More than one article on the recent High Court ruling in England about Mr. and Mrs. Johns's desire to give foster care has focused on the irony: In a country with an actual establishment of religion, the judges ruled that Christianity has "no place" in the law in England. An irony indeed. But the real story, which is to say, the really urgent story, is to be found not in that irony but in the title of the linked piece: "Christianity isn't dying, it's being eradicated."
Mr. and Mrs. Johns were not asking on the basis of the Anglican establishment and a central role of Christianity in English law that they be allowed to provide foster care. They were asking on the basis of common sense and, for what it's worth, the fact that British non-discrimination law supposedly includes religion, that they not be discriminated against as foster parents merely because of their belief that homosexual acts are wrong--which they rightly call "normal, mainstream, Christian views." They were asking that they be able to continue to offer the foster care they had previously offered for many years, to the benefit of many children.
What the judges' ruling really means is not merely that Britain no longer recognizes an establishment of religion as having any particular force in law. That probably went without saying a long time ago. What their ruling means instead is that aggressive, anti-Christian secularism with a pro-homosexual component is itself the state religion of England and that dissenters from this state religion will be disfavored by the state.
Recall what Mr. and Mrs. Johns were told: The local council told them that they would have to tell children (ages 5-8) that it is "okay to be homosexual"--i.e., to be a sexually active homosexual. They were also given the option of being "reeducated" on the subject. A generous totalitarian state, that.
It is because they would not submit to these demands that they are excluded from giving foster care, on the grounds that they might "harm" a child by not telling the child that homosexual sodomy is okay. The mind boggles.
Their lordships are predictably smug and smarmy:
Religion – whatever the particular believer’s faith – is no doubt something to be encouraged but it is not the business of government or of the secular courts, though the courts will, of course, pay every respect and give great weight to the individual’s religious principles.
Which is a patent lie, as no weight has been given whatsoever to the religious principles of Mr. and Mrs. Johns. On the contrary; their principles are considered harmful to children.
This attitude and actions based on it have already come to the United States. Julea Ward was expelled from the Eastern Michigan University counseling program for refusing to engage in "gay-affirming" counseling. (She had the temerity to ask to refer homosexual clients seeking relationship counseling rather than affirm their relationships.) A federal judge, rendering summary judgment in favor of EMU, argued that any judgementalism could be "harmful" to homosexual clients and that therefore the university had an important educational goal in teaching Ward to counsel in a non-harmful--i.e., affirming--fashion concerning homosexual acts. (This ruling is the subject of a forthcoming article I have submitted to The Christendom Review.)
As I said in the comments on my earlier post on the Johns case in England, it really is a zero-sum game: Homosexual activists demand, insist on, active approval of their actions and lifestyle. Silence is not sufficient. Leaving them alone is not sufficient. Those are not their goals. Society must affirm them actively, loudly, and in all spheres of life. Those golden-hearted souls who wish to take on the exhausting task of helping others--like Mr. and Mrs. Johns and Julea Ward--are the ones hit first by this requirement. In those areas, the homosexual agenda now has such power that if you wish to help, they will define you instead as "harmful" if you do not promote their ideology. It is that stark. If you disagree with them, you are out. You may not help. You may not have the job. You may not do the work. It's the serious Christians or the homosexual activists. Both cannot win. Given the demands, no compromise is possible. We should not fool ourselves.
Comments (16)
My wife is a 3rd grade teach in Cal I've told her not to object to any homosexual instruction to children for religious reasons. Object to it for Health reason - that it is neither healthy, natural or good for people. And that such can be demonstrated by both science and social science.
Lydia, if you don't see my post in the previous blog which rebukes me, I agree with your basic point. While in a Catholic hosp., care has to be properly provided according to Church principles. My point is that responsibility for care can be terminated by the hosp and transferred to state or family.
Posted by Mark Butterworth | March 6, 2011 5:41 PM
Good luck to your wife, Mark, but I fear it will never work. If anything, claiming religious objections is supposed to put one in some sort of legally protected class. Claiming objections on non-religious grounds will only get you _more_ hatred with no claim of legally protected class status.
Posted by Lydia | March 6, 2011 6:24 PM
One quibble, Lydia. The aggressive anti-Christian secularism caves in the face of Sharia.
Kamilla
Posted by Kamilla | March 6, 2011 7:10 PM
Let's not forget that Judge Vaughn Walker's Prop. 8 ruling found that religious teachings "harm" homosexuals.
While that finding was limited to that single case, the trend is clear.
Posted by Kevin J Jones | March 6, 2011 7:43 PM
Probably, Kamilla. I wonder if any Muslims have applied to be foster parents in England?
Posted by Lydia | March 6, 2011 8:15 PM
Hi Lydia,
I wrote a blog post in which I detailed the long-term plans of the secular, aggressively anti-family lobby (and the steps they'll take to realize them) here:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/survival-of-the-godliest-does-strong-religious-belief-provide-an-evolutionary-advantage/
In the comments to another post of mine, I predicted that in 20 years or less, even birth mothers will be refused the right to take their baby home unless they give the "correct" answers to the (by-then mandatory) social worker who quizzes them about what they would do if their child turned out to be gay:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/taking-manhattan-out-of-the-apple/
This is a battle we need to win. We'll have to swap notes with people and organizations whom we might have ignored or even avoided before, to find out which tactics work and which don't. While we should eschew violence in any form, we'll definitely need to use every legal trick in the book that we possibly can.
Posted by Vincent Torley | March 6, 2011 9:20 PM
Wow, Vincent, you're even more cynical than I am. Gives a whole new meaning to "home births," that conjecture.
What people and organizations do you have in mind?
Posted by Lydia | March 6, 2011 9:52 PM
Vincent, one of the things you list in your first post--prohibiting "bigoted" couples from adopting--seems pretty much a foregone conclusion as a consequence of this decision in the UK. Would-be adoptive parents have to submit to a home study already. If Mr. and Mrs. Johns are deemed unfit to be foster parents because of their religious beliefs, I think it will follow as the night the day that couples in the UK who wish to adopt will be deemed similarly "unfit" for the very same reasons.
I would be interested to know to what extent ideologically freighted questions are being brought into home studies of potential adoptive parents in the U.S. Readers who know anything about that are invited to comment...
Posted by Lydia | March 6, 2011 10:04 PM
Hi Lydia,
The organizations I had in mind are quite diverse, and would include the following: the Amish, the Mennonites, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, ultra-Orthodox Jews, Scientologists and radical Muslims. Politics makes for very strange bedfellows, and the ones I've mentioned agree with us on this issue and have the fervor and stamina for a long uphill struggle. We'll just have to try 101 different legal tactics in the courts until we find one that's effective.
What else? Moles in various government departments would be a good idea, including agents provocateurs who are all too willing to dream up radical social agendas that will make conservative politicians hot under the collar. (How do you spell "electoral backlash"?) The occasional leak to the papers would help, too, of course.
Coming at it from another end, we could try white-anting the laws on homosexual instruction in schools from the standpoint of a radical gay agenda: "What makes you think my children need to be taught how to be gay? They were born that way!" We also need to foment ideological divisions within the gay community on homosexual instruction in schools, creating such an atmosphere of backbiting and bitterness that they won't be able to agree on even the basics of their agenda. Again, we'll need insiders.
Just a few ideas. Make of them what you will.
Posted by Vincent Torley | March 6, 2011 10:19 PM
Sorry, I'll balk on common cause with the Muslims. I'm an "incommensurable evils" person in that area. Sometimes we have to stand alone. At least, rather than make some "allies." And it won't work anyway, by the way. The liberals will make exceptions for the Muslims anyway. Plus the Muslims can lie. They believe in taqiyya. We don't. So they'll be able to get around the social workers one way or another. They and the liberals both want virulently to destroy us, hoping to be the last man standing when the Christians are all gone. I'm not helping either of them.
Posted by Lydia | March 6, 2011 10:22 PM
Hi Lydia,
I'd never heard about taqiyya until you mentioned it, and then I did some Googling and found this: http://www.meforum.org/2538/taqiyya-islam-rules-of-war
I guess you're right on the Muslims, after all.
Posted by Vincent Torley | March 6, 2011 11:10 PM
Lydia writes:
The case of the Christian couple denied their liberty of conscience by a British court of law is yet more shocking but not surprising evidence of incipient barbarism over here.
Here's a few more instances:
A few weeks ago the Christian owners of a small hotel were vilified and have lost their business for refusing to rent a bedroom to so-called "homosexual lovers".This was a set up by homosexual activists to test the anti-discrimination laws.
It's been suggested by government experts that nursery schools must present homosexuality in a "positive light" to 4 year old children. The "right" attitude towards homosexual conduct must be inculcated as early as possible, so brainwashing should begin as soon as children are old enough to attend any state supervised institution.
According to the British media, Elton John, who describes himself as a "singer", should be celebrated as a role model because he and his homosexual "partner" have adopted a baby. Mr John is routinely referred to as "dad"; presumably the other guy is "mother".
I could go on and on with snapshots of things falling apart in British society, but I know WWWW readers are well informed and I must not bore them.
Of course, the same depravities occur in the US, but I believe the history of the American people gives grounds for cautious optimism. Some day, the epoch of liberalism will be over and that day will come in America before anywhere else, I think.
Posted by Alex | March 7, 2011 3:51 AM
Alex writes: "A few weeks ago the Christian owners of a small hotel were vilified and have lost their business for refusing to rent a bedroom"
Are you sure they lost their business? I thought they were "only" forced to pay a fine.
Posted by Kevin J Jones | March 7, 2011 2:46 PM
I don't mean they were deprived of their business by the government. It hasn't acquired that power, yet. I mean that the adverse publicity reduced reservations to the point where the owners said they couldn't carry on.
Posted by Alex | March 8, 2011 2:44 AM
I would be interested to know to what extent ideologically freighted questions are being brought into home studies of potential adoptive parents in the U.S.
Lydia, I have heard that it has LONG been the practice of adoption agencies to demand prospective adoptive couples declare that they won't use spanking for punishment/discipline. I also know Christian couples who have submitted to the requirement, declaring they won't use spanking, and then going on their way doing whatever they think they are allowed to use for punishment by good morals. While I cannot condone lying (as you know), I certainly sympathize with them. It is wrong for public agencies (usually state-run or at least state-paid) to have a litmus test like this, because of course there is nothing wrong with spanking in principle, and the state has no business imposing some minority's false religion on the Christian majority.
Posted by Tony | March 10, 2011 6:16 PM
Yeah Lydia, a dreadful ruling (which I have not analyzed fully).
Still, the judges admitted, perhaps without realizing it, their decision is questionable from the point of view of both liberals and conservatives. The judges said, ad nauseum, that they are secular. Conservatives know secular rulings are disguised religious rulings. Secularists are religious, that is, liberals with a well-defined set of beliefs and practices. And beliefs and practices are the essence of religion.
Paul
Posted by Paul Henri | March 11, 2011 12:45 AM