You Must Hire an Active Gay to Work with Youth

This is a prequel coming to an American theatre near you (you can catch a preview over in Canada, if you like).

Comments

[Michael D. Harmon]

“Vice is a monster so frightful mien,
As to be hated needs but to be seen;
Yet too oft, familiar with her face,
We first endure, then pity, then embrace.”

--Alexander Pope

And then pass laws to protect and coerce others to accept, he should have added...

[Nick]

Contact information for a legal fund? Anyone know? People we should call?

[mark]

Coming to a theatre near you, I like the way you phrase that.

If this had been done to Muslims, there would be protest and calls for the death of the bureaucrats.

Christians, throughout history have been willing to suffer and die for their faith. Not so today. And that, I think, is the problem; recognizing that a willingness to suffer flows out of a conviction that we hold a precious truth.

The Church today has other concerns than the Gospel. They have spent the last decades trying to be relevant. They have decided that the office of the Holy Spirit (I think the way in which the modern church has rewritten the Office of the Holy Spirit is just appalling) is not the illumination of Scripture but confusion, not to convict of sin that one might come to Christ but a new thing in which Christ is now (what's the word) some sort of therapeutic Dr. Phil, some sort of enabler of sin. It seems to me that Paul writes of this in Romans 1 where the end is the normalization of sin.

You can't expect an attitude of 'let goods and kindred go,this mortal life also' from these types of political timeserving and cowardly clergy. Libs always want to seize control of the bureaucracy for the benefits and power. I wonder if the best we can hope for is some sort of renewal via retirement. The timeservers retire and are replaced by more faithful Christians. I read once that someone said, God has suffered three humiliations: the incarnation, the crucifixion and the Church. I don't think there has ever been a golden age, but I do think there have been ages where believers have been less blinded by the spirit of their age.

Please don't misunderstand me. This is not easy. I knew someone once who worked in a political office. The politician flipped on abortion and many people in that office walked and suffered financially and in their careers for it. But I think that the Church has compromised endlessly with our culture and now culture wishes to call the tune completely.

I personally wish this Bishop would either refuse and suffer the consequences or if they do participate, then hold fast. God have mercy, "and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

[Judy K. Warner]

What will happen when a Muslim group refuses to hire a gay? Ah, the clash of correctnesses -- which will win? Probably the one that threatens to kill.

[Jeff Sawtelle]

I've had some more time to think about Abp. Williams' comments on the accommodation of Muslims and their law into England, and I'm wondering: is he being clever here? Once he can establish the principle of accommodation of Muslim religious belief, maybe he will push for accommodation of Christian religious belief.

Some of the folks who are indignant about accommodating Sharia seemingly don't want to accommodate any religious belief at all. And as for bleating about the English legal heritage, I don't trust them to safeguard it any more than I would trust the Muslims.

Why the indignation about the English paying welfare for multiple Muslim wives when the country is giving marital benefits - presumably including tax breaks - to same-sex couples? I'm not sure where in the Bible polygamy is banned, but I do know where it speaks of buggering. How does either of them fit with the Common Law of England? Blackstone wrote that the foundations of the Common Law are reason and revelation. That was then; this is now.

Jeff Sawtelle

[Nick]

I received back a response from the diocese about my questions. I have noted in my brief contact with them that bigoted bureaucrats hate phone calls from the public. For those interested the response follows:
> Subject: Employment Tribunal
> Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 10:58:32 +0000
> From: [email protected]
> To: [email protected]
> CC: [email protected]; [email protected]
>
> Dear Mr. Jost
>
> Julie Milne, PA to the Bishop of Hereford, has forwarded to me your
> email of 12 Feb 08 enquiring whether a legal fund has been set up to
> support the Bishop and if there is an email address to which you could
> write to complain about this matter.
>
> We have not set up a separate fund but a number of donations payable to
> the "Hereford Diocesan Board of Finance" have been received and used to
> meet some of the cost of this case.
>
> With regard to an email address the case was heard before an Employment
> Tribunal in Cardiff, South Wales the email address of which is:-
>
> mailto:[email protected]
>
> In closing may I thank you for your interest in this matter and for your
> support for the Bishop's stance in maintaining the teaching of the
> Church of England.
>
> With very best wishes
>
> John Clark
> Diocesan Secretary
> Tel: 01432 373312
> (PA: Pam Brown 01432 373314)

[mark]

re the "accommodation of Muslims and their law into England"

I am no expert, but given the nature of sharia, any accommodation is akin to madness. If the Archbishop is trying to be clever, then it will result in his destruction.
If I recall correctly, Britain would accommodate the law of the locals but only if it did not contradict English law. If I understand Islamic law correctly, it views women as unequal to men (and this statement sounds way to bland to really express the plight ow women under Islam); converts from Islam deserve the death penalty; slavery is permissible; and their criminal punishments (cutting off the hand of a thief) are pretty nasty. I don't see this as compatible with British law, but I could be wrong.

[Dr. Pedant]

Don't be too quick to make assumptions -- so far the treatment of Christians and Muslims on this issue has been reasonably consistent:

The head of the Muslim Council of Britain, Sir Iqbal Sacranie, is being investigated by police for saying that homosexuality was "harmful". (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4603474.stm)

A bishop who suggested gay people should seek medical help to reorientate their sexuality will not be prosecuted it's been revealed. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3255461.stm)

... and Rowan Williams was quite specific in his lecture that issues like the treatment of women and extreme punishments could not be integrated, as well as mentioning that the one-secular-law-for-all policy impacts Christians as well as Muslims (the full text: http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/1575 and the interview: http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/1573)

[Ethan C.]

Every time an issue like this comes up, it seems someone raises the contrast with Muslim reactions, usually to point out, as Mark and Judy Warner have here, how much more effect Muslims seem to get by threatening violence.

This has got me wondering: given the fact that as Christians we are prohibited from threatening violence like Muslims do, what would be a good way for us to get more effect?

It seems to me that our analogue to the Muslims' violent protests is to quite vocally and publicly defy the law and suffer the full consequences, including imprisonment(and, of course, even death if it comes to that). In this case, the bishop should refuse to comply with the court's order for anti-discrimination training, and he should also refuse to pay the fine if he believes that doing so would constitute a declaration that his actions were wrong. This may well lead, of course, to the seizure of the diocese's property or further prosecution of the bishop. The bishop ought to be willing to suffer this continued assault, and he should be as public in his refusal to comply by the law as he can.

What we as Christians should not do is ever knuckle under out of a desire to avoid legal consequences, official pressure, or "bad publicity." If we more consistently practiced this sort of behavior, we might be able to recapture some of the political purchase that we so envy the Muslims.

[James Grant]

Thanks for the link. I posted it on my blog, but someone alerted me to the fact that the case may be more complicated than simply hiring a gay person. If anyone has any more information, I would be interested. Here is the link to my blog with my revised post: In Light of the Gospel

[Nick]

James,

I read your reply on your blog and disagree that this complicates the case. Under what little I understand of Anglican administration the Bishop has the sole right to judge the case as it applies to church society. The tribunal was, in effect, acting as a religious court. It had no authority to rule on the ability of the church to employ anyone. There are no positions within a church or a church run organization that should be administered by the government ever. In my email to the tribunal I cited this case where William Penn refused the jurisdiction of the Courts of England on the same grounds...in 1670 for crying out loud. Haven't we learned?