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.