I always find clashes between the law, specifically equality laws, and the Church fun. It really hammers home just how out of date and close minded religious leaders are. The latest example comes from the UK, where Church groups are running scared or new proposed equality laws that would force them to equally consider sexually active homosexuals (I shouldn’t be surprised that they are particularly concerned about “sexually active” homosexuals rather than all homosexuals given the clear hang ups religious organisations have with sex and sexuality) and transsexuals. Simon Sarimento asked in The Guardian:
Is this campaign just wanton scaremongering by religious extremists as a cover for retaining the right to irrational prejudice? Or is the government really trying to narrow existing law so as to curtail the exemptions from employment discrimination law to which religious organisations are entitled under the law?
Interesting, no? Interesting not because the British Government is looking to clarify these laws (some might say extend), but rather because the exemption for religious organisations in the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations Act 2003 existed in the first place.
The best part of this debate is, by some way, the statement issued by three Bishops on the matter for the Church of England. The statement, entitled “Churches must not face further restrictions” could be a work of comedy genius, but instead it’s a rambling, contradictory and bigoted response to a law that should do no more than provide equal rights. Even the title is telling. The Church sees this potential change as “restrictive”, despite the fact that any normal person would be hard pressed to describe the law as anything other than removing extant restrictions imposed by the Church. Are they talking about the Church being restricted from imposing their own restrictions? If so, do they have any concept of just how ludicrous that sounds?
As if that wasn’t enough to make you dismiss them out of hand as a group of outdated hypocrites, they also throw in this:
At stake is how we, as a liberal democracy based on Christian values, strike the right balance between the rights and responsibilities of different groups to be protected from harassment and unfair discrimination and the rights of churches and religious organisations to appoint and employ people consistently with their guiding doctrine and ethos.
I think that’s pretty clear. On the one hand you have those fighting for “the rights and responsibilities of different groups to be protected from harassment and unfair discrimination” and on the other side you have the Church. When that’s the argument you’re trying to make, there must a point where you look in the mirror and wonder why you want to discriminate against fellow human beings for no reason other than a 2,000 year old book tells you to (or is it just because they fear change)?
Related posts:
I have for a long time wondered whether Atheist is the appropriate name for this blog author. His real interest appears to be an apologetic for homosexuality, for which atheism comes as a seemingly necessary corollary. This conclusion is just the first of so many muddles in this article it is hard to know where to begin.
In just the title alone (which bears only a fleeting relation to the content) everything goes belly up after the first six words. If Atheist really thinks that there are exceptions to God’s love that is his/her own private theological position (which is rather odd for an atheist to hold). Similarly the doctrine that God decided that some of his children would be gay is news to me.
The post itself is equally odd. Atheist, despite not being British, again betrays his own preoccupations by not bothering to explain the particularly “fun” clash he is ranting about.
As usual, Atheist has too many irrelevent jibes to offer that have nothing to do with the issue (which I am still not clear about – but to do with non specified new laws proposing more rights for homosexuals). Once you have cleared away personal opinion statements without any accompanying justification (tags with purely emotive taunting like “out-dated hypocrites”, “closed-minded”, “hang-ups”, “no reason other than a 2,000 year old book” and so on).
If the Atheist’s real issue is that groups are allowed to impose their own restrictions in an absolute sense, it is obviously ridiculous. Every group does so. Most employees necessarily impose restrictions (such as privacy clauses, set working hours, workplace, health and safety rules and so on). In addition, some groups rightly make ‘restrictions’ because of the nature of their group. An atheist club, for example, would not be unreasonable to insist that the members of the chairing committee were atheists…. or, a mother’s club for insisting that, well, the members be women who have children…
I suggest that this post is not informative until the Atheist outline exactly what the new law proposes and what the Anglican church is upset about and why, and only then to make conclusions as to whether or not this sounds legitimate. As it stands I do not see any problem with the final italicised quotation in the original post. Not even if the words “churches and religious organisations” were replaced with “homosexual advocacy unions” or some such thing….
Looking forward to more substance…
I agree with Jonathon Baker’s post and find that the whole prospect of restrictions amongst religions, etc. is to seperate us. The morals and beliefs are seperated into different crowds of people. The beliefs between the two crowds may be different, but like our amendments it is freedom of speech. There is a difference between intentional and unneeded hate crimes and simple beliefs. For examply many people are against homosexuality and it is not allowed in their religion. These restrictions seperate us as groups of people and the beliefs, well they can be extreme, however they are merely opinions. Religion, itself, is an opinion. Many religious groups do not have evidence to support that their beliefs stand and occurred, that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, that there Moses did cross the Red Sea. Like religion, topics similar to homosexuality and positions on that topic are opinions that do not need a factual basis, but are what the person themselves feel comfortable with and fit in their morals.
I would love to hear other opinions.
Barbara…you are right, all religious groups do not have evidence to support their beliefs, so they tend to attack any group that challenge them, in a way to make themself relevant.
Why only religious groups? No-one has absolute proof of the truth of their worldview. All groups will claim to have ‘evidence’…even Atheists.
So you are right..we should all be respectful of the views of others because none of us ‘knows that we know’ we all choose to believe….or if you want to get technical non-believe.
We all operate from faith in our own subjective view.
First of all the title of this article makes no sense. God does not decide which babies are gay or straight, he gives every person free will in all walks of life. so a person becoming gay is nothing more than a pure moral choice and in no way is influenced by god. If u want to say stuff make sure u got ur facts right smart guy…
WOW, you are so ignorant. Gay people do not choose to be gay. I have been gay since the day I was born. I could not change my sexuality if my life depended on it. There is no way. This is how my brain is wired. I tried, and tried, and tried for years and years and years to not be gay. I prayed and prayed and worshipped and prayed. Nothing changed. I finally decided that there is nothing wrong me, I’m totally normal, I just happend to be attracted to the same sex. I am an honest, morally sound individual who does so much for my fellow man. I am kind, compassionate and yes…gay. If your god doesn’t like it, too bad. There will never stop being gay people. There’s millions of them born every day and there’s nothing you or any fairy tale book can do to stop the way people are born. Ignorance is shameful. Good day.
Wow, mate, you just got smacked down by the hand of god xD
Seriously though, Gay people do not choose to be gay. Tickle Me is right, and kudos TM for that epic post.
It’s funny how God chooses and changes what his believers want him to… just an observation.
The bible says God made man, and that God gave us free will. I must have missed the part where it says ‘It isn’t Gods fault for making people gay’.
Besides, apparently we are all children of God. Treat others as you treat them, and you’ll be a better person for it.