Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:
From the article:

"critics such as the Rev Colin Coward, who writes on Changingattitude.org.uk, a pro-gay Christian website, say Perkin and his like-minded evangelicals have been quietly seeking a "takeover of the Church of England"."

If evangelicals are attempting to takeover the CofE they are doing a piss poor job of doing so.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:
From the article:

"critics such as the Rev Colin Coward, who writes on Changingattitude.org.uk, a pro-gay Christian website, say Perkin and his like-minded evangelicals have been quietly seeking a "takeover of the Church of England"."

If evangelicals are attempting to takeover the CofE they are doing a piss poor job of doing so.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I wonder how how this goes down back at head office in South Kensington? It's impossible to imagine anyone more brand-conscious as Nicky Gumbel, and it is my impression, at least, that he was anxious that HTB should put behind it the anti gay attitudes associated with Sandy Millar. Not saying that he wants HTB to, necessarily, become an affirming church, buy at least that it should give up defending the indefensible. Is it just a matter of one of Nicky's plants going rogue?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:
Battersea Rise has been a bit more independent of HTB for some time. Paul Perkin himself is overtly involved in links with GAFCON & AMIE and is explicit that he's not convinced about the "headship" role of women. HTB and its other plants are neither linked with GAFCON, nor are they opposed to women priests.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Komensky:
Rick Warren in particular should be a cause for alarm as he was an active fund-raiser and spokesman for the anti-gay campaigns in Uganda.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:
Speak of the devil... and he shall make headlines in today's news for doing something anti-gay. He wants a religious exemption added on to discrimination rules to allow religious groups to discriminate against gays.

Imagine if they wanted a 'religious exemption' for slavery, or for apartheid, or for segregation (and do imagine hard because those things were vigorously defended historically by religious groups on religious grounds). The notion of a religious exemption allowing religious groups to perform immoral conduct because they are incapable and undesirous of living up to and following the moral standards that the rest of society follows, says to me something deeply shameful about religious groups. They should feel awful about themselves for asking for such exemptions, because of what it says about them as people. The kindest thing to do would be to not grant such requests and to try to help these religious people aspire instead to a higher moral standard.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by GCabot:
this argument is a compete straw man. Show me the multitude of legitimate religious groups that sincerely believe that slavery, apartheid, or segregation is necessary for the exercise of their religion.

---

quote:

---

From the official 1995 SBC apology for racism:

Our relationship to African-Americans has been hindered from the beginning by the role that slavery played in the formation of the Southern Baptist Convention...
Many of our Southern Baptist forbears defended the right to own slaves, and either participated in, supported, or acquiesced in the particularly inhumane nature of American slavery...
In later years Southern Baptists failed, in many cases, to support, and in some cases opposed, legitimate initiatives to secure the civil rights of African-Americans

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:

quote:

---

Originally posted by GCabot:
this argument is a compete straw man. Show me the multitude of legitimate religious groups that sincerely believe that slavery, apartheid, or segregation is necessary for the exercise of their religion.

---

I am slightly confused by your phrasing here about discrimination being "necessary for the exercise of their religion", as you seem to be setting quite a high bar with that phrasing - one that I'm not sure that Rick Warren meets for example.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:
Here are some examples, nonetheless. I am absolutely sure there are many more, but these are ones that happen to have come to my attention in the last couple of months and so I can easily find the links for them:

For example there are the Southern Baptists in the US, an entire denomination that was formed substantially to opposed abolition of slavery on religious grounds. In their own words:

quote:

---

From the official 1995 SBC apology for racism:

Our relationship to African-Americans has been hindered from the beginning by the role that slavery played in the formation of the Southern Baptist Convention...
Many of our Southern Baptist forbears defended the right to own slaves, and either participated in, supported, or acquiesced in the particularly inhumane nature of American slavery...
In later years Southern Baptists failed, in many cases, to support, and in some cases opposed, legitimate initiatives to secure the civil rights of African-Americans

---

On the issue of (de)segregation, this article was published a month ago, by an American historian, analysing the origins of the Religious Right in the US (a massive political/religious movement in the US that continues to this day), and concluding that it is clear that their primary historical orgin was the religious fight against desegregation.

Here is an anti-desegregation sermon preached on Easter Sunday 1960 by Bob Jones at the university he founded. He extensively labels the desegregation movement part of "a subtle, Satanic effort to undermine people's faith in the Bible" and makes it very clear that he thinks "racially we have separation in the Bible, let's get that clear." This sermon was distributed by the university from 1960 to 1986 as their religious rationale for their continuing pro-segregation position and practice.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by GCabot:
I assume the purpose of your original post was not to discuss scenarios of alternate history; it was to discuss the here and now.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:
Speak of the devil... and he shall make headlines in today's news for doing something anti-gay. He wants a religious exemption added on to discrimination rules to allow religious groups to discriminate against gays.

Imagine if they wanted a 'religious exemption' for slavery, or for apartheid, or for segregation (and do imagine hard because those things were vigorously defended historically by religious groups on religious grounds). The notion of a religious exemption allowing religious groups to perform immoral conduct because they are incapable and undesirous of living up to and following the moral standards that the rest of society follows, says to me something deeply shameful about religious groups. They should feel awful about themselves for asking for such exemptions, because of what it says about them as people. The kindest thing to do would be to not grant such requests and to try to help these religious people aspire instead to a higher moral standard.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:

quote:

---

Originally posted by GCabot:
I assume the purpose of your original post was not to discuss scenarios of alternate history; it was to discuss the here and now.

---

It was to point out that we have not seen fit in the past to grant religious exemptions for things like slavery, apartheid and segregation. At the time such things were occurring they were vehemently defended by substantial numbers of Christians as being endorsed and consistent with and required by Christian biblical teachings. However, in spite of such Christian defenders, progress was made, and we no longer allow slavery, apartheid or segregation. Nor did we permit there to be exceptions for those professing "sincerely held religious beliefs" about those subjects. Part of abolishing slavery was not allowing those who sincerely religiously believed in it to continue to own slaves. Part of abolishing segregation was not allowing those who sincerely religiously believed in it to continue to practice it.

Likewise today, with the issue of prohibiting anti-gay discrimination. There are people whose sincerely held religious beliefs lead them to strongly desire to do harmful things to gay people. The bans on harmful behaviour toward gay people should not have an exception for "sincerely held religious beliefs" anymore than harmful behaviour toward black people should. It says terrible and shameful things about the people requesting such exemptions that they would even want an exemption from decent behaviour in the first place.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Ugandan Newspaper:
Dr Warren said that homosexuality is not a natural way of life and thus not a human right. "We shall not tolerate this aspect at all," Dr Warren said.

---

quote:

---

Preliminary ruling supporting a case against Scott Lively:
[W]idespread, systematic persecution of individuals based on their sexual orientation and gender identity constitutes a crime against humanity that violates international norms.
...
[A]iding and abetting a crime against humanity is a well established offense under customary international law, and actions for redress of this crime have frequently been recognized by American courts

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Komensky:
Thanks for that post, Starlight. He's hardly hiding his stripes with the current campaign—presumably he'll continue to try to play both sides (as it were!).

K.

---