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”.''

---

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?

---

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?

---

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.

---

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?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:

---

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?

---

quote:

---

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

---

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?

---

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.

---

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?

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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;

---

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.

---

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 by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 
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 by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 

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?

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

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

---

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.

---

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.

---

• 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;

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."

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:


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

---

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.”

---

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.

---

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?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
I'm not a lawyer by any stretch, but in terms of setting precedence for future cases, isn't the fact that they "concluded that we should make no order" quite important?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

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.

---

There was evidence from the husband that if a child thought they might gay he would gently 'try to turn them around'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:
let us not pretend that we are not creating new limitations on religious faith.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Hmmm. Maybe I should have qualified by saying "impartial evidence".

What's more, I'm not convinced at all, that should damage to children be proven on this basis that it can demonstrably prove to be worse than the damage caused to children being taken into care indefinitely.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

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.

---

There was evidence from the husband that if a child thought they might gay he would gently 'try to turn them around'.

---

Source?

Anyway - the particular facts of the case are less important than the incredibly wide drawing of the concept of "rights" of one group on the judgement as over the rights of another.

I agree that if there is evidence that they would try and encourage a child to change rather than explore and think through their orientation then they wouldn't make great foster carers in a limited number of cases.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Anyway - the particular facts of the case are less important than the incredibly wide drawing of the concept of "rights" of one group on the judgement as over the rights of another.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:
Here is a link to the interview Mr and Mrs Johns gave on this morning’s Today programme on Radio 4.

It seems probable that this sort of religious stance on homosexuality will only hasten its demise, thankfully. Setting aside the obvious hideous ugliness it reveals, it’s fricking stupid to pick a battle you can only lose. Idiots.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:
Here is a link to the interview Mr and Mrs Johns gave on this morning’s Today programme on Radio 4.

It seems probable that this sort of religious stance on homosexuality will only hasten its demise, thankfully. Setting aside the obvious hideous ugliness it reveals, it’s fricking stupid to pick a battle you can only lose. Idiots.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anyuta:
I just don't understand how anyone can be expected to completely refrain from holding opinions, including perhaps negative opinions of some group or other. I don't think there are many poeple out there who don't have SOME negative opinions about SOME group. the implications here are that foster parents should never hold any derogatory oppinions. or, is it that they can't base those oppinions on their religious belief? but where do you draw the line?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

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?

---

Because being Christian is a choice, and being gay isn't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
...not specifically just about a couple who had Christian principles, but examining the wider implications...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
I felt that the judges ruling seemed quite anti religious and anti Christian or am I getting the wrong end of the stick on this?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
I have not read the judgement in full.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
I have not read the judgement in full.

---

Can I suggest you do so? I'm strongly of the belief that it's the minimum entry requirement to engage in intelligent debate on the matter. For one thing, it'll stop you thinking that Nazir Ali is anywhere near approaching telling the truth here.

Most of it is in plain english, and it's not that long.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
It denies conscience it denies our very core right to hold orthodox views, views which have been held over millennia and are not wacky but core beliefs of the mainstream.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
I don't agree with sex outside of marriage and I certainly don't agree with homosexuality; it falls short of what God wants

[SNIP]

I cannot agree with Christians who proclaim they are ''gay''; it is an unacceptable moral choice (as is adultery , as is bigamy etc etc etc)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
I don't agree with sex outside of marriage and I certainly don't agree with homosexuality; it falls short of what God wants

[SNIP]

I cannot agree with Christians who proclaim they are ''gay''; it is an unacceptable moral choice (as is adultery , as is bigamy etc etc etc)

---

And here is the root of your problem. You are wrongly likening what people do (sex outside marriage, adultery, bigamy) with what people are (gay, homosexual). What people are cannot be an unacceptable moral choice. It's because of comments like this that I generally disbelieve conservative Christians when they protest that it's only the homosexual activity that they oppose.

The Johns's showed the same attitude; the quotations in the judgement from their interviews with the Council workers refer to their difficulties with homosexuality, not homosexual activity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
Surely being homosexual includes some degree of choice though doesn't it? I'm not gay myself, neither do I feel vindictive to (non-Christian) folk who are gay; my main beef is with folk who are committed Christians and are actively gay. That is IMO totally unacceptable; that is to be practicing gay sex; scripture clearly states this is un-natural and St Paul says this very clearly.
Saul

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
I'm not gay myself, neither do I feel vindictive to (non-Christian) folk who are gay;

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
The reason I posted this (and to be fair I haven't read all the contributing posts) is to try and understand my assumption that the Judaeo Christian basis of our society is being chopped away; at its supporting pillars.

It was more a question really.

I felt that the judges ruling seemed quite anti religious and anti Christian or am I getting the wrong end of the stick on this?

I also felt it was a genuine question, not specifically just about a couple who had Christian principles, but examining the wider implications. So I felt the thread was somewhat hijacked by the homosexual debate. Sadly as there was something already about this and my post was actually asking for it to be looked at in a wider sense.

Saul

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
Surely being homosexual includes some degree of choice though doesn't it? I'm not gay myself, neither do I feel vindictive to (non-Christian) folk who are gay; my main beef is with folk who are committed Christians and are actively gay. That is IMO totally unacceptable; that is to be practicing gay sex; scripture clearly states this is un-natural and St Paul says this very clearly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Welease Woderwick:
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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

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?

---

Because being Christian is a choice, and being gay isn't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Try telling that to a Calvinist!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
I'm not gay myself, neither do I feel vindictive to (non-Christian) folk who are gay;

---

But you do feel vindictive to Christians folk who are gay? Whether active or not? A fine model of Christian love you are.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
St Paul says so clearly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
...or He created you that way and said it was good...which do you prefer?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
I'm not gay myself, neither do I feel vindictive to (non-Christian) folk who are gay;

---

But you do feel vindictive to Christians folk who are gay? Whether active or not? A fine model of Christian love you are.

---

I might say if you allow homosexuals to practice sex you are breaking the teachings of the church. Thats not lack of love that is showing boundaries.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
I'm not gay myself, neither do I feel vindictive to (non-Christian) folk who are gay;

---

But you do feel vindictive to Christians folk who are gay? Whether active or not? A fine model of Christian love you are.

---

I might say if you allow homosexuals to practice sex you are breaking the teachings of the church. Thats not lack of love that is showing boundaries.

Is it good for a man who is married to go and sleep with other women as his desires lead him? No, of course not and it is helpful for a good friend to show him a better way a way to be faithful to his wife.

Like I said previously sin is sin; all I can do or say won't change that. Gods laws still stand even though 'society' changes.

I sympathise with a man who may be a homosexual and Christian, but active sexual relations are just plain wrong by God's law. St Paul says so clearly. If one accepts scripture, both its specific instructions and also the broad thrust of its teachings, the church practice & traditions, very nature itself (are men designed to have anal sex - talk to a Doctor as to what can happen medically) and so on and so on. For a Christian it should be one man and one woman equals marriage.

But people can try and squirm out of it and so on, but Christianity does not want that way of life.

Saul

---

quote:

---

''...In the same way men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.''

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I mean, if we're going to quote Romans, let's really quote Romans. At the very least, let's quote everything from 1:18 through to 2:16, and quite possibly beyond.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Also Saul, if the gay-Christian debate is complex, then you really shouldn't have claimed that St Paul is totally clear on the subject and accused anyone with a different view of the passage and its context of 'twisting' what St Paul said.

It's incredibly insulting to anyone with a sincere, differently held view.

As referred to in Hell, I'd now like to ask you whether women should wear hats in church. Another topic that Paul is totally clear on.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
The point about St.Paul is clear, in respect of church practice, tradition and teaching is it not?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
The RC position StA posted can be summarized as "don't discriminate against gays as long as they practice lifelong celebacy." I'm not surprised this position was generated by the Roman Catholic hierarchy. When your only tool is a hammer everything looks like a nail, and when your way of life dictatates lifelong chastity the solution to every problem is not getting nailed.

While I'm not surprised that the Catholic hierarchy came up with this position, I'm rather astonished that those outside its ranks seem to regard this "don't discriminate against homosexuals as long as they obey our arbitrary dictates" consider it a reasonable position.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
special concern and pastoral attention should be directed to those who have this condition

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
As far as I'm aware US Catholic Bishops made a statement on homosexuality.

This seems to sum up my own long held views and from an orthodox perspective seems a fair way of seeing homosexuality, I would put forward.

I have attached the pastoral statement below.

Saul

1998 A pastoral statement entitled:

''Always Our Children''

from the U. S. Catholic bishops.

This statement makes the following points:

Sexuality is a gift of God. Everyone should acknowledge and accept [his] sexual identity. Sexual identity helps us define the unique persons we are.

One component of our sexual identity is sexual orientation. Church teaching acknowledges a distinction between a transitory homosexual tendency and those who are definitely homosexual because of some kind of "innate instinct."

Homosexual people are children of God, gifted and called for a purpose in God's design.
Homosexual orientation is a deep-seated, relatively stable, dimension of one's personality experienced as a given, not something freely chosen. It shapes a person's way of thinking, feeling, perceiving and responding.

Parents must remain open to the possibility that a child is struggling to understand and accept a basic homosexual orientation.

Given the present state of medical knowledge, there is no guarantee that orientation change therapy will succeed.

Nothing in the Bible or Catholic teaching can be used to justify prejudicial or discriminatory attitudes and behaviors towards homosexual persons.

The fundamental human rights of homosexual persons must be defended and all of us must strive to eliminate any form of injustice, oppression or violence against them.

We call upon all Christians to confront their own fears about homosexuality and to curb the humor and discrimination that offend homosexual persons.

It is not sufficient only to avoid unjust discrimination. All homosexual persons have a right to be welcomed into the community, to hear the word of God and to receive pastoral care.

Homosexual people should have an active role in the Christian community; homosexual persons who are leading chaste lives should have opportunities to lead and serve the community.

Pastoral ministers should learn about homosexuality and church teaching so that their preaching, teaching and counseling will be informed and effective; they should use words like "gay," "lesbian" and "homosexual" in honest and accurate ways.

It is God's plan that sexual intercourse occur only within marriage between a man and a woman. Every act of intercourse must be open to the possible creation of a new human life.

The Church teaches that homogenital behavior is objectively immoral while making the distinction between this behavior and a homosexual orientation which is not immoral in itself.

Though you are discouraged, hurt or angry do not walk away from the Christian community. In you God's love is revealed. You are always our children.

---

Like I said, worthy of Kafka.

I was born homosexual. Not asexual. And I haven't once felt a vocational calling for celibacy.

Anyone who thinks this attitude is warm and loving is kidding themselves. "Oh, we love you and affirm you and welcome you into the church etc etc... so long as you don't express the very thing that we're talking about in any way, well except perhaps we'll all laugh warmly and lovingly if you show a particular flair for the arts and use that flair in the service of the church."

Bang. We affirm you except we want you to cut out the thing about yourself we claim to be affirming.



[ 02. March 2011, 19:29: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 

---

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
special concern and pastoral attention should be directed to those who have this condition

---

I special concern being directed to your heterosexual 'condition'?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
The implication of the catholic bishop's statement is that God is a complete bastard. According to the statement, God has made me homosexual, HE has given me these desires, and then forbidden me to act on them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
Another implication of this case is that Christian Legal Centre (CLC) have lost all credibility, according to this article.

---

quote:

---

A veteran firefighter refused to respond to last month's deadly shooting spree that left Rep. Gabrielle Giffords wounded because he had different political views than his colleagues and "did not want to be part of it," according to internal city memos.

Mark Ekstrum's insubordination may have delayed his unit's response because firefighters had to stop at another station to pick up a replacement for him, the Arizona Daily Star reported.

While the crew was not among the first called to the supermarket where six people were killed and 13 others wounded, a memo from Ekstrum's supervisor said his actions caused "confusion and delay" during the emergency.

---

quote:

---

I am an orthodox Christian however, that doesn't mean i shouldn't be able to think outside (in my case the evangelical) box.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
That begs the question of the extent to which "conscience" is just a way of dressing up otherwise unacceptable behavior. Here's a more extreme example of conscience in action.

quote:

---

A veteran firefighter refused to respond to last month's deadly shooting spree that left Rep. Gabrielle Giffords wounded because he had different political views than his colleagues and "did not want to be part of it," according to internal city memos.

Mark Ekstrum's insubordination may have delayed his unit's response because firefighters had to stop at another station to pick up a replacement for him, the Arizona Daily Star reported.

While the crew was not among the first called to the supermarket where six people were killed and 13 others wounded, a memo from Ekstrum's supervisor said his actions caused "confusion and delay" during the emergency.

---

So, does Mr. Eckstrum get a pass because, as StA apparently argues, he can claim "conscience" as a counter to any review by the state? Or is the state allowed to make judgements that his "conscience" actually makes him less fit (or even unfit) for his job?

---

quote:

---

"No one is asserting that Christians (or, for that matter, Jews or Muslims) are not 'fit and proper' persons to foster or adopt. No one is contending for a blanket ban. No one is seeking to de-legitimise Christianity or any other faith or belief. ... No one is seeking to give Christians, Jews or Muslims or, indeed, peoples of any faith, a second class status."

The judges said that it was appropriate for a local authority to take potential foster parents' views on sexuality into account, but emphasised:

"This is not a prying intervention into mere belief... The local authority is entitled to explore the extent to which prospective foster carers’ beliefs may affect their behaviour, their treatment of a child being fostered by them." .

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
Good point. I suppose you could argue that for example the Commandant of Aushcwitz was 'just following orders' wasn't he? In fact many Nazis did in fact claim this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
I do not and my framework is Christian and orthodox and my position does not agree that the Johns' were in any way doing anything wrong; as far as I can glean they ARE eminently suitable to foster children and would make ideal foster parents in every way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
I do not and my framework is Christian and orthodox and my position does not agree that the Johns' were in any way doing anything wrong; as far as I can glean they ARE eminently suitable to foster children and would make ideal foster parents in every way.

---

So, in short, you agree that it's legitimate for the state to assess the moral character of foster parents, you just don't like the fact that they didn't use your standards. All the rest about "protecting conscience" was just a smokescreen to cover the fact that you just don't like a system that doesn't automatically favor Christians.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
I did meet a woman who was a Lesbian whilst I was lecturing at University and she was totally 'in your face' about being gay. I found that too much and whilst I remained civil I did not find her stridency endearing or for that matter effective.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
I do not and my framework is Christian and orthodox and my position does not agree that the Johns' were in any way doing anything wrong; as far as I can glean they ARE eminently suitable to foster children and would make ideal foster parents in every way.

---

So, in short, you agree that it's legitimate for the state to assess the moral character of foster parents, you just don't like the fact that they didn't use your standards. All the rest about "protecting conscience" was just a smokescreen to cover the fact that you just don't like a system that doesn't automatically favor Christians.

---

If we had a theocratic Christian state it would not be 'heaven on earth'. In fact because I and you are fallible human beings, we'd cock up wouldn't we? No, simply, and I'll make it plain, and this is the implication of this ruling, the Christian basis of our society has diminished; indeed their Worships made that abundantly clear in their summing up.

We live in a post- Christian country. That could be a problem for you, if you're weak and vulnerable and the sanctity of all human life is not upheld. We will get more infant/child murder AKA abortion. Quite a problem if you're a viable healthy foetus or unborn babe. Think about the process involved. Nasty isn't it?

...

I am in no way appealing to return to a fictitious 'golden age', there never was one, but rather to one where there WAS a Christian consensus - thats going if not already gone.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
Another implication of this case is that Christian Legal Centre (CLC) have lost all credibility, according to this article.

---

Thanks for that link, and it is incumbent on an authority to check the bona fides of any prospective foster parent.

To be fair I'd expect no less; the central issue is this, do the foster couple in question have, as a matter of good conscience, a duty of care to the child and also to themselves (that is their own inner Spirit)? I would argue that they do and their conscience demands that they submit to Biblical injunctions and commands. There can be no other way.

This is where I would say that the law is becoming no protector of conscience and there is IMO a very strong case for the Johns' to foster and to be straight with any foster child about their views on homosexuality - if it ever arose.

This is a human right and to deny Christians that freedom of conscience is a very slippery slope indeed.

Saul

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
I do not and my framework is Christian and orthodox and my position does not agree that the Johns' were in any way doing anything wrong; as far as I can glean they ARE eminently suitable to foster children and would make ideal foster parents in every way.

---

quote:

---

“No one is asserting that Christians (or, for that matter, Jews or Muslims) are not ‘fit and proper’ persons to foster or adopt. No one is seeking to de-legitimise Christianity or any other faith or belief. On the contrary, it is fundamental to our law and our way of life that everyone is equal before the law and equal as a human being … entitled to dignity and respect. We are, however, entitled to take judicial notice of the fact that, whereas the sharia is still understood in many places as making homosexuality a capital offence, … the Church of England permits its clergy, so long as they remain celibate, to enter into civil partnerships. We live in this country in a democratic and pluralistic society, in a secular state not a theocracy.”

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
There WAS general support for a Judaeo - Christian perspective that effected the whole of society and during the 20th century that predominant view decreased. IMO to the detriment of society generally.

Saul

---

quote:

---

There has been .... a consensus in Christendom that homosexuality; that is its practice is sinful.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
as far as I can glean they ARE eminently suitable to foster children and would make ideal foster parents in every way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
What part of the judgement said was this:

quote:

---

“No one is asserting that Christians (or, for that matter, Jews or Muslims) are not ‘fit and proper’ persons to foster or adopt. No one is seeking to de-legitimise Christianity or any other faith or belief. On the contrary, it is fundamental to our law and our way of life that everyone is equal before the law and equal as a human being … entitled to dignity and respect. We are, however, entitled to take judicial notice of the fact that, whereas the sharia is still understood in many places as making homosexuality a capital offence, … the Church of England permits its clergy, so long as they remain celibate, to enter into civil partnerships. We live in this country in a democratic and pluralistic society, in a secular state not a theocracy.”

---

It seems that the judges in their ruling said they were not ruling against beliefs but against the ''discriminatory effects'' of those beliefs and that one set of beliefs could not take precedence in a pluralist society.

This seems to be the nub of the actual case?

---

The nub of the case is that the council is entitled to take the effect of the beliefs into account. And they are not required to assume that the effect of those beliefs is inevitably good.

The nub of THAT paragraph is that Parliament makes laws, not the church. If Parliament declares homosexual acts to be criminal, Parliament can do it. But the opinion of 'the church' (more to the point, particular churchgoers) on the issue is legally irrelevant.

This has been true for centuries, Saul. Just because you think that what Parliament has said lines up nicely with what 'the church' says until recently doesn't alter the basic principle here.

And anyway, you're wrong. There was a point in time where the law said slavery was perfectly okay, but a large segment of churchgoers thought otherwise. The law didn't miraculously change because Christians now thought slavery was bad. It changed when Parliament outlawed slavery.

[ 03. March 2011, 22:59: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Saul--

I come from a fundamentalist background, and it took me a long time to figure out some way to sort this out.

I finally decided that being LGBT is like being left-handed.

Most lefties are born that way. Some may have to use their left hand, due to injury to their right hand. Others may try using their left hand, and decide they like it. And some people are ambidextrous.

Lefties have been persecuted, and the word "sinister" (Latin for "left") still carries bad connotations.

BTW, I found a blog post at Gather.com that echoes my idea. And a WorldOfStuff posting on being a lefty, and all the things that go with it.

Presented for your consideration, as that Serling guy used to say.

 

---

Posted by Apocalypso (# 15405) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
What part of the judgement said was this:

quote:

---

“No one is asserting that Christians (or, for that matter, Jews or Muslims) are not ‘fit and proper’ persons to foster or adopt. No one is seeking to de-legitimise Christianity or any other faith or belief. On the contrary, it is fundamental to our law and our way of life that everyone is equal before the law and equal as a human being … entitled to dignity and respect. We are, however, entitled to take judicial notice of the fact that, whereas the sharia is still understood in many places as making homosexuality a capital offence, … the Church of England permits its clergy, so long as they remain celibate, to enter into civil partnerships. We live in this country in a democratic and pluralistic society, in a secular state not a theocracy.”

---

It seems that the judges in their ruling said they were not ruling against beliefs but against the ''discriminatory effects'' of those beliefs and that one set of beliefs could not take precedence in a pluralist society.

This seems to be the nub of the actual case?

So you have here IMHO a modern court taking a judicial note that a broadly traditionalist viewpoint held by the majority of Christians could lead to discriminatory effect. There is the rub. The Johns don't accept that their views ARE discriminatory, but the judges obviously do.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:

There WAS general support for a Judaeo - Christian perspective that effected the whole of society . . .

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:

. . . and during the 20th century that predominant view decreased. IMO to the detriment of society generally.

Saul

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Apocalypso:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
What part of the judgement said was this:

quote:

---

“No one is asserting that Christians (or, for that matter, Jews or Muslims) are not ‘fit and proper’ persons to foster or adopt. No one is seeking to de-legitimise Christianity or any other faith or belief. On the contrary, it is fundamental to our law and our way of life that everyone is equal before the law and equal as a human being … entitled to dignity and respect. We are, however, entitled to take judicial notice of the fact that, whereas the sharia is still understood in many places as making homosexuality a capital offence, … the Church of England permits its clergy, so long as they remain celibate, to enter into civil partnerships. We live in this country in a democratic and pluralistic society, in a secular state not a theocracy.”

---

It seems that the judges in their ruling said they were not ruling against beliefs but against the ''discriminatory effects'' of those beliefs and that one set of beliefs could not take precedence in a pluralist society.

This seems to be the nub of the actual case?

So you have here IMHO a modern court taking a judicial note that a broadly traditionalist viewpoint held by the majority of Christians could lead to discriminatory effect. There is the rub. The Johns don't accept that their views ARE discriminatory, but the judges obviously do.

---

It's not the couple's views, majoritarian or not, that the judges are worried about. It's the couple's possible behavior toward the potential foster child.

If the child -- straight, gay, bi, or clueles -- comes home from school one day (and rest assured this WILL happen) and asks Eunice, "Mummy, what's a 'queer'?" how will the subsequent conversation go?

After the usual preliminaries about what prompts the question, Eunice could respond in various age-appropriate ways:

1. She could offer plain information about sexual orientation in its varieties.

2. She could offer plain information plus her opinion: that sex should only happen within male-female marriage and that any other form of sexual activity is sinful.

3. She could say, "Ask the school counselor (or your father)."

4. She could say, "I'm not an expert on (or I'm not comfortable with) the topic; why don't we go talk to someone who is?"

Please notice that Eunice's own beliefs are not changed, challenged, or restricted during any of these exchanges. She gets to hold her principles intact, even though in situations (1, 3, and 4), she doesn't express them.

But in (1) she refrains from challenging the child's possible sexual identity; while in (2) she may be challenging the child's possible sexual identity. In (3), she passes the buck, and (4) may be a good option if she really isn't confortable with the whole thing.

The same deal applies when the kid comes home asking, "Mum, what's a Jew?" (or its unacceptable cousin, "What's a kike?") and all the other epithets that kid's going to hear every day in the schoolyard.

There are no implications for any wider Judeo-Christian society. The Johns are not being oppressed, restricted, or discriminated against, nor are their views. Instead, the judges are concerned simply to ensure that non-discrimination holds for the foster kid as well as for the foster-parents.

Nobody has to give up their own personal principles. Mr. and Mrs. Johns do not have to embrace homosexuality in order to foster children; they simply have to use a little tact, sensitivity, and discretion in dealing with foster children who may themselves be gay.

And frankly, I think tact, sensitivity, and discretion are ideally part of that Judeo-Christian culture.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:

There WAS general support for a Judaeo - Christian perspective that effected the whole of society . . .

---

Forgive me, but I have no idea what this statement means. I live in the US, not the UK, so maybe you experienced something I don't know about in this "general support" thing. Where I grew up, people followed different religions (and no religion at all), had different color skin, hair, eyes, and spoke various languages. Is "Judaeo - Christian perspective" some sort of code term for conformity, racism, patriarchy, and sexual repression?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:

. . . and during the 20th century that predominant view decreased. IMO to the detriment of society generally.

Saul

---

I'm not sure "that view" decreased. I do think other views, long-squelched, have been added.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Saul, at one time there was a broad consensus in England that all Catholics were traitors to the state. I can't be sure, but I imagine such people still exist somewhere. Would you be happy with a couple with such views fostering children, if they said: "We always go to an anti-Catholic meeting every Saturday; that won't change, and we will take the children with us"? Such an attitude could be damaging to any child, Catholic or not.

(And thank you for your last post, outlining your personal history. You have indeed come a long way. Please accept my apologies for being sarcastic earlier on.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:


To be fair, I will nail my colours to the mast (it is S of F after all isn't it?).I was bought up to not go to the cinema, theatre, football matches, drink alcohol, gamble, go to dances. I was raised a Plymouth brethren. We thought the Pope could be the anti Christ.

---

Yup. I grew up in a little, non-denom. fund. church. No drinking or gambling. Dancing was very much a gray area. The others weren't really issues, though I know they are for some people and churches. But we were also supposed to be very careful about "damaging our testimony"--doing things that might cause others to stumble, or to turn from the gospel. Like eating in a restaurant that served alcohol, because someone might see us and think we were drinking, and that might cause someone to think that all that Christian stuff was a crock. And we don't even need to get into dating, do we?

I don't think we quite thought the pope was the anti-Christ, at least not the actual one; but he was believed to be doing something very wrong in being the vicar of Christ, and the entire Catholic Church was deeply wrong about just about everything. (Even the Baptists were mostly wrong.)

The scriptures were basically dictated to the writers by God. They were inerrant in the original Greek and Hebrew. John 3:16 was as close as we got to a creed. I memorized a lot of the Bible. I can't do too much chapter and verse anymore, but I've still got the basic knowledge.

Taking a New Testament class in college was quite an experience! (Even at a Christian school!) I knew of the various ideas...but it was different to be in a class where they were taught as normal. We used a text by N.T. Wright, who (though evidently perceived now as fairly conservative) was a flaming liberal compared to what I grew up with.

And don't get me started on what I was taught about other religions. If you ever saw that Jack Chick tract that shows a scene about how evil the World Council of Churches is, you get the idea. (And yes, I witnessed and passed out tracts.)

And Genesis was accurate, and evolution was a lie--basically, a smokescreen from the devil. (These days, I'm firmly in the middle about how we got here.)

Have I established my fundamentalist cred yet?

quote:

---

Now I have made an amazing journey (well for me anyway!). I am a fundamentalist, albeit a reasonably educated one. I have taught in a British University and had senior positions in large institutions. But, I am a Christian.

---

Great. You have a lot in common with C.S. Lewis.

quote:

---

I sort of get the impression on S of F that most folk are fairly well educated and liberal. Thats OK I can live with that.

---

I'm not sure about the education, but there's quite a spectrum of beliefs, and shipmates are at various stages in their personal journeys. Plus we have people of other faiths, and agnostics, and atheists. (Did I leave anyone out?) That doesn't always mesh well , but it can also be educational and lots of fun.

quote:

---

My own journey has consisted of genuinely looking at what I was given as a person and evaluating it. I have tried Christianity and
not found it wanting; if it were not true I would have walked away a long time ago.

---

quote:

---

I hold orthodox and dare I say it...inclusive views...well, for a traditionalist. I don't have horns growing from my head and indeed over the last couple of years I've got to know a gay couple that live near me. I have had to look at my own views, values and
beliefs. I honestly have. I admit I hadn't met many gay people and my knowledge was and still is not great; but I am willing to listen and learn I truly am.

---

Sounds good.

quote:

---

I hope that, as an infamous non liberal i shall be allowed to argue my corner on S of F? I don't go to 'Hell' simply as I write
as I would speak to anyone - face to face and my style is not to confront in a manner that I wouldn't use if you were sitting in your lounge with me.

---

quote:

---

The post about being gay as say left handed, like it was some sort of thing you just 'have'. Mmmmm, no I disagree with you. well I am not sure on that one. Again if you take scripture (you say you came from a fundamentalist background) the thrust seems clear about certain sorts of behaviour doesn't it and however hard one tries to wriggle out of that, the injunctions against homosexuality are crystal clear IMHO. St Paul seems to make that clear and I regard him
as a divinely appointed Apostle.

---

quote:

---

I will accept that I do not have the understanding of gay issues in any depth and I have held very prejudicial views previously. Am I changing? Yes I am, but I am also a Christian. I'd rather live for my views, but if push came to shove I'd defend my freedoms and my assertion that Jesus Christ is Lord of all, to possibly the ultimate level.

---

quote:

---

I have been surprised that on a Christian site there are not many more traditionalists; they do exist , but I would hope that S of F would be a broad church in that sense.

---

Oh, there are traditionalists of many sorts. {Cue the Orthodoxen!}

As to being a Christian site: yes, and no, and maybe, and all at the same time. Newbies so often run into something shocking and say, "I thought this was a Christian website!" that it's become an in-joke, abbreviated as ITTWACW. If you stick around, read, learn, and inwardly digest , you may find that the bit that shocked you is just one piece of a complex, beautiful, and ever-changing puzzle, AKA the community called the Ship of Fools.
 

---

Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on :
 
Golden key:

quote:

---

You can definitely argue your corner, and you don't have to ever post in Hell. It's good to know that about your style. I haven't read many of your posts...but, on LGBT matters, you're into a territory where there are many shipmates who are LGBT and have had very bad experiences with churches and church folk. So the discussion is personal for them. I think their perception is that you don't get that.

---

Thanks for your post.

I actually admire C.S.Lewis a great deal. I am fascinated at your background; we were PB, but not exclusives, very much in the gospel hall/open brethren mould. Interesting folk the brethren; they punch far above their weight, often when they've left the PBs.

I also admire Martin Luther King too; partly because he had feet of clay (don't we all?) and MLK was no icon of perfection; yet he pushed through and fought against the iniquitous Southern US state segregation laws etc. He (to put it in KJV speak) kicked 'against the pricks' or went against the mores of his time.

Yes, I really didn't realise that there were a fair few LGBT folk on S of F and OK I have got lambasted/roasted a bit in hell. But what the heck I can take it.

By the way being brought up in a narrow fundamentalist sort of sect / cult/ environment did have a few positives; we often had 'larger than life' preachers who were quite remarkable (that is in their presence and characters) and that mixed in with the KJV gave me a love for literature, reading and honed my debating skills. I am also sure it (the KJV) seemed to 'soak' into me; talk about a Jesuit teaching a child until 7 years old and all of that!!!!

I have already learned what folk think (thank you Orfeo) and I am beginning to consider their position/ stance. I hope if I ever bump into any of you I shall put the kettle on or buy you a drink at the bar (I now do drink !) and we can talk further.

Saul

[ 04. March 2011, 09:24: Message edited by: Saul the Apostle ]
 

---

Posted by Earwig (# 12057) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
There was, there really was a Judaeo Christian bedrock in British society; no golden age, but rather a consensus of views, value and mores that 'held' much of the society together. No perfect state in any way, but there was an acceptance of Christian basics and that stretched to the law and other pillars of society.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Earwig:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
There was, there really was a Judaeo Christian bedrock in British society; no golden age, but rather a consensus of views, value and mores that 'held' much of the society together. No perfect state in any way, but there was an acceptance of Christian basics and that stretched to the law and other pillars of society.

---

Hi Saul, may I ask where and when this was?

---

quote:

---

''It is becoming increasingly evident that the ‘aggressive secularism’ of which Pope Benedict XVI spoke on his visit last year is becoming even more aggressive. The Christian faith is intricately bound with the constitutional and legal basis of British society. Our values and virtues stem from a Judaeo-Christian foundation. The Laws-Munby-Beatson judgments fly in the face of our history, our institutions and the Constitution.''

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Earwig:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
There was, there really was a Judaeo Christian bedrock in British society; no golden age, but rather a consensus of views, value and mores that 'held' much of the society together. No perfect state in any way, but there was an acceptance of Christian basics and that stretched to the law and other pillars of society.

---

Hi Saul, may I ask where and when this was?

---

Earwig,

I am just thinking about the best way to reply to you short of writing a legal religious history of the British Isles from St. Augustine to the present.

However I shall refer you to ''Cranmer'' a top rated blog relevant to this thread....

quote:

---

''It is becoming increasingly evident that the ‘aggressive secularism’ of which Pope Benedict XVI spoke on his visit last year is becoming even more aggressive. The Christian faith is intricately bound with the constitutional and legal basis of British society. Our values and virtues stem from a Judaeo-Christian foundation. The Laws-Munby-Beatson judgments fly in the face of our history, our institutions and the Constitution.''

---

The full blog is here and this neatly draws the arguments together, which I broadly adhere to.

http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/2011/03/laws-and-usages-of-realm-do-not-include.html

Saul

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
The post about being gay as say left handed, like it was some sort of thing you just 'have'. Mmmmm, no I disagree with you. well I am not sure on that one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
To be fair, I will nail my colours to the mast (it is S of F after all isn't it?).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
I was bought up to not go to the cinema, theatre, football matches, drink alcohol, gamble, go to dances. I was raised a Plymouth brethren. We thought the Pope could be the anti Christ.

Now I have made an amazing journey (well for me anyway!). I am a fundamentalist, albeit a reasonably educated one. I have taught in a British University and had senior positions in large institutions. But, I am a Christian.

I sort of get the impression on S of F that most folk are fairly well educated and liberal. Thats OK I can live with that. My own journey has consisted of genuinely looking at what I was given as a person and evaluating it. I have tried Christianity and not found it wanting; if it were not true I would have walked away a long time ago.

---

quote:

---

. . . if it were not true I would have walked away a long time ago.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
I hold orthodox and dare I say it...inclusive views...well, for a traditionalist. I don't have horns growing from my head and indeed over the last couple of years I've got to know a gay couple that live near me. I have had to look at my own views, values and beliefs. I honestly have. I admit I hadn't met many gay people and my knowledge was and still is not great; but I am willing to listen and learn I truly am.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
There was, there really was a Judaeo Christian bedrock in British society; no golden age, but rather a consensus of views, value and mores that 'held' much of the society together.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Apocalypso:
There is a UNIVERSE of difference between saying "Here is what I believe to be true" and saying "Here is what is true."

---

 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jahlove:
GK, have I told you lately that I love you? You've got out from one of these narrow and unhealthily-repressive sects and have somehow managed not to become incredibly bitter or turn your back on all sorts of folks but are welcoming to all.

You are a Good Example that others might well follow.

---

Aw, shucks. Thanks!

Honestly, it wasn't one of the foaming at the mouth fund. churches. No shouting. No picketing anyone. Some good people and relationships there, and some fun. (Yes, fundies can have fun! )

I learned the value of digging into the Greek and Hebrew text, analyzing words, etc. The pastor gave that kind of sermon--I think the record length was an hour and a half for just the sermon, working through a passage word by word. It wasn't a cult. We were allowed to think, though within some boundaries. One thing I loved about CS Lewis's writings, when I found them, was that he acknowledged boundaries--but allowed/encouraged you to look and think beyond them.

I highly recommend the hilarious "Growing Up Born Again Or a Whimsical Look at the Blessings and Tribulations of Growing Up Born Again ", by Patricia Klein et al. All the authors were GUBAs. Garrison Keillor wrote the preface!

Note to SAUL: The humorist I just mentioned, Garrison Keillor, grew up in the Plymouth Brethren--though the US version. He's done quite a bit of exploring himself. He's a writer, and the host and creator of the beloved "Prairie Home Companion" radio show. It has a quirky combination of old-time radio skits, all sorts of music, small-town stories, humor, and *hymns*!
 

---

Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
For example, there's this little bit of consensus that the "Judæo" part of Judæo-Christian culture should be done away with.

I've found that, in contexts like this, the phrase "Judæo-Christian" is a transparently dishonest attempt to portray oneself with more tolerance and inclusiveness than reality would indicate. This is doubly ironic since most of those using the term consider "tolerance" and "inclusiveness" to be bad things.

---

quote:

---

"The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried."


"Men have not got tired of Christianity; they have never found enough Christianity to get tired of."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Earwig:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
There was, there really was a Judaeo Christian bedrock in British society; no golden age, but rather a consensus of views, value and mores that 'held' much of the society together. No perfect state in any way, but there was an acceptance of Christian basics and that stretched to the law and other pillars of society.

---

Hi Saul, may I ask where and when this was?

---

Earwig,

I am just thinking about the best way to reply to you short of writing a legal religious history of the British Isles from St. Augustine to the present.

However I shall refer you to ''Cranmer'' a top rated blog relevant to this thread...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Apocalypso:
You are perhaps my senior in age. A relative in my mother's generation recalls with great affection and nostalgia a time in the US when "everybody" (as she tells it) got all dressed up and went to church on Sunday, came home and had a big Sunday dinner in early afternoon. All the stores and most services were closed. All the men went out to work Monday through Friday, and all the women stayed home cleaning house, rearing children, and cooking. Everybody voted Republican, every family had a car and a TV set, everybody learned to drive, everybody went to college, and everybody went on a two-week vacation to the seashore or the mountains in the summer.

That was her experience.

It was NOT the experience of the black woman, Claire, who came in twice a week to clean my relative's house. Claire didn't stay home with her kids; she couldn't afford to. Claire didn't know how to drive and couldn't afford a car; she got around by bus. Neither did Claire take vacations or go to college.

I don't know this, but strongly suspect that Claire didn't vote Republican, either; maybe she didn't get to vote at all.

I also suspect that my relative's "bedrock values" looked a heck of a lot different to Claire than they looked to my relative.

Both sets of experience were always there. The ones we knew best and heard about most seemed to predominate, that's all.

---

quote:

---

There's a great difference between our actual laws (which Cranmer talks about) and a "consensus of views, value and mores that 'held' much of the society together". I'm not an expert on the history of law, but I have studied a lot of English social history from the 15th century onwards. I think you generalise on this 'consensus' far too much. Without doubt, Christianity was a major factor in people's lives - you see expressions of faith in their wills, their donations to guilds and charities, their headstones in churches etc - but I just don't see that it formed a bedrock that held society together. For a start, in the Reformation, it got a lot of people killed.

Generalising about our society in this way ignores the richness, the variety of people's experiences, and it's in looking at those experiences we can build a truer picture of our past

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
The New Model Army was utterly revolutionary. It allowed (for almost the first time since Saxon times) a real social mobility. Royalist observers were shocked that a Captain of horse could be a humble cobbler! But he was promoted on ability (and his adherence to God's laws and a Godly life too). This was a dynamic and revolutionary time. The levellers and the Quakers were early examples of this dynamic. Based on what? A common and agreed Judaeo-Christian heritage.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
The New Model Army was utterly revolutionary. It allowed (for almost the first time since Saxon times) a real social mobility. Royalist observers were shocked that a Captain of horse could be a humble cobbler! But he was promoted on ability (and his adherence to God's laws and a Godly life too). This was a dynamic and revolutionary time. The levellers and the Quakers were early examples of this dynamic. Based on what? A common and agreed Judaeo-Christian heritage.

---

You're so caught up in making your thesis responsible for everything (it slices, it dices, it peels, it toasts heretics a lovely golden brown!) you don't seem to notice the ridiculous contradictions. If something is "dynamic and revolutionary" it's obviously a break from the past, not some broad consensus.

---

quote:

---

it slices, it dices, it peels, it toasts heretics a lovely golden brown!

---

Love it. I just love to toast heretics; I should have been an inquisitor in the Spanish inquisition then?

Saul
 

---

Posted by Earwig (# 12057) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
The New Model Army was utterly revolutionary. It allowed (for almost the first time since Saxon times) a real social mobility. Royalist observers were shocked that a Captain of horse could be a humble cobbler! But he was promoted on ability (and his adherence to God's laws and a Godly life too). This was a dynamic and revolutionary time. The levellers and the Quakers were early examples of this dynamic. Based on what? A common and agreed Judaeo-Christian heritage.

---

You're so caught up in making your thesis responsible for everything (it slices, it dices, it peels, it toasts heretics a lovely golden brown!) you don't seem to notice the ridiculous contradictions. If something is "dynamic and revolutionary" it's obviously a break from the past, not some broad consensus.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Earwig:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
The New Model Army was utterly revolutionary. It allowed (for almost the first time since Saxon times) a real social mobility. Royalist observers were shocked that a Captain of horse could be a humble cobbler! But he was promoted on ability (and his adherence to God's laws and a Godly life too). This was a dynamic and revolutionary time. The levellers and the Quakers were early examples of this dynamic. Based on what? A common and agreed Judaeo-Christian heritage.

---

You're so caught up in making your thesis responsible for everything (it slices, it dices, it peels, it toasts heretics a lovely golden brown!) you don't seem to notice the ridiculous contradictions. If something is "dynamic and revolutionary" it's obviously a break from the past, not some broad consensus.

---

Exactly. Our history is not one of broad consensus but of radical change over the centuries. It included civil war, as you say. It included people being put to death for their religious beliefs. Our view of what it is to be a Christian has changed, and still changes, over the years.

So why do you think of this past as a "consensus of views, values and mores" compared to a case where the judge said nothing about what it is to be a Christian, only about the ability of people to foster children? I'd say he affirmed Christian values of caring for the vulnerable.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Earwig:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
The New Model Army was utterly revolutionary. It allowed (for almost the first time since Saxon times) a real social mobility. Royalist observers were shocked that a Captain of horse could be a humble cobbler! But he was promoted on ability (and his adherence to God's laws and a Godly life too). This was a dynamic and revolutionary time. The levellers and the Quakers were early examples of this dynamic. Based on what? A common and agreed Judaeo-Christian heritage.

---

You're so caught up in making your thesis responsible for everything (it slices, it dices, it peels, it toasts heretics a lovely golden brown!) you don't seem to notice the ridiculous contradictions. If something is "dynamic and revolutionary" it's obviously a break from the past, not some broad consensus.

---

Exactly. Our history is not one of broad consensus but of radical change over the centuries. It included civil war, as you say. It included people being put to death for their religious beliefs. Our view of what it is to be a Christian has changed, and still changes, over the years.

So why do you think of this past as a "consensus of views, values and mores" compared to a case where the judge said nothing about what it is to be a Christian, only about the ability of people to foster children? I'd say he affirmed Christian values of caring for the vulnerable.

---

Earwig,

I probably haven't explained my perspective. There was division, there was civil war and profound disagreements. Yet, there was an almost unanimous acceptance that Jesus Christ was Lord. It was how that was expressed (in the 17th century) that caused the conflict and that included the place of King and Parliament.

I have pointed out clearly the lack of consensus in many area; there was a marked rigidity of class and rank, which Cromwell's republic rocked. The English republic did see a whole range of unlocking social movements like the Levellers and the ranters and so on.

It was a dynamic time and it did involve a degree of revolution and some of the ideas that were put forward by travelling preachers were pushing the boundaries of the time. The purpose of a spotlight on this time was to show that the unifying feature was a Judaeo Christian consensus. Many historians, even if they don't believe in God, would, I think accept the universal place of religion in English life. It produced John Bunyan and slightly earlier the KJV which had its own unifying work on English life.

The recent move towards atheism, secularism, humanism, has culminated in the Western Europe we see today, where for many Christianity is some vague thing that exists on the far fringes of their life.

For people like me, I would see the Johns as ideal foster carers (with the proviso I 'know' them only through media comments), in that they are in the long tradition of Christian views and values. As a mature and apparently loving faithful black couple in particular, they are ideally placed to help a black child (or white for that mnatter) with the tough choices they face; they are now in their 60s but I am sure have a wealth of experience. It is a dark day for 'British ''justice''. The tragedy is that some excellent Catholic foster agencies have now closed down due to the strident dictatorship of this rampant new secularism.

Saul the Apostle.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
Yet, there was an almost unanimous acceptance that Jesus Christ was Lord. It was how that was expressed (in the 17th century) that caused the conflict and that included the place of King and Parliament.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by thednt:
A related article which got my thinking:
How Long Before Christians are
Actively Persecuted in England?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Niteowl2:
I am curious, since both the decision in this case and the actual council board requires everyone to follow the same rules for foster parenting and that many Christians, including fundamentalist evangelicals, have had no problem following the policies set forth, that this one case involving a couple who apparently made statements indicating they wouldn't follow the rules means that Christians are being persecuted?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by thednt:
A related article which got my thinking:
How Long Before Christians are Actively Persecuted in England?

---

quote:

---

Why should banknotes be printed with pictures on them of Charles Darwin? The facts that Darwin was a great man, and that I think he was right about evolution, are beside the point. For very large number of British citizens, he was a gross blasphemer.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by thednt:
A related article which got my thinking:
How Long Before Christians are
Actively Persecuted in England?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
[But the nub (of the fostering case) is the ''sexual ethics'' of the Johns' is it not? But the so called 'sexual ethics' (for the Johns) are wrapped up in their deeply held Christian faith and that is exactly the point I'm making.

---

quote:

---

There really is clash of values on view in this court case, and the judges are simply saying ‘we are secularists, Christianity has no place in our deliberations.’ The trouble is that senior judges, such as Lord Chief Justice Phillips, say that Muslims in Britain should be able to live under Sharia Law in certain sectors of life, so there is a legal place for religious values, albeit in cases where there is no conflict with the secular law. Their problem is that Christianity is unique in the UK: all our laws, our monarchy, our Parliament, our NHS, our schools and universities, were based on Christian praxis and values. They argue that while there is this Christian heritage, modern law is not based on religious rules. The judges need to pull a very large rug out from under themselves in order to claim that the law is wholly ‘secular’ – itself of course a very debated concept and commitment.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
If you'd have tried to establish active gay relationships as legitimate, in Cromwell's New Model Army, you'd have, at best, been expelled and branded as heretic and at worst executed. Christian belief and moral behaviour are hand in glove they are one and the same.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
If you'd have tried to establish active gay relationships as legitimate, in Cromwell's New Model Army, you'd have, at best, been expelled and branded as heretic and at worst executed. Christian belief and moral behaviour are hand in glove they are one and the same.

---

And this, in two sentences, is why it is an extremely good thing that law, church and state are no longer joined at the hip. And why those who seem to hanker for a return to the good old Judaeo-Christian consensus fill me with horror.

---

quote:

---

Others have criticized Christie on political grounds, particularly with respect to her conversations about and portrayals of Jews. Christopher Hitchens, in his autobiography, describes a dinner with Christie and her husband, Professor Sir Max Mallowan, which became increasingly uncomfortable as the night wore on, and where "The anti-Jewish flavour of the talk was not to be ignored or overlooked, or put down to heavy humour or generational prejudice. It was vividly unpleasant..."[33] Twenty-five years after her death, critic Johann Hari notes "In its ugliest moments, Christie’s conservatism crossed over into a contempt for Jews, who are so often associated with rationalist political philosophies and a ‘cosmopolitanism’ that is antithetical to the Burkean paradigm of the English village. There is a streak of anti-Semitism running through the pre-1950s novels which cannot be denied even by her admirers."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
I probably haven't explained my perspective. There was division, there was civil war and profound disagreements. Yet, there was an almost unanimous acceptance that Jesus Christ was Lord. It was how that was expressed (in the 17th century) that caused the conflict and that included the place of King and Parliament.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Apocalypso:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
If you'd have tried to establish active gay relationships as legitimate, in Cromwell's New Model Army, you'd have, at best, been expelled and branded as heretic and at worst executed. Christian belief and moral behaviour are hand in glove they are one and the same.

---

And this, in two sentences, is why it is an extremely good thing that law, church and state are no longer joined at the hip. And why those who seem to hanker for a return to the good old Judaeo-Christian consensus fill me with horror.

---

What pre-Cambrian said.

Saul, you wrote something earlier about working on developing your empathy. May I suggest, while you're at it, that you work on developing some imagination as well?

1. The Judaeo-Christian consensus was (A) not especially "Judaeo"; it was downright anti-semitic. As one example, read anything by Agatha Christie lately? She lived -- and wrote -- and was a very popular author during a chunk of your alleged “consensus” era, and became a Dame of the Order of the British Empire as a result, and her views on "Judaeo" people were, erm, less than uplifting.

Here’s what Wikipedia has to say on this topic:

quote:

---

Others have criticized Christie on political grounds, particularly with respect to her conversations about and portrayals of Jews. Christopher Hitchens, in his autobiography, describes a dinner with Christie and her husband, Professor Sir Max Mallowan, which became increasingly uncomfortable as the night wore on, and where "The anti-Jewish flavour of the talk was not to be ignored or overlooked, or put down to heavy humour or generational prejudice. It was vividly unpleasant..."[33] Twenty-five years after her death, critic Johann Hari notes "In its ugliest moments, Christie’s conservatism crossed over into a contempt for Jews, who are so often associated with rationalist political philosophies and a ‘cosmopolitanism’ that is antithetical to the Burkean paradigm of the English village. There is a streak of anti-Semitism running through the pre-1950s novels which cannot be denied even by her admirers."

---

2. The Judaeo-Christian consensus was (B) not particularly Christian, either, unless loving neighbors and enemies somehow slid out of whatever scriptures your "consensus" might have been consulting.

3. And, as already noted, you seem unable to grasp what people are telling you here: THERE WAS NO DAMN CONSENSUS.

There WAS an establishment view imposed by the majority on a substantial number of people who deeply resented it and suffered on its account. You happen to have been exposed to that establishment view (apparently absent much exposure to others). The fact that you’re aware of a particular view, and that most people you know subscribe to that view, and that you agree with that view does not make that view true, or turn it into a consensus, or even brand it a Good Idea.

I haven’t been to London in more than a decade, but when I was last there, I encountered many, many Sikhs, Muslims, and Hindus in my wanderings through that city. I'd guess that these days there may be even more. How long after establishing your Christian theocracy (because that IS what you actually seem to be proposing, here) do you think it would be before your country had erupted in demonstrations, riots, and civil unrest?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
The Johns are themselves examples, of this wide ranging Protestant consensus. Indeed these days many of us find common cause with our Catholic brothers and sisters.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
I don't wish to sound arrogant in that, as if you don't follow God, you may indeed do so, or may not, but it is a general point I'm making here. That Judaeo Consensus is alive and well and indeed gaining strength.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Does anyone think of Darwin as a blasphemer, gross or not? Is anyone offended by his picture on banknotes? (If I recall correctly, he was a devout Christian at the time he developed the theory of evolution; he lost his faith later when his 7 yr old daughter died.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by thednt:
A related article which got my thinking:
How Long Before Christians are
Actively Persecuted in England?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
From the US Congress....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpQOCvthw-o

Whether you agree with this Judaeo Christian consensus, or you do not, you have to be an extreme ostrich to say it never existed, don't you?

Go read some history.

Saul

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
Saul--

Maybe God and God's Word/scriptures never change or pass away...but the human understanding and interpretation of them do.

ISTM that whenever there's an official position on something--school policy, parental rules, religious ideas--people have their own interpretations and disbelief that may never see the light of day, let alone make it into any official record.

We get that you're standing firm with what you believe is true...but maybe you could listen a little more to other opinions? You don't have to agree with them; but listening to others and trying to really understand where they're coming from would stand you in good stead here

---

GK,

Pot....kettle.....black ?

You assume a liberal secular consensus on this site.

I find the ''listening to others'' a bit rich, I have listened to others, the fact we don't agree, well get over it man.

That it will stand me in ''good stead'' ; what does that mean?

I have been as honest as I am prepared to be.

There WAS a judaeo christian consensus in the Anglo Saxon world; thats what I think; I'm not going to alter that perspective so that I can be held positively in the airwaves and ether in this virtual world as an enlightened one.

I disagree with you. But I'm prepared to debate with you and, as long as that debate is held in a civilised way, i shall respect your perspective; but nevertheless there is a diversity of view here. Thats life.

S.
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Nope, no assumption of liberal consensus. We've got a wide spectrum of belief, disbelief, theory, and opinion on this site. And individuals may believe something totally different from what their part of the spectrum would lead you to think.

There are shipmates who would make YOU look like a flaming liberal.

 

---

Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
Nope, no assumption of liberal consensus. We've got a wide spectrum of belief, disbelief, theory, and opinion on this site. And individuals may believe something totally different from what their part of the spectrum would lead you to think.

There are shipmates who would make YOU look like a flaming liberal.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
From the US Congress....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpQOCvthw-o

Whether you agree with this Judaeo Christian consensus, or you do not, you have to be an extreme ostrich to say it never existed, don't you?

Go read some history.

Saul

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:

Many Brits are completely secular these days. However, I have observed a growing interest in the true gospel and my suspicion is that as folk try secularism, materialism and humanism, they will be dissapointed.....but I'm going way off the OP here .

Have a nice day.

Saul the Apostle

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Niteowl2:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:

Many Brits are completely secular these days. However, I have observed a growing interest in the true gospel and my suspicion is that as folk try secularism, materialism and humanism, they will be dissapointed.....but I'm going way off the OP here .

Have a nice day.

Saul the Apostle

---

Saul, just what is the "true gospel"? I doubt you'll get a consensus on that. As orfeo states, just viewing the myriad of differing theological viewpoints among Christians aboard the ship should tell you that much.

As to the U.S., even though the colonialists fled religious persecution they didn't hesitate to punish or drive out those who didn't agree with their theology in the individual colonies. And there have always been debates here over who is a "true" Christian, even spreading to which political party one supports. It's a good thing our founding fathers did create a separation between church and state or some would have us living in a conservative, right wing theocracy right now.

Aside from a multitude of Christian theological differences, there are also increasing numbers of citizens here from different religions or who have no religion. Every citizen's rights and viewpoints is equal to others. Including children having the rights to their religion, sexuality, etc being respected. And to their not being further traumatized by them not being respected.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
Oh dear Apocalypso, we seemed to be getting to some degree of consensus here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
You have plucked out Agatha Christie out of thin air as a sort of representative type. Where did that one come from i wonder? How random.

---

quote:

---

According to the Guinness Book of World Records, Christie is the best-selling writer of books of all time and, with William Shakespeare, the best-selling author of any kind.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
I could name you any number of British anti semites and even today there are some lurking on the far reaches of social acceptability.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
If you'd have read my posts you'd have seen that i also have difficulties with the odd term Judaeo - Christian, and indeed the consensus it alludes to. But exist it did, whether you or I like it or not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
That Judaeo Consensus is alive and well and indeed gaining strength.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
That consensus still exists,

---

quote:

---

-The Abolition of Man C.S. Lewis

"A great many of those who 'debunk' traditional...values have in the background values of their own which they believe to be immune from the debunking process."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Niteowl2:
Saul, just what is the "true gospel"? I doubt you'll get a consensus on that. As orfeo states, just viewing the myriad of differing theological viewpoints among Christians aboard the ship should tell you that much.
{snip}

---

Yes, respect and Christian love were often ignored in times gone by.

What is a Christian? Well, give me a year or two or three and I may begin to come up with an answer. Meantime a well known statement of belief may do.

If you believe and practice this, you're most likely a Christian !

Saul

So for starters try:

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
one in Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered, died, and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in fulfillment of the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of Life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Niteowl2:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Niteowl2:
Saul, just what is the "true gospel"? I doubt you'll get a consensus on that. As orfeo states, just viewing the myriad of differing theological viewpoints among Christians aboard the ship should tell you that much.
{snip}

---

Yes, respect and Christian love were often ignored in times gone by.

What is a Christian? Well, give me a year or two or three and I may begin to come up with an answer. Meantime a well known statement of belief may do.

If you believe and practice this, you're most likely a Christian !

Saul

So for starters try:

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
one in Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered, died, and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in fulfillment of the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of Life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

---

I know that the older I get the more I realize how much I don't know. While I personally follow the creed, I've never acknowledged the line about following "the one catholic and apostolic church". For me there is no one authoritative church, be Orthodox, Catholic or any other denomination. And I think Jesus pretty much simplified the whole thing requiring only an acknowledgment of faith in him.

Either way, the most important thing - and the thing that will change a child's life - is to be Christ's love to that child. I don't think it's a huge deal to respect a child's religion or sexuality no matter what your theology.

---

quote:

---

A near-universal consensus is now a gnat? Wow. That's a pretty impressive about-face.

I am less and less convinced of the sincerity of your posts, and more and more inclined to suspect a wind-up, which renders further engagement here a waste of bandwidth.

I'm done.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
Its not that I, as an English Protestant, don't think it has affected our own nation it clearly has, but in the USA it seems to be a bit more of a live debate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
What is a Christian? Well, give me a year or two or three and I may begin to come up with an answer. Meantime a well known statement of belief may do.

If you believe and practice this, you're most likely a Christian !

[Nicene Creed]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
Like I said, the sad fact of the matter is, the ideological storm trooper of Blair's thought police, closed down perfectly good Catholic foster agencies in the UK (in 2006) a shame and an ideological phyrric victory at the price of happy children in loving foster homes that they'll now never know. Who wins here?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
Well here is a short piece from the 'Anglican Mainstream' site.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Apocalypso:
A near-universal consensus is now a gnat? Wow. That's a pretty impressive about-face.

I am less and less convinced of the sincerity of your posts, and more and more inclined to suspect a wind-up, which renders further engagement here a waste of bandwidth.

I'm done.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
... there are many devout Christian couples on the list of approved foster carers.

In other words, there is no evidence of a systematic policy of excluding Christians because of their beliefs. ....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
Well here is a short piece from the 'Anglican Mainstream' site.

---

Mainstream is a reactionary, conservative evangelical group that embarrasses most evangelicals.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
I haven't heard a sensible riposte about the plight of Catholic foster agencies which, I believe, voluntarily closed down here in the UK back in 2006. For my part this seems a loss rather than a gain; but both you and I are not familiar with the exact details, so maybe someone could advise us.

---

quote:

---

Catholic Charities, which runs more than 20 social service programs for the District, transferred its entire foster-care program -- 43 children, 35 families and seven staff members -- to another provider, the National Center for Children and Families. Tommy Wells (D-Ward 6), the D.C. Council member who chairs the Committee on Human Services, said he didn't know of any problems with the transfer, which happened Feb. 1.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
In terms of the Judaeo Christian phrase and being not inclusive; well, Jewish folk have their own take I'm sure on this one. I would hope they would feel included in the concept, . . .

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
Well here is a short piece from the 'Anglican Mainstream' site.

---

Mainstream is a reactionary, conservative evangelical group that embarrasses most evangelicals.

---

Leo,

I thought it ''Mainstream'' was well errr, mainstream? Thats how their site comes across, but you can't believe everything you read can you.

Saul

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
So for starters try:

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
one in Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered, died, and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in fulfillment of the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of Life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharkshooter:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
... there are many devout Christian couples on the list of approved foster carers.

In other words, there is no evidence of a systematic policy of excluding Christians because of their beliefs. ....

---

Right, so to suggest that this is a persecution of Christians is a bit of overkill.

However, it is discrimination based on religious belief, because their religious belief, whether universal or not, is still the reason they are being discriminated against.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
I haven't heard a sensible riposte about the plight of Catholic foster agencies which, I believe, voluntarily closed down here in the UK back in 2006.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
I haven't heard a sensible riposte about the plight of Catholic foster agencies which, I believe, voluntarily closed down here in the UK back in 2006.

---

Hang on. Up until now you were saying that BLAIR closed them down.

If the Catholic church voluntarily decides that it cannot abide by the law, that is the Catholic church's decision. It's not a 'plight'.

The church does not have a RIGHT to provide foster services. It's a choice. A choice that has to be made within the laws of the land. The idea that the church was somehow ABOVE the law of the land in these kinds of things died centuries ago (well, at least for most people).

That's certainly the case in a nation like the UK with no entrenched freedom of religion. Even in countries like the USA or Australia with freedom of religion established, it only goes as far as the basic tenets of faith. I doubt, for example, that in these countries you could prohibit church meetings on Sundays.

But I challenge you to point to any creed, anywhere, that says that providing fostering services to children is an essential part of the Christian faith and that Christianity just isn't Christianity anymore if you can't do it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
I haven't heard a sensible riposte about the plight of Catholic foster agencies which, I believe, voluntarily closed down here in the UK back in 2006.

---

Hang on. Up until now you were saying that BLAIR closed them down.

If the Catholic church voluntarily decides that it cannot abide by the law, that is the Catholic church's decision. It's not a 'plight'.

The church does not have a RIGHT to provide foster services. It's a choice. A choice that has to be made within the laws of the land. The idea that the church was somehow ABOVE the law of the land in these kinds of things died centuries ago (well, at least for most people).

That's certainly the case in a nation like the UK with no entrenched freedom of religion. Even in countries like the USA or Australia with freedom of religion established, it only goes as far as the basic tenets of faith. I doubt, for example, that in these countries you could prohibit church meetings on Sundays.

But I challenge you to point to any creed, anywhere, that says that providing fostering services to children is an essential part of the Christian faith and that Christianity just isn't Christianity anymore if you can't do it.

---

I think you'll find that the Catholic placement agencies were forced to close down by legislation that pertained to equality matters.

So they closed their doors before they were prosecuted I guess.

Overall I would go with this:

'' the High Court swept aside 2,000 years of Christian orthodoxy and tradition by divorcing sexual ethics from Christianity. Lord Justice Munby and Mr Justice Beatson ruled that there was no discrimination against Mr and Mrs Johns as Christians because they were being excluded from fostering 'due to their sexual ethics and not their Christian beliefs'. It is a manifest falsehood for High Court judges to claim that a believer’s moral beliefs about sex have nothing to do with his or her Christian faith.

While not dismissing the incontrovertible fact that Christians have diverse beliefs on the issue of homosexuality, it is equally incontrovertible that there is a canonical context for believing that homosexual behaviour meets with divine disapproval. And, unlike matters such as slavery and the subordination of women - concerning which there are tensions between the Old and New Testaments and counterposed witnesses - the biblical witness against homosexual practices is univocal.''

This IMO puts the case squarely where it should be seen - sexual ethics cannot be divorced from Christianity and the behaviour of individual Christians. Thats not to say Christians don't sin as they (and I) patently do. But call it for what it is - sin.

Saul the Apostle

PS how long does a 'dead horse' go on for?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
I think you'll find that the Catholic placement agencies were forced to close down by legislation that pertained to equality matters.

So they closed their doors before they were prosecuted I guess.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
This IMO puts the case squarely where it should be seen - sexual ethics cannot be divorced from Christianity and the behaviour of individual Christians. Thats not to say Christians don't sin as they (and I) patently do. But call it for what it is - sin.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Midge:

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?

---

So what is needed is training and guidance on how to keep true to one's religion whilst recognising duties to others. Not a law suit.

It should be ok to say "I believe x" whilst still loving the other.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
Well here is a short piece from the 'Anglican Mainstream' site.

quote:

---

There really is clash of values on view in this court case, and the judges are simply saying ‘we are secularists, Christianity has no place in our deliberations.’ The trouble is that senior judges, such as Lord Chief Justice Phillips, say that Muslims in Britain should be able to live under Sharia Law in certain sectors of life, so there is a legal place for religious values, albeit in cases where there is no conflict with the secular law. Their problem is that Christianity is unique in the UK: all our laws, our monarchy, our Parliament, our NHS, our schools and universities, were based on Christian praxis and values. They argue that while there is this Christian heritage, modern law is not based on religious rules. The judges need to pull a very large rug out from under themselves in order to claim that the law is wholly ‘secular’ – itself of course a very debated concept and commitment.

---

This case is about the Johns' conscience and the juggernaut of the secular post Christian/post modern state.

Saul

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Louise:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Apocalypso:
A near-universal consensus is now a gnat? Wow. That's a pretty impressive about-face.

I am less and less convinced of the sincerity of your posts, and more and more inclined to suspect a wind-up, which renders further engagement here a waste of bandwidth.

I'm done.

---

hosting

Apocalypso,
Accusations of this sort breach Commandments 3 and 4, and belong in Hell. That's effectively an accusation of trolling. Please don't make such accusations here or continue the discussion in such a vein.

thanks,
Louise
Dead Horses Host

hosting

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
To be clear, Saul, I don't object to your view that all homosexual acts are wrong. I might disagree with it, but I don't object to it.

What I object to is every time you talk as if it's the only possible interpretation of Scripture. As if the only way to believe that homosexuality is not sinful is to either ignore the Bible or to twist it for self-serving ends.

I find such a view to be an attack on my personal integrity. It basically implies that after all my years of struggling with this issue, I just decided to say 'you know what, stuff what the Bible says, I don't care what it says'.

Now that might have worked perfectly well for my atheist father, but it doesn't work for me and it's not what I did. I believe that homosexuality is okay because I finally, after much testing, came to the conclusion that the Bible never prohibits it. It only prohibits particular homosexual practices, in exactly the same way that it prohibits particular heterosexual practices.

Whether or not you agree with me is up to you. But I'm going to keep on insisting that you accept that it IS my view and that it's a sincerely held one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
Perhaps a short pithy quote might do.

quote:

---

-The Abolition of Man C.S. Lewis
"A great many of those who 'debunk' traditional...values have in the background values of their own which they believe to be immune from the debunking process."

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
Overall I would go with this:

'' the High Court swept aside 2,000 years of Christian orthodoxy and tradition by divorcing sexual ethics from Christianity. Lord Justice Munby and Mr Justice Beatson ruled that there was no discrimination against Mr and Mrs Johns as Christians because they were being excluded from fostering 'due to their sexual ethics and not their Christian beliefs'. It is a manifest falsehood for High Court judges to claim that a believer's moral beliefs about sex have nothing to do with his or her Christian faith...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
Fundamentally, it is about which side you're batting for. Humanistic Secularism v Christianity IMHO.

---

quote:

---

Your opinion can be as humble as pie, but it is still bullshit

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:

quote:

---

Your opinion can be as humble as pie, but it is still bullshit

---

Unacceptable

---

I also checked the 10 Commandments. So you go to Hell pjkirk.

''......Attack the issue, not the person

Name-calling and personal insults are only allowed in Hell. Attacks outside of Hell are grounds for suspension or banning.''

StA
 

---

Posted by pjkirk (# 10997) on :
 
Your opinion is bullshit I said. Your ideas. Your posts on the thread. See the difference?
 

---

Posted by TonyK (# 35) on :
 
[Host Mode ACTIVATE]

pjkirk - please stop the personal attack on Saul. You have been around long enough to know that this is not acceptable on this Board.

Note to all - 'Junior Hosting' is not required in any thread. If it is felt that a breach of the 10Cs has occured and no hostly response has resulted, contact us and, if necessary, an Admin. by PM, for action.

Anybody guilty of Junior Hosting may be required to do the job for real - and you wouldn't want that, would you?

[Host Mode DEACTIVATE]
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
Fundamentally, it is about which side you're batting for. Humanistic Secularism v Christianity IMHO.

The arguments in scripture about homosexuality are not the easiest; but taken as a broad whole, there is harmony; that is, homosexual relations are not what God wants for His children.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Armin:
And to deny there was a consensus in the past on various issues we now debate seems plain silly. So does attaching too much weight to it; there was a time when there was a consensus that the sun went round the earth, for example. But our heritage as Brits is largely Christian, in a certain way. Whether it was the best way, is clearly moot.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
Honi soit qui mal y pense

I stand by what I've previously said. Short of meeting the Johns', I can't comment further upon the case or them in particular.

Whatever ones feeling about homosexuality, fostering, Christian values/behaviour, the Judges comments do signify something of a watershed.

For my part the Judges comments are a continuing march down the route away from traditional Christian behaviour and values; but this march has been progressing apace for some time and this is but one more piece in the overall mosaic. IMHO.

StA

---

quote:

---

Fundamentally, it is about which side you're batting for. Humanistic Secularism v Christianity IMHO.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
Honi soit qui mal y pense

I stand by what I've previously said. Short of meeting the Johns', I can't comment further upon the case or them in particular.

Whatever ones feeling about homosexuality, fostering, Christian values/behaviour, the Judges comments do signify something of a watershed.

For my part the Judges comments are a continuing march down the route away from traditional Christian behaviour and values; but this march has been progressing apace for some time and this is but one more piece in the overall mosaic. IMHO.

StA

---

I'm genuinely confused. Is it a watershed or is just another step in a march that has been going on for much longer?

My understanding of what 'watershed' means isn't really compatible with the other statements in your post.

PS Please translate the first sentence of your post as well. Thanks.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
Honi soit qui mal y pense

I stand by what I've previously said. Short of meeting the Johns', I can't comment further upon the case or them in particular.

Whatever ones feeling about homosexuality, fostering, Christian values/behaviour, the Judges comments do signify something of a watershed.

For my part the Judges comments are a continuing march down the route away from traditional Christian behaviour and values; but this march has been progressing apace for some time and this is but one more piece in the overall mosaic. IMHO.

StA

---

I'm genuinely confused. Is it a watershed or is just another step in a march that has been going on for much longer?

My understanding of what 'watershed' means isn't really compatible with the other statements in your post.

PS Please translate the first sentence of your post as well. Thanks.

---

In my understanding the 'watershed' is the implications (hence the OP) of the Judges comments; this legal case is part of the (in my view) the wider march of secular humanism in society or progress; one or the other depending on ones views. So the legal ruling was IMO a watershed and it has to be seen in context with a 'progressive' march in society (well in the UK) throughout the 20th century. Some of that march has been genuine progress, some less so, in my case the glaring one, is the 'progress' for women to slaughter children in the womb; called abortion, it is legalised murder. This is seen by some as 'progress', by other likes myself as a retrograde step that snuffs out life that has no voice.

Fundamentally, as the communists realised, it is about the fight for ideas and to a degree ideology. That is why i regard this ruling as a retrograde step. With the proviso that unlike the Judges I do not know the Johns' and there may be reasons why they don't think they'd make good foster parents, apart from their religious faith. If so this has not been said, so I am left to conclude it is about their religious faith.

The latin quote is from the Order of the Garter - roughly translated it is: ''Evil be to him who evil thinks.''

Saul the Ap.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
The latin quote is from the Order of the Garter - roughly translated it is: Evil be to him who evil thinks.

Saul the Ap.

---

Latin?

I think the ruling on British educational standards is now in.
 

---

Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
The latin quote is from the Order of the Garter - roughly translated it is: Evil be to him who evil thinks.

Saul the Ap.

---

Latin?

I think the ruling on British educational standards is now in.

---

What is British education coming to.

Well spotted and I will wear a hair shirt for a whole week now. Before any Shipisti say it I am NOT in Opus Dei

S t A
 

---

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
Saul,
I don't think anyone is impressed by cutting and pasting from a pseudonymous blogger whose only qualification on the subject seems to be that he agrees with you.
cheers,
Louise
 

---

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
John and Eunice Johns are the Big Society

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
What do you know? Gay people can misinterpret court cases too.

---

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"?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
What do you know? Gay people can misinterpret court cases too.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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!
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 

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!

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
Fundamentally, it is about which side you're batting for. Humanistic Secularism v Christianity IMHO.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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

---

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."

---

quote:

---

What you have hunted me for is not my actions, but the thoughts of my heart.

---

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.

---

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

---

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.

---

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.

---

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).

---

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.

---

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).

---

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.

---

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.

---

 

---

Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on :
 
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 ]
 

---

Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on :
 
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".
 

---

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
I was interested in the response from the Evangelical Alliance

---

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.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
The predominant zeitgeist of the West is the rampant humanistic secular relativist behemoth.

---

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

---

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.''

---

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.''

---

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?

---

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

---

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.
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
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...
 

---

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
Excellent point, good sig.
 

---

Posted by Apocalypso (# 15405) on :
 

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.

---

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).

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

The two issues you raise are red herrings IMHO.

---

quote:

---

No one couple is totally ''ideal''are they, be fair?

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0