Forcing the Profane on the Holy

The local Anglican bishop was taken to an employment tribunal recently for turning down a gay man for a job as a youth worker.

Reaney was not denied the job because he is gay. Rather, the bishop made it clear to him during the interview that a person in a committed sexual relationship outside of marriage, whether they were heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual or transgender, would be turned down for the role. This seems to be a rather conservative view for Anglicans, especially in a diocese that has led the way in the ordination of women.

Nonetheless, the employment tribunal said Reaney was discriminated against “on the grounds of sexual orientation”. This has massive ramifications. First, it means churches must hire people whose sexual orientation they may believe is incompatable with a particular position. Second, it equates orientation with activity. This means church must hire people openly engaged in immoral behaviour (whether homosexual or heterosexual), even as youth workers. Third, this will logically and necessarily include those who have been hired while demonstrating good moral character but who susequently make different behavioural decisions. The Church in this country effectively has no way of preserving and living out its teachings about living holy lives.

Clarkson’s Driving Offence

Where political correctness abounds, thankfully Jeremy Clarkson is there as the antidote. Newspaper commentator and host of the premier car telly programme Top Gear, Clarkson just says what he means. I don’t always agree with him, but I’m glad for his frankness.

On an episode of the show last year, Clarkson opined that the Daihatsu Copen was “a bit gay.” He actually only repeated the words of a member of the studio audience, but then he added, “Yes, very ginger beer.” This is apparently Cockney rhyming slang for queer. So Ofcom, the media watchdog (whatever that means), have ruled that he criticised the car by describing it as homosexual. Apparently you cannot describe a car as homosexual. I can only guess this is because same-sex attracted cars are offended by this.

Ofcom said, “In the context, there was no justification for using the word in this way.” That’s because in this country you aren’t allowed to just say what you think. You have to justify your choice of words to the PC police.

And cars not being able to speak for themselves because of their lack of, well, speech mechanisms, gay people special interest groups have had to come to their defence.   A spokeslesbian for Stonewall said, “We’re glad to see that Ofcom has censured Jeremy Clarkson for the use of the word gay, in what was clearly meant in a derogatory way.”

“There was no doubt that it was being used in the sense of ‘homosexual’ and was capable of giving offence,” said Fraser Steel, the BBC head of editorial complaints.

Clarkson’s reported response shows just how seriously he takes this: “It wasn’t a gay car – it was actually a bit lesbian.”

Just an Opinion

A demonstration of the stark contrast between the US and UK was made evident by a story out of northern Indiana. Amy Sorrell, the teacher responsible of overseeing the student newpaper at Woodland Junior-Senior High School in Woodburn was suspended because of a student-written op/ed piece. A sophomore author suggested other students should be tolerant of students who are gay. She said she was inspired by the struggles of a one of her gay friends at the school.

There are actually two contrasts here. First of all, journalism is not taught to high school students in this country and there are no school-sponsored student-edited newspapers.

However, if there were, it is unimaginable that the staff member would be disciplined for allowing the publication of the article that Principal Ed Yoder considered potentially controversial. This is one case where I would have to agree with the UK model. It is unfortunate that tolerance of a person (as opposed to a behaviour) is controversial.

Keeping Pace

General Pace has been catching lots of grief from the gay rights lobby (and all the PC crowd who are held in their thrall) and now Senator Brownback is feeling the heat for being open about his Catholic faith and its congruity with General Pace’s view that homosexual acts are immoral.

One blogger reprinted the oft-circulated Dr. Laura letter which attempts to invalidate the provisions of Leviticus 18:22 by pretending to seek advice about enforcing other provisions of the Mosaic law, posing the questions instead to General Pace and Senator Brownback. I decided to answer the letter on their behalf.

The God Who Heals

The Ted Haggard situation may have brought this issue to the forefront, but it’s nothing new. Greg Wallace has very insightful piece about what evangelical Protestants have missed in dealing with homosexuality.

Though I know Greg did not necessarily intend it this way, it is a very Orthodox approach.

The Science of Gay Adoptions

Following on the previous entry and with a H/T to Greg Wallace, the American College of Pediatricians has published an article on homosexual parenting.

As Greg opines, “This is one of those serendipitous little moments when science and morality align themselves… and the only group group neither surprised nor outraged is probably the conservative segment of Christians.”

Fundamental Values

If you needed further evidence that the more serious enemy is secularism and not Islam, the Government have eagerly provided it.

The big news over here is the attempt by Christians of every stripe to stop the full impact of the Equality Act. This is the legislation which will require, inter alia, that all adoption agencies give equal consideration to homosexual couples when placing children. And by “all”, I do mean all.

The Catholic Church has 16 such agencies, putting their pro-life money where their mouth is. However, eternal immovable doctrine being what it is, they will shut their doors rather than put a child in a gay “family”. They have strongly pressured the Government for an exemption.

As the husband of a practicing Catholic with children who are baptised Catholic, Tony Blair has been in favour of one, but never has his lame-duckness been so evident. He and his power are so yesterday at this point.

Ruth Kelly is the Equality Minister and you would think she might have some pull. As a member of Opus Dei, you would expect her to throw her weight behind the Church, but the forces of the New Morality will do anything to oppose the Church and Ruth has found herself rather isolated.

The Anglicans have even come along side the Catholics and said there should be an consicence exemption. But pink is in the ascendency and neither the Archbishop of Canterbury not his counterpart of York have made a dent.

So who do you call when you want secularists to bow to religious pressure? The Muslims of course. But the statement that “The Muslim Council of Britain fully supports the principled stand taken by the leaders of the Catholic and Anglican Churches” had no effect.

It doesn’t help that some Catholics in Government have sided with those who oppose Catholic doctrine at every turn. Home Secretary John Reid told reporters, “I don’t believe you in this country have the right to overrule some of the fundamental values on which the country is based because you have a conscientious objection.” So allowing gay couples to adopt has become a fundamental value on which the UK is based.

Yes, that’s right, the Catholic Home Secretary has said that Holy Scripture and the unbroken teaching of the Holy Church is inherently anti-British – that the United Kingdom at it’s core is in opposition to the Kingdom of God. Not only that, but there is no right to object to those values. You can conscientiously object to a lot of things, but not something so fundamentally British as the right of gay couples to adopt children.