Anglican Mainstream

The appointment of an evangelical Christian with controversial views on homosexuality to the human rights watchdog chaired by Trevor Phillips has led to a furore among campaigners who claim his opinions make him ineligible for the job.

Secular groups have asked for the removal of the Rev Joel Edwards, a vocal campaigner against legislation banning discrimination against the gay community, from the post of commissioner of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC).

Mr Edwards, the general director of the Evangelical Alliance since 1997, has said Christians did not want to find themselves “coerced” by law into aiding promotion of homosexuality.

The National Secular Society claimed the appointment of Mr Edwards would damage the reputation of the commission and raised questions about its objectivity. Terry Sanderson, the society’s president, said: “This appointment must be reversed immediately. Mr Edwards comes to the job with a pre-formed agenda that is based on a literalist reading of the Bible.

“How on earth is he going to look objectively at gay issues when he has made a career out of opposing equality for homosexuals?”

Mr Edwards was visiting Kenya as part of a church campaign for the Millennium Development Goals to eradicate poverty and hunger by 2015. He said he had always stood up for equal rights, adding: “I remain daunted by the incredible task the commission has in striving to meet the needs of a diverse society.

“My faith convictions, along with the wide range of convictions held by my other colleagues on the commission, are entirely compatible with serving the interests of all citizens.”

The Evangelical Alliance said it was “honoured” to be involved in the EHRC and Mr Edwards would “strive” to ensure the values of faith communities.

An EHRC spokeswoman said: “Joel Edwards has been appointed by the Secretary of State and we welcome him joining the commission. He is well qualified as leader of the Evangelical Alliance and brings expertise both as a faith leader and a senior figure in the black community.

“The Equality and Human Rights Commission is supposed to represent a wide range of views and opinions and we welcome lively debate. But the views of the commission on the sexual orientation regulations remains unchanged. The law is the law and it is our remit to uphold that.”

Read here

AM website notes that Ben Summerskill the chief executive of Stonewall, the Gay Activist Group, is also a commissioner.

The Rev Joel Edwards, General Director of the Evangelical Alliance, has been appointed as a commissioner to the new Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), formed this October.

This commission has been set up to work towards eliminating discrimination, reducing inequality, protecting human rights and building good relations and was established by the Equality Act 2006.

The EHRC brings together three previous UK equality commissions - the Commission for Racial Equality, the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Disability Rights Commission and will now incorporate other human rights strands.

Joel said: “As a Christian leader, I believe one of my primary responsibilities will be to ensure that the values of faith communities - our concerns for important issues such as respect and tolerance - play an effective role in this commission.”

Christian Magistrate Andrew McClintock has lost his case to have his freedom of conscience recognized when practising as a Justice of the Peace. The judgment of the Employment Appeal Tribunal was handed down by Mr Justice Elias on 31 October 2007. The decision of the Court means that Mr McClintock, a committed Christian who became a Justice of the Peace in Sheffield in 1988, will not serve on the Family Panel.

Difficulties first arose for Mr McClintock when he considered the implications of same-sex adoption, arising from the Civil Partnerships Act 2002. He became concerned that a tension existed between his Christian beliefs in the Biblical model of the family and his work as a Magistrate sitting on the Family Panel. Mr McClintock raised his difficulties with the Chairman of the Family Panel at Sheffield. Mr McClintock was not asking for a change in the law, rather he was requesting that his religious conscience should be accommodated, and that he should be ‘screened’ from cases which might require him to place children in to same-sex households. He was told he could not be ‘screened’ from the case and so on 6^th February 2006, Mr. McClintock resigned from membership of the Family Panel as, according to his beliefs, he was required to make judicial determinations incompatible with his statutory and common law duties and place already vulnerable children into same-sex households. Mr. McClintock sought clarification of how the new law on same-sex adoption corresponds to his primary statutory duty to act in the welfare of the child, when the scientific evidence of outcomes for such placements is so poor.

Read the rest of this entry »

Church of England Newspaper

By Matthew Cresswell

EVANGELICAL Christian groups claimed a victory this week after a High Court judge ruled that a controversial section of the new gay rights legislation in Northern Ireland should be removed.Mr Justice Weatherup said that provisions for harassment should be ‘quashed’ as it had not been properly consulted and was too broadly drafted. The judge did, however, rule that the rest of the legislation regarding the provision of goods and services could now be legally enforced.

This week’s ruling came out of a five-day hearing in June after the Christian Institute and other evangelical organisations called for a judicial review of the Sexual Orientations Regulations (SORs) in Northern Ireland. They requested a review saying that the legislation was a ‘gay rights charter’ which would usurp the rights of religious groups objecting to homosexuality.

Read the rest of this entry »

Sexual orientation regulations

A judge in the Belfast High Court has quashed laws which threatened the religious freedom of Christians.Mr Justice Weatherup struck down the ‘harassment’ provisions of the Northern Ireland sexual orientation regulations. This means Christians cannot be sued for expressing their opposition to homosexual practice.

The judge also ruled that religious liberty may be significantly affected by the regulations in individual cases which may come before the courts.

The judge added that in such cases County Courts in Northern Ireland should consider the principles of the Brocki case from Canada.

In that case a court ruled that a Christian printer should not be forced to print material which goes against his core religious beliefs, but that a Christian printer must be willing to print other material, such as letterhead, for homosexual customers.

Today’s ruling also narrows the sexual orientation regulations in Northern Ireland so that they cannot apply to the school curriculum or affect every activity of a faith-based group which receives some public funding (only the specific activity for which a faith-based group receives public funding will be affected).

There is no doubt that the religious freedom of Christians in Northern Ireland is very much safer as a result of this legal action, but there will still be cases where Christians must defend themselves in court.

The Christian Institute will work hard to support cases of strategic importance to religious freedom and will work to ensure that the principles from today’s High Court ruling are followed in the rest of the UK.

[Read here->http://www.christian.org.uk/soregs/niresult_11sept07.htm]

[Read here->http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-5039.html]

Churches and Christian charities in Northern Ireland are taking the UK Government to court, arguing that new laws on homosexuality threaten their religious freedom. The Christian Institute, a nondenominational Christian charity, took the case to the High Court in Belfast in Monday to argue that Northern Ireland’s Sexual Orientation Regulations restrict religious liberty.

The laws, which came into force in Northern Ireland last January, requires religious adoption agencies to treat homosexual couples as prospective adoptive couples, on a par with traditional married couples. If the challenge is successful, the regulations could be declared unlawful.

Read the rest of this entry »

The High Court in Belfast will consider the Christian Institute’s legal challenge regarding Northern Ireland’s Sexual Orientation Regulations on Monday 4 June. The case is scheduled to last for three days.

The High Court will consider whether the SORs unduly interfere with religious liberty contrary to the Human Rights Act and whether the public consultation in Northern Ireland was flawed.

Schools should not be allowed to promote marriage over homosexual partnerships, academics have said. The University and College Union said any negative characterisations of homosexuality by teachers should be regarded as discrimination. The UCU said new regulations to outlaw discrimination against individuals on grounds of sexual orientation did not go far enough. The union said change would only come about as a result of education.

Delegates at UCU’s annual conference in Bournemouth unanimously backed the motion which said: “All negative characterisations by teachers of lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgender people, identity and lifestyle should be outlawed and classified as an act of discrimination and an incitement to hatred based on sexual orientation.”

Government guidance on new sexual orientation regulations says that faith schools will not be breaking the law if they continue to teach that homosexuality is a sin.

Read the rest of this entry »

Ruth Kelly attends Stonewall event

Gay rights organisation Stonewall held a parliamentary reception on Wednesday evening to thank dozens of politicians from all the major political parties who were involved in securing new protections for gay people.

The Sexual Orientation Regulations outlaw discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation when accessing goods and services and became law on 30th April. More than 50 MPs and peers attended the event, among them Communities Secretary Ruth Kelly.

Ms Kelly delayed the introduction of the regulations while the government considered an opt-out for Roman Catholic-run adoption agencies. After a cabinet and backbench revolt, it was decided that faith-based agencies would have to comply with the law.

Stonewall’s chief executive Ben Summerskill said the event, held in the Jubilee Room at the Palace of Westminster, was not open to the press. “We are delighted that Ruth attended on the evening of her 39th birthday,” he told PinkNews.co.uk Ms Kelly has proved a controversial appointment as minister with responsibility for equality. Until her vote in favour of the SOR earlier this year, she had never voted for gay rights.

In a poll of PinkNews.co.uk readers conducted last weekend, 48% of the gay community felt that the appointment of Ruth Kelly as minister for equality was the biggest LGBT-related mistake made by Blair since 1997. It seems that Ms Kelly continues to be the main point of contention when it comes to recent Labour relations with gays. 89% of LGBT voters thought she would be the worst possible successor to Blair.

Others attending the Stonewall reception included Cabinet ministers and deputy leadership contenders Alan Johnson and Peter Hain. Ministers Meg Munn, Jim Fitzpatrick and Baroness Ashton were there alongside Labour MPs Angela Eagle and Chris Bryant, who put considerable effort into securing the new regulations.

AM website comment: Such an event, sponsored by one of the Big Five Banks, makes it difficult to accept without some questioning the recent suggestion by the Archbishop of Canterbury that homosexual people have no status or purchase in British society. [Read here-> http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/?p=1640] Why is this group identified as an example of those who have “no status or purchase”? And is this fair to those who can truly be described in this way?

Read the rest of this entry »

The Lawyers’ Christian Fellowship has today published Guidance on the Sexual Orientation Regulations that come in to force 30th April 2007. Christians object to these Regulations because they will force them to become involved in promoting or facilitating homosexual lifestyles contrary to the practice and teaching of the Church down the centuries. Christians do not seek to refuse homosexuals access to restaurants and hospital lists and the whole myriad of basic goods and services to which they are entitled as individuals.

The Regulations are widely misunderstood. Those promoting them talk about the need to eradicate prejudice against homosexuals not realising that without the necessary safeguards these Regulations are creating a new prejudice against those who want to live according to traditional Christian (and other mainstream beliefs) that teach that all sex outside heterosexual marriage is wrong. This should concern all those who believe in freedom of conscience and in the value of our Judeo-Christian heritage.

When 99 out of 100 printing shops are non-religious and would happily print material promoting homosexuality we believe it is unjustified to legislate against the one Christian printer to make it illegal for him to refuse to print that material. Striking a fair balance in these circumstances should allow reasonable accommodation for those motivated by conscience.

The Lawyers’ Christian Fellowship has produced Guidance on the new law which is available at: – http://www.lawcf.org/index.asp?page=Sexual+Orientation+Regulations+GUIDANCE

The Guidance should be read in conjunction with the Frequently Asked Questions document available at: – http://www.lawcf.org/index.asp?page=Sexual+Orientation+Regulations+FAQ+pack

Please see debate in The Times this week to understand how the Regulations are being misunderstood: http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/columnists/david_pannick/article1692580.ece

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/debate/letters/article1717330.ece

For all enquiries please contact
Andrea Minichiello Williams
LCF Public Policy Officer
0771 2591164

http://www.lawcf.org

http://www.christianconcernforournation.co.uk

In the current issue of PQ, Parliamentary Questions, published by the Evangelical Alliance, Don Horrocks, head of public affairs at the EA reflects on the passing of SORs

The issue of religious freedom will clearly continue to be prominent on the public agenda. Christian groups need to persist in constructive dialogue with the Government urging application of the law in a way which treats all citizens fairly, but which allows Christians to deliver services in a Christian way and exercise fundamental freedoms of conscience and religion and belief. This becomes even more critical as the forthcoming Discrimination Law Review will probably attempt to force religious groups in receipt of public funding to become public bodies (thus losing all protection on grounds of religious liberty) and will seek to outlaw proselytism in the public sphere.

Read the rest of this entry »

Catholic bishops in Scotland have called on their flocks to express their opposition to attacks on Christian values at the upcoming Scottish parliamentary elections.
by Maria Mackay

Catholic bishops in Scotland have called on the country’s voters to challenge attacks on Christian values “at the ballot box”. In a strongly worded letter read out at all masses across Scotland’s 500 Catholic parishes over the weekend, the bishops said that a “conflict of values in society” had led to “legislation and regulations which are seriously at odds with the insights and values of our Christian faith and of other faiths”.

The bishops raised concerns in particular about abortion, embryo experimentation, “easy divorce” and civil partnerships, adding that it was necessary to constantly counter criticism of the existence of Catholic schools.

The Government’s Sexual Orientation Regulations, which could compel Catholic adoption agencies to place children with same-sex couples, also came under fire. The bishops said the regulations were “a stealthy and unjust attack on the freedom of religion itself and the rights of conscience”. They said such regulations were “detrimental not just to the good of the Catholic community but to the common good of humanity as a whole”.

“They deserve to be challenged at the ballot box,” they said. The Scottish parliamentary elections will take place on 3 May.

[Read here->http://www.christiantoday.com/article/bishops.urge.scottish.voters.to.challenge.attacks.on.christian.values/10379.htm]

12 April 2007

We received a petition asking:

“We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Delay the passing into Legislation of the Sexual Orientation Regulations for England and Wales.”

Details of petition:

“This would go against the fundamental rights of Christians to disagree with the practise of homosexuality. Whilst this petition does not condone the persecution of these citizens, it does stress the need to allow those whose faith objects to these practises to maintain their objection.”

The petition was signed by 7769 people.

The Government’s response On 7 March the Government published its response to the consultation “Getting Equal” and laid before Parliament Regulations to outlaw discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation in the provision of goods, facilities, services, premises and in the exercise of public functions.

Almost 3,000 responses were received to the Government’s consultation, with the overwhelming majority accepting the principle of legislating in this area to prohibit unfair discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation.

The Government has listened carefully to the many points raised on this issue, which have been informed by wide-ranging debates in the media and Parliament. We believe that the balance we have reached between the competing rights of individuals to hold and manifest a religious belief and the right to live free from discrimination is the right one.

The Government’s approach will ensure that nobody will be required to act in a way that contravenes their core religious beliefs. Where religious organisations enter into an agreement to provide services to the wider community, on behalf of and under contract to a public authority, lesbian, gay and bisexual people should have equal access to those services. This is in line with the conclusions reached by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, in its recent Legislative Scrutiny report on the Regulations.

During the consultation, specific concerns were expressed about the application of the Regulations to the adoption and fostering sector. The Prime Minister addressed these issues in his statement of 29 January 2007, when he announced that in the interests of vulnerable children, the regulations will provide for a transition period for faith-based adoption agencies until the end of 2008. There will also be a regular independent assessment from adoption and child welfare experts on the impacts of the regulations on adoption in order to ensure that we maintain the existing body of expertise. You can read his statement on the PM’s website at the following address: http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page10869.asp.

In the interim, any agency wishing to take advantage of the transitional arrangements will have to refer gay, lesbian and bi-sexual people to agencies who are able to assist. This approach will enable vital services for children to be maintained, whilst preserving the principle of non-discrimination.

The Government is determined that everybody should have fair and equal access to goods, facilities and services regardless of who provides them and that a person should not be discriminated against on the basis of their sexual orientation.

[Read here->http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page11465.asp]

There is to be a very important ‘test case’ on the 2003 Sexual Orientation (Employment Regulations) in Cardiff on Wednesday.

When first proposed there was great concern that the 2003 regulations would mean that churches would lose the right to protect their ethos by refusing to employ people whose sexual lifestyle was out of kilter with biblical teaching. At one point it looked like the only people who would be exempt from the regulations would be vicars and their equivalents. This would mean that if a ‘Christian youth worker’ in an active gay relationship applied for a job in a church for which he was best qualified, the regulations would prevent the church from declining him employment.

Christian lobbyists, however, worked very hard and government granted an amendment to the exemption to the effect that other key people involved in the definition of the ethos of the church/religious organisation might also be protected. This provision, however, was vague and we all knew that, at the end of the day, the actual scope of the exemption would be defined by the courts when they interpreted it. The long awaited interpretation will be provided by an Employment Tribunal’s ruling in Wednesday’s test case, which results from the Bishop of Hereford having overruled the appointment of a youth worker, a Mr Reaney, who had been unanimously endorsed by an interview panel, which included two vicars, because he was in an active gay relationship.

If the tribunal rules against the Bishop it will form a precedent and mean that – with the exception of the appointment of vicars or their equivalents – churches/Christian organisations across the UK will have no right to protect their ethos by only employing people whose lifestyle is commensurate with church teaching.

Wednesday’s judgement will thus have major implications for the freedom of the Church in this nation.

Please pray that the Tribunal (consisting of three people, a chair, usual a barrister and two ‘wing members’ usually a trades unionist and someone from an employer’s organisation) will interpret the exemption very broadly, forming a precedent that recognises the right of churches/Christian organisations to only appoint people to church/para church employment whose lifestyle is commensurate with that of the Christian faith. Please pray for great wisdom for the bishop and his legal team.

From CARE, Romney Street, Westminster, London

The Church of England Newspaper reports this week that Bishop Mike Hill of Bristol has expressed concerns at the rapid rise of gay rights in the UK. He feels strongly that the government has handled the SORs irresponsibly and is guilty of an abuse of power:

“It feels like one group with power has exercised that power over another group of people in a way which has been very unconsultative. In a way which seems to me to be thought through only at a very superficial level. The issue now to me is secondary to the process by which people like me, who have a religious disposition, or people even with a moral disposition, can be walked over in a non-consultative way without the right to exercise our conscience. Where there is a kind of changing morality it needs to be properly thought through and accepted at the rate that doesn’t cause more strife rather than less strife.”

The Bishop of Bristol is not a member of the House of Lords

Readers living in the UK may sign an online petition to request an exemption from the Regulations for Catholic and all faith-based adoption agencies. Closing date April 26. 3683 signatures so far

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Adoptionprotest/

[Click here->http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Adoptionprotest/]

The Cardinal said he feared intolerance of Christianity “so when Christians stand by their beliefs, they are intolerant dogmatists. When they sin, they are hypocrites. When they take the side of the poor, they are soft-headed liberals. When they seek to defend the family, they are Rightwing reactionaries.”

Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor accused Labour of “legislating for intolerance” in his most outspoken attack yet on the imposition of gay rights laws on church bodies. The leader of England and Wales’s four million Roman Catholics also questioned “whether the threads holding together democracy have begun to unravel”.

The lecture delivered in Westminster made him the first Catholic leader in nearly 180 years to place a question mark over the allegiance of his church to the British state. He has already threatened to close nine Catholic adoption agencies if they are forced by the Sexual Orientation Regulations to place children with homosexual couples.

He declared: “For my own part, I have no difficulty in being a proud British Catholic citizen. “But now it seems to me we are being asked to accept a different version of our democracy, one in which diversity and equality are held to be at odds with religion. We Catholics – and here I am sure I speak too for other Christians and all people of faith – do not demand special privileges, but we do demand our rights.”

The Sexual Orientation Regulations come into force next month after minimal debate in the House of Commons.

They are aimed at stopping businesses discriminating against gays, but Christian leaders say they will force those of faith to act against their conscience.

Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor said last night: “My fear is that, under the guise of legislating for what is said to be tolerance, we are legislating for intolerance. Once this begins, it is hard to see where it ends. My fear is that in an attempt to clear the public square of what are seen as unacceptable intrusions, we weaken the pillars on which that public square is erected, and we will discover that the pillars of pluralism may not survive. The question,” the Cardinal added, “is whether the threads holding together pluralist democracy have begun to unravel. That is why I have sounded this note of alarm.

“I am conscious that when an essential core of our democratic freedom risks being undermined, subsequent generations will hold to account those who were able to raise their voices yet stayed silent.”

He also fueled speculation that Catholics may order their adoption agencies to break away from links with the state – and forgo their £10 million a year of taxpayers’ funds in favour of relying on donations.

The Cardinal said: “I wonder how far we can still claim as British the assumption that if a religious organisation serves the public interest according to its own rights, it has a legitimate claim on public resources. I begin to wonder whether Britain will continue to be a place which protects and welcomes the works of people shaped and inspired by the church.” The Cardinal said he feared intolerance of Christianity “so when Christians stand by their beliefs, they are intolerant dogmatists. When they sin, they are hypocrites. When they take the side of the poor, they are soft-headed liberals. When they seek to defend the family, they are Rightwing reactionaries.”

He added: “What looks like liberality is in reality a radical exclusion of religion from the public sphere.”

Catholic leaders have made a powerful point of their loyalty to the British state since full civil rights were granted to Roman Catholics by the Catholic Emancipation Act of 1829. The Cardinal described the Act as a historic turning point.

The speech is likely to make uncomfortable reading for Tony Blair – he is expected to convert to Roman Catholicism after he leaves Downing Street later this year – and for Communities Secretary Ruth Kelly, a staunch Catholic responsible for pushing through the Sexual Orientation Regulations.

[Read here->http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23390707-details/It's%20gay%20rights%20laws%20that%20are%20intolerant,%20says%20Cardinal/article.do]

Canterbury Christ Church University has decided not to ban gay weddings on its grounds.

The university is a teacher training college for the Church of England, and its Chancellor is the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams.

It has a licence for marriages and civil partnerships to take place at its Tunbridge Wells and Canterbury premises.

Lecturers and students both strongly opposed any moves to prohibit gay marriages there, and there have been calls for top officials to resign.

The row began with the university’s decision last year to consider banning same-sex couples from using two if its venues for civil partnership ceremonies, despite continuing to allow heterosexual couples to use the venues for weddings.

Staff at the university were only made aware of the governing body’s secret ruling late last year, with some even suggesting that the original decision to ban partnership ceremonies was not taken with the entire governing body’s approval.

However, a meeting of the university’s governing body to consider the Sexual Orientation Regulations, which become law on 30th April, has decided to allow civil partnerships to take place.

The regulations make it illegal to discriminate against gay, lesbian or bisexual people on the grounds of sexual orientation when providing goods or services.

[Read here->http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-4023.html]

Let me control the textbooks and I will control the state.
Adolf Hitler, d. 1945 See From Lisa’s Lookout for more.