Briefing. This is bizarre. The Evangelical group Christian Voice are calling for complaints and are organising a 'witness' in protest. It is certainly unjust to give a 20% discount on the basis of sexual orientation, and an indication of the Zoo's attitude in promoting the homosexual agenda: you have been warned. However, we don't want to go down the road of having apoplexy at every 'gay' event; we've got our work cut out opposing the sacrilege of the Warwick Street Masses.
From Christian Voice: London Zoo Gay Sunday 14th September 2008 They don't seem to be advertising it as much as last year, but London Zoo is giving homosexuals a discount again this year on 14th September by holding 'Gay Sunday' at this quintessential family venue (families will pay full price).
If the event is like last year, and the ZSL website suggests it will be:
The Zoo closes off the Mappin Terrace without telling the rest of the paying public, opens the Fellows' Lawn for a homosexual garden party.
Saturday, August 16, 2008
London Zoo: 'Gay Sunday'
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
New Christian legal advice centres
Update: the Thomas More Legal Centre now has a website.
Briefing 12/12/07: we recently reported on a new Anglican/Catholic collaboration setting up the 'Thomas More Legal Centre' here, although this does not appear to have a website and unfortunately shares its name with a much better known US organisation. Now the Lawyers' Christian Fellowship has spawned its own organisation, The Christian Legal Centre. The arrival of these organisations, specifically to fight Christianophobic laws, shows the extent to which Christians have their backs to the wall. It is a pity that the Catholic Bishops have not provided funds for an organisation specifically for Catholic concerns.
From Christian Concern for Our Nation: We would like to announce the formation of a new organisation called the Christian Legal Centre. Following Andrea Williams’ involvement in a number of high profile Christian Interest Litigation cases, a decision has been made to form an organisation to enable legal and litigation support for these cases to be more effectively focused. The Christian Legal Centre is separate from the Lawyers’ Christian Fellowship, which will continue with its remit of public policy briefing as a Christian charity representing a large number of Christian lawyers.
The Christian Legal Centre will act as an information portal and assist
individuals to instruct Christian lawyers in cases where they feel they are
unable to live in accordance with their faith and are facing discrimination and
unlawful hindrance as a result. The Centre will also take on cases to defend
Christian principles, truth, sanctity of life and freedom.
Andrea Williams is the Director of the new organisation and will also continue
in her role as Director of Public Policy for The Lawyers' Christian Fellowship.
The Christian Legal Centre has its own dedicated website, which will be kept up
to date with all the information about current and past cases.
Thursday, February 07, 2008
ASA rules against 'Gay aim: abolish the family'
Briefing.
From CFNews:
Philip Whealy, a representative of the Christian Congress for Traditional Values (CCTV) has been interviewed this week both on BBC News 24 and on the BBC Asian Network and 119 Sky Digital, talking about the CCTV's poster campaign which carried the words, 'Gay Aim: Abolish the Family'. Many CCTV members exercised their legal right to peaceful protests in January and March 2007 outside Parliament when both Houses were voting on the Sexual Orientation Regulations. At the second rally the CCTV displayed a mobile bill board on a vehicle driving around London stating, 'Gay Aim: Abolish the Family', and showing a picture of a man, woman and two children. One person raised an ASA complaint against the CCTV. The CCTV fought for its right to use this poster and the rights of all people to have freedom of expression in a democratic society. The ASA found the CCTV to be in breach of its Code. Nevertheless, the CCTV continue to campaign for traditional family values. The following quote, they remind us, is taken directly from the London Gay Liberation Front Manifesto
'The long-term goal of the London Gay Liberation Front, which inevitably brings us into fundamental conflict with the institutionalised sexism of this society, is to rid society of the gender-role system which is at the root of our oppression. This can only be achieved by the abolition of the family as the unit in which children are brought up. We intend to work for the replacement of the family unit, with its rigid gender-role pattern, by new organic units such as the commune, where the development of children becomes the shared responsibility of a larger group of people who live together.'
Don't be misled by government reassurances that the SORs will not cover the curriculum, says the CCTV. One of the primary GLF campaign aims was 'that sex education in schools stop being exclusively heterosexual'. The Manifesto also criticises schools for ignoring homosexuality in education and criticised the sex education of the 70s as being 'little more than an extension of Christian morality'. Unless critical exemptions for schools and people of faith are included in the SORs, there is no doubt that we will soon see this legislation being used as a tool to force homosexuality onto our children in the classroom'. [Christian Congress for Traditional Values]
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Exeter Christian Union: victory
Briefing.
From Christian Concern for Our Nation: XETER University’s Christian Union won a crucial vote on Friday 7th December 2007 in their highly-publicised human rights battle with the campus Students’ Guild and University authorities. On 7th December 2007, their prolonged battle with the University took a substantial step forward when the CU won a democratic student vote at an Emergency General Meeting of the Students’ Guild at which the CU were invited by the Guild to present a motion allowing them to
require all officers and members of the CU to sign a statement of belief.
On January 5th 2007, Ben Martin, a member of the Christian Union, filed papers
at the High Court following the suspension of the 50-year-old Christian Union
(CU) from the official list of student societies on campus, and the freezing of
its Student Union bank account. The CU had also been banned from free use of
Students’ Guild premises, and from advertising events within Guild facilities,
because the Students’ Guild claimed the CU constitution and activities did not
conform to its Equal Opportunities standards.
Following detailed negotiations between the CU, the Guild and the University,
and between the National Union of Students and the Universities and Colleges
Christian Unions (UCCF), and under the threat of High Court action, the CU have
now secured:-
An active Student Union bank account;
Re-listing on the Guild’s official list of societies; and
Permission to use and advertise CU events on Guild/campus premises.
At 12-noon on Friday 7th December, the Student body voted by 122 to 47 that the
relationship between the CU and Student Guild should reflect proposed new
guidelines on religious societies as agreed between the National Union of
Students and UCCF, which would allow the CU to ask officers and members to sign
up to the aims and beliefs of the society, whilst all meetings and events
remain open to all students at Exeter University.
Commenting on the vote, Ben Martin, who has since left the university, said:
“This continues to be a long and hard fight for the rights of Christian
students to assemble and form as a group of fellow believers under a lawful
constitution. We support the rights of any student on campus to assemble and
discuss/debate any topic with fellow students in what is a free society. This
all began 18 months ago when one student, after 50 years of the CU being on
campus, complained that he did not feel able to sign up to our statement of
belief. We pray now the Guild will ratify the vote as is right and proper and
we will be able to put this all behind us”
Ross Tranter, current CU president added: “The whole CU is pleased with this
vote and we hope now that the Guild will ratify the vote so that we may move
forward from this matter. We are simply looking forward to getting on with our
academic studies and to developing the work of the CU as a well-established,
successful and fully recognised society on campus. We hope the Guild will
recognise this important vote and not force us to proceed with legal action”
Andrea Williams, Director of the Christian Legal Centre, commented “This vote is
an important step forward towards a resolution in this case. It is a victory
for common sense, and a signal to the Guild on how students feel about a truly
diverse and equal agenda where freedom of religion and freedom of association
can be fully respected and integrated on campus. Christian students in Exeter
are showing courage and leadership beyond their years and fighting for these
great principles of a truly free and democratic society. Universities are the
places where the leaders of tomorrow are shaped and moulded, and it is
heartening to see Christian students claiming these important principles as
their own for the benefit of freedom for all.”
‘The Legal Rights of Student Christian Unions’, by Julian Rivers is a paper that
rebuts Mark Shaw QC’s Adjudication between the Christian Union and the Student
Guild.
http://www.lawcf.org/index.asp?page=The+Legal+Rights+of+Student+Christian+Unions
Thursday, November 15, 2007
The Fool's Reproach
Briefing. The militant 'gay' organisation Stonewall prefers bullying to reasoned argument, so each year it has an awards ceremony with - among other things - an award for 'Bigot of the Year'. Here are the nominees, from their site:
Archbishop of Birmingham - spoke out against new goods and services protections for gay people, threatening to close welfare services and adoption agencies unless the Government agreed to sweeping exemptions.
Jeremy Clarkson - Top Gear presenter and journalist, refused to apologise after being reprimanded by BBC bosses for derogatory gay jibes on primetime TV.
Bishop of Hereford - withdrew a job offer to a youth worker because he was gay, after subjecting him to a series of humiliating personal questions.
Patricia McKeever - secretive editor of the Catholic Truth website and newsletter. Co-ordinates a relentless campaign to 'name and shame' gay Catholic priests, and has been widely condemned for conducting a 'witch-hunt'.
Ian Paisley Jnr - minister in the new Northern Ireland Executive. Said he was 'repulsed' by lesbian and gay people - has since refused to apologise.
Note the lumping together of Jeremy Clarkson and Ian Paisley Jnr, who apparently are giving vent to unattractive views on whole classes of people, with the other three, who are Stonewall's ideological opponents. Stonewall would like to think they are just the same; this idea must be resisted. The power of Stonewall's publicity machine can be gauged by the list of sponsors scrolling across the bottom of their web page. Do all these banks really want to be associated with Stonewall's mud-slinging?
Congratulation to Archbishop Nichols of Birmingham for raising his head above the parapet in the debate about SORs. He was pipped to the award, however, by the Anglican Bishop of Hereford.
It's typical of Stonewall to refer to the Patricia McKeever as 'widely condemned', when what this actually means is a single article in The Times the inaccuracy of which has now been acknowledged, following a complaint to the Press Complaints Commission.
'Listen to the fool's reproach: it is a kingly title.' William Blake.
Hat-tip to Catholic Truth Scotland.
Saturday, July 28, 2007
Anglican bishop condemned for refusing to employ dissident homosexual as youth worker
Latest update: important clarificaction of the law.
From CCfoN (in part): As was expected, the Tribunal reinforced the High Court’s position that there is no difference between sexual “orientation” and sexual “behaviour” in the eyes of the law. It did not matter that the Bishop was not discriminating because Mr Reaney was attracted to men, but because of Mr Reaney’s lifestyle as a sexually active homosexual. The Tribunal decided that on the face of it, Mr Reaney had been unlawfully discriminated against because he was a homosexual.
However, the Tribunal decided that although Mr Reaney was not applying for a job as a clergyman, the post of Diocesan Youth Officer did fall within the “very narrow” exception for which the Church of England could discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation. This was a valuable decision for all churches – Stonewall had argued aggressively that churches should not be able to refuse to employ practising homosexuals in any jobs other than the clergy.
Churches that want to protect the integrity of their ministry should therefore be able to do so, providing the job they are recruiting for involves the employee being “closely associated with the promotion of the Church.” In such a case, it is likely they can ensure that the employee is not a practising homosexual.
However, specifically in relation to the Church of England, the Tribunal drew one key distinction between clergy and non-clergy posts, by saying that “we do not think it would be in accordance with the Issues [in Human Sexuality] statement to require [unmarried] lay persons to commit to celibacy.” Sadly, the equivocal position of the Church of England means that the courts have said that the most that Anglican churches can require of lay employees is that they are not in a practising homosexual relationship during the employment. Lay employees cannot be expected to be repentant about past homosexual behaviour, or to acknowledge that such behaviour was wrong. Of course, this position would change if the House of Bishops and General Synod were to revise the Issues on Human Sexuality statement and strengthen its requirements. Thankfully this part of the judgment does not apply to denominations outside of the Church of England.
(The full press release will appear soon here.)
Update 19/07/07: big hat-tip to Hermeneutic of Continuity for the following, not included in the CCfoN press-release below (our emphasis):
The crucial legal point in this case was highlighted by the solicitor, Alison Downie of Bindman & Partners:
"In this landmark test case the tribunal found not only that he suffered direct discrimination but that if necessary they would have found indirect discrimination in the diocese imposing a requirement of celibacy for lay people in employment within the Church."
So it is now against the law for a Christian organisation to require that its employees undertake to abide by Christian teaching.
Briefing 18/07/07. It seems that John Reaney had had sexual relationships outside marriage, and although he was single at the time of the job interview, did not satisfy Bishop Priddis of his moral character. Priddis' subsequent decision not to employ him as a 'youth worker' has been declared an act of illegal discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, under the SORs. This is exactly what we thought would happen, and is an extremely worrying result.
From Christian Concern for our Nation (and the BBC): “A gay man has won his case for unlawful discrimination after he was refused a youth official's job by a Church of England bishop.
The employment tribunal said John Reaney, 42, was discriminated against "on grounds of sexual orientation" by the Hereford diocesan board of finance. Mr Reaney, from Colwyn Bay, Conwy, said he was "delighted" at the decision.
The Bishop of Hereford, the Rt Rev Anthony Priddis, said he was "naturally disappointed" and may appeal.
During the tribunal in Cardiff in April, Mr Reaney said he was questioned by Bishop Priddis on his previous gay relationship during a two-hour meeting on 19 July 2006. It came after he was told he had emerged as the outstanding candidate for the job during an eight-man interview, the hearing heard. Mr Reaney, whose case was supported by Stonewall, also told the tribunal he was left "very embarrassed and extremely upset" following the meeting and said he felt like "a total waste of space".
During his evidence, Bishop Priddis said he had made clear to Mr Reaney 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 post.
But the tribunal found that the Bishop should only have considered the present lifestyle of Mr Reaney, who is single, and he should have not questioned his
future relationships.
Delivering the judgement, the tribunal said the case would now be listed for a remedy hearing. "The respondents discriminated against the claimant on the grounds of sexual
orientation," said the judgement. Mr Reaney, who had already worked in two other Anglican dioceses, where he had been praised for his achievements, said he was delighted.
He said the case "demonstrated to many lesbian and gay Christians working for
God within the Church of England that they are entitled to fair and respectful
treatment". But speaking to a news conference in Hereford on Wednesday, the Bishop said: "I still think the decision I made was the right one." "I regret the polarisation of view which takes place when these things happen," he said, adding he had made the decision after a "great deal of prayer and contemplation".
Stonewall chief executive Ben Summerskill said the verdict was "a triumph for 21st Century decency over 19th Century prejudice". "We're very happy for John," he said. "The tribunal has rightly made clear that the Church of England cannot
discriminate against gay people with impunity. No-one, not even a bishop, is
exempt from the law."
Under the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003, it is
illegal to discriminate against people as a result of their sexual orientation,
but the law does contain an exemption for organised religion.”
LCF comment
At first sight this judgment appears to be a serious affront to the freedom for churches to guarantee that their children and teenagers are being taught by people who are living according to the Bible’s clear teaching about sexual morality. The law is shifting rapidly so that where there is a ‘competition of rights’ it is the homosexual’s right that trumps the Christian’s right. This is a situation that needs to be reversed. At the very least, our law should recognise conscience exemptions for Christians so that they can live according to their faith. A fuller analysis of the situation will be made once we have received a copy of the judgment.
Monday, July 23, 2007
CCfoN video on the Human Tissue and Embryology Bill
Briefing: the increasing interest of Evangelical Christian groups in issues surrounding embryo research is very good news.
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Exeter Christian Union told: Muslims should be able to join
Update: this judgement sounds like a farce. For the original story, see here.
From Christian Concern for our Nation: Independent Adjudicator Mark Shaw QC says Muslims should be able to head up the Christian Union at Exeter University
Ben Martin, the Christian student at the centre of the Exeter University Student Guild row over the Human Rights of members of the Christian Union, has today rejected the Independent Adjudication into the case as "unbalanced and selective". He will be seeking a Judicial Review in the High Court.
Mark Shaw QC, the independent adjudicator appointed by Exeter University Strongly criticised the Constitution of Exeter CU because it restricted the membership to Christians, despite the fact its meetings were open to everyone – of all faiths and none. He held it discriminatory that the CU should be run by Christians and held that the Guild policies in forcing the CU to be led by members open to other faiths was "laudable".
Last year, the Student Guild forced the Exeter Christian Union to change its name to Exeter 'Evangelical' Christian Union following one complaint (in a 50 year period) by a student. The Guild also froze the CUs bank account and wrote to them banning them from holding or advertising events on Guild premises.
On January 5, Ben Martin, a member of the Christian Union filed papers at the High Court asking for a Judicial Review of the Guild's actions under the Human Rights Act. He was subsequently informed that the University would require the CU to go through an informal internal adjudication procedure before any external procedure could be followed.
First, the University tried to impose a leading lawyer with strong connections to the National Union of Students on the CU as adjudicator. The process was then delayed to after Easter (a time when students are revising or sitting exams). Following complaints, the University brought in another barrister, this time a QC, Mark Shaw (there is no obligation to appoint a barrister, only an independent person of standing in the community).
Ben Martin said: "The university established an internal appeals process to resolve the dispute and the CU engaged with the process in full seeking a non judicial resolution of the dispute. Out of primarily public funds, the university and Guild had access to leading firms of solicitors and barristers (including QCs) whilst the CU were denied all such assistance.
"Mr Shaw determined that the process should be 'legal' rather than informal as is usually the case, and also decided that the process should deal with substantive and procedural issues of law. He also stated that the CU should be prepared to pay the costs of the university and Guild which could have been more than £50,000."
When the CU complained at the legalised process, asked for an informal process without lawyers and that they should not be subject to costs, Mr Shaw refused.
Mr Martin said: "Any criticism of this process by the CU resulted in a sharp response from Mr Shaw, together with claims that the CU was uncooperative. Only when the CU refused to continue with a process that could bankrupt them, was there a guarantee of no costs.
"Mr Shaw held that the Guild were 'laudable' in their aims, the University had no responsibility for the discrimination against Christians, and that the CU was wrong to require that those leading the CU should be Christians. That position, he said, could be held by anyone of any faith or none, provided they agree to the objectives of the CU!
"In paragraph 92 (4) of his adjudication, Mr Shaw even goes on to suggest that on the Exeter University campus, the 'Welsh Society should be open to Scottish members; the wine society open to teetotal members, the choral society should be open to non-singing members, and the cheerleading society should be open to male members ...'
"Quite frankly, reading this from a QC, you don't know whether to laugh or cry! I would advise any student who wants to use the 'informal' adjudication process to be prepared to face QCs and potential costs beyond their means.
"I fully co-operated with Mr Shaw and he has treated my fundamental rights of religious association and belief in a derisory fashion. Issues of religious association and freedom of speech are fundamental human rights and not ones on
which I, or the CU is prepared to compromise."
The CU at Exeter has always said that taking the matter to Court would be a last resort, but in light of the Independent Adjudication from Mr Shaw, the CU finds itself in a position where it has no other option by to instruct the Human Right's barrister Paul Diamond to instigate Judicial Review proceedings against the University and Guild.
Monday, July 16, 2007
Silver Ring Thing
Udate: Lydia Playfoot has lost her court case against her school, which banned her from wearing her 'purity ring', while allowing non-Christians to 'manifest their beliefs' with headscarves and bracelets. Bizarrely, the judge refused to accept that Miss Playfoot's ring was a manifestation of a religious belief. As so often, officials believe they know enough about Christianity to reject claims like that of Miss Playfoot, whereas they would take the statement of a member of a non-Christian religion at face value. It seems public manifestations of the religion established by law in England and Wales can be banned at will, whereas manifestations of other religions are protected as a human right. For the full story, see Christian Concern for our Nation.
Briefing, 01/11/06. The 'Silver Ring Thing' campaign, started by evangelicals in the USA, aims to promote chastity among school children. Students make a commitment to chastity and wear a silver ring as a sign of this. The persecution of a West Sussex schoolgirl, Lydia Playfoot, for wearing one of these rings, seems to be another example of the growing official Christianophobia in the UK. Exceptions to school uniform rules will be made for any religion except Christianity.
Report from Christian Concern for Our Nation.
Lydia Playfoot case Lydia Playfoot is a 15 year old school girl and committed Christian. In June 2004, she began to wear a ring known as "The Silver Ring Thing." The ring was developed by American Christians, and is a sign of a promise to God of sexual abstinence until marriage. As such it is a direct manifestation of faith, and an understanding of biblical truth. Lydia was told to remove the ring as it breached health and safety requirements. However, Sikh girls in the school are permitted to wear traditional bangles. These bangles are not deemed to contravene health and safety rules. Lydia and her family have tried to amicably resolve the issue with the school, but the situation has reached an impasse, with Lydia being threatened with suspension and even expulsion. Lydia sought legal advice and is now filing a case based on a violation of Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights as incorporated into UK law by the Human Rights Act 1998. This Article states that: "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion...freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are necessary in a democratic society...." Lydia has shown a tremendous depth and commitment to her faith in fighting this case. Please pray for her family as they deal with media pressure, and that God's will be done, ultimately giving glory to Him.
For the Telegraph report, see here.
For the Daily Mail report, see here.
go to main
page
Friday, May 25, 2007
Scottish NUS to vote on 'homophobic' Christian course
Briefing.
From Christian Concern for our Nation: MEMBERS of the Scottish National Union of Students are attempting to ban a Christian course on relationships from taking place on university and college campuses.
At tomorrow's (26 May) Annual Meeting of the Scottish NUS in Glasgow, a Private Members Motion calls on delegates to pass a resolution banning the Pure Course on the basis that it is homophobic.
The course, run by Christian Unions, is based on the orthodox Christian teachings concerning marriage, and teaches the importance of fidelity in relationships. It has been run on campuses throughout Scotland over the past 18 months. The Pure course was suspended from being taught on campus by Edinburgh University at the end of last year following claims by the Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Trans-gendered Society that it was discriminatory and breached Equal Opportunities Policies. However, the University, after examining the course, allowed the CU to continue to teach it on campus, rejecting the claims.
The NUS motion to be debated claims: "The pure course is a homophobic course that denounces homosexuality as 'sexually immoral', supports the suppression and 'healing' of homosexuality, and advises students with 'same sex impulses' to consult homophobic literature to attempt to cure them of their homosexual tendencies."
However, Anna Shilliday, a Christian who supports the right of Christian students to meet and discuss the Bible's teaching on relationships, in the same way she defends the rights of all students including gay groups to hold seminars based on their beliefs, will speak against the motion on two grounds.
Miss Shilliday will tell delegates that approving such an amendment will make a "laughing stock" of the way NUS Conference resolutions are made, and that the claims of the motion are groundless.
In her speech she will say: "The Motion calls for a ban on the Pure course, but there has been no official opportunity for delegates to hear proper representation from UCCF, or the course writers, or presenters. This makes a mockery of quality debate, and is an insult to those of us being asked to vote on it. It invalidates any serious attempt we may wish for Conference decisions to be taken seriously by the outside world.
"Delegates are being asked to ban something they have never seen, read or in some cases, ever heard of. This is nonsense. As undergraduates or post graduates, we are taught, and pride ourselves, in research, examining the evidence, reflecting and then forming sound judgements and opinions based on careful analysis. Where is the evidence from both sides to this motion?
"Conference, voting on this motion without each of us having at least read the materials encourages us to be as prejudicial and intolerant of the Pure course as this motion claims the Pure course is of our friends and fellow colleagues who are homosexuals."
Miss Shilliday will tell fellow students that the Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender societies in Aberdeen and Glasgow have very good relationships with
the Christian Unions and the Pure course has been run in both these universities, without problems, despite holding disagreements."
Kay Cathcart, UCCF staff worker for Edinburgh CUs, said: "The purpose of the Pure course is to help Christian Union members develop a biblical perspective on their relationships. It is about living out relationships in the light of God's love, forgiveness and design. God values us all as people made in his image and it is in response to our relationship with him that Christians choose not to satisfy their sexual desires outside of marriage, whether in a heterosexual or homosexual context. Refraining from acting on some of our sexual desires is a good and normal part of human experience. None of this promotes homophobia.
"The Pure course is not a 'healing' course for homosexuality. If someone on the course recognised strong feelings of same-sex attraction and requested guidance, we would encourage them to contact the True Freedom Trust, which would empathise and help them to work out what they actually want to do.
Miss Shilliday will advise conference that the allegations of homophobia could easily have been refuted if UCCF/Pure course leaders had been allowed representation.
ENDS.
For further information: Kay Cathcart 07954 162 488 (UCCF workers); Paul Eddy
(PR) 01202 522177, 08932 019 430.
Editor's Notes:-
The wording of the Anti-Pure Course motion is as follows:-
The Motion:
Conference believes:
1.That over the past year the UCCF has attempted to run a course called PURE at colleges and universities in Scotland through their Christian unions.
2. The pure course is a homophobic course that denounces homosexuality as 'sexually immoral', supports the suppression and 'healing' of homosexuality, and advises students with 'same sex impulses' to consult homophobic literature to attempt to cure them of their homosexual tendencies.
Conferences further believe:
1. That this sort of intolerance and prejudice is unacceptable regardless of where it comes from.
2. That pure and other similar courses promote the continued homophobia we see in society and affect vulnerable LGBT students.
3. That homophobia on our campuses must be stopped
4. That our pure prejudice campaign has helped prevent the pure course from running on our campuses so far.
5. That it is vital LGBT Officers and societies are kept informed about the pure course and similar courses
6. That it is important for our campaign to continue to support LGBT students with faith in organised religion
7. That neither religion nor faith should be used as a shield to deflect criticism of homophobia.
Conference resolves:
1. To condemn the pure course and other similar homophobic courses
2. To continue the pure prejudice campaign to keep the pure course out of Scotland
3. To help LGBT officers and societies campaign against these courses on our college and university campuses
4. To continue to support LGBT students of religious and work with religious organisations to promote tolerance, understanding and better working
relationships.
UCCF's brief response at the request of Anna Shilliday:-
UCCF statement for NUS Scotland conference regarding the Pure course. (May 2007)
We find common ground with the desire expressed in this motion to work against hate and intolerance.
The purpose of the Pure course is to help Christian Union members develop a biblical perspective on their relationships. It is about living out relationships in the light of God's love, forgiveness and design. God values us all as people made in his image and it is in response to our relationship with him that Christians choose not to satisfy their sexual desires outside of marriage, whether in a heterosexual or homosexual context. Refraining from acting on some of our sexual desires is a good and normal part of human experience. None of this promotes homophobia.
The Pure course is not a 'healing' course for homosexuality. If someone on the course recognised strong feelings of same-sex attraction and requested guidance, we would encourage them to contact the True Freedom Trust, which would empathise and help them to work out what they actually want to do.
To say that the Pure course does not agree with LGBT views on homosexuality is true. To suggest that anything in the Pure Course constitutes hate speech or promotes hatred towards homosexuality is untrue and irresponsible. The motion as it stands could lead to innocent people being unjustifiably accused of homophobia and prejudice. This is a very serious and avoidable outcome. We do not serve each other well by banning each other's views, or stereotyping each other's responses, particularly in matters of such fundamental personal and social importance..
The motion resolves to support LGBT students with religious faith, yet at the same time the motion discriminates against those LGBT students who wish to explore the historic, orthodox Christian views expressed in Pure. The only consistent way to truly respect LGBT students who choose not to live a gay or lesbian lifestyle because of their faith, is to allow the Pure course even while disagreeing with its contents.
In conclusion we submit that the motion does not accurately represent the Pure course's aims or values. Nor is it responsible in seeking to ban Pure, since the repercussions of such a major removal of basic freedom will be significantly harmful to the student body. We wholeheartedly support the desire to speak well of each other, even when we disagree and to that end would appreciate dialogue that allows concerns to be expressed and understood. UCCF would be positive about promoting NUS initiatives that encouraged dialogue with CUs. In addition we are confident that CU's would welcome any NUS representatives who wished to experience the course for themselves."
Thursday, December 14, 2006
Christian Institute Legal Defence Fund
Background briefing.
From CFNews. The Christian Institute has set up a Legal Defence Fund with the aim of funding the costs of legal action and the associated campaign work in cases of national importance for religious liberty. There are a growing number of cases where Christian freedom is being restricted by official bodies, often acting completely outside the law. Parliament and the courts have laid down many precious rights and freedoms in the UK. These freedoms need to be used.
The first case which will be supported by the Fund is the legal action by Joe and Helen Roberts against their local police force and council. When the couple telephoned the Council to complain about its gay rights policy, the Council asked the police to intervene. Two police officers visited Joe and Helen to 'educate' them about their Christian beliefs on homosexuality. The police have accepted that the Roberts committed no crime - and have not even stated which crime they were investigating when they interrogated the Roberts. Yet they still maintain they had the right to interrogate them about their beliefs. The Council accepts that its procedures were wrong. Yet they still say they did nothing wrong in calling in the police to tackle Joe and Helen about their beliefs. The actions of the authorities have even been condemned by prominent supporters of homnosexual rights, but still the police and the Council think their actions were lawful. Joe and Helen Roberts are suing Lancashire Police and Wyre Borough Council in the High Court. They are taking legal action to stop the police and the Council from ever doing the same thing again to someone else.
Other cases
Brian Herbert was one of nine firemen who had refused on moral grounds to take part in a 'gay pride' march in Glasgow. The firemen, from Cowcaddens fire station in Glasgow, had also become aware of a 'kiss-a-fireman' competition being run by a local homosexual bar and expected to be harassed. Their employer, Strathclyde Fire and Rescue Service, disciplined the men for not attending the 'gay pride' march. Herbert, Red Watch manager at Cowcaddens fire station in Glasgow, was demoted with a £5,000 yearly pay cut. The Christian Institute paid a barrister to help Mr Herbert appeal against his employer's decision. His rank and pay were successfully restored.
In 2004 the Christian Union of Hull University was threatened with expulsion from the Student Union because it would not allow unbelievers to run the UCCF CU. The Christian Institute helped the CU get legal advice and instruct a solicitor. Through its solicitor it informed the Student Council that its decision not to ratify the CU constitution was unlawful. There was a clear breach of the 1986 Education (No 2) Act which guarantees freedom of speech on campus, as well as European Convention rights on freedom of speech and freedom of religion. The Student Council backed down and ratified the CU's constitution.
In 2002 a church in South Wales, Maesteg Christian Centre, was threatened with legal action by a transsexual. The church had refused to allow the man to use the ladies' lavatory or attend ladies' meetings. The Centre realised that if the transsexual succeeded in using the law to get his way, not only would they suffer but other churches would face the same threat too. With the help of a barrister and The Christian Institute, the church applied to the court to strike out the legal action. The judge agreed there was no law to support the transsexual's case and it was thrown out of court.
Author and Christian campaigner, Stephen Green, was arrested and committed for trial for handing out gospel tracts at a 'gay pride' event. The police said he was arrested because of the Bible verses in the tracts. The Christian Institute asked supporters to pray and write to the Crown Prosecution Service. The case was dropped.
The Anglican Bishop of Chester was investigated by the Cheshire constabulary in November 2003 after he told his local newspaper about research showing that some homosexuals re-orientated to heterosexuality. The police passed a file to the Crown Prosecution Service who decided not to prosecute.
Swedish Pastor Ake Green was sentenced to one month in jail after giving a sermon in which he said homosexuality was a 'deep cancerous tumour' in society. However the Supreme Court of Sweden acquitted him on appeal. The UK homosexual lobby is demanding a 'homophobic hatred' law here.
In 2004 Phillip Jensen, Dean of St. Andrew's Cathedral in Sydney, was speaking
at Cambridge University Christian Union putting forward 'a traditional biblical view on homosexuality'. He was reported to the police for making comments 'likely to incite homophobic violence'.
Harry Hammond, street preacher from Bournemouth, was convicted by magistrates of a public order offence because he held a sign saying homosexuality was immoral.
The Christian Institute website is at http://www.christian.org.uk
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
Student Societies
Latest update: Exeter CU takes Exeter Students' Guild to court. See here.
Update: Nadine Dorries MP puts forward an 'early day motion' in defence of the Christian Unions, as follows:
"This House notes the valuable work and support provided to students by Christian Unions on University and College campuses across the United Kingdom, notes the constructive dialogue that exists between the majority of Christian Union societies and Student Guilds/Associations on campuses across the country. This House believes that a tolerant society should respect the rights of Christian Unions to their beliefs, believes Christian Unions are entitled to the rights of freedom of expression, freedom of belief and freedom of association. This House believes the leadership of Christian Unions should not be imposed with people who do not share their core beliefs."
This currently has the signatures of 35 MPs.
Briefing. 'Christian Union' societies at British universities are often anti-Catholic. However, the persecution of these groups because of their views on sexuality is a worrying sign, and seems to be becoming widespread.
Update: Essex Christian Union threaten legal action against the Student Guild, see here.
Edinburgh gay and lesbian groups ban Edinburgh Christian Union's chastity course; see here.
Report from 'Christian Concern for Our Nation'. University Cases In May of this year, Exeter Christian Union was forced to change its name to the 'Evangelical Christian Union', following pressure from the Student's Union, known as the Guild of Students. It was contended that the Christian Union was demonstrating cultish exclusivity, and so should attract the label 'evangelical' to describe its literal interpretation of biblical teaching. Such literal teaching was essentially being deemed to attract a label suggesting fundamentalism. This development came after one student approached the Guild and stated that the Christian Union was not accepting of all Christians. The Christian Union had retained its name for some fifty years previous to this. A letter was subsequently written in the student newspaper. The Guild stated that another person must be found to 'second' a motion changing the name from 'CU' to 'ECU'. An Annual General Meeting was held later in May. Even at this stage, the Christian Union was not fully aware of the case against them. The motion was carried by 54/50, and the Guild approved the motion. The CU was the forced to change its name to the Evangelical Christian Union.
The Christian Union then sought to reverse this decision by requesting a University referendum. Before this referendum, a hastily drafted equal opportunities policy was put forward by the Guild, stating in effect that any discrimination based on sexuality would lead to expulsion from the students union and a withdrawal of funds. At the same time, various posters were put up throughout the University supporting the vote to stop the name change from the 'ECU' to the 'CU', these posters were ruthless, misinformed and insensitive. A University referendum was subsequently held in October. The motion to change the name from 'ECU' to 'CU' was successful, but the Guild refused to ratify it. It was argued that the University rules state that a quorum of 10 per cent of students must be present for a motion to be carried. When less than 10 per cent of students are present, the Guild have the casting vote. They subsequently ruled that the 'ECU' should remain the 'ECU'.
Since that referendum, the Christian Union has been suspended, their student union bank account has been frozen, and they are not permitted to use any rooms or facilities within the Guild's jurisdiction for events or advertising. The issue is particularly pressing as the CU have an evangelistic mission on campus in just three weeks. They must now look for alternative advertising methods and venues.
The Exeter University Student magazine article on this issue can be found on page 2 of the following link: · www.exepose.ex.ac.uk/exepose/200607
In Edinburgh, the Christian Union has attracted criticism for adopting the "Pure" Course. This course advocates biblical teaching on sex and relationships. It states that sex is only appropriate within the life-long commitment of marriage, and that sex outside that institution is a sin. This clearly includes sex in both homosexual and heterosexual relationships. The result has been that the Christian Union has been described as homophobic. Gay activists have attempted to have the course banned before its commencement on Mon 23rd October. Following a misleading and distorted article about "Pure" on the front page of the Student Association newspaper, Gay activists launched their own "Stop Pure" campaign, setting up an internet-based forum. The Chaplain of the University had initially supported the teaching of the "Pure" course, but has since refused to support the Christian Union.
For further information on Edinburgh Christian Union please visit the following website: www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/edinburgh.cfm?id=1556342006
These Christian Unions are in the midst of a real battle to boldly proclaim biblical truth. Please pray that they will be bold and fearless in declaring God's word.
Monday, October 09, 2006
Anglican attack on 'Multi-faith' policies
Current status: background briefing.
The Church of England has launched an astonishing attack on the Government's drive to turn Britain into a multi-faith society. In a wide-ranging condemnation of policy, it says that the attempt to make minority 'faith' communities more integrated has backfired, leaving society 'more separated than ever before'. The criticisms are made in a confidential Church document, leaked to The Sunday Telegraph, that challenges the 'widespread description' of Britain as a multi-faith society and even calls for the term 'multi-faith' to be reconsidered. The document, Cohesion and Integration - a Briefing Note for the House (of Bishops), claims that divisions between communities have been deepened by the Government's 'schizophrenic' approach to tackling multiculturalism. While trying to encourage interfaith relations, it has actually given 'privileged attention' to the Islamic faith and Muslim communities. Written by Guy Wilkinson, the interfaith adviser to the Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams, the paper says that the Church of England has been sidelined. Instead, 'preferential' treatment has been afforded to the Muslim community despite the fact that it makes up only three per cent of the population. Britain remains overwhelmingly a Christian country at heart and moves to label it as a multi-faith society suggest a hidden agenda, it says. [Sunday Telegraph]
For the full text of the Sunday Telegraph article, see here.
