Here for the youth group to view is Cranmer's Curate's letter to the US-based Anglican Communion journalist David Virtue following the interview by Ginny Dougary with Conservative leader David Cameron in the Times' magazine on Saturday.
Dear David, The indepth interview in the London Times on Saturday with the leader of the Conservative Party, Mr David Cameron, bodes ill for orthodox Christians here in the United Kingdom.
Mr Cameron is an honourable, compassionate and committed public servant, so this is not meant as a personal criticism of him, but simply a reflection on how orthodox Christians would be likely to fare under a Conservative government. We are due a General Election next year, and the likelihood is that the Conservatives will win by a landslide.
Mr Cameron has to a degree performed a Tony Blair on the Conservative Party. As Mr Blair transformed the Labour Party from an unelectable dinosaur in the 1990s, so it would appear Mr Cameron has done the same with the Conservatives.
But it has come at a price.
The Conservatives used to be in favour of a local government measure called Section 28 which was introduced under former Conservative Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s. This prevented local authorities from promoting homosexuality in schools. The repeal of that in the 1990s under New Labour has led to a toxic tsunami of evil being unleashed on young children in UK schools.
According to the Times’ interview with Mr Cameron, he used to be an enthusiastic early supporter of Section 28. Now he is defining Conservative commitment to marriage as follows: ‘And by the way, it means something whether you’re a man and a woman, a woman and a woman, or a man and another man. That’s why we were right to support civil partnerships and I’m proud of that.’
The Conservative Party proud of civil partnerships. Proud of the creation of an immoral institution that debases a once great Christian nation.
Your adopted country the United States is seeing so-called 'homophobic hate speech’ laws being introduced as is the United Kingdom. No Christian supports hatred against individuals, but we do support rightful freedom of speech for the public good.
Due to the zeal of the hugely politically influential gay rights group Stonewall, there can be little doubt that such laws will be used to prosecute orthodox Christians who wish to uphold Christ’s teaching on the sanctity of heterosexual marriage and the immorality of sexual relationships outside of that God-created institution.
What would a Conservative government do about such laws? That is the question. Its leader says he is proud of Conservative support for civil partnerships. Would a Conservative government have the moral and political will to introduce robust freedom of speech protection into laws that only a small minority of voters, namely orthodox Christians, are likely to fall foul of? If not, then we could see Christians going to jail in the UK for their convictions even within the next decade and even under a Conservative government.
Because of the more homogeneous nature of our governance coupled with the zeal for such hate speech legislation in the politically-correct establishment of the European Union, Britain is arguably much more easily and uniformly transformed into a PC dictatorship than the US.
Things will of course become much more difficult for orthodox Christian in the US, but the powers that State Legislatures have in your country and the separation of powers between President and Congress will surely make it much harder to impose a uniform PC dictatorship on a country as large and as diverse as yours.
Our small island is much more vulnerable to religious persecution, as the Pilgrim Fathers knew all too well.
Wouldn’t it be ironic if in the 21st century Evangelical Christians in the United Kingdom started fleeing religious persecution in the Old World for the constitutional religious toleration of the New?
It would take a lot to make me leave my country, David. So those of us who plan to stay in Britain and keep on God willing proclaiming the living Christ need the prayers of our Christian brothers and sisters in the land where freedom of speech is by God’s grace constitutional.
Warmly in Christ,
Julian
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think it's time all the homophobic priests in this country were unceremoniously defrocked and sent packing. No wonder the churches are empty when people find themselves subjected to personal fear and insecurity dressed up as doctrine. Homophobes are on a par with the BNP. Emotional dwarves. Their churches places for distrust and hate, exclusion rather than unconditional love. Their family of Christ a little, mean gathering of self-righteous biggots. Warmly in Christ! Jesus wept!
ReplyDeleteHello Julian, I have not commented for a while, but decided to share my thoughts about this post.
ReplyDeleteThere are several things I could take issue with, like your claim that no Christian supports hatred against individuals, however I want to direct my comment to the major thing that strikes me here is the contradiction. You say that
//No Christian supports hatred against individuals, but we do support rightful freedom of speech for the public good.//
But you support Section 28, which was about denying that very same freedom of speech to those that wanted to "promote" homosexuality. Is that not a major discrepancy? You seem to be saying that people can say what they like, provided that you like what they are saying; that freedom of speech should be controlled and limited in cases where you disagree with it.
Of course, you qualify that by saying //... for the public good.// But then whose version of "good"? Certainly in your case "good" means "christian", but why should society accept that as valid?
If we are to permit limitation of speech along the lines you advocate, than why do you oppose Christians having their speech curtailed, since the people doing the curtailing do very much believe they are doing so for the "public good". Or what about in some Muslim countries, where Christians have their beliefs censured because they are deemed to be against the "public good".
It seems difficult to reconcile those two views; the one of free speech, and the one of "heteronormative" monopoly, which you wish to protect. It would seem to damage the positions of many Christian organisations that currently campaign against alleged religious persecution, who say that they only want to practice their beliefs. You are not saying that. You are saying that you want your belief in the abnormalness of homosexuality enforced upon all the nations children.
Indeed, in some ways your own position (and section 28) contravenes freedom of religion and belief. The belief that homosexuality is normal and healthy is as much a belief system as the one you hold to, so in effect, by supporting Section 28, you are saying that your belief system must be forced upon every parents child, regardless of their own views. For example, what if a parent does not want their child raised to believe that homosexuality is not normal, or to grow up in ignorance of that orientation? Under your system they would be denied the right to have their child taught that way? This seems at odds with freedom of religion and belief, which you seem to support.
I write, as usual, not to change your views, but to ask you to consider them; can you really truly support freedom of religion, belief and free speech, and still support legislation like Section 28, which actively limits free speech?
I hope this message finds you well.
Regards,
indigomyth
Bonner's Love Child....why are you being so judgemental towards us?...Why not show us some of that unconditional love you were writing about?
ReplyDeleteThank you indigomyth - welcome again sir. Most schools recognise that sex education has to be done responsibly and some restraint has to be exercised in the way it is taught particularly to young children. Those of us who support Section 28 are taking that a step further than the current consensus by saying that responsible sex education means not promoting homosexual practice as a moral equivalent to heterosexual marriage. Unfortunately in some reported cases young children have been exposed to most unsuitable material.
ReplyDeleteNecessary curbs on freedom of speech in schools should not affect the freedom of adults to speak their mind in debate and to argue vigorously for or against heteronormality.
I take your point regarding your beliefs, but should those beliefs be enshrined in legal codes?
ReplyDeleteFor example, were I to find the indoctrination of children with religion to be repugnant, would you think it morally responsible of me to campaign for religious schools to be shut down, given the belief set I have.
The question becomes, to what extent do you support a parents right to choose what their children are taught. By supporting Section 28, you are denying parents the right to have their children taught the way they want them to be taught; i.e. that homosexuality is morally equivalent to heterosexuality. I understand that you are doing this with the best intentions, because I understand that you genuinely believe homosexuality is evil. But, why do you believe that you should be able to force everyone else to conform to that viewpoint?
Basically what I am looking for is an explanation of why you think it is all right for you dictate to other parents and schools the way their children should be educated, when you oppose it when other people try and do it to you?
I do not understand your support of Section 28, which enforces a universal moral code on schools, but not your support of the secularisation of schools, which enforces a different set of moral universals? Why do certain religious people get the right to choose what their children are taught, but not other parents. It seems inconsistent with your generally Libertarian philosophy.
Regards
Indigomyth
I believe good education is founded on Christian principles.
ReplyDeleteAnd I actually think Christian Britain, of which Section 28 was a product, was much more tolerant of dissent than the new politically-correct hegemony in our country.
I understand that YOU believe good education is founded on Christian principles. But what about all those other people that think that good education is based upon secularism and secular principles? Do they not have a right to teach their children as they see fit, or must they all submit to your "Christian principles"?
ReplyDeleteIn what way do you think it was more tolerant? I assume you are not talking of medieval Christian England? Could you provide me with some examples of dissent which you think illustrate this tolerance, because I am very dubious of this claim.
I am thinking particularly of blasphemy laws, which actively restricted free speech and free criticism of religion.
ReplyDeleteThank you sir - I suggest you read up on the growth of toleration and intellectual freedom in the Victorian era, and particularly in the administrations of one of our most overtly Christian Prime Ministers, William Gladstone.
ReplyDeleteThe Christian practice of a separation between Church & State allows for the space for toleration - look at the United States, one of the highest church-going nations in the world, yet allowing for a high degree of intellectual freedom.
Blasphemy laws have been enforced fairly leniently in Christian counties certainly compared to Islamic ones - as Salman Rushdie discovered!
ReplyDeleteThanks for the tip, I will look into it.
ReplyDeleteAs for the US, it maintains its high degree of intellectual freedom despite pressures from some of the most fervently Christian campaigners, who would like to see speech restricted in numerous cases, like gay rights and blasphemous speech.
There are currently several US states with anti-Atheist legislation, which make it illegal for an atheist to hold positions of political power. I do not think that is particularly emancipating.
I would also note that you should NOT support Section 28, if you wish to emulate church/state separation. Would you deny that Section 28 forces conformity to a religious set of rules that many would not agree with? In what way is that tolerant of dissent? You could say that you do not want homosexuality discussed in religious schools, but why subject secular schools to your religious convictions? If you are pro-freedom, than surely Section 28 is counter to that freedom?
Oh yes, I understand that they are loosely enforced, but that is hardly the point! Their existence is the issue. The idea that people should theoretically be prosecuted (not to say persecuted) for criticising the dominant religion is one that is fundamentally opposite to free speech. The furore over Jerry Springer: The Opera demonstrates the intolerance of some Christians for media making fun of certain elements of the Christian dogma.
ReplyDeleteDo you think it is right that people should face prosecution or any legal repercussions for criticising religion and religious beliefs?
Yes, I do support blasphemy laws to protect against gratuitous abuse of God and Christ. They would have a high threshold but the Jerry Springer Opera would certainly be over the line. I would support a robust freedom of speech provision in any blasphemy laws allowing intellectual freedom to debate religion and criticise religious beliefs.
ReplyDeleteMore than we are being allowed in the current homophobic hatred bill!
Over and out now sir - I have a church service to go to whilst it's still legal in the United Kingdom.....
Kind regards,
Julian Mann