Christians 'torch' SORs

A torchlit procession took place in opposition to the Sexual Orientation Regulations, although it is perhaps worth stating that they were only electric torches. My last blog on this has attracted a remarkable 423 comments so I thought it time to put up a new posting after Lord Morrow's attempt to annul the Northern Ireland regulations was unsuccessful . Some Christian groups are now to seek a judicial review. Others, such as Faithworks, have welcomed the defeat of the attempt to annul them in the Lords, with the statement that this is an opportunity for Christians to demonstrate compassion and love.

The whole SOR debate concerns me for a number of reasons.Tell anyone outside the Church that you're a Christian these days, and they make one assumption about you. It is not that you are spiritual, or ascetically-minded, or dedicated to helping others, or opposed to the culture of consumerism. It is that you are a homophobe.

From Section 28 onwards, the various Church-led campaigns around this issue have stamped on the mind of the public the image of the contemporary Christian as a gay-hating bigot. The protests against gay clergy such as the Dean of St Albans, Jeffrey John and the US bishop Gene Robinson have not helped. On this issue, I find myself in the uncomfortable position of being yet another conservative agreeing with Polly Toynbee.

This year we are celebrating the bi-centenary of the abolition of the slave trade, a campaign led by evangelicals such as Clapham's William Wilberforce. Would Wilberforce today be campaigning against the gays who go cruising for custom on Clapham Common? I suspect not. He would be campaigning still on behalf of the persecuted and oppressed - such as women forced into prostitution, or women stoned to death for adultery.

I went down to Parliament to cover the protest. A story got in the paper and I also did this videolog. Just look at how angry Bishop Michael Reid and Alan Wardle of Stonewall get with each other. The passions aroused by this are enormous. Another first-hand account of the demo is also up on the Anglican Mainstream site.

Thinking Anglicans has done two reports with many useful links, including to the full Hansard text. Juliet Pain in her blog has noted that Bishop Reid does not represent a mainstream church and his Peniel congregation has not always been subject to positive publicity. Bishop Reid would take the line that in Christian doctrine, the practice of homosexuality is sinful. So is adultery by a heterosexual, gluttony, greed, envy, sloth. But there aren't many Christians demanding that Christian restaurant owners be entitled to exemption from the principle that fat people be allowed to consume as many chips as they want with their dinner. Or that City workers who benefit from the annual bonus bonanza be forced to tithe. Further, not all Christians support traditional Christian doctrine on this matter, just as not all Catholics follow their Church's teaching on birth control.

Faith groups are rightly campaigning against the advance of secularism. In many important respects they are winning this campaign. The churches are winning control of more schools and academies, many religious charities receive local authority funding, all the indications are that churchgoing was up for the second year running at Christmas.

But in claiming that the regulations will force religious groups to promote homosexual rights and that they will lead to the persecution of Christians who stand up for moral values, they are in danger of making themselves look ridiculous. There is no evidence that the regulations will do either of these things.  It is reminiscent of extremist Muslims who responded with violence when Pope Benedict XVI quoted an ancient text describing Islam as a religion of violence. In this way, religious leaders are playing into the hands of the secularists who seek their undoing. Although I do not by any means agree with all or even most of his argument, preferable by far in its approach to the whole question of homosexuality in Christian doctrine is Professor Oliver O'Donovan's intelligent and pastoral analysis, on the Fulcrum website. (Cartoon from Dave Walker)

Anglican Mainstream's response must not be dismissed however. There are legitimate concerns to do with religious liberty. The Church of England fears its clergy might be forced to bless civil partnerships, as they stated in response to the original consultation. George Cassidy, Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham, gave an indication of the Church's current stance when he spoke in the debate in the Lords. And yes, it is certainly the case that the regulations, when introduced to Britain as expected in April, should be framed in a way that they do not conflict with religious liberty. There is no harm in the churches campaigning on these grounds. But the regulations should not be opposed outright. I am not the only person who normally could be expected to take a conservative stance who is concerned by what is happening. Alistair McBay notes Ekklesia's statement on this, below. And Inayat Bunglawala, on this occasion not speaking for the Muslim Council of Britain and writing with Abdurahman Jafar, also backs the regulations in a blog shortly to be posted on Comment is Free. He says: "The new regulations are a direct outcome of the passing of the Equalities Act 2006 which pushed the equalities agenda forward by - for the first time
- prohibiting discrimination in the provision of services on grounds of religion or belief and sexuality. So, just as the followers of different faiths should be protected against unfair discrimination in the provision of goods and services, so too should people on account of their sexual orientation. It seems to be an unanswerable argument.And it is one that British Muslims should be supporting especially if the news on the grapevine that the Department for Communities and Local Government and its head, Ruth Kelly, are trying to block the statutory duty on public bodies to promote equality from being extended, is true.The DCLG apparently want to keep the statutory duty on public bodies strand specific, thereby limiting it to race, gender and disability. A comprehensive approach will mean that it is also equalised for religious belief and sexual orientation.Now that is a goal worth working for."
This is not the first time Inayat has backed gay rights. It is interesting that it is a Muslim who understands how the religious should be speaking out for the oppressed, not against them.

Similarly, the Board of Deputies of British Jews has denied that they are backing the protests and has issued a statement clearly indicating support for the SORs: "The Sexual Orientation Regulations will provide a further platform to combat discrimination in this country. It must be possible for people to live their lives in the manner in which they choose as long as it does not impinge upon the rights of others. We hope that to this effect the regulations will be framed in such a way that allows for both the effective combating of discrimination in the provision of goods and services whilst respecting freedom of conscience and conviction. These regulations are currently being debated and will be afforded due scrutiny before passing into law. The Board of Deputies opposes discrimination on any grounds and recognises that the rights of those within our community and in wider society should not be infringed on the grounds of ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, age, disability, religious conviction or for any other similar reason."

The regulations are in line with EU requirements. They are part of our western society's welcome and civilised move towards equality of opportunity for all. They outlaw discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation. They will not force schools to teach that homosexuality is equal to marriage. But they might help mitigate the bullying in schools of gay children, a distressing proportion of which go on to attempt suicide. And if they stop a Christian hospital turning away a gay patient for Aids treatment, that will also be a good thing.

There are so many things wrong with our world on which our Christian leaders should be campaigning. Christian leaders have voiced many concerns about our actions in Iraq, but there have been no torchlit processions for the innocent on all sides who have lost their lives, nor against the guilty Saddam, nor against the disgraceful conduct of his killing in which he attained an extraordinary new dignity. And it took the US to lead us to war against this dictator when the appalling stories of the atrocities inflicted on his enemies - the "shredding" of opponents in paper shredders to name but one - began to filter out of Iraq. Where were the torchlit processions for these victims of unspeakable persecutions? Yet Christians come out onto the streets of Westminster to fight regulations designed to protect a minority, some of whom, through their sexual orientation alone, will have undergone significant sufferings already.

The regulations specifically outlaw discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. The Church has repeatedly stated that orientation is not the problem. It is the practice that is opposed. So why the fuss? The Christian protesters obviously fear that in practice, they will be forced to facilitate homosexual acts. A bed and breakfast owner will not be able to put a sign outside their establishment stating: "No gays."

It is all so reminiscent of the anti-slavery campaign. Many Christians opposed abolition of slavery. The Church of England made a small fortune from its plantations in the West Indies. The right to state: "No blacks" was seen as part of God's created order.

The proofs that this was right were also found in the Bible. The main text was in Genesis 9:25-27: "Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers. He also said, 'Blessed be the Lord, the God of Shem! May Canaan be the slave of Shem. May God extend the territory of Japheth; may Japeth live in the tents of Shem and may Canaan be his slave'. "

It was believed that Canaan had settled in Africa, and that this text justified the enslavement of his descendants by the West.

In future generations, I think, we will look back on this anti-gay hysteria with the same astonishment that we now regard the racism of slavery.

Comments

[alistair mcbay]

"It is that you are a homophobe."

It appears that the evangelical side of Christianity (or a bit of it at least!) agrees with you Ruth. Ekklesia put this out today:

http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/content/news_syndication/article_07018faithworks.shtml

"Evangelical leader attacks 'aggressive' opposition to SORs"

A leading Evangelical has branded planned demonstrations by Christians against the Government's proposed Sexual Orientation Regulations (SORs) due to be discussed in the House of Lords tomorrow, as "virulent" and "aggressive".

Welcoming SORs, the Leader of the Evangelical Faithworks Movement, Rev Malcolm Duncan, said that Christian opposition was based on misunderstanding and double standards and in 'grave danger' of making the church sound homophobic."

Final paragraph says:

"The proposed SORs are an opportunity for Christians to demonstrate the love and grace of Christ. However, vociferous opposition, a lack of constructive dialogue, and threats of civil disobedience mean that the Church is in danger of sounding homophobic and is doing little to give itself a credible voice."

[J]

Ruth - if your stated intention was to move the debate on, your opening comments only serve to regress the debate.

Many of your points are speculative (and therefore straw men) and demonstrate a misunderstanding of orthodox Christian beliefs.

I have seen and would expect this calibre of argument from a skeptic who equates force of argument with large font sizes, but not from a religious correspondent for a major broadsheet.

J

[Emanuel Appel]

a letter from America

dear Rtuh,

Light comes from Edinburgh.

If you simply follow Adam Smith's ideas re the proper realm of legislation, this would not be an issue. It's improper for Government to regulate the marketplace as much as it does.

Those who speak for British Jewry do so as Leftists and as people uncertain as to their future. They advocate liberties as seculars, not as people in the classic Jewish tradition. In short, I'd have both sides go their neutral corners and worry about other matters.

[Frank Schnittger]

Congratulations, Ruth, for a cogent and coherent argument. As one of the more prolific contributors on your earlier SORs thread, I was beginning to despair of ever moving the debate beyond the "homosexuality is against my conscience, therefore I will discriminate against gays no matter what“ stage of the argument.

It sounds as if more and more evangelical and mainstream religious are waking up to the fact that they are letting extremists hijack the "Christian Agenda" and that Christianity is in danger of attaining minor sectarian cult status if it allows itself to become the natural ally of assorted radical Islamists, fascists, homophobes, and Paisleyites.

Even Robert Gagnon appears to have beaten a hasty retreat after some rather ill-considered and intemperate posts on your last SOR thread.

If anything, the SORs don’t go far enough – as from my reading of them, it will still be quite legal to post a “no gays” notice outside your B&B. It will be a sad day when posting a “Christian Guesthouse” sign outside your B&B will become understood by all as synonymous with a “NO GAYS” sign.

[bernard o'reilly]

A variation on the poem originally penned by Martin Niemöller

They came first for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
When they came for the gays, the utopians and the dancers, I turned away
When they came for the sick & so-called incurables, I didn't speak up,
because I wasn't mentally ill.
When they came for the Jews and the blacks, I turned away.
They came for the writers and the thinkers and the radicals and the protestors, I turned away.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.
Then one day they came and they took me.
And I could say nothing because I was as guilty as they were.
For not speaking out and saying that all men have a right to freedom in any land

[David Smith]

Ruth, you write:
' ..in claiming that the regulations will force religious groups to promote homosexual rights and that they will lead to the persecution of Christians who stand up for moral values, they are in danger of making themselves look ridiculous. There is no evidence that the regulations will do either of these things.'

Either you have not read the SORS through or you are doing a Nelson with his telescope! I do not see how you can possibly say this, if you really have read and understood them. And if you and the others on this thread or its predecessor who hold this point of view are not willing to do this, then frankly continuing to try to debate with you here as a group is now a waste of time.

You also write:
'Tell anyone outside the Church that you're a Christian these days, and they make one assumption about you... It is that you are a homophobe.'

As a Christian your position should be to love the sinner and hate the sin. If, every time you oppose sin, you wilt just because someone else insists that you must also be hating the sinner at the same time, how are you ever going to stand up against anything that you perceive as wrongdoing?

[edpennington]

To many atheists or agnostics, such as myself, I regard Christianity and its adherents as possible superstitious do-gooders who are wasting their time doing pointless rituals and denying themselves certain pleasures. But I and many others could at least still have some respect and sympathy for them. The values of Christian love are I think supported and admired by a great many non-christians. I was raised in a Christian background, and before I discovered more about the behaviour of certain "christians" I viewed Christianity as at worst a benign force, and at best a way of meeting people who I could feel more safe around, trust and rely upon, free from the threat of any hostility or indifference. I could view Christianity as a positive force in the world, something that I have no great wish to see disappear.

Except for just about one thing. The stance of some christians on homosexuality is where it ceases to become a warm, pleasant, force for good whose existance I probably welcome even if I don't share the faith. The ironic thing is that the uncompassionate, hateful stance shown by some who call themselves Christians is to me, and I suspect many others, positively evil. I have no respect for these individuals whatsoever.

I may disagree with the teaching on the necessity of abstinence before marriage, I may be unsure about abortion, I may not think it important to attend Church every Sunday, but I can still hold respect for those who have these views because I can see them as striving for a high standard of virtue.

I think there are a great many people who believe in the core christian values of love and respect for others, charity, and in the ideas of community. Yet they are turned off the church. If the church was to concentrate on compassion, love, hope, fellowship and to accept that they would not pass ultimate judgement on such things as homosexuality and following certain ritualistic behaviour I think it could take a much more central role in society. I think there should be an unequivocal statement by leaders such as Dr Williams announcing that it is not the place of any mortal being to condemn what consenting partners may do in private, in a loving, non-abusive relationship. Why not acknowledge doubt and make it the responsibility of the individual before God?

[Simon]

I agree with much of what you say Ruth - there is clearly a tendency of some Christians to be disproportionate in their response to the issue of homosexuality. It seems to get mixed up in the feeling of a general sense that society is edging further and further away from the ideal environment for children to grow up in. But what I find more absurd than that over-reaction is the way this government is becoming more and more Marxist-like in trying to control people through new laws. In doing so its building a litigation-happy, bureaucratic and polarised society. As with so many of these new laws - there are existing laws which are perfectly adequate to deal with any anti-social behaviour these new laws are designed to stop. What we get instead is a slow erosion of the freedoms that are the greatest barrier against the tyranny that raises itself every so often - usually in times of disaster or famine etc (something we in Britain have done relatively well to avoid in the past due to the previously organic nature of our constitution, combined with a strong sense of freedom of opinion). Criminalising people for having strong/controversial opinions (where they don't directly harm anyone) is a sign of weak government. If someone wants to call me a nut case for believing in God, and won't let me into their house because of that belief, then that's their right as a free human being.

Most normal people would walk away from a B&B that had a "no gays" sign outside. Why on earth would a gay person want to stay somewhere owned by people like that - if anything its a useful hint to avoid the place! Equally if someone wants to open up a spare room in their private house for people to stay in - but doesn't want people with pets, or doing carpentry, or having certain types of sex at night - is it really up to the government to criminalise them ? If anything they end up causing the opposite effect to what they claim to be doing - because otherwise lawful and respectful people react angrily when they are forced into a corner by their government. I realise many will disagree but I do think its a completely different issue to having a "no blacks" sign outside a B&B - which is something that should be specifically criminalised.

The only thing this government has really made progress on is getting the trains to run better. They are still overcrowded, over priced and worse than most comparable countries - but they have at least improved. Most of the rest of their governance has comprised making new laws, new dictates to teachers and doctors, new local governments etc. Like the 'reform' of the House of Lords - in most cases these have been done more because they sound good as media bites for the politically correct press, rather than being fully thought out plans. Teachers get sent a document they must read informing them that the main difference between hearing and reading is that one relies on the ears, the other relies on the eyes. And soon Brown will have to raise taxes again so that more such useful documents can be put together by these faceless geniuses, and to pay for enacting more new laws to address problems they will make no positive difference to whatsoever. Of course it can all be justified by selective statistics, making the exams easier etc etc. And as with the NHS, they are finally realising that injecting billions of pounds and making new centralised dictates does little more than increase bureaucracy and patronise those doing the actual work. If we must have a nanny state (and I see no reason why we need one), we should at least have a Super-nanny state. Instead we seem to have a teenage-babysitter state.

The fundamentalist Christians may be over-reacting to it, but its the ever strengthening militant wing of Labour that is being appeased by the enacting of such laws - not any real need for them. I like to take my darling Flossy when I stay in B&B's, and have twice been kicked out when she got over excited and started bleating. I must write to my MP! :)

[Simon Sarmiento]

Ruth you wrote: "The Church of England fears its clergy might be forced to bless civil partnerships."

I don't think this is correct.

No doubt some individual members of the CofE think this, but has any CofE person in a senior position made this claim?

In any case, it's clearly not the case under the Northern Ireland regulations (which of course don't apply to the CofE anyway) as the religious exemption clauses in the regulations are perfectly clear, and allow much greater discrimination than that, by those members of religious organisations that are minded to do so.\

(rg writes: Simon, I checked this with the CofE press office and it is in their submission made to government last year. I'll put up a link to it in the post - didn't have time earlier. )

[Gordon Millar]

God help us from religious bigots

[Peter O]

I think what's missing from a lot of the media coverage is not the fuss over the provision of goods and services (which I still haven't made up my mind on) but rather the way that the Act allows someone to "take offence" and then sue. I've blogged about this before and when the Act for the mainland UK is published will be pressing my MP again on the matter.

[AlaninLondon]

Ruth - I just want to say thank you for this posting. You realise you will be vilified for this by the conservative extremists. Welcome to the club!

[Peter Farrington]

It is rather disingenuous to say:

"But in claiming that the regulations will force religious groups to promote homosexual rights and that they will lead to the persecution of Christians who stand up for moral values, they are in danger of making themselves look ridiculous. There is no evidence that the regulations will do either of these things."

since it is documented that Christian hoteliers in Scotland have exactly been penalised for refusing to accept a booking from a homosexual couple. They were castigated by their local council as homophobes and removed from all local accomodation publicity.

In fact they were just orthodox believing Christians. It seems that the first resort of the homosexual lobby is to accuse any opponents of homophobia.

Most of the non-Christian, non-homophobic people I work with think that a business should be able to operate on whatever terms it wishes. Unless it is a monopoly then it cannot be said that any person is disadvantaged by being refused service.

It is alright to prevent any business from serving smokers, but it is OK to force businesses to condone homosexual practice! There is something wrong here.

[Aden Lucas]

People ought to remember these laws are a direct result of european legislation. If we don't enact them, all it takes is a single act of discrimination, by anyone, at a homosexual, and the UK will get lumbered by a hefty fine for non-implementation. Not an amount we can easily afford to pay, since these fines run into the millions plus the compensation to the claimant as well.

But that shouldn't be the point.
How can christians demand religious equality on the one hand, yet deny it to gay people on the other? The double standard is pure hypocracy.

Its hardly a very christian attitude to openly discriminate condemn judge against or turn away people simply because they are one thing or another... or at the least, its not the christianity i was taught. i was taught about a Jesus who wet to the Lepers, to the tax men, to the gentiles and to every other outcast or minority or hated persoon in jewish society and treated them as he would his own disciples. where is that in modern christianity?

If its equality for one, its equality for all. it has to be. anything else is just plain wrong.

[Alex Hill]

Ruth - I think your spot on; to a lot of people now who dont know that much about Christianity all it amounts to is gay bashing-
And suppose they want to educate themselves a bit about what the faith amounts to over and above "god hates fags" then they are likely to run into such gems as LaHay's "Glorious Appearing" or a astonishing little volume called "the shock of your life" by Adrian Holloway.
Have you read some of this Christian literature, Ruth?
It drips hatred.
And I don't seem to hear moderate Christians take issue with this kind of thing.
And the Archbishop prevaricates and accomodates rapant homophobes-
Who can in all good conscience call themselves a Christian in this kind of company? I don't know how it's done.

[Deb salmon.]

I think this is another thing blown out of proportion and media does nothing to help. Many people think the proposals were ill thought through and needed more time for due consideration on all sides.Not everyone is homophobic and i am not either but i dont see the government holding its hand up in this and saying "more discernment and time needed here". Many of my christian friends were concerned about the protest not because they want to curtail the rights of homosexuals but to make sure it is fair and not agenda driven.

[joe]

The aspect I do not like about this whole discussion is the assumption that it is possible 'not to discriminate'. It isn't. Everyone discriminates in any number of ways all the time.

Bars discriminate on dress code.

Public houses discriminate on the perceived intoxication.

Schools discriminate on hairlength (of all proposterous things).

Shops discriminate on the number of schoolchildren they allow to enter at any one time.

Towns discriminate on the time-of-day children are allowed to roam the streets.

I don't need a reason to decide not to sell you something. I might decide I don't like your shoesize. I might take exception to the colour of your mackintosh. I might find your accent grates on my ear.

At the end of the day, if I think I can turn away paying customers and make a living, I can find a million reasons to discriminate that are not homophobic.

Neither can offense be used as a way of distinguishing acceptable and unacceptable forms of discrimination. I am - truely - likely to be highly offended by the lifestyles of 90% of the people that read this website. For example, I might consider Hindu beliefs to be horribly corrupt. Do I have a right to tell them how to behave? Of course not. Do I have a right to object if they decide to do it in my back garden? Of course I do.

In any case, the B&B that does not accept homosexual couples is unlikely to be one that they would want to stay in. What are you going to do - force your way in and write all over the walls in marker pen that they are homophobic?

The comparison with slavery is entirely suspect. Nobody is suggesting that gays should have no access to services, particularly public ones. But if I am providing a private service - as long as I'm not advertising my perverse discriminatory practices (eg 'no big blokes here - they break the beds') then bully for me.

The world has gone stark staring mad if it thinks it can tell a shopkeeper who they have to trade with.

[Margaret G]

Ruth
could you clarify for me please:
I had understood the issue was not the ordanation of gays to the priesthood etc but rather that clergy would no longer have the right to refuse to marry gay folk regardless of their religious views. Am I wrong and that they can still decline?

By the way, in my experience the "liberal" elite who claim to be so "inclusive" are very very intolerant of christians holding to a different moral certainty. Polly Toynbee's intro displays this hostility to a tee -- I wonder what she would have felt it it had been rewritten to say (as it certainly could have been):

"Inside parliament tonight the intolerance that comes with liberal's moral certainty will be on display for all to see"

It appears yet again that everyone is entitled to their opionion so long as it matches mine!!!

(Margaret, the question of whether clergy might be forced to bless civil partnerships is unclear. The CofE raised this in their submission to the government. I do not deny there are problems with the way the regs are worded. Issues such as this cannot go unclarified, and obviously the Church should not be forced to act against her conscience.)

[Tom Allen]

Ruth - an excellent post which provides a helpful overview of what is being said and by whom (rather than what people are saying that other people are saying which has been the hallmark of much of todays news coverage).

The view of the Church of England is interesting upon marriage and civil partnerships ( and yes I think they are two complementary but equal rites).

I am required by the law of the land (with the church's agreement/aquiesence) to offer marriage to a whole range of people (who live in the parish) who may also be adulterers, bigots, aetheists, rascists etc.

The situation with Civil Partnerships is in contrast to this, the state would like to offer me that legal possibility, but at the moment the Church prevents it.

If the Church were to change its mind or to make it a matter of conscience I would happily offer that blessings to gay people - and I know other priests who would as well - we see nothing biblical or doctrinal in the churches teaching which suggests that we should not honour, support and encourage such commitment between consenting adults.

The current arrangement suggests to me that the Church should at least be consistent - and require me not to offer marriage to others who they believe to be sinful in their practice.

[Gavin Le Boutillier]

First, let me state that I am not religious or a homophobe, but having read the texts of all the major religions and enjoyed many a night out down Canal Street in Manchester in my university days I can understand where both sides are coming from.
It is difficult for many who are not devoutly religious to understand how people can interpret a couple of lines of text from the Old Testament, a couple from St Paul's ultra-conservative books in the New Testament and a couple more lines in the Koran into such a way that it becomes a mentality, but for 'evangelicals' focussed on their religion this is what it becomes. Unfortunately, these books are full of contradictions, such as loving thy neighbour and tolerating people for who they are whilst simultaneously condemning those who are different.
Quite distinct from and yet intertwining with the religious argument is the moral argument: sex is for reproduction, only humans and a tiny number of other species get pleasure from sex, and the fact that sex is naturally aimed at reproduction means that sex which is not aimed at reproduction is wrong. This is also the official view of the Vatican.
Homosexuals argue that the Church's view of them is outdated, and it is. But where should the line be drawn at what is acceptable and what is not? Who decides what is acceptable, the state or the individual? Ultimately, with generally accepted moral and ethical issues such as child abuse the state has a right to decide, but when it comes to homosexuality the world has always been divided. Classical Sparta and Rome promoted it as creating a mutually defensive link between soldiers, although Caesar was mocked for sleeping with a Near-Eastern king and being subservient to him, showing that even in a society where it was accepted it also had opponents.
The argument that homosexuals can be turned away from hotels because the owners are prejudiced against them also comes into play in a heterosexual sphere: myself and a former girlfriend were turned away from a Welsh hotel for not being married. It is not just homosexuals this affects, but anybody committing pre-marital sex also. 'Freedom' in a democracy must be balanced between minorities being allowed to lead their own lifestyles, and the freedom of those who disagree with it not to be exposed to it and to object to it vocally.
Ultimately, whilst homosexuals should have freedom to practise within their own four walls just like everybody else, people should be allowed to follow their own moral convictions when providing services to them.

[Simon Sarmiento]

Ruth, that CofE document was a response to the earlier UK mainland consultation, in which no draft regulations on SO were included. Rather, the government then suggested that it did not want to provide an exemption similar to that provided in Part 2 of the Act (relating to discrimination on the grounds of Religion or Belief). It was not a response to the NI regulations as subsequently published.

But in the Northern Ireland regulations the government did in fact provide such an exemption, indeed in this aspect it is slightly more widely worded than it is in Part 2. So there is no question of any minister having to bless anything against conscience.

It therefore is not true that the CofE has this concern about the regulations as published (and the UK mainland regulations are unlikely to be different on this point.)

rg responds: that is a helpful clarification Simon, but in fact the English regulations have not been published yet, and when I spoke to the CofE yesterday, they stated that the position in that document and their concerns remained the same, and will do so until we actually see the English regs.

[oozeman]

Ruth- thank you for a good article- I also liked Malcolm Duncan's response from Faithworks. May there be more voices of reason.
While there seems to be a good deal of nonsense being produced in the blogosphere by atheists or the ban religion brigade about the evils of Christianity, as a result of the SOR debate, I am more saddened and concerned that there are Christians willing to invest time, money and energy into campaigning, and arguing , rather than being concerned about the spiritual and physical poverty on their own doorsteps.

[JPM]

Torches? Will they also have pitchforks?

[Christina Summers]

Just a quick response to the comments made by Aden Lucas. You are right to say that Jesus did mix and spend time with "social outcasts", and he did do this because he loved them BUT he didn't leave it at that. Firstly, we should distinguish between the physical and moral aspects. Lepers were considered unclean spiritually as well as physically and therefore isolated from society. Jesus wanted showed that, not only is he the source of physical healing, but also that there were absolutely no grounds for any other type of discrimination against lepers who were tragic victims of a not uncommon and highly volatile disease of his time. Concerning all the other types of outcasts such as tax collectors, prostitutes and pharisees (hated pious religious leaders), Jesus did not sit and talk (and eat!) with them simply to demonstrate how social he was with everyone but, if you read the Gospels more thoroughly Aden, you will pick up the crucial point in each case whereby he always challenged them to change their ways. He NEVER condoned their behaviour or lifestyle at all, he always presented them with an opportunity to choose to stop, but he did so with incredible love.

Anyone wishing to use the Bible as their basis for argument or for reference to support an argument (including Christians!) would do well to be very sure what the Bible says before posting their comments otherwise it will demonstrate unuseful ignorance at best, or manipulation at the very worst.

[Tom Jackson]

I guess that if enough people contribute to this blog expressing the belief that homosexuality is "normal", eventually that view may be accepted but the truth is that given the evidence at the present time, sexual relations between members of the same sex is abnormal - something that is recognised by the Christian Church and by the majority of the UK population. Sticking a label such as "homophobia" on such a perspective is just a tactic by those overly active and aggressive representatives of the homosexual community who seek to force an acceptance of homosexuality on the general population through the misleading accusations of discrimination and religious intolerance or lack of compassion.

[Craig Nelson]

This is a bit of a confused, two sided post, Ruth.

Most of what the UK's budding Relgious Right ave been doing is quite simple - scare tactics based on improbables and implausables and have shown not one jot of concern over how to deal effectively wt discrimination whch has now (as your post rightly points out in its second half) gotten identified as a core Christian doctrine.

Unfortunatley this bizarre forray into parliamentary politics has now been found out for the failure it really is.

I call now on Christian leaders to try to learn humilty and play a constructive role in political life rather than seeking to fan flames of msinformed panic and the negative attitudes towards LGB people (the reason for the laws in the first place). Certainly they have thrown away their credibility in seeking the lowest kind of divisive and hateful politics of exclusion - maybe it's time for them to reflect a little.

Some true Christian leadership, wedded to a politics of truth and seeking to bring healing and value all individuals - too much too ask - yes on the sight of the torchlit rally rom tonight.

Tankfully the House of Lords as seen trough this rather naked and shameful power play by the self styled religious.

[Ken Keir]

The crux of this issue is in fact whether this country will allow irrational discrimination against people so as to avoid offending people whose beliefs do not stand up to reasoned argument. The doctrinal belief that homosexuals are bad people by virtue of their sexuality cannot be seen in a modern society as in any way acceptable, any more than if someone was to say that black people were evil by virtue of the colour of their skin. If it appears that Christians and other religious groups are being attacked by this legislation, then quite rightly, as anti-racism legislation is an attack on racists, laws protecting everyone from an assualt an attack on bullies. The secularisation of society, feared by the wilfully ignorant, is the application of reasoned argument to the structure of the state, and to the nature of legislation, which is the only morally justifiable basis for any legislation or government.

[Prior Aelred]

Dear Ruth --

Very fine & I thank you.

Now you know why in the USA the word "Christian" fell into disrepute in the Reagan years -- "narrow minded self-righteousness" is just the beginning of what it came to mean -- many of us now hate to use it without quite a number of clarifications, alas.

[Gerry Lynch]

Ruth,

as a gay, Northern Irish, Anglican, High Church and small r republican bloke, tonight I am proud of Northern Ireland*, Faithworks, the House of Lords, and most of all you for writing such a sensible and well thought out piece. When I slag you off in the future, remind me of this post!

*Well proud of all our political representatives except all the Unionists. Except for David Ervine, whose last significant political act before his untimely death at the age of 53 was to be the only Unionist to cast his vote in favour of the SORs.

[Jill]

Frank, why would Professor Gagnon, a respected academic who is an expert in his particular field, the Bible, want to stick around to be insulted and abused by somebody who knows next to nothing about it? He probably has better things to do with his time. He’s not the only one.

How fitting that, on the very day we learn that countless murderers, rapists and paedophiles are roaming freely about our streets, the control freaks and thought police who pretend to run our country are given carte blanche via this meddlesome and unnecessary piece of legislation to create a new class of criminal, the Christian. Perhaps by banging up a few of these, along with some other soft targets such as motorists and dustbin polluters, they hope to be perceived as tackling the burgeoning crime rate.

Makes you proud to be British!

[Stuart]

Yes, let's rid ourselves of extreme ideas, and try to be less Soviet-like. While it used to be said that those whom the gods would destroy they first make mad, the communists began their own process of destruction by declaring a person who disagreed with socialism to be mentally ill. In our own life and times we find the same process at work ; for people who are opposed to homosexual practices are branded as 'homophobes' ; in other words, they have a severe, irrational and disabling fear of homosexuals. They are mentally ill and, presumably, qualify for (obligatory) treatment so as to modify their beliefs and thus make them more acceptable to .... well, to whom? why, to homosexuals, of course !

This kind of political extremism would be best ended if we are to become a civilised and rational society once more.

[Tom Jones]

In this situation regarding S.O.R debate We should be asking one question what would Jesus say and do today in 2007.

1 He calls all people to repentance.

2 Jesus will not do or say anything and then do the opposite.(Impossible)

3 what God put in place at beginning of creation still stands, no Nation,people, individual will change that.He will return.

4 The Lord Jesus does not have favourites He want all people saved.

5 If any person come to me gay or not and ask me a question regarding Jesus' word. For example A person asks me: Is it right for me sleep with other man,s wife or have sex before marriage. My answer would be No it is against God will for your life. If the question is if I sleep with a man. My answer would be the same. Ruth, do expect me to lie to them.? It would be better for me to end up in prison then to deny my Lord then to send that soul to Hell. Some of your comments show that you need to call out to God today and He will confirm His word to You.

[alistair mcbay]

"the control freaks and thought police who pretend to run our country are given carte blanche via this meddlesome and unnecessary piece of legislation to create a new class of criminal, the Christian."

Quite pathetic, Jill. If people want to practise discrimination and prejudice against their fellow law-abiding citizens on the grounds of their skin colour, then they are rightly criminals in the eye of the law. That some of these criminals have religious beliefs is neither here nor there.

So too with those who want to practise discrimination and prejudice against people purely on the grounds that they are gay. They are rightly criminals in the eye of the law. That some of these criminals have religious beliefs is neither here nor there.

As Ruth points out above, the Bible that you so cherish tells you that those who commit adultery should be killed. Do you think that gives you the religious right to go walkabout with a shotgun?

[J Pearce]

Tom Jackson, can I plagiarise you slightly?

"Sticking a label such as "abnormal" on same sex relations is just a tactic by those overly active and aggressive representatives of the religious community who seek to force an acceptance of religious dogmatism on the general population through the misleading accusations of moral decay and societal collapse or lack of religious belief."

[Frank Schnittger]

Can we please put the B&B issue to bed once and for all. The N.I. SOR regulations specifically exempt them from the scope of the SORs.

Paragraph 7. states:
Exception from regulations 5 (1) and 6: small dwellings
7. —(1) Where the conditions mentioned in paragraph (2) are satisfied —

(a) regulation 5(1) does not apply to the provision by a person of accommodation in any premises;

(b) regulation 6(1) does not apply to the disposal by a person of any premises;

(c) regulation 6(4) does not apply to the withholding of any consent or licence.

(2) The conditions are that —

(a) the relevant occupier resides, and intends to continue to reside, on the premises;

(b) the relevant occupier shares accommodation on the premises with persons who reside on the premises and are not members of his household;

(c) the shared accommodation is not storage accommodation or a means of access; and

(d) the premises are small premises.

A "No Gays" or a "Christian Guesthouse" sign will still therefore be legal outside a B&B (but not a hotel)

I take Joe's point that businesses discriminate on all sorts of matters all the time. However it has long not been considered acceptable to discriminate in the provision of goods and services on the basis of race, colour, gender, religion etc. What the regulations do is extend this prohibition onto the basis of sexual orientation as well. A "no Gays served here" sign will become as illegal as a "no blacks served here" outside a commercial premises.

Secondly, the regulations do not create a whole new range of "thought crimes". People are still misogynistic, chauvinistic, racist, intolerant of other religions etc. despite all the laws outlawing discrimination on those bases. For once, it is not the thought that counts! It is the actual act of discriminating against someone in the provision of goods and services purely on the basis of their sexual orientation. People may still discriminate for all sorts of other reasons - e.g. against Liverpool football supporters...

Lastly, in response to Jill, Professor Gagnon’s posts on the last SOR thread did not deal with Biblical Exegesis (his supposed area of professional expertise), but with a personal attack on Christopher, another poster on the thread, saying that Christopher had no right to comment on the issue of Homosexuality and Christianity without having read his (Gagnon’s) “scholarly” work on the subject first.

Gagnon has argued that “There are good grounds for arguing that homoerotic unions are worse for society than polygamy and adult consensual incest" and stated on the thread that “To argue that homosexual practice is entitled to civil protection on the sheer basis that homosexuality is a deeply ingrained condition is like arguing that consensual and "committed" polysexual practice (having sex with multiple persons concurrently) and, worse, pedosexual practice (pedophilia) are entitled to civil protection because polysexuality and pedosexuality are deeply ingrained conditions for many.” (sic.)

He made his case on dubious medical, scientific and sociological grounds – not on biblical or theological grounds – and where he has no special claim to expertise. He was also totally ignorant of what the SORs actually contained and raised a whole range of straw man arguments not relevant to the debate.

But you are right about one thing, Jill. The SORs DO create a new class of criminal: A Christian who thinks he has a God given right to discriminate against gays in the provision of goods and services. As you rightly say this is not a big issue in the context of “the countless murderers, rapists and paedophiles (who) are roaming freely about our streets”. However it is a big issue for a homosexual refused treatment for aids at a “Christian” hospital as proposed by one “Christian” Lord.

These regulations shouldn’t be a big issue at all in fact – merely a minor piece of follow-up on some much more general equality legislation. It is incredibly sad that some Christians are making such a big issue of it. As Ruth says, they are giving all Christians and Christianity itself a bad name.

[J Pearce]

Again, Tom Jackson, further to point (5) in your last post. You say that it would be wrong to sleep with another man - is this inside or outside of marriage?

We now have legislation which permits same-sex couples to enter into legally binding partnerships, analogous to your Christian version of marriage.

Therefore, a man sleeping with another man within the bounds of a legally recognised partnership should be perfectly acceptable to Christians, yes? There would be no "sex outside of marriage", as such, right?

[Jill]

Straw man, Alistair, as you well know. Skin colour is not a behaviour. Nobody is discriminating against gays, or planning to (how many 'no gays' signs have you actually SEEN in guesthouse windows? - or perhaps you think people are waiting until the SORs kick in and they become liable to prosecution before they display them). What Christians don't want is to be forced to promote behaviour that the Bible tells them is sinful.

Take it up with God. Oh, sorry, I forgot, you don't believe in Him, do you?

If you recall, Jesus forgave the woman condemned to stoning for adultery and castigated those who would kill her, (Let him who is without sin cast the first stone) but told her to go and sin no more. Christians = followers of Jesus Christ - get it? But you know all this. Quite pathetic, Alistair.

[David Smith]

Alistair:
' ..the Bible that you so cherish tells you that those who commit adultery should be killed.'

If you want any credibility at all in your adopted role - that of a confirmed atheist who is nonetheless an expert on the letter and spirit of Christianity's founding charter, the New Testament - then can I recommend that you spend some more time reading it?

The New Testament doesn't tell ME that, as a Christian today. What I read there is that I should hate the sin (whether adultery or other) and forgive and love the sinner.

That is what I want the freedom to do in respect of those who practise homosex, but what the SORS as drafted prevent me from doing. In fact, they go further than this, and force me to actively promote homosex.

You don't mind this because you think homosex is OK. But you would be the first to be absolutely hopping mad if the boot was on the other foot, and legislation was used to force you to promote Christian belief and practise.

For me, you really have re-defined the meaning of the phrase 'champion of equal rights for all'.

[Farmer Pearce]

Ruth,

I would like to take great umbrage at a comment made by one of your contributors, "Simon", who has made what I regard as unacceptable and defamatory comments about sheep.

As a country person myself, I am only too well aware of the stigma and prejudice most law abiding sheep face on a day to day basis. I have known many sheep in my time and I can say with confidence that almost all of them hold to highest standards of virtue. However, as a minority group within society, they continue to suffer the tyranny of the majority, being subjected to daily abuse from children (such as the popular playground refrain "Baa Baa Black Sheep", itself, a form of inverse racism). They also have to suffer the perpetual fear of being labelled "the black sheep of the family" or of being accused of having "a sheep like mentality".

You cannot imagine the distress this kind of unthinking prejudice causes and I am appalled that "Simon" takes his kind of casual, demeaning, anti-sheep comments so lightly.

Every group within society is entitled to parity in the eyes of the law and I, for one, will be making it clear to my MP that I fully support the SOR's (Sheep Orientation Regulations).

[Stuart]

Alistair, when you say, "So too with those who want to practise discrimination and prejudice against people purely on the grounds that they are gay. They are rightly criminals in the eye of the law," you raise some deep questions.

For example, is it always rightly a crime to want to discriminate against people who behave in a certain way? Is it a crime to 'want' something at all?

If it is a crime to discriminate against, say, homosexuals, then is it not also a crime to discriminate against people who discriminate against homosexuals?

If we are to label a person as 'homophobic', and then condemn him for it, would he not have the right to protest that he is being discriminated against on grounds of a mental disability?

I'm sure you have thought matters through, and must realise how attempts to legislate for good taste and morality can lead us into strange waters - without necessarily clearing up the fundamental problems that are generating all the hot air.

Wouldn't it be better to allow people their foibles, and cease trying to promote one foible over another with all the force of the law?

[bananabrain]

i must take exception to emmanuel appel's continual diatribes and attempts to identify jewish opinion with his own. it is not only ignorant but nonsensical to caricature the board of deputies of british jews as somehow a bunch of lefties. nothing could be further from the truth - they are a cross-communal, non-denominational organisation. furthermore, mr appel, you are a bigot and a disgrace. you do not represent judaism as a whole, only its neanderthal tendency (rg, feel free to edit this if you like, but i am astonished that you haven't moderated appel yourself considering some of the rubbish he comes out with, supposedly in the name of judaism)

i myself can see a number of problems with the SORs, but largely in terms of the dialogue of the deaf being conducted about it. i heard a number of the lords speak in the debate and was struck by the fact that only the lawyers seemed to understand the actual problem. everyone else was just making emotional points based on whether they were pro or anti. if you can understand it, read lord mackay’s piece in the telegraph yesterday. the point is actually about whether turkeys (ie people who object to homosexuality on grounds of conscience, whether religious or otherwise) can be compelled to vote for xmas or not. obviously they cannot be compelled to believe it is ok - that is not the issue. the problem arises when they perceive themselves as actually facilitating the act of which they disapprove. in the proverbial case of the double bed in the hotel room, if sharing a bed does not necessarily mean sex is being had then renting out a room with a double bed in can hardly be construed as doing so.

the problem is also one of paradigms. the post-enlightenment consensus is based upon the idea that religion is a “private confession” and not related to one’s public citizenship, which is a neoplatonic and effectively unworkable approach when you are faced with people who don’t recognise the separate domains. what is more, the christian approach to this (i don’t know about muslim approaches) seems to be a version of “not under my roof”. it’s not exactly easy to define, as it seems to depend on feelings. the jewish approach to this (for those who have a religious objection to homosexual acts as opposed to orientation, for which there is no real basis in the halacha) is based upon a number of very practical considerations:

1. what is the *act* we are objecting to?
2. are there witnesses?

it should be immediately obvious that in practical terms the effect of this approach is to keep what goes on in your bedroom private unless you choose to make it so. the problem arises when one expects a *specifically religious organisation* to endorse something which it cannot according to its own principles endorse. this means catholic adoption agencies have a problem. it also means that you need to distinguish between supplying goods and services to “the public” and goods and services to those who require those goods and services. otherwise, i could sue mcdonalds for discriminating against me for not supplying kosher food. similarly, someone could go to a kosher restaurant and sue them because they won’t supply a bacon cheeseburger. obviously jewish organisations are not at all concerned about the possibility of this, hence their lack of presence at the demo i expect - in contradistinction to their approach to the faith schools debate. the point is that unless specifically required not to say/teach that homosexual activity is sinful, this is all rather a stupid row. nor is it not a matter of saying that “equality is equality and that’s that”, because equality is indicated by the permissibility of actions, not words.

b’shalom

bananabrain

[Tom Jackson]

"Tom Jackson, can I plagiarise you slightly?"

Please feel free to plagiarise me to your heart's content, J Pearce. And if you can also manage to attribute comments to the correct contributor - in this case, Tom Jones (re point 5?) - that would be most helpful.

[Jill]

As my last post seems to have gone astray, I will try once more.

Alistair, a straw man, which I think you well know. Skin colour is not a behaviour. Nobody is advocating discriminating against people who self-identify as gay. Have you actually SEEN a guest house which displays a ‘No Gays’ notice, in spite of the fact that they have actually been at liberty to do so since guest houses were first invented? Do you think that people have suddenly woken up to the fact that gay people exist, and are simply waiting until the SORs kick in and they might be liable for prosecution before displaying such a notice? No, people want to be free to practice their faith without fear of persecution from aggressive mischief-making lobby groups.

If you don’t like what the Bible says about homosexual practice, then you will have to take it up with God. Oh, sorry, I forgot, you don’t believe in Him, do you?

As for stoning adulterers – surely you can’t have forgotten the woman condemned to death by stoning for adultery, whom Jesus told to ‘go, and sin no more’, having admonished those who judged her (let him who is without sin cast the first stone’). Christians = followers of Jesus Christ. Get it? This is how Christians should behave, non-judgmentally but not condoning sin, and certainly not promoting it, as they would apparently be forced to do under the SORs.

Quite pathetic, Alistair. You will have to try harder than that.

[alistair mcbay]

"Wouldn't it be better to allow people their foibles, and cease trying to promote one foible over another with all the force of the law?"

Maybe, Stuart. But then who decides on what is a 'foible', and how far one group's foibles may be exercised over another? Should the Christians who have a pro-slavery 'foible' based on the Bible be allowed to exercise that 'foible'? Should white racists who hate black people and asians because of their skin colour be allowed to exercise their 'foible' by discriminating against them? Should an employer who doesn't want to spend money on level access for disabled employees be allowed not to employ any?

The SORs are simply an attempt to create equality of treatment among people based on a set of common criteria, because the world has progressed from the days when primitive men sat around in tents devising prejudices against people who simply weren't like them - people whose skin colour was different, people with diseases they feared or didn't understand, people with disabilities, and of course people who adhered to diferent belief systems and worshipped a different god or gods.

And David, you cannot be a Christian and completely ignore the Old Testament, pretending it doesn't exist. Jesus may not have said anything directly about homosexuality, but he did say he was there to uphold every 'jot and tittle' of the law (Matthew 5: 7-19) as in the OT.

In saying "what the new Testament says to me as a Christian", you are being guilty of the same selectivity as the anti-SORs brigade - they pick and choose which instructions (and prejudices) promoted in the bible they want to practise. You seem to be picking and choosing between which revealed texts you will base your life stance.

And you are wrong - the SORs do not force you or any Christian to promote gay sex. I am surprised that you have been conned by this scaremongering tactic used by, among others, Christian Concern for our Nation (CCN), and other anti-SORs groups that have resorted to similar scare mongering, gross exaggeration, and even factual inaccuracies to try to panic politicians into rejecting these regulations.

CCN claim in their recent petition to the Queen that the SORs will force Christians to ‘encourage the practice of homosexual relationships’ and ‘will make it unlawful for a Christian to refuse to promote homosexual practice’. There is nothing in the Regulations requiring this, as many more sensible Christians have ackowledged.

A whole page advertisement placed by another group, ‘Coherent and Cohesive Voice’, in a national daily paper on 28 November attacking the SORs made four claims about their effect which have subsequently been confirmed to be incorrect by the Government in a Parliamentary answer - see http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199697/ldhansrd/pdvn/lds06/text/61213w0002.htm. Their advert is now the subject of several complaints before the Advertising Standards Authority .

[Simon]

Dear Farmer Pearce

I apologise if I offended your country sensibilities. However, as an urban ovisexual I can confidently say I appreciate the noble virtue of sheep, as much as their cute little fluffy tails. The way people treat Flossy and I when we go places is, frankly, appalling! Our society is wholly bigoted in its attitude towards mixed species partnerships. And as you say, in the case of sheep its particularly brutal and insensitive. People think nothing of using phrases that are derogatory, and even wearing woollen jumpers in Flossy's presence. Sometimes I feel like going down the morgue and making a nice human skin bonnet for her - but I doubt that the bigots would get the message even then. Worse than that they tuck into a roasted baby (sheep) right in front of her! Not even a kind ewelogy nowadays. She has been so traumatised by this she won't kiss me for hours after I've eaten a mint.

All this general prejudice against sheep is ecplised by the prejudice based on the fact I'm a minority in my sexual preference. We tend not to go out much any more as we've decided that its not up to us to confront the rampant bigotry that exists in this country. People act as if someone has actually proven that same species relationships are somehow a better ideal that children should be encouraged towards. We are going to adopt a couple of lambs and hopefully some human babies as well - assuming the absurdly monomaniac adoption agencies consider us suitable. And we will bring them all up to not be so narrow minded about which species they look to for love. After watching Borat the other day we think we may move to Kazakhstan where they seem to be far more tolerant and civilised in these matters.

[Peter Farrington]

I must say that I think today's Leading Article in the Times - Minority Report - is some of the most biased and unjust comment possible. It shows that the author has no tolerance at all of those who think differently to him and is not seeking tolerance at all, merely the hegemony of his own opinion. When religions are told peremptorily to change the substance of their faith to suit a journalist or a politician then there is something very sick with that society.

A truly liberal society allows all non-monopoly businesses to trade as they choose. Only one with no true aspirations towards freedom and liberality chooses to impose by force its own agenda while masquerading as being tolerant and liberal.

I have dealt with Jehovah's Witness printers who choose not to publish Christian materials. I am certainly being discriminated against but I do not wish to go running to the law to force them to act against their conscience - indeed I commend them for running a business informed by their beliefs.

Would that such freedoms were preserved for all businesses.

[john gregory Flinn]

Thanks Ms Gledhill you must have got my note about the 'seven deadly sins' after all.
I'm thinking up a post...

[Julie]

Has anyone yet pointed out that Bishop Michael Reid is in no way representative of any mainstream Church, but only of Peniel Pentecostal Church, which he founded himself?

[Emanuel Appel]

a letter from America

The best government is the least government.

If you disagree, when I get to be Lord Protector, all this rampant pork eating and beer swilling will stop. Someone has to whip you into shape :)

[Christopher]

Ruth, the YouTube interview you show between bishop Michael Reid of the Penile Chirch in Essex and Alan Wardle of Stonewall reveals one thing: the hatred on the face of the bishop as he listens to Alan Wardle.

(RG comments: I agree that it is an interesting tape for many reasons. Christopher, did you intend to write 'Penile'? Is it a joke or a literal? Shall I change it to Peniel or not?')

[Christopher]

Jill: "(how many 'no gays' signs have you actually SEEN in guesthouse windows? "

Actually, have you heard of Sandals, Jill? They are a holiday company that used to offer romantic holidays in remote tropical settings "TO HETEROSEXUAL COUPLES ONLY". It was not until the Mayor of London refused to allow them to continue advertising on the London Underground that they changed their policy to be inclusive, removing the offending restriction. It is wonderful what a bit of economic pressure can do, isn't it? Wonderful how "adaptive" principle can be! When the guest house owners who turn away gays find that their business from decent heterosexual couples starts drying up because these couples find their discrimination against other people distasteful then we'll see how long the guesthouse owners' "principles' hold up.

[Christopher]

"The New Testament doesn't tell ME that, as a Christian today. What I read there is that I should hate the sin (whether adultery or other) and forgive and love the sinner."

Sorry David, the NT doesn't tell you that, St Augustine told you that.

[Stuart]

I suspect, Alistair, that when you speak of creating equality of treatment for certain minority groups, you disguise your true motive. What you really seek is, I think, preferential treatment. Now, I do not object to you trying to do this, but I do resent your rude arguments against those who disagree with you.

But the substance of my own case is that legislation, such as the SOR, is damaging to society, essentially because it is incoherent and because it has its priorities wrong ; it attempts to assist 'victims' but will simply generate more victims - and more criminals. Ultimately it will bring the law into disrepute because people will simply resolve to ignore it or dodge their fines and laugh at it.

The first task of folk who indulge in out-of-the-ordinary practices, but who wish nevertheless to be granted equality of esteem, is to secure the respect of those who disapprove of them ; and one does not do that by coercing the disapprovers into obedience. In a civilised country that is an abuse of the law.

[Kate]

Peter Farrington writes: "When religions are told peremptorily to change the substance of their faith to suit a journalist or a politician then there is something very sick with that society."

This is in keeping with the advertisement placed by a Christian group calling itself Coherent and Cohesive Voice. That advertisement was a blatant uninformed untruth posted without any attempt to clarify. In the House of Lords:

Lord Lester of Herne Hill asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2006 would require all schools actively to promote homosexual civil partnerships to children from primary school age to the same degree that they teach the importance of marriage. [HL447]

Lord Rooker: No. The regulations are not concerned with what is taught in schools. That is rightly a matter for the Department of Education, Northern Ireland.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2006 would require a printing shop run by a Christian to print fliers promoting gay sex.[HL448]

Lord Rooker: No. It would be entirely within the spirit of the regulations for a printing shop run by a Christian to refuse to print fliers promoting gay sex, so long as that printer also refused to print fliers promoting heterosexual sex outside the realm of marriage.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2006 would require a family-run bed and breakfast to let out a double room to a transsexual couple, even if the family consider it to be in the best interests of their children to refuse to allow such a situation in their own home.[HL449]

Lord Rooker: No.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2006 would make it illegal for a heterosexual police officer, fire fighter or member of the Armed Forces to refuse to join a Gay Pride event promoting the homosexual way of life.[HL450]

Lord Rooker: No.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have received representations from Coherent and Cohesive Voice, a network of Christian leaders about the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2006 (SI 2006/439); and, if so, when; how many representations have been received; and in what form.[HL451]

Lord Rooker: We have received no representations from this group.

So, there we are. The information is freely available.
http://fiskingcentral.typepad.com/fisking_central/2006/12/coherent_cohesi.html

[Mike Homfray]

The point is that the legislation is not about sexual practice, but about ensuring that gay men and lesbians are not discriminated against in the receipt of goods and services.

Conservative Christians are just going to have to get used to the fact that gay and lesbian people are no longer regarded as second class citizens, and that there is status in law for gay and lesbian identity and relationships.

In other words, the law does not reflect their religion any longer.

[Simon]

Alistair:

"The SORs are simply an attempt to create equality of treatment among people based on a set of common criteria, because the world has progressed from the days when primitive men sat around in tents devising prejudices against people who simply weren't like them - people whose skin colour was different, people with diseases they feared or didn't understand, people with disabilities, and of course people who adhered to diferent belief systems and worshipped a different god or gods.

The trouble with you and your ilk, Alistair, is what used to be my problem when I was an atheist. You look on scripture as the irrelevant garbage inherited from our ignorant past. You do not have the imagination to consider the totality of the claim that it was inspired by the creator of the universe. In a similar way, your lot looks on everything as if its all about rights of the individual - you don't have the breadth or depth of imagination to actually consider that our society as a whole would be stronger and more content as individuals if they had a cohesion that was based on sacrifice, loyalty and dedication to the security, and passing on of cultural wisdom, to the next generation.

People in the past were different. God interacted with them in a different way. He has interacted with our current age in a way that is fit for us now, and the new has always been hidden in the old to prove my point.

Alistair:

And David, you cannot be a Christian and completely ignore the Old Testament, pretending it doesn't exist. Jesus may not have said anything directly about homosexuality, but he did say he was there to uphold every 'jot and tittle' of the law (Matthew 5: 7-19) as in the OT.

Yet another ignorant point. He also said that he had not come for the healthy. Do you have even the first clue about the meaning of the death and resurrection ? You obviously don't understand (through disbelief) the bigger issues, but nonetheless I will give you the benefit of the doubt and start with the biggest one and move backwards until you find something you understand. This is from the Catholic Catechism;

460 The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature":"For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God." "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God." "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."

Alistair:

In saying "what the new Testament says to me as a Christian", you are being guilty of the same selectivity as the anti-SORs brigade - they pick and choose which instructions (and prejudices) promoted in the bible they want to practise. You seem to be picking and choosing between which revealed texts you will base your life stance.

I don't think Shakespeare was trying to persuade me to become a which when he said;

"Double, double toil and trouble;
Fire burn and cauldron bubble."

He seems to have expected me to have the wisdom and understanding to put things in their correct context. You seem to think the creator of the universe is less aware and meaningful than Shakespeare - which does seem like an absurd position to hold. Either be honest and say that you believe the universe just happened to pop into existence from nowhere (an absurd proposition), or admit that you accept the possibility that it was created from an absolute realm you are not capable of understanding fully at present.

And you are wrong - the SORs do not force you or any Christian to promote gay sex. I am surprised that you have been conned by this scaremongering tactic used by, among others, Christian Concern for our Nation (CCN), and other anti-SORs groups that have resorted to similar scare mongering, gross exaggeration, and even factual inaccuracies to try to panic politicians into rejecting these regulations.

Yes sure there has been some scaremongering and militant Christians over-reacting to it all. But was there really any need for this law ? If I don't want my children to be brought up by a same-sex couple in the event of my death, is it really up to MY government to put in place laws that eventually lead to me being considered by society as a criminal ? There were laws to deal with this already - the Marxists that screwed Britain up in the 70s are clawing their way into our government. They have already destroyed the second chamber and are well on their way turning it into a house of sycophants, rather than a balance to the power of the executive.

Its typical of your lot that you focus on the little story, whilst missing completely the bigger picture where the seeds of tyranny are being sown. Its been a long time since Britain last saw tyranny, and its been an equally long time since Britain last criminalised people simply for expressing widely held views in their public as well as private life. Sure things seem innocent enough right now, but then so did they when the Reichstag burnt down.

And yes - sure - these fundamentalists are over-reacting to this issue. But democracy is leading to a government and people that are unaware of the historical context of the famine or the disaster. In those times, the fact that those with independent conscience can be easily dealt with by slightly bending laws designed for different circumstances is the greatest asset of those with evil intent.

[David Keen]

Ruth - thankyou for this article, I always find myself getting uncomfortable when Christians get too confrontational.

2 other things to throw into the pot:
- with the defeat in the last 12 months of the Religious Hatred incitement legislation, and the Joffe bill on euthanasia, there is a sense of momentum among Christian political campagners, such as the Lawyers Christian Fellowship. I supported both of those campaigns, but wonder if there is a bit of a bandwagon now rolling, which is looking for the next battle to fight.
- a lot of people seem to think that the SOR's won't be as bad as the campaigners say. What's on paper is one thing, the consequences in practice will be another. Given the way Outrage! etc. have acted in the past, I wouldn't be surprised if there are attempts to push the SOR's as far as possible in an attempt to embarrass Christian organisations. Unfortunately, the last few days makes that more, rather than less likely.

[Frank Schnittger]

Julie - given the way "Bishop" Michael Reid conducted himself in the video interview with Ruth, it's ma relief to hear he doesn't actual represent anybody other than himself and his own little sect.

Also given the fact that the demonstration attracted only 1000 - many of whom appeared to be children - judging by Ruth's video, it seems that threats of massive popular unrest and upheaval are someone overstated.

Even here very few contibutors seem to be sticking to an anti-SOR line - the indefatigable Jill and David notwithstanding. It doesn't mean they are wrong, of course, just that claims that the Government has acted grossly undemocratically are difficult to sustain.

Perhaps we have heard the end of the SORs for a while (relief!), or is it wishful thinking?

However I cannot but feel that the episode has resulted in Christianity slipping one more rung further down the ladder of public esteem.

Next time Christians shout "wolf!", they will find it even harder to make their voices heard. Most people have heard enough and do not want to be associated with a religion they perceive as self-righteous and self-absorbed - concerned only with its own (formerly) privileged position in society - and determined to attack a very small minority achieving only what others can take for granted - the right to live their lives without fear of discrimination or abuse.

How very sad.

[Tim Cooper]

Christians cannot live in a parallel universe, pretending that wider society does not exist. Having visited the self-interested Christian 'Concern' website, another misnomer, it seems that rather than revealing anything new or conciliatory over this issue, it becomes apparent that the now hackneyed example of the bed and breakfast establishment still pertains; terrified Christians feel they will be forced to be inclusive, having made specific judgments about the sexuality of their clientele, whilst assuming that anal sexual activity will take place under their roof.

The whole thing is wholly out of proportion. Thankfully, few people are actually worried about what the Christian position is, in terms of attitudes towards homosexuality, and those who can be bothered to investigate, discover that it is a selective interpretation exercised by a marginal group within a minority group; one that does not represent mainstream society at all.

This has been yet another magnificent chance for some illiberal Christians to inflate their own imaginary self-importance, using the issue to draw attention to themselves, presenting wider societal concerns out of context. This is not a problem of gigantic proportions. The examples given are fatuous. They tend to suggest that to be a self-appointed member of a religious group somehow confers an elevated, if not quasi- political status, denied to lesser mortals. I do not pretend fully to understand homosexuality, but I acknowledge that they form a significant part of society and as human beings this is merely one trait or aspect of character. Disgracefully, the Christian Concern website suggests that homosexuals 'repent their sins'. What an outrageous and judgmental presumption, in which some human beings clearly apply their own highly dubious standards to others based, as usual, on a collection of naive myths and superstition. The more pronouncements I read from these people, the more concerned I become. It is little wonder, when examining the impact on society of some extreme interpretations of religious beliefs, that some effort is now being made to confine the more esoteric aspects to within the mindset of these narrow communities.

Overall, wider society cannot allow its members to be audaciously or routinely judged by a reduced set of unqualified people who claim exemption from that society whilst peering at it from a supernatural perspective.

[Tom Jackson]

"Julie - given the way "Bishop" Michael Reid conducted himself in the video interview with Ruth, it's ma relief to hear he doesn't actual represent anybody other than himself and his own little sect."

Nice try, Frank, but you are whistling in the wind. Although I am a "conservative" Anglican, I think you will find that there are a vast number of Christians, such as myself, who agree wholehearted with Mike Reid.

I actually met Mike a few years ago and have known some members of the Penial Church. I have to admit that his style of Pentecostalism was far too strong for my liking and in private conversation with him at his home, I found him an almost overpowering character. He appears almost timid in the Tube interview!

What is in no doubt, is Mike's strong foundation in biblical understanding and judging by the excellent school attached to Penial and the friendliness and strength of Christian fellowship of the congregation in the Church - including an outstanding choir - he is a worthy leader.

I think you should start getting used to the change that is starting to become apparent where issues such as the acceptance of sexual relations between members of the same sex are concerned and the awareness that is growing amongst the population in the UK that legislation such as the SOR's is a step, way too far!

[Christopher]

Stuart, you make an interesting point to Alistair, who incidentally is a happily married family, not gay, as you seem to imply. Just change the words "indulge in out-of-the-ordinary practices" by "black" or "Jew" or "disabled" in your argument to see how it pans out. But before you say "it is not orientation we object to but acts" read this:

What's the fuss about sodomy?

by Lucy Robinson, lecturer in modern British history at the University of Sussex

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1987466,00.html

[Dr Lisa Nolland]

Hi Ruth

Few know this but Wilberforce and his 'Saints' also campaigned on all sorts of 'hot-button' moral issues of their day: gambling, pornography, drunkenness, adultery, brothels and even nude bathing. Yes, I quite agree that Wilberforce would be campaigning against oppression of all sorts, but he also was concerned deeply about social righteousness and moral goodness. This second string to his bow, so to speak, is not at all PC and most people wish to know nothing of it.

Where would he be on the gay issue? He would not support sodomist - the pre-PC term for MSM - practice, that is for sure. I wonder if those who sing his praise now would do so if they knew the full story?

For more see the well-written
'Evangelical Anglicans in a Revolutionary Age', Nigel Scotland, Paternoster, 2004.

[J Pearce]

Tom Jackson…Tom Jones…whats a few letters between friends? (he says, trying to gloss over the embarrasing mistaken identity…).

Peter Farrington - I can only assume from your comments berating the Times editorial, that you feel morally justified in holding views that would, taken to their logical conclusion, condemn a law abiding section of society to the realms of 'second class' citizens, without the legal or civil rights or protections that you enjoy today.

That would make you no different to members of the BNP (actually, probably worse, as the BNP are at least toning down their public policy statements).

Stuart - again, as I have pointed out in another thread, there seems to be a conspiracy amongst certain religious contributors to confuse the basic issues, such that they manipulate the debate about the SOR's into one about the - wholly untested and unproven - hypothesis that Christian "rights" will be greatly curtailed and that Christians will be "forced" into acts against their conscience.

As Alistair has tried to explain (to those who refuse to listen), is that what the SOR's are actually about is rectifying a legal loophole, whereby a certain minority group in society will have legal parity with the majority. That is to say, the group in question will enjoy equal status in regards to legal protections and safeguards, when entering into transactions for goods and services in the public domain .

The reason that certain minority sections of the religious community prefer to re-focus the debate on their "rights", rather than focus on the positive issue of granting equality in law to a section of society is quite simple, albeit unspoken - they wish to retain their (non-democratically defined, religiously-inspired theocratic) right to perpetuate their prejudices against a particular minority.

The argument can be neatly encapsulated thus - a legally enshrined protection for all UK citizens to engage in public transactions for goods and services without fear of prejudicial treatment, versus the right of a religious minority to practice actual discrimination against whoever they so choose, based on a persons perceived sexual orientation.

If we lived in a Christian theocracy, where every facet of life were dictated by the teachings of the Bible, then Christians would be entitled to justify their opinions. Thankfully, we live in a slightly more mature society, where the democratically elected representatives of the entire body of the population have voted on these issues - and have found, on the whole, that the proposed regulations are just and in-keeping with the democratic freedoms that the majority population in this country currently enjoy.

The religious arguments presented against the SOR's are based on an outmoded, unconvincing quasi-medieval ideology which has a history of repression and injustice. The primary means of disseminating these arguments has been through unadulterated scaremongering and fear. Exactly the same tactics were employed when legislation was passed allowing ordination of women. These facts alone destroy any pretence that anti-SOR's Christians might have, that they occupy the moral 'high ground' on this matter.

To borrow a phrase, its all just so much piss and wind.

[David Smith]

Alistair:
'You seem to be picking and choosing between which revealed texts you will base your life stance on.'

This is exactly what you are doing, my friend, in support of your arguments on this blog. Furthermore you are doing it from the 'outside' of an integral, overall belief system. Again, I recommend you read the New Testament - the founding charter of Christianity. What you will see there is that, in what Jesus did for mankind, a way out of our being ultimately judged and condemned to eternal separation from God for sin was provided. Those of us who die 'in sin' generally, i.e. not having taken advantage of this provision by God through what Jesus did, will still, in this sense, experience the death penalty for all our on-going sin (including, as I believe and as the Bible teaches, homosex). It is in this sense that Jesus did not come to abolish any of the law. He came to provide us with a way of ultimately escaping the penalties it carries with it for its infringement.

Another bonus for those of us who get right with God now (using what Jesus did), is that we are given the Spirit of God inside us to give us His nature and to make it easier for us to 'be good' (and humane) in God's terms. [By the way you have God's absolute backing when you have questioned the words and actions of many who have claimed to have and to have been guided by this Spirit. Jesus Himself said we are to test all claims like this, and that at the end of the day He will reject many who have made them.]

A major reason that we are all having these debates is that without this Spirit, and so God's law of genuine love towards Him and eachother written in our hearts, we get (as the Bible also teaches) more and more and more lawless and so get more and more and more rules, which merely force and restrain us rather than really changing us and making us any more genuinely loving and empathetic towards others.

Alistair:
'And you are wrong - the SORs do not force you or any Christian to promote gay sex. I am surprised that you have been conned by this scaremongering tactic used by, among others.. '

I have not been conned or lead by anyone. I have a legal training. In these situations I always go direct to the source document, rather than following any herd or lobby group. I have read the SORS for myself (as I imagine did Lord MacKay the former judge and Lord Chancellor before he wrote his article in the Telegraph yesterday expressing the same view as mine on the effect of these regulations) and made up my own mind.

If these SORS are too long and complicated for you to feel that you want to do this.. my sympathies. But please either get a lawyer to take you through them, or stop telling us what you think they say and do.

[cryptogram]

I believe that the "Anglican clergy may be required to bless civil partnerships" claim is a massive red herring. Anglican clergy are not required to bless civil marriages, but may do so. They are required to celebrate marriages between qualified parishioners (though there is some doubt about whether one of the parties at least muct have been baptised).
On the other hand, there is nothing to prevent an Anglican priest saying whatever prayers he wishes with any of his parishioners: whether a public service of blessing falls within this provision might be a matter of discussion, and the will of the bishops is pretty clear. There is however quite strong early mediaeval precedent for consecration of friendships within the church.
But if parliament attempted to compel clergy to officiate at a blessing either without consulting General Synod, or even without its good will, I suspect there would be a major crisis between church and state, and the objectors would not by any means be limited to the usual suspects.

[joe]

Thank you Kate for that piece of Hansard.

I think we can all rest easy in our beds. discrimination is not the issue, equality is the issue.

Gay men can be excluded from a hotel as long as non-married couples are also excluded.

I suggest that this makes the law entirely redundant and pointless.

The gay man prevented from having a service would need to prove that the prevention was entirely due to his gayness, and that the gayness meant that he was treated differently. Hence one could easily defend non-service to him (or anyone else)

'I didn't have that item in stock'
'I was closing the shop'
'I don't like the colour of his clothing'
'I refuse business from every 53 person who enters the shop'
'Left handed people scare me'
'I don't do business with anyone who has spiky hair'

How is anyone going to prove that non-service was entirely due to the person's sexuality?

[Stuart]

" ..I think you should start getting used to the change that is starting to become apparent where issues such as the acceptance of sexual relations between members of the same sex are concerned and the awareness that is growing amongst the population in the UK that legislation such as the SOR's is a step, way too far!.. "

It seems to me that Tom is right here. The silent majority has been generously tolerant of the creeping utilitarianism that has been eroding the moral disciplines of society ; and now they are reacting against it.

[Simon]

Sorry about the patronising grumpy tone there Alistair. I should make it a rule never to post anything after midnight!

There is the whiff of Tyranny about the SORs legislation.

The ostensible majority are imposing a legal control about the treatment of homosexuality on British society, and which promises to