Breaking – Christians with Traditional Moral Views can still be Foster Parents
One of the most remarkable things about the judgement (or rather, the lack of it) handed out yesterday in the Christian Foster Parents ruling is that many of the people reporting on it have obviously not read the 109 paragraphs of deliberation that the High Court presented yesterday.
While there are still one or two valid concerns about some of the direction of the judges’ ruling, on the whole the ruling is a good piece of law which, in summary, clarifies that there is nothing much to be clarified at this moment. This court deliberation was brought about not because the Johns (the couple in question) were refused as foster parents, but rather because during the application process an issue around the acceptability or otherwise of the Johns’ Christian views was raised. Instead of working the issue through with the social workers, the Johns applied for a judicial review when their application was deferred. The Johns sought that the judge would, in response to the evidence presented, declare the statement that is found in paragraph 27 of the ruling, namely
(a) Persons who adhere to a traditional code of sexual ethics, according to which any sexual union outside marriage (understood as a lifelong relationship of fidelity between a man and a woman) is morally undesirable, should not be considered unsuitable to be foster carers for this reason alone. This is a correct application of the National Minimum Standards 7 ‘Valuing Diversity’.
(b) Persons who attend Church services at a mainstream denomination are, in principle, suitable to be foster carers.
(c) It is unlawful for a Foster Service to ask potential foster carers their views on homosexuality absent the needs of a specific child.
(d) It is unlawful for a public authority to describe religious adherents who adhere to a code of moral sexual ethics namely; that any sexual union outside marriage between a man and a woman in a lifetime relationship of fidelity is morally undesirable, as ‘homophobic’.
The Council in response sought the following declaration
A fostering service provider may be acting lawfully if it decides not approve a prospective foster carer who evinces antipathy, objection to, or disapproval of, homosexuality and same-sex relationships and an inability to respect, value and demonstrate positive attitudes towards homosexuality and same-sex relationships.
The Judge declared neither and instead criticised both parties (though to be fair, the Johns much more than the Council) for bringing the case in the first place, in particular the lack of focus on what outcome was being asked for.
What the judgement does suggest is that it is perfectly reasonable for the local authority not to place children for respite care with foster parents who are explicitly opposed in all forms to homosexuality. In some sense though this is no surprise since the law of the land outlaws discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and children in foster care are ultimately the responsibility of the state and NOT the foster parents (as opposed to adopted children who enter the family, in most cases, irrevocably). Hence, the judgement states,
The materials relied on by Mr Weston, including in particular the various policies set out in the National Minimum Standards for Fostering, the Statutory Guidance and the defendant’s own documents, all go to emphasise the need to value diversity and promote equality and to value, encourage and support children in a non-judgemental way, regardless of their sexual orientation or preference. That duty does not apply only to the child and the individual placement, but to the wider context, including the main foster carer, a child’s parents and the wider family, any of whom may be homosexual. In these circumstances it is quite impossible to maintain that a local authority is not entitled to consider a prospective foster carer’s views on sexuality, least of all when, as here, it is apparent that the views held, and expressed, by the claimants might well affect their behaviour as foster carers. This is not a prying intervention into mere belief. Neither the local authority nor the court is seeking to open windows into people’s souls. 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. In our judgment the local authority was entitled to have regard to these matters; indeed, if the local authority had failed to explore these matters it might very well have found itself in breach of its own guidance and of the National Minimum Standards for Fostering and the Statutory Guidance to look no further.
That said, the Judge could not make a specific judgement on the merits of otherwise of the rejection of the Johns are foster carers since the Johns had not, at this point, been either recommended or rejected for fostering. This was part of the frustration of the Judge, that he had no ability to rule since a final decision in the matter had not been made. This means, and this is crucial for understanding the outcome of this matter, that the Johns can still proceed with their application for fostering and they may yet be accepted by Derby Council.
So what are the key points that come out of the judgement (and if you want to comment on the substance of the case rather that just principles around it it is vital that you read it) and how might things move forward? A few thoughts.
The Judge was highly critical of the evidence presented on behalf of the Johns by the Christian Legal Centre (CLC). He complained (this is not too strong a word I believe) that their barrister was presenting arguments that had already been rejected in a number of previous cases (e.g.McFarlane v Relate Avon Limited, Islington London Borough Council v Ladele).
I have worked with the CLC on a number of cases and have great respect for their team and what they are trying to achieve. That said, I wonder whether this ruling might be experienced as a wake up call of some kind. If the arguments currently being presented by the CLC on some cases are consistently being rejected by courts, is it time to accept that they are not good enough and a new approach needs to be found? I understand the concept in the minds of some at the CLC that this case is part of an ongoing campaign to change the public consensus on the place of Christianity in the body politic, but if that is the case the solution will not come in the judiciary but in the legislature. At present, the judiciary are very clear that Christianity no longer has any priviliged position in English law. The only way to change that is not in the courts (who, it appears, will now consistently rule that christian moral positions have no right to trump state legislated non-discrimination positions) but in Parliament. Such a solution is as yet a long way away.
One consequence of this is that Christians need to grow up and realise (a) that they no longer live in a country which gives the Christian faith a pre-eminent position in the jurisprudence of the land (the judgement in para 30 recognises that this has been the case for at least a century) and that therefore (b) there is an obligation, as Jesus instructs us, to render unto Caesar things that belong to Caesar. At the end of the day, those who wish to represent a non-Christian state (and foster parents are representatives of the state) need to fulfil various obligations to that state which owe more to what Caesar desires rather that what God ordains. To be a foster carer is not a right and therefore a Christian’s liberty is not being constrained if the state rules that a particular couple cannot be foster carers because their views conflict with the environment that the state wishes the children in its care to be raised in.
It would be a different matter of course if the state began to turn its attention to the way that biological (and adoptive?) parents sought to instill a moral framework in their children. At that point there would be an invasion of private family life and, I suspect, the courts might rule differently.
An interesting thought to finish with. If, as the ruling suggests, the state no longer has any obligation to defer to the Christian faith in matters of jurisprudence and law, what the heck is the Archbishop of Canterbury doing crowning the monarch? When the monarch is crowned (s)he affirms the following declaration.
Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England? And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?
If the state no longer views the Christian faith as having any predominant role in the judicial life of the country, why does the monarch agree the opposite? If the State has no intention of maintaining the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel, why does the monarch claim that it does? Increasingly the state is legislating to marginalise the Christian faith in public life (which is not the same as outlawing it), so the monarch (who defers his/her powers to Parliament and the Government) is blatantly not fulfilling the terms of the oath. Is it time for the Church of England to cease with the pretence of being integral to the fabric of the state, dis-establish and let Caesar rule as he sees fit until such a time as the State sees once again the necessity to live under a clear acknowledgement of the God of the Universe who has revealed himself in Jesus?
“Church of England cuts formal ties to State” – Perhaps that might be the real shock headline resulting from this case.
Read more at Thinking Anglicans, Gavin Drake, the Religion and Law blog and in the Guardian and Telegraph.
Update – Cranmer presents an articulate defence of the Johns.
Thank you for publishing one of the most balanced reports on the judgement.
Very helpful to read.
Thank you John.
Don't let this go to your head, but a measured, thoughtful and prophetic insight on this issue that the whole church needs to hear.
Rather than just carp about State persecution in knee-jerk fear, your explanation points a clear way forward.
Too kind.
I agree with previous commenters. This is an important and useful corrective to the general reporting of this case (such as the Daily Mail's typically mendacious and slanted coverage – headline "Christian beliefs DO lose out to gay rights").
John agrees with me! Take me now Lord!
Thanks for this well argued and thoughtful commentary on the decision. It seems pretty clear that the Johns' should have exhausted due process before they resorted to the courts and I am frankly amazed that their lawyers advised them to pursue the case.
I'm with you on this – I think the big news is that the judges are declaring that Britain is no longer a Christian country. And that has huge implications for the Anglican church and the whole paraphernalia of the established Church.
But then I don't think that Britain was ever a Christian country, or indeed that there can be any such thing! And I'm against the establishment of religion … :-)
Excellant balanced piece of writing and the conclusion reached is a very thought provoking.
Thanks Richard.
Initially, I 'went off the deep end' over this issue, as I am a Christian who was adopted as a baby by Christian parents. I am trying to pick my way through the slew of articles from the 'red tops' to the 'broadsheets', as well as the Christian blogosphere.
At both extremes, there seems a sort of triumphalism, a sort-of "I told you so.." attitude. So I am very grateful for your post Peter, which presents a balanced view of the issue.
The whole issue leaves me sad that in the name of 'liberal tolerance', we are being marginalised by the State. Perhaps we've bought it on ourselves, and we need to repent. However, I do wonder if this is the 'thin end of the wedge'. Today, we have this judgement, perhaps tomorrow Christian adoptions will cease (because Christian parents will be unable to fulfil the necessary criteria), what about Christian teachers who will not, in all good conscience, be able to teach that homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle, certainly Christians must think twice before entering in to the Hotel trade.
Rendering to Caesar, as we must do, comes at a cost. And perhaps we are beginning to wake up from our cosy Western slumber to realise that the cost might be higher that we first thought.
May God give us grace to be faithful to Him and with great boldness and humility, present the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ to a world that needs Him.
Thank you Amanda.
No, thank you, Peter from possibly pulling me back from the brink before I made a complete eejit of myself ;)
Thank you for linking to the actual decision and your thoughtful analysis.
I do find the Johns' response to the four hypothetical situations posed to be very troubling (from paragraph 7).
I think the social workers' hypothetical scenarios were reasonable questions. I'm not sure why Mrs. Johns would have not know what to do in the third scenario. Could it be that she would support a child that bullies others or that she disputed that the idea of denouncing a gay child as bullying? It seems to me that even the most conservative Christian parent would denounce a child bullying another for any reason.
Could the dispute mainly be over semantics? Is "supporting" a gay/questioning teen different than "reassuring" them? What do the Johns considering "supporting"? Could the Johns differentiate between supporting homosexuality vs. supporting a homosexual child?
As someone who previously attended Pentecostal churches, I can't help but suspect the Johns were seeking some kind of religious persecution. Pentecostal Christianity is often about desperately seeking spiritual forces in daily life and, in my experience, Pentecostal Christians specifically welcome the drama of being persecuted as a sign of God's work. I admit, this is an unfair and prejudicial accusation of the Johns' faith, but it's what came to my mind when I read their Pentecostal association. Considering the way the Johns were so unclear in withdrawing or not withdrawing their application, I can help but be suspicious of their intentions (any more than if a gay couple similarly sought to be case law for having their applications denied).
I agree with this analysis, also with the thoughts about the growing possibility of disestablishment.
Thanks for your response to the judgement; I'm not sure I have the stamina to go through all 109 paragraphs.
It does leave me with a question (which might not be totally relevant, or comparable).
Cranmer notes that the Johns "were unsuitable to be foster parents ‘due to their sexual ethics and not their Christian beliefs’" [I can't locate the source of His Grace's quote – possibly p.106?]
I don't see how this stacks up against the B&B ruling: Derby Council can differentiate on grounds of sexual ethics, but when it's done by a B&B it is illegal discrimination. Am I missing something that makes the two situations incomparable?
Evening Peter and all,
thank you for this analysis Peter – I'd take my hat off were it not unQuakerly :) For what it's worth I think this is one of your best posts – clear, judicious and making some bloggers (Cranmer, and others) look as though they haven't done their homework. I haven't read the 'Daily Mail' coverage, but have skimmed thru' some of that in the 'Telegraph' and while I wouldn't use such strong words as John H on the 'Mail' to describe their articles, it seems distorted and out of proportion for the paper's leader to be headed "Foster parents defeated by the new Inquisition". The judges carefully qualify their judgment, if my (admittedly brisk) reading is right. More than one article (eg the 'Telegraph' leader, Cranmer) quotes the phrase from para 93 of the judgment "should take precedence" as though the judges were making a universal ruling – but the fuller context is, "While as between the protected rights concerning religion and sexual orientation there is no hierarchy of rights, there may, as this case shows, be a tension between equality provisions concerning religious discrimination and those concerning sexual orientation. Where this is so, Standard 7 of the National Minimum Standards for Fostering and the Statutory Guidance indicate that it must be taken into account and in this limited sense the equality provisions concerning sexual orientation should take precedence". Note the phrase, "in this limited sense"…
OK, I'm not going to try any more point-by-point spotlighting of the distortions elsewhere – i indulge my self-righteousness enough… but i think there's a couple of strands worth drawing out.
– sense of proportion. If memory serves there are very few recent cases similar to this one which haven't involved gay rights – can anyone think of a case that's been taken to a similar level in the legal system, that hasn't? (Nadia Eweida's perhaps, I admit…). But if so, maybe that should lead to rather less dramatic language. As I've banged on about before, in relation to 'the gay issue', the disagreement over the question of truth (ie over how homosexuality should be characterised, as a pathology / some kind of disorder, or not) comes prior to the conflict of rights. It's only because (very recently) the state has legislated on the basis that homosexuality isn't any kind of disorder, that there's a conflict of rights with those who still believe that it is disordered in some way. If this is at all valid, then I suggest that shrinks the conflict down somewhat – it shouldn't be seen as 'Christian morality' in toto pitched against a secular state. Perhaps that's the only place I've a little disagreement with what you wrote Peter – not sure that "Increasingly the state is legislating to marginalise the Christian faith in public life".
– if the above is valid doesn't that also suggest it's a bit soon to talk about disestablishment? (Or then again, could this be seen as one little slice in the "disestablishment by a thousand tiny cuts" that one Rowan Williams once spoke of, though I can't remember the reference… am I contradicting myself?!)
Going to stop cos tiredness is leading me into incoherence (more than normal :)
in friendship, blair
Yes, a thoughtful and accurate account Peter.
I fear that this couple have not been well advised from the beginning – I was on a BBC programme with them last night and they seemed genuinely shocked at an outcome that I did not even recognise had happened.
When I tried to explain that no decision, as they explained it, had actually been made – the interviewer cut me off. Well, it did rather make the story a non event.
As someone who has sat on a fostering and adoption panel and chaired one for some time, I can say that those with conservative views on a whole range of issues make fantastic foster parents! But the result of the publicity around cases like this is not good, and doors close that should stay open – I think those behind Mr Diamond are ….. well ….not wise!
Martin,
Whatever our differences, it is undeniable that when it comes to issues of fostering and adoption, you speak with an authority that few of us can match. Thank you for your kind words and thank you for *all* the work you've done in this area over many years, that which you've written about above and the rest.
What the judges said: "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."
To whom did the judges "swear", I wonder? But they have spoken and they are infallibly god. 'Render unto Caesar'? But Caesar Divus IS god!
The difficulty, Peter, is that the atheist State is now claiming "rights" (as atheists always do) to define what the family and marriage are – even though the family and marriage ante-date the State.
The proper implication of this ruling is in the question you raise, and John Richardson before you:
"It would be a different matter of course if the state began to turn its attention to the way that biological (and adoptive?) parents sought to instill a moral framework in their children. At that point there would be an invasion of private family life and, I suspect, the courts might rule differently."
Step by step the Gleichstaltung is coming – on kitten feet, of course.
I'm with Cranny on this one.
The man on the Clapham Omnibus clearly sees this as an attack on the Christian faith. The Johns plainly thought they would not be allowed to foster. The Pink Press is jubilant. The message is now clearly embedded in the public mind that anyone who thinks homosexuality is wrong is now persona non grata as far as care of children is concerned. Sometimes you get a better picture by ignoring the hereintofores and whereafters – as in the case of Civil Partnerships, which everybody except the legislators regarded as gay marriage.
What council is now going to go against this? Look at what happened to poor Councillor Chris Windows when he dared to question the appropriateness of a gay actor talking to children about homosexuality. It really has to be watched to be believed.
http://www.realstreet.co.uk/2010/11/another-thoug…
Yes, but do you really go along with the hostile, not to say hateful, comments that accompany the video, Jill?
A red herring, Tom, especially as I only intended to post a link to the actual video. But since you ask – hateful? Where? He did call that woman 'soppy', admittedly, but I have heard worse, and would have actually been a lot ruder myself. I would say that her actions were much more hateful. What she was effectively saying was 'Oh dear oh dear Councillor Windows, you are not at all saying the right thing, are you? You should know by now that you will immediately be a target for public humiliation and removal from your post.' Judging by the uncomfortable fidgeting of many of his fellow councillors I am sure they agreed with him but did not dare to say so, or even to publicly acknowledge his freedom to state his beliefs.
Which is actually what I am trying to say. Nobody likes this kind of treatment, and every 'win' of the nature of the Johns case for the gay lobby increases their confidence (read some of the Pink News comments!) and adds to the climate of fear for opponents. You can be sure that there is the equivalent of one of these women in every council chamber, and probably on every adoption or fostering board too.
That's all right, then.
The realstreet post is garbage. I love how he makes a big deal of how he didn't know anyone gay at School; does the fact that male homosexual acts in Scotland were ILLEGAL until 1980 not, perhaps, suggest a climate were gays couldn't exactly come out?
And he quotes "psychiatrist Satinover", one of the antigay "experts" (!) invariably pressed into these debates. Assuming that arguing from authority isn't a fallacy, then isn't a bit disengenous to cite *a* psychiatrist who, contrary to psychiatric consensus, happens to believe something useful to one's cause? If we're going to cite psychiatry then do so honestly ( and note that the overwhelming consensus in psychiatry is *against* the idea that homosexuality is a mental illness). Don't cherry pick a crank's opinions and expect to be taken seriously.
And he's also wrong about Souter's Clause 2A (not section 28 in Scotland). Many (most?) people refused, in disgust, to go along with Souter's ballot, and destroyed or ignored the papers – is it any surprise that people who returned it happened to agree with his homophobic rhetoric? Although in one sense it doesn't matter as we should not, in a free society, vote on the civil rights of others.
Note also realstreet's use of ad hom zingers : " What about the right of children not to be pressured into identifying with a sexuality at a young age, which, some believe, actually increases the likelihood of suicidal thoughts." – O well, if 'some' (who?) **believe** that homosexuality leads to suicidal thoughts, let's tell kids not to be gay! *rolls eyes*
"""UPDATE 6.0PM – Just seen this via Reddit: Pigs halt Coventry woods gay sex trysts. This is what children are, in effect, being led into. Imagine these open air homosexual orgies, but multiplied as time goes on as more people are led to believe that this behaviour is normal. You can imagine what Sir John David Michaelis was referring to when he wrote: Whoever, therefore wishes to ruin a nation, has only to get this vice introduced.""
So Stonewall is leading kids into open air gay sex orgies. One thinks of the Blood Libel. No offence, but if 'realstreet's website isn't a prime example of dehumanising homophobic rhetoric then what, frankly, is?
I note the usual references to "taxpayer's money". I know the likes of realstreet might find this hard to believe, but gays, for all their lechery, pay taxes too.
And realstreet says things that, taken logically, suggest that he thinks homosexuality should be illegal
" What “other people” do, Andrew, impacts on everyone else. If they act immorally, others suffer."
and
"It seems to me that the only ‘right’ that Ben Summerskill and Stonewall are interested in is their own ‘right’ to live a deviant lifestyle and recruit others into it, especially schoolchildren."
So people don't or shouldn't have the 'right' to live a 'deviant' lifestyle?
Was the main subject of the press reporting really the claim that Christians can't be foster parents? I thought the main issue the press focused upon was whether there was any place in the law for Christianity (no), and whether there was a hierarchy of precedence of rights in which requirements for sexuality equality ranked above requirements for religious toleration (yes). For example, the Telegraph headline was "Foster parent ban: 'no place' in the law for Christianity, High Court rules – There is no place in British law for Christian beliefs, despite this country’s long history of religious observance and the traditions of the established Church, two High Court judges said on Monday." The Daily Mail's headline focused upon the statement it reported in the main body that: "The equality provisions concerning sexual orientation should take precedence" over the couples' religious beliefs – "Christian beliefs DO lose out to gay rights".
Now your piece notes that the (non-)judgement in the Johns' case simply repeated the point about Christianity having no privileged position in the law that had been established in a number of previous cases. But you yourself note the tension here, given that the Head of State is to "maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law" and to "maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel". The judges declare for de facto disestablishment. But when was that agreed? And is it a matter for judges to determine, without an expression of the will of the Crown-in-Parliament? Perhaps it is, but if so is that not an interesting conclusion to come from this series of cases? And doesn't the Johns' (non-)judgement declare that in some ways even more clearly than previous such judgements – even to the extent of talking of a "well-recognised divide between church and state"?
Finally, was the reporting really so misguided to note that the Equality and Human Rights Commission talked of children being "infected" by the moral outlook of Christian foster parents? Is the view of the Equality and Human Rights Commission on this point really something to be relaxed about?
Thanks for chipping in Andrew.
I think I recognise that this is just a further restatement of the obvious fact that the courts are going to always choose the right to express a sexual orientation above the right to express a faith position. But I guess what I wanted to do was on that basis present and invigorating challenge to the CLC and others to move to new territory to fight this struggle.
And yes, I didn't mention the EHRC submission which was disturbing, but I think in part that submission is just further evidence that we now need to understand ourselves as living in a very non-christian environment. That means the field is white to harvest.
But Peter, another way to spin your approach is this: We should accept that Britain is no longer a Christian state and that the politico-legal climate is (mildly) hostile to Christians and Christianity (and, to be sure, its being hostile at all is bad, but we're a long way from Pakistan, Iraq or Sudan yet) and learn to live with that in a humble, submissive, Christian way.
Now I can see great merit in that thought. As so often, you offer valuable gentle wisdom when others become over-excited. But I'm not sure it's so black and white as being that your approach is the clearly Christian one. Others might gloss your approach as being the path of despair – declaring "Well, we've lost this one (probably lost it a long time ago) so going on about it will just infuriate people to no good end." Others might think that the fact that there is still quite a lot of formal connection between Church and state (vide the Monarchy) might mean that, with enough shouting about it, matters might yet be turned around, whilst your is simply the path of unnecessary surrender.
As it happens, my own preference is probably for a third way, so to speak, but I think I see merit in both your side and the CLC's.
I'd be happy to support even more vigorous legal challenges, but for that to happen those defending Christians need to find new lines of approach. I think one constructiv way forward is to make Parliament and the Body Poitic aware that if the courts continue ruling as they do, then it makes no sense for the Church of England to be part of the establishment. Quite simply, it makes no coherent legal-historical or theological sense, on the basis of the Judge's ruling, for the next monarch to be crowned by any representative of the CofE. The moment the monarch affirms the oath he will be de facto perjuring himself.
I agree with you, Peter, that this could be one fruit from a consistent and increasingly string series of court rulings in these types of cases that the UK is a secular state. It certainly, in view view, strengthens the case for dis-establishment of the CofE. And IMHO that would be a good thing. It would be a major contribution to the death of 'cultural Christianity', with all the hypocrisy inherent in that idea. And, by facilitating a clearer division between churches that are based on biblical revelation and churches that are based on liberal theology, dis-establishment would greatly contribute to revival in Britain.
I wonder whether Parliament can eventually be persuaded to make a distinction between sexual orientation and sexual behaviour – just like these Judges have made a distinction between Christian belief and Christian practice.
For a long time criticism of a racial groups' cultural practices was taken as racism, but we finally had some sense recently when liberals finally acknowledged that expressions of culture that seriosly harmed others, such as imposing cultural behavioural codes on women, parents right to choose marriage partner etc were not protected. (Though the UK now seems to be swinging the other way – towards being hostile to ANY cultural practices that deviate from early 21st c UK liberal norms!!)
So maybe the harm caused by irresponsible sexual practices will eventually bring a legal recognition of the distinction between sexual identity and practice.
After all, Human Rights Charters do not state, nor could they reasonably state, that all human characteristics are equal. HR states that ALL *PEOPLE* ARE EQUAL, WHATEVER THEIR CHARACTERISTICS (good or bad, right or wrong etc).
For a long time it was gay people who were demonized by the public at large and persecuted by the law of the land. I am not suggesting that Christians should now get the same treatment, but there should be a way to allow for equal treatment of both camps. There are obviously gay Christians, so to separate gays and Christians would be the wrong way to go about this. I think we have to figure out a way to live together and to ensure that the rights of all groups are protected. I see this as possible. Now, how do we go about it?
Hi Peter
I am sorry but you have missed the point entirely, and sadly you are not the only one who has done so because of an idea that has crept in to the thinking of the people of this country.
That idea is namely that "the state" has any rights or powers to decide the moral or religious convictions that are suitable for children to be instructed in.
Render unto Caesar is giving what is due to whom it is due. The persons that should be considere here are the children who need short term foster care (respite care). These children are generally living in far from ideal situations and will be already the subject of a social worker's file concerning their status.
The issue is not one of tolerance or non tolerance of just homosexual tendencies (indeed how much of a homosexually active role can a child under ten legally have? and how much should a responsible parent or loco in parentis allow?)it is a question of the state deciding what is best for children about a subject where there is no clear evidence that any harm would be done. It is pandering to small sections of the community by making an issue where none truly exists in order to malign and denigrate things over which it quite rightly normally has no say.
Most foster children have parents or at least one parent with whom they or their social worker are in contact and so surely it is the wishes of the parent(s) and those of the child which should be uppermost?
Instead of that proper, caring and child centred attitude we have a social worker making an issue about hypothetical homosexual tendencies in a child under 10. Since the Social Worker is supposed to find suitable foster parents for the child the in depth knowledge of the SW should surely enable any so called problems to be prevented before they ever could occur?
A child with questions might be steered the wrong way by a person with positive attitudes to homosexuality of course but not one person will be prevented from fostering for that reason will they?
The state is our servant not our master and we need to shout loudly when it forgets that!
I think you're wrong Phil.
Foster children are, rightly or wrongly, in the care of the State. Their parents do *not* get the final say over where they end up. Whilst I might agree with you that the prospective foster parents' views on a variety of matters are actualy not pertinent to their ability to act as suitable surrogate parents, unfortunately we live in a country where the State *does* view those things as important. That's just how it is. That's the Caesar we are stuck with. We can argue for that to change (in the same way we can argue for taxes to go up or down) but until it does change that is the framework Christians have to operate in.
These kids are *not* our own kids. Christians (or anybody for that matter) have *no* intrisic right to foster. Society, through the State, looks after children whose parents cannot manage in the way it sees best, and Christians need to accept that sometimes the decisions of the State will be ones we object to. Our response? To pray for the authorities and to move, if necessary, to change them by peaceful means.
This is a sermon I preached on the wider issue last year at election time – https://www.peter-ould.net/preaching/?sermon_id=27
Hello,
thanks to Thinking Anglicans, I've just seen this press release from the Evangelical Alliance, and it looks excellent to me – clear, concise and above all accurate about what the court actually ruled (or didn't) in this case and the possible implications. Phil, and Jenny, I'm going to have the temerity to suggest you read it… :)
http://www.eauk.org/media/response-to-derby-city-…
in friendship, Blair
Frankly, UK law has it's roots in Christianity, there wouldn't have been any of it's much vaunted ethics, values and tolerance, were it not for the Christianity of those who recognized their value and importance, when writing it's constitution and laws. In fact, it was because of Christianity that it was never intended for, say, a Christian would have had privileged status over someone of another faith, if they were violating the law.. those who make those claims, do so out of their animus towards Christianity. Britain is a Christian nation, irregardless of what the secularist radicals say. You can't split hairs, because no matter where you look, no matter how corrupt despots in secular, including communist, socialist, and for example, Muslim countries prattle on about "democracy", the legacy of their governments is brutality, oppression, genocide, slavery, absolutely no tolerance of any kind. The imposition of secularism, always leads to gross violations of the rights of Christians, because Christianity leads to it's adherents to speaking out for human dignity, love and respect, and true tolerance.
On to the subject at hand regarding this case, the Johns feel discriminated against, is because they've not only heard and read how Christians are being discriminated against by councils and the state, they sat down with caseworkers and others who, no doubt felt no compunction to hide their many axes to grind on the subject of their Christian beliefs. The state's premise is that Christians are guilty before being proven innocent, presumed that they would automatically present a threat to any child they'd foster, because despite the tiny percentage of homosexuals in the population, any child they'd foster might be gay, or any of their family members might be gay. Ignoring the fact that Christianity considers homosexual activity a sin, and there was nothing mentioned of any actual homophobic or discriminatory behavior of the Johns put forward as a reason for the caseworker's invasive questioning. From my reading of the rules, the caseworker may inquire, if there is something substantive to base his or her doing so on. Nothing was put forward to justify his or her intrusive questioning, and it's not hard to figure out that the Johns' Christian faith was the reason. The judge doesn't seem to have cared to consider that the rules vagueness provides a convenient loophole to abuse, and shirked his obligation to press the council as to why they grilled the Johns as they did. In fact, his putting the onus on the Johns, and infers that their seeking equal protection as seeking privilege displays his outright, flagrant bias.
If all are to be equal, and the state protecting it's claim of the protection of diversity, than in all candor, why isn't the state addressing the anti-Christian, anti-Jewish hatred of other groups seeking to participate in fostering and adoption? What's more, since the British authorities have taken the children from birth parents and grandparents for no reason other than claims, that, for example, the grandparents, in their 40s and 50s, a grandmother had diabetes, and the grandfather had high blood pressure, both very common and mild ailments that aren't life threatening, as commonly prescribed medications keep such conditions well in check, but the authorities claimed that the grandparents couldn't be guardians, because they could sicken and die at any time and not be there for the children, so they had to be taken away and given up for adoption. The grandparents threatened with never seeing their grandchildren again, if they fought the case.. well, given that rampant promiscuity, the threat of HIV/AIDS and other such STDs are greater threats to one's ability to parent, why aren't council caseworkers querying potential foster and adoptive parents who happen to be homosexual on that? Again, the children and their best interests are supposed to be of paramount importance.
The hatred for Christianity, are well documented in the homosexual community, their press, their celebrities. It's well known that Christians, and Jews as well (take Melanie Phillips' recent death threats by several homosexual activists), receive death threats from homosexual activists, Christian churches, clergy, and Christians are attacked and their beliefs as well. They are told they must abandon their beliefs, or their beliefs changed to conform to homosexual activists' desires.. and no statements from the wider homosexual community decrying such hatred and vicious, criminal behavior. Not very tolerant, so it's long past time, if the best interests of the children, who come from Christian, and Jewish families, who might have Christian and Jewish relatives, and those children themselves are Christians or Jews, and have the potential to be committed Christians and Jews, that their rights be protected. The state must demand it's council and other caseworkers protect the rights and interests of these children, and their wider families, by intensively screening homosexual applicants for fostering and adoption, to be sure they will not violate or impinge the rights of those children, and their wider families, or the potential of those children who might grow up to be committed Christians or Jews, by virulent, anti-Christian, anti-Jewish prejudices and intolerance. Again, there is no right to be a foster or adoptive parent.. though I seem to remember reading how homosexuals insisted their "rights" to be such, were violated when they were denied the ability to do so, some years back.
Consistency is required, and should be applied across the board.. and not just selectively enforced. It's a known fact that Muslims don't foster or adopt, as their religious beliefs are against it, anti-Christian prejudice is enabled. And for all the attacks against Christian B&B's churches etc.. there are Muslim run hostelries, and B&B's, mosques, charities, etc.. we've seen no activists taking a principled stand to be treated equally by the so called religion of peace, and they no doubt are too cowardly and craven to do so. Apparently they don't feel discriminated against by Muslims, and should be obliged to explain why they don't seek to be served by Muslim hostelries, B&Bs or wish to work in Muslim mosques, charities et al.. yet demand that Christians make them accommodation.
Thanks for joining the conversation Jenny.
For a second I was pleasantly surprised by your use of irony, Peter ;-)
Jenny – 'irregardless' ain't a real world either. And perhaps you could acknowledge e the distinction between a "Democracy with Christianity as its state religion" and a "theocracy". The cruelties of Muslim states you claim (or don't, but nevermind…) surely put the superiority of democracies in a clear light. Isn't that what the whole War on Terrorism thing was all about? I realise that many a neocon tries to argue that America was intended to be a Christian country in a theocratic sense, but, as Gore Vidal pointed out, it's unarguable that the Bill of Rights (say) runs wholly contrary to the "Error Has no Rights" theocratic impulses of the RC Church and many other Christian groups.
Some Christians receive death threats from homosexuals. Gene Robinson receives death threats from some Christians (and we all remember Harvey Milk, who didn't just get a threat). If someone cited death threats made *by* Christians as an attack on the entire group then you would rightly criticise such demonisation. Why is it ok against gays?
In that light, bringing in anti-semitism is very slippery. Jews were persecuted, for centuries if not millenia, by Christians. It took the Shoah and its obvious connection to e.g. the Blood Libel for the church to come to its senses. Similarly, as you (at least should) the death penalty for those engages in homosexual acts existed in this country. Which is an example of genuine, factual persecuation; compare and contrast with the 'Christian' Institute and the Daily Heil's dogwhistling rhetoric.
For the record, I don't know a single gay who's made death threats. But then I don't know any with AIDS or who bugger everything that moves either, so I'm already outwith the wasteland territory of homophobic stereotypes.
I agree with you on the importance of "ethics, values and tolerance". Persecuting gays is, like antisemitism, is wholly contrary to such noble sentiments.
In the first sentence, I made a typo, I meant to type "wouldn't" and instead typed "would". Is it possible to have that edited, please?
Done.
Jenny, I think you need to revise your penultimate paragraph. Your accusations are not only very generalised but some people may find them inflammatory. As an example you say this:
"The state must demand it’s council and other caseworkers protect the rights and interests of these children, and their wider families, by intensively screening homosexual applicants for fostering and adoption, to be sure they will not violate or impinge the rights of those children, and their wider families, or the potential of those children who might grow up to be committed Christians or Jews, by virulent, anti-Christian, anti-Jewish prejudices and intolerance."
But surely the state must protect the safety of ALL its adoptees and thoroughly check into the backgrounds of ALL its prospective adopters, not just "intensively screening homosexual applicants".
Not only that, but isn't *Reformed* Judaism – scarcely an insignificant minority – very LGBT friendly, to the point of supporting Gay Marriage? Given, amongst many other things, the Pink Triangle & Yellow Star, I'd say a gay parent is more likely to be "Jew-affirming" than an evangelical Christian one (assuming one wanted to draw great pernicious conclusions about particular groups, which I very much don't)
Jenny, is it a hatred of Christianity in the homosexual community or a hatred of the past pronouncements that homosexuality is a bad choice? That is, the ongoing failure to acknowledge homosexuality is mostly inherent, so not a choice for most homosexuals? That has implications for the attempting to assert that homosexuality is a sin.
It is hard to follow why you say "It’s a known fact that Muslims don’t foster or adopt, as their religious beliefs are against it, anti-Christian prejudice is enabled." – that seems to be a non-sequitur. Or why you even bring Muslims into the discussion.
The issue of the roots of UK law are argument from tradition and also invoke the genetic fallacy, especially as there has been no other tradition for 2,000 years.
A key issue is why anyone would want to address sexuality with a child, unless there was some very unusual sexual behaviour by that child.
John Richardson has done an excellent piece on this:
http://ugleyvicar.blogspot.com/2011/03/christian-…
What interests me is the judges apparently easy assertion that the UK is ‘a secular state, not a theodicy’ (that's not an exact quote, but I think catches the essence). For a start it seems entirely unwarranted to sugest that the one is the only alternative to the other. Secondly, constitutionally it’s incorrect: the UK (or England rather) is a constitutional monarchy with an established Church (which is clearly neither a theodicy nor a secular state). I live in a secular state, In France – in which ironically only yesterday the President publicly stressed the importance of Christianity to the nations history and values. That the Christian faith has had a privileged place in England's polity seems a nonsense to deny (whether it should have is another matter) but that does seem to me to be what the judges are trying to do.