause the same thing to happen. The passage of SORs makes me nervous for the cause it is intended to support. I wonder if the Archbishop of Canterbury doesn't have this in mind as he, to some extent, backs off of this cause which he used to support much more strongly.

[Jill]

To my huge embarrassment, I find I have posted my Stirring Up post on the wrong thread! I will try again.

Aficionados (like me) of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer will know that last Sunday, the ‘Sunday Next before Advent’, was what used to be known as ‘Stir-up Sunday’. This has traditionally been associated with the making of the Christmas pudding, of which everybody has a stir. It properly refers, though, to the Collect, which starts ‘Stir up, we beseech thee, O Lord, the wills of thy faithful people’.

How very appropriate that this seems to be the week when Christian folk, among others, are waking up to the spectre of the Sexual Orientation Regulations, and are busy writing letters of protest to their MPs.

[Jill]

George, you are very right. We Brits are by and large a fair-minded and tolerant bunch and we like to 'play the game' - just look at how good we are about losing cricket matches. We tend to love our eccentrics of any hue. We can be seen by others as being easily pushed about, but we are not when it comes down to it.

This issue affects everyone, not just Christians or people of other faiths. The whole institution of marriage is under threat, and when it comes to it the Great British Public (the 72% who think of themselves as Christian, small 'c'or otherwise) will put its foot firmly down.

I too fear a gay backlash. I remember posting something along these lines a while ago, musing that it would probably be Christians who would get the blame, whereas the fault lies at the door of gay activists who have pushed us too far.

[Alan Marsh]

The rules are these, Jock:

If any be an open and notorious evil liver...so that the Congregation be thereby offended; the Curate [parish priest] having knowledge thereof, shall call him and advertise him, that in any wise he presume not to come to the Lord's Table, until he have openly declared himself to have truly repented and amended his former naughty life.

These words are from the Rubrics or Instructions which appear at the beginning of the order for the Holy Communion in the Book of Common Prayer which is the doctrinal standard for the Church of England as part of English law.

The rite for Reconciliation appears in the same Book, in the order for the Visitation of the Sick and in some of the more recently published pastoral offices.

The Christian scriptures make it quite clear that someone publicly declaring himself to be actively homosexual has already chosen to set himself apart from the community of the Church and therefore should not present himself for Holy Communion. The priest's pastoral duty is to call him to repentance, not to affirm him in his wrongdoing by admitting him to Holy Communion.

[Mark]

Sure Jesus was inclusive. He welcomed everyone and then said "Go and sin no more."

Everyone who wants to follow Jesus needs to seek to leave behind anything not of a Godly nature. If active homosexuals feel a little singled out by this debate they have a point; the church has been generally poor at labelling sin as sin for some time whether it be greed, lust, adultery, ........ so it seems that this is the only sin that counts.

The problem here is I'm not sure I'll be able to say "You need to leave the past behind if you are serious about following Jesus" without committing a crime.

Equal economic rights for all, however, is certainly a valid cause.

[Tom]

Mmmm the churches can't have it both ways. They've persecuted and driven gay men to suicide for years and now there complaining 'cos they'll lose the right to carry on........

Dignity of human life, respect for others and equality of opportunity are hard won moral battles. The church opposed many of todays freedoms and there has been a bitter cost in terms of private tragedies. A truly compassionate human perspective is available in the church's more enlightened places, but they are few and far between.

Since I read yesterdays blog around 6000 children have died of infections and 30 000 people have died of starvation. We never hear this on the news, it goes by unremarked -a scandal. Yet what do we hear from the churches? -
How to hate those we don't like and deny them humanity.
Too often the churches pedal a morality that is bogus.
Perhaps that's why so few go to church today.

I'm an Anglican and I am ashamed.

[Keith Downer]

"He who is slow to anger has great understanding, but he who has a quick temper displays folly." Proverbs 14:29

Well, no-one can accuse Christians of having a "quick temper" given the almost apathy that has followed the gradual erosion of Christian values and morality over the past forty or so years. But, thank God, at long last we are beginning to wake up!
All those who object to the advert in the Times should take note that this surge of opposition to a law that threatens to compel people to act against their conscience, is all the more surprising because Christians have become so used to simply turning the other cheek or laying down quietly to be trampled on.
There is an inherent good nature and willingness to be tolerant and respectful where those with Christian beliefs are concerned and many people have abused these characteristics in order to further their own political or social objectives.
But, enough is enough and hopefully the developing revolt from different corners of the Christian family signals a willingness to stand up and be counted when it comes to changes which threaten the principles and standards of behaviour upon which our community is built and depends on.

[Christopher]

"He tells us not to give dogs what is sacred, or throw pearls to pigs .. and I ask myself, how can I discern who is who without doing a bit of 'judging?'"

So, Rosemary, you have difficulty distinguishing between gay people and dogs or pigs? Says it all really.

[Douglas Knight]

has anyone found an electronic copy of Vincent Nichols' speech? Would be much obliged for a link

[Jill]

Peter O, you pass the buck to the Bishop! So long as you give a week's notice. The rubrics of the Book of Common Prayer state 'If a Minister be persuaded that any person who presents himself to be a partaker of the holy Communion ought not to be admitted thereunto by reason of malicious and open contention with his neighbours, or other grave and open sin without repentance, he shall give an account of the same to the Ordinary of the place, and therein obey his order and direction, but so as not to refuse the Sacrament to any person until in accordance with such order and direction he shall have called him and advertised him that in any wise he presume not to come to the Lord's Table; Provided that in case of grave and immediate scandal to the Congregation the Minister shall not admit such person, but shall give an account of the same to the Ordinary within seven days after the latest and therein obey the order and direction given to him by the Ordinary; Provided also that before issuing his order and direction in relation to any such person the Ordinary shall afford to him an opportunity for interview.'

At least, I think that's what it says. I feel a bit dazed after all that. What happens, though, (as is likely in the case of your Bishop), if he says it is okay, is another matter. You had better start saving up, just in case. (£500 for a first offence, isn't it? I'll chip in a contribution.)

[Christopher]

Tom, you are a mensch, as Irene might say.

[Christopher]

What about seventy times seven, Keith?

Ben Summerskill, speaking about the advert, has said “I think it’s a sign of an increasing desperation that these individuals have had to resort to a string of lies.”

Don't be an apologist for the misinformation and lies behind the Coherent and Cohesive Voice's advert till you have read what the regulations are actually going to make you do that is against your conscience, Keith - you are better than that.

[Christopher]

"I too fear a gay backlash. I remember posting something along these lines a while ago, musing that it would probably be Christians who would get the blame, whereas the fault lies at the door of gay activists who have pushed us too far."

I think you mean anti-gay, Jill - unless you think groups of gay men are going to lurk outside churches to beat up christians!

Your justification of bashing - the victim 'pushed you too far by being in your face and asking to be treated the same as everyone else (not in the closet as you have demanded), so it's not your fault that you kicked his brains out - is a bit smelly, isn't it?

[Jock]

"The Christian scriptures make it quite clear that someone publicly declaring himself to be actively homosexual has already chosen to set himself apart from the community of the Church and therefore should not present himself for Holy Communion."

Says Alan Marsh and, I realize, many others. But not to worry, they'll catch up sometime!

There's a lovely passage somewhere about the irony that, if the real sin of Sodom is one of inhospitability to the stranger in their midst, the church in all its various guises has for centuries practiced, in its persecution of gay and lesbian people, that very inhospitability warned against.

There are many ways in which we all, gay and straight, sin constantly, including sexually, but the condition of being gay and trying to live a fulfilling loving life with a partner of the same gender is not per se one of them. There is not one passage you can quote that seems, in my heart and through much prayer, to apply to what I feel as a gay man and a Christian. On the other hand, being told quite starkly that I therefore cannot be a real Christian, I do have to wonder what special insight such people have that places them in the position of confessor and judge. That is their problem not mine, though they remain in my prayers.

[Peter O]

Jock,

I recall being in a meeting with somebody only in the past few weeks where the question was put "If it could be demonstrably shown that arsenokoites and malakoi in 1 Cor 6:9-11 covered all homosexual practice, regardless of context, would you change your [revisionist] position". The answer should have been "yes" or "no" but instead it was "Well I want to talk about what real love is inside real relationships". I think your post smacks of the same avoidance because there is no real hermeneutic of 1 Cor 6:9-11 that supports your perspective.

[Jill]

Yes, I do mean anti-gay backlash, Christopher. As for the rest, that is just silly. I am not anti-gay, as you well know, I am pro-family. I have posted at great length elsewhere about CPs and SORs but will repeat it all if necessary.

I have not *demanded* (I haven't discovered how to embolden my type) that you should be in the closet. I have merely suggested that it is the safest place for gay men to be. I am presently reading a book about the beginning of the AIDS pandemic in San Francisco, and have shed tears over the tragedy of the gay scene in that city and the terrible consequences.

I take exception to the accusation of gay-bashing. My philosophy is the same as countless others', that nobody wants to see gay people victimised or persecuted, but there is a difference between tolerance and promotion of behaviour that is far from settled, and is not geared towards the common good in the way that marriage is. Marriage *must* have preferential treatment, for the benefit of the whole of society, not just a tiny minority.

[Alan Marsh]

Christopher, the very fact that you have to resort to unfounded allegations of violence suggests that you have not considered seriously whether or not the Church is entitled to believe and practise the faith it finds in the scriptures.

But here the jackboot is on the other foot. Organisations like Stonewall will make great efforts to find, denounce and prosecute Christians who refuse to cooperate with the SORs in any way, which will undoubtedly result in heavy fines and imprisonment for a number of people.

However I do think that this will provoke a widespread political response, far wider and angrier than the government's idiotic Hunting Bill, and the outcome will be less, not more tolerance of what is widely considered to be unnatural behaviour, among religious and non-religious people alike.

The government, in its usual Clouseau manner, has chosen to impose the SORs first of all in Northern Ireland of all places, which is one of the most religious and conservative areas of Europe, which well remembers the many defeated attempts of Westminster politicians to impose an English view on an Irish problem. This time Blair's halfwit minions may even succeed in uniting Ian Paisley and the Roman Catholic Church in opposition to the cabinet's blundering, which I think is a measure of the total detachment of the present government from any consideration of or understanding of the electorate.

I think the SORs will either be hurriedly withdrawn, or provoke outrage on the scale of the Poll Tax demonstrations. The Northern Ireland MPs have already begun rallying opposition.

[Jock]

Jill first - do you really not see that you are making a prejudicial statement in itself in your last paragraph? Note - I'm not saying you do it deliberately, but it is there nonetheless and it would pay you, as presumably a Christian, to have a look at what you say and how it causes unintentional hurt.

There is a *world* of difference between anyone, hetero- or homo-sexual, engaged in "behaviour that is far from settled" and people of either dispensation in stable loving relationships.

I am quite prepared to accept that there is a greater proportion of this in the "gay community" but some of the blame for that at least has to be placed at the feet of people who have ostracized gay people and their relationships for so long.

I think it is also deeply insulting to say that two people who want to offer each other love and support for the rest of their lives are not "geared towards the common good" (whatever that may mean) regardless of their genders. If you refer to the raising of children, first, it is doubtful now that procreation at the current rate of the human species is "ordered to the common good" rather than the common destruction, and second, you would have to have different rules again for people who, knowing they were somehow unable to bear children or even with no intention of doing so, contracted a heterosexual marriage.

Peter, nothing is devoid of context so far as I can see. How one would propose to "demonstrably show" what a person nearly two thousand years ago meant (together with all the different spin that has been put on it over the centuries as well) baffles me completely - especially also to relate. But when you're ready to show me, I'm sure we can both bask in St Paul's wisdom and light personally to hear it from him direct.

But there is considerable sociological evidence that what in particular evangelicals tell us now has always been the case regarding the rights and wrongs of different sexual practices has not in fact always been the case in the Christian west. That the very understanding of what is a sexual act has changed considerably since the end of the seventeenth century, even in Britain.

Ironically of course this has not included, for the most part (pace Boswell's work), people of the same gender forming permanent recognized bonds and family structures but rather people who would one day marry getting their pre-marital erotic kicks in ways that you would presumably now call "homoerotic". But people settling down in stable relationships must always I would suggest be better than that.

[alistair mcbay]

'I do have to wonder what special insight such people have that places them in the position of confessor and judge.'

That's an easy one, Jock - their special insight comes from cherrypicking bits of the bible to promote and reflect their own tastes, morals and political objectives, while conveniently ignoring other more embarassing aspects of the allegedly "revealed word" that do not.

That is the nature of the religious moderate, but all religious moderates are ultinately the product of secular knowledge and progress set alongside sriptural ignorance and / or indifference, and in this way the reliious moderate betrays faith and reason in equal measure.

In 'The End of Faith' (a much better read that Dawkins IMHO) by Sam Harris, the author asks us to imagine religion projected forward to the present day as if it was just being "revealed" now. Imagine, he says, a world where human beings and successive generations of them came to believe that certain films were created by God (as opposed to mere written words) or even that specific computer software was encoded by Him. Then imagine a future where our descendants murder each other or discriminate against each other over rival interpretations of Star Wars or the purest revealed member (ie version - Dos, Win 3.1, Win'95, etc) of the Windows family of operating systems. And what about these vile heretics that worship AppleMacs, eh? Better go on a crusade against them!!

Could anything be more daft? Yet this is what we do to each other now, over the contents of old books.

If you want another metaphor for this, read the brilliant Book of Dave by Will Self. The Book of Dave is about a demented London cabbie, whose diary is a misogynistic, racist, homophobic rant that is buried in November 2001 in the Hampstead garden of his loathed ex-wife and addressed to the son he idealises rather than fathers.

Several centuries pass and, as sea levels rise, the only land left in central London becomes the isolated isle of Ham. There, the Six Families scratch a meagre living from the land. Their lives, however, are full of religion - Dave's book from several centuries earlier has been disinterred and transformed into Holy Scripture. The peasants know his text by heart. The doctrines of Breakup and Changeover are rigid and absolute. Only one islander, Symun, remains incredulous. Rather than finding certainty in the Book and its Knowledge, he finds only questions. Desperate to discover answers, Symun embarks on an epic journey into the Forbidden Zone, and eventually to the terrifying heart of New London.

Ask Santa for it (for if God exists, then Santa must, too!)

[Jill]

Come off it, Jock. I wasn’t born yesterday. I know that the AVERAGE number of sexual partners for gay men is 9 per year. Even in long term relationships fidelity is rare. One study reported that 66 percent of gay couples reported sex outside the relationship within the first year, and nearly 90 percent if the relationship lasted five years. You will see from this report that 28% of gay men claim to have had over 1,000 lifetime sexual partners. In the book I am reading, one young man reckoned to have had 2,500 over a ten-year period. (He died of AIDS.)

http://catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html

I am not saying that all gay men are that promiscuous, but - I hardly dare say this, but it must be something to do with the fact that they are MEN. Men are not naturally monogamous. Without the influence of women, men do have a tendency to behave badly. (Sorry, guys - my apologies to all the faithful married men reading this! But I have heard you in the Rugby Club Bar, you know!) And we – the heterosexual majority, and Christians in particular - are getting fed up with being blamed for this promiscuity, just as we are fed up with being accused of gay-bashing when we show disapproval.

As for the public good, well, two main reasons. One is the sheer cost of treatment of the diseases caused by unhealthy homosexual practices. They leave heterosexual STD treatment in the shade. HIV treatment alone is estimated to cost £15,000 per patient per year. This would finance an awful lot of drugs and treatment currently being denied, because of cost, to people who are ill through no fault of their own.

The most important, though, is the undermining of marriage. I will just repost part of a post I made in the Haggard thread.

Marriage between a man and a woman is an integral part of the entire moral life of the nation, recognised throughout the legal system, affecting everything from how we raise our children through schooling and employment policies, to retirement and pension provision. The change, therefore, is massive, and it is difficult to predict the likely effects.

Canada recently introduced legislation to permit same-sex marriage, redefining marriage as a union between ‘two persons’, and what has transpired is not what its proponents argued (that same-sex marriage would not change anyone’s marriage but merely expand the institution to provide equal rights for all). What has actually happened is that the human rights tribunals can now use the power of the law to put an end to the ‘discriminatory’ privileging of male-female marriage on the basis that it violates human rights of persons in other ‘marriages’. The very terms ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ have come to b seen as offensive and are being systematically removed from the law books and official government literature. We haven’t quite gone down that road yet, but it will come, I feel certain. When same-sex marriage is given equal status in the eyes of the law, then treating it differently becomes ‘discrimination’. There was a recent incidence of a teacher being disciplined for defending male-female marriage, and there are plenty of others like this, so where does this leave freedom of conscience?

So, Jock, your accusation that I am making a ‘prejudicial statement’ just confirms this. How long before I would get my collar felt?

If marriage does not have some sort of positive discrimination (and it appears that this Government thinks it should not) then it will become less and less attractive, and if, as at present, couples are rewarded for not being married, it could disappear quite rapidly, to the detriment of the whole of society.

[Keith Downer]

Jill has got this one absolutely right. It is one thing to protect homosexuals against persecution and outright rejection by society - except in those circumstances where criminality is involved - and it is something else to introduce legislation which forces those who may be tolerant but disagree with homosexuality, into a position where they have no alternative but to accept homosexuality or face criminal charges.

[Alan Marsh]

It's December - it's nearly Christmas - and welcome to Alistair and Star Wars!

I really do suspect, Alistair, despite your denials, that you are a closet Scientologist!

[J Pearce]

"Without the influence of women, men do have a tendency to behave badly."

Yes, that’s right Jill. Once a man is engaged in a relationship, he never strays from the right and true path, does he? Infidelity - whats that then? Never heard of it, obviously it is an invention of the chattering classses and agony aunts.

Yep, all a man needs to curb his rampant urges to mass procreate is the tending of a good woman. That’s why there are no illegitimate or fatherless children in the world, isn't it? And women - what beautiful, unsullied, perfectly innocent creatures they all are! You will never find a woman who strays in marriage, will you? Of course not! Yes, every married man and woman in the world are the epitomy of conjugal perfection!

What a fantastic place you inhabit, Jill!

[Frank Schnittger]

"If marriage does not have some sort of positive discrimination (and it appears that this Government thinks it should not) then it will become less and less attractive, and if, as at present, couples are rewarded for not being married, it could disappear quite rapidly, to the detriment of the whole of society." - Jill

This is the sort of statement I would expect from a Marxist or sociologist who believes in economic determinism or social engineering and who does not believe in either the power of Love or God.

If all that is holding the institution of marriage together is a few tax breaks, legal recognitions and social prejudices then you can forget religion or even more humanistic interpretations of the meaning of life.

Your observations about "typical" homosexual behavioural patterns may or may not be correct, Jill, but even if so it is surely preferable for society to encourage more stable relationships rather than more promiscuous ones.

The state has to legislate for all citizens and ensure all are equal before the law. It is in the business of defining legal rights and wrongs, not moral ones.

By all means encourage your Church to maintain its own traditions and standards in this regard - it can speak for you and its members - not for society as a whole.

Giving greater legal recognition to gay relationships does not, of itself, reduce the rights of heterosexual unions - unless you define the traditional social, economic and legal superiority of heterosexual unions as a "right"

Only your Church can define what a Christian Marriage is for you - do not ask Caesar to do what God has already done.

[Christopher]

"Organisations like Stonewall will make great efforts to find, denounce and prosecute Christians who refuse to cooperate with the SORs in any way, which will undoubtedly result in heavy fines and imprisonment for a number of people."

....Something about unfounded allegations, was that Alan?

[Christopher]

"I take exception to the accusation of gay-bashing".

No one said you do it, Jill - at least physically - and I am sorry if you thought I was accusing you of that. But your line of argument is somewhere on that same slippery slope that you hear from the BNP thugs and rapists downwards: "we was provoked", "she was begging for it, etc.,etc.".

You said, speaking about an [anti-]gay backlash "...... it would probably be Christians who would get the blame, whereas the fault lies at the door of gay activists who have pushed us too far."

Can't you see how that looks dangerously close to blaming the victim for the violence or other adverse reaction that came upon him.... even if you didn't mean it like that? (And anyway it leaves no doubt about who would actually be perpetrating the 'mechanics' of your supposed backlash? Or didn't you mean that either?)

[Christopher]

Yes, it is nearly Christmas, Alan. Did anyone see the pope and the ecumenical patriarch greeting each other with a kiss at the Divine Liturgy on St Andrew's Day? The irreverent thought struck me that the one with the woolly white beard should have been wearing the Santa outfit. Can you post a pic of it Ruth? I can send you one.

[alistair mcbay]

Alan, your last post says more about you than me, and particularly that you resort to cheap shots and silly nonsense when you are unable to argue your corner.

The metaphor of the Book of Dave and the argument presented by Sam Harris illustrate perfectly the nonsense of religious belief, the baseless premise on which it is founded and how it works its superstitious magic on closed and feeble minds.

I think Jill is off on one of her homophobic rants again, joined by Keith, who both think the whole world will end promptly (well, they are in tune with the barmy US Christian right on that one) if two gay men or women are allowed to have a double bedroom for a night in a hotel owned by a christian.

It seems the Christian definition of freedom of expression and freedom of belief means freedom to harass, vilify, demonise, discriminate and generally be prejudiced against specific groups in society, and to be able to do all this with impunity. Threaten that impunity, and the likes of Nazir-Ali say they will retaliate by damaging society in other ways. Nothing in the Ten Commandments prohibiting blackmail and extortion, I guess. Nazir-Ali said that when Christians retaliate in this way, it will be the poor and disadvantaged who will suffer. Hmm, now what would Jesus say about that, I wonder?

Contrast this with the case of a major company with a uniform policy for its 34,000 staff, and all of them agree and respect it apart from one Christian crank who thinks she cannot live out her faith without wearing a piece of cheap costume jewellery. Then we are greeted with the nauseatiing spectacle of Christian outrage and shrill screams that that they are victims of the most outrageous bias.

Funny old world.

[Kate]

"This time Blair's halfwit minions may even succeed in uniting Ian Paisley and the Roman Catholic Church in opposition..."

Fear not Alan; it is a foregone conclusion - Paisley and the RC hierarchy HAVE a history of 'uniting' against gay rights - posters 'ULSTER SAYS 'NO' TO SODOMY' at a time when a violent minority on each side were murdering each other. They have even demonstrated together to oppose theatrical productions that highlighted Nazi persecution of gays.

Is this a cause for pride? Bigotry? Persecution of the marginalised? NO. Violence is given a 'free pass' but homosexual prejudice unites the so-called Christians of Ulster!

I am ashamed that this is trotted out as an example of 'unity'. As a member of the Church in Ireland, I am ashamed of the Anglican lead in hysterical persecution of law-abiding citizens.

I am astonished that Aids is still cited by some on this board as the 'gay' disease. Consider the women raped in Rawanda - HIV positive; the women raped in Darfur - HIV positive; in South Africa - a pandemic of heterosexual Aids, in India - the greatest number of HIV positive heterosexuals and children in the world, the list is endless.

This reaction is a witch hunt. SALEM:

From June through September of 1692, nineteen men and women, all convicted of witchcraft, were carted to Gallows Hill, a barren slope near Salem Village, for hanging. Another man of over eighty years was pressed to death under heavy stones for refusing to submit to a trial on witchcraft charges. Hundreds of others faced accusations of witchcraft; dozens languished in jail for months without trials.

Why did this travesty of justice occur? Why did it occur in Salem? Only an unfortunate combination of an ongoing frontier war, economic conditions, congregational strife, teenage boredom, and personal jealousies can account for the spiraling accusations, trials, and executions.

England under threat: 1930s, fascists attack East End Jews; 2006 Christians, Muslims and Africans unite to attack gays and lesbians.

Suicide bombers, colonisation, monster mosques, Sharia Law (see Telegraph)? Free pass. The British way of life is REALLY under threat from gays!!!! Wow.

Oh yes. Jill: "I wasn’t born yesterday." Definitely not. Such prophetic righteousness is more in keeping with the Delphi Oracle. Re. link and reading material - would that be the same Catholic information society that advocates abstinence rather than condoms to illiterate believers in the Third World?

[Alan Marsh]

Indeed, Alistair, it's a funny old world when BA decides to allow all kinds of substantial variations to its (otherwise rigid) uniform code for everyone except those who wish to wear a cross - who belong to the 72% Christian majority in Britain....

Never mind, it won't be long before the government introduces another set of criminal codes prohibiting the wearing of any kind of Christian symbol which, in the subjective opinion of the complainant, amounts to an offence to their sexuality, religion or opinions, or simply reminds them of someone they did not like at school.

Someone like you, Alistair?

[Alan Marsh]

Silly nonsense Alistair?

".....Then imagine a future where our descendants murder each other or discriminate against each other over rival interpretations of Star Wars or the purest revealed member (ie version - Dos, Win 3.1, Win'95, etc) of the Windows family of operating systems. And what about these vile heretics that worship AppleMacs, eh? Better go on a crusade against them!!"

I am still waiting for your evidence that the papacy has caused muslims to be killed, simply because they were muslims - is the above your response?

I repeat, can the NSS not find someone better than this to do some blogging here?

[J Pearce]

And another thing…

Jill (again - although we're not out to get you. Honest), you present all these stats "proving" how promiscuous gay men are, yet I never see any stats from you showing the levels of promiscuity amongst straights.

"And we – the heterosexual majority, and Christians in particular - are getting fed up with being blamed for this promiscuity, just as we are fed up with being accused of gay-bashing when we show disapproval."

Given that gays are a minority group, I would wager a hefty amount that in pure statistical terms, there are a hell of a lot more promiscuous straights in the world than there are gays - yet you never seem to single out that group for criticism. Surely they are costing the health service more money than gays, through sheer numbers? And who exactly is "blaming gay promiscuity on heterosexuals, particularly Christians"? What a ridiculous statement - its utter nonsense!

What about the levels of single mothers in this country? Why aren't you ranting about them? Surely they are promoting just as much misery and costing society just as much, if not more, than a minority of gays? Why are you not writing to your MP to complain about single mother benefits? Why should hard working married people get penalised for the promiscuity and stupidness of young girls? Why isn't the Christian Church using its political muscle to advocate that single mothers should not receive special treatment by the state?

I'll tell you why - Christians don't have the courage to attack this immoral behaviour, but gays make an easy scapegoat. Jill, you perpetually complain that people are always labelling you as a "gay basher", yet you continue to churn out what looks suspiciously like anti-gay propoganda, whenever the opportunity presents itself. Are you surprised that people form the idea that you are deeply hostile to gays?

The ironic thing is, you promote marriage as an institution which guarantees monogamy and promotes stability in society, Yet you would deny the opportunity for a minority group to engage in this institution. The very group, in fact, who would - according to your statistical criteria - get the most benefit from being in a stable, monogamous relationship!

Your logic beggars belief.

[Keith Downer]

"Alan, your last post says more about you than me, and particularly that you resort to cheap shots and silly nonsense when you are unable to argue your corner."

Alan, I'm not too certain but I think you have just received recognition from the absolute master of the "cheap shot" and "silly nonsense". Alistair has already proved to the satisfaction of many contributors to this blog that when it comes to resorting to absolute rubbish and distortion of people's beliefs in order to back up his arguments, he has no equal.
And, right on cue, out comes an accusation of homophobia! Let me see now, to disapprove of sexual activity between members of the same sex but to recognise that these people should not be criminalised or excluded from our community identifies you as an homophobe?
My understanding of the term is being prejudiced against homosexuals and whereas I disapprove of the act, I have counted as friends and colleagues many same-sex partners during my life and I have never exhibited prejudice against any of them.

[Christopher]

Kate, last night on BBC Question Time from Northern Ireland it was encouraging to see a young woman in the audience tell her DUP MP Jeffrey Donaldson that she was ashamed to have him with his bigoted views represent her. They were discussing with Peter Hain the introduction of the SORs into the province in January and Donaldson was the only one who seemed to think it okay for 'christians' to be allowed to continue stigmatising people and discriminating against them. David Trimble made the sensible point that these regulations ought not to be introduced into Northern Ireland alone since the principles of fairness and justice ought to practised across the whole of the United Kingdom, which lead Peter Hain to assert that they would be introduced in the rest of the UK in April and that the cabinet was not divided and that Ruth Kelly was behind them and fully with the cabinet.

[Christopher]

"..... who belong to the 72% Christian majority in Britain...."

Don't worry Alistair. Alan is playing the duchess in their local panto Alice in Wonderland this year. 'He only does it to annoy because he knows it teases'...don't you Alan? :-)

[alistair mcbay]

"I repeat, can the NSS not find someone better than this to do some blogging here?"

But I don't blog for the NSS, Alan, only for me, although clearly I must accept that my contributions are no match for yor superior intellectual rigour.

I could ask if there is anyone better to argue Christianity's cause here than you. You have accused me before of turning out the same tired old secular arguments and having nothing new. Well, in my defence (and umble admission of guilt to said offence) maybe that's beacuse after 2,000 years, your beliefs are still uncontaminated by evidence. You don't offer anythink new to argue against, just the same tired old mantra that "I believe, so it must be right". Not good enough.

So is there anyone out there who can do better than Alan?

Incidentaly, I recall you were criticised before by a devout Christian blogger on this site as one whose "contributions to this debate now contain little more than subjective reminders to us of the size and quality of his library, of the distinction of some of his friends and teachers, and of his own supposed intellectual prowess and dexterity when it comes to understanding the true meaning of the Bible text." You were also accused by the same devout Christian of finding some hard truths about the Vatican’s history difficult to look at. David Smith said "I believe Alistair is right: there is not the same almost total denial of its own brutal ways in the Vatican itself as there seems to be in you."

And as for the silly nonsense, Alan, I am surprised you of all people don't recognise the educational and instructive value of allegory and metaphor? Or is it just that allegory and metaphor are only permitted in the Bible, and only to be understood and interpreted for dullards like me by you and of course our old friend James?

Don't you agree Alan that had film been around at the time of the sermon on the mount, the virgin birth, the crucifixion etc, it might all be a bit more believable now? Why did't God invent it for these allegedly unique and significant occasions, since he seems to have been able of creating the universe, everything in it, man and woman, all the animals etc? Fair question, surely?

[alistair mcbay]

Incidentally, why no outcry from Jill about the picture accompanying this thread, namely two sharply dressed chaps having a kiss and cuddle? Do you think they'd get any sort of bedroom in a Christian-owned hotel behaving like that in the foyer?

Reminds me of that excellent Private Eye cover a few years back, which had four Bishops on the cover in full rig - frocks, funny hats, the works. The caption was something like "we don't want women in the church wearing dresses, hats and expensive jewellery - that's our job!"

And Keith, I am sorry you don't recognise allegory either. It is just as silly to fall out over interpretations of an old book of old myths and superstitions as it would be over a film of the old book of old myths and superstitions. It's clear for example that we can fall out very easily with Muslims over the inerpretation of a simple cartoon, while Mel Gibson has proved that a film about Jesus gets people in a fair stew.

But have a good weekend anyway, all of you. At least there is no rugby to get upset about this time.

[Keith Downer]

Did you get upset with Muslims about the Danish cartoons, Alistair? I thought Muslims got upset with those of us who don't adhere to Islamic beliefs. Isn't Mel Gibson the guy who went on a rampage when he was arrested on suspicion of drunk driving and hurling religious epithets?
Since he didn't get me in a "fair stew" where a film about Jesus is concerned - and I know he certainly didn't upset you, Alistair (unless you were in the car with him) - I can only imagine that you are off on one of your rants again.
And just I case you think I don't understand allegory, anytime you come up with a decent example, I will be glad to include it with "cheap shots" and "silly nonsense" as something you are master of.

[J Pearce]

"Why did't God invent it for these allegedly unique and significant occasions, since he seems to have been able of creating the universe, everything in it, man and woman, all the animals etc? Fair question, surely?"

Sorry, thats not a fair question, Alistair, on the gounds that

a) its far too sensible, and

b) it will require Alan to disappear up his own library, in an attempt to perform the credulity-stretching logical and historical contortions usually required to explain such "emporers new clothes" observations.

Or maybe he'll just ignore the question and insult you, as per normal. I know which one my money is on.

[Jill]

J Pearce, you say: Jill (again - although we're not out to get you. Honest), you present all these stats "proving" how promiscuous gay men are, yet I never see any stats from you showing the levels of promiscuity amongst straights.’ J Pearce, I would have expected a better argument from you, and your previous post was just nonsense (but thank you anyway for all the lovely things you say about us ladies!). Of course I do. I am always talking about levels of promiscuity, but when I put forward suggestions for stabilising the institution of marriage I get howled down. You can’t have it both ways. Levels of promiscuity would fall, I can assure you, if marriage was once again the focus. Crime, drug abuse, abortion, teenage pregnancy – there is so much evidence to produce I hardly know where to start – all these are intensified because of lack of stability caused by – guess what – the downgrading of MARRIAGE. We all have a responsibility to create a culture in which families thrive, and marriage between a man and a woman is that culture.

The number of marriages decreases year by year, cohabitation increases accordingly. Cohabitations statistically last only half as long as marriages. Divorces are on the increase, 40 per cent of births are to unmarried women compared to 10 per cent a generation ago. A quarter of families are single parent families. We let our children grow up in a culture that decouples sex from long-term commitment. I have read recently that 70% of teenagers now suffer from depression. Hardly surprising given that they have lost the sense of rootedness that being part of a family brings, and are allowed to run wild – at least they are in my home town. It just goes on and on. And what are we doing about it? Destabilising marriage further by giving equal rights to gay couples. This is insane, absolutely insane. I cannot believe that you cannot see that. Believe me, once gay couples have equal rights, there is NO chance that marriage will get any preferential treatment.

Why are we being so keen to sacrifice society’s unit of stability for such a tiny proportion of the population? There should be no discrimination against gay people, but sadly a lot of people are discriminated against. However, to rearrange a whole society’s laws around them would be madness. People confined to wheelchairs are discriminated against, and I should know, my mother was confined to one for the last few years of her life. (I still have back problems from lifting her in and out of it.) However, to compel all dwellings to be rebuilt with ramps, stairlifts or lifts, all cars to be redesigned etc etc so that wheelchair people can be treated equally would be totally impractical and unachievable. We can do our best to make things as easy as possible for individuals, but we cannot put their rights before the able-bodied majority. And that doesn’t mean I hate people in wheelchairs! This ‘homophobia’ accusation is ridiculous and has gone too far, and what is more, I think most people on this blog know perfectly well it is not true, certainly in my case.

Patience, Alistair, I’m trying to decorate the spare room and have had to detach all the bits of wallpaper from my hair before I sit down at my computer. I rather liked the picture. I think it’s sad when people can’t see the difference between affection and sex. Men in some countries actually do quite a lot of snogging, but it doesn’t mean they are having sex. I have nothing against affection or love. I’m all for it. In fact I like it a lot. In fact when it comes to sex … well, perhaps I had better not go any further on a public blog. I don’t feel much inclined to keep responding to your faithophobic rants, but I do think your hatred of religion is clouding your judgment, old chap. The straw men are on the march again. The cross-wearing incident turned out to be something much deeper than what it at first seemed, and has sparked something off in the Great British Public that atheists do not like, and it has made a lot of people realise how threatened their freedoms are becoming.

Frank, you say: Your observations about "typical" homosexual behavioural patterns may or may not be correct, Jill, but even if so it is surely preferable for society to encourage more stable relationships rather than more promiscuous ones.

Frank, not ‘my’ observations, but much, much research by people far better qualified. Have you read the link I posted? (My links don’t seem to be coming ‘live’ any more.) In fact I don’t think you have read my post at all, as you still say ‘Giving greater legal recognition to gay relationships does not, of itself, reduce the rights of heterosexual unions’. Yes, it effectively will. And regularising homosexual partnerships does not make them any more stable.

And whatever makes you think that it is just Christians who object to the SORs? We will be the easy targets for the lawsuits because it is well known that the Bible condemns homosexual practice, but there are plenty of others, as I am sure you well know.

Kate, let me recommend the book I am reading. It is called ‘And the Band Played On’ by Randy Shilts. It charts the AIDS epidemic. I haven’t got beyond San Francisco yet, but I am finding it extremely harrowing (I don’t know why I put myself through this). Countless stories of young gay men, bright, talented, attracted to the gay scene not available in their home towns, with the bathhouse culture and easy sex, to die horribly a few years later, and the rising panic of the doctors trying to locate the cause of the disease. It charts the delays caused by government refusing to fund research, delays caused by gay community leaders playing politics with the disease, putting political dogma ahead of the preservation of human life, delays caused by the mass media who felt intimidated about publicising stories that involved homosexuals, especially where disease was concerned. (Familiar?) By the time the Great American Public became aware of it, with the death of Rock Hudson, 12,000 people had already died, and countless more were infected with the virus that caused the disease.

I feel angry about this, angry that so many people were allowed to die and are still dying, because people put their heads in the sand about gay sex. This is happening again. We are not allowed to discuss it. People like me get howled down when we say it is unhealthy. Read the book.

[alistair mbay]

I think Mr Gibson got the Jews in a bit of a stew over his film, Keith, but I guess that would mean nothing to you.

And take a good look at what you believe in and what it's based on - an old book of doubtful provenance with talking snakes, donkeys that chat back to their masters, incendiary bushes that talk to people, the world's first thoracic surgery, the book of Revelations, virgin births, resurrections, floods and arks, miracles, walls collapsing at the sound of a bugle and the rest. And for all of this in which you say you believe and base your life stance, you admit you have no evidence to substantiate it and thus justify your belief.

And you accuse me of peddling silly nonsense, allegory or not?

[Jock]

Jill - your statistics are all very fine and dandy. But they do not reflect the reality at least of me (and of any friends I know of) - and you are talking to me. So can't you understand how you are making a prejudiced generalization based on anonymous statistics?

After all, only a few weeks ago there was another survey suggesting that these sort of sexual activity statistics are way skewed, heterosexual or homosexual.

Besides, as I say, it rather depends on what you call "sex" and "sexual partner" which is utterly different today in the UK from what it would have been in 1700, for example.

[Jill]

Jock, I am very pleased to hear it. I am not making a 'prejudiced generalisation'. Most statistics come up with the same overall picture. I don't know why some people persistently accuse me of being responsible for the stats, I am not, I just dig them out.

You may not know, but I think everybody else probably does, that I have a gay member of my own family, whom we love dearly but over whom we live in daily dread. I have a number of gay friends, coming as I do from a long line of musicians and artists. One gay friend has HIV. He has weeping open sores on his head, and is constantly tired. He is only young, and I cry for him. Perhaps when you have read the last bit of my last post you will understand my concerns a little better.

'Spin' is sometimes spun on a very large scale, as evidenced in this book. I feel we are being 'spun' now. My purpose is to make people more aware of what is the truth, so we can deal with it appropriately. We are being spun into legalising what is a house of cards, with no foundations. It will wreck marriage, and for what? A few extra quid for a few people.

It is true that sexual activity is different from what it was in 1700 for gay people. Anal sex would not have been common then.

[Christopher]

Dear Jill
"Destabilising marriage further by giving equal rights to gay couples. This is insane, absolutely insane. I cannot believe that you cannot see that. Believe me, once gay couples have equal rights, there is NO chance that marriage will get any preferential treatment."

You have got bees in your bonnet - serious bees, killer bees - and I should know since I kept bees myself. You cry "Insane, Insane" and the rest of us look on in horror - and not at the government's insanity. I and other bloggers are getting worried about how homosexuality is preying on your mind. For your own sake, give it a rest.

I have read the Randy Shilts book - it was written at the beginning of the AIDS epidemic when it was blamed entirely on gay men. They made a film of it. Now the AIDS epidemic, though still bad in Europe and America is worst in Africa and among heterosexuals. A sign of sanity is keeping things in proportion, Jill.

[Simon Ferguson]

I am intrigued - does Jock have an inside line on sexual practise in the 1700's? and I thought I was so 21st Century.
Simon

[Kate]

Jill: "Kate, let me recommend the book I am reading. It is called ‘And the Band Played On’ by Randy Shilts."

Thank you for the recommendation: the book is on my shelves. I read it, around 1989 or '90 but have not consulted it since the basic premise was disproved shortly afterwards. Shilts died quite young (from Aids), but unfortunately, his publisher has failed to correct the epidemiological inaccuracies.

Apart from that, I agree 100% with Jock "your statistics are all very fine and dandy. But they do not reflect the reality" in a UK context. Certainly, no realistic perspective on the lifestyle of gay men in the UK will be gained from comparison with a time of hedonistic madness in the USA. The inaccurate information in that book engendered some horrific attacks and attitudes.

Nobody is going to get Aids from an HIV positive man unless there is an unprotected exchange of bodily fluids. Gay men know this better than any heterosexual I have ever encountered.

I am privileged to be in regular contact with, have worked with, and have close friends - including a few of the Lord's Holy Anointed, RC and Anglican - who are gay. As a cross-section of the general public, I find them as a group, more informed and conscious of sexual health, than any number of uninformed, 'natural' heterosexuals.

Re. the statement: "Organisations like Stonewall will make great efforts to find, denounce and prosecute Christians who refuse to cooperate".

Are you on this planet? UK Stonewall was founded in reaction to the stigmatising and abuse of gay people. The name is taken from the Stonewall Riots in New York where regular police harassment and raids on gay bars were finally resisted.

That was a long time ago. Stonewall UK has certainly 'outed' clerical hypocrites but they have never been guilty of civic disorder, violence, tube bombs, threats to behead anybody, or attempts to impose their lifestyle or beliefs on others. That statement borders on clinical paranoia.

Christopher: "Donaldson was the only one who seemed to think it okay for 'christians' to be allowed to continue stigmatising people and discriminating against them."

That is, of course, to be expected - 'Ulster says no to sodomy'!! Donaldson is a man infatuated with his own ego and a moribund version of Presbyterianism. Salem again. In a society that has only lately emerged from violence, they see no dichotomy in inciting more violence.

David Trimble is a 'different' sort of Presbyterian; a sensible man and a respected intellectual in university circles. His speciality is constitutional law ergo his specific contribution. It is encouraging that a majority rejected Donaldson.

It is interesting and encouraging that Catholic Ireland was 'shamed' by Senator David Norris (C of I) into granting equal civil rights to gays many, many years ago. The Constitution promised to cherish all 'children' of the Republic equally. It doesn't mention excluding gays!

NI was forced to follow suit when Jeff Dudgeon took a discrimination action against them in Europe.

In this matter, I find myself deeply alarmed by evidence of 'transference' and absolutist dogma. Even 'Conservative' Jews (USA) - that group between Orthodox and Reform - have recently met to study, debate and vote on revision of texts in the OT which deal with homosexuality.

Jewish theological scholarship is fascinating in its history of endless debate, revision and reinterpretation. Don't know too much about the Orthodox position but the Reformed have already made the leap.

[Alan Marsh]

If Alistair were to be given - say as a Christmas present - a DVD of the actual life, crucifixion and resurrection of the real Jesus - I really don't think it would take anyone here very long to figure out what he would say...."It's an ACTOR!!"

God could of course have made the DVD, although if Alistair won't believe the statements of eye-witnesses, he is hardly likely to believe that the DVD is for real. God could have made Alistair a Minister in the Wee Frees, if He chose to do so, and might yet.

The root of the problem is that the Christian faith accepts what God has revealed and taught about Himself in various ways, chiefly through the Incarnation. Alistair will only accept a god who conforms to his own demands, a god made according to his personal requirements.

We only understand and accept the authority of revelation - the religious significance of a very considerable body of religious history, scriptures and believers - when we are prepared to accept faith as a gift from God on His own terms. The spiritual reality is far greater than the material world, but it requires the eyes of faith to see it as it is truly is.

There will always be a blank incomprehension on the part of those who refuse to open their eyes in faith, who think they can dismiss God and sacred history with a few homespun nostrums. God may choose to reveal Himself to them in a manner they can no longer dismiss or ignore, as He did with St Paul, or He may not. He has already shown many signs of His love for them to accept or reject.

By all means, Alistair, demand DVDs, photographs signed by Pontius Pilate or Herod, or even an email "signed" by Jesus. They won't convince you. Only faith can do that.

[Keith Downer]

"Why didn't God invent it for these allegedly unique and significant occasions, since he seems to have been able of creating the universe, everything in it, man and woman, all the animals etc? Fair question, surely?"

If you really want an answer to the question, J Pearce, try thinking about "faith". All God wants is for us to trust and believe in Him on the basis of the information currently available.
If you could go down to your local Blockbusters and rent a DVD showing Moses parting the Red Sea or Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead, now that wouldn't require much faith, would it?
When the surgeon advised my wife and myself that a mastectomy was the safest course of action to prevent further spread of breast cancer, I didn't ask to see a video of his last six operations or stand over him while he wielded the knife.
We examined the information that was available at the time, about my wife's condition, about the hospital and about the surgeon. We made a judgement using our intellect, our experience, the investigations we were able to make but at the end of the day, we trusted and put our faith in that one man.
If you examine the information currently available about Jesus Christ and decide you would rather turn to sarcasm and cheap laughs to belittle others, that is your decision. Far worse things have happened to people of faith over the years.

[Christopher]

"People confined to wheelchairs are discriminated against, and I should know, my mother was confined to one for the last few years of her life. (I still have back problems from lifting her in and out of it.)"

I am sure you were a very good daughter to your mother, Jill. But how would you feel about a guesthouse that put up a notice "No Wheel-chair Users"?

Of course, the healthy unthinkingly discriminate against the ill, the young against the old, but this is hardly the same as actively excluding the group of wheelchair users as people you won't serve. I can imagine there are restaurateurs who would rather their posh restaurants weren't cluttered up with wheelchairs, zimmer frames and crutches but they would hardly dare put up a notice saying "No Cripples Served". Yet we had similar things in the front windows of B&Bs in the good old days, didn't we Jill?, "No Blacks", "No Irish". What's the difference between that and putting up a sign saying "No Queers Served"? I'll tell you, 'Bishop' Alfred Williams, of Prophetic Voice Ministries wants to be allowed to do the latter and will bring black people onto the streets to 'paralyse the economy' if he isn't allowed. (How many black people are there compared to white people? Get real, bishop!) Anyway, wouldn't he squeal all the way to Trevor Phillips's Equality Commission if he saw a sign saying "No Black Christians Served" ? Again, what's the difference?

If Bish Williams wants to bash - I mean ban gay men and women because he considers them immoral it might be conceivably justifiable if he banned adulterers, fornicators, divorcees and all the others on Paul's lengthy list in Romans 1 in the King James version, the wicked, the covetous, the malicious, the envious, the murderous, debaters (yes, most of us then!), the deceitful, the malign, whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, the despiteful, the proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, those disobedient to parents, those without understanding (the stupid?), covenantbreakers, those without natural affection (the unloving?), the implacable, the unmerciful. What makes him think gay people are the only ones deserving of discrimination if the apostle Paul lists so many more? All this brouhaha from some kinds of 'christians' makes me think of the sermon preached by Thomas à Beckett in TS Eliot's play Murder in the Cathedral: "As Pride was the first sin, so it is the root and origin of all the sins that are committed". What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, bishop Alfred Williams, Jill, Alan, Keith and all you others who want to discriminate against someone on grounds of their sexuality alone. You think you are giving such a wonderful example of christian love to the world? Don't be surprised - and please don't complain - if the world thinks otherwise.

[Steve]

Jill, I cannot understand you reasoning in asserting that homosexuality undermines marriage. How?

The SOR is very much needed to prevent the kind of situation which currently exists whereby a minority of Christian and Muslim doctors and especially nurses (as shown in a recent survey in the Nursing Times) refuse to offer any, or only offer limited NHS treatment to homosexuals because of their religious beliefs. This is unacceptable. In South Africa apartheid was justified, as ironically was slavery, in Britain prior to its abolition in 1807, by reference to Scripture. The real irony is that the Churches are seeking to allow anyone calling themselves Christians to opt out of this legislation. What would we think today had Parliament allowed Anglicans to opt out of the Anti-Slavery legislation on grounds of religious belief? After all, the Anglican Church was a major owner of slaves and received £70,000 compensation by the British taxpayer for freeing its slaves. In 1807 a servant might earn £5 a year - to put that compensation into some perspective.

[Christopher]

I think we know a bit more about the credibilty of witnesses than they did in the 1st century. For someone who seems to rate his intellectual abilities above those of the rest of us, Alan, I'd expect you to do a bit better than to deal in hypotheticals: If, if, if, God made a DVD. Well if he did perhaps he is Vishnu whose tenth incarnation as the Buddha is said to have been to mislead the unwary who believe in Buddhism against Hinduism. So Visnu might have made your DVD, Alan, to mislead christians who believe in Paul's Christ. As it is, Hindus have no difficulty in seeing Christ as an incarnation of Vishnu. Hence he, Vishnu, is the true god, not YHWH. You see where all this leads? More nonsense for the credulous whose minds seem to be yawning gaps of credulity waiting for any crumb of a fairytale.

[Alan Marsh]

The world thinks what it likes, Christopher, but not all kinds of actions and lifestyles are morally neutral. Christians can not be compelled to accept the secular world's definition of what is morally neutral, and will continue to view any form of sexuality outside marriage as sinful and unacceptable.

As with the so-called "gay" couples, Christian hoteliers may not wish to provide rooms for unmarried male/female couples and adulterers may well find themselves barred from Holy Communion until they repent. Church schools, state and public, will resist being required to promote a positive view of unnatural sex acts, as happens in certain US states with legislation similar to the SORs.

I can not imagine many churches taking bookings in the church hall for swingers' clubs, and it is precisely on the same basis that Christians are opposed to legislation which will attempt to force us to support the organisations which promote homosexuality.

The Church's belief is that sexual intercourse belongs exclusively within holy matrimony. No amount of barmy legislation from a corrupt government will change that view, and it will face massive opposition next time we have a chance to vote.

[Jill]

Oh boy, this is getting very tiring! How some people can twist things! Can I just say for the millionth, zillionth, or is it squillionth time, I am not against gays, I am not against anybody really, I am just pro-family. Giving equal rights to other relationships outside marriage and the traditional family structure weakens the family. Weakening the family leads to other societal ills. Simple enough?

I would not even be getting involved these arguments if it were not for the fact that pressure groups are invading my Christian faith and trying to twist it to accommodate non-Christian activity, or for the fact that I feel society is being torn apart by the same issues.

Just one last time – the colour of one’s skin is not changeable, but one’s behaviour is. There can be no comparison.

I might return to this later, (I probably will!) but I have run out of steam.

The penitential season of Advent is now upon us. I hope we're not going to get the Commination from the vicar, but perhaps it would do us all a bit of good!

[Jill]

On that last point, Peter Ould has written an excellent article entitled 'How is Sexual Orientation to be Defined'.

http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/?p=989

[J Green]

We can only hope that the real good will one day win out over the apparent good of the erring conscience so many seem to be invoking to justify persecution, have we not learnt anything from our history persecuting the other people of God. There appears to be many calling themselves Christian, when in fact they are nothing of the sort.

[Stuart]

I wonder if somebody afflicted by homophobia will be excused prosecution on the grounds that his mental health will suffer if he obliged to have dealings with homosexuals. Oh, the ironies that minority rights expose!

[Kate]

Apologies all. I omitted to reference the statement:"But here the jackboot is on the other foot. Organisations like Stonewall will make great efforts to find, denounce and prosecute Christians who refuse to cooperate with the SORs in any way, which will undoubtedly result in heavy fines and imprisonment for a number of people."

Comment on this is intended for Alan Marsh - in its present form it appears as a continuation of response to Jill.

Re-reading that argument, I am interested in the terminology e.g. "jackboot", "great efforts to find" (how?) and "denounce and prosecute". The tendency (today) to define as 'Nazi', ANYTHING that differs from one's personal perspective is not only sloppy, but worse, intellectually dishonest.

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
.............
[Then they came for the gays
and I joined the mob and helped]

Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.
(Pastor Martin Niemöller)

Square brackets mine; I think the Pastor will forgive me.

The fascist tendency in Britain is coming clearer by the day and it certainly does not have its essential core or ideology in Stonewall or the 'gay' minority. The mullahs must be exulting.

Not me. Black bin-liners are not my 'thing'; nor are black fundamentalists who condone obscene abuse of children as a means of 'beating out the Devil'.

Equally, I refuse Jill's coy "ladies" categorisation, I have more to do than dedicate myself to keeping the male of the species from 'sins of the flesh'.

For an accurate picture of 'jackbook' politics see:
http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/GESUND/ARCHIV/SEN/CH18.HTM

"When Adolf Hitler and the Nazis came to power in 1933, ... all filth (i.e., pornography, homosexuality) and trash vanished from the public domain... conduct that was contrary to popular sentiment was punished even though there was no specific applicable law. Everything that respectable citizens deemed sexually improper, if not abnormal, and all that conflicted with general notions of morality could now be punished by a range of penalties, which included imprisonment, internment in a concentration camp, and execution.

.. equality of status to women contrary to their natural biology ... [according to] the Nazis and their conservative allies, was destruction of the family, loss of respect for parents, growing assertiveness among women, and vast growth in homosexuality and prostitution

...Hitler, in Mein Kampf, had remedies ... promoting early marriage, particularly for the man.

Reality often differed ... there were two levels of morality, one for the masses and one for the elite; the Nazi hierarchy were the elite. Joseph Goebbels poked fun at bourgeois virtues and claimed to abominate moral priggishness. Ernst Röhm, the leader of the Storm Troopers, was an avowed and open homosexual, but only when he seemed dangerous to Hitler was he eliminated."

TWO levels of Nazi morality grounded in the egotistical vanity of ideological superiority cf. 'Child Abuse in the RC Church'; 'Mohammed and paedophilia''; 'Islam and gays' .

Stonewall? In that litany, they are as dangerous as 'Goody Twoshoes'!

[J Pearce]

“I am always talking about levels of promiscuity, but when I put forward suggestions for stabilising the institution of marriage I get howled down. You can’t have it both ways.”

Jill, how much more disingenuous can you get? You make absolute hay about the fact that you are going to “write to your MP” to protest about SOR’s and you are one of the most vocal critics of CP’s on this blog, yet when it comes to comparable “sins” – i.e., single mothers, heterosexual promiscuity, infidelity within marriage, domestic violence – we don’t hear a peep out of you. Where are the strongly worded condemnations of these societal ills? Where are the stats showing us how detrimental to society these things are? Why are you not telling us about how you are writing letters to your MP about the inequities of the state benefit system, whereby single mothers are rewarded by the state for staying single? And as you are such a vocal proponent of marriage, why are you not urging the government to make co-habitation illegal (seeing as, according to you, it is one of the precursors of the death of our society)?

I’m sorry, but the breadth of your hypocrisy is astounding. You continue to single out and concentrate upon issues which are primarily attributed as “gay” issues (SOR’s, CP’s), yet seem to wilfully ignore other equally pressing or morally pertinent issues which have, arguably, a much greater deleterious moral affect on our society than the relatively minor issues of gay marriage.

Put it another way – morally speaking, how does the civil partnership of a gay couple compare to the lawless, amoral upbringing of a deprived single parent child in a gang-driven, violent subculture of an inner city? Who are the ones more likely to steal or murder? The gays or the potential thug?

“Destabilising marriage further by giving equal rights to gay couples. This is insane, absolutely insane.”

You still appear completely unable to counter the obvious argument that extending the concept of “marriage” (i.e. a stable financial, legal and moral framework for monogamous relationships) to as many people as possible, is – ironically, by your own definitions – beneficial to society as a whole. You appear to object to CP’s solely on the grounds that gay people can legally enter into a relationship which is analogous to marriage. Which sounds like good, old-fashioned, unadulterated bigotry to me.

Where is your evidence – statistical and/or anecdotal - that gay “marriage” is going to lead to societal breakdown on the scale that you are raising a moral panic about? How is the legally recognised partnership of two gay people going to lead to a marked increase in drug abuse, abortions (you what – abortions?!?! How on earth did you make the link between abortions and CP’s?!?!), single parent families, teenage depression etc etc. Your logic is so scattershot and so unfounded in reality as to be unreal.

I would blame this on the Bible, but from what I can tell, I’m pretty certain JC would be concentrating on issues a lot more relevant and pertinent to societal morality than SOR’s or CP’s. Its becoming increasingly obvious that you cannot see the moral wood for the trees, Jill. Your arguments always end up down the same intellectual cul-de-sac. i.e. its all the fault of gay people, give them more rights and society as we know it is over.

It’s a pity you cannot venture any further than the end of your own prejudices, which seem to begin and end exclusively with one minority – homosexuals.

[A Heterosexual tired of bigots, whiners and hypocrites.]

Will somebody please spell it out to that wretchedly stupid woman who comments so prolifically, that the failure of marriage is exclusively the fault of the heterosexuals concerned. Marriages are not failing because gays are luring straight men/women away from the marriage bed, they are failing because the heterosexuals concerned are not trying hard enough to make marriage work. Start facing up to your own responsibilites and stop looking for scapegoats. You might just as well blame global warming or excessive immigration for the decline in marriage.

You are perfectly right about the backlash: over the years I have been supportive of blacks and tolerant of Christians. No longer can I bring myself to do so.

[J Pearce]

"Alistair will only accept a god who conforms to his own demands, a god made according to his personal requirements."

Do you not do precisely the same, Alan? Do you not create God in your own image? Hypothetically speaking, if historically sound evidence were produced tomorrow, showing a "lost" sermon said to have been preached by Jesus, in which he advocated Christian acceptance of gay people, what would you do? I think I'd have a pretty good idea - you'd shout yourself hoarse protesting about the authenticity of said artifact and would spend the rest of your days denying its existence. Given, this is a hypothetical scenario, but it illustrates a sad reality about religious belief - which is, even when the facts change, Christians still stay rooted to their own personal prejudices.

You want proof? Look at Creationists. You are no different to them, in that you have your own specific interpretation of Biblical texts and nothing will ever convince you to move beyond it.

Faith, Alan and Keith, is just another intellectual trick to allow you to justify your own personal worldview. I don't need to resort to "sarcasm and cheap laughs" to be able to argue the blindingly obvious limitations of intellectual reasoning, based on religious faith. If people like myself weren't able to step outside the limited intellectual confines of a faith-based understanding of the world, we wouldn't have moved on from flat earthism, we wouldn't have made the scientific discoveries that allow us to better understand our world today - and we would still be stuck with a society that persecutes blacks, gays, women, the sick and the infirm.

I've just read a classic example of someone who uses faith to justify a worldview, where you literally have to make a "leap of faith" to try and understand how they attributes causes (CP's, SOR's) to effects (abortions, drug abuse, single parents). There is no sound intellectual basis on which to correlate cause and effect, yet, I am constantly told that it is perfectly reasonable to believe that if one occurs the other will inevitably follow - the justification for believing this being based solely on "faith" alone.

I think society could do without faith based on fear and prejudice.

[Alan Marsh]

Dear Christopher,

I do wish you would follow the thread rather than introduce non sequiturs. It was Alistair who posited the notion of God making some kind of recording of the life of Jesus. I have no need of a DVD - I am entirely convinced that Jesus is Lord on the basis of the Scriptures, the life of the Church, which is the living Body of Christ through 2,000 years, and on the basis of the gift of faith which I accepted from God as a teenager.

[Alan Marsh]

JPearce, your difficulty is that you are apparently unable to comprehend the notion that the Christian faith can not be infinitely adjusted to suit the whims of every pressure group in society and made to conform constantly to the spirit of the age.

The Christian faith is a given not a subjective reality. Even if I were to become as accommodating to your views as (say) the former Bishop of Edinburgh, who bent over so far backwards in order to accommdate the liberal agenda that he finally threw away his mitre, it would not change the Christian religion by one jot, as I would no longer be representing its teaching, just as he ceased to do so.

The problem is not "fear and prejudice" (how addicted you are to such a distorted misrepresentation of those with whom you disagree). It is incomprehension on your part of a faith which believes what it has been taught, and is prepared to speak up for itself in the public arena.

In fact, fear generally begins with incomprehension, and your contributions over several months suggest to me that you, not the Christian contributors, are the one affected by fear - fear of something you do not understand. You are too accustomed to a world in which everything is for sale or for negotiation: the Christian faith is not. One of the popular sayings of the Reformation tradition is Verbum Dei manet in aeternum - "The Word of God stands for ever".

If you can begin to get your head around the concept of an organisation committed to a founder who is "the same yesterday, today, and for ever" then perhaps you might see that your liberal assumptions simply do not work in this kind of discussion.

[Frank Schnittger]

Kate - having disagreed with you so strongly on David Aaaronovitch's "A debate of the deaf poisoning young minds" thread, I have to say I agree with you very strongly on your last post here. The Nazis, too, saw homosexuality as undermining Marriage and created financial incentives for Marriage and having lots of children to further the propagation of the Master Race.

Then it was the decline of institutional Christianity and the rise of secularism which was said to threaten Marriage.

In later years the institution of Marriage was said to have been fatally undermined by the Women's liberation movement and the promotion of equal status and rights for women....

Why is it that the institution of Marriage is often said (by its most vociferous proponents) to depend on an imposed religiousity, sexuality, and the subjugation of women and minorities such as Gays?

No wonder people are going off Marriage. Its most vociferous proponents have done most to turn it into an (almost) discredited institution. If only religious bigots, puritanical moralisers, gay bashers, and male chauvinists need apply - then sane people will go elsewhere.

It is time we rescued the institution of Marriage from those who are trying to use it to further their own religious, political, moral, and sexually domineering objectives... Those who seem to think the institution should be a secure sanctuary for wife beaters and child-abusers as it all too often was in the past.

OK, all a bit polemical, but at least as logical as some of "gay rights undermine Marriage" brigade...

[Jill]

As long as people keep asking me the same old questions, or repeating the same old accusations, I am going to keep having to make the same old responses. I really cannot let people get away with some of the very odd accusations that have popped up in this last batch of posting.

J Pearce, when Ruth starts a thread on single motherhood, heterosexual promiscuity, infidelity within marriage or domestic violence, I shall have plenty to say, I promise you. You obviously haven’t been reading my posts properly or you are not understanding what I am saying, although I have said it often enough, for heaven’s sake. I have posted plenty of stats on single parenthood and divorce rates. I have written to my MP complaining about the withdrawal of tax breaks to married couples. (I am still awaiting a reply.)

J Pearce, your post just about encapsulates THE WHOLE of what it is I object to. You say ‘morally speaking, how does the civil partnership of a gay couple compare to the lawless, amoral upbringing of a deprived single parent child in a gang-driven, violent subculture of an inner city? Who are the ones more likely to steal or murder? The gays or the potential thug?’ Well, quite. If we stop undermining marriage, perhaps this culture would decline. All the evidence points that way, doesn’t it? What you are effectively saying is that because marriage is failing we should make it more difficult, or dispense with it altogether. Perhaps, J Pearce, when marriage becomes just another form of civil partnership you will understand what it is I am trying to say.

To the very rude person who is whingeing about my posts, this has nothing to do with scapegoating, bigotry or anything else. That is just twisting what I am saying. Marriage is in decline due to the permissive society - the very permissiveness which the Christian faith teaches against – and the government’s refusal to shore it up. (Marriage, not permissiveness!) Many societal ills follow on from that. CPs and SORs are just another nail in the coffin.

The wider issue here is the threat to freedom of conscience. Christians answer to a higher authority than the British government, the Guardian or J Pearce. If I ran a Christian guest house, I would refuse a double room to a gay couple. I would not refuse two single rooms. Gay people would be welcome (as they are in my own home) but I will not have men sodomozing each other under my roof. (If they are not planning on sexual activity they can avail themselves of the single rooms – no extra charge!) In the same way I would refuse a double room to an unmarried heterosexual couple. (If this makes me bigoted against unmarried heterosexuals, well …!) If I had to go to prison for this, well, so be it. I should certainly not pay the fine.

Alan, it's a bit rich to read you proclaiming that Christianity is, in your words, a "given" when suc