Faith, Sex and the Tyranny of Political Correctness

There is now in the public mind, it seems, a right to not be offended and a right to take offence at just about anything with which you might disagree. A friend who recently left hospital after major surgery shared a disturbing account of how far this nonsense has gone.

After surgery she was put in a room by herself and, to aid her recovery and keep up her spirits, she played Christian music on a loop. She also had a prominently placed text to remind her that, “they who wait for the LORD shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings like eagles; they shall run and not be weary; they shall walk and not faint.” (Isaiah 40:31)

A nurse attending her lost no time in declaring, “I find that deeply offensive!” referring to the music and text. If she had said the music was too loud, it might have been understandable. If there had been complaints from other patients (she was alone in a room remember) it might have seemed reasonable to comment. If she had said the music was not to her personal taste it would have been a step too far but forgivable. But the only reason to comment it seems was that the person who had been charged with the care and welfare of a patient after major surgery somehow found Christian music “offensive.”

Where do these ideas come from? Where do people find the justification to insist others shut up if those people don't like what others are saying? How does playing Christian music become “offensive” and where on earth does a nurse get the notion that her right to not be offended by something so innocuous overrides her duty of care?

What if your home was burgled and the police made no secret of their being offended by your having a Bible on the coffee table? What if a doctor appeared reluctant to treat you because of a cross on your lapel? What if your employer penalised you for having firm Christian views?

Well, the last has already happened. In a remarkable and worrying case, a man from Bolton, England had his salary reduced by forty percent and was demoted because of comments he made on his Facebook page in his own private time. He won a breach of contract case against Trafford Housing Trust.

The trust argued he broke its code of conduct by expressing religious or political views which might upset co-workers. Astonishingly, they appear to have extended this policy to views expressed outside work, which brings us to the bizarre position where an opinion expressed by a private citizen, in his own time, to a limited number of people on Facebook is cause for discipline because it might, just might be seen by some co-workers who might, just might be upset by what they read and whose lives might, just might be blighted by a point of view??

Reading the trust’s official response two things stand out for me. The first is the way they have still sought to smear the name of Adrian Smith by opaque references to his “previous disciplinary record.” Has he been warned before for having and expressing traditional Christian views? They don’t say but the suggestions is put in the reader’s mind that this must be a thoroughly unsavoury character.

The second is in the way they seek to put themselves, by contrast, in a good light and to make Mr Smith appear awkward and un-cooperative. They state, “We had tried to come to a settlement with Mr Smith, which would have resulted in him receiving ten times the amount he will receive, but he chose to reject this offer." But Mr Smith made it clear that this was not about money but about an important principle. In a statement after the hearing at London's High Court he said:

"Something has poisoned the atmosphere in Britain, where an honest man like me can be punished for making perfectly polite remarks about the importance of marriage.

"I have won today. But what will tomorrow bring?

"I am fearful that, if marriage is redefined, there will be more cases like mine - and if the law of marriage changes people like me may not win in court."

He added: "Does the Prime Minister want to create a society where people like me, people who believe in traditional marriage, are treated as outcasts?"

You can hear his statement read out here.

Speaking of men of principle, it is ironic that Peter Tatchell, the prominent gay rights campaigner, has called the council's actions “excessive.” The irony is not that even Peter Tatchell thinks these actions excessive but in the fact that it is his activities and the activities of others like him over the years that has planted in the public mind this notion of a right to not be offended.

He and others have consistently taken up a position of apparently unassailable “Outrage!” at anything and anyone who disagrees with their view of the world. It is those people who win the argument by refusing to have the argument, who take up the victors position without having engaged in the battle for right and truth, and who shout down anyone daring to challenge or contradict – it is from these the idea of a right to not be offended comes.

Besieged by the hysterical voices of libertarians, council officials, employers, private businesses and others find it best to parrot what they hear than to risk giving offence to the bullies. Our society is being redefined under our noses and any and every voice raised in protest is shouted down, characterised as reactionary and prejudiced, and good is called evil while evil is called good – even when it comes to the caring professions it seems.

I am reminded of the words of George Orwell: “Liberty is the right to tell people what they don’t want to hear.” Our liberties are being eroded and we need to raise our voices before our voices are silenced and everyone the loser for it.

Gay Marriage; Redefining Reality

An excellent comment from George Weigel in the National Review on the recent decision to legalise same-sex marriage in New York.

“Marriage, as both religious and secular thinkers have acknowledged for millennia, is a social institution that is older than the state and that precedes the state. The task of a just state is to recognize and support this older, prior social institution; it is not to attempt its redefinition. To do the latter involves indulging the totalitarian temptation that lurks within all modern states: the temptation to remanufacture reality. The American civil-rights movement was a call to recognize moral reality; the call for gay marriage is a call to reinvent reality to fit an agenda of personal willfulness.”

Read the article here.

Christian preacher arrested by homosexual police officer for saying that homosexuality is a sin - CCFON.org - Christian Concern For Our Nation

Gays in uniform are now taking the law into their own hands. It is not enough that they are legal, they have to make anyone and everyone who disagrees with them illegal. They as fascist as any right-wing movement that defames and condemns them. Mail on Sunday columnist Peter Hitchens wrote:

‘The Public Order Act of 1986 was not meant to permit the arrest of Christian preachers in English towns for quoting from the Bible.  But it has.  The Civil Partnerships Act 2004 was not meant to force public servants to approve of homosexuality.  But it has.

‘The Sexual Offences Act of 1967 was not meant to lead to a state of affairs where it is increasingly dangerous to say anything critical about homosexuality.  But it did.

‘And the laws of Britain, being entirely based upon the Christian Bible, were not meant to be used by a sneering judge to declare that Christianity had no higher status in this ancient Christian civilisation than Islam, Buddhism or Hinduism.

‘But it has come to that this week,’ he wrote.

‘We have travelled in almost no time from repression, through a brief moment of mutual tolerance, to a new repression.  And at the same time, the freedom of Christians to follow their beliefs in workplaces is under aggressive attack.’

Christian preacher arrested by homosexual police officer for saying that homosexuality is a sin - CCFON.org - Christian Concern For Our Nation

Gay marriage plan threatens churches says Bishop of Winchester -Times Online

So here’s the deal. Gay people insist on the right to marry. I don’t think it is meaningfully possible and object on social and religious grounds. But we live in a liberal democracy so I can hardly deny others the privilege that democracy affords me. But that is not enough – it never is. They want enshrined in law the right to marry in religious premises. Of course, there are already those liberal churches that afford this privilege without legal coercion but that is not enough – it never is. So the final situation stands something like this:

You have no right to force me as a gay person to comply with your religious code but I want enshrined in law the right to force you to act against your religious conscience. Nice!

‘Church of England clergy will be sued for discrimination if they refuse to “marry” homosexuals under a proposed law, a bishop has warned. Other religious leaders fear that churches that refuse to bless civil partnerships might be forced to close…

Don Horrocks, of the [Evangelical] alliance, said: “We understand the Lords’ desire to allow a few liberal religious groups to have freedom to follow their consciences. But other religious groups must not be forced to betray their consciences by facing lawsuits if they fail to allow a civil ceremony.

“This amendment hugely confuses the distinction between civil secular ceremonies and religious ceremonies, as well as the nature of marriage, and has major implications for the UK’s matrimonial laws which haven’t begun to be thought through.”’

Now this is going to upset some people I know personally but it has to be said. It is never enough, whatever you do to enshrine gay rights in law, it is never going to be enough.

In the UK there are calls for all kinds of “traditional” gay activities to be acceptable and legally protected now that basic gay rights are recognised. This includes the right to participate in cruising, the frequenting of public places for the purposes of casual sex – see here. It seems some wish to be free to liaise in places like the infamous Highgate Cemetery for instance without let or hindrance (shades of Joe Orton)

What next? The right to organise and participate in cottaging? As a young man I was more than once the target of such activities and I can tell you it is not the happy-go-lucky and wholesome activity some might have you believe. But this is the way it is going as the gay programme embraces any and all sexual activities once considered aberrant and wrong. The Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender movement (LGBT) is vocal and growing in its call for the acceptance of any and everything that would overturn the accepted and traditional mores and customs of society. Likeminded people gathering around a common cause, or an example of my enemy’s enemy is my friend?Sociologist Mary Bernstein said:

"For the lesbian and gay movement, then, cultural goals include (but are not limited to) challenging dominant constructions of masculinity and femininity, homophobia, and the primacy of the gendered heterosexual nuclear family (heteronormativity). Political goals include changing laws and policies in order to gain new rights, benefits, and protections from harm." (Bernstein, Mary (2002). Identities and Politics: Toward a Historical Understanding of the Lesbian and Gay Movement. Social Science History 26:3 (fall 2002).

The “cause” is anarchic then and not simply about being accepted but about creating a social chaos out of which this new, promiscuous order will rise. Promiscuous?

There are faithful and good people who remain in gay relationships for a lifetime, this I know personally. But casual and promiscuous sex seem to be the overwhelming norm in the gay community. So, on one hand you have people that seek, reasonably in many eyes, to be accepted in homosexual relationship as equals in the wider society with heterosexual partnerships. But then you have many in that same community seeking to have the same wider society give licence for their promiscuous agenda.

Of course, when such concerns are expressed we are met with the same cry - “Homophobia!” Its a lot like talking to a Mormon who will cry “Anti-Mormon!” But crying foul and damning your critics as blind and ill-informed enemies hardly helps to move the discussion along and does nothing to address the genuine fears and concerns of intelligent people.

Gay marriage plan threatens churches says Bishop of Winchester -Times Online