Posted                    

quote:

---

''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”.''

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by Haydee:
Are you saying that you would like to live in a theocracy? In which case, whose version of religious laws should be adopted?

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by Haydee:
The judge also states that we live in "in a secular state not a theocracy".

That "It is important to realise that reliance upon religious belief, however conscientious the belief and however ancient and respectable the religion, can never of itself immunise the believer from the reach of the secular law"

And "(quoting Laws LJ) The Judea-Christian tradition, stretching over many centuries, has no doubt exerted a profound influence upon the judgment of law-makers as to the objective merits of this or that social policy, and the liturgy and practice of the established church are to some extent prescribed by law. But the conferment of any legal protection or preference upon a particular substantive moral position on the ground only that it is espoused by the adherents of a particular faith, however long its tradition, however rich its culture, is deeply unprincipled".

Are you saying that you would like to live in a theocracy? In which case, whose version of religious laws should be adopted?

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
OK, but if this is the case surely we have now well and truly crossed the Rubicon?

---

quote:

---

We sit as secular judges serving a multi-cultural community of many faiths. We are sworn (we quote the judicial oath) to "do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this realm, without fear or favour, affection or ill will." But the laws and usages of the realm do not include Christianity, in whatever form. The aphorism that 'Christianity is part of the common law of England' is mere rhetoric; at least since the decision of the House of Lords in Bowman v Secular Society Limited [1917] AC 406 it has been impossible to contend that it is law.

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Midge:
So in this case: could a fosterer express their opinions, if asked, without imposing them on their charge? Is it prejudicial to assume these potential fosterers are incapable of achieving this simply because of their particular brand of religion?

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by Haydee:
The judge also states that we live in "in a secular state not a theocracy".

That "It is important to realise that reliance upon religious belief, however conscientious the belief and however ancient and respectable the religion, can never of itself immunise the believer from the reach of the secular law"

And "(quoting Laws LJ) The Judea-Christian tradition, stretching over many centuries, has no doubt exerted a profound influence upon the judgment of law-makers as to the objective merits of this or that social policy, and the liturgy and practice of the established church are to some extent prescribed by law. But the conferment of any legal protection or preference upon a particular substantive moral position on the ground only that it is espoused by the adherents of a particular faith, however long its tradition, however rich its culture, is deeply unprincipled".

Are you saying that you would like to live in a theocracy? In which case, whose version of religious laws should be adopted?

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by Haydee:
The judge also states that we live in "in a secular state not a theocracy".

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Haydee:

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Midge:
So in this case: could a fosterer express their opinions, if asked, without imposing them on their charge? Is it prejudicial to assume these potential fosterers are incapable of achieving this simply because of their particular brand of religion?

---

But that doesn't seem to be the case - the local authority involved has a number of Christian (and Muslim) foster carers. In this specific case the couple stated that, in the case of a teenager who thought they might be gay, they would "turn them round". And that they would tell a foster child, if the subject came up, that it wasn't OK to be gay. That was why the council had concerns. As the judges said, the council would also have had concerns if they held these beliefs about homosexuality for reasons other than faith. Faith is not the issue.

Given that when you make a placement you can't be sure whether the child will be in this situation in the future, how could you be sure their needs would be met with this couple?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:
The point is that sitting right in front of their eyes is a state which has two established churches and in the case of England a mix of ecclesiastical/canon and civil law sitting alongside each other.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Haydee:
The judge also states that we live in "in a secular state not a theocracy".

---

Justice Laws and this judge in repeating this canard were always wrong in the first place. It's bizarre to think that it's a secular state vs a theocracy. Why do these people see things in such black and white terms?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Revolutionist:
However, I disagree with the judge's decision because I think it's possible to balance equal rights for gays with the rights of Christians and others who hold to particular moral values without excluding the latter. If, as I have seen reported, the Christian couple in question have stated that they would love and support any children they fostered whatever their sexuality, it smacks to me of "thoughtcrime" to bar them from fostering on the basis of their beliefs.

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Haydee:
The judge also states that we live in "in a secular state not a theocracy".

---

Justice Laws and this judge in repeating this canard were always wrong in the first place. It's bizarre to think that it's a secular state vs a theocracy. Why do these people see things in such black and white terms?

---

Because a secular state may choose to reflect one or other religion's teachings in the laws it passes, while a theocratic state offers no such options.

And, in context, LJ Laws, Munby and J Beatson have listened at length to the representations of Paul Diamond. They may be concluding that organisations such as the CLC, CC and the CI, in arguing for special priviledge for Christians, are in fact arguing for a theocracy.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:
Your earlier post mentioned Para 38. The fact that they acknowledge the established church doesn't mean that they have addressed the issue. They merely think they've covered the bases. they haven't done so at all.

---

quote:

---

In point of fact, these organisations you mention aren't in fact arguing for special privilege (nevertheless Christianity is privileged as the Church of England is by law established) they appear to be asking for a level playing field. Furthermore it doesn't follow that even if they were asking for special privilege that they are also arguing for theocracy.

---

quote:

---

What a bizarre world these judges inhabit.

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
Reading in context, I think the judges' point is -

a. You don't have the automatic right to do X just because your religion tells you to;

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
Reading in context, I think the judges' point is -

a. You don't have the automatic right to do X just because your religion tells you to;

---

It is right that any manifestation of belief is qualified by the laws of the land but when those laws (or the interpretation of them) becomes unnecessarily restrictive, onerous and invasive of areas where previously the law had no role, then it might be time to think again.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:
I think the judges need pointers in understanding that religious faith cannot be separated from manifestations of that faith.

---

Are you seriously suggesting that devout Anglican Lord Justice Laws 'needs pointers' in this regard?



--------------------
Forward the New Republic

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:
I think the judges need pointers in understanding that religious faith cannot be separated from manifestations of that faith.

---

Are you seriously suggesting that devout Anglican Lord Justice Laws 'needs pointers' in this regard?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:
I think the judges need pointers in understanding that religious faith cannot be separated from manifestations of that faith. They are trying to have it both ways by discriminating in new ways against individual believers (let's not forget that the Johns fostered successfully in the 90s with the same views) while maintaining that they are doing nothing of the kind. They are in danger of intervening on theological matters in a number of cases by making these kinds of distinctions between faith and morality.

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:

I think the judges need pointers in understanding that religious faith cannot be separated from manifestations of that faith. They are trying to have it both ways by discriminating in new ways against individual believers (let's not forget that the Johns fostered successfully in the 90s with the same views) while maintaining that they are doing nothing of the kind. They are in danger of intervening on theological matters in a number of cases by making these kinds of distinctions between faith and morality.

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by Welease Woderwick:
It could be argued that Heterosexism and Homophobia are vastly anti-Christian and have no place at all in the modern Church. The so-called Christians who support the "conservative" approach are willfully misusing the Church to pursue an agenda that has nothing at all to do with the Jesus-message - but that takes us distinctly into Dead Horses territory.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:
It is right that any manifestation of belief is qualified by the laws of the land but when those laws (or the interpretation of them) becomes unnecessarily restrictive, onerous and invasive of areas where previously the law had no role, then it might be time to think again.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:
They may still conclude that gay rights trump the rights of conservative and traditional believers. They may still maintain that it is right and proper to practise discrimination against religious believers, after all, there is nothing wrong with discrimination per se. But let's drop the pretence that this is not an unedifying competition of rights in which traditional Christian belief and practise is being marginalised.

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
But we've both agreed that there are circumstances in which religious practices can legitimately be circumscribed by law. Unless you say that religious belief should also be circumscribed - i.e. thoughtcrime - I don't see how you can avoid making a distinction between belief and practice.

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Gay rights do trump the "rights" of others to deny them.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:
It is right that any manifestation of belief is qualified by the laws of the land but when those laws (or the interpretation of them) becomes unnecessarily restrictive, onerous and invasive of areas where previously the law had no role, then it might be time to think again.

---

The disagreement is over whether this particular ruling is "unnecessarily restrictive". I don't think it is - I see equal rights for all God's children as more important than allowing those who would deny those rights to do so.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
What I think is worrying about this is not simply the assertion that one person's rights so clearly trump another's (which is disturbing in itself, for the right to free specch for Christians here doesn't actually qualify as a right any more) but the drawing of gay rights so widely as to inlcude "not being spoken about negatively." I think it's clear the couple wouldn't have denied any material benefit to a child who had been placed with them. It's perilously close to thoughtcrime.

---

Posted                    

• the Children Act 1989, and in particular section 22(3);
  
  
  the Equality Act 2010, and in particular the "public sector equality duty" pursuant to section 149;
  
  
  Standard 7 in 'National Minimum Standards for Fostering Services', a statement of national minimum standards published by the Secretary of State for Health in March 2002 under section 23 of the Children Act 1989 and section 23 of the Care Standards Act 2000;
  
  
  'Statutory Guidance on Promoting the Health and Well-Being of Looked-After Children', issued to local authorities under section 7 of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 and sections 10 and 11 of the Children Act 2004 in 2009;

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I can't see that any previously recognised right was being infringed by the people - there is no right not have people disagree with your behaviour and say it out loud.

What I think is worrying about this is not simply the assertion that one person's rights so clearly trump another's (which is disturbing in itself, for the right to free specch for Christians here doesn't actually qualify as a right any more) but the drawing of gay rights so widely as to inlcude "not being spoken about negatively."

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:


What this couple seem to have wanted is the right to have their views on a subject NOT taken into account. To be ignored. I don't see why that should be the case. I don't see why the emotional and psychological needs of a child shouldn't be a consideration, alongside with their physical and material wellbeing.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Then the burden of proof is one someone to prove that a child is damaged by having a parental figure in their life expressing an opinion about which they may later come to disagree.

---

quote:

---

The Equality and Human Rights Commission has filed evidence, in the form of a witness statement by its interim Director of Legal Enforcement, Wendy Hewitt. She explains the Commission's wish to adduce evidence on, inter alia, the impact of views opposed to, and disapproving of, same sex relationships and lifestyles on the development and well-being of children and young people, including gay and lesbian children and young people. Over 200 pages of literature said to bear on these issues has been produced by the Commission, the two most important documents being 'Social exclusion of young lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people in Europe', written by Judit Takács on behalf of ILGA-Europe (the European Region of the International Lesbian and Gay Association) and IGLYO (the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer Youth and Student Organisation) and published with the support of the European Commission – The European Union against discrimination in April 2006, and 'Young lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) people', a briefing for health and social care staff written by Dr Julie Fish as part of the Department of Health's Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Advisory Group's work programme and published by the Department of Health in 2007.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:


What this couple seem to have wanted is the right to have their views on a subject NOT taken into account. To be ignored. I don't see why that should be the case. I don't see why the emotional and psychological needs of a child shouldn't be a consideration, alongside with their physical and material wellbeing.

---

Then the burden of proof is one someone to prove that a child is damaged by having a parental figure in their life expressing an opinion about which they may later come to disagree. Note, AFAICT, it isn't even a discussion about a gay child asking the question and being told to stop bahving a certain way, but any child asking their opinion on that issue and being told what they thought.

Are we really suggesting that Christian parents with a good track record in fostering are going to damage children by expressing this view, more than staying in care might damage them? I can think of hundreds of issues on which I came to moral decisions different from my parents, and cannot think of a single one where them expressing their (sometimes very) strong opinions damaged me.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:

...written by Judit Takács on behalf of ILGA-Europe (the European Region of the International Lesbian and Gay Association) and IGLYO (the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer Youth and Student Organisation) and published with the support of the European Commission.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:


Basically, your discussion of moral decisions presupposes an answer as to whether being gay is a choice.

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:
It is right that any manifestation of belief is qualified by the laws of the land but when those laws (or the interpretation of them) becomes unnecessarily restrictive, onerous and invasive of areas where previously the law had no role, then it might be time to think again.

---

The disagreement is over whether this particular ruling is "unnecessarily restrictive". I don't think it is - I see equal rights for all God's children as more important than allowing those who would deny those rights to do so.
<snip>

---

quote:

---

“We have stated our misgivings about the exercise of the jurisdiction to consider whether to grant any (and if so what) declaratory relief. The defendant has taken no decision and there is likely to be a broad range of factual contexts for reaching a particular decision, the legality of which will be highly fact-sensitive. Moreover, the parties have: (a) been unable to agree on an appropriately focused question for the court to address, (b) each identified questions that do not raise a question of law that can be answered with anything approaching a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’, and (c) furnished the court with no evidence.

“On behalf of the claimants it is said that the material the Commission filed in evidence is highly controversial, but no rebutting evidence has been filed. Mr Diamond has sought to rely on material which is unsupported by any evidential evaluation. We are not in a position to assess, let alone evaluate, any of the material relied on. This, together with the difficulties we identify in has meant that such conclusions as we have been able to reach in must be seen as qualified in the light of the nature of the material before us and the way the case was presented.

“For the reasons given we have concluded that we should make no order.”

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:


Basically, your discussion of moral decisions presupposes an answer as to whether being gay is a choice.

---

It doesn't. I don't think it is a choice. Neither, incidentally, does the woman in question who made it very clear when I heard her on the radio this morning that she does not believe you can stop anyone being homosexual, and would make no effort to try any such thing.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Gay rights do trump the "rights" of others to deny them.

---

Why?

---