This article is disturbing -- not so much in what it says or reports, but more in what the implications are. When victims and their lawyers feel that there is no point in appealing a decision "because the nation's legal system (in the U.K.) is skewed against Christianity."
The recent case under discussion here seems to indicate that Christians only have "qualified" rights as Christians in the U.K. (And I would venture to say that it is true in most places in the West.) As a result, true Christians who would accept but not promote homosexuality are now forbidden from being foster children or adopting children.
The case deals with the issue as to whether or not being a Christian is protected by "common law". The decision seems to indicate that "secular law" trumps Christianity when a judge thinks that a foster or adopted parent's thinking or feeling about a subject may end up being unfair to the child. In this case, the topic is indeed 'homosexuality'. But let us stop for a moment and consider another subject: What if the children were 'prone' to be a compulsive gambler? Does that mean that a parent who is against gambling and teaches against it should not be allowed to adopt or to be a foster parent to such a child or to any child in particular? I don't think so. The U.K. justice system just seems to have it out for Christian beliefs.
So, should these victims have appealed? What do you think? Read the article pointed to by the link below and then share your opinion.
Personally, I believe they should have -- if they had the financial support. But what do you think?
Finally, the article suggests a possible outcome for the future -- that natural parents may one day have to promote homosexuality's acceptance and appropriateness to their own children in order to be allowed to keep them. That sounds far-fetched. But it is a rather logical conclusion. Can you handle it?
Courts have 'special animosity' for Christians
The recent case under discussion here seems to indicate that Christians only have "qualified" rights as Christians in the U.K. (And I would venture to say that it is true in most places in the West.) As a result, true Christians who would accept but not promote homosexuality are now forbidden from being foster children or adopting children.
The case deals with the issue as to whether or not being a Christian is protected by "common law". The decision seems to indicate that "secular law" trumps Christianity when a judge thinks that a foster or adopted parent's thinking or feeling about a subject may end up being unfair to the child. In this case, the topic is indeed 'homosexuality'. But let us stop for a moment and consider another subject: What if the children were 'prone' to be a compulsive gambler? Does that mean that a parent who is against gambling and teaches against it should not be allowed to adopt or to be a foster parent to such a child or to any child in particular? I don't think so. The U.K. justice system just seems to have it out for Christian beliefs.
So, should these victims have appealed? What do you think? Read the article pointed to by the link below and then share your opinion.
Personally, I believe they should have -- if they had the financial support. But what do you think?
Finally, the article suggests a possible outcome for the future -- that natural parents may one day have to promote homosexuality's acceptance and appropriateness to their own children in order to be allowed to keep them. That sounds far-fetched. But it is a rather logical conclusion. Can you handle it?
Courts have 'special animosity' for Christians
-- Thank for dropping by. Sign up to receive free updates. We bring you relevant information from all sorts of sources. Subscribe for free to this blog or follow us by clicking on the appropriate link in the right side bar. And please share this blog with your friends. Ken Godevenos, Church and Management Consultant, Accord Consulting.
It would be great if you would share your thoughts or questions on this blog in the comments section below or on social media.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your comment.