30 April 2010 Religious Beliefs No Defence For a Christian
Yesterday, an Appeal Judge in a British court of law decided that a practising Christian did not have the right to refuse sex therapy to a homosexual couple. If that conscientious decision cost Gary McFarlane his job, so be it.
The Law Lord – and we will come to him in a moment – ruled that Mr McFarlane’s relying on his religious beliefs was “irrational” and “capricious”.
The judge ruled that, while everyone had the right to hold religious beliefs, those beliefs had no standing under the law. There is, apparently in his opinion, no statutory connection between Christian beliefs and the law.
It seems to have escaped his Lordship’s notice that the protestant Christian religion is not only the bedrock of British society, but the Church of England and its beliefs are the established church of this country. That is the law! Unfortunately, even if he were wrong yesterday, no government currently in prospect is likely to face up to the consequences of his Lordship’s ruling, as we shall see in a moment.
This is, appallingly, not the first time the courts have ruled that Christian beliefs have no standing in law. There have been far too many instances recently of devout, committed and active Christians being actively discriminated against in rulings handed down by judges.
It hardly needs mentioning, does it, that, in recent times, other minority religious faiths have found the British legal system more amenable and accommodating? Islamism, a 21st century global political project driven by a seventh-century ideology, has been the chief beneficiary in the UK , and in many other parts of nominally-Christian Western Europe .
Elsewhere yesterday we also saw the same absurd imposition of the ruling elite’s views on the rest of us when the Tory party ditched Philip Lardner, its candidate for North Ayrshire and Arran . Strictly speaking they “suspended” him, which amounts to the same thing.
Mr Lardner’s offence? He posted a blog which – amongst many other things and in the most moderate of language - objected to homosexuality being actively encouraged amongst children.
These are his precise words: “I will always support the rights of homosexuals to be treated within concepts of common-sense, equality and respect, and defend their rights to choose to live the way they want in private, but I will not accept that their behaviour is ‘normal’ or encourage children to indulge in it. The promotion of homosexuality by public bodies was correctly outlawed by Mrs Thatcher’s government. Toleration and understanding is one thing, but state-promotion of homosexuality is quite another.”
Those words have cost him his future in the Tory party. But what, I wonder, might happen if he were to win the seat? Would they have suspended him if his winning were a serious possibility? I doubt it.
Yet Mr Lardner is right, in law, and in the sense that he probably expressed a view widely held across the UK . In any case he is fully entitled not only to hold such a view, but – even more importantly – to express it without fear or favour.
Indeed his words might usefully have been addressed to the Law Lord who ruled against Gary McFarlane.
Which neatly brings us to Lord Justice Laws, who chose to ignore Mrs Thatcher’s legislation. Or at the very least he found other means of circumventing it, no doubt citing more recent legislation which – he knows better than most – implies repeal of earlier legislation.
Because, you see, I am referring to the man (I will try to resist the temptation to make any ironic comments about his name) who is infamous for his legal ruling on the Metric Martyr case some years ago.
John Laws may be unique. He is the only judge I know of who has twice invented constitutional nonsense in court to impose his multicultural, politically-correct, leftist views on us.
Happily the British Constitution has been untouched by law for decades.
That has not, sadly and disgracefully, stopped secular, appeasing, EUtopian lawyers attempting to interfere with it – as did Mr Justice Laws (as he was then) invented his first piece of constitutional nonsense in court.
John Laws was parachuted in to hear the Metric Martyrs case. “A safe pair of hands”, we heard. You bet!
These market traders were being prosecuted for selling bananas by the pound weight, because that was what their customers asked for, and by doing so they were ignoring Brussels ' decision to outlaw the use of Britain ’s traditional imperial weights and measures. This case was so stressful, it cost one of these men his life.
To find against them, which Laws was obviously determined to do (doubtless encouraged by the Blair government), he had to invent the notion of second-class constitutional law – something unheard of before or since.
Appeasement rules! Then, for John Laws, it was with Brussels . Now it’s with homosexuals.
And we all know where appeasement ends up.
(PS: Lest there be any doubt, may I clarify my position here. I write not as a practising Christian, but as an Englishman brought up in the cultural environment and by the ethical standards of the Church of England, and as a willing supporter of its stance on man and his place in society and the wider world.)
To respond to, or comment on this Email, please email ashley.mote@btconnect.com
Click www.ashleymote.co.uk to visit the site now.
Posts
