|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The law and the Christian - Judges ruling on foster couple wider implications?
|
Pre-cambrian
Shipmate
# 2055
|
Posted
Saul, you keep on lauding the Johns and saying what wonderful foster parents they would make. However, I asked you some time ago, well a week in fact, when you had described them as ideal in every way what your response would be to others of their declared views on how they would look after a foster child, as follows: quote:
You now seem to have read the judgement so, putting aside the issue of homosexuality but referring to other evidence cited in the judgement, are you arguing that:
a. saying, as they did, that they would be unable to take a Muslim child to a mosque makes them eminently suitable to foster children; or
b. refusing to alter their Sunday church-going habits, as they did, meaning that the foster child would be either left behind and neglected or forced to go to their church, makes them eminently suitable to foster children?
Are you saying that either of those behaviours is "ideal in every way"?
An answer would be nice.
--------------------
"We cannot leave the appointment of Bishops to the Holy Ghost, because no one is confident that the Holy Ghost would understand what makes a good Church of England bishop."
Posts: 2314 | From: Croydon | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
What do you know? Gay people can misinterpret court cases too.
Yup. Last time I looked, I didn't claim an innate understanding of administrative law just because I'm queer.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
''Considering that the children to be fostered by Mr and Mrs Johns were aged just 5-10, the whole homosexuality objection by Derbyshire social workers was a ruse.
If someone wants to argue that the law requiring the Derbyshire social workers to consider the homosexuality issue should have been written differently, so that it was only asked in cases involving older children, then that case could be made.
But it could be made to the people who wrote the law. Not the people tasked with implementing it.
Separation. Of. Fucking. Powers.
Blaming the social workers on the ground is just as stupid as yelling at the shop assistant who is required to follow store policy and will get sacked if he/she doesn't. If you don't like the policy, go and yell at the store manager who might have some powers to alter the policy. Even more effective in the case of a larger store would be writing to the senior management or CEO, someone who actually has the power to do something.
All of which suggests that this Cranmer person has no great insight into what's going on here. Louise's comment is seconded.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
Saul,
I can tell you where David Starkey is coming from. He's paid a great deal of money to come out with controversial views on the TV and wireless in order to entertain. His actual field of expertise is Tudor History and even in that he's known to come out with extreme views in order to get lots of publicity. Being contrarian is part of his act.
If you'd like to cite him on Henry VIII's household, then he's an excellent authority, but on a controversial subject on the TV not so much.
cheers,
Louise
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
Saul, you keep on lauding the Johns and saying what wonderful foster parents they would make. However, I asked you some time ago, well a week in fact, when you had described them as ideal in every way what your response would be to others of their declared views on how they would look after a foster child, as follows: quote:
You now seem to have read the judgement so, putting aside the issue of homosexuality but referring to other evidence cited in the judgement, are you arguing that:
a. saying, as they did, that they would be unable to take a Muslim child to a mosque makes them eminently suitable to foster children; or
b. refusing to alter their Sunday church-going habits, as they did, meaning that the foster child would be either left behind and neglected or forced to go to their church, makes them eminently suitable to foster children?
Are you saying that either of those behaviours is "ideal in every way"?
An answer would be nice.
Pre cambrian,
as far as I am aware, I have prefaced most of my comments about the Johns with the rider I do not know them personally. But, given that I am a traditionalist Christian, I generally will hope that other traditionalists will have certain values (doesn't always work out like that, but there you are) that are wholly positive. Again, my instincts are to find common cause with those who describe themselves as (committed) Christians; there is a common heritage and a common bond IMO.
The two issues you raise are red herrings IMHO.
NO foster parents would be ideal if one looks at the minutiae of their daily lives. I can't recall the quote about Mosque or Sunday church, from the Johns' but if you say they said that, well lets accept that as a given.
On balance of probabilities, a 5 to 10 year old may be a Muslim and may need Muslim worship, statistically a lower probability, but it could arise. But one would have to work that through with the social workers as a reasonable person/s. If the Johns can't home a child with those needs another family would have to be found.
Most 5 to 10 year olds, in actual real life, would most likely be thrilled to go to a Pentecostal church and if it was like many of them, it would be full of life, joy, worship and love. So its an Aunt Sally in my view for 99.9% of cases.
No one couple is totally ''ideal''are they, be fair? One has to look at the whole package and the fact that the Johns' don't see homosexuality as the greatest thing since sliced bread, is for me no deficiency. Of course for the new model secular humanists and gay rights people it obviously is an issue.
If people were honest, my suspicion is that for many, who are not gay, they are often ambivalent about gays, rather than actively 'hostile' as such. Speaking personally it just doesn't get on my 'radar' that much, but I'm not hostile; albeit I do have traditional views as a believing Christian.
At a tangent, how many people are gay as a %. I thought someone said earlier it was 1% of the population lead an actively gay lifestyle. This is not a trick question. I am genuinely interested.
S t A
[ 10. March 2011, 06:00: Message edited by: Saul the Apostle ]
--------------------
"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."
Posts: 1772 | From: unsure | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
What do you know? Gay people can misinterpret court cases too.
Yup. Last time I looked, I didn't claim an innate understanding of administrative law just because I'm queer.
Maybe - but I bet your fashion sense is fabulous! ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
What do you know? Gay people can misinterpret court cases too.
Yup. Last time I looked, I didn't claim an innate understanding of administrative law just because I'm queer.
Maybe - but I bet your fashion sense is fabulous!
BLATANT STEREOTYPING!!!
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
At a tangent, how many people are gay as a %. I thought someone said earlier it was 1% of the population lead an actively gay lifestyle. This is not a trick question. I am genuinely interested.
Ignoring the fact that you've trotted out the word 'lifestyle' in the totally inappropriate way that I've given up trying to correct just now, estimates of the percentage of the population that are homosexual varies enormously. Estimates from 2% to 10% are common.
My own view is that the discrepancy is best explained on the grounds 10% is closer to the percentage who have had some kind of same-sex sexual experience during their lives or same-sex attraction, and 2% is closer to the percentage that actually identify as homosexual in their orientation.
The percentage that actively live a 'lifestyle' involving sequins, feather boas, skintight tops in bright colours and whatever else you think a gay 'lifestyle' involves, I've no idea.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
If people were honest, my suspicion is that for many, who are not gay, they are often ambivalent about gays, rather than actively 'hostile' as such. Speaking personally it just doesn't get on my 'radar' that much, but I'm not hostile; albeit I do have traditional views as a believing Christian.
You appear to be saying that believing Christians perforce have "traditional views" on homosexuality. Say you're not.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
If people were honest, my suspicion is that for many, who are not gay, they are often ambivalent about gays, rather than actively 'hostile' as such. Speaking personally it just doesn't get on my 'radar' that much, but I'm not hostile; albeit I do have traditional views as a believing Christian.
You appear to be saying that believing Christians perforce have "traditional views" on homosexuality. Say you're not.
If he is, it's more evidence that the apology Saul gave me wasn't worth the pixels it was displayed on.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
Fundamentally, it is about which side you're batting for. Humanistic Secularism v Christianity IMHO.
If "Christianity" is to be defined the way you want it to be defined, then I'm on the side of Secularism. My faith in Christ does not allow me to be anywhere else.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
And now the Greeks have decided that vegetarians are not suitable as adopting parents:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/vegetarian-couple-barred-from-adopting/story-fn3dxity-1226019462027
Quite right, too. Fancy ghaving parents who would not serve souvlaki, slow-roast lamb and so forth.
Yeah, this is an interesting one. I saw the ABC online version. It's thoroughly unclear whether the couple said that they would make a child be vegetarian along with them, or whether someone just assumed this.
And I do think it makes a difference. Because I do think there's a serious issue about whether a vegetarian diet is suitable for children.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And I do think it makes a difference. Because I do think there's a serious issue about whether a vegetarian diet is suitable for children.
Then you are wrong. There isn't.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And I do think it makes a difference. Because I do think there's a serious issue about whether a vegetarian diet is suitable for children.
Then you are wrong. There isn't.
The Greek paediatrician and nutrition researcher they ASKED thought otherwise. Who am I going to believe, a university expert or 'ken on Ship of Fools'?
NB The nutrition expert didn't think this was a reason to stop them adopting. Someone else drew that conclusion. He's actually quite unhappy about the conclusion they drew. Doesn't mean his advice was wrong.
[ 11. March 2011, 00:43: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
PS Real life is about to intervene for several days, I hope to come back to a wide ranging list of people who are now thought thoroughly unsuitable for child-rearing.
Fans of Jessica Simpson should be on there somewhere...
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amiyah
Shipmate
# 11989
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And I do think it makes a difference. Because I do think there's a serious issue about whether a vegetarian diet is suitable for children.
Then you are wrong. There isn't.
I think you are right, ken. This UK NHS website says a vegetarian diet is suitable for all ages, and even that it's safe for children to be brought up on a vegan diet. It notes some nutrients in which a vegetarian diet might be low, and common vegetarian foods to eat which contain these nutrients.
[ 11. March 2011, 07:43: Message edited by: Amiyah ]
--------------------
Previously called MirrorMouse
Posts: 120 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
As I have been reading and considering the Johns' case, my mind was drawn to the play ''A Man For All Seasons.''
I mention this not to make a partisan point , although my naysayers will doubt it, but it made me think about the law, our conscience and what we do about that.
In this play Thomas More argues that a man who will sacrifice his conscience has lost something central to his being and in the play's greatest passage, he argues for the centrality of the law, over and against men, in the governance of human affairs, when his family wants him to have the disloyal Rich arrested:
Wife: Arrest him!
More: For what?
Wife: He's dangerous!
Roper: For all we know he's a spy!
Daughter: Father, that man's bad!
More: There's no law against that!
Roper: There is, God's law!
More: Then let God arrest him!
Wife: While you talk he's gone!
More: And go he should, if he were the Devil himself, until he broke the law!
Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down (and you're just the man to do it!), do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
Finally, when he is brought before the Court, More warns those assembled:
"It is a long road you have opened for first men will disclaim their hearts and presently they will have no hearts. God help the people whose statesmen walk your road."
S t A
[ 11. March 2011, 08:01: Message edited by: Saul the Apostle ]
--------------------
"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."
Posts: 1772 | From: unsure | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
I don't think that means what you think it means.
The Justices are the ones sticking up for the rule of law. CCFN are the ones looking to cut down the law because it is inconvenient to them.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I don't think that means what you think it means.
The Justices are the ones sticking up for the rule of law. CCFN are the ones looking to cut down the law because it is inconvenient to them.
Like I said; if you'd read my post, the play had come into mind. I'm not making a partisan point here, I really am not.
I studied this play as a 16 year old doing an English literature 'O' level; it obviously stayed with me and what More says is to my mind, telling and profound and can be applied to a number of ''landmark rulings'' and the wider implications of the Johns' case, as per my OP.
S t A
[ 11. March 2011, 09:12: Message edited by: Saul the Apostle ]
--------------------
"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."
Posts: 1772 | From: unsure | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
For my traditionalist friends do take a look at this short You Tube clip.
It sort of says it all really.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4GgN6D8mGI
S t A
--------------------
"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."
Posts: 1772 | From: unsure | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And I do think it makes a difference. Because I do think there's a serious issue about whether a vegetarian diet is suitable for children.
Wait, what?
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
At a tangent, how many people are gay as a %. I thought someone said earlier it was 1% of the population lead an actively gay lifestyle. This is not a trick question. I am genuinely interested.
Ignoring the fact that you've trotted out the word 'lifestyle' in the totally inappropriate way that I've given up trying to correct just now, estimates of the percentage of the population that are homosexual varies enormously. Estimates from 2% to 10% are common.
My own view is that the discrepancy is best explained on the grounds 10% is closer to the percentage who have had some kind of same-sex sexual experience during their lives or same-sex attraction, and 2% is closer to the percentage that actually identify as homosexual in their orientation.
The percentage that actively live a 'lifestyle' involving sequins, feather boas, skintight tops in bright colours and whatever else you think a gay 'lifestyle' involves, I've no idea.
Orfeo,
thanks, thats helpful. I guess these figures are roughly similar both sides of the pond?
Orfeo said: quote:
The percentage that actively live a 'lifestyle' involving sequins, feather boas, skintight tops in bright colours and whatever else you think a gay 'lifestyle' involves, I've no idea
I don't know whether you intended this but the last statement made me smile. I do smile occasionally, but being a dour puritan/protestant it is only occasionally. Indeed I laughed out loud. I hope I don't make you despair too much.
S t A
--------------------
"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."
Posts: 1772 | From: unsure | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
hilaryg
Shipmate
# 11690
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
Finally, when he is brought before the Court, More warns those assembled:
"It is a long road you have opened for first men will disclaim their hearts and presently they will have no hearts. God help the people whose statesmen walk your road."
As someone who also studied this play for O Level (which dates us somewhat), I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.
All through the play More is careful by his actions to comply by the law. He is confident that by observing the law and being seen to observe it, that he is safe.
The first quote shows his confidence in the law.
The second quote above is after Rich's betrayal at his trial and he knows that there is no more hope, and so he might as well break his silence and say what he really thinks. You missed out the immediate preceding sentence:
quote:
What you have hunted me for is not my actions, but the thoughts of my heart.
I don't know whether you were thinking that was what the couple in this case were thinking, but as has been made plain many times in this thread, the court is saying they don't care what's in their heart, they care that the couple comply with the law.
More, as written in the play, would heartily approve.
Posts: 261 | From: back home in England | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by yellowroom:
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
Finally, when he is brought before the Court, More warns those assembled:
"It is a long road you have opened for first men will disclaim their hearts and presently they will have no hearts. God help the people whose statesmen walk your road."
As someone who also studied this play for O Level (which dates us somewhat), I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.
All through the play More is careful by his actions to comply by the law. He is confident that by observing the law and being seen to observe it, that he is safe.
The first quote shows his confidence in the law.
The second quote above is after Rich's betrayal at his trial and he knows that there is no more hope, and so he might as well break his silence and say what he really thinks. You missed out the immediate preceding sentence:
quote:
What you have hunted me for is not my actions, but the thoughts of my heart.
I don't know whether you were thinking that was what the couple in this case were thinking, but as has been made plain many times in this thread, the court is saying they don't care what's in their heart, they care that the couple comply with the law.
More, as written in the play, would heartily approve.
Yellowroom ,
you say: ''what point I am trying to make?''
How about actually reading my post for starters then?
I said:
quote:
I mention this not to make a partisan point , although my naysayers will doubt it, but it made me think about the law, our conscience and what we do about that.
In this play Thomas More argues that a man who will sacrifice his conscience has lost something central to his being and in the play's greatest passage, he argues for the centrality of the law, over and against men, in the governance of human affairs, when his family wants him to have the disloyal Rich arrested
I am considering: the law, our conscience and what we do about that. Can I not make it plainer than that? As I stated I am not making a partisan point in all of this.
These recent so called judicial 'landmark rulings' do have a profound impact and result in wider implications, be they for good or ill. That is the ''point'' I am trying to make and that was the intention in respect of my OP, which has, it seems, created discussion, disagreement and interest.
S t A
[ 12. March 2011, 05:17: Message edited by: Saul the Apostle ]
--------------------
"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."
Posts: 1772 | From: unsure | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
hilaryg
Shipmate
# 11690
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
I am considering: the law, our conscience and what we do about that. Can I not make it plainer than that? As I stated I am not making a partisan point in all of this.
Well, we're on a discussion board - I thought you were trying to say something which furthered that discussion. If you were just thinking out loud it doesn't really add anything to the debate and why bring it up?
It seemed to me that you were trying to say there was a comparison between Sir Thomas More and the couple in this case, and I was disagreeing with that comparison.
Posts: 261 | From: back home in England | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by yellowroom:
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
I am considering: the law, our conscience and what we do about that. Can I not make it plainer than that? As I stated I am not making a partisan point in all of this.
Well, we're on a discussion board - I thought you were trying to say something which furthered that discussion. If you were just thinking out loud it doesn't really add anything to the debate and why bring it up?
It seemed to me that you were trying to say there was a comparison between Sir Thomas More and the couple in this case, and I was disagreeing with that comparison.
No, I wasn't comparing Mr and Mrs Johns to Thomas More. What I was considering here simply was what I've stated previously; considering the place of conscience. To expand a bit, Thomas More was a man of principle who stood up to a powerful English king (Henry v111). He could have easily gone along with that powerful current of that time; he chose not to. There are parallels today where men like More may well take a stand against this flow.
There is at the moment, is there not, a battle between the forces of (Christian)tradition as exemplified by say the Catholic church and traditional Anglicanism versus the forces of both modern atheism (Dawkins et al) and the modern theological 'progressive' liberal movement. This is, in a small way, evidenced by cases like the Johns' (who were represented by the Christian Legal Centre I believe).
My own beliefs aside, the Man For All Seasons play came to mind because I see some people who cannot and will not shift their theological beliefs to go with the tide of current liberal orthodoxy. There has been and there will be conflict at these 'fault' lines IMO. Such conflict of ideas is not confined to homosexuality but covers a whole range of life, belief and doctrine.
Hope that is a bit more helpful.
S t A
--------------------
"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."
Posts: 1772 | From: unsure | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
hilaryg
Shipmate
# 11690
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
There is at the moment, is there not, a battle between the forces of (Christian)tradition as exemplified by say the Catholic church and traditional Anglicanism versus the forces of both modern atheism (Dawkins et al) and the modern theological 'progressive' liberal movement. This is, in a small way, evidenced by cases like the Johns' (who were represented by the Christian Legal Centre I believe).
Is there? I don't see a battle at all. The Johns are not some kind of Rosa Parks, standing up for Christian rights.
I see a couple who were asking to be exempted from the law due to their beliefs. The law that actually protects us all and says we are all equal. I see a ruling that protects Christians.
quote:
My own beliefs aside, the Man For All Seasons play came to mind because I see some people who cannot and will not shift their theological beliefs to go with the tide of current liberal orthodoxy. There has been and there will be conflict at these 'fault' lines IMO. Such conflict of ideas is not confined to homosexuality but covers a whole range of life, belief and doctrine.
This is why I had difficulty with your interpretation of the play - More sheltered in the forest of the law, the Johns were seeking to chop down a couple of trees.
Generally I think people who live out their strong but socially unfashionable beliefs are actually respected, albeit seen as slightly strange. Eg those who don't drink, or abstain from sex before marriage, or don't pursue wealth as the primary aim in life and live modestly. Having the courage of your convictions and the strength to follow through is generally seen as a good thing, as long as you don't hurt others by your actions.
However, when such people start saying such beliefs make them special, eg they are better than others or the rules/law do not apply to them, then any such respect will be lost pretty quickly.
But no-one is asking the Johns to give up their beliefs or jeopardise their souls. They have been told that if they cannot put the needs of the child first, they are not suitable candidates for foster parents. The court has upheld that ruling. That is all.
Posts: 261 | From: back home in England | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
There is at the moment, is there not, a battle between the forces of (Christian)tradition as exemplified by say the Catholic church and traditional Anglicanism versus the forces of both modern atheism (Dawkins et al) and the modern theological 'progressive' liberal movement. This is, in a small way, evidenced by cases like the Johns' (who were represented by the Christian Legal Centre I believe).
Well, yes. There is a battle between those that hold a conservative theology and Dawkins-style atheism.
Two points though: firstly, that while Dawkins et al seem to be able to score palpable hits on conservative religion (liberal religion being, by definition, more difficult to argue against), conservative religionists are not only unable to strike back against Dawkins, they're aiming what little firepower they have in entirely the wrong direction.
Secondly, while conservatives are busy losing court case after court case and generally making a complete arse of themselves, they actually do more damage to the cause of Christian faith in this country than Dawkins' shrill outbursts could ever do.
So well done. *slow hand clap*
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Secondly, while conservatives are busy losing court case after court case and generally making a complete arse of themselves, they actually do more damage to the cause of Christian faith in this country than Dawkins' shrill outbursts could ever do.
Oh yes - many times have I thought 'For Christ's sake STFU' because I'm beginning to think I need another word for my faith - as the word 'Christian' is beginning to stand for all I DISagree with.
Ho hum, pig's bum.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by yellowroom:
But no-one is asking the Johns to give up their beliefs or jeopardise their souls. They have been told that if they cannot put the needs of the child first, they are not suitable candidates for foster parents. The court has upheld that ruling. That is all.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
As an evangelical Christian, of orthodox and traditional views, this case raises all sorts of questions for me. Like I said previously, the case of Thomas More is relevant; but as stated previously, I am not making a direct parallel with Thomas More and Mr and Mrs Johns. But it must make all Christians sit up and take notice, because there is, in the UK and Western Europe, a clash of ideologies, a war of values and orthodoxy at stake, in the widest sense. But this 'battle' has been going on for a long time. There will be advances, defeats and victories on all 'sides'.
I asked in the OP whether there were wider implications in respect of the Judges deliberations; yes in that their ruling is part of a growing clash of ideas that have orthodox religious, humanistic-secular and liberal religious roots. But as already stated these clashes are not new and have their origins in the 19th and 20th centuries where religious orthodoxy and laws based on Christian values have been pushed away for more 'enlightened' and liberal social policy and law.
I was interested in the response from the Evangelical Alliance and their statement about the case can be found here:
http://www.eauk.org/media/response-to-derby-city-council-fostering-case.cfm
Dr Don Horrocks, Head of Public Affairs at the Alliance seems to speaking in a wise and measured way. His view is that the case is not a landmark ruling, but there has been debate about this; broadly I would go along with the EA position on this case.
The press release from EA states in part: "The good news is that Christians are and continue to be actively involved in public life and contribute to the common good. Following this particular case we hope that those in authority will continue to consider the welfare of the child first in allowing vulnerable children to be raised in supportive homes."
I would agree with the above and trust that traditional Christians would not be discouraged from fostering vulnerable and needy children. The several catholic fostering agencies that sadly do not now exist (since 2006) do not I hope and pray presage the demise of Christian foster parents in the UK.
S t A
[ 13. March 2011, 08:00: Message edited by: Saul the Apostle ]
--------------------
"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."
Posts: 1772 | From: unsure | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
Christianity isn't about having the ability to force your particular doctrine, it's about showing Christ's unconditional love to others. Non believers don't get a lot of that from many Christians, especially evangelicals. Most are concerned with letting it be known what sins they see in others. I can't tell you how many non believers I have asking me about my faith when I don't push it and my particular theology on them and just love them where they're at. They know I'm a Christian and watch my actions, not my words. Children in foster care are especially desperate for that love. If the Jones can't be Christ's love to these kids without having to resort to verbalizing their own particular theology to do so, they really don't need to be foster parents. The Jones don't even seem to be able to even forgo a church service or take the child to a Mosque if it gave the child security, so I'm not sure they're up to the challenge.
As many have mentioned, this wasn't a "landmark decision" or a watershed moment. It was simply the court refusing to give the Jones an out from the rules and stating the local council had the final say. Many other "traditional" Christian couples are serving admirably so I also disagree that it's "secular humanism vs. Christianity".
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Masha
Shipmate
# 10098
|
Posted
S t A wrote: quote:
I would agree with the above and trust that traditional Christians would not be discouraged from fostering vulnerable and needy children. The several catholic fostering agencies that sadly do not now exist (since 2006) do not I hope and pray presage the demise of Christian foster parents in the UK.
For the approximately eleventy-hundredth time Saul, it's not because they are Christians, 'traditional' or otherwise. It is because they would not adhere to the requirements for foster parents, and were in fact asking to be exempted from these requirements.
I know for a fact, because I live and work in the area, that there are Christian foster parents in Derby. I've met them. They put the welfare of the children in their care first rather than expecting the child to fit in with them and their views.
Posts: 308 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
Surely there's a substantial difference between being executed for refusing to do something (i.e., signing some oath which supplanted Papal authority with that of Henry the 8th -- sorry if I mucked it up, I'm neither British nor an historian) and trying to do something (i.e., render a service to a state which has referred decisions in this matter back to a local authority, which has apparently declined the offer)?
As to "battles" among various religious and areligious factions, that happens (and I suspect is happening within the perceptual framework of certain of these groups) only when one of these groups demands converts and/or numerical superiority among adherents.
Another way to view the same situation is that nobody need "win" a numerical or majoritarian contest; rather, it's possible simply to accept the fact that a variety of views exists; no battles at all.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
Surely there's a substantial difference between being executed for refusing to do something (i.e., signing some oath which supplanted Papal authority with that of Henry the 8th -- sorry if I mucked it up, I'm neither British nor an historian) and trying to do something (i.e., render a service to a state which has referred decisions in this matter back to a local authority, which has apparently declined the offer)?
As to "battles" among various religious and areligious factions, that happens (and I suspect is happening within the perceptual framework of certain of these groups) only when one of these groups demands converts and/or numerical superiority among adherents.
Another way to view the same situation is that nobody need "win" a numerical or majoritarian contest; rather, it's possible simply to accept the fact that a variety of views exists; no battles at all.
Like I said in the thread, I do not make a direct parallel with the Johns' case and Thomas More, but I do affirm that like More, who was surrounded by supporters of a powerful totalitarian king, Henry V111, some in More's world and Henry's court would do one of 3 things:
Ideologically agree with the king,
Some would just go along with the 'flow' or the status quo for an easy life
Some would say whatever the King said (but not really believe any of it though) and go bowing Quisling like to the king's throne (like Roper did I think?).
It is here that I do think there is a parallel with today. Thomas More stood firm for both his Christian principles and his conscience. There is a battle going on; like it or not today as in the days of More. The battle for hearts and minds, beliefs, ever it has been and will be until Kingdom come. In that battle for hearts and minds some brave souls will stand against the prevailing and beguiling siren voices of this world and say like the German monk: ''Here I stand, I can do no other.''
The predominant zeitgeist of the West is the rampant humanistic secular relativist behemoth. Allied to this there exists a small, but at times influential, rump of biblical liberals. These Christian liberals allow sin to parade as good, black as white and white as black. I would ask, generally (not specifically around the Johns' case or homosexuality per se) why then this reversal of good/evil and evil/good? Some would call this 'progress', I for my part would question such 'progress'.
So to say there is no 'battle' no 'war' no 'conflict' is cloud cuckoo land thinking of the first order. Do me a favour, burn me at the stake, send me to heaven as a heretic, but don't tell me there is no fighting to be done.
S t A
--------------------
"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."
Posts: 1772 | From: unsure | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
The predominant zeitgeist of the West is the rampant humanistic secular relativist behemoth.
So you prefer us to return to an age of rampant homophobia? Lock them up? Execute them?
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
quote:
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
Surely there's a substantial difference between being executed for refusing to do something (i.e., signing some oath which supplanted Papal authority with that of Henry the 8th -- sorry if I mucked it up, I'm neither British nor an historian) and trying to do something (i.e., render a service to a state which has referred decisions in this matter back to a local authority, which has apparently declined the offer)?
As to "battles" among various religious and areligious factions, that happens (and I suspect is happening within the perceptual framework of certain of these groups) only when one of these groups demands converts and/or numerical superiority among adherents.
Another way to view the same situation is that nobody need "win" a numerical or majoritarian contest; rather, it's possible simply to accept the fact that a variety of views exists; no battles at all.
Like I said in the thread, I do not make a direct parallel with the Johns' case and Thomas More, but I do affirm that like More, who was surrounded by supporters of a powerful totalitarian king, Henry V111, some in More's world and Henry's court would do one of 3 things:
Ideologically agree with the king,
Some would just go along with the 'flow' or the status quo for an easy life
Some would say whatever the King said (but not really believe any of it though) and go bowing Quisling like to the king's throne (like Roper did I think?).
It is here that I do think there is a parallel with today. Thomas More stood firm for both his Christian principles and his conscience. There is a battle going on; like it or not today as in the days of More. The battle for hearts and minds, beliefs, ever it has been and will be until Kingdom come. In that battle for hearts and minds some brave souls will stand against the prevailing and beguiling siren voices of this world and say like the German monk: ''Here I stand, I can do no other.''
The predominant zeitgeist of the West is the rampant humanistic secular relativist behemoth. Allied to this there exists a small, but at times influential, rump of biblical liberals. These Christian liberals allow sin to parade as good, black as white and white as black. I would ask, generally (not specifically around the Johns' case or homosexuality per se) why then this reversal of good/evil and evil/good? Some would call this 'progress', I for my part would question such 'progress'.
So to say there is no 'battle' no 'war' no 'conflict' is cloud cuckoo land thinking of the first order. Do me a favour, burn me at the stake, send me to heaven as a heretic, but don't tell me there is no fighting to be done.
S t A
In order to be sure of staying within the rules I have replied to this
here.
thanks,
Louise
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
It is here that I do think there is a parallel with today. Thomas More stood firm for both his Christian principles and his conscience. There is a battle going on; like it or not today as in the days of More. The battle for hearts and minds, beliefs, ever it has been and will be until Kingdom come. In that battle for hearts and minds some brave souls will stand against the prevailing and beguiling siren voices of this world and say like the German monk: ''Here I stand, I can do no other.''
Thomas More would have had the German monk tortured half to death and then burned if he could.
Thomas More's conscience may have sent him to the block, but I think it would have been better for him if his conscience hadn't first had him to send other people to the rack and the stake.
If we consider the parallel with the modern situation, we see that here too what people claim their conscience is telling them to stand up for is the right to act unconscionably towards other people.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
Thomas More stood firm for both his Christian principles and his conscience. There is a battle going on; like it or not today as in the days of More. The battle for hearts and minds, beliefs, ever it has been and will be until Kingdom come. In that battle for hearts and minds some brave souls will stand against the prevailing and beguiling siren voices of this world and say like the German monk: ''Here I stand, I can do no other.''
Good Lord. Has it escaped your notice that:
(A) so far as we know, no one has as yet thrown the Johns into the Tower nor executed them? and that
(B) so far as we know, the Johns continue perfectly unmolested with their religious beliefs, praxis, observances, etc.? It's not simply that there's no DIRECT parallel; it's that there's no comparison at all, and therefore no reason to drag poor worthy More, who died for his principles, into this discussion. None. Zilch. Nada.
By contrast, nothing whatsoever has happened to the Johns with regard to their Christian principles. They have suffered no hindrance to conscience, no silencing, no discrimination, no threat of oppression, no trampling of any human right possessed by any citizen.
So far as I know, nobody, regardless of religion, has a right to foster children. That is why an application process exists. The process is meant to ensure compliance with local council fostering standards.
Applications meeting standards will be approved; applications not meeting them will be denied. This one was denied -- and again, it's the denial of a privilege, not a right -- on the basis of the Johns' unwillingness / inability to comply with standards.
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
. . . These Christian liberals allow sin to parade as good, black as white and white as black. I would ask, generally (not specifically around the Johns' case or homosexuality per se) why then this reversal of good/evil and evil/good?
Has it also escaped your notice there that is no universal agreement among Christians, liberal or otherwise, as to what constitutes sin, good, evil, etc.? I understand that you are clear in your own mind about these matters. But unless your mind is also God's, with Ultimate Knowledge concerning such things, you might at least consider, in Christian humility, the off-chance that you're wrong.
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
Some would call this 'progress', I for my part would question such 'progress'.
So to say there is no 'battle' no 'war' no 'conflict' is cloud cuckoo land thinking of the first order. Do me a favour, burn me at the stake, send me to heaven as a heretic, but don't tell me there is no fighting to be done.
S t A
Those of us willing to accept our own human limits tend to view the possible errors of others as opportunities for mutual exploration rather than as the chance to crush alternative views.
If there is a God -- a question which remains open for me -- there must be some reason She incorporated so much individuality and difference into the manifestations of Her creation. I can't help but wonder if Her reason for this is that Her truth is simply too vast to be compressed into a single human mind, life, book, or viewpoint.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
As an evangelical Christian, of orthodox and traditional views, this case raises all sorts of questions for me. Like I said previously, the case of Thomas More is relevant; but as stated previously, I am not making a direct parallel with Thomas More and Mr and Mrs Johns. But it must make all Christians sit up and take notice, because there is, in the UK and Western Europe, a clash of ideologies, a war of values and orthodoxy at stake, in the widest sense. But this 'battle' has been going on for a long time. There will be advances, defeats and victories on all 'sides'.
I asked in the OP whether there were wider implications in respect of the Judges deliberations; yes in that their ruling is part of a growing clash of ideas that have orthodox religious, humanistic-secular and liberal religious roots. But as already stated these clashes are not new and have their origins in the 19th and 20th centuries where religious orthodoxy and laws based on Christian values have been pushed away for more 'enlightened' and liberal social policy and law.
I was interested in the response from the Evangelical Alliance and their statement about the case can be found here:
http://www.eauk.org/media/response-to-derby-city-council-fostering-case.cfm
Dr Don Horrocks, Head of Public Affairs at the Alliance seems to speaking in a wise and measured way. His view is that the case is not a landmark ruling, but there has been debate about this; broadly I would go along with the EA position on this case.
The press release from EA states in part: "The good news is that Christians are and continue to be actively involved in public life and contribute to the common good. Following this particular case we hope that those in authority will continue to consider the welfare of the child first in allowing vulnerable children to be raised in supportive homes."
I would agree with the above and trust that traditional Christians would not be discouraged from fostering vulnerable and needy children. The several catholic fostering agencies that sadly do not now exist (since 2006) do not I hope and pray presage the demise of Christian foster parents in the UK.
S t A
Look, if you had actually paid attention to what the Evangelical Alliance said, and especially if you had paid attention when leo quoted it earlier, we could have packed up this thread forever ago.
There is no watershed. The Johns are not any kind of martyrs for good, traditional Christianity. They are basically an elderly couple who are far too set in their ways, Christian or otherwise. They are not suitable people for dealing with the random cavalcade of foster children that might come their way, and it doesn't actually matter a toss what they believe. What matters is that they are too inflexible for a job that requires flexibility.
The Evangelical Alliance figured all that out.
Why can't you?
As for the Catholic foster agencies: sod 'em. They couldn't cope with a world where they didn't set the rules. They couldn't cope with the rule of LAW rather than of DOCTRINE.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
By the way, there is nothing remotely wonderful or Christian about disobeying the civil authorities in most situations. Just thought it was pertinent to point that out. As far as I can see, the Bible expects you to obey the law unless you have a DAMN good reason not to.
And also, as far I can see, 'obeying the authorities' would not generally involve throwing a little tantrum when you don't get your way. If the Johns' were noble people of conscience, they would have accepted the situation, agreed to disagree, and got on with the rest of their lives. Not mounted a court case.
And they say gays act all entitled about having children... ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Look, if you had actually paid attention to what the Evangelical Alliance said, and especially if you had paid attention when leo quoted it earlier, we could have packed up this thread forever ago.
I could be mistaken, but it appears S t A has abandoned this thread, posting elsewhere on board but no longer responding to difficult questions, salient points, or possible sinners on this one (take your pick).
[ 14. March 2011, 13:25: Message edited by: Apocalypso ]
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Look, if you had actually paid attention to what the Evangelical Alliance said, and especially if you had paid attention when leo quoted it earlier, we could have packed up this thread forever ago.
I could be mistaken, but it appears S t A has abandoned this thread, posting elsewhere on board but no longer responding to difficult questions, salient points, or possible sinners on this one (take your pick).
He doesn't pay attention when the points don't line up with what he believes anyway as countless people have pointed out what the ruling actually says vs. what he believes, what a play was really about vs. what he thinks it was about and what the EA said vs. what he believes.
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pre-cambrian
Shipmate
# 2055
|
Posted
I've finally got time to respond to this.
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
as far as I am aware, I have prefaced most of my comments about the Johns with the rider I do not know them personally.
[SNIP]
I can't recall the quote about Mosque or Sunday church, from the Johns' but if you say they said that, well lets accept that as a given.
None of us know them I expect, but we can try to read about them in the most definitive source we have, the judgement and the references in it to their conversations with the Council workers. The quotation about the mosque was in paragraph 6 of the judgement and the one about churchgoing in paragraph 9. Perhaps you didn't get that far.
quote:
On balance of probabilities, a 5 to 10 year old may be a Muslim and may need Muslim worship, statistically a lower probability, but it could arise. But one would have to work that through with the social workers as a reasonable person/s. If the Johns can't home a child with those needs another family would have to be found.
According to the City Council's statistics 10.5% of Derby's primary school population is of Pakistani or Bangladeshi origin, so very likely to be Muslim. I.e. it is not improbable that they may end up being asked to foster a Muslim child.
quote:
Most 5 to 10 year olds, in actual real life, would most likely be thrilled to go to a Pentecostal church and if it was like many of them, it would be full of life, joy, worship and love. So its an Aunt Sally in my view for 99.9% of cases.
Really? Twice on a Sunday? And my understanding is that Pentecostal services are not short.
And what if the child is Anglican, or Methodist, Baptist or no religion? Should they still have to go to Pentecostal services? You have also obviously paid no attention to Liopleurodon's posts which make it perfectly clear on several occasions that trying to push your religious beliefs or practices onto the child is a complete No No in the rules surrounding fostering. Rules which the Johns said they were not challenging.
quote:
The two issues you raise are red herrings IMHO.
On the contrary they are very pertinent. Taken together their answers on homosexuality and mosques suggest a recurring trend of intolerance towards "the other". And the answer on churchgoing suggests a refusal to countenance disruption to their existing routine. The overall picture is not very promising when it comes to their suitability for job where every weekend and every new child will present new challenges. quote:
No one couple is totally ''ideal''are they, be fair?
Perhaps, but it was you who said that they "would make ideal foster parents in every way".
--------------------
"We cannot leave the appointment of Bishops to the Holy Ghost, because no one is confident that the Holy Ghost would understand what makes a good Church of England bishop."
Posts: 2314 | From: Croydon | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TonyK
Host Emeritus
# 35
|
Posted
Host Mode - [ACTIVATE]
OK guys - I think this thread, which has for some time been generating far too much heat and not a lot of light, has run it's course. It's generated its very own Hell thread, which is a fairly rare event in DH territory, and, while following the thread title and OP, has become rather fixated on Tudor history and similar.
There is another thread on the Johns' case, if anyone is interested...
Thread closed - pm me if you think you have an overwhelming case for re-opening it.
Host Mode - [DEACTIVATE]
--------------------
Yours aye ... TonyK
Posts: 2717 | From: Gloucestershire | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
