The judges' atheist inquisition

David Lindsay

The case of the Derby couple told that they may no longer foster children is not about homosexuality. Very little is. Rather, it is about the ruling that Christianity forms no part of the basis of the law.

Read that last sentence over again. Think about it, not least in historical terms: Gin Lane, opium dens, seven-day working weeks, horrific factory conditions, the slave trade. And ponder today's Britain within the wider globalised context. But that was what was ruled yesterday: Christianity forms no part of the basis of the law.

So, without our ever having been asked, we are living in an entirely different country today.

'Uthmān

Speaking as an orthodox Muslim, I think I actually agreed with every word of that.

Necessary Disclaimer: I reject acts of terrorism which are committed in the name of Islam.

Good day!

Oflife

I was waiting for you to comment on this. It is so awful - and to such a wonderful couple too. I have been in chats with my Christian friends, and they are equally upset. There is a connection between this issue and Joana Lumley's comments today, and possibly the rantings of one or two drugged or drunk celebs of late.

I wrote a lot more, but it got a bit hot and spicy, so the [Delete] key was applied.

Arthur Lincoln

I am now in my sixties and throughout the whole of my life I never thought I would hear or read any British Institution suggest that citizens should be 're-educated'. This term was something I considered could only be found in the books of Kafka or Solzhenitsyn.
During the Cold War period I served my time in the British Army and it was understood that we were there to prevent the spread of Communism. I feel as though that period of my life has been stolen. It would have been better to have embraced Totalitarianism back then instead of having it creep slowly into the society we thought we were defending.
Where does all this madness start? Who promotes it?
It is as though there is an overwhelming desire to destroy everything we older folk believed in. I understand now the phrase I have often heard "The land of my birth is now a foreign country".

John Steadman

Religious belief - which, sorry to say, Melanie, colours so many of your views, without necessarily undermining them - should be irrelevant. Nobody - nobody -should be barred from fostering on the basis of their attitudes towards homosexuality, believers or not.
I cannot believe that the sort of people who offer themselves up for fostering, and who meet all the usual criteria, would be any other than caring, loving and protective, even if they found themselves in guardianship of a child (who we might expect to be well beyond the age of 8 incidentally)whose sexual orientation ran counter to their beliefs, or, if you like, prejudices.
We are in the grip of a social revolution, some of the characteristics of which are distinctly Stalinist. revolution.

Commentator

Melanie, what's new? The English judiciary (claiming all the time that they were on the side of decency and enlightenment) enforced the appalling penal laws against Catholics with great enthusiasm. Reading the splenetic ranting of Munby and Beatson was like reading the denunciations of Catholics by Sir Edward Coke in the early 17th century....except the English was less good.

J D Bryan

Another casualty of political correction, the ideological battleship wielded by the Left in their war against the west.

michael

I'm shocked! Christians being persecuted by not allowing to persecute. Simply shocked! Maybe these Bible thumpers can find a new venue to spew their hate.

Woody

"Should be re-educated..." Where have we heard that before? From all the totaliarian regimes then and now, of course.

DougS

One wonders if a Muslim couple would be subjected to the same rigor?

Could they be questioned about Islamic beliefs that might not accord with the judges opinion of what is a legitimate view?

Somehow, I doubt it.

Craig Strachan

Many Christians hold beliefs and moral values that do not include homophobia.

Jez

We're on our way out as a nation Melanie.

We've been weakened to the point of collapse..... and our emperor Cameron, in his grand robes plans now to intervene militarily in Northern Africa to topple his old Allies that hold on for too long.

Will our brave RAF pilots be made redundant *after* their propsective missions- or be expected to do this work on the basis of a months redundancy notice?

Neil Turner

Message to any who post on this meassage:

Don't write to Melanie, write to your MP

dp damato

Keep up the good work. These judges are compromised and deep down they know it. They cannot rule against the gay lobby or they will be ostracized and banned from left/liberal society. They must be good cultural marxists and toe the line. Liberalism is not a political philosophy but a cult. Reeducation of course is part and parcel of a cult.
Much of this is as you know the dread of being labeled a bigot. In the US the bigot card no longer works - that is why liberal America is always close to panic. Using the bigot card is seen as a joke, a silly pathetic attempt to close down debate. It is not working and the left is now becoming hysterical. The time will come when G. Britain (and Europe) is no longer afraid of the bigot card - then the backlash will begin.
History will not be kind to the cultural marxists.

ahad ha'amoratsim

michael, you show plenty of hate in your own post but have given no evidence of any on the part of Mr. and Mrs. Johns.

Ironic, too, that this ruling means that an Orthodox Jewish child could not be fostered by an Orthodox Jewish couple. Not that long ago the state made a point of placing Jewish orphans in homes that would teach them the state sanctioned belief, a militant and intolerant form of Christianity. Not much has changed except that now the state sanctioned belief is a militant and intolerant form of atheist moral relevatism.

Herzen

There was a time when rank anti-semitism was deemed orthodox in just about any Christian denomination. Run the argument past us again, would you?

David Lindsay

Really, michael?

"Spew their hate" as when they used the Victorian Liberal Party against opium dens, unregulated drinking and gambling, and seven-day working weeks, all of which have returned to "post-Christian" Britain, just as the extension of the franchise has effectively been reversed?

"Spew their hate" as when the Tory Wilberforce fought against the slave trade, the Tory Shaftesbury fought against child labour and horrific factory conditions, and the Tory Disraeli (a commited Christian, as a lot of people do not seem to know) effected his social reforms and, again, extended of the franchise?

"Spew their hate" as when the founders of the Labour Movement synthesised those Liberal strands, those Tory strands, and Catholic Social Teaching, thereby successfuly preventing a Marxist revolution in one of the two countries that Marx himself deemed most likely to have one?

Or, for that matter, "spew their hate" as did the American Civil Rights movement, or the network that ended up literally hacking down the Berlin Wall, or the shipyard workers of Gdansk, or the organised opposition to apartheid, especially within the black majority? Among so very, very, very many others.

Really, michael? Really?

Ed

"Their crime is simply to believe it is wrong to promote a homosexual lifestyle to a child in their care because they take the view that sex outside marriage is wrong."

No, that is not what the judgement said at all. Facts please Melanie, not distortions of the truth.

Comprehensiveboy

Good question about the muslim adopters. This question should be asked to their (leftists')_ faces in public at the highest level. There will be people reading this who are in a position to do it. Do it.

Tom

The Christian bible has never been incorporated into English law and this is not the first case where this issue has been decided. The reason being that every religious crack pot and assrted god botherer will be bringing cases to force their doctrines on the rest of us. In this country Parliament and the courts decide the law not clerics. If you want to live in such a society go settle in Arabia or Ireland.

Andy Gill

And the funny thing is, I bet the judges are convinced they are thoroughly enlightened pluralistic liberals.

Gordon Square

I notice that a number if not most of these cases (registrars refucing to marry gay people,etc) involve Christians discriminating against homsexuals, rather than the exercise of a positive Christian value.

And in many of these cases the Christians appear from their photos to come from an immigrant background.

Just as we have intolerant immigrant muslims, do we now have intolerant christian immigrants? Would you feel comfortable with a Ugandan Christian social or health worker if you were gay?

(BTW I have and I did - which goes to show)

paulo

I am too angry to comment on this travesty.

End Times.

There will be a backlash.

Pilgrim

It's interesting that the judges make a point of stating that they're the servants of a multicultural society yet, as far as I know, the concept of multiculturalism doesn't have any legal force - I can't remember any laws being passed or a new oath introduced. According to Searchlight, only 8% of the population are committed multiculturalists, yet this 8% seems to include the vast majority of MPs, all the large media outlets, the judiciary, the civil service and every single school, university and college. It appears that our rulers have simply decided that's the way things will be and there's nothing we can do about it - but when was this decided? Anyone know?

Adam B.

Herzen, I would argue that even if a couple expressed anti-Semitic views, which are absolutely offensive and disgusting to me - this should not automatically disqualify them from being foster parents.

Who sits in judgment of what is an "acceptable" and an "unacceptable" view? You? Me? The thought police?

In addition, you are effectively saying there is no role in society for anyone who adheres to traditional Christian, Jewish or Muslim beliefs. Is that what you mean?

Andy Brim

The court isn't even trying to veneer its decision by saying that one party's human rights are being breached is it.

And doesn't this shocking decision contradict another article of the ECHR about religious freedom?

It must have quite made Harriet Harman's day with champers all round at the fabian Society.

Norm

I've never actually been in court but do people still have to swear by almighty God to tell the truth etc?
That would dictate whether we are a Christian society. Also as the Queen promises to defend the faith, which faith?

Peter Crawford

I am an atheist and share the view that this ruling is barmy and mendacious.

But the tormentors in the picture are not atheists are they ? Be fair.

And there is no such thing as an "evangelical atheist". The very idea is ridiculous.

John McKillop

Absolutely unbelieveable!!!

Secular Heretic - out and proud.

These self-appointed secular high priests and diviners of secular orthodoxy are utterly contemptible. And yet I bet it would be me who would be charged with contempt of court if I refused to call them "Your Honour" - a title of which they are most unworthy.

JohnW

Michael, you write this beauty:

"Maybe these Bible thumpers can find a new venue to spew their hate."

Sadly, in your sneering sarcasm, you forgot to disguise your own obvious hate.

JohnW

Can anyone remind me if and when we were ever asked if we wanted Britain to become a multicultural society?

Just asking.

Brian Moshe

Melanie, thank you (yet again) for your comments and masterly analysis of another stab wound to England.

It is so sad to witness the speed with which England is declining as a country, as a civilised force in the world, and as a place worth living in and fighting and dying for.

Re-education was one of the cornerstones of Pol Pot's hideous regime....

Stuart

Wasn't Alan Turing "re-educated" by the state in the good old days of enforced christian morality?

TWJ

Religious/Christian bigotry, hatred, and discrimination should absolutely be taken into account in determining the (un)suitability of foster parent candidates... I wonder whether all of the indignant Christians would agree that Classical Pagan parents who teach that Christians are immoral and infidels should be approved as foster parents??? Reversing roles is the most effective method of exposing hypocracy and bias...

ferdigrofe

Spot on. Hooray!

John Dubai

To buck the trend, and sound a note of fence-sitting here: it is important to remember that the fostering service is an organ of the state - whether that should be the case is a different question - as such, and in common with all public bodies, it is subject to the values enshrined by state employment law, which is explicitly liberal-egalitarian. Further the EHCR is a quango, not the state, and the phrase "re-education" is not a quote from them but from Mr. Johns. With regard to the Christian State, for many years linguistic formulae quoted by Nazir Ali have been only that: formulae, and without real clout. As a state, of course we have Christian origins, but in operation we are (rightly) now secular.

Having said all which, I do agree there is a creeping illiberalism with regard to personal opinion, and some of the criticisms made here do seem justified. As I say, I'm nothing if not a cowardly fence-sitter.

Mustapha Bunn

Michael,"Spew their hate"? Sounds as if you are the one with a hate problem

Mrhomeskioled

What a sad day for the world and I am sure the liberal atheists in the USA will use this as a tactic to prevent the future generations of Republican leaders and preachers and priests from being raised in a proper christian home...to weaken the Conservative Christian base.
very sad indeed.

Mr Sponge

We have no real alternative but to turn our faces away from the society that secularists and homosexuals are creating.

We (still) have the right of freedom of association. We should use that and shun those who would destroy our society. They work in the dark - so should we.

In addition to that - we (still) have the vote. We must us it.

This is not about Left or Right.

It is about right and wrong.

I await with interest the opion of +Williams and the Bishops in the House of Lords - who, by this ruling, seem to have no business being there!

biggestaspiditra

'Uthman writes: "Speaking as an orthodox Muslim, I think I actually agreed with every word of that."

and speaking as a fairly unorthodox homosexual, I agreed with every word of it too.

TomTom

We have returned to the Test Acts 1673, 1678 as the New Deity of the EU has been created as was that of the French Revolution Cult of Reason

We live in Cultish times and the Judges are not moral arbiters but High Priests of Correctness.

The State is waging a Kulturkampf against Believers of All Faiths who should now withdraw assent from The Hegelian State

GeoffM

One small point.

Now that people are to be denied the opportunity to foster or adopt if they hold traditional Christian views about the undesirability of homosexual activities, how long will it be before they are denied the right to procreate or keep their children?

TomTom

We have returned to the Test Acts 1673, 1678 as the New Deity of the EU has been created as was that of the French Revolution Cult of Reason

We live in Cultish times and the Judges are not moral arbiters but High Priests of Correctness.

The State is waging a Kulturkampf against Believers of All Faiths who should now withdraw assent from The Hegelian State

pete

i listened to the couple talk quite openly about this.
nice decent people,
not wanting to ram the bible down all our throats,
not wanting speciallist
treatment by anyone,
not wanting all homosexuals to be murdered,
not preaching hatred of them
(or lesbians), not accusing anyone of being a racialist islamaphobic bigot & getting a saudi, or government funded pressure groups to demand
their "offence" be sated, the judges be sent for sensitivity training, etc etc etc
if the shoe was on the other foot..i wonder?

Simon Norwich

The Inquisition continues...I've just heard that an Aztec couple have been banned from fostering a child because they didn't believe that sacrificing it would be wrong.
First the Conquistadors, now this...

Terry in Oz

I personally have no problems with acceptance that homosexuality is part (and has always been part) of society. I do have problems with a legal imperative to promote it, especially to kids. And I have problems with legal discrimination against those who, for whatever reason, think that it is just wrong. If Christians think homosexuality is wrong, their views are as legitimate as those who don't. If they harm homosexuals by physical attack or denying them shelter or employment for being gay, then there may be a case for legal intervention. But the expression of a moral standpoint should never be illegal or a cause for discrimination. What next? Are conservative couples going to be denied rights for admitting to not voting Labour? Don't laugh - this judgement is part of a slippery slope to just that sort of scenario.

alleagra

Michael and Stuart: haven't Christian concepts evolved? Are battles of the past (Turing, burning of heretics and countless others) relevant today?

As an atheist I abhor this illiberal (what a weak word for what is happening in this country) decision.

Raymond Douglas

"Suffer the little children to come to me", said Our good Lord. But not, it seems to those who follow him ! This judgement , is just another in a long line of anti-christian decisions made against Christians and christian belief.Taken on its own, this foster care judgement might be shrugged off. But, added to all the others made by our judges, we see a very worrying trend. If we, as a country, want rid of Christianity, then fine. But if we don't, we need to examine where we are, and seek the Lord. 2 chronicles 7v14, is a bible verse ALL should read and consider.

Emmet Sweeney

Welcome to the Oceania Province of the Union of European Soviet Socialist Republics.

Tony Pearson

I wouldn't want my children to be looked after by people that believed in supernatural beings, devils, jinns, ghosts, angels, punishments from mythical gods and 8000 year old earths.

Nor do I want to have a legal system based on Christianity, in the same way I don't want one based on sharia law.

Elkaren

There is some truth in that this is unlikely to affect the lives of the children at all and there must be lots of parents who, religious or not, hold those views anyway, will we take their children away? Lots of people realise that homosexuality is inborn and should not be the subject of bias but still do not consider it to be a positive human trait but I think lots of damage has been caused to children by unproven religious doctrine. This whole problem has been caused by the establishment who under Blair were let loose to carry out what was, in my view, a campaign of hate against the non religious who, since they are not prejudiced by the discriminatory doctrines of the Organised Religions probably have higher standards of morality and ethics than the religious. This has resulted in a backlash by those who are not attached to religions and has polarised the whole Nation and I would not deny the right to belief or non belief in religion or politics but there can never be true belief in either where there is coercion.

Herzen

Adam B.
And if these (now thankfully obsolete)denominations were to set up schools to teach their orthodox beliefs? Run the argument past us again.

Foster parents are performing a public service, just as teachers. Their private beliefs are not to be imposed on those in their charge.

There is a principle to be considered here, whatever the facts of this individual case (which I do not know enough about to judge).

There is also the question of the rights and interests of children - why are we free to inculcate them with all sorts of nonsense without any sound epistemic foundations. But that is for another day.

W Smith

First foster parents, then adoptive parents - it's only a matter of time before natural parents find themselves being sent for "re-education" or being barred from having children, all in the name of "Equality".

Jimmy Jones

I hope all the posters here whinging about Christians being persecuted are just as vocal about the Catholic church's point-blank refusal to place adoptees with gay couples.

I doubt it though - hypocrisy, thy name is Christianity.

Oh and by the way, if you'd read the actual ruling instead of just this reactionary hyeperbole, you'd understand it's not their Christianity that's the problem - merely their expressed inability to be supportive of a child who may turn out to be gay. I don't even know why the author's got "atheist" in the title. (oh well, I guess I do)

Not all Christians are homophobic bigots. These two, sadly, are.

Jimmy Jones

Take this for instance...

"They are being banned simply because they have views of which these judges disapprove."

Completely untrue!

They are being banned because the didn't meet the minimum criteria for fostering.

It's as simple as that - no need to slant this case to fit your Christian propagandist agenda.

Remember - God knows what you're doing!

Robin

Peter Crawford:

"And there is no such thing as an "evangelical atheist". The very idea is ridiculous."

Never heard of Richard Dawkins?

Peter

Give judges some power and they run amok.
London, Brussels....

Ian d.

The Queen in Parliament has decided that, through the prism of equality legislation and decriminalisation, homosexuality is a normative condition for a certain proportion of the population, one in which human beings 'are'; it is not a 'lifestyle' choice, or forced on individuals, or an 'intrinsic disorder'. Following that, there are therefore grounds for the state (in this case, the fostering system) to reflect that in the type of foster parents it looks for. They should not be free, as agents of the state in this regard, to promulgate opinion as fact. The judgement is thus internally consistent with the law as it stands and its spirit, and reasonable.

D. Singh

The judges said that there is no hierarchy of rights.

Clearly, in practice there is.

And this, it is suggested, is how they create the hierarchy.

Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights states:

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

2. Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

The judges’ views on this article are given at paragraph 47: ‘… whilst religious belief and thought are… given absolute protection by Article 9(1), the “manifestation” of one’s religion in “worship, teaching, practice and observance” is subject to the qualifications referred to in Article 9(2)’.

Putting it bluntly, we can believe and think what we like. In other words, the sub-right to ‘think and believe what we like’ is given superior protection to the sub-right of the “manifestation” of one’s religion in “worship, teaching, practice and observance”.

What a gift is that to us! Eh lads? They have given us the right to think and believe what we like – only because they know that they are unable, so far, to prevent us from thinking and believing what we like.

And out of the sub-rights contained in Article 9 they make that the superior right!

I have said ‘so far’. There is a sinister twist to this.

At paragraph 47 they state: ‘The protection of Article 9 [thinking and believing] is qualified in two ways. In the first place, the Convention protects only religions and philosophies which are “worthy of respect in a ‘democratic society’ and are not incompatible with human dignity”…’

Thus, it is suggested, that the thoughts and beliefs that are in our minds (never mind manifesting them) are subject to a two stage test:

1. they must be ‘worthy of respect in a democratic society’; and
2. they must be compatible with ‘human dignity’.

Further, I suggest, that the EHRC which acted as an intervener in the case believes that that in fact is the position in law; to quote the EHRC: ‘there is often scope for change where a person is willing to perform his or her professional duties in a way required by applicable standards notwithstanding personal belief’ and ‘attitudes too might be changed, moderated or modified through training, counselling and support’ (at para. 61). In other words, we should be ‘invited’ to ‘re-education camps’.

Clearly, the foregoing analysis is arguable. The judges then make a statement which should remind us of the way Soviet criminal courts behaved:

‘Neither the local authority nor the court is seeking to open windows into people’s souls’ (at para. 97).

That is, of course, precisely what they are doing.

Keith

It is about time that Secular Humanistic values are adopted by our judiciary. I applaud their judgement and celebrate their approach. Being religious does not automatically mean you have good ethics.

DavidSI

TWJ – You refer to Christians as bigoted, discriminatory and hateful with both a vehemence and regularity which suggests a degree of … um ... intolerance on your part?

John

Mr. and Mrs. Owens right to believe what they want is not harmed in any way.

Their right to indoctrinate others with their hate is denied.

If only more judges would judge like this. I'll send them letters thanking them.

Alan Bates

Norm asked if one still has to swear in Court.

No, you don't. You can affirm - as I did when I was on jury service. My reason? We are told in the NT by Jesus that we are not to swear by anything. As I understand it, affirming was introduced (in 1695) to allow for those of us whose religious beliefs did not allow them to swear an oath. I was the only one in Court to exercise that right.

Nick

It's a shame you couldn't be bothered to quote this bit of the judgement: "No one is asserting that Christians (or, for that matter, Jews or Muslims) are not 'fit and proper' persons to foster or adopt. No one is seeking to de-legitimise Christianity or any other faith or belief. On the contrary, it is fundamental to our law and our way of life that everyone is equal before the law and equal as a human being ... entitled to dignity and respect."

Or the part where the Johns admitted that a child in their care who was being bullied because of their sexuality would be told to deal with it because homosexuality is a "sin". Or where Mr Johns said he would try to "guide" a gay child towards being straight.

But that would have involved a careful consideration of the child's rights, as well as the Johns'. Something the judges seem to have done much better than any journalist or cleric.

robs123

With the number of children that they have previously fostered, and the large number that they would theoretically foster in the future, what are the chances that one of the children would be gay. Very high I would suggest. Most gay people state that they knew they were gay when they were children, a women on the radio yesterday said she was 5 when she knew realised. My 6 year old daughter is already asking questions some gay couples that we know so children are more aware than people think. Young people have enough to cope with when growing up and how are they meant to broach this topic with their parents with the views they hold because they would not be able to support them properly. I ma glad I don't hold such 'religious views' as I would hate to inform my children that what people we knew was somehow wrong and shouldn't be encouraged. You choose to take on a religion, but you are born gay.

Steve

More striking than this judgment is the public response in the UK, as discerned from Melanie's readership and from the reader response to the Telegraph story.

Here in Canada, Parliament has recently approved changes to human rights law which, if approved by the Senate, would ban discrimination on the basis of "gender expression" and "gender identity". This week, psychologists before a Parliamentary committee stated their belief that pedophilia is a "sexual orientation", which in a few years might be law too. Who knows where either initiative might lead?

The supporters of this judgment wouldn't care. For these readers, as with the avant garde judiciary, with their pitiful confidence in the 'experts', and their willingness to trash their entire moral history and culture in order to keep pace with the cutting edge of political correctness, nothing else really matters. Foster care is just the presenting issue. The real issue is the space left in western society to live one's life in accordance with one's conscience. As law (read: government power) takes over all the space in society, what remains (read: freedom) will have been shrunk to basically nothing.

Not only Christians will be the victims, although they are the first. Christians, at least, have the confidence through their faith that others have been here before for the sake of the faith, and that God will be vindicated in the end, even if only in eternity. To me, the saddest people must be those without a faith, but who love the freedom that Christianity has historically undergirded in the western tradition, however imperfectly. In the face of growing fascism, those who love freedom but have no religious confidence will be the very saddest and most bereft of all. They will be doomed to live in a society which considers "A Man for All Seasons" as subversive literature, but without even the faith that made Sir Thomas More's courage possible.

Michael Kinney

The idea that Christians are being persectuted is a joke. You are entitled to think and believe what you want. No one is stopping you. But what you are not allowed to do is express bigotry towards other sections of the community. It would be a disgrace to let people like this bring up foster children and engender the beleif in them at an early age that homosexuality is somehow 'wrong' or a 'sin'. In short, Christians, at long last, are being asked to stop persecuting others. I totally support the judges in this case.

Charlemagne

Jimmy Jones has half a point in stating that that the ruling was based on the couple's "expressed inability to be supportive of a child who may turn out to be gay" - the real problem being the stupid legislation that makes empathy for homosexual orientations a litmus test of fitness to be a foster parent. How many 8 year olds need guidance on this from ther foster parents? Very few I reckon, yet a couple recognised as having already been good foster parents are to be denied the opportunity to be of further service to children in need of care because of their attitudes to a contingency that will almost never arise.

Jimmy Jones goes too far however in sayng the judgment rests "merely" on the evidence of the couple's attitudes. The most extraordinary feature of the judgment is the lengths it goes to in deriding the couple's beliefs and in particular the arguments of their barrister.

An entire section of the judgment is taken up with an excursion into another case, McFarlane, on religous freedom argued by the same barrister. It is not even clear whether either side relied on that case, but whatever the relevance of the other judgment, the prefatory sneer that, "We have referred to the extravagant rhetoric Mr Diamond has used before us. Similar rhetoric was deployed by Mr Diamond before Laws LJ in McFarlane..." is quite out of order: the only relevance the McFarlane case might have to the matter is the substantive content of the judgment, not who argued the case or how it was argued. An advocate should not use a case to advance personal beliefs, but any excess of zeal can be ignored or politely dismissed. Instead, these judges went out of their way to make clear their contempt for the couple by an ad hominem attack on their advocate. Have Beatson and Munby JJ ever made similarly disobliging remarks about any of the many leftist Legal Aid leeches at the Bar who pursue mendacious and nonsensical asylum appeals?

Maya

As the Queen is Head of the Church of England, I presume she holds traditional Christian views. Would she be forbidden from fostering children?

Just asking.

David P

Ms Phillips, so would it be acceptable for a same sex couple caring for a child to declare and preach to that child that it is vile and an abomination to be a Christian, Muslim, etc, if that couple held deep and sincere beliefs based upon the track record of religion?

Holdsworth

Tony Pearson

"I wouldn't want my children to be looked after by people that believed in supernatural beings, devils, jinns, ghosts, angels, punishments from mythical gods and 8000 year old earths."

If you only believe in matter, then all talk of morality is meaningless anyway. Because if we are just collections of molecules then there is no room for free will. Because ultimately it's all about chains of physical events; our consciousness is just an epiphenomenon.

That large problem with the atheist world view is hardly ever mentioned. How can atheists make such a fuss about moral choices, when their belief system is incompatible with the existence of choice?

Tilly

As far as I can see, Mr and Mrs Johns were not being required to "promote" homosexuality; all they needed to do was assure social workers that if the issue arose they would tell a child homosexuality was "acceptable".

They were, in other words, required as fosterers to be NON-JUDGEMENTAL about sexual orientations and lifestyles.

Far from being "mainstream" Christians, the couple felt unable to comply. As Pentecostals they strongly believed homosexuality to be a disorder which, if practised, was a sin for which punishment in the hereafter would be incurred.

Leaving aside any future personal hurt/confusion such advice could cause to some children in their care, I can envisage at least two immediate adverse effects:

1. Other adults in their lives - an uncle and his boyfriend, for eg - being painted as "sick" and "sinful".

2. Seeds of antipathy towards gays in general being sowed.

Following the court's ruling, Derby City Council stated that it was the couple's "strength of feeling" on homosexuality which made it difficult and impractical to place children with them.

In this particular case, I have every sympathy for the social workers involved.

Michael Kinney

Maya asks: "As the Queen is Head of the Church of England, I presume she holds traditional Christian views. Would she be forbidden from fostering children?"

Of course she can foster children if she had Christian beliefs. But, if she wanted to tell those children that being gay was a sin or wrong (and I like to think the Queen would not act in such a bigotted way), then she would not.

scarlet lobster

None of this is right. The Johns resigned from fostering, then brought the court case themselves. No one banned them, ever. The judge heavily criticised the Johns and the CLG for bringing this pointless case. And you seem to have missed out the bit where they said they would 'gently turn' any foster child who showed signs of being homosexual.

Andrew

At least they don't hold 'traditional' Christian views on witches, or women, or slavery. If they held 'traditional' Christian views on child rearing they would kill their children if they disobeyed them. 'Traditional' Christian views are not something to be proud of or encouraged in todays society.

Michael Burgess

What if the child is gay? Do the rights of the parent supersede the rights of the child? Bigotry of any kind, while often allowed under free speech, should never be the basis of a childhood, hate and ignorance do no good.

D. Singh

Sir

It is fascinating to observe the double standards applied to the Claimant’s barrister. For example, it was said that he engaged in ‘rhetoric’.

At paragraph 97 the judges state:

‘Neither the local authority nor the court is seeking to open windows into people’s souls’.

Who said that?

‘I have no desire to make windows into men’s souls’.

Queen Elizabeth I (1533-1603)

Would you Adam ‘n’ Eve it?

Mr T Richey

Slavery was in line with "traditional Christian views" a few years back. Just because something is long-standing, doesn't mean it's correct.

Geoffers

This decision sends a message to anyone who would wish to influence the lives of others on the basis of approval or in this case, disapproval from their imaginary friends. Itâ™s clear and simple, we live in a secular society and your baseless, stupid bigotry will not be tolerated.

Johnnie Terry

The problem with this situation is the couple's reliance upon their "moral beliefs based upon their faith." One may, indeed, hold moral beliefs based upon his faith. One may also, however, hold immoral beliefs upon his faith. There is no necessary link between one's faith based beliefs and the morality of an action. This judge was actually quite wise in that he recognizes the damage to the future of a civilized society done when faith (a HOPE in things unseen) is allowed as justification for teaching the acceptability of discrimination against others.

masa

Herp'a'derp!

Masa

-I've never actually been in court but do people still have to swear by almighty God to tell the truth etc?
That would dictate whether we are a Christian society. Also as the Queen promises to defend the faith, which faith?

No, you do have to swear an oath but it doesn't have to be on the bible.

TomTom

Scarlet lobster is potty. Derby Council wanted the case brought to clarify the 2007 Law and asked the Johns to agree

Mark

Funny how with your article's title of Atheist Inquisition, the image you included in your entry is of the Catholic inquisition against the nonreligious.

Augustus

It appears that Mr and Mrs Johns, who are a Christian Pentecostal couple, already fostered 15 children during the 1990s, and that they applied again to become foster parents
four years ago in order to offer
weekend respite care to children from 5 to 10 whose families were in need of a short break, i.e. this was not an application for full time fostering. But new rules, applicable since 2007, meant that the couple now had to satisfy a different set of guidelines this time. The crux of the matter is in what Mrs Johns said after the judgement:
"We feel excluded and that there is no place for us in society." Given the fact there are quite a number of differing Christian denominations, the former Bishop of Rochester has a good point when he says that such judgements 'leave no room for the conscience of believers
of whatever kind'. You cannot simply ignore a perfectly rational prejudice, revulsion,
fear even, of a manifestation of humanity of which you may have been taught was against the ideals and pronouncements of
ordered social norms. One of the most unfortunate aspects of
today's society is to compare homophobia with something like a form of racism, because feeling superior is not the same
as the satisfaction of living the 'normal' life, and if you are religious the 'good' life,
which the blessing of a straight relationship endows.

Anthony Tobius

No one is stopping people from raising their *own* children as they see fit, within reason, so this entire article is off-point.

Ryan

If they were members of a hate group nobody would be having this debate, well the vast majority of religions preach hate. From condemning most of the world population to eternal damnation for not believing in the same sky man, to promoting religious ideals as science, and the persecution of gays. The court is simply protecting innocent youths from bigotry.

Sebastian

No one should be discriminated against because of their gender, ethnicity, physical handicap or sexual orientation. Those are all permanent physical features of an individual which he himself cannot change. Treating an individual differently because of these characteristics is discrimination.

When choosing new foster parents for orphan children the state has a big responsibility in choosing where to place the children. The physical and emotional welfare of the children is at topmost priority. Therefore, the parent candidates are thoroughly vetted.

If it is known that a candidate parent couple has deep discriminatory views against homosexuality, then it can be questioned whether growing up in such a family environment is the best choice for the children. It simply cannot be healthy and balanced to grow up learning that the sexual orientation of a major proportion of the society is an abomination and reprehensible, which is a straight-out lie. What if the foster children would grow up to realize that they themselves are homosexuals, what kind of depression and self-loathing would that lead to?

Lots of people here are convinced that the couple in the decision are turned down because they are Christians. This is not the case. What they need to understand is that the court's decision was specifically a stand against hatred and bigotry, no matter the source of it. If these enraged people feel that this decision was targeted against them, they need to ask themselves if their religion of love and peace has actually made them hateful and bigots. Because if they indeed are loving, accepting, compassionate, and supporters of the civil rights of minorities, then they should embrace this decision as a victory for anti-discrimination.

CyN

The vast majority of homosexuals were (like me) brought up by parents with traditional values, and we survive. A loving and supportive home is much more important when big personal issues like this do arise. This is a very poor decision.

Daibhidh of Edinburgh

Clearly these two judges have had their minds seered by secularism over the years (probably beginning during their hippie years). As a result they have lost touch with the Judeo/Christian values that form the foundation of the laws and moral code which they were called to be custodians of. Their secularism cannot claim a separate single or set of values from those already long established by the above. It has to pervert it instead. Their judgement, as a result, is ideological driven, and ideology, particularly leftist ideology, unlike the certainty and stability of Judeo/Christian ethics, is fickle in nature, changing periodically according to the latest elitist whim or fashion.

Louis Berk

What next? "We live in a secular, multicultural society and therefore a dislike of Marmite renders you unfit to foster children, or receive unwanted pets from the RSPCA. We recommend re-education by force feeding you the food and stuffing Twigletts up your nostrils".
These judges should not be making rulings, they should be writing satire.

Anna

"Their crime is simply to believe it is wrong to promote a homosexual lifestyle to a child in their care because they take the view that sex outside marriage is wrong."

What? Their crime is promoting discrimination towards the homosexual lifestyle. What if that foster child was homosexual and wanted to ask questions? These people would not objectively answer that kids questions, and it is right of the courts to bar them from fostering.

The kids mental and physical health come first, not the foster parents. If they can stop being bigoted, then yes, they should be able to foster.

Brad

Christians aren't being persecuted. Remove the entire religious context and all you get is that they couldn't foster a child because they're against homosexuality. Religious or not, what if the kid they end up with turns out to be gay? Stick that in your pipe and smoke it. Whiners.

P Gibbs

It's a gruesome detail, and it shows their ignorant attitude, that this couple said they would try to turn a child straight if he/she came to them and said, "I think I may be gay"
The safety of the child is paramount here, not the rights of Christians to impose their beliefs.
There was no new ruling in this case the court decided there was no religious discrimination against the Johns and that previous rulings resulting from recent similar cases applied here.

Veracity

For Heaven's sake this couple is not bigotted they just hold personal views . When you become a Christian you sign up to certain morals and ethics. it is a choice . They are morals and ethics which have formed the bedrock of our society as it happens . These people are not homophobes. It is extremely unlikely that they are going to spend every week end indoctrinating children against a homosexual lifestyle. The children would object to going there. There are much more fun things to be doing. Think of the parents who could have been enjoying the respite from a possibly very hard situation. Now they cannot because of the politically correct views of a minority of idealogues in this country who insist on foisting their views on the rest of us whether we want it or not . I cannot understand why we let thse people behave like the tail wagging the dog. They are in the MINORITY . They live in a society where their views are more than tolerated but they are not prepared to live and let live. I am sorry but I would not let them look after my children for an istant . They would clearly brainwash them every minute against my Christian beliefs. It is a two way street and they need to udnerstand that

Richard

The judgement itself, available online, tells us that the problem was not the couple's Christianity but was their stated response should a child they are asked to foster turn out to be gay or have questions about their sexuality. Early on in the ruling (paragraph 8) we learn that the couple would attempt to "turn the child around", something which raised alarm bells with the council social workers because of the stress that could cause for a child already under great stress.

The council were able to demonstrate to the court that they had numerous devout Christians and Muslims on their books as foster carers, so the religion itself is not a problem.

Religion is not an excuse for bigotry. Attitudes to homosexuality are very varied amongst Christians in this country, so it is not possible to conclude as the Johns do that the council would ban all Christians.

This couple applied for a job caring for children. Their application was delayed so, thanks to a Christian lobby group, they took the council to court asking the court to rule amongst other things that their attitude to homosexuality is irrelevant to the application process.

boneywasawarrior

@sebastian

"...sexual orientation... permanent physical features of an individual which he himself cannot change."

Really? So why are there people who have previously declared themselves to be homosexual who then go on to form exclusively heterosexual relationships? And don't give me the usual guff about them being in denial. I personally know such people.

"the sexual orientation of a MAJOR (my emphasis) proportion of the society"

Do you have proof for the assertion that homosexuals are a major proportion of society?

Like many others on this thread I think you make the mistake of equating a dislike of sexual activity between same sex people (which I believe is what, rightly or wrongly, most heterosexuals think of the prime defining characteristic of homosexuals) and actual discrimination against them on account of them being homosexual - the two things are not the same.

James

This ruling has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with a freedom of sexuality. You wouldn't let a racist white couple foster a black child, whether they were racist because of their religion or not. You don't let a couple who thinks homosexuality is wrong foster children who may be or become homosexual, whether they are against homosexuality because of their religion or not.

Religion has nothing to do with it. Stop complaining.

Veracity

But I would not want people to look after my children who believed that the homosexual lifestyle was to be promoted as equal to marriage .I do not happen to believe it is and I don't want my children to be taught that it is. That is my choice and I am entitled to it . The minority in this country holds a different view. Fine . Keep those views to yourself. I would much rather there was something to be signed saying ' I undertake not to influence any child in my care as to what lifestyle they should adopt.' I am a teacher and I would have no hesitation in saying to a child ' I am not your parent . You must ask them' No big deal .Until I had that assurance I would not let homosexual or lesbian individuals or anyone else with non Christian values care for my children

Jimmy Jones

@Charlemagne: "the real problem being the stupid legislation"

Oh well if YOU say it's stupid, then that's it, I guess. End of discussion everyone!

> "How many 8 year olds need guidance on this from their foster parents?"

I don't know, but i) 8-year-olds become teenagers very quickly, and having been taught that you're an evil abomination if you do subsequently find out you're gay does not a healthy teenager make, and ii) whether the child is gay or not, teaching little children to be bigots does not a healthy society make.

> "Jimmy Jones goes too far however in sayng the judgment rests "merely" on the evidence of the couple's attitudes. The most extraordinary feature of the judgment is the lengths it goes to in deriding the couple's beliefs and in particular the arguments of their barrister."

I don't agree that he derided the couple's beliefs (?), but he certainly did spend a good deal of time ticking the solicitor off, yes. But that's rather the point isn't it?

The solicitor's lengthy shellacking by the judge was PRECISELY because Mr Diamond tried to turn this into a case about Christian persecution - which is WAS NOT.

That was my point.

Mundo

The usual religious debate.

Christians defending themselves and atheists being rude, derogatory and resorting to name calling.

I know which ones I would want looking after my kids.

C. Thomas

I welcome this law. It protects gay children from the close-minded bigotry of religious conservatives and fundamentalists. I'd expect the government to protect kids from racists, so why not from homophobes?

Simon

"Their crime is simply to believe it is wrong to promote a homosexual lifestyle to a child in their care because they take the view that sex outside marriage is wrong."

Then they should be advocating for homosexual marriage, not against homosexuality. Wouldn't that be a much more inclusive solution? Or are they lying?

Adam B.

Herzen - this isn't about setting up schools, it's about foster parenting. (Incidentally, anti-Semitism is unfortunately far from "obsolete", as you seem to be claiming - indeed, it is alive and well).

You say that foster parents should not force their private views on others. What is your evidence that this couple were indeed forcing their views on anyone? You seem to be saying that foster parents shouldn't have private views - about anything - unless some self-appointed individual says these views are OK.

Whose role is it to determine whether a view is acceptable or not? And is that the kind of fascistic society we want?

Jimmy Jones

@Veracity "For Heaven's sake this couple is not bigotted they just hold personal views"

Fascinating double Dutch there, Veracity!

What on Earth do you imagine a bigot is, if not someone who holds personal views against a group of people?

rAtheist

If this is the worst of the secular inquisition, I will take it in place of a christian/muslin one.

Derek BLADES

"Religious believers are being treated like medieval heretics." Yes indeed but there was a certain irony in Melanie's choice of picture - a heretic being tortured under the supervision of a Christian priest. Christianity, like most religions propagate many unsavoury views on sexuality although, to its credit, the Anglican Church is well ahead of the curve compared to other Christian sects and other religions. That may be because the head of the Church of England seems to be an agnostic.

I suppose the judges' concern was that the Johns couple, who seem very honourable people by any standards, might instil guilt feelings into youngsters who may later find they feel happier with partners of their own sex. This is not an unreasonable view for the judges to have taken.

What is striking here is that the Johns are being subjected to a test of their fitness to look after children which is not required of natural parents. That raises the real issues for debate that Melanie has missed. Should foster parents be held to higher standards than biological parents? And should society be more pro-active in advising parents on appropriate ways to bring up their offspring?

mikegg

Though I agree that the couple should not be banned from fostering children based on there intolerance of homosexuality, I find it appalling and ludicrous to call it an “atheist inquisition”. I haven’t seen any atheists going around killing and torturing people to become atheists. As for “Freedom has died another death. People are being persecuted for holding views which are no longer allowed”. This makes me laugh christens have been discriminating against and making laws etc that affect the minority for a long time now, and now that the minority is speaking up christens call it persecution how ridicules!

Jimmy Jones

@Mundo "Christians defending themselves and atheists being rude, derogatory and resorting to name calling.

I know which ones I would want looking after my kids."

The ones that will tell your kids they're born evil and are going to burn in Hell when they die unless they worship an invisible deity?

Martin

As an atheist I confess I am unsure about this judgement, but what if the couple did foster and constantly told a child homosexuality was bad, and the child by nature was gay? Untold psychological damage would be done.

However, what made me laugh about Melanie was her words – “Next, it embodies the belief that secular values are neutral whereas Christian ones are not. But this is not true at all”. Christian values are neutral?

Jock

Quite right too. This was an excellent judgement. Equality of humanity must take preference over the choice of religion.

raymond

Blades , your last paragraph regarding the "standards" of parenting, raises some interesting questions. Some of us Christian parents, fear that the next move of the state will be to remove OUR children in case we "infect" them with our faith.

Thucydides

raymond,

That'll be because you're paranoid.

Derek Pasquill

Scrap the Human Rights law.

Herzen

Adam B.
March 3rd, 2011 12:16am
You have a remarkable ability to miss the point.

Foster parents are providing a public service for children. In this they are analogous to teachers. They are not at liberty to instil their private prejudices on their charges.

To say that Christian denominations for whom anti-semitism was orthodox are now obsolete is not to say that anti-semitism is obsolete. I am surprised that you are confused about this.

You appear to know even less about the details of this case than I do.

Par for the course, I suppose.

michael

@ michael 6.53 pm
Your cerebrally challenged rebuke
-so shocking its making you puke.
As I take the 'real' Mick
-upset you...whilst sick,
read 5:31- book of LUKE!

Truthsayer

Tell the full story.

They withdrew befoe any decision was made by the council and shot themselves in the foot by taking legal action.

D. Singh

Miss Phillips

The EHRC have apologised to Mr and Mrs Johns. Please see their website.

Tom

Aren't most of children abandoned in UK let down by their Christian parents? Why not look into that? And all "do gooders" should listen to Marley's "One love". All religion that tell children "our God is the only one" is child abuse. Equality starts with open mind and open heart without prejudice.

phantomprophet

Good. They shouldn't be subjecting such bigotry to children anyway. What if they ended up fostering a gay child? They could do far more damage than good.

Campbell

What fascinates me about the whole 'Christians are being persecuted' view is the way in which, while claiming to be strongly principled they at the same time subscribe to what one might call a 'scot-free' culture.

By this I mean their prevailing habit of expecting to be able to stand by a principle at no cost to oneself.

Anglican vicars going over to Rome expect severance pay and to take their pensions with them; their vicarages and church buildings too.

Fundamentalists employed by public bodies expect to be able to pick and chose which couples they offer marriage guidance to at no cost to themselves.

Surely one of the most admiarable things about a principled stance is that it is taken in full awareness that it may cost you dear.

This couple hold strong views on homosexuality; views which I venture are not held by the majority of the population. The law, holds that if in receipt of public money (and fosterers are paid) they must obey the law. They choose not to and are aggrieved when consequences follow.

Seems to me that contemporary Christians seriously lack the rigour and guts that drove men like Luther and Cranmer on.

John C

I have just finished wading through the judge's summary - very enlightening as to the true nature both of this case, and the manner in which it has been brought to court.

It is noteworthy that Melanie has clearly NOT bothered to do this, as she has simply rehashed quotes taken from other people's articles. Makes it hard to appreciate context when you do this, Mel.

cyllan

D. Singh

they have apologised about the wording, not about the result, it means nothing

Jason Desouza

What happened to the days when journalists actually researched the case they were writing about?

The John's were NEVER banned, they resigned, and brought the case against the council, because they feel they have a right to discriminate.

No-one forced the John's to resign from the process, and no-one forced them to align themselves with the clearly homophobic Stephen Green.

I actually feel sorry for the John's as they are being used by people like you, and Stephen Green, so that you can write your lies, and try and cause friction between people.

Brian

All atheism is, is a lack of belief in a god or gods. There are no mandatory "evangelical atheistic values". There are atheists in favor of homosexuality, just like there are ones against it.

BalaamsAss

By detaching itself from its Christian 'root' the law itself is corrupted. This is extremely worrying. The concepts of what is right and seeking justice have become horribly confused. This anarchy must be resisted.

salieri

It takes a while to track down, and even longer to read, this grimly self-satisfied judgment. Apart from gratuitously rubbishing the Claimant’s Counsel for “extravagant language” – while passing no comment on the Equality & Human Rights Commission’s rather ominous reference to re-education (“attitudes too might be changed… through training, counselling and support” para. 61) - the Court was not to blame: it applied the law.

The law itself is the problem: a law drawn up and passed by the glorified social workers who ruled and wrecked this country between 1997 and 2010. The Council’s particular concern was - gasp - that the couple’s view “did not equate” with Standard no. 7.1 of the National Minimum Standards for Fostering Services: the duty to “value diversity and promote equality”.

The couple were not discriminated against on the grounds of their religion – but surely in consequence of it. They were simply not acceptable as foster carers because they did not “value diversity”. Nor was it enough, clearly, for them to be tolerant. No, they must “value diversity” and clearly didn’t.

My problem is that the meaning of this vague, unthinking, sanctimonious, patronising, puffed-up, inane and infantile euphemism was not analysed – nor even considered once in this very long judgment. So let me have a go, without pussy-footing around: valuing diversity means, among other things, thinking and telling everyone else that buggery is a great idea.

And to those who suggest that the majority of people in this country agree with that I say, rubbish.

Jane Marple

No-one has said that this couple must abandon their deeply unpleasant prejudices. They have simply said that they may not impose them on anyone else, and in particular may not impose them on defenceless children. It is well beyond tme that religious people were made to understand that they have no right to dictate to those who do not share their faith how to live their lives.

C.Gee

Should a homosexual couple who believes that Christians are an abomination be allowed to foster children? If they believe that heteronormativity is an abomination?

Should a homosexual couple who are Christian be questioned on how closely their beliefs conform to Christian dogma regarding homosexuality?

Should a Muslim couple be questioned on their beliefs regarding Christians, Jews and homosexuals?

If the state has an interest in requiring all foster parents to inform children of the law regarding discriminatory practices, why not natural parents too? If the state is to send out thought police to discover bigotry lurking in minds, there is no principled reason why it should not vet adoptive and biological parents in the same way. A license to parent should be issued. And the license to teach tightened up. Teachers, the majority of whom are already in the business of eliminating hate thoughts, should also be individually tested for their thoughts. There should be printed annually a set of guidelines for all care-givers setting out what to teach children to think, in addition to what the law is: "Love Thy Neighbor. It's The Law." An inspectorate needs to be established.

Or people should be encouraged to tell the authorities whenever they think someone is thinking hateful thoughts. Those wearing religious symbols are presumed to harbor hateful thoughts. Where a person wearing one religion's symbols denounces another person wearing another religion's symbols, each person will be required to affirm that they do not hate the other, and to submit to hate-management classes. Or sent to re-education camps.

Party political affiliation and citizenship may be indicia of exclusive thoughts, but not hate, unless symbols of party affiliation and citizenship are overtly displayed.

Hannah Sealey

Well said Melanie. I have actually just a few minutes ago taken the trouble to read the text of the Coronation Oath, which as a child I heard Her Majesty commit herself to uphold. This absurd ruling is a violation of that Oath, which contains the Judeo-Christian values which have been the bedrock of this country for many centuries.

Hannah Sealey

Well said Melanie. I have actually just a few minutes ago taken the trouble to read the text of the Coronation Oath, which as a child I heard Her Majesty commit herself to uphold. This absurd ruling is a violation of that Oath, which contains the Judeo-Christian values which have been the bedrock of this country for many centuries.

Dubs.

Peter : "give judges some power..". Yes dear we call it the rule of law. It is a good thing. Without it Mr. Blair would have enjoyed (and one suspects the past tense wouldn't be appropriate) absolute power.

Graeme Thompson

Yes but Melanie, how do we fight back to reverse this tide of new age fascism?

Just how far away are we from the time when if parents are held to teach their own children that homosexuality is a perversion that social workers will take them from them and place them with homosexual 'carers' to 'undo the harm they have suffered?

The decision of these Judges shows there is deep evil at work in our society today and none of our mainstream parties who are all hostage to the nostrums of cultural Marxism due to the propaganda guns of the BBC are going to do anything to arrest it.

What's the answer?

Adam B.

Herzen, trying to read through your ill-deserved condescension is not very enjoyable, but suffice to say that when I asked you whether you had evidence that this couple were trying to force their views on children, you have provided none.

And you don't think teachers give their own private views in the classroom? Please...

Graeme Thompson

Neil Turner
March 1st, 2011 7:33pm

No, we need Melanie in Parliament. Next to noone in our current Parliament is going to lift a finger at this outrage against democracy.

Just how many more outrages do we have to have before the reality dawns that the only chance we have to draw back the cultural Marxism all three of our main parties are now signed up to is to form a credible party to stand against them.

Melanie provides the best leadership we have in our country. The current parties are going to do anything.

James Pawlak

As to such judges:

Tues-les tous, Dieu Redonnatdea les sein!
Caedite eos, Nevit enim Dominus qui sunt elus!

Neuro

I find it ironic that the article has chosen to use a picture of the inquisition torturing a heretic. Christian organizations fight against homosexuals and atheists being able to adopt or foster, but when their hate and intolerance is in question, they get all huffy. Denying these two from fostering and receiving a government check for it is no different than denying a member of the KKK from fostering. It's the same brand of hate, just against a different group of people.

CD

I think all Christians who are appaled at this judgement must recogize a basic fact.

Democracy is the rule of the majority view. And if non-Christians make up the majority and pass laws that are not in alignment to Christian values, we can expect more of these situations. I think this tipping point has been reached in all major western democracies.

Its not new. Jesus predicted it 2000 years ago. Christians throughout the world and through the centuries have faced it.

Our response options:

Become the majority again and change the law. You know what that entails.

Or as a minority let your Christian light so shine on a one-on-one basis that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in Heaven!

Martin

HannahSealey & BalaamAss: Excuse me, the British legal system is based on common law and case law, not Christianity. And one thing, over the centuries, that the church has never adhered to is Democracy. Keep the plebs in their place was the rule. Some of the lower regional courts, I understand, were Church led, restricted to petty local issues such as fining people for playing musical instruments on Sunday!

D. Singh

Sir

The conclusion of the case is that local authorities can inquire and take into account one’s thoughts about these matters.

That means one’s thoughts can be policed.

The slide of liberalism into fascism was predicted by one of Britain’s greatest social prophets:

"Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?... Has it ever occurred to you, Winston, that by the year 2050, at the very latest, not a single human being will be alive who could understand such a conversation as we are having now?... The whole climate of thought will be different. In fact, there will be no thought, as we understand it now. Orthodoxy means not thinking-not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness."

George Orwell, 1984, Book 1, Chapter 5

Graeme Thompson

This judgement means we are not very far away from the time when if parents teach their children that homosexuality is not normal they will be taken away from them and place in the care of homosexuals to 'undo' the harm they've done.

Not one of our main parties is going to lift a finger to stop this.

Graeme Thompson

Tilly:-

"Mr and Mrs Johns were not being required to "promote" homosexuality; all they needed to do was assure social workers that if the issue arose they would tell a child homosexuality was "acceptable".

Tilly, you seem to have problems understanding language. Telling a child homosexuality is "acceptable" is promoting it.

Perhaps this also accounts for the legal illiteracy of the Judges. Their judgement was something one might expect from Alf Garnett on spiked bitter.

Fergus Pickering

Neuro, of course it's not the same brand of hate. Do the couple advocate lynching of the gay, or burning them to death? They can be better equated with those who believe that black people are on average less intelligent than white people. I ought to make clear, though I shouldn't have to, that I do not agree with the views of the ouple, nor do I agree with those who believe that black people are less inherently intelligent. But I do not see why people should be persecuted for these views.

D. Singh

cyllan
March 3rd, 2011 3:52pm

‘they have apologised about the wording, not about the result, it means nothing’.

Their apology about the wording means nothing: as the High Court has implicitly upheld the wording.

Herzen

Adam B.
March 3rd, 2011 11:51pm
And again.

I will take your silence about most of the points you misunderstood before to mean that you now understand and accept them.

On imposing private opinions: as I understand it, the foster parents were asked how they would respond if a child came to them with concerns about being gay, and they said they would tell the child that it is a sin.

They are perfectly at liberty to think that, but not to impose their opinions on this matter on those in their care.

It is not possible to provide a hard and fast rule: We all believe in liberty and freedom of speech. Most of us do not want our children to be taught, at least by outside agencies, to believe racism, religious bigotry - or bigotry by straight against gay or gay against straight. To have outside agencies teach our children such things would be illiberal in the extreme. Because there are no clear-cut criteria for deciding what should be allowed in the name of liberty and what should require protection of minors and minorities, there are laws enacted which judges are required to interpret and apply. There is also, one would hope, common sense, which should ensure that judges are seldom called upon. It seems to me that both sides in this dispute have shown a failure of common sense.

And of course teachers and foster parents pass on their opinions and values, and so they should. I would draw the line at anti-semitism, religious bigotry, racism, homophobia... I'm sure others could propose some as well. And there would have to be public debate about which truly need to be kept out of the schoolroom and foster home.

On condescension, I am sorry you suffered unpleasantness. I hope it will prompt you in turn to review your tone in your many interventions on this blog.

Comprehensiveboy

This is a genuine question. Is one a bigot if one finds, e.g. homosexual practices 'distasteful'? Such that if questioned one would say - 'Oh, I do find buggery distasteful' Is that hate speech? Just wondering.

MikeF

The fundamental irony in all this is that ultimately the best defence for minorities of all sorts is the maintenance of a broadly-tolerant, pluralistic society. In contrast so-called 'diversity' policies are really about the imposition of increaingly narrowly-defined versions of conformity. At present the gays - or at least the militant wing of the 'gay movement' - do quite well out of this. But there is no reason why this continue indefinitely. At some point they may come to seen by the socialists and left-liberals in the way that the 'white working class' is now - in other words as unworthy of their patronage. If that does happen then what will their defence be if they have helped construct a society in which non-conformity with prevailing orthodoxy is regarded as justification for vilification?

Campbell

Comprehensiveboy: No it is not homophobic, and by the bye buggery is not an exclusively homosexual pratice by any means. It has in fact been accurately described as the oldest form of contraception.

What is homophobic is if you then take your distaste and elevate it into a point of principle and then use that as a platform from which to categorise a group of people as less deserving of legal rights and protection. Parliaments since the mid-1960s have rejected 'distaste' as a reason for denying homosexual men and women the rights and protections freely available to their fellow citizens.

In this case the couple at the centre of the storm withdrew from the fostering scheme when they felt unable to agree that they would refrain from saying that homosexual behaviour was wrong. That was their choice and for myself I find it distasteful that they then proceeded to a legal case in which they tried to assert that this exercise of their own free will was somehow forced on them.

Let us be very clear; at 8 or 9 years old a child's future sexuality cannot be known and there is no reason in the world why a local authority should be required to place a child with people who would tell them that a possible sexuality was wrong and who when asked, admitted if a child told them it was homosexual they would try to 'turn' it. Now if we are talking distaste what about the use of that word 'turn'?

Thucydides

Graeme Thompson,

"Tilly, you seem to have problems understanding language. Telling a child homosexuality is "acceptable" is promoting it."

Against some fairly stiff opposition, that is the stupidest comment I have seen anywhwere for some time. I shall be charitable and assume that you were drunk when you wrote it.

Augustus

I believe there should be a reasonable acceptance of gay people in modern society, for the reality is there have been
gay people in all cultures and
societies since the dawn of time. But it is the legitimizing
and promotion of homosexuality as an open lifestyle, which the sexual revolution of the past few decades has brought about,
which we can thank for the problems we are now encountering, and which will we
will continue to encounter. Given that homosexuality is to a certain extent something which
is genetically inborn, one still wonders how much environmentatal factors play a role (including social attitudes) in influencing the ultimate sexual orientation of
this lifestyle. When militant
proponents of same sex marriages
demand acceptance, as opposed to making do with tolerance, they are themselves failing to
exhibit tolerance. We should be very cautious about radically changing society's traditions.

Michael White

Just a small point as I note that this topic is amply covered. Not sure that Christianity in any way condemns homosexuals to persecution/damnation. (Or anyone else for that matter).
The New Testament scriptures do warn against numerous things, for example sexual immorality or homosexuality (1 Timothy 1:10), and advises those involved to end such activity and seek a Christ-like attitude to life. As is common, different interpretations emerge, generally in an effort to rationalise or in some cases air brush away texts considered to be constraining. But the original Greek for this particular group of verses is relatively plain. I find no Biblical reference showing that homosexual acts are singled out for persecution or are not the subject of divine forgiveness like the others. Which is why the Christian approach should always be "love the sinner, not the sin". As for the comments suggesting Christians are engaged in a persecution, I can only observe that that Christians are the largest religious group suffering persecution presently. The greatest attacks in terms of numbers can be found in Indonesia and Africa.

Mrs.Josephine Hyde-Hartley

Well I'm a traditional Christian and I can tell there is no traditional Christian view about homosexuality. We can all look at the Bible and decide what exactly made God so mad when those men tried to prevail against Lot's hospitality ie without consent.

In any event, Jesus explains everything quite clearly; we have to love God first and each other as he loves us. Honestly, sometimes it's hard to believe how thick some people are.

Jesus wept.One wonders why so-called Christians are still in effect blaming Christ for their rotten views and how many people can apparently get a job out of it!

Tony Pearce

Britain has moved from being post Christian to anti Christian. The judgement of God will fall upon the nation unless there is repentance and a change in our ways and laws.

george

As far as I can see this ruling is a very good way to increase homophobia in this country. I have not met anybody yet who is not disgusted by the Johns case. They have more support than anyone can imagine and they deserve it. But who is talking of equality. This country has not been a country of equality for a long time.

Adam B.

Herzen, no, I do not concur at all. Your implication about anti-Semitism was all too clear.

As for your objection to "forcing opinions", you have shown that, contrary to what you claimed, there was no "forcing" at all on the part of the foster parents. One wonders, indeed, why such a question needed to be asked by some bureaucrat in the first place - to a couple who look after 5-8 year olds.

As for your pompous condescension, it appears to be your natural tone.

Geoffrey Peters

I have never heard such a bunch of tripe in my life - if anyone needs re-programming it is the judges

Tony Brown

As a result of this ludicrous ruling, a child is deprived of the opportunity of a loving home from a good Christian couple who happen to hold a particular view about homosexuality (probably in common with many parents). If a child is confused about their sexuality, it doesn't mean their "orientation" is fixed for all time. Children need guidance and support and the fostering record shows clearly that any child in the care of Eunice and Owen Johns would benefit from being with them.

galada

Quite right, thank God for people like Melanie Philips. This country is getting more like Russia under Stalin by the day : indeed there were things you could say and think under Stalin that you scarcely dare to say out loud in 21st century Britain.

Kibbitzer too

Perversion is normality; normality is perversion, if Orwell didn't write this he certainly implied it would come to pass. The very first quango to be shot down in flames to save cash should be the ludicrous Equality and Human Rights Commission and while they're at it send the judiciary for the 're-education' they so obviously need.

TDH

Adam B.
March 4th, 2011 10:45pm
"Herzen, no, I do not concur at all. Your implication about anti-Semitism was all too clear."

Um. And what is it you take Herzen's implication about anti-semitism to be?

John Wainwright

I fully agree but Melanie needs to say what sort of things readers should do to get the so-called 'Equality Laws' amended.

One such action might be to sign the petition at www.anglican-mainstream.net
Another might be to write to their local MP as well as to David Cameron. As Lord Carey suggested where there is a potential issue between Faith and the interpretation of civil Law Judges neet to be appointed who are well informed about the former as well as the latter.

Vance Wella

Outrageous.

Guystuckonearth

Once you decouple the Law from Christianity you are lawless and your law will spiral out of control to ensnare every last one.

Robbie

What do you expect from the judges of to-day. not much, they should live in the real world, not in ivory towers.

RealisticallyOptimistical

As a Christian for the past 40 years I think it's time for believers to stop acting as Apologists for their faith. It always seems like we have to 'defend' and 'apoligise' etc. The plain truth is no-one has to defend a Lion. You just let the Lion out of his cage and it sort of defends itself.

My message to the Atheists and heathens in the UK is this - live your lives as atheists and heathens if you want to. Reject Craeation and Eternity - it's your choice. Select Darwinism over Biblical accounts of our beginnings, even laugh at hell and damnation. Eat drink and be merry.

But most of all, stake your very life on the fact you are right and that the God of Creation and Judgement does not exist. Believe it with all your might. It won't make any difference to the truth but it will at least help you sleep until your last breath.

Stephen

What exactly is meant by "promoting a homosexual lifestyle", anyway? Are they supposed to hand out brochures or something?

I don't like Christians at all, but even Christian foster parents are better than none at all. The kid can always do what they want later.

James B

The judges got it right.
This is not about religion, it's about 2 people being intolerant of others. We are all equal- what if they wanted to say men were better than women? It's exactly the same narrow-mindedness that highlights they are not fit for fostering. We are all equal!

brian tum ilty

if the two judges say that there is no room in law for christian beliefs then why is there a church of england religion / catholic religion plus others and as said previously the queens speech / acts at parliament and most of the world believe in GOD maybe these two come from another planet or should l say send them to another planet because they are so sadly out of touch with reality,

Nick

So justice is driven back,and righteousness stands at a distance;truth has stumbled in the streets,honesty cannot enter.Truth is nowhere to be found,and whoever shuns evil becomes a prey. Isaiah 59 v14-15.
I think these verses reflects very much our secular society today.

Marion Ross

Very good article - but it is very sad that this has had to be written in Britain our religious freedom for whom many have died both in Scotland and in England as well as else were in Britain is being taken away from us and in its place tyranny.

Mrs.Josephine Hyde-Hartley

And another thing; if the judges said there's no place in law for religious beliefs don't worry..be happy! Why? because turning things round as we can in our truly big UK society (which is perhaps best described as the same wonderful jungle that is the charity world) we may actually find there are many rooms to place even the most clumsy and awkward of difficiles.This would be thanks to our generous, largely unwritten and therefore flexible UK constitution.

Interestingly, HRH Prince of Wales has just come out on youtube with what may be a remarkably apt reading from the Bible - the one about my Fathers house having many rooms etc..

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/8363383/Prince-of-Wales-goes-live-on-YouTube.html

Antonio Lorusso

This article, as all the others I have read all sidestep the same issue:

What use is the parents tolerance of a child's homosexuality, if the child grows up knowing that the people who claim to love them believe they are evil for being who they are?

Religious freedom doesn't include the freedom to raise children to hate what they are, use all the flowery tolerance language you like but that's not what a homosexual child will hear when the child asks the simplest question in the world.

Why?

And then the parents are going to have to explain that they believe that homosexuality is a sin on par with murder and rape, because the bible says so clearly as many a christian likes to point out when justifying this position.

Then they are going to have to explain the bit in the bible which talks about the killing of homosexuals.

To their own child who they profess to love.

Sick.

So the real question is.

Why are you even defending this?

Faith? Try using that high moral character you Christians are supposed to have instead.

Julian de Villiers

The judges imposed no ban. They made no order. They noted that the local authority had not yet made a decision on the application to foster. It had deferred the decision but had not yet reached a final conclusion.

The judges stated on a number of occasions that there was no decision yet to appeal and that, therefore, they would make no order.

Eric Mival

It is fairly obvious that the two judges in question should be sacked as they are unable to make a just judgement.

Andy

The law of the land trumps religious belief every time and rightly so.

This couple were promoting a view that is abhorrent to most people and against British law!

This couple were providing a service to the local authority albeit in their own home. We would not tolerate this bigotry in a children's home so why is this so different?

For all the allegedly persecuted Christians in Britain...you have a right to air your personal beliefs in public but don't be surprised if they are subjected to logical criticism like any other subject. Why should your beliefs be given special treatment? You can certainly keep them out of the lives of vulnerable children.

David, Thailand

The world is mad and getting proudly madder.

My theory is that Western civilisation has moved too far too fast, across the board, and we are not equipped to handle it, which is why we appear determined to create the conditions for its downfall.

Even worse, we are doing this without realising it.

Sure it's just a theory, but one that's continually reinforced by folly and lethal incompetence.

CD

Andy
March 8th, 2011 6:56pm

"The law of the land trumps religious belief every time and rightly so."

Technically you may be right.

But what Christians are saying is that Western (and British) laws and civilization are founded on Christian principles. When this underlying reality is cast aside, then you are undermining the basis of your current status and prosperity.

No wonder Niall Ferguson in The Telegraph interview of Mar 8 ("When the West was best") says that one of the reasons the West is losing its predominance is because "we ourselves have lost faith in our own civilisation."

Consider that - he uses the words "faith in". It also implies that the West has lost the "faith of" their own civilization.

Brian Williams

Surely this means that Christian couples could have their children taken away unless they promise to tell them that homosexuality is alright? That will be next, you wait.

On another topic, if religion does not trump human rights, why does it trump animal rights? Why does the law allow cruel treatment of animals as an exemption specifically for religious slaughter?

lendusaquid

Understand that our courts are Roman law (statute law) not common law.If you want justice then demand common law and get the judge to work to the oath he took to become a judge. He will of course refuse.

Dave Morris

What do Muslims think of this situation?

Antony Quinn

What does "promote a homosexual lifestyle to a child" actually mean?

tim owen

Melanie, thank -you for your article, you are absolutely right. I too am shocked by this decision. The Johns clearly have a desire to bring up their children in an all-round healthy and respectful way and they have been banned because they won't promote what is a rather modern, liberal view of sexuality to their children, choosing instead to teach them patience and chastity?! This decision is arbitrary and unjust. I hope that it will be reversed and that many more ordinary couples like the Johns will be able to adopt.

J. Ullmer

Bravo ! Well said. I wrote to my MP J. Dudridge 2 weeks ago , in a similar way; still awaiting his reply!

God help us !!!!!

Euan Davidson

Why should this couple be allowed to "educate" these children in their homophobic ways if it was racisim you wouldn't be complaing then