Pushed on the "more that needs to be done", he affirms that the new "Commission for Equality and Human Rights" has a role not only to enforce the law but also to change attitudes. This is worrying since all human rights organisations now work on the principle that homosexuality is the equivalent of race with the homosexual inclination being the "racial" characteristic that defines the homosexual person. To criticise homosexual activity as sinful, therefore, is by definition discriminatory against homosexuals. With the aid of the new Commission, the gay lobby will be able to outlaw certain expressions or possibly even certain opinions; for example those set out in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Brown is particularly keen to "tackle homophobic bullying in schools". This is fine if it refers to bullying and nasty name-calling - but in practice, "homophobic bullying" is increasingly becoming a code word established by Stonewall for not allowing schools to promote natural marriage and the family as normative.
The triumphant article in the same paper The man who took a bishop to a tribunal and won, describes the victory of John Reaney in a court case against the Anglican Bishop of Hereford. The judgement indicates how the new regulations are going to be applied in the case of religious organisations. The Times article Gay man’s lifestyle made him unfit for post, insists bishop from last April gives more details of the exchange between Reaney and the Bishop:
The Bishop said that, although Mr Reaney undertook not to start a new gay relationship, he felt that he was not emotionally in a position to be making such a promise.The crucial legal point in this case was highlighted by the solicitor, Alison Downie of Bindman & Partners:
He told the tribunal: “The end of a five-year relationship leads to a lot of grieving and it can take much time for someone to recover. It would not have been right for me to take an undertaking of his head that his heart could not keep. It remains my judgment that Mr Reaney had not met the standards required. It was not a risk I was prepared to take.”
"In this landmark test case the tribunal found not only that he suffered direct discrimination but that if necessary they would have found indirect discrimination in the diocese imposing a requirement of celibacy for lay people in employment within the Church."So it is now against the law for a Christian organisation to require that its employees undertake to abide by Christian teaching.
See also coverage by Hilary White at LifeSite News New U.K. PM Gordon Brown Promises Gays "Crack-Down" on "Homophobia"
25 comments:
All I can say is that some good Christians are going to have to be willing to go to prison over these issues, the way it's going over there.
Why are you allowing your politicians to run roughshod over you, and when in blazes did they hold a referendum about ceding to the wishes of some supernational eurotrash union? why are they lord and master?
Take back your government.
You give an inch they will take a mile. Is there NO way of keeping the government from interfering?
What will happen if fines are refused to be paid? What if EVERY decent christian religion failed to do their bidding?
Brian C.
I am simply speechless with an ache in my heart.
Poor England.............
Hey now, come on. Some of those sentence constructions and phrases came out of my own wee head.
At least give us a bit of a nod.
I did you.
"What will happen if fines are refused to be paid?"
This: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissol
ution_of_the_Monasteries
and this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o
f_Catholic_martyrs_of_the_English_R
eformation
Don't forget it.
I trust the Bishop is appealing to the High Court rather than letting a tribuinal of legally unqualified lefties get away with making case law?
Time to sharpen up the 'spiritual weapons' for the battles to come. Catholics need to become more informed on these issues, read and understand the absolute Truth of the Catholic Catechism and PRAY!
This goes for other Christians and Faiths and people of goodwill that stand for family values. We must stand firm against the destructive homosexualisation and corrosive anti-family agenda creeping through our government, it's policies, our country and our culture.
Yes, there may be new martyrs in the courts of England.
Our Blessed Lady please pray for us. England is and will remain your dowry.
You are no doubt aware of the problems that an Anglican Bishop has had in this regard, see the Times (London) 19th July 07 and the Evangelical Christians at the University of Exeter who are to expelled from the student guild if they do not allow non Chrsitians to hold office in their organisation. I know that Roman Catholics often feel a special sense of persecution and marginalisation, and history demonstrates why they thus feel, but all who follow Christ are being pushed off the ship, we should perhaps try to share the lifeboats !
The difficulty the Anglican Church is getting itself into over homosexuality shows what happens when you abandon morality in one area and try to keep it in another.
The teaching of the Church is that all sexual activity is immoral except within a married relationship. Since the Church has effectively abandoned its teaching about heterosexual relations out of marriage, it's not surprising that it's seen as discriminating against homosexuals.
I have no idea whether the court would have looked more favourably on the case if the diocese had asked all the candidates if they were living in an unchaste relationship, heterosexual or homosexual, but at least the diocese would have been acting consistently in a way which would have witnessed to the unchanging teaching of the Church.
And maybe that witness would be worth going to prison for.
There is an error in your report here:
the Bishop asked him if he would remain celibate in accordance with Christian teaching. He said "no" and did not get the job.
Reaney said 'yes', but the Bishop didn't think he'd be able to stick to this promise:
http://tinyurl.com/2qlols
I think that I would side with karen h. here.
I am not a resident of the U.K. and I weep when I see what is happening there.
I would have no hesitation to refusing to pay such a fine. I would demand imprisonment and I would also declare that it was only because of this discrimination against christianity that I had to make this sacrifice.
I am sure that with the declared overcrowding of prisons in the U.K., I would have every chance of not actually going to prison.
As I say, I would actually be delighted to have to face the prospect of prison.
I might even suggest that I knew how to blow up the Houses of Parliament because my hero, Guy Fawkes, failed in his attempt.
Actually!
And this is a fact.
When I did last live in the U.K., my property was built on land formerly owned by the Fawkes family.
JARay
Karen is right- why are we letting this be done to us?
What about discrimination against the right to religious freedom.
The Bishop of Hereford is a good man-so is the Dean of the Cathedral. I am saddened the Bishop has had to go through this.
Well from past experience within the church we already have a discreet 'don't ask, don't tell' policy which seems to bear some efficacy - the church does employ homosexual laity and a kind of 'gentlemen's agreement' is arrived at - the people involved are given the benefit of the doubt - it's merely assumed that they are celibate or involved in a chaste relationship and that a somewhat naiive 'no man's land' exists on the proviso that it does not interfere with either their job or their relationships with fellow workers.
Should the government attempt to force the issue via legislation they will simply wreak havoc and we will have to resort to asking the direct question ; and placing mandatory 'chastity clauses' within our work contracts [ the same way law firms in the US do - people can be fired for sexual harassment/adultery/sexual workplace liaisons etc ; without unfair dismissal suits]
If the government wants a fight it will get it - but we won't be the ones getting hurt - it will be those they are seeking to give rights to; and let's face facts - discrimination exists already - in the UK a human resources manager is perfectly willing to employ afro-caribbeans or asians to fulfill their recommended race quota, but where white eastern europeans are involved they are highly unlikely to be employed unless it's for minimal wages, Employers have very subtle ways round the law - one ironic thing is that despite my armful of qualifications and experience I can only get a job stacking shelves for ASDA even though I've applied for hundreds of jobs - and I can't help thinking that my being an ex-seminarian and pastoral assistant has been detrimental to my CV.
The first rule of law is that it can be tenably implemented. Should the government attempt to do this it deliberately forces sexual identity or potential predilection out into the public arena. I'm sure Stonewall and Outrage etc wish a situation where every homosexual may flagrantly display or relate their sexual activity; but within their ranks there are many thousands of traitors to their cause - married men and women, bisexuals, closetted homosexuals who have no desire for anyone to know their sexual preference - and a considerable amount of them may belong to organisations or faiths which do not condone their activities; but they still adhere to these groups and remain loyal devoted members - for these gay pressure groups to accuse them of hypocrisy or 'out' them for it is cruel beyond imagining.
Technically the government is forcing a situation which need never arise.
It's a bit like the time saint Anselm was ordered by Rome to implement a stringent purge on homosexual intimacies among the religious orders; and the expulsion of anyone [no matter how chaste] of that disposition - internal self-regulation had prevented abbeys turning into gay or lesbian 'love-ins' ; but forcing the issue would have destroyed many hundreds of people's lives [including a vast amount who were chaste/celibate] - Anselm refused to implement them.
HJW - sorry. I'll put in a link.
Daniel Hill - thank you for the correction.
HJW - sorry. I'll put in a link.
Daniel Hill - thank you for the correction. I have amended the post to delete the incorrect sentence and include a quote from the Times article instead.
Anon:
The "lifeboat" is the barque of Peter. Plenty of room on this unsinkable ship.
RCs are not above the law. Racial & sexual discrimination are evil. I am no lefty: indeed, it is lefties who want to ban the things of which they disapprove. I don't smoke or hunt but I deplore this govt for banning them. I am not gay but it is not the business of the church or state to interfere in people's private lives. Should Catholics go to prison for objecting. No, because that would make them martyrs. Let's just ignore & marginalise them but force them to conform. there are moves to have the Anglican bishop remove. Civil partnerships should be legal as should abortion but like hunting, you are not forced to take part. Christianity is obsessed with sex. Get your priorities right & care about the world's starving. I am no lefty but I am disturbed by the rabid right wing extremists who crawl round these Catholic blogs.
A few points:-
The 'bishop' has not been fined: Mr Reaney is entitled to compensation.
The decision has been taken by an Enployment Tribunal. This is part of the British legal system with a legally qualified chairman. It is a collection of 'legally unqualified lefties'.
What the Tribunal found was that there was discrimination against Mr Reaney becasue he had been treated differently from a heterosexual in a similar situation by being asked intrusive questions and then refused the job even though he was living a life of sexual abstinence.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church tells us that 'every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.'
It appears that the Employment Tribunal have been rather better at following the Church's teaching than was 'bishop' Priddis.
I enjoyed onthesideoftheangels's story about St Anselm!
Anon -
Civil partnerships should be legal as should abortion but like hunting, you are not forced to take part.
Actually in the case of abortion, the unborn child is rather constrained to take part.
The state is interfering in the lives of Catholics by stipulating that their adoption agencies must place children with homosexual couples or close. It is also likely to interfere in Catholic education by defining Catholic teaching on homosexual acts as homophobic.
Get your priorities right & care about the world's starving.
Last time I looked, the Catholic Church was doing quite a substantial portion of the caring worldwide. As it does, for example for those with HIV/AIDS.
rabid right wing extremists who crawl round these Catholic blogs
Rather than hurl invective around, why not try some critical thinking? The liberalism that you advocate has a stumbling block, namely the conflict of rights that will inevitably emerge. Many perfectly moderate non-Catholic commentators have seen that.
Alnwickian - someone posted a comment wondering where you were :-) Unfortunately it was out of sequence when I looked at the comment just now.
I think that I could agree with you if I were convinced that this is just about differential treatment. However, Alison Downie's legal point is very much in line with what I have experienced in terms of trying to promote chastity education. The secularists will try to make the Catholic promotion of chastity "discriminatory" in itself. It could be said, I think, that they are actually piggy-backing on the gay rights campaign and using it to further their own aims.
I have just seen a horrible typo in my last comment (in relation to the Employment Tribunal).
It should have read: It is NOT a collection of legally unqualified lefties.
Sorry about that.
Isn't the point here that Mr Reaney has admitted that he could not give a guarantee of celibacy to Antony Priddis ? Good on the Bishop for flushing it out. My ten yr old son could have well ended up on youth programmes involving Mr Reaney. Thank God he won`t be now. We should be giving thanks for such a victory. A prayer for Antony Priddis would be a good thing as well.. I know he would appreciate the support at the moment. What we have seen, friends, is an attempt by the increasingly aggressive, militant secularist "we`re right, you`re wrong" rebels to have their way.
This is what ordinary heterosexual family loving people, like me, are up against - make no mistake, 'from the horses mouth' so to speak:
Gay Liberation Front: Manifesto
London, 1971, revised 1978
________________________________________
Introduction
Throughout recorded history, oppressed groups have organised to claim their rights and obtain their needs. Homosexuals, who have been oppressed by physical violence and by ideological and psychological attacks at every level of social interaction, are at last becoming angry.
To you, our gay sisters and brothers, we say that you are oppressed; we intend to show you examples of the hatred and fear with which straight society relegates us to the position and treatment of sub-humans, and to explain their basis. We will show you how we can use our righteous anger to uproot the present oppressive system with its decaying and constricting ideology, and how we, together with other oppressed groups, can start to form a new order, and a liberated lifestyle, from the alternatives which we offer.
HOW We Are Oppressed
FAMILY
The oppression of gay people starts in the most basic unit of society, the family. consisting of the man in charge, a slave as his wife, and their children on whom they force themselves as the ideal models. The very form of the family works against homosexuality.
... After a whole load more claptrap (read it yourselves) the Gay Manifesto goes on to say :....
WE CAN DO IT
Yet although this struggle will be hard, and our victories not easily won, we are not in fact being idealistic to aim at abolishing the family and the cultural distinctions between men and women. True, these have been with us throughout history, yet humanity is at last in a position where we can progress beyond this.
There we have it folks - abolition of the family and the stereotype, as homosexuals perceive it, of masculinity and femininity.
These people are complete whackos, you just have to read the manifesto (yawn, yawn) to see how twisted their view of family, fathers, mothers, children etc.. has become. Very sad, BUT somehow they are getting these mad ideas across (probably through huge financing via rich homosexuals in media, industry, government, foundations etc...) into the public realm and managing to enshrine depravity in law - at least in the UK anyways! This is very dangerous and we are already seeing the beginnings of a deconstruction of some of the building blocks of our society. This needs to be countered by heroic men and women who are prepared to stand up for the Truth.
So, to the homosexuals who persistently turn-up on this and other blogs and spout off about human rights this and that, no-one is questioning your humanity, and your intrinsic value as a child of God, but just tell us why the rest of us should now be dictated to by a bunch of people whose only difference is that their chosen sexual lifestyle involves unnatural practices with same sex partners and who want to somehow homosexualise the rest of us.
This is bullying, this is heterophobia, this is discrimination against Catholics, Christians, other Faiths and other people of goodwill who believe in the paramount value of the Patriarchal Family unit as the foundation stone of society.
I am not Catholic or gay but I have firends who are; indeed, the most conservative catholics a I know are gay: the Latin Mass Soc. is full of them! However, I defend the rights of Catholics 7 gays- both were once proscribed by law. The spat between them is childish and there are many more important issues for all of us.
I do abhor the Government's insistence that RC adoption agencies must place with gay couples on the grounds that freedom of conscience should be respected. There are plenty of other agencies. However, the RC church is already in bed with the Marxist social workers who came up with the policies of Copca. Protect children with common semnse but don't demonise your own clergy!
Anon - it might help if you tried to understand the issues here. The Church is not "against gays" - it teaches that sex only finds its proper place within marriage and open to children. One consequence of that teaching is that sexual activity outside of marriage is sinful - whether homosexual or heterosexual.
There may be some homosexual people in the Latin Mass Society. I hope we would follow the teaching of the Church and welcome them with compassion and sensitivity. To say that the LMS is "full of them" is insulting and false.
The gay lobby represented by the likes of the Pink Paper do seem to want Catholic teaching in this area classified as unjust discrimination - from where I sit, that looks like more than a "childish spat". Not all homosexuals by any means support the strident political aims of Stonewall.
The problems with COPCA seem to have been highlighted well by the latest review which calls for procedures to be revised to accord with canon law. They have recognised that a significant number of priests have no confidence in the system because of its perceived unfairness.
Post a Comment