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?

Tags: Melanesian frog worship, Secular Britain, fostering, homosexual laws

Views: 126

Replies to This Discussion

 

Has anyone asked Chris Sugden why it is different ?

 

M.

Well, obviously because Christianity is True, and frog worship is silly!

Are you so sure?

Mustn't upset the Melanesians who know that their frogs are true---truly there. 

 

It's the talking snake and the talking Balaam's donkey of the bible that's silly. 

Of course I am certain. I can feel it in my heart.
I can feel it in my heart, too -- it's only indigestion, dear.

I doubt it, but perhaps "Anglican Mainstream" has a web site where we can ask?

Google came up with this for

Anglican Mainstream.

www.anglican-mainstream.net/

“5 May 2011 ... Provides news, resources and contact details aiming to be a resource for those seeking to understand the issues in human sexuality and ...”


Does anyone have the time to find whether there is a Q. and A. spot somewhere on the site so that we can ask him why he thinks christianity might have a different basis from tree frog worship in Melanesia? After all, both faiths are merely products of the human brain. 

The judges "are treating religion like Richard Dawkins does, as if Christian faith was on a parallel with Melanesian frog worship. . . .

 

And it is not because...?

 

That is precisely how ALL religion SHOULD be treated before the law.  The notion widely promoted by Christians, especially the more conservative and fundamental denominations, that their religion is somehow an exception to the rules that would be applied to all other religions, presumes that Christianity should be considered differently because it somehow is different.  That is a form of exceptionalism that I find highly repugnant, and a form of moral hypocrisy that undermines their claims to be a civilizing force in society.  Especially when they use this exceptionalism to advance bigotry dressed up as religious doctrine - which is precisely what they are doing in the case of their stance on homosexuality and civil rights for homosexuals.

 

There is so much wrong with religion that it is hard to know where to begin, but this is a better starting point than most...

What is wrong with Melanesian frog worship?
Same thing that is wrong with that ancient Semitic sky god.  There's no "there" there.

Holy crap!  It's logically sound!  I'm a theist!  I'm a theist!

... wait, do frogs count as gods?

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

AJY

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service