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.