Prejudice in action: The Launch of the Equalities and Conscience Petition

In response to the CLC's recent failure in trying to make Durham City Council allow a homophobic couple to adopt children, and in further to the fact that the Johns' Barrister Paul Diamond (he of the 'successful' case where nurse Caroline Petrie was allowed to return to work after being suspended for offering to pray for a patient) has advised the Johns not to appeal as it would be

"...futile - a waste of resources...", link

Christian Concern (CC), the group that runs alongside the CLC, are taking up the mantle and pressing on in dogged determination in the continuing attempt to ensure everybody is subject to Christianity's whims and desires. On Thursday 10th March 2011 the CC launched the Equalities and Conscience Petition. The petition is quite simple:

Recent Equalities legislation and its interpretation in the courts has led to several individuals who hold to mainstream Christian teaching being barred from different areas of public life and employment, running counter to our country’s long heritage of Freedom of Conscience, and creating a serious obstacle to the Christian community's full and active involvement in the Big Society initiative.

We call on the Prime Minister to act decisively to address this situation, securing the change necessary to ensure that the law provides a basis for widespread involvement in serving society whilst properly upholding the dignity of every individual, including those who seek to live with integrity to Christian conscience and teaching.

Shall we go through it step by step? Yes, let us do so. What fun.

• "Recent Equalities legislation and its interpretation in the courts..."

The CLC are very clear about their feelings towards the Judges who ruled on the Johns' case, as are others sympathetic to the notion that "Freedom of Conscience" should trump human rights. Melanie Phillips for example is quite sure where the Judges went wrong. Amongst the notable quotes in that piece was this particular gem:

"At a time when is [sic] estimated that there is a need for another 10,000 foster carers, one might have thought the Johns would be treated as gold dust."

Perhaps the fact that the Johns weren't waved through with a glad smile should make the issue quite clear! There was a very good reason as to why the Johns were refused even though there is a desperate need for foster parents. Now what could that reason be...? It certainly is not what the CLC thinks it is, that the courts are "set against religious freedom for Christians" link.

• "...has led to several individuals who hold to mainstream Christian teaching being barred from different areas of public life and employment..."

Several points to make here:

1) Individuals - Does this not imply that the majority of Chrsitians are either able to function within legislation even though their conscience screams against it, or that they have no particular beliefs that would mean they want to? Also it could imply that Churches etc. in the main are not preaching that homosexuals are wrong and evil. If they were then it is likely that we could assume that there would be more than just "several individuals" bringing cases like this. However, I do not rule out that there are very likely large numbers of Christians who would dearly love to be discriminating against homosexuals (amongst others), but are well aware what would happen if they made their feelings known. This is why we have discrimination and equality laws!

2) Mainstream Christian teaching - This could act as the get out clause as to why there aren't more Christians standing up for their consciences: The tolerant groups are fringe groups and they do not reflect proper Christian teachings! As to why these groups are not teaching about Christian values is anyone's guess. It couldn't possibly be because those Christians have recognised the abhorrent rhetoric in some parts of the Bible and have dismissed it along with the other archaic material contained within its pages.

The claim is that mainstream Christianity views homosexuality as immoral due to the sexual activity engaged in being outside of marriage. That is the sanitised view, of course. Many religious people realise that most citizens in the 'West' will not tolerate the idea that homosexuals are morally corrupt, evil and twisted individuals acting against nature and (the) 'god(s)' and so try avoid talking about that as much these days. The simple fact that there is no evidence for homosexuality giving rise to any form of morally reprehensible activity, even of the oft cited paedophilia that the Catholic church still disgustingly attributes to homosexuality, never seems to get through to religious people who apparently want to persecute this minority.

It is also worth pointing out that marriage is not exclusive to Christianity and certainly has its roots long before the Christian faith appeared (Wasn't Jesus supposed to have performed a magic trick at a wedding in Cana?). However even if Christianity could claim that its own branch of marriage in the eyes of Yahweh is the only 'true' marriage, is it not the case that a very large proportion of unions in the UK are secular, being performed in registry offices or other licensed premises completely devoid of religious overtones? As such surely it could be and actually should be argued by those of faith that these unions are against their deities teachings. They should not be able to bear all these godless marriages and it should certainly be against their conscience to deal with these secularly married people in their everyday lives.

But oddly enough we don't hear from Christians about how those who marry in a council chamber are living in sin, and engaging in sexual activity outside of their god's wishes. I have no doubt that in the past this point would have been made by Christians, but not any more. We should ask ourselves why this is.

3) Barred - They are not barred. They are not banned. Certain actions they decide to engage in might be contrary to company policy or even the law of the land and as such they will have to deal with the consequences, but they themselves are not being stopped from working within the guidelines (like everyone else must) simply for being Christian.

• "...running counter to our country’s long heritage of Freedom of Conscience..."

Did you know that the law in the UK states quite clearly that you're not allowed to dislike homosexuals, that you must actually like them? No, you didn't know that? Well that would be because it does not say that you must. What the law might do is make it clear that any actions you undertake that are discriminatory towards other people simply because of their sexual orientation will lead to prosecution, but it doesn't say you have to like gay people. That would be invoking thought crime, which ironically enough is what the Christians believe their god can convict you of: Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's Ox, Wife, Seat Ibiza... etc.

• "...creating a serious obstacle to the Christian community's full and active involvement in the Big Society initiative..."

I find myself wondering if this particular Christian community would tolerate homosexuals full and active involvement.

• "We call on the Prime Minister to act decisively to address this situation..."

I hope he addresses it with the contempt it deserves.

• "...securing the change necessary to ensure that the law provides a basis for widespread involvement in serving society whilst properly upholding the dignity of every individual..."

Words almost fail me. If upholding dignity includes having the right to treat someone as a second class citizen because of whom they love then I am quite happy to remain undignified and proudly so.

• "...including those who seek to live with integrity to Christian conscience and teaching."

Paraphrasing: "We do not like these laws, because it does not allow us to actively discriminate against this minority we dislike and show people we think they are evil without getting in to trouble."

Why do I feel like I am constantly repeating myself?

Being a fan of equal opportunities, I shall link to the petition here. I do this because I am not overly concerned with readers of this blog being swayed by the outdated views of these Christians. Indeed it is likely they are a minority even within their own faith, even if they do not consider non-homophobic Christians as being of their faith. Linking to the petition also makes me feel rather smug as I'm fairly sure that a blog such as this will never be mentioned on the pages of the CLC website, unless it be in a vague reference to some "anti-Christian blogs". High ground to me: at least I give them airtime and the opportunity for people to hear the opposition. The best way to discredit people like this is to make their real views known to the general public.

I look forward to the laughably small number of signatures this petition gets, but am already lamenting as to how many people will sign it. A handful is still too much. Perhaps some will do so mistakenly buying in to the misguided impression the CC and CLC like to give: That Christians are being persecuted just for what they believe and that they are being squeezed from society. Nothing could be further from the truth, but it is the mislabeling that Secularism continues to bear.

Turn on the television, the radio or walk down any town or city street and make a note of how many Christian related stories, interviews, buildings or activities you see. Christianity still enjoys far greater airtime than the number of adherents would allow it, if constraints were made for the proportion of faithful to faithless. They are not marginalised or persecuted. But that's another topic altogether.

I'll close this post by quoting Paul Diamond again, in his piece linked to earlier announcing that the Johns' case will not be appealed:

“Where there are excellent judges they are restricted by bad laws. Unfortunately, there are also judges making law based on personal predilections. Parliament must remedy this situation as a matter of urgency.”

I can't be the only one who finds it laughable that someone who is representing a couple who are openly homophobic would accuse judges of having personal bias when it comes to judging cases before them.

Why religious 'rights' do not and should not hold sway

Most of the following text was originally in the post that can be found here, but as it is concerned with mainly general points as to why religious beliefs should not take precedence over the fundamental rights of others, I thought it best to give it a separate post.

The following was written specifically about the Johns' lost case where they accused Derby City Council of religious discrimination for refusing their application to foster. DCC refused due to the Johns' views on homosexuality.

_____________________________________________________

I feel the need to clarify something about this issue and others concerning homosexuality and religion, because nearly every article I've seen written about the recent ruling quotes the couple in their bewilderment of the conclusion drawn by the judges when all they wanted to do was give children a lovely home. The couple have been quoted thus (and along similar lines):

‘All we were not willing to do was to tell a small child that the practice of homosexuality was a good thing.’ link

This is the crux of the matter and a very important point. The Johns made it clear that they would not tell the children in their care that homosexuality is "OK" "Fine" or even "Good" (whatever that means).

From articles that reported the story on Monday, and certainly every Christian website that details the story, the wording is such that the ruling dictates that all foster parents have to actively promote 'the homosexual lifestyle'. This is seen time and again: The enforcement of equality for homosexual people and couples is described as the preferential treatment of homosexuals and homosexuality.

This twisting of the truth is reprehensible and is an overt fallacy put forward by the Christian right to further its own agenda. Such rulings and laws are strictly about equality, not the dominance of homosexuality over anything else. I imagine that for the majority of people reading this that probably didn't need saying, but I have personally experienced sentiment from people, who are otherwise content with the equality of homosexuality in modern society, that implies that some of this fallacious rhetoric is leaking into the public consciousness. I have a feeling that this is particularly true amongst those who read such awful rags as the Daily Fail.

For example, on gay adoption: "Why is it that kids are being put with gays just so that councils can say 'Oh look at us aren't we modern and inclusive?' That isn't right. Why are they getting special treatment?" (paraphrased)

When I heard that I was shocked and did my best to correct the lies that had helped in leading that person thinking that is the case. That person shall remain nameless (even though should they read this, they'll know it was them) but I will say that it was because of that conversation that I started blogging again, and it is one of the reasons this blog exists.

Back to the issue in hand: The Johns won't tell their foster children that 'being gay is OK'.

Foster and adoptive parents are not like 'normal' parents as the state gets to decide whether or not they are fit to care for children from the offset. As such if a foster parent is found to have views that are not what the state deems acceptable and it is likely that they will instruct the child in this way (perhaps not even then) then they are not be allowed to foster. This should be obvious to everyone and it probably is, except for certain grey areas.

Obviously the Christians can't see it being an issue that children are told that "Gay is wrong", after all it isn't them that says gay-is-bad, it's their god that set that one in stone (oh wait, it didn't). But our society, particularly the legal part, says that that is no longer acceptable. There are laws in place that don't allow people to teach vulnerable children that being gay is morally corrupt. At this point in time, I'm not sure if this extends to churches and Sunday schools.

The Johns' right to practice their religion includes their wish to live by their sincerely held belief that homosexuality is wrong. They are, of course, entitled to do this. Nobody is forcing them to accept gay people in their everyday lives. They don't have to let gay people enter their private home. They can decide not to frequent places where they know gay people live or work. I would imagine that they don't even have to speak to gay people in public if they don't wish to - policemen etc excepted. They don't have to have gay friends. They can move away if gay people move in next door.

But they do not get to actively discriminate against gay people. If the Johns were to run a shop, they would not be entitled to turn gay people away just for being gay. They don't get to actively discriminate against homosexuals in the public sphere. This simple fact is blatantly obvious to anyone who has been alive for the last 20-30 years, except the homophobes of course.

It doesn't matter why they hold this opinion, the fact that they do and act upon it is what the state is concerned with.

I shall now call upon an analogy that I will likely use so often that people will get tired of it: Swap the word "gay" with "black". Or "Asian". Or "Jew". Or any other historically persecuted minority you can think of. The conclusion is so obvious that I don't even need to expand upon the point I am trying to make, but in any case I have already done so in an earlier reference post.

People of the Johns' and CLC's ilk seem to be under the impression that the ruling of the High Court means that they no longer are allowed to be Christians. Such people either fail or refuse to understand the basic difference between their right to hold their religious beliefs and the rights of others. They do not grasp that they are perfectly within their rights to be as homophobic as they wish but that homophobia is limited to their private affairs. As listed above, they can hate gays and refuse to associate with them. They don't have to go to 'gay' shops or speak to gay people. But they do not get to act on that homophobia in such a way that it impinges on the rights of others to live a free and equal life. They can practice their religion...until it affects the rights of others. "Your right to swing your fist stops at my nose." This is not hard to understand!

They do not have the right to teach foster children in their care that homosexuality is anything other than natural and acceptable in our current society and by teach I mean "Inform from a position of authority". This is exactly the same as their not having the right to teach foster children that Jews are evil, or black people are wicked and have that skin colour because Noah cursed one of his sons.

This fact is so simple that I find it hard to understand that some religious people still insist that homosexuals should have not have equal rights because they are 'unnatural' and 'morally corrupt.' But then I wasn't raised in a religion so I fall at the first hurdle in understanding such a mindset. I can't say that causes me much discomfort, however.

_____________________________________________________

The above is obviously specific to the Johns' case, but it can be extended to any case of religious discrimination brought by a religious person who seems to think they have a 'god' given right to practice their homophobia.

A homophobe by any other name...

This is a reference post, and I plan on linking to this post often. In fact I think that any article I write detailing the varying degrees of homophobia and prejudice leveled at the gay community by the religious folk will have a link to this post as standard.

It has probably come to the attention of most rational people that many of the 'issues' that religious people have with gays - campaigns, court cases and attempts at repealing or stifling laws - can be solved with one very simply activity:

Swap the word "gay" with "black". Or "Asian". Or "Jew". Or any other historically persecuted group. How does it sound now?

It should be perfectly obvious to any clear minded individual who is lacking any indoctrination or inherited bigotry that there is no way that sentiment such as "Being black is not OK: it is morally wrong." or "Jews don't deserve equal rights - their are sinful and evil ways have no place in our society." would be accepted in public at large. So why are such things said about gays with such regularity? It is common place and tolerated to a degree by many people - because it is a mainstream religious ideal!

The second example above sums up the situation clearly: There is no way that the general public would allow such rhetoric. It is patently absurd to even suggest such an idea as Jewish people being 2nd class citizens.

However the first example is very likely to get the reaction "Well of course 'Being black is not OK' wouldn't be tolerated. It's overtly racist and plain silly: You can't not-be-black if that is your skin colour!"

But this is exactly the point! Homosexuality is often described by religious homophobes as being "a choice": A sinful activity engaged in by evil people who are rebelling against god.

I could speak at length about this, but I think it is simple enough to ask a question in response to those who think being gay is a choice: "When did you decide to be straight?"

You did not 'choose' to be gay - it is part of your nature, the same way your eye and skin colours are part of your physical construction that you cannot change. (I should also make a quite point: "Cured" gays are a myth. Really.)

Whilst on the subject I think it is worth pointing out that a persons religious beliefs most emphatically are a choice. Granted the religious person might have some hang-ups from their indoctrination as a child but the fact remains that religious beliefs are chosen. This is perfectly obvious to anyone who takes the time to stop and consider that, as holy texts etc have to be taken on faith, there is no evidence for any religious belief save personal experience (which has relevance only to the individual). As such the religious person is free to choose what they wish to believe - hence why so many disregard more annoying parts of the Old Testament. This is precisely the reason why a devout member of religion A can suddenly convert to religion B with no ill effects. This happens all the time! The person can then be vehemently opposed to whatever the 'beliefs' religion B thinks morally subordinate as soon as they've done the mental paperwork. What I find incredulous is that nobody bats an eyelid when this occurs, and it does so as often as to be deemed 'normal'.

It is worth noting that many Christians (and others) will state that they do not have a problem with homosexual people as such, rather they have a problem with homosexual acts: By all means you can be gay - just don't do anything gay! I make this point not to excuse such homophobes but just to let it be known that I understand where some people are coming from. I don't agree with them one bit as I believe "Hate the sin, love the sinner" is a smug one size fits all excuse beloved by people who understand that their beliefs and opinions are abhorrent but like to excuse their actions as being dictated by the sky fairy. "Hey, I don't make the rules. Take it up with the big guy upstairs!" No. Those people can answer in the here and now.

I dismiss that sentiment outright - such people will have to get used to being called bigots.

Homosexuality is not a 'choice' and homosexuals should not be classified as 'sinful' (whatever the hell that means - Christianity: cutting you and selling you band-aids since 325AD) for choosing to engage in sexual activity. They have the right and it is absolutely none of your business.

Being of the opinion that gay people are morally abhorrent, evil and 'sinful' means that you are a nasty, bigoted person whose ideas have no place in the modern world. You are no better than a racist, an anti-Semite or a sexist. I wish to make it clear that I think society would be better off without your outdated and disgusting notions. I welcome the day your kind of thinking dies out and leaves us free of your prejudice. For sure, you can be a kind and loving person in other areas of your life - but the fact remains you have a mental block that harbours a festering cess pit of horrible hangups.

As soon as vocal and non-vocal Christians et al accept the plain and simple fact that homosexuals are no different to heterosexuals and are completely natural, the sooner humanity can leave such unsavoury prejudice where it belongs: In the past.

Anagram time!

To get the ball rolling and to show up how few people read this blog (past, present or future) I thought I'd start off the ad homs and go straight for the juvenile humour.

"Christian Legal Centre" is ripe for the plucking and contains anagrams galore. Spotting one or two choice words, I played with the other letters and came up with the following:

Stale ring? Clean thrice!

To me that could be the 11th Commandment and it sure beats the first three in any case.

But of course what blog about the CLC could be complete without stooping to Godwin's law?

Hitler's acne ring cleat.

A very useful tool the Führer obviously couldn't live without - Have you seen how he winced before he got one?

Feel free to add your own in the comments. I shall take the most amusing/relevant and add them below this post in an edit. Try not to be too rude. Also feel free to use as many or as few letters as you wish, but obviously points will be added if you use every letter. Punctuate as you see fit.

Have fun.

Fostering couple lose out

I think it's only right and proper to begin in the here and now.

The day I decided to start this blog, 28th February 2011, it was announced that a Christian couple, Eunice and Owen Johns, have lost their case against Derby City Council over their wish to foster children.

Back in October the CLC reported that a devout Christian couple had been banned by their local authority, Derby City Council, from fostering children due to their 'sincerely held religious belief' that homosexuality is 'unacceptable'.

In 2007 Derby City Council withdrew the Johns' application to be foster parents because of their Christian, biblical views on marriage and the family. link

The couple had previously fostered nearly 20 children over the years but in 2007 their application was rejected. I can't find details as to how or why the council found out about the couple's deeply held religious convictions that means they think homosexuality is evil incarnate (am I assuming too much?) except for what is reported in the Judgment which can be found here. Point 6 describes the John's discussion with a social worker. I shall discuss the Judgment later on.

After they had their application turned down the Johns either took their plight to the CLC or were contacted by them. No doubt the CLC leapt with glee upon this obvious case of the state discriminating against a harmless old couple of bigots Christians and undertook to take the case to the High Court. Quite obviously this was a case of the Johns' rights being impinged, their religious rights. Right?

Wrong.

Originally this post was to contain a lengthy rant as to how the Johns are not being discriminated against by having their religious convictions taking a back seat to others' basic rights. However I decided to split the post so that this deals specifically with the case and ruling rather than go into why these people are so wrong. Instead it can be read here, if you're interested.

The Judgment, located here, contains a number of interesting points that are not mentioned in the numerous newspaper articles I've read, nor in the CLC article lamenting their loss.

Point 6 in particular caught my eye:

... when asked if...they would be able to support a young person who, for example was confused about their sexuality, the answer was in the negative.

So this loving, caring, oh-so-Christian couple who are instructed by their god to love everyone no matter what, wouldn't be able to support a gay youth struggling with their sexuality. And these people don't understand why the High Court deemed them unfit to foster any more children? She did back track on this in a later interview, however Mr Johns seemed to be of the opinion that such a child should be 'gently turned around'.

With regards their visit to a gay relative in San Francisco, which was mentioned in the Daily Mail:

She added that the couple have visited her nephew, who is gay, and his partner in San Francisco. link

The Judgment contains this:

She commented that she did not like it [San Francisco] and felt uncomfortable while she was there.

How very interesting. I wonder why that information was left out of the various pro-Johns reports? Also left out is the fact that Mrs Johns wouldn't feel able to take a child to a mosque. Just saying.

Something glaringly obvious from the details of the Johns' application is the contradictions in how they planned on raising any children placed with them:

... at a much earlier stage in the process Mrs Johns had assured a social worker that she would never seek to impose her belief system on a child...

and

.... Mrs Johns stated she felt she could not give up going to church which she attends twice on Sundays and was doubtful about alternating with her husband if she could not take a child with her. Her husband agreed ...

But of course, forcing a child to attend church twice on a Sunday isn't imposing a belief system at all.

It is interesting to note that the Johns held the opinion that they were being discriminated against for their religion from the offset:

She felt that her beliefs would not affect how she was able to care for a young person, and stated that we were really saying that they could not be foster-carers because they are Christians.

From this point the Johns had made up their mind that their application was being refused because they were Christians, rather than because their were homophobic. They appear to have gone to their press with their story, forcing the Council to reiterate that the issue was due to their homophobic views rather than their religion.

The CLC article announcing the terrible news that the Johns had lost is peppered with infuriating half truths and skewed opinion.

...the High Court has suggested that... homosexual ‘rights’ trump freedom of conscience in the UK.

By now it should be fairly obvious as to my opinion of the above. "Conscience" - The last hold-out for those who have no decent argument against the terrible reality of equality.

...the judgment strongly affirms homosexual rights over freedom of conscience...

Again - They have the right to their conscience, but they do not get to skew a child's attitude by expression those views in an authoritative manner i.e. as foster parents.

This is incredible and very disingenuous as the Johns moral views cannot be separated from their religious beliefs.

Yes. They. Can. To imply that there is even ONE Christian who does not pick and choose which bits of the Bible they want apply to their own life is laughable. I posit that no two Christians live in exactly the same way or believe in exactly the same god.

There now appears to be nothing to stop the increasing bar on Christians who wish to adopt or foster children but who are not willing to compromise their beliefs by promoting the practise of homosexuality to small children.

Firstly: Good. I hope this leads to a decrease in children who are forced to listen to bigotry.

Secondly: This demonstrates the point I made in the other post. This phrase is particularly loathsome: "...promoting the practise of homosexuality..."

The CLC would have you believe that children are being told they have to be gay. This is NOT the case, it never has been and it never will be. To suggest otherwise is an obvious ploy and is utterly contemptible. It forces us to ask: Why do people and organisations like the CLC need to lie in order to further their aims?

The Johns case is just another in a long line of CLC failures. I would like to think that very few people are concerned with the fact that religious bigotry failed to gain any headway in the High Court, but there are enough people upset by the ruling that lead me to believe that more people need to know and understand the truth of the matter, particularly when many media outlets take a sympathetic stance on 'sincerely held' religious convictions.

As such, I shall continue to document the CLC's campaign of intolerance.

Links

1 - CLC: Breaking News: High Court Judgment suggests Christian beliefs harmful to children. Fostering by Christians now in doubt. 28.02.11

2 - CLC: High Court to decide whether Christians can foster

3 - The Telegraph: Christian couple who cannot accept homosexuality challenge their fostering ban

4 - Daily Mail: Christian beliefs DO lose out to gay rights: Judges' ruling against devout foster couple

5 - The Judgment

And I think it's worth noting, should anyone supportive of the CLC reads this post, I listened to Wham! while I wrote the above. Ha.

Why is this here?

Greetings, and welcome the Carry-on Losing Cases blog: so named because whenever the Christian Legal Centre (CLC) is mentioned in the press, it will invariably be a story about how a case has been brought by them and subsequently lost. C'est la vie.

For those of you familiar with the Christian Legal Centre and are not raving religious lunatics, you'll likely know very well by now that they have a habit of losing cases and for very good reasons - most of which will be detailed in this blog.

For those of you who are not familiar with the Christian Legal Centre I'll sum up their primary aim in this world: "To force people to tolerate, live under and in accordance with the wishes of a select group of religious citizens: Us."

The Christian Legal Centre, hereafter referred to as the CLC unless I'm making a point, exists for (some would say) very fundamental reasons:

... to promote Christian Truth in the public arena and to protect the freedom of Bible believing Christians to speak the truth on matters such as life, marriage and the family, and to live their lives in accordance with their Christian beliefs. link

As will become perfectly clear to any half interested reader, the wish by those of the CLC ilk to "live their lives in accordance with their Christian beliefs" generally extends to the desire for those around them to abide by those beliefs and practices also. Obviously this presents problems, but in these increasingly secular times those problems are mainly for the CLC. Even after a number of years bringing numerous failed cases to court, lost appeals and multiple public humiliations, the CLC still doesn't seem to have got that message.

To promote and protect the freedoms of Bible believing Christians in the United Kingdom; to promote religious freedom as a fundamental right by means of legal action and public promotion. link

It is probably not even worth noting that the "religious freedom" mentioned here is the freedom for the Christians concerned to practice their religious beliefs without hindrance from the state, particularly when it comes to equality for homosexuals and the like. Much, much more on that later.

The CLC is not just concerned with legal cases brought by upset and 'wronged' Christians who are not getting their own way when it comes to feeling that they have a right to prothletise or direct how others live even when it contradicts the law: They also lobby to see their own goals met and campaign against such hideous potential laws as the Human Fertilisation and Embryo Bill. They also have certain views on abortion, blasphemy, assisted suicide, working practices, Islam, 'bioethics', fostering/adoption and 'Sexual Orientation' (THE GAYS!). Again, more on that later.

Mission (what we will do)
To establish an organisation dedicated to facilitating the running of cases and lobbying the legislature on Christian Legal freedoms. The organisation will carry out research into legal issues affecting Christians and will assist in identifying and preparing litigation on behalf of Christian freedoms in the United Kingdom. link

This blog aims to document the activities of the CLC, in particular it shall focus on the CLC's regular failures when it comes to legal cases for those who attempt to use their religion (guess which one?) in attempts to defend their own actions or those taken against them.

The intention is to detail their history and failed cases, as well as updating when new cases are brought and of course outlining why they failed as and when they inevitably do (I'm just going on past events). I have referenced and listed their failed cases elsewhere a number of times, but realised that it would make life far easier and more amusing to see their dismal failures stacked up in one place.

To be fair I will of course document their wins should such occurrences ever actually take place. So far I know of one.

I hope this blog is informative and as amusing as it is possible to be when dealing with the mentality and attitude of those who run the CLC and those who see fit to use such an organisation. People like the lady shown on the right.

Before anybody accuses me of choosing a less than savoury photograph of the CLC Director (and barrister-lest-we-forget) Andrea Minichiello Williams, let me point out that the first image on a google search for her name produces this same photo from churchtimes.co.uk. So there.

Suing for Yahweh. Serious business.

As well as the CLC, Ms Williams is also co-founder of Christian Concern For Our Nation, a group that seeks to "introduce a Christian voice into Law, the media and the government." Lovely.

I plan on doing a post or two on Ms Williams, of course, but will leave this first post noting this (just for giggles):

Andrea continues to focus on policy matters and Christian Interest cases, specifically freedom for Christians to speak truth in the public sphere, and to live according to biblical standards. link

Whenever I see such sentiment a smile comes to my face as I recall a special passage from the New Testament:

A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. - 1 Tim 2:11-12

Oh but of course, that's a mistranslation and not meant to be taken literally at all.

Thank you and good night.