Christian leaders have vowed to fight a high court ruling that councils have no statutory rights to hold prayers at meetings.

Local authorities across the country will have to review their practice of holding prayers during formal meetings after the National Secular Society argued successfully against it.

[...] "It is clear that these sensitive matters can no longer be left in the hands of judges. It is time for the government to act – both to amend local authority legislation, letting local councils themselves decide whether they want to continue the time-honoured custom of saying prayers, and, more broadly, to protect the Christian traditions on which the country is founded."

The bishop of Exeter, the Right Rev Michael Langrish, has said he would encourage councils in his diocese, including Bideford, to continue to say prayers before the statutory business of the meeting began.

Local government leaders have expressed their surprise at the high court decision, and some predicted it would be ignored or overturned.

John Breeds, mayor of Rye in East Sussex, said he expects councillors will now say prayers ahead of their meetings.

"We will try to find a way around it. It doesn't actually have to be part of the meeting. Presumably if we can't say prayers at the beginning of the meeting proper, then we will just have to say them beforehand," he said.

"It's been a tradition for hundreds of years, it's part of the whole sense of ceremony, with the robes and mace and chains, so I think it's a real shame."

The mayor of Folkestone in Kent, Sue Wallace, said she was "astounded" by the decision.

She said: "I think it should be down to the individual to decide. Soon we won't be able to decide anything. I'm sure there are lots of other councils all over the country that will feel the same way as I do."

Read here

George Carey, former Archbishop of Canterbury, has warned there are 'deep forces at work in Western society' that are degrading the values of Christianity after a High Court ruling banned public prayers from council meetings.

George Carey was not regarded as an outspoken Archbishop of Canterbury by the standards of both his predecessor and his successor.
 
While Robert Runcie and Rowan Williams generated and still generate headlines and ruffle politicians’ feathers, George Carey was largely overshadowed during his 11 years as head of the Anglican communion by internal church battles, notably over the ordination of women. Some even came to regard him as a wee bit dull and mealy-mouthed. If so, then he has more than made up for it since he stepped down in 2002.
 
In the past few months alone, he has publicly criticised both the cathedral authorities at St Paul’s over the Occupy protest camp, and the Lords Spiritual for leading the opposition to the Government’s benefit cuts in the Upper Chamber of Parliament, where Lord Carey of Clifton now sits as a life peer. “I have been mildly upset to be told to shut up by my fellow Anglican bishops.” But his usually sober face spreads into a grin as he says it. “I have felt freer to speak my mind as my own man, but I am always conscious of not wanting to get in Rowan’s way”.
 
This new George Carey has rather abandoned the careful diplomatic language he used as an archbishop to keep different church factions in the same pews, in favour of something more earthy and apocalyptic, reflecting his own evangelical background. “There are deep forces at work in Western society, hollowing out the values of Christianity and driving them to the margins”.

Read here
 

Street Preacher Mike Overd was today (10 Feb) cleared by Taunton Magistrates' Court of a ‘Hate Crime’ for preaching against homosexual conduct.

Mr Overd was arrested under the Public Order Act 1986 for preaching which stated 'even these dear men caught in homosexuality, if they ask God for forgiveness of sin can be forgiven their sin; God loves them that much.'

Craig Nichol and Craig Manning entered into a civil partnership last June and claimed that Mr Overd had singled them out as ‘sinners’ as they walked down Taunton High Street arm in arm. Mr Overd denied that he insulted the pair and simply acknowledged them and spoke about the hope, restoration and forgiveness that can be found in Christ.

The couple complained to police who arrested and charged the preacher with ‘hate crime’ for stating his traditional Biblical views on the practice of homosexuality.

In court, Mr Overd told Magistrates that it was he who was intimidated. He told the Bench that he was verbally abused and had to seek police protection, only to find later that he was the one who was arrested.

Read here

The Christian owners of a Cornish B&B today lost their appeal against last year’s ruling that their policy of restricting double rooms to married couples discriminated against a gay couple.

But, while upholding that ruling, the Court of Appeal warned that a new intolerance should not take root against Christians because of their beliefs about sexual ethics.

The three judges upheld last year’s County Court decision which found the policy to be discriminatory on grounds of sexual orientation – despite the fact that the policy was also applied to unmarried heterosexual couples.
 
Last year Peter and Hazelmary Bull, owners of the Chymorvah B&B near Penzance, were ordered to pay £3,600 in damages to Steven Preddy and Martyn Hall, a gay couple in a civil partnership.

Read here

Pope Benedict XVI received a group of prelates from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops at the Vatican and told them America is becoming “increasingly hostile” to Christianity, according to Zenit. But the Pope added that hope remains, especially in the intellectual and moral education of our youth.

This is a must read and a more accurate diagnosis of the issues facing America than anything you’ll hear on the campaign trail:

“At the heart of every culture, whether perceived or not, is a consensus about the nature of reality and the moral good, and thus about the conditions for human flourishing. In America, that consensus, as enshrined in your nation’s founding documents, was grounded in a worldview shaped not only by faith but a commitment to certain ethical principles deriving from nature and nature’s God. Today that consensus has eroded significantly in the face of powerful new cultural currents which are not only directly opposed to core moral teachings of the Judeo-Christian tradition, but increasingly hostile to Christianity as such…

With her long tradition of respect for the right relationship between faith and reason, the Church has a critical role to play in countering cultural currents which, on the basis of an extreme individualism, seek to promote notions of freedom detached from moral truth. …

Read here

In late January, the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a rule that requires nearly all employers, including many affiliated with religious institutions, to pay for health insurance covering sterilization, contraceptives, and abortifacient treatment for all eligible employees. In so doing, the Department’s bureaucrats launched an attack on religious liberty that directly contravenes the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

They are not alone. In the United Kingdom, bureaucrats at the Advertising Standards Authority have decided to ban leaflets from a Christian outreach group that stated that God can heal the sick, on the basis that the statement could “encourage false hope” and was “irresponsible.” These moves demonstrate a deep hostility to religious freedom on the behalf of the progressive bureaucratic establishment that threatens a fundamental underpinning of western civilization.

The HHS rulemaking has been presented as a simple matter of women’s health by the department and its supporters (such as Democratic US Senators Jeanne Shaheen, Barbara Boxer, and Patty Murray). It is precisely this approach that is so disturbing. If it were a simple matter of women’s health, there would be little opposition. However, the ruling directly assaults freedom of conscience. It requires, for example, that Catholic hospitals, which carry out the Church’s ministry to the sick, to put aside a basic tenet of the religion that inspires that ministry by paying for something the Church believes is destructive of human life.

Read here

The Obama administration’s decision to take on the Catholic Church at this stage of the political cycle is either very brave or very stupid. As Jon Swaine reports this morning, the President’s overhaul of healthcare includes a provision that religious charities, universities and other groups must now provide contraception in staff insurance packages and failure to do so will result in hefty fines. More than 150 Catholic bishops have spoken out against the change, with one accusing Obama of waging a "severe assault on religious liberty". According to Alexander Sample, the Bishop of Marquette, "we Catholics will be compelled to either violate our consciences, or to drop health coverage for our employees and suffer the penalties for doing so.” With 70 million Catholics in the United States, this looks like a kamikaze mission by the White House. Why have they done it? David Brooks in the New York Times has a persuasive theory:

Read here

Last week’s column on the HHS mandate brought a rash of email from the usual suspects—men and women who feel passionately inclined to inform me that the church is “mysogynistic, women-hating, gay-hating, authoritarian, fetus-idolizing…” well, you get the drift. People who could not begin to accurately articulate the church’s position on most matters are quite sure that her counter-cultural stances are grounded on nothing more than hate.

The dominant narrative of the mainstream is that whatever gets in the way of what you think you should have must be founded on hate, and not just hate, but hate-without-reason. Love, in this narrative, is nice; it always says yes. Alternative points of view offering nuanced philosophies and theologies, reasoned compellingly and with depth through the ages and offered with respect? The very definition of twenty-first century hate.

Aside from revealing a general deficiency in reasoning skills and a stunning lack of curiosity as to why the Catholic church objects to contraception, sterilization, and abortifacients, there existed in these emails a general lack of interest in identifying what the conflict between the administration and the church is actually about. What little coverage has surfaced in the mainstream has been framed along predictable lines: those nasty Catholic bishops are trying to deny women contraception, which “even Catholic women” use. The constitutional question of whether the government has the right to define a church’s mission or usurp its conscience is ignored. For my correspondents, at least, it’s “all about contraception and the Catholic Church of No.”

Read here

A PARISH priest from Northamptonshire says Christians should no longer “grudgingly accept” orders from their bosses to take off crucifixes.

Following a number of reports in the national press about workers who have been told to remove crucifix necklaces, the Rev Stephen Trott, who is the Rector of Pitsford with Boughton, has presented a motion to the Church of England’s national assembly calling on the church to condemn the “silencing” of open displays of Christianity.

He said: “There have been a lot of press reports of how the Human Right Act is impacting on people and how Christians find life difficult when they’re being told by their employers what they can and can’t do.

“There have been two cases which have gone to court where people have been told to take off crosses, so I think it’s a real issue.

“We want to encourage people not to just grudgingly accept it, but be willing to speak up for what they believe in.”

Members of the General Synod, which is described as the Church of England’s version of Parliament, are due to discuss the motion in London later this week.

The motion written by Mr Trott has already won the backing of three bishops and 100 other members of the Synod, but it is not yet known if it will be approved by the wider body.

Read here

Three bishops will this week lead calls for the Church of England to make a public statement standing up for the right of Christians to wear a cross.
 
They have signed a motion condemning the “silencing” of outward displays of Christianity in Britain and a “growing trend” towards the “restriction of religious liberty” which is to be debated at the Church’s national assembly.

One hundred other members of the Synod, including clergy and lay people, have backed the call for the Church to defend Christians against the “overzealous” interpretation of human rights and equality legislation by judges, politicians and employers.

Its backers believe that by passing the motion the Church would make a landmark statement that wearing a cross is an integral part of the Christian faith.

Read here

A secular war has been declared against people of faith, and our Western universities are leading the charge. I have documented numerous examples of how our higher education system is deliberately and regularly targeting people of faith – Christians especially.

It is getting to be the point that the most dangerous place for a Christian nowadays is on a Western college campus. It seems that the thought police, secular humanists, and forces of political correctness are doing all they can to stamp out any vestige of faith, and to hound believers out of town.

Consider the latest case of anti-Christian bigotry on campus, this time coming from Tennessee. The powers that be at Vanderbilt University have told Christian groups there that they will be in big trouble if they do not accept anyone into membership – even those who reject their statements of faith.

One write-up about this goes like this: “Christian student clubs [are] fighting for their right to continue existing as officially recognized campus groups. Losing that status could mean no longer having access to things like campus meeting space and college advertising outlets, which are essential to club growth.

“The groups affected include the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, Christian Legal Society and Graduate Christian Fellowship. They were placed on ‘provisional status’ after campus officials determined that the clubs may be out of compliance with the school’s ‘nondiscrimination’ policy.

Read here

I’ve told you that the Obama Administration is intentionally restricting religious freedom. I’ve told you we are in danger of losing the right to exercise our faith in public.

Well, maybe I’ve been too understated. The attack is relentless.

Just recently, the Obama Administration announced that the Affordable Healthcare Act, otherwise known as ObamaCare, requires that employers pay for contraception, including abortifacients, and that Catholic institutions are not exempt from this requirement.

Well, Catholic Bishop David Zubik of Pittsburgh and other bishops are blowing the trumpets on the ramparts. And my hat’s off to them. They see the Administration’s actions for what they truly are.

In an open letter released last week, Zubik said that, “Kathleen Sebelius and through her, the Obama administration, have said ‘To [H-] with You’ to the Catholic faithful of the United States. To [H-] with your religious beliefs, to [H-] with your religious liberty, to [H-] with your freedom of conscience.” I’ll leave it to your imagination what the H- stands for.

In the administration’s twisted way of thinking, contraception is “preventive care” that helps prevent illness in the same way that cholesterol, high blood pressure and diabetes screening do — even though pregnancy is the means by which life is perpetuated and the species’ existence continued.

Even worse is the willful refusal to accommodate the beliefs of the nation’s largest religious body.

Read here

In 1808, President Thomas Jefferson stated the matter bluntly: “I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises.”

Fast forward 204 years and President Barack Obama has reversed that logic, ordering religious institutions to provide insurance coverage for employees that must include contraceptives, including those that may induce an abortion.

Secretary Kathleen Sebelius of the Department of Health and Human Services made the announcement January 20, stating: “Today the department is announcing that the final rule on preventive health services will ensure that women with health insurance coverage will have access to the full range of the Institute of Medicine’s recommended preventive services, including all FDA-approved forms of contraception.”

Read here

Just months after the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, there is a full-on battle for marriage raging within our nation’s armed forces.

Urge your congressman to co-sponsor the Military Religious Freedom Protection Act today!

Last April, the Navy issued new “sensitivity training” guidelines that required Navy chaplains to perform same-sex marriages. Thanks to leadership from Congressmen Tim Huelskamp and Todd Akin, the Navy backed down and rescinded the guidelines.

In September, the Department of Defense issued two more memos, requiring all military facilities to be available for same-sex weddings and allowing chaplains to participate in same-sex ceremonies.

Recognizing this growing threat to the religious liberty of our armed forces, Rep. Tim Huelskamp of Kansas introduced the Military Religious Freedom Protection Act (H.R. 3828) to protect chaplains from being forced to participate in same-sex marriages and any servicemen or women from being discriminated against because of their views on marriage.

Please use the form below to send a message to your congressman, urging him or her to support HR 3828 today!

Read here

The Sixth Circuit has ruled in favor of Christian graduate student Julea Ward, who almost three years ago was expelled from a university counseling program for her religious beliefs.

In a strongly worded opinion earlier today, the Sixth U.S. Circuit of Appeals reversed a district court decision in favor of Eastern Michigan University, sending it back for trial along with this message: "A reasonable jury could conclude that Ward's professors ejected her from the counseling program because of hostility toward her speech and faith …."

As part of her counseling practicum course in early 2009, Ward had been assigned a potential client who was homosexual and was seeking affirmation of that sexual orientation. Because she was unwilling to violate her own religious beliefs in the context of the counseling relationship, Ward was permitted to refer the client to another counselor — but was told to remain in the counseling program she would have to undergo a "remediation" program that would help her "see the error of her ways."

When Ward refused, a faculty committee dismissed her from the program. In her subsequent lawsuit, a district federal court ruled in favor of EMU — a ruling that has now been reversed.

Read here

The Archbishop of York's comments on gay marriage in the Telegraph are not only entirely unremarkable for an Anglican priest, but also wholly inoffensive for anyone possessing of an open mind. Facebook and Twitter, however, have once again conspired to ensure that nothing in this world can ever again pass as unremarkable or inoffensive. By defending the Christian teaching on the nature of marriage, while acknowledging the value of committed gay relationships in civil partnerships, the Archbishop has shown himself to be the perfect mix of principle and pluralism: staying true to his beliefs, while accepting that others, for wholly good and decent reasons, may disagree. His opponents, however, have done him no such service.

The general consensus on the Archbishop's remarks can be summed up in one word: 'bigot'. This is the word I see used again and again, in Tweets, blogs and Facebook statuses, by those in my party in favour of gay marriage to describe not only John Sentamu, but indeed anyone else who opposes gay marriage. For people who, in their support of what they see as gay equality, presumably pride themselves on their enlightened and tolerant attitudes, the Archbishop's critics seem oddly quick to denounce – in vicious and ad hominem terms – a kind and principled man who happens to disagree with them.

Read here