Monday, November 23, 2009

EU forces Government to put gay equality over Christian conscience

The Torah says:

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination (Lev 18:22).

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them (Lev 20:13).

The New Testament says:

Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God (1Cor 6:9f).

Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another (Rom 1:24).

The Qur’an says:

Lut: he said to his people: "Do ye commit lewdness such as no people in creation (ever) committed before you? "For ye practice your lusts on men in preference to women: ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds" (7:80-81).

Of all the creatures in the world will ye approach males. And leave those whom Allah has created for you to be your mates? Nay ye are a people transgressing all limits!" (26:165-166)

Please note, this is not a post about the divergences between Hasidic/Orthodox/Haredi/Masorti and Reform/Reconstructionist Judiasm; or between Orthodox/Protestant/Roman Catholic and Liberal Christianity, or between Sunni/Shi’a and Sufi Islam. And Cranmer is fully aware of the hermeneutic complexities, exegetical difficulties and the debates over the Sitz im Leben of all of these passages. Sexual ethics is not the point.

It is a post about national sovereignty.

Whatever one’s interpretation of the above scriptures, the European Commission has just subordinated the Christian conscience of the United Kingdom to the Divine Right of Europa, religious conviction to the infallible proclamation of secular orthodoxy.

Perhaps it was only a matter of time.

The spirit of Factortame is alive and well as once again Her Majesty’s Government is forced to amend a sovereign Act of Parliament in order that it might conform to a higher-sovereign EU directive.

There are now so many sovereigns that it is difficult to find the head that wears the crown.

Readers and communicants will recall that Labour’s Equality legislation granted religious groups certain exemptions when it came to employing homosexuals ‘so as to avoid conflicting with the strongly held religious convictions of a significant number of the religion's followers’. Some agreed, some disagreed. The majority view prevailed: that is democracy.

But the EU has decreed that such exemptions are incompatible with their directive prohibiting discrimination on the grounds of a person's sexual orientation. The Guardian informs us: ‘The ruling follows a complaint from the National Secular Society, which argued that the opt-outs went further than was permitted under the directive and had created "illegal discrimination against homosexuals".’

Again, Cranmer has no argument with the National Secular Society in expressing its view: in a liberal democracy they have every right to argue their case in the public sphere. But to read that the Commission have heeded the ‘reasoned opinion’ of its lawyers that the view of the NSS may be imposed upon the professing Christian majority is of immense concern. The Government have been told: ‘exceptions to the principle of non-discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation for religious employers are broader than that permitted by the directive’.

So sort it.

It is interesting to note that The Guardian then talks of ‘a furore among church groups’ and how this is preferable to the ‘backlash from the commission’.

The furore among church groups will be as nothing compared to the furore among mosque groups, but (of course) The Guardian does not want to go there.

The ‘significant victory for gay equality’ and the ‘serious setback for religious employers’ may be of little consequence or a cause of no concern among many supine church groups, but there are other rather more convicted religious adherents for whom a ‘backlash from the commission’ is of no consequence at all.

Peter Tatchell may be right (again) that this intervention by the European Commission is ‘a big embarrassment for the British government, which has consistently sought to appease religious homophobes by granting them opt-outs from key equality laws. The European commission has ruled these opt-outs are excessive’.

But this is not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing over the rights and wrongs of sexual ethics. It is an ‘embarrassment for the British government’ because it is manifestly no longer sovereign: there is a higher moral power. Even this hyper-cautious, equality-obsessed, anti-Christian Labour Government could not legislate sufficiently in the realm of equality to satisfy the rabidly-secular beast in Brussels.

As the NSS director Keith Porteous-Wood observed: “Now the government must demonstrate its commitment to equality, rather than continuing to jump to the church's tune."

Equality is the new religious orthodoxy. Its god is Europa; its creed is the rights of man.

It is no longer possible for religious groups to preach their beliefs or to sustain a distinct identity. By legislating to protect and promote the rights of particular groups, the Government is faced with the delicate but important challenge of not thereby creating the conditions within which others feel their rights have been ignored or sacrificed, or in which the dictates of personal conscience are put at risk.

The rights of conscience cannot be made subject to legislation, however well meaning.


Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace,

Truly outstanding post. I'll need to study it in depth between meetings.

23 November 2009 at 08:01  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is the right to discriminate enshrined in doctrine.

"People should NOT be allowed equality", is that what you are saying, because that is how it comes across.

23 November 2009 at 08:05  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace,

So this is how the socialists celebrate the 175th anniversary of the abolition of slavery.

We must recall, on public policy grounds that Wilberforce argued that if British Christianity was restricted to church services and personal piety – the so-called ‘privatisation’ of faith – then belief would be reduced to a set of ‘dead propositions’.

The proposed amendment to the Equality Bill will drive out practising Christian bodies from the public square. This will mean that the State will need to fill the vacuum (with the support of taxpayers money) to exercise those functions which have hitherto been done upon a charitable basis.

Another effect, as Christianity is suppressed, is going to be the State conceiving for the first time since the beginning of the 17th century ‘intercepting’ Christians in the private sphere.

As Britain is locked into the EU a Conservative government would also be required to bring in the amendment.

I never thought that I would see the Church in this country contemplate going underground as happened in Soviet Russia.

British politics and law is now framed by parameters set by the EU.

(PS Love the citation of the Factortame case – brought back memories.)

23 November 2009 at 08:29  
Anonymous IanVisits said...

You say the British government has lost authority to govern to unelected legal boffins in Brussels.

However, the British government has been subject to unelected legal boffins in the House of Lords for vastly longer.

In a democracy, we need some checks and balances to prevent a populist government taking power and passing extreme laws.

The legal system is one arm of the many checks that exist, and the UK legal system has long been able to declare UK laws to be in effect, illegal as they cause an insurmountable legal conflict with other laws in existence.

British laws, passed by British politicians support legal equality for citizens - and if politicians then pass other laws which deny such equality, a conflict exists.

One of those two laws has to be changed.

As it happens, the right to equality is incorporated in so many laws, that to change all of them to deny equality would probably occupy the Parliament for the best part of a decade.

Much simpler to change the one law that had denied it.

Personally, I think this is a case of mountains and molehills.

The religious lobby was determined to get its opt-out, even though there was no evidence that a gay person would want to work in a room full of people who hated him/her.

Then the secular lobby got annoyed and lobbied for that opt-out to be removed, despite there still being no evidence that a gay person would want to work in a room full of people who hated him/her.

Two obdurate and closed minded groups fussing over a petty technicality that will have no impact in the real world away from the law courts.

23 November 2009 at 09:04  
Blogger Michael said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

23 November 2009 at 09:19  
Anonymous Bag Lady said...

So does this mean that the catholic church will be forced to accept women priests and the anglican church accept openly homosexual priests ?

23 November 2009 at 09:57  
Blogger scott said...


Your comment about being subjected to the unelected Lords is mis-applied.

The Lords have not (AFAIK) ever created any laws to subject the subjects of her majesty the Queen of Greeat Britain. Rather, they take the laws from parliament, scrutinise them and other amendments to enable the law to be best applied and to be in keeping with the principles of Britain. Rightly so!

Your Grace,

I consider this to be an interesting development, and I would argue the more the better at this point in order that the government and people of this country wake up and see the EU as it is! Only then will we be able to extract ourselves from their clutches!

23 November 2009 at 10:00  
Blogger scott said...

Maybe the church should take a leaf out of the Baptist method of hiring ministers, and allow the congregation to vote for them. That way, I'm sure that this new legislation could be circumvented.

23 November 2009 at 10:03  
Anonymous Village Parson said...

IanVisits, true the House of Lords used to contain the final court of appeal in this country, but the difference between them and the EU is the EU makes the law and interprets that law. So there are no 'checks and balances' in the EU system. Certainly there is nothing, which can counter the commission’s dictates.

Also I do not think this is an issue of obscure legal matters, it could, as bag lady hints, mean that the Church of England will be in trouble if it does not accept openly gay people for the priesthood and likewise the Catholics in respect of women priests. To try and legislate one's beliefs is hardly an obscure matter is it?

23 November 2009 at 10:04  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Scott, sounds OK, but why should the Catholic church abandon centuries of tradition and church teaching, just to comply with this EU law?

23 November 2009 at 10:07  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace,

‘The rights of conscience cannot be made subject to legislation, however well meaning.’

Yet that is what this law will do. Each man must decide to give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God.

This wretched time, this wretched hour. We’ll be taken before tribunals.

23 November 2009 at 10:19  
Anonymous Gay Anglican said...

Can’t see what the problem is here. In any federal system, the federal government has to have the final say and this what has happened here; the British government simply overreached its own competence in what it can and cannot pass as laws. It is also good news for the gay rights and equality agenda.

23 November 2009 at 10:36  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The EU is simply putting britain into her place- she must show the provinces who is the master now.

23 November 2009 at 10:39  
Anonymous Scottish Raj said...

The Conservative party were faced with the economic call of the century and they called it wrong. And I say a party that makes the wrong choices on the most critical decisions it would have faced in government, should not be given the chance to be in government.

23 November 2009 at 10:45  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I see no reason why religious groups should consider themselves above the law of the land or for that matter to claim special financial benefits. Were I to move to Iraq or to Isreal I would expect to comply with the law there. When people live in Europe the same applies.

23 November 2009 at 11:01  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The EU are right in this particular case. I don't know what all the fuss is about.

23 November 2009 at 11:04  
Anonymous Bullshi'ite detector. said...

These quotations from the Koran have 'ye' in place of 'you'. And in some translations every other sentence begins with 'Lo!'.

Yet these translations are all modern, so what's with the pseudo-KJV English? Why do they have to wrap these demented ramblings rantings and ravings of a psychotic paedophile up in archaic language?

Maybe the tranlators ought to realise that you can't gift-wrap a turd, the stench will still get through no matter how ornate the covering.

23 November 2009 at 11:52  
Blogger ultramontane grumpy old catholic said...

When will Peter Tatchell demonstrate inside a Mosque.

He is quite a brave chap, but not that brave, I suspect.

Go on Peter - I dare you!

23 November 2009 at 12:01  
Blogger Si Hollett said...

The opt out in question basically says that condemning certain sexual practices as wrong is still legal.

It's allowing discussion on sexual behaviour, rather than sexual orientation.

I can't see how it's homophobic - but like the Muslims (whose religious and racial hate act would have made it illegal to read certain bits from the Koran and Bible, but also illegal to make any criticism about Islam, Christianity, Humanism, Judaism, Buddhism, etc), the lobbyists here are trying to force their worldview on the world with legal force. You could almost call this an attempt to create a gay blasphemy law - where dissenting from the 'religious' view of 'gay sex is moral' is banned by law.

Can anyone think of an action which people are banned from criticising it? Why, then, do we want to set a dangerous precedence?

Instead of a Theocracy, where beliefs that disagree with the ruling theism cannot be expressed, we seem to be moving to an 'Atheocracy' where beliefs that disagree with the ruling secularism/atheism cannot be expressed. Both are totalitarian, yet the latter is being pushed by so-called 'liberals'. Instead of the Majesterium, we have the EU commission, backed up by New Labour.

23 November 2009 at 12:07  
Blogger Preacher said...

The Laws of God are above the laws of man, always were, still are, & always will be. The puny laws of sinful man are no more than a cloud that temporarily hides the sun. God's laws cannot be repealed or over-ruled by man, they can be disobeyed or rejected as can any law, but there will always be a time of trial & in God's court there are no alibis.
So it comes back to the question, should we obey the higher laws of God or the lower laws of man when they contradict one another? the EU say that their laws overule our own governments, I say that God's laws overule theirs if they conflict & I will continue to serve the Lord. They can do as they please I would rather fear God, who can cast both body & soul into Hell, than man, who can kill the body but no more, then must face God's wrath at the judgement.

23 November 2009 at 12:10  
Anonymous no nonny said...

The euSSR invaded us by stealth: we are the invadees.

Certain politicians took it upon themselves to sign away our rights and our country: without our consent, without even asking us. We did not elect them to do this. No politician in any democracy has a right to do this - and if they have helped the invader to invade, then they are doubly wrong. I see no reason why the electorate should be held accountable to the invader, under these circumstances.

Since when were invadees under legal obligation to accept the laws of invaders rather than to fight them off and tell them to get out of invadeeland?

In the past, only when the invader (Billy Bastard) had killed off most of the invadees (Anglo-Saxons ... the Celts were harder to get at).

In the present, I would rather be dead anyway than subject to the euSSR. We need to tell them to get out of our country. Never mind playing their stupid bureacratic '[il]legal' games for the privilege of getting out of their country (which we're not in, physically speaking). That game is rubbish.

23 November 2009 at 12:13  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace,

One of the posters seems to believe that we will have to obey the law of the land where Caesar’s demands conflict with God’s.

We did not in 1215, in the 1640s or 4 July 1776.

The Left-liberal solution will be comical to watch. Build more prisons?

23 November 2009 at 12:47  
Anonymous Old Grumpy said...

Gay Anglican and anon 10:39

The little difficulty here is that I don't recall ever voting for a "federal" system...and I certainly object to having been given one without my consent, or anyone else's in the UK.

I don't care at all whether the eu is right or not about gay rights, what I do care about is having MY rights trampled all over by a foreign power that I never had the chance to vote for.

(And don't waste my time in talking about the so-called european "parliament"...that talk shop of window dressing has as much power as a 2V battery)

23 November 2009 at 12:55  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

And we all know full well that change the colour of the rosette at number 10 to a blue one isn't going to make slightest bit of difference to this situation.

Time for a revolution me thinks ... or at least breaking with the old voting allegiances.

23 November 2009 at 13:15  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace,

I’m sure you know that our Lord was regarded as a one man crime wave by the authorities of his time.

They executed him.

It was all so odd and unexpected. Chrsitianity changed the world.

23 November 2009 at 13:18  
Anonymous Chris C said...

I am not quite sure what you are complaining about. Parliament passed the 1972 European Communities Act which made UK law subject to European law. This is not new! If you have only just realised the implications I feel you are being a little slow. The 2000 EU employment directive was supported by the UK government. If Parliament wants UK law no longer to be subject to EU law there is now (thanks to the new Lisbon Treaty) a clear procedure for withdrawal from the EU. We are in this by choice...

As for the freedom of religion question, should a Christian hotel owner be free to hang a sign outside his door saying 'No Gays' because of his beliefs that homosexuality is wrong?

23 November 2009 at 13:35  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Yes. Let's have some clarity:

Under the United Nations Charter, all EU member states have agreed that: "In the event of a conflict between the obligation between Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement [Lisbon ]Treaty], their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail." (Article 103). This would mean that the EU cannot prevent a member from leaving, if the state could prove that its membership of the EU conflicts with part of the UN Charter; similarly states are only bound to follow EU law "so far as they are compatible with existing international arrangements" (Article 37.5, Treaty of Rome). If a state were to wish to leave, it would be up to the European Court of Justice to interpret current treaties as to the member's obligations and conditions of withdrawal.

Clear and easy-peasy?

23 November 2009 at 13:41  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If you are to quote Leviticus, and live by those rules, then you will also know very well that you should not eat lobster, wear mixed fabric clothing, and you should kill your disobedient children.

And if you are to follow the Bible to the letter, you will also be very aware that Jesus stated that he wanted people to follow the OT laws.

23 November 2009 at 14:09  
Anonymous Chris C said...

D. Singh - This might be a good time to remind you that Wikipedia is an unreliable source of information. Look at the revised Treaty on European Union, which comes into force on 1 December. Article 50 starts: "Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements." It then explains how you do this - essentially the State has to notify the European Council and then negotiate terms of withdrawal with the rest of the EU. In the event of a lack of agreement, withdrawal becomes effective in any case 2 years after the notification. That is as clean and easy-peasy as withdrawal from international organisations gets.

23 November 2009 at 14:11  
Anonymous no nonny said...

Well the 'state' may have agreed. The People haven't. So the 'state' had no right to agree.

So why should the People give two hoots about what the foreign bureaucratscall 'law'?After all, it's just another trick: presenting their word as 'law' presents their invasion as a 'fait accompli.' And telling us that we must 'withdraw' inverts the truth that they are the ones who must withdraw.

They can call themselves what they like. As far as I'm concerned I owe them nothing; and every penny they take from me is extorted against my will. I don't accept their jurisdiction. I have no allegiance to, or respect for, any of them.

So I say we don't have to withdraw. We just say: "No. Those people had no business signing away our freedom, our rights, or our money. The game is over. Get out of Britain."

And I know a lot of people like me.

23 November 2009 at 14:17  
Blogger Revd John P Richardson said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

23 November 2009 at 14:21  
Blogger Revd John P Richardson said...

I think this rather reinforces my point, made a couple of weeks ago, that the Church of England's 'Supreme Governor' is no longer the English monarch but (it turns out) the 'grey mouse' of Europe.

There is, I think, still a real debate to be had (as opposed to name-calling and mud-slinging) about whether the equalising of same-sex relationships with heterosexual relationships is a good thing (I would argue it patently is not, but as I say, a case is to be made).

However, just as important, as I'm sure your Grace intends us to see, is that the passage of these laws means that we are not the same country we were a decade ago, and there are plenty more potentially-unwelcome changes to come.

It is an extraordinary situation we find ourselves in, and if anyone can hear a high-pitched whining sound, it is the generations of Englishmen who fought for our freedoms spinning in their collective graves.

23 November 2009 at 14:24  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr Chris C,

You have indeed made me work today!

Article 50

1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.

2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the
framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the
European Parliament.

3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend
this period.

4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it. A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

23 November 2009 at 14:37  
Anonymous Dick the Prick said...

'nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God'

Sheeeet, didn't know the one about booze - outrageous.

23 November 2009 at 14:49  
Anonymous no nonny said...

Really. This is the mentality that got us into the mess we're in. It's called not being able to see the Wood for the trees (or maybe the Law for the letters).

If you legals defined terms instead of meekly accepting theirs just because they say so, we'd be better off.

But the People have been deprived of that opportunity - not just by disenfranchisement, but also by disempowerment of the Lords and their (temporary) veto: and so no one was there even to let the People know the whys and wherefores of the argument.

So now the People need not negotiate anything with what has established itself as the Enemy in our midst - wolle nole.

Nevertheless, we are not euros. We never agreed to be euros. So now I say the referendum should be 'tell them to go or stay.' Of course we'd have to vote to tell them to get out: but if we did so, then they'd have to accept that we don't recognize their terms about anything. We should even campaign on that basis.

Then that's all we have to do. Tell them to get out.

Then we can clean out our Commons - and give ourselves back a system that works for us instead of against us.

All this because, however they doll themselves up, you don't negotiate with criminals or their master the Devil. You just say "No." 'The Devil made me do it' is not an option.'

23 November 2009 at 15:41  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Why is it that Article 50 (4) will not permit the Member State, that wishes to withdraw, to participate in discussions under Article 50 (3)?

23 November 2009 at 15:52  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You say that "this is not a post about the divergences between [religions] but that [it is a post about national sovereignty].

If this were true, why did you start the article listing scriptural quotes? Why is it that religions are only happy to set aside their obvious, conflicting, and flat-out contradictory differences in order to forcibly discriminate against people who don't agree with them?

23 November 2009 at 16:10  
Anonymous IanCad said...

'Equality is the new religious orthodoxy. Its god is Europa; its creed is the rights of man.'
Says it all.
Your Grace, I can bring little to this debate, but permit me to offer some appreciation. I'm sure there are many communicants, like me, who are rather more instinctively than intellctually armed for this battle. I do thank you and so many of your posters (D. Singh researches mightily) for supplying so much background for our blabberings.

23 November 2009 at 16:16  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why is it that Article 50 (4) will not permit the Member State, that wishes to withdraw, to participate in discussions under Article 50 (3)?

Otherwise the withdrawing country would in effect be on both sides of the table.

23 November 2009 at 16:44  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Oh I see.

Britain would sit alone on one side of the table and like a beggar sit on the other side of the table pleading with another 26 countries.

23 November 2009 at 16:57  
Blogger D. Singh said...

If the analysis is correct then Article 50 (3) reads:

3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council........ unanimously decides to extend
this period.

23 November 2009 at 17:01  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Article 50 (2) states:

'...after obtaining the consent of the
European Parliament.'

Given that the EU's parliament has the same power as a '2V battery' (Grumpy) - why would it suddenly be given enormous power by this Article 50?

Given that we pay £37 million per year in Child Benefit to Poles in Poland - why would Poland accede to our request to withdraw?

23 November 2009 at 17:19  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace,

Given that the House of Lords only has about 29 days left of sitting - it is unlikley that this amendment will be law - under New Labour.

Thyat leaves the either the Conservatives or a hung parliament.

Then if God smiles once more upon this most illustrious of nations - that man whose name is written on the door of No 10 Downing Street may emerge.

God save this country.

23 November 2009 at 17:27  
Blogger Dissenter said...

Anonymous at 14.09 posted.

>>>If you are to quote Leviticus, and live by those rules, then you will also know very well that you should not eat lobster, wear mixed fabric clothing, and you should kill your disobedient children.

And if you are to follow the Bible to the letter, you will also be very aware that Jesus stated that he wanted people to follow the OT laws.<<<

It is astounding that people are still posting this canard. The dietary and other aspects of the Mosaic law were specifically set aside after the Atonement which was achieved by the Lord Jesus through His death and Resurrection. Cranmer clearly cited the New Testament writings which forbade sexual immorality, including but not limited to homosexual acts. However, this is not in the context of a theocracy-Christians were a severely persecuted minority at the time of the NT writers. The Apostle Paul was writing to the early Christians to warn them to flee from sexual (and other) sins as far as church membership was concerned. The sexual behaviour of those outside the church was not his concern.

This intolerable intrusion is not about the liberty of men to participate in sexual acts with men. That is not being questioned in the British state. This is about militant, intolerant atheists using the law as a weapn to destroy, iof they can, the church. Christians, they say, may not teach, uphold or follow the authentic teachings of the New Testament, even within their own private associations.

The logical progression of this will be the outlawing of the Bible as 'hate speech', and Christians churches required to sign 'anti homophobia' declarations in order to have state permission to exist.

I predict that we will soon see Peter Tatchell or some of his associates asking to join a church they do not wish to join, none of whose doctrines they believe, in order to bring a costly court case when their request for membership is declined.

Another part of their strategy is to force Christians to respond to this (when it isn't anywhere near the top of our list of concerns) so that they can assert that we are obsessed with their sexual practices. Most of us are much more concerned alleviating third world poverty and worshipping the God we love. They are the ones who are obsessed with sex, not us.

The Dawkinists are behind this. Their goal is the extinguishing of the Christian church and the establishment of an intolerant secularist dictatorship. Perhaps this is what it will now take to wake up what remains and is at the point of death. Let him who has ears to hear, listen to what the Spirit is saying to the churches.

23 November 2009 at 18:12  
Blogger FABVirgil said...

All I can say is serves your bloody right - the lot of you!

How difficult is this to understand: if you poke a straw into a barrel of shite and suck, you get a mouthful of shite! And, if you keep doing it, then what the hell?

If that was too unspecific for you then go figure because I dona giva the shtita anymora.

23 November 2009 at 18:34  
Blogger D. Singh said...


Your anger reveals that you care more about this country than many of us.

23 November 2009 at 18:41  
Anonymous The Fact Compiler said...

A wise ruler never tries to make windows into men's souls.

Not if they want to remain around for long, that is.

23 November 2009 at 18:58  
Anonymous no nonny said...

The speech-bearers who've fobbed all this verbiage onto us as 'law' remind me of falcons: jessed and hooded on their masters' wrists. Thrown into the air with their hoods still on, they are the blind leading the blind; the deaf leading the deaf.

As for the Eagle who has Eyes to See and recognise the Word: well that's St. John. He wrote to help us sharpen our post-lapsarian eyesight. So did the poet of the OE poem, "The Dream of the Rood"**

There, in response to the words of the Cross, a Poet-Dreamer describes his Vision of the Rood, who commanded him to evangelize. One reason the Cross gave was:

"Once I was made the cruellest of tortures, most hated by people, until I cleared the right way of life for them: for the speech-bearers."

I suggest the inversion and irony is that the Cross, by bearing the Word throughout the Crucifixion, cleared the 'right' way through life for men. Men, who normally think it their job to clear the way through the forest: that's how they knew to de-racinate this tree, while believing that they could kill the Word!

But this Cross, readers can find, has eagle-like perception: which is why his fate places him "above the wood on the hill" - a situation that allows of an exceptional vista, and that also allows it to provide safe passage between earth and Heaven.

The Rood and St. John, then, were way ahead of our poor blind falcons. (And I'm not forgetting what Yeats said, either!).

**(Date and origin of the poem uncertain: parts appear on the 8th-century Ruthwell Cross; the extant manuscript version is in the 10th Century Vercelli Book).

23 November 2009 at 19:00  
Blogger james h jones said...

Believe in your mythical beings, by all means, but please don't try to impose your medieval mindset on the rational majority, especially not by attemting to subvert government.
Religion has no place in politics. It should really have no place in education either, for that matter.

23 November 2009 at 19:02  
Blogger james h jones said...

whoops. i really do know how to spell "attempting". sorry

23 November 2009 at 19:42  
Blogger D. Singh said...

james h jones

'Religion has no place in politics. It should really have no place in education either, for that matter.'

After 2,000 years? I see, God is now the defendant?

Class 9 is eagerly awaiting your views on sovreignty, if you please?

23 November 2009 at 19:50  
Anonymous no nonny said...

For ease of reference and those who care about our language, Law, and culture - here's the Yeats:

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: a waste of desert sand;
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Wind shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

William Butler Yeats (1865-1939)

Well - now I'm reminded of the Tyger. But maybe not today!!!

God Bless All.

23 November 2009 at 20:08  
Blogger D. Singh said...

james h jones

Could you assist Class 9?

The 'particle' disobeys the known laws of physics.

If you cannot help Class 9 then they may end up believing that when the King Elf says 'If you blow the trumpet then the walls of orgre's castle will fall down.'

When they abolish God. They must ascend the throne - nature abhors a vacuum.

23 November 2009 at 20:23  
Blogger FABVirgil said...

"Your anger reveals that you care more about this country than many of us."

I do get riled but I am not as confident as you about my love for this sad place.

Cranmer writes: "in a liberal democracy they have every right to argue their case in the public sphere." He says this like it is a simple fact that we all agree on the definition of Liberal Democracy. I would say it is more like an insanity. It never ceases to rile me when I have to listen to self righteous Liberal delusions spouting off like some kind of demented mythological God who will do anything to protect the individual's rights so long as they do not conflict with the state - if they do, then suddenly the psychotic delusion of love for his little toys gets over-ridden by the reality that he could never truly love anything but himself and his pious ideas.

23 November 2009 at 21:06  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Then a soldier you shall be.

23 November 2009 at 21:18  
Anonymous Devout_Atheist said...

God doesn't exist so I really don't see what the problem is

23 November 2009 at 22:57  
Blogger Preacher said...

The problem is the right to hold a belief, even an atheistic one if an unelected group of beaurocrats in another country tell you that you have no right to do so.
It's not a religous question, it's one of freedom of belief, even yours, being dictated to you if & when it pleases this self appointed monolith. Can't you see that your liberty is being stolen?.

23 November 2009 at 23:16  
Anonymous The Ancient said...

Your Grace --

When I was young and irreligious, I tended to agree with the sentiment long ascribed to Mrs. Patrick-Campbell: "I don't care what people do as long as they don't do it in the streets and scare the horses."

Now that I am old, and find the streets knee-deep in horsesh*t, I have recanted my earlier insouciance.

(Not just because of the flies and the stench.)

24 November 2009 at 03:19  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What you need is your own Manhattan Declaration of Christian Conscience. It was released a few days ago as a preemptive strike against just the problems you are having now. We can ss the handwriting on the wall.

24 November 2009 at 05:38  
Anonymous len said...

When society does not like to know the truth about God - His glory, His holiness, His majesty, His sovereignty - when society wants to cast off the fear of God, then the punishment that they have to pay from God is this punishment of the withdrawing of common grace from society. You see that illustrated in the days just before the flood - those ominous words that God gives to Noah: "My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh" (Genesis 6:3). That was a warning that society was becoming very depraved, so corrupt that God was going to withdraw the influence of common grace from them; the Holy Spirit was going to give them over and give them up so they would do these evil things for which the waters of the flood gave them a condign punishment. So it was in the days of Paul. As the apostle travelled about the Mediterranean countries and Greece, Rome and Asian Minor, he saw evidences everywhere of societies depraved and given over and given up by God to terrible lusts . He explains the reason behind it. It is not an accident when society becomes so depraved - it is a sign that they have so displeased and angered God that He has withdrawn from them all restraint.

24 November 2009 at 08:23  
Blogger Gnostic said...




24 November 2009 at 08:51  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I hope that all genuine Christians follow God's word, and hope that this lawless law/ruling is overturned.
The church cannot be blessed if it serves man rather than God - "The fear of man is a snare".
Although our Lord says that we should be be compassionate when people fall into sexual sin of any kind, and realize that any of can fall into any sin any time, the church cannot condone the purposeful practice of sex outside marriage - be it homosexual or heterosexual. It is a sin that affects the body as well as the soul.
The EU (led by a Cathoic - what is Mr. Van Rompuy saying about this?) "human rights act" is not pro-human. I saw a clause saying in effect that vagrants have no rights - neither do any citizens when there are certain economic or security circumstances. Nor those with certain mental health problems. When I saw the clause about "vagarants" ie the homeless, I knew the writers of the EU human rights act did not recognise the diginity of people - they only cared about human rights when it was convenient, or for "good enough" humans. Our Lord says however you treat the least of people - like the homeless - that shows where your heart is.

To trample over people's God-given freedom of conscience is obsene.
Hopefully we will serve God and not man, though I fear if persecution against those (of whatever religion or none) who object to the practice of sodomy and thier rights - in the home and outside are not respected. And if the government continues to teach children that sex outside marriage is ok and to encourage them to masturbate, then God will judge, and His judgement will fall on those innocent of this ruling/the government's sexual grooming of children and thier obsession with sexuality.
If the EU wishes to fight the Holy Spirit, then it should remember Jesus' words "whoever causes a little one who believes in me to stumble...'. Those who promote or have brought this ruling are storing up judgement for themselves, and I hope they repent.
Those who are happy about the trampling of conscience should be warned - who is in and who is out of favour changes with those who abuse power. Homosexuals have been persecuted, and that was wrong - I hope they will remember the times they were persecuted and learn the lesson, and oppose the forcing of the approval of homosexuality on others, they might realize consider that tomorrow or next year there might be (wrongly) a government or EU law or ruling that says that homosexuals must worship EUpseudogod (probably money and power for a few elite bureauocracts or the 5-pointed yellow star?) and only practice only practice polygomy.
The EU needs to respect freedom of religion and conscience. I hope that we will follow our Lord and not man. Having suffered some persecution myself I would not wish it on anyone, and when it happens, you find out who the real beleivers and friends are. I hope too that we will get our soverrignty back for thise kind of reason. It is not even December1st yet.

24 November 2009 at 09:40  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It will be very interesting to see how our very own Herr Monsieur President Rumpuy, who goes on retreat every month for a day and who is billed as a convinced Catholic, deals with stuff like abortions, euthanasia and gay rights, won't it.
I suspect that Mr President Blair, had he been "elected" over the line caught Sea bass, would have had the same approach as the Belgian Catholic himself will have.......

24 November 2009 at 09:48  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

non@14:09 re lobster
Our Lord was sacrificed for our wrongdoings, as the perfect sacrifice, and thus the ceremonial laws including kosher were no longer mandatory becuase they were not needed (see the book of Acts).
In the new Testament, sex outside marriage between a man and woman is still sinful.
On the subject of lobster, if someone is brought up to believe lobster is unclean, then a Christian should not force it on them, and it is ok for them to not eat it, as long as they do not force others to abstain. (see Romans 14).
The Mosaic law (10 commandments)was brought in by God to show us we could not keep it - we could not worship God perfectly and love our neighbour as ourself, so that we would hopefully recognise our wrongs to God (and our neighbour) and bge God for merrcy and forgiveness.That is why Jesus had to die - he kept the Law and yet was punished By God the Father for our faiure to keep it, which leads to Hell. The 10 commandments show God's wishes for us. The ceremonial burdens and kosher are no longer needed. But if someone keeps kosher for the sake of Orthodox Jews around them, or because it offends their conscience based on their upbringing becuase their conscience is offended by the killing of lobster for food, they are free to do that per the New Testament, only not to force it on everyone else (Romans 14).
If you enjoy lobster, I hope you have a hearty feast - of not, some other scrumptious meal.

24 November 2009 at 10:02  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Not to worry. The ‘rights’ of homosexuals will be in the gutter with Christians in about twenty years time when moslems will be in the majority across Europe and democracy, if that is what we will have now, will be replaced by sharia law.

24 November 2009 at 10:49  
Anonymous Igor's Minion said...

james h jones wrote : "Religion has no place in politics. It should really have no place in education either, for that matter."

Trite nonsense.

Change 'religion' to 'morality'. Does morality have a place in politics and education? It undeniably does.

What is the difference between religion and morality? Religion is a reason for for professing certain moral positions. Or, morality is the behavioral codes required & justified by a religion that are applied to everyday life (a philosophy, if you will).

Therefore secularism is a religion, as it too provides a justification for professing certain moral values. Its emphasis is on the freedom of the individual to make their lifestyle choices based on their own morality without interference from the State or from others who hold alternative values. And as with anything that puts the right to individual choice on (in this case, supposedly irrelevant and private) conduct above the rights of society to decide this, it is inherently liberal, but also hypocritical as it must by definition be opposed to values that could impinge on individual freedom (and by extension, any group that argue for values to be held in-common by society, such as the traditional theistic religions).

Thus religion of some description is inescapable. It is nonsense to say religion has no place in public life. As soon as people justify their values, you have a religion. Politics is about deciding on values that can be shared by society, and education is about passing on those values from one generation to the next. The only way that religion would have no place is if everyone acted in an unrestrained arbitary manner. Of course, the cynic would say (and has said about their own times for centuries) that we are indeed living through a period of such moral anarchy.

24 November 2009 at 17:52  
Anonymous John Malcolmson said...

Gay Anglican -10.36 23/11

You've let the cat out of the bag.

"In any federal system, the federal government has to have the final say"

So we are now effectively, even if not officially, a federal state of Europe. None of us have been asked if this is what we wanted. So much for democracy.

You may be happy with this state of affairs at the moment, because in the context of your homosexuality, it works to your advantage.

But when the EU tyranny starts to intrude into other aspects of your private life, you may think again.

24 November 2009 at 20:11  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's easy.

Just pass a short Act of Parliament saying something like:

"Notwithstanding the European Communities Act 1972, Section N of the ABC Act 20XY shall remain the law of the United Kingdom, and all courts of the United Kingdom shall so deem it and shall disregard any contrary laws, decisions or judgements emanating from any institution of the European Union, and shall not take into account any contrary provision of any of the treaties upon which the Union is founded."

It would need to be elaborated a bit to make it watertight, a clear and unambiguous and incontestable direction to our judges that this is the law and they must ignore noises off.

And then send a copy of the Act to the Commission, with a covering note saying:

"This is how it's going to be, like it or lump it. PS Do you want our cheque for next month's sub, or would you rather that we didn't send it?".

But of course Brown wouldn't want to do that, and even if Cameron wanted to do it he wouldn't have the guts.

24 November 2009 at 21:14  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

29 November 2009 at 01:22  
Blogger Grandmère Mimi said...

The title of the post caught my attention from the link at Thinking Anglicans.

"EU forces Government to put gay equality over Christian conscience"

Why did the headline startle me? Because I rather foolishly believe that the Christian conscience would compel one to support gay equality. If you think same-sexuality is wrong, then refrain from the act. It's not as though the EU is forcing same-sexuality on anyone.

I doubt that God cares more about national sovereignty than about fair and equal treatment of human beings. It seems to me that the secular EU has become the Christian conscience of England.

5 December 2009 at 15:46  
Blogger D. Singh said...


It is sad to read a note from, presumably a Christian such as yourself support a measure which is destructive of the church in Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

The Bishop of Ripon and Leeds had this to say in the Queen's Speech — Debate (6th Day)
House of Lords debates, 26 November 2009, 12:23 pm :

In the Bill there is a dilemma between freedom for individuals to shape their own lives and freedom for groups and communities to define the nature of their common bond. In a pluralistic society, there must be freedom for communities with particular identities to flourish. The Bill is grounded in a view of society as a collection of individuals with rights but fails to take account of the needs of communities to flourish. That can quickly lead to an authoritarian imposition of an individualistic understanding of difference rather than a celebration of plurality within our society.
The Bill, absolutely rightly, defends people from oppression and discrimination, which is why the clauses dealing with disability are particularly welcome. It fails, however, to reflect the way in which faith groups, including churches, must operate in a plural society. For example, the definition of employment for the purposes of an organised religion defines that employment as,

"leading or assisting in the observation of liturgical or ritualistic practices of the religion",


"promoting or explaining the doctrines of the religion".

I cannot imagine that any Christian would recognise their faith in those descriptions, and I do not believe that it would be true of those of other religions either. Christian belief and the doctrines of religion are promoted through the whole life of the believer. Faith is not an add-on, but integral to the whole of life and behaviour. In practice, especially in smaller churches or faith groups, many employees play a multi-tasked role which could fall foul of the requirement that their employment wholly or mainly involve leading worship.

There remains an inadequate social analysis underpinning the Bill. It fails to take seriously the right of communities in a plural society to order their own life, yet our society is dependent for its common good on the flourishing of such communities. The Bill allows exemptions to religious groups only on grounds which fail to understand the nature of religion itself, and so it fails to provide an equal freedom to practise a religion according to the beliefs, practices and ethics intrinsic to that faith.

5 December 2009 at 16:11  
Blogger Grandmère Mimi said...

Sir, if the church groups keep themselves free from employing LGTB persons, will the communities then be pure and undefiled? Are there none employed in the church communities who have transgressed? Are none guilty of any of the seven deadly sins?


There is no such entity as a pure church. The church is for sinners. "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick."

I don't expect that I shall turn you around to my way of thinking, nor will you convince me that your way is right. I commented here simply because I was truly startled by the title of the post. The seeming dissonance in the phrasing jumped out at me.

Peace to you in this season of hope and expectancy as we await the celebration of the coming of Our Lord to dwell amongst us.

5 December 2009 at 16:30  
Blogger D. Singh said...


Because some in the church commit those seven sins is not a justification to add another.

5 December 2009 at 16:51  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older