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.

Melanie Phillips’s Articles » I think, therefore I’m guilty

I am not her biggest fan but here is a superb commentary on the parlous state of UK society today, where freedom of speech is the preserve only of those approved by the thought police.

“It is difficult to say when, exactly, the priorities of the British police shifted from the prevention of criminal offences towards criminalising people for causing offence. The police have become the thin blue line against the Wrong Opinion. Instead of protecting society against oppression, British police officers have become the agents of oppression…

…if you are a white Christian man upholding traditional family values and expressing a desire to stop immigration and leave the EU, while being sceptical of man-made global warming and believing that Darwinian evolution does not explain the origin of life on earth, Britain is no longer your country.

But don’t worry. Utopia is taking its place. The police are on their way to tell you.”

Melanie Phillips’s Articles » I think, therefore I’m guilty

Homosexual activist speaks at ‘Christian’ festival - CCFON.org - Christian Concern For Our Nation

I know that Peter Tatchell is not every gay person but he is representative of a large tract of gay people, a gay icon and leading spokesman for the gay cause; hence his appearance at the Greenbelt Festival. When are the liberal-minded, naive Christian fellow-travellers of the gay agenda going to learn that this is not simply about a man preferring to have sexual relations with a man instead of with a woman. It is about the liberalising of sexual practices in general, the licensing of perversion, the promotion of promiscuity and the destruction of those standards that have made ours a civilised, Christian and stable society.

“Mr. Tatchell is well known for his view that the age of consent should be lowered to 14 for homosexuals. On his website he states that if children under 14 have consensual sex, and if there is no greater than a three year age differential, there should not be a prosecution.

Mr. Tatchell is also a strong advocate of pornography which he believes is good for people. In his book “Safer Sexy: The Guide to Gay Sex Safely” he writes approvingly of sadomasochism, bondage, infidelity, orgies and public cruising for sex.”

Greenbelt has always been controversial, seen by many as a Christian version of Glastonbury with its alternative agenda, but they now seem to have lost any connection they had with their Christian identity and will disappoint many many of its fans while confirming the worse fears of their critics.

Homosexual activist speaks at ‘Christian’ festival - CCFON.org - Christian Concern For Our Nation

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

Life on Mars and PC Tact

“My name is Sam Tyler. I had an accident and I woke up in 1973. Am I mad, or in a comma, or back in time?” So says the voice of Sam Tyler, a 21st Century police officer, over the opening credits of the hit BBC TV drama series Life on Mars, first broadcast in January 2006. It ran to two series and was such a phenomenon it was followed up by another series, Ashes to Ashes, featuring another character, Alex Drake, this time thrown back to 1983 as the result of being shot in the line of duty.

Both meet the same characters “back then” and both suffer culture shock as they have to adapt not just to the more primitive policing methods but the customs and idiom of those very different times. Both series are packed with politically incorrect dialogue and assumptions as we follow the very un-PC Detective Inspector Gene Hunt and his team  in their efforts to keep the streets safe.

You can sympathise with the main characters’ impatience with and attempts at correcting unreformed police officers who call a deaf boy a “spastic”, who regard WPCs as being there to make the tea and be leered at, who make gags at the expense of black people and homosexuals and who regard criminals as deserving of “a good kicking.” Thank goodness for most of us the world isn’t like that anymore. But is it any better?

If roles were reversed and DI Gene Hunt were to wake up in 2010 how would he faire? Of course, he wouldn’t last five minutes because in that time he would have broken just about every anti-discrimination law in the country, not to mention health and safety. But what would he think of a world where a question from a pensioner about immigration becomes an international news story?

Where we allow our society to be slowly colonised by Muslims at the same time as we are at war with Muslim countries and Muslims are becoming suicide bombers on our streets – and we are not even allowed to talk about it for fear of being labelled Islamophobic?

What would he think of the proliferation of mosques across the country when young Muslims are being radicalised in some of those same mosques? Of the rise in popularity of the BNP and the real and frankly frightening prospect of Nick Griffin getting a seat in the British parliament and all because no one else is prepared to talk about the problems of immigration and he cashes in on that fact?

What would Gene Hunt make of a Britain where our libel laws are so wacky that “libel tourism” has become a major problem and Eastern European as well as other criminals, businessmen and politicians are flocking to our shores to sue investigative journalists who are getting too close to the facts? Where a journalist is guilty until proven innocent? Where foreign criminals are enslaving girls and running them as sex slaves in our towns and streets?

What would he make of a country where broadcast news is no longer news but tittle-tattle and gossip. Where the cult of celebrity puts no-talent nobodies on the front pages of our newspapers? Where news broadcasters do pieces to camera while the main event goes on behind them because they believe their comment and opinion is more valuable than those of the people who actually run the country, its businesses and services?

What would Gene Hunt think of a country where we are policed at a distance by cameras and are now the most scrutinised society after China and Russia? Where teachers run the real risk of being physically attacked, maligned on social networking sites, accused of abuse and little or nothing to be done because we are currently in the grip of the cult of the child? Where having a baby is regarded by some as a career move and others as an occupational hazard? Where aborting a baby is considered so inconsequential that it is possible to do it in your lunch break, like going for a dump?

How would he faire in this brave new world where we are all so PC, not because it makes for a better world but because of some misplaced guilt over our patriarchal history of empire that makes us feel we have to be the world’s social worker and “understand” how hard it must be having been our victims? Where we are actually implicated in charges of torture along with our “special friends” and war allies? Where right and wrong are defined not by agreed standards of decency and morality but by who has the money to sue you if you don’t toe the line they draw and dare you to cross, those who cry, “its our world now so have a care how you walk in it or we will have you for dinner!”

There have always been problems and each generation must find its own way to deal with them but the one “solution” that must be avoided like the jaws of hell is the one that insists, like Basil Fawltey, “Don’t mention the war (or immigration, or abortion, or over-surveillance, or Islamification)!” If we can’t express our views, share our fears and hopes, declare our convictions and speak our minds without fear of retribution and the PC brigade then we are storing up problems that may explode in a reaction of violence that we neither want nor can fully realise until it is too late.

George Orwell said, “Liberty is the freedom to tell people what they don’t want to hear.” That liberty is in real danger in Britain and while we are all arguing terms on what terms we can use in public discourse and private conversation there are those with a very different agenda planning our future and that of our children. Maybe we need a Gene Hunt to share with us some well overdue home truths and perhaps it doesn’t matter too much in what terms as long as we face them.

Yes, it is a different world and in some ways the changes are welcome, but is it really a better world? I don’t think so.

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

An Open Letter to Sir Ian McKellan « Smoking Lizard Soapbox

A very wonderful open letter to Sir Ian McKellan who it seems has taken to tearing a page out of the Bible he finds in every hotel room in which he stays. It is a well reasoned response to this unwarranted act of vandalism and deliciously funny in its execution. You will not regret clicking through and reading the whole letter and it won’t take you long.

This message really should have come in the mail or to a private email address that can be forwarded. Regardless, please take this as my polite request for you to either cease and desist or change the nature of your Leviticus 18:22 protest concerning hotel Bibles. As I am a Christian who takes matters of faith seriously, I have no other teeth here than a polite request written in, I hope, inescapable logic and devastating wit.

I appreciate that to a gay man it must hurt that the instruction book for the dominant spirituality in the English-speaking world has words that baldly put, don’t like homosexuals. I also take the fact that you only tear out the offending page out of the hotel Bible as a sign of room to negotiate. Clearly, you approve of most of the rest of the Scripture in some fashion.

An Open Letter to Sir Ian McKellan « Smoking Lizard Soapbox

Marriage is Not About Justice, but Jesus

For those of us looking at the issue of Homosexuality and the church “from the outside” as it were here is an excellent, thoughtful and thought-provoking  commentary from Peter Ould. If you want to understand this issue on a more mature Christian level you could do a lot worse than spend time reading Peter’s blog commentary on the issue.

Marriage

Marriage is Not About Justice, but Jesus

For those of us looking at the issue of Homosexuality and the church “from the outside” as it were here is an excellent, thoughtful and thought-provoking  commentary from Peter Ould. If you want to understand this issue on a more mature Christian level you could do a lot worse than spend time reading Peter’s blog commentary on the issue.

Marriage

Children need Mothers and Fathers - Christian Legal Centre

Something needs to be said about the self serving nature of the homosexual agenda. Meanwhile this is an eye witness statement from Dr Dean Byrd, professor of Clinical Medicine of the University of Utah in the case of Andrew McClintock and published by the Christian Legal Centre. Here is the doctor’s conclusion:

Conclusion:

36. Traditional marriage has supported societies for millennia. Historical and current research clearly demonstrate that both adults and children benefit from this family structure. Differences emerge when comparisons are made between same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples. Same-sex relationships are less permanent and less monogamous. Homosexual practices place its participants at risk for mental illness and physical disease. Emerging research suggests potential risks for children raised by lesbian parents including gender non-conformity. The rejection of gender roles thus appears to be unhealthy.

Children need Mothers and Fathers - Christian Legal Centre