|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The law and the Christian - Judges ruling on foster couple wider implications?
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
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?
Indeed, there is something to be said for the view that a situation that has NOT been finally decided is being whipped up into something meaningful when it simply isn't.
It wouldn't be the first time, either. I can recall a case here in which someone claimed gambling was a disability within the meaning of the Disability Discrimination Act. In an preliminary hearing, a judge refused to rule this possibility out completely. Employer groups caused an enormous ruckus about this, even though the judge gave whopping great big hints that the person would need a lot more evidence to win their case, and right now they would lose on the facts, and even though the person subsequently DID lose their disability claim.
As it stands in this case, no decision has been made. Once a decision is made, the couple can, if they wish, challenge the decision.
They've probably made this preemptory move precisely because they know the basis on which they can challenge will probably be limited to the legalities and technicalities. If the decision turned on a matter of opinion, on which people might reasonably come to different views, they know they would probably lose a challenge.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
let us not pretend that we are not creating new limitations on religious faith.
Fucking A. This sort of religious faith* must be limited, if religious people can’t limit it themselves. It should be limited into extinction, IMO.
* the sort that interferes with human rights, especially in children, and especially with sexuality.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
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.
The European Commission and the Department of Health don't count as impartial?
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
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.
Source is paragraph 7 of the court decision. It was linked to in the other thread that has now gone to Dead Horses, and this particular bit of evidence has been referred to a few times in that thread (can't recall if it's been mentioned here before).
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/375.html
It's interesting to note that the couple also said they wouldn't/couldn't take a child to a mosque (paragraph 6).
[ 01. March 2011, 12:00: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
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.
As far as I can see, the 'incredibly wide drawing' hasn't been done by the court at all. It's been done by people running off at half cock after a decision that deliberately avoided making any kind of declaration.
It's the reporting of the case that has claimed that some kind of decision has been made that 'Christians who believe homosexuality is wrong can't be foster parents'. This bears almost no resemblance to the actual court decision.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
From paragraph 106 of the decision: "Although there is no evidence to this effect, it is, as we have said, stated on behalf of the defendant, and we are for present purposes prepared to assume that this is so, that the defendant has approved foster carers who are "very committed Christians who hold to orthodox beliefs and devout Muslims who are similarly committed to their religion" where "those carers are able to value diversity notwithstanding their strongly held religious beliefs." "
In other words, while the couple might be trying to paint this as a battle on behalf of all right-thinking Christians and of Christian morality, what little evidence there is on the subject indicates that the council is perfectly HAPPY for Christians with strong moral views to be foster carers. So long as they are able to understand the sensitivities of expressing those moral views to foster children in their temporary care.
In other words, there is no evidence that Christians are being excluded from foster care for being Christians.
If they had painted it as 'a battle on behalf of insensitive people who don't understand the emotional fragility of children', I doubt they would have got anywhere near as much traction.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497
|
Posted
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.
Some of the more measured analysis I've read suggests that perhaps the couple have been "hijacked" by the Christian Legal Centre.
--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....
Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
chukovsky
Ship's toddler
# 116
|
Posted
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.
In this interview Mrs Johns was asked what she would do if she had an eight-year-old in her care who was talking about sexuality. She said (I may be paraphrasing) that they'd "talk to them about it and 'see where this had come from'". I wished the interviewer had picked her up on this and asked what she meant, but the implication seemed to be that there would be no reason for a child to talk about sexuality unless someone else had "planted" this in the child.
Mrs Johns also said "we couldn't tell that child it was OK [to be gay]". So, logically, if a ten-year-old boy came home crying and saying "they say I'm gay, I wanted Adam to be my boyfriend so I must be, they say it's wrong to be gay" she would not be able to say to that child "they are wrong and horrible, of course it is OK to be gay".
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?
Foster carers do have to show that they will not display prejudices against children in their care in many ways. And the line we draw is the line drawn by the law - foster carers cannot discriminate against children in their care on gender, religious, ethnic, and now sexual orientation grounds. Some foster carers do not foster children with particular disabilities because they don't have the resources to care for them. But they do not hold world views that suggest it is wrong to be in a wheelchair (hate the behaviour but love the sinner).
--------------------
This space left intentionally blank. Do not write on both sides of the paper at once.
Posts: 6842 | From: somewhere else | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
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.
Depends how you define "gay."
Not all "gay" people have always been exclusively "gay" - some are happy to be bisexual but are now in a "gay" relationship - they may change later - choice. Some determine themselves now as "gay" but were once married and seemingly (as they had children, weren't so sold out on being "gay" sex that they couldn't perform with an opposite sex partner. Choice again.
Of those who consider themselves as exclusively "gay" it's estimated that these amount to between 1 and 2% of the UK population. We are talking real minorities here that some would see as punching well above their weight.
Taking Lutheran Chik's point about having to keep quiet about being gay, I have to admit that I don't underatnd this as I'm not gay and I don't, to my knowledge, have any friends who are. But there are a few aspects in my life that have caused severe waves with my nearest and dearest, workmates and authorities alike but I could no more keep quiet about them than watch football (my most hated sport). For good or ill, acceptance or persecution, profit or loss, I've never wanted (nor in fact) been able to repress such things: surely if you are so set on your sexuality you would be in the same boat, and want to be honet - and would be honest - whatever the cost?
[ 01. March 2011, 13:00: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
In keeping with the understanding that the sister thread to this belongs in DH, it is hard to see how this can remain here. Down you go.
--Tom Clune, Purgatory Host
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liopleurodon
Mighty sea creature
# 4836
|
Posted
This isn't about the rights of religious people vs the rights of gay people. Children in foster care have a right to have their needs met, but are also in a nearly powerless position. Nobody has a "right" to become a foster carer. It's a job. You have a job interview and give answers that people don't like, and you won't get the job.
As I tried to say on the other thread, this isn't about religion. There were several elements of the interview with this couple which suggested that they didn't have the boundaries in place between their religious views and the requirement not to press these upon vulnerable children. Lots of religious people are able to understand this bit of the job, but when you find foster carers who don't know how they would support a gay child AND haven't thought about what kids are going to do while they're at church AND wouldn't want to set foot in a mosque, it's a sign that they haven't thought through the implications of caring for children who come from a variety of backgrounds and personal histories. It's like going for an interview for a customer service post and being asked how you'd deal with an angry customer and saying "Crap, does that happen?"
The question about "how would you deal with a foster child who was confused about sexuality?" was not looking for an answer along the lines of "Well, I'd sign him up straight away on gaydar, and then go out and buy him some lube!" A better answer might have been, "I would listen to his concerns in a non-judgemental way, reassure him that it's a common concern at this age, and if necessary direct him to places where he can get advice." You can actually do all of these things without saying that you approve of gay sex. Likewise you can tell a child that homophobic bullying is unacceptable without approving of gay sex, and you can support a victim of homophobic bullying without saying that you approve of gay sex. The important thing is that you're able to put the needs of the child before any religious agenda that you have.
--------------------
Our God is an awesome God. Much better than that ridiculous God that Desert Bluffs has. - Welcome to Night Vale
Posts: 1921 | From: Lurking under the ship | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Welease Woderwick
Sister Incubus Nightmare
# 10424
|
Posted
I love everybody screaming here that the judges were wrong for upholding the law of the land. The original Guidance and Regulation I alluded to before was, by the way, from the early 1980s, under quite a right wing Tory Government.
--------------------
I give thanks for unknown blessings already on their way.
Fancy a break in South India?
Accessible Homestay Guesthouse in Central Kerala, contact me for details
What part of Matt. 7:1 don't you understand?
Posts: 48139 | From: 1st on the right, straight on 'til morning | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
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
--------------------
"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."
Posts: 1772 | From: unsure | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Welease Woderwick
Sister Incubus Nightmare
# 10424
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
...not specifically just about a couple who had Christian principles, but examining the wider implications...
I would be happier if you had worded this:
about a couple who said they had Christian principles
and I would add, from myself:
however divorced those principles were from any recognisable form of Christianity.
The law is quite clear, the Guidance and Regulation is quite clear - the whole affair is mischief making of the baser sort and the judgement, such as it is, sought only to uphold the law.
--------------------
I give thanks for unknown blessings already on their way.
Fancy a break in South India?
Accessible Homestay Guesthouse in Central Kerala, contact me for details
What part of Matt. 7:1 don't you understand?
Posts: 48139 | From: 1st on the right, straight on 'til morning | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
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?
From having read the judgement in full, I get the idea that the judges were simply anti-stupid.
They had a go at both the Johns and Derby council for not coming up with a question they could answer yes/no, or supplying them with any evidence at all. However, they roasted the Johns' solicitor for employing the same argument that lost him his last two cases, being an idiot in court, and frankly, wasting their time and the public's money.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
I have not read the judgement in full.
However I have picked up Nazir Ali's quote:
The Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali, the former bishop of Rochester, described the judgment as “absurd” and he went on to say: what really worries me about this spate of judgments is that they leave no room for the conscience of believers of whatever kind. This will exclude Christians, Muslims and Orthodox Jews from whole swaths of public life, including adoption and fostering.”
As an orthodox evangelical i would be expected to ally myself with Nazir Ali's view and I do find his appeal to conscience relevant.
I don't agree with sex outside of marriage and I certainly don't agree with homosexuality; it falls short of what God wants, so surely the Johns' have every right to foster in good conscience?
It appears to me, dinosaur that I may seem, that those Judaeo Christian principles I mentioned earlier are surely being chipped away? I do not think Judaeo Christian principles are what saves our souls, but by following Gods 10 commandment (e.g. don't commit adultery etc etc) there is protection for us and to not allow conscience is a very very slippery slope indeed. 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) but the danger of this ruling is not that these folk cannot foster (worrying though that is) , but that what definitely has underpinned our society IS being eroded.
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.
Now to be fair the debate could go on and on but thats my perception. I can't comment on the fine detail of the case as I've not studied it. But the Rubicon sadly has been crossed not just in this judgement but in a swathe of anti Christian legislation over the last 50 or 60 years; we're turning our back on God's laws and then end will be tears.
Saul
[ 01. March 2011, 16:10: Message edited by: Saul the Apostle ]
--------------------
"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."
Posts: 1772 | From: unsure | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Earwig
Pincered Beastie
# 12057
|
Posted
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.
Yup - I read it quite quickly, and skipped a few really legally bits, and I read it in 20 minutes. It's here in case you missed the link.
Posts: 3120 | From: Yorkshire | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
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.
Even if your interpretation of this ruling were accurate (which it isn't), you would still be wrong. It wouldn't deny you the right to hold those beliefs, it would deny you the right to oppress or discriminate against other people because of them.
And why is it so hard for you to see that the exact same principle also protects your beliefs when the situation is reversed? A strongly anti-Christian couple would face exactly the same ruling if they were unable to keep from imposing their beliefs onto any foster kids in their care.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pre-cambrian
Shipmate
# 2055
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"We cannot leave the appointment of Bishops to the Holy Ghost, because no one is confident that the Holy Ghost would understand what makes a good Church of England bishop."
Posts: 2314 | From: Croydon | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
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.
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.
Yes, I will read the judgement once I manage to get 5 minutes.
Saul
--------------------
"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."
Posts: 1772 | From: unsure | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
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
So did you CHOOSE your heterosexuality?
If it is unacceptable for committed Christians to be gay, shall we encourage gays NOT to become Christians. Perhaps they could become Buddhist or Sikh?
Do you eat pork? Do you have stocks and shares or indulge in other kinds of usury? The Bible clearly condemns them.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liopleurodon
Mighty sea creature
# 4836
|
Posted
Choosing to sleep with someone of the same sex is a choice. Merely being attracted to people of the same sex isn't. That's the point. Moreover, even adolescents who don't go on to identify as gay as adults often have crushes on members of the same sex. It's a common enough situation that someone who plans to foster kids should have an idea of what they'd do if this happens. Throwing moral condemnation at a vulnerable youngster because they find someone attractive (whether or not they act upon that attraction) is damaging.
--------------------
Our God is an awesome God. Much better than that ridiculous God that Desert Bluffs has. - Welcome to Night Vale
Posts: 1921 | From: Lurking under the ship | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pre-cambrian
Shipmate
# 2055
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"We cannot leave the appointment of Bishops to the Holy Ghost, because no one is confident that the Holy Ghost would understand what makes a good Church of England bishop."
Posts: 2314 | From: Croydon | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by 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
As pointed out earlier up the page, the idea that they've been excluded because of their 'Christian principles' appears to be completely false. They've been excluded (well in fact they haven't been excluded yet!) because of their lack of sensitivity to the possible needs of a child.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
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.
Ah yes. I've met you before. You're fine with me being gay so long as I struggle with it. Gnash my teeth and weep over it and try NOT to be gay.
Bugger that. Tried it for 17 years and it doesn't work.
As for 'actively gay'... I'm sorry, but were you not heterosexual on the day before your wedding? Before you'd had any sex?
Sexual morality, ie who you actually have sex with, and when, is a choice. But sexual orientation isn't. And you'd do well to stop conflating the two.
I was gay for all those 17 years of struggle, and never touched anyone.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
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.
Sorry, but I can't let you get away with that; there is nothing 'so-called' about them. They may be wrong, in your opinion, but they are Christians. You're using the same language that fundies use to describe liberal Christians and I'm sure you're better than that...
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
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.
Try telling that to a Calvinist!
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Try telling that to a Calvinist!
Well, that raises an interesting one, because that would mean those of us who are gay Christians are completely stuck with it on both counts, and it's all God's fault. The bastard.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
...or He created you that way and said it was good...which do you prefer?
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
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
--------------------
"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."
Posts: 1772 | From: unsure | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
St Paul says so clearly.
Well I'm glad YOU think it's so clear. But of course, as it has no impact on you whatsoever, you've never actually had to look very hard at what it says, and lifting a verse or two out without looking at the context poses no problem whatsoever.
(We really ARE in Dead Horses now).
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
...or He created you that way and said it was good...which do you prefer?
I'd prefer that he said it was good, but large sections of his church seem to insist on saying that it's NOT good. Which is indirectly what I was getting at.
The proposition that 'yes, we accept you were born gay' but also 'sex outside heterosexual marriage is wrong' is worthy of Kafka. If I was created homosexual, then I was created homosexual not asexual (which a small percentage of people are) or with an inbuilt calling to celibacy.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pre-cambrian
Shipmate
# 2055
|
Posted
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.
I'm not focussing on the "love", I'm focussing on the vindictiveness. The very clear reading of your earlier post was that you do feel vindictive towards gay Christians, and that you are now trying to justify that. Do you believe that vindictiveness is an appropriate manifestation of Christian love? If not, can I point you to those teachings about motes and eyes. If yes, heaven help us all.
--------------------
"We cannot leave the appointment of Bishops to the Holy Ghost, because no one is confident that the Holy Ghost would understand what makes a good Church of England bishop."
Posts: 2314 | From: Croydon | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
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
This takes the biscuit, nay, the whole digestive packet. I've called you to hell over your style of argument and opened a thread there.
cheers,
L
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
My position on this was to look at the wider implications of the ruling. I think that there are wider implications and some of them IMO quite worrying for those who hold to orthodox Christian views.
However, as the discussion focussed around homosexuality and thus I make clear that my position is one which is held by many others. The Catholic Church for one and even the 'broad ' church of Anglicanism does not regard active homosexuality as Gods best or ideal does it? In addition many of the Baptist, charismatic, Pentecostal etc groups are also clear on the homosexuality issue.
It has become sadly a dead horse and I leave the discussion now with a verse from Romans Chapter One; of course this can be mocked or twisted, but the plain reading is clear if the reader chooses to read it so.
Saul the Apostle.
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.''
--------------------
"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."
Posts: 1772 | From: unsure | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Those three dots mean something, Saul.
PS You've also managed to completely the ignore what has been pointed out several times, that this ruling had absolutely nothing to do with excluding Christians and everything to do with excluding insensitive people who would insist on being rigid. The woman even said she wouldn't be prepared to give up going to church TWICE on a Sunday for the sake of the needs of a foster child.
Being a Christian should not be considered to give this kind of right!
[ 02. March 2011, 06:03: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
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.
Orfeo,
what i haven't done yet is to read the Judges ruling but i will try to do so. I am v. busy (aren't we all) but I will do it.
I am an orthodox Christian however, that doesn't mean i shouldn't be able to think outside (in my case the evangelical) box. To be fair the whole gay - Christian debate is a complex and live area that runs across most Christian traditions/ wings of the church.
Yes I hold to traditional beliefs and I make no apology for that EQUALLY that gives me no excuse to strut around saying I won't listen to others views and perspectives if you see what i mean. Also one can, and I'm referring to myself here, go around in an an unloving way & metaphorically hit others with ones own beliefs & world view etc. But I shan't be unclear as to what i do believe.
I saw this from the Daily Torygraph and it gives a bit of background on Mr & Mrs Johns...
Saul
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/8355786/Our-Christianity-is-our-lifestyle-we-cant-take-it-on-and-off.html
[ 02. March 2011, 06:36: Message edited by: Saul the Apostle ]
--------------------
"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."
Posts: 1772 | From: unsure | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Saul,
You really should have read the judgment, at least a little, before starting a thread about its wider implications.
- orfeo
PS As for the article, once again it's based on the idea that their Christianity is the problem. It's not. There are many devout Christian foster couples. Their problem is their attitude to anyone who does not necessarily share their views. If, as also reported in the judgment, they are not willing to take a child to a mosque if the child asks, they are not suitable to be foster carers.
It's exactly the same if an atheist couple refused to take a child to church when the child asks.
[ 02. March 2011, 06:52: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
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.
Orfeo
I will try and get back to you on the points you make and of course I shall read the judges summary.
The point about St.Paul is clear, in respect of church practice, tradition and teaching is it not?
The 'church hats' debate etc is worthy of comment too, but time doesn't allow a detailed response from myself as I have a crust to earn.
But I will consider what you put forward and i don't want to pre - judge. I know from experience one can change ones minds and in some areas I have had to do that and be quite self critical (in another area).
Meantime enjoy some good music....Wagner Siegfried's funeral. Evocative....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a53s4jyCqqU&feature=player_embedded#at=475
Saul
[ 02. March 2011, 07:20: Message edited by: Saul the Apostle ]
--------------------
"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."
Posts: 1772 | From: unsure | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
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?
No!
Honestly, even some people who don't approve of homosexuality aren't silly enough to claim that it's 'clear'. And those are precisely the people against homosexuality that I respect. Because they've looked at the issue and considered it carefully.
[ 02. March 2011, 08:04: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."
Posts: 1772 | From: unsure | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jahlove
Tied to the mast
# 10290
|
Posted
What's that got to do with the deliberations of a secular court (in what seems, as I read the linked judgement, to be, in any case, a somewhat mischievously-conceived petition)?
--------------------
“Sing like no one's listening, love like you've never been hurt, dance like nobody's watching, and live like its heaven on earth.” - Mark Twain
Posts: 6477 | From: Alice's Restaurant (UK Franchise) | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
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.
Mmmm, well, the present Pope (then Cardinal Ratzinger) made this statement back in 1986:
“Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.
Therefore special concern and pastoral attention should be directed to those who have this condition, lest they be led to believe that the living out of this orientation in homosexual activity is a morally acceptable option. It is not.”
From: “Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons”
Saul
--------------------
"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."
Posts: 1772 | From: unsure | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
