The full article is at www.telegraph.co.uk/.../Foster-parent-ban-no-place-in-the-law-for- Christianity-High-Court-rules.html
Abbreviated extracts follow:
There is no place in British law for Christian beliefs, despite this country’s long history of religious observance and the traditions of the established Church, two High Court judges said . . . Lord Justice Munby and Mr Justice Beatson made the remarks when ruling on the case of a Christian couple who were told that they could not be foster carers because of their view that homosexuality is wrong . . .
The judges underlined that, in the case of fostering arrangements at least, the right of homosexuals to equality “should take precedence” over the right of Christians to manifest their beliefs and moral values. In a ruling with potentially wide-ranging implications, the judges said Britain was a “largely secular”, multi-cultural country in which the laws of the realm “do not include Christianity” . . .
The ruling in the case of Owen and Eunice Johns . . . is the latest in a series of judgments in which Christians have been defeated in the courts for breaching equality laws by manifesting their beliefs on homosexuality. In their ruling, the judges complained that it was not yet “well understood” that British society was largely secular and that the law has no place for Christianity. “Although historically this country is part of the Christian West, and although it has an established church which is Christian, there have been enormous changes in the social and religious life of our country over the last century.” . . .
The Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali, the former bishop of Rochester, described the judgment as “absurd”. . . . “To say that this is a secular country is certainly wrong . . . However, what really worries me about this spate of judgments is that they leave no room for the conscience of believers of whatever kind. This will exclude Christians, Muslims and Orthodox Jews from whole swaths of public life, including adoption and fostering.”
Speaking personally, Canon Dr Chris Sugden, the executive secretary of Anglican Mainstream, said the judges were wrong to say religion was a matter of private individuals’ beliefs: The judges "are treating religion like Richard Dawkins does, as if Christian faith was on a parallel with Melanesian frog worship.” . . .
What is being done in the U.S. on such matters?
Nobody eats them. They're kinda small, like most tree frogs, and have rather skinny hind legs, the part of frogs that the French eat. Not much meat there, maybe a gram or two, and, like most tree frogs, they're seriously poisonous anyway
So the only eating that gets done on account of tree frogs here is by the eco-lodge owners, eating well because of all the tourists that come here from all over the world to have scenery smeared past their eyeballs, of the volcanoes, tree frogs, parrots, toucans and howler monkeys. The latter, you don't want to get too close to. If they take exception to your presence, they'll fling their dung at you. But don't tell the tourists. We don't wanna scare 'em off.
"Our amphibian, which art in the rain forest,
Kermit be thy name.
Thy wetland come,
thy will be done, on earth as it is in water.
Give us this day our daily bug,
and forgive us our dryness
as we forgive the dryness of others.
Lead us not into the desert,
and consider us primeval,
for thine is the bayou, and the glory, for wetter and wetter,
Take a good look at a very long list of gods that christians and muslims don't believe in, as superbly listed by Bethany Sweet at
However, the Melanesian red-eyed tree frog is not on this list. Could this mean that Canon Dr Chris Sugden and the Archbishop of Canterbury and their friends are happy to believe in the red-eyed tree frog too? Like they believe in their fictional yahweh.