Christianity and Intolerance

[sp1814]

There's been a few cases reported recently which have led Christians to claim that their rights are being subverted by the Equalities Act.

However, aren't some simply they simply digging their own grave:

http://www.dailymail....lms-HIV-positive.html

Are UK christians really the victims they claim they are? Why don't we hear the same stories about Sikhs, Jews or Muslims in the UK?

[New Judge]

No, we don't hear similar stories about other religions because, generally, their customs and requirements are accommodated.

You don’t hear of Muslims being provided surreptitiously with non-Halal meat. You do not hear of Muslim clerics being forced to conduct gay “marriages” in their mosques under threat of dismissal if they refuse. You do not hear of Sikhs being unable to wear their turbans or Karas (bracelets) at work.

Mr Hardie, the subject of the Mail’s article, seems an odious character and the story does nothing to demonstrate how Christians who manifest their religion are sometimes unfairly treated whilst those of other religions who do likewise are positively feted.

[anotheoldgit]

Excellent post, from the Judge, once again.

[sp1814]

So would you say his christianity is irrelevant?

And is the Equality Act only aimed at Christians, and not the followers of other faiths? Why haven't we heard of Muslim registrars refusing to perform civil partnership ceremonies?

Why don't we hears of Jewish hoteliers refusing to let rooms to gay couples - and more strangely, why is it that Christians only have their faith tested by homosexuality, and not women who are having their periods, adulterers and people who enjoy seafood?

It seems a little 'pick and choose' does it not?

New Judge - you can't have civil partnership ceremonies in Christian churches so its a little dubious you bringing up the subject of the same happening in mosques.

Furthermore isn't it true that turbans and karas are prescribed articles of faith, whereas the wearing of crucifixes is purely decorative and not demanded by the church?

[New Judge]

Oh I see. So if something is “demanded by the church” it must be accommodated. But if the wearer simply chooses to wear something as a generally accepted symbol of his or her faith (because they follow a church that does not “demand” blind obedience from its followers) then it can be proscribed. Fair enough!

As I understand it the Equalities Bill contains a measure lifting the ban on civil partnership ceremonies being held in Church. (The Lords approved the measure last March). Although the measure allows, but not compels, individual clerics to conduct such ceremonies it will not be long before one is accused of homophobic discrimination when he refuses to act against his faith.

[sp1814]

NewJudge

No - the information you have is incorrect.

The move will result in an amendment to the Equalities Bill which would allow, though not compel, religious organisations to host civil partnerships. Religious language would also be permitted within the ceremonies.

It is predicted that as a result there would be effectively no difference between marriage and civil partnership within the church. Critics say that the change will force clerics to take a more liberal approach to same-sex relationships.

The law would allow ceremonies only among denominations who endorse gay marriage. The Quakers have already campaigned for the change in legislation, and Unitarians and liberal Jews have also already shown their support for the amendment.

[sophie_1003]

This article is laughable; the man in question appears to think that only gay people can contract HIV and that he is irresistible to gay men; his faith has nothing to do with his misinformed and completely inaccurate views!

[New Judge]

Yes sophie. just what I said about Mr Hardie in my first post. In short, the man is a pillock of the first order.

I think the information we both have about the amendment to the Equalities Bill is more or less the same, sp, so I don’t think I’m incorrect (unless we both are).

I think where we might differ is in our view of the likely outcome following the amendments. I foresee that it will be not too long before a cleric (of whatever denomination) is pursued for discrimination because he refuses to conduct a same sex ceremony. Unfortunately people requiring such services (similarly to the two chaps who wanted a double room in a Christian couple’s B&B) seem not to be content with having such services provided where they are welcome. They appear to gain greater pleasure in being refused facilities in places where they clearly are not welcome.

[modeller]

Having now read the article I don't think faith had anything to do with it . The man is a bit of a weirdo and obsessed with sex.

[anotheoldgit]

http://tinyurl.com/6jrv67o

If the churches just refuse to marry gays, what will the Government do then?

[sp1814]

AOG

The proposed legislation ALLOWS churches to opt into performing civil partnership ceremonies, rather than making it mandatory.

[anotheoldgit]

Then what has changed, who apart from the church have in the past disallowed same sex marriages?

If it was indeed the church, then why should they now alter their views?

[Kromovaracun]

"If it was indeed the church, then why should they now alter their views?"

They won't, but not all denominations share them - as sp pointed out earlier in the thread. The measure will allow religious organisations (who are albeit a minority) who do support gay marriage and wish to practice it to do so.

[New Judge]

Yes Kromo and sp, the proposed legislation certainly does allow rather than compel religious organisations to conduct same sex ceremonies. However, since some will do so and some will not it will be a very short time indeed before one of them is pursued for discrimination (almost certainly via either our own Human Rights Act or under the European Convention on Human Rights) because they treat same sex couples differently. As someone once said (and I cannot remember who it was) a practice that was once forbidden and then becomes acceptable soon becomes mandatory.

The simple fact that churches will be allowed to conduct civil partnership ceremonies means that they will have to offer their services regardless of their doctrines or be accused of discrimination because they will be making available to heterosexuals something which they will not provide to homosexuals. We need not argue about it now, we can wait and see. But these claims WILL materialise and they WILL be successful. But I doubt we shall see any Muslim establishments offer such services and it can be almost guaranteed that we shall not see any of them similarly indicted.

[Kromovaracun]

NJ:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

Your argument is based on assumption, not evidence.

Firstly, the church is almost universally seen as homophobic as it is, and won't be seen as any more homophobic if minority denominations are able to practice differently.

Secondly, what are the implications of your argument? They appear to be that we should forbid minority denominations that want to carry out civil partnerships because they'll undermine the church position to the degree that they'll be expected to follow suit. Doesn't the fact that they openly express support for civil partnerships undermine it already? What you're arguing against is a law that doesn't even exist on the basis that you think it might emerge.

[New Judge]

Of course it’s an assumption, Kromo. You cannot produce “evidence” to say for certain what will happen in the future. However, you can make some assumptions based on evidence of what has happened in the past – the basis, I believe of forecasting. There is ample evidence of religious organisations being prevented by Equality or Human Rights legislation from following their doctrines. The Catholic Church, for example, is winding up its adoption service because it was told it would be breaking the law if it refused to place children with homosexual couples

I’m not quite sure what you mean by the implications of my argument. I’m certainly not suggesting that those minority organisations that wish to provide civil ceremonies should be prevented from doing so. On the contrary, I believe any organisation should be free to choose what it does in this respect. What I’m arguing about is the implications of revoking the specific law preventing civil ceremonies taking place in church.

Firstly I’m surprised that this law has not already been challenged on Human Rights grounds. But that’s another matter. If, however, the law is modified to “allow” organisations to perform such ceremonies the Church of England has stated that it will refuse to do so. Because all organisations will be (ostensibly) free to offer the service or not it will be very much easier to bring a charge of discrimination against those who do not. So the C of E, far from being “free to choose” will almost certainly be accused of discrimination. For the Catholic Church on the adoption issue it meant they were no longer able to offer an adoption service, but they could still carry out their core activities. If the C of E loses its corner on this issue it may be a little trickier.

As I said, we need not argue. All we need to do is wait and see.

[Kromovaracun]

"we need not argue. All we need to do is wait and see. "

Where would be the fun in that?

I'm sure you don't mean to say that minority denominations shouldn't be able to practice civil ceremonies, but the tone of your posts suggests that you consider the fact that this law will undermine the church's position a significant argument against it.

The proposition that churches can choose to conduct civil ceremonies carries with it the implication that churches can opt out of it too if they want to - this is the defence that churches can fall back on if they're attacked on human rights grounds. That's one reason I disagree with your prediction.

But secondly, even if you're right (which as I say I don't think you are) - what will it mean? Freedom of Speech isn't the end-in-itself it's usually trumpeted as - it's a means towards another end. If the church can't justify it's own position against the equality-based views of society, then maybe it deserves to be undermined. The same applies to you or me - if I can't justify my views, I expect people to undermine them so that I can improve.

Personally? I think that the church does and should have a right not to conduct civil ceremonies if they don't want to. But if neither I nor they can justify it against the alternatives, then maybe we're wrong.

[youngmafbog]

Well I for one cannot wait for a gay couple to descend on a Muslim hotel. What a conundrum for the liberal ‘elite’ on this site.
There is no way on earth the Muslims will allow homosexuality but all you right on support homosexuals and the ‘rights’ of Muslims.

The reason we don’t hear about this SP is because no homosexuals have had the bolloks to challenge a Muslim Hotellier.

[Kromovaracun]

"The reason we don’t hear about this SP is because no homosexuals have had the bolloks to challenge a Muslim Hotellier. "

Which is entirely speculation which you're dressing up as incontestible fact. Speculation, moreoever, which is entirely informed by your own perception of muslims and gays and doesn't appear to be based on much else.