We find in the UK that there is an increasing amount of legislation governing how we run charitable organisations, which includes the church.
This covers areas such as employment law, child protection law, health and safety, etc.
It is all good and right.
But I have misgivings.
Because, at the same time, there is an increasing amount of state interference in matters that affect our beliefs.
For example:
In the UK medical staff who believe abortion is murder are not compelled to participate directly in abortion, but they are required to refer the mother to a pro-choice doctor. This is probably a reasonable compromise, but means that the anti-abortion person is still indirectly collaborating with it, in a way which some might deem to be sinful. I don’t want to get into the abortion issue here, its just an example of the interaction of law and church.
More seriously, following the introduction of the sexual orientation regulations, Christian adoption professionals who feel that gay adoption is sinful are not permitted to refer the candidates in the way that anti-abortion doctors can. They have to process the gay adoption without ‘discriminating against gay people’, even if they feel that participating in such an adoption is a sin. I don’t want to get into the gay issue here, its just an example of the interaction of law and church.
In short, the law now compels people to do things they consider sinful. Freedom of religion has been seriously compromised.
It’s not just Christians who are affected – recently a Muslim dentist was found guilty of discrimination because he would not treat a Muslim woman patient until she put on a headscarf, because he felt he would be acting sinfully being in such close proximity to an uncovered woman. I don’t want to get into the headscarf issue here, its just an example of the interaction of law and faith.
I am not saying that the courts and legislators have made the wrong decisions in these cases, what I am saying is that well-intentioned law is increasingly incompatible with personal faith.
Employment law now means that the church cannot ‘discriminate against’ gay people in most cases – there are exceptions – so it means some churches may be acting illegally if they choose to employ a person who they feel embodies their church doctrines in favour of someone who does not embody them in the same way. I don’t want to get into the gay issue here, its just an example of the interaction of law and church.
Similarly, the church of England has been asked to adjust the way it employs clergy to bring it into line with mainstream charity employment laws.
My misgiving is that while all these examples are relatively minor and relatively debatable, they set the scene for more dangerous interventions by church and state.
Other clues are the girl who was not permitted to where her ‘silver ring thing’ at school on safety grounds, though the Hindu (?) girls were permitted their bangles, and the BA employee who got in trouble for wearing a small cross. Also the Christian Fellowship at Exeter University which is in trouble because it will only accept as voting members those who actually believe in its doctrinal position.
The most recent law is that it is illegal to incite hatred against homosexuals – and I agree entirely that this should be so, and it is reassuring to hear pro-gay organisations affirming that these laws will not be used prevent civilised discussion and the courteous expression of religions opinions.
But can you see where I am heading? None of these things are in themselves too serious, but I feel there is a raising of the temperature, a tendency for society and legislation to increasingly restrict the activities of the church.
I was wondering how we can avoid this, and one idea was to not have our churches set up as legal charities, whereby legislation applies. Instead, should they be simply groups of friends that meet or live together? But how would its ministers then be paid? Whatever gifts they receive would be deemed to be payment and then they would incur all the employment law after all. It also reminded me of the conditions that prevailed in the Soviet Union, where church ministers were deemed to be parasites on society because they don’t have a proper job.
However, I seriously think that this is the way we need to go. The world is not becoming more friendly to Christians - unless we give up our distinctive beliefs and subscribe to a vague homogenous cultural deism.
I think it was a mistake for the church to ever get involved with the state, and I think that we now need to separate. I think it was in Kyle Potter’s ‘Vindicated’ blog that I read “The accommodation between church and state is over” or words to that effect.
I think that within five years of me writing this post, Christians will be locked in British prisons because of their faith. And since society will perceive us to be the problem, Amnesty International will look the other way.
I think that a British underground church needs to be formed, or perhaps spawned from the cell groups we already have in many churches, and this underground church will be the church that carries the gospel into the next century.
But for now, I continue as a licensed reader in the state church, following all these rules as best I can, but looking around with an increasing sense of drowning panic.
Showing posts with label Sexual Orientation Regulations. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sexual Orientation Regulations. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 16
Wednesday, July 18
Hereford
So, it starts.
As expected, the sexual orientation regulations give rise to prosecutions against the church for obeying scripture. In my opinion, some of these prosecutions will be malicious, ie provoked as part of a planned campaign, simply to push the church into the world rather than on the merits of the case itself.
I cannot understand why the church should be obliged to employ people who oppose its doctrines. (Note it is not a matter of the person's orientation, it is a matter of their theology and practice concerning that orientation)
Perhaps the church should also be prosecuted for not appointing muslims to the synod? Or Satanists?
Perhaps Manchester United should be required to pay Steven Gerrard to kick balls into the United goal?
Perhaps the Tory party should be obliged to employ communists to prepare party policy?
Perhaps America should put Bin Laden in charge fo national security?
As expected, the sexual orientation regulations give rise to prosecutions against the church for obeying scripture. In my opinion, some of these prosecutions will be malicious, ie provoked as part of a planned campaign, simply to push the church into the world rather than on the merits of the case itself.
I cannot understand why the church should be obliged to employ people who oppose its doctrines. (Note it is not a matter of the person's orientation, it is a matter of their theology and practice concerning that orientation)
Perhaps the church should also be prosecuted for not appointing muslims to the synod? Or Satanists?
Perhaps Manchester United should be required to pay Steven Gerrard to kick balls into the United goal?
Perhaps the Tory party should be obliged to employ communists to prepare party policy?
Perhaps America should put Bin Laden in charge fo national security?
Monday, March 26
Sexual Orientation Regulations - God's comfort
I meant to say this earlier.
I have been losing a lot of sleep lately. This is mostly because I have been drinking too much caffeine. Once I have been disturbed in the night - especially if its about 2:30 - I just can't get back to sleep again. I toss and turn and fret about things, and becasue I am tired and not thinking straight, everything asumes a greater magnitude than it deserves. Recently, the topic that has vexed me is the imposition of the Sexual Orientation Regulations, which force people to act against their beliefs. In the night I work myself into such a state of frustration and rage that it is no longer clear of it is the caffeine or my feelings that is keeping me awake.
When this happens, I go downstairs for a cup of tea and some toast, and watch some TV to change the course of my thoughts. Sometimes I end up thinking "Stupid cats - can't they tell its not feeding time and I'm too tired to cope?". The actual TV itself is really poor at night - you would think I would fall asleep through sheer boredom. (At 10pm, during my favourite programme I do fall asleep!"
On Saturday night I decided on a different approach. Instead of the TV, I picked up the Bible, and prayed for some word of comfort that would enable me to get over my frustration at the unjust laws and sleep in the future. I opened the Bible and read the first sentance that I cast my eye on - "Woe to those who make unjust laws" (Isaiah 10 v1). And so, with God's comiseration, I have felt much more relaxed ever since. he has taken the burden from me, and will ensure justice is done in the end.
I have been losing a lot of sleep lately. This is mostly because I have been drinking too much caffeine. Once I have been disturbed in the night - especially if its about 2:30 - I just can't get back to sleep again. I toss and turn and fret about things, and becasue I am tired and not thinking straight, everything asumes a greater magnitude than it deserves. Recently, the topic that has vexed me is the imposition of the Sexual Orientation Regulations, which force people to act against their beliefs. In the night I work myself into such a state of frustration and rage that it is no longer clear of it is the caffeine or my feelings that is keeping me awake.
When this happens, I go downstairs for a cup of tea and some toast, and watch some TV to change the course of my thoughts. Sometimes I end up thinking "Stupid cats - can't they tell its not feeding time and I'm too tired to cope?". The actual TV itself is really poor at night - you would think I would fall asleep through sheer boredom. (At 10pm, during my favourite programme I do fall asleep!"
On Saturday night I decided on a different approach. Instead of the TV, I picked up the Bible, and prayed for some word of comfort that would enable me to get over my frustration at the unjust laws and sleep in the future. I opened the Bible and read the first sentance that I cast my eye on - "Woe to those who make unjust laws" (Isaiah 10 v1). And so, with God's comiseration, I have felt much more relaxed ever since. he has taken the burden from me, and will ensure justice is done in the end.
Work around for the Catholic Church
What the church should now do is to tell the state that they will arrange gay adoptions if required. But, privately, they should not ask their own staff to do what they have so publicly objected to themselves. Therefore, they would develop agreements with secular freelance social workers who would be brought in to handle those cases. Thus the church will comply with law without compromising its own conscience. And so, if a gay civil union does request an adoption through a catholic agency, the response would be “Yes, our agency will manage your case” But the work would be done by someone outside of the Catholic Church
Thursday, March 22
Sexual Orientation Regulations
If I want to buy Tesco-branded goods I don't go to Asda. Similarly if I go to a "Catholic Adoption" agency, I expect to get a "Catholic Adoption". Yet now, the anti-religious discriminatory Sexual Orientation Regulations compel these "Catholic" branded agencies to offer the competition's products.
I still cannot understand why we cannot come up with a system where the gay minority does their thing in their patch and the christians do their thing in their patch, without either party forcing its views on the other.
In the secopnd world war the Jews were persecuted by the Nazis, but now they have become the persecutors of the palestinians. Similarly, the formerly persecuted gays are not satisfied with freedom, they have to take the next step and persecute others instead.
Take for example the words of Elton John - "Organised religion should be banned" - are they the words of someoone who believes in democracy and freedom?
In fact, bizarrely Elton John and Robert Mugabe are together in their opposition of the church.
It seems to me that there is a big difference between preventing religions from hurting others, and in compelling them into acts against their belief.
THis may sound like an anti gay tirade, but I'm quite happy for gays to be free and to adopt and do their thing. I am just angry that I might be forced to act against my religion. Its not their freedom I object to - I object that my freedom has been taken away under the fasle illusion that this will help them.
I still cannot understand why we cannot come up with a system where the gay minority does their thing in their patch and the christians do their thing in their patch, without either party forcing its views on the other.
In the secopnd world war the Jews were persecuted by the Nazis, but now they have become the persecutors of the palestinians. Similarly, the formerly persecuted gays are not satisfied with freedom, they have to take the next step and persecute others instead.
Take for example the words of Elton John - "Organised religion should be banned" - are they the words of someoone who believes in democracy and freedom?
In fact, bizarrely Elton John and Robert Mugabe are together in their opposition of the church.
It seems to me that there is a big difference between preventing religions from hurting others, and in compelling them into acts against their belief.
THis may sound like an anti gay tirade, but I'm quite happy for gays to be free and to adopt and do their thing. I am just angry that I might be forced to act against my religion. Its not their freedom I object to - I object that my freedom has been taken away under the fasle illusion that this will help them.
Tuesday, March 20
Sexual Orientation Regulations
The legislation was passed hurriedly through the house of commons last night. A group opf tories tried to demand a proper debate, but this was voted down. There is a chance that the House of Lords will reject it, and say you can't alter the fundamental balance of rights without a proper debate, but I can't see that happening.
And so, with out ceremony, the fundamental core of democratic values (religious tolerance) has been swept away. Despite all this, and even though I am losing sleep worrying about it every night, I still feel a strange sense of God-given peace about it all. It is not the first time the church has been persecuted, and a little opposition might cause us to get our act together a bit better.
And also, I can see the point of the regulations.
The church has always been a product of its society, and so in past generations where there was intolerance of gays, the church has reflected this and done so without showing the love of God. We have therefore brought this on ourselves. If we had expressed Christ's love for homosexuals properly before, rather than imprisoning them, and trying to enforce our own beliefs onto secular society, then there might not be this backlash.
So what can the church do?
Well, as I said, in every generation the church is a product of society. And so, as we see in the Episcopal church in America, some churches will adopt the modern values.
And yet, sin is an offense against an unchanging God. If it was a sin in the time of the New Testament, then it is still sin now. Sin is not negotiable or determined by a vote.
If we go back to the Garden of Eden, we see how Eve saw that the forbidden fruit was pleasing to the eye and good for food. Her logic told her that the instrcutions from God must be wrong. She couldn't understand why God should forbid such an obviously good thing. And I think homosexual acts are much the same. They are pleasing to the eye and good for relationships. Why should God forbid such a good thing? And so, just as Eve decided to make up her own mind about it rather han relying on God, so we too, take exactly the same steps and decide that we know better.
In the same way, the church has warned against extra marital sex. Society has ignored it - and know we have massive rates of teenage pregnancy, massive rates of sexual desease, massive abortyion rates, and a culture that no longer knows how to sustain the bonds of relationship. And while the gays are demanding the right to marry, heterosexuals are runing in the opposite direction and demanding equal rights for unmarried couples. And as families break down, we now have a housing shortage because we now live as individuals instead of couples, doublig our housing needs.
The church has also preached agianst abortion. Society has ignored this. We now have very low birth rates, and a workforce that is too small to sustain the social security system we thought we could rely on.
Now the church [most of it] preaches against homosexual acts. Society ignores it. If it follows the above pattern, I fear for what the consequences will be!
But the whole issue is makeing me reconsider my own position on homosexuality. I have come a long way since the times when I was subjected to sexual abuse by other boys at school. Where some of the church insists that homosexuality is NOT inherited, I believe that it is. Most gay people know that they are gay while still at primary school. If you do an autopsy on a transgender person who felt like a woman trapped in a man's body, you do find that the brain was a female brain. Some behaviours are learned, but many are congenital.
So if gays are born that way, why should the church condemn? Jesus said of the man born blind "Who sinned, his man or his parents, that he was born blind?" and the answer was neither. It is not a sin to be born in a particular way, and we must not condemn. But Jesus went on to change the blind man, and make him see. And that is where I am at present - I do not condemn, but I do seek to bring people to Jesus so that he can heal anything that needs healing.
So what about Leviticus? Jesus has fulfilled the Old Testament law on our behalf. It remains as light on God's character, but is not there for us to follow each letter. However, we need to distinguish between laws associated with ceremonial cleanliness (eg not having sex during a woman's period) and moral laws about who we can and can't have sex with - the former have spiritual meanings that we learn from, while the moral laws are nearly all repeated in some form explicitly or implicitly in the New Testament.
So what about Corinthians? " Let no one be decieved ...[list of sinner types]...will not inherit the kingdom of God, and some of you were such". The word generally translated as 'homosexual offender' is arsenokoitoi. I don't know what an arsenokoitoi is. Bishop Ingham, quoted in the Church of England newspaper thinks that St Pauls would never have encountered romantic homosexual love, only pederasty. What nonsense! Gay relationships are not a new phenomenon and to suggest they were not in existance in Corinth beggars belief. But the Corinthians passage makes it clear you can stop being an arsenokoitoi, and I don't think you can stop being a homosexual. So I don't think an arsenokoitoi is a homosexual. But you can stop doing homosexual acts, and so it could refer to that. Yet that is a big thing to ask of anybody, to cease their sex life. And yet that is what we expect and demand of pedophiles and people into animal sex. We also say it to sexually promiscuous heterosexuals, and standing as a virgin the day before I met my wife I had accepted that I might never marry and have sex. So we are asking something big, but not impossible, not different to other people, not different to the standards that I had expected to live by myself.
What I have writen here tries to be open and honest about how I see things today. Tomorrow I may have thought more and moved.
I don't want to condemn what God has blessed.
I don't want to bless what God has condemned.
I welcome your comments, particularly from gay christians. Give me Biblical Theology, medical science, a correct definition of arsenokoitoi, and your experinces of good and bad practice in the church.
I seek the truth!
And so, with out ceremony, the fundamental core of democratic values (religious tolerance) has been swept away. Despite all this, and even though I am losing sleep worrying about it every night, I still feel a strange sense of God-given peace about it all. It is not the first time the church has been persecuted, and a little opposition might cause us to get our act together a bit better.
And also, I can see the point of the regulations.
The church has always been a product of its society, and so in past generations where there was intolerance of gays, the church has reflected this and done so without showing the love of God. We have therefore brought this on ourselves. If we had expressed Christ's love for homosexuals properly before, rather than imprisoning them, and trying to enforce our own beliefs onto secular society, then there might not be this backlash.
So what can the church do?
Well, as I said, in every generation the church is a product of society. And so, as we see in the Episcopal church in America, some churches will adopt the modern values.
And yet, sin is an offense against an unchanging God. If it was a sin in the time of the New Testament, then it is still sin now. Sin is not negotiable or determined by a vote.
If we go back to the Garden of Eden, we see how Eve saw that the forbidden fruit was pleasing to the eye and good for food. Her logic told her that the instrcutions from God must be wrong. She couldn't understand why God should forbid such an obviously good thing. And I think homosexual acts are much the same. They are pleasing to the eye and good for relationships. Why should God forbid such a good thing? And so, just as Eve decided to make up her own mind about it rather han relying on God, so we too, take exactly the same steps and decide that we know better.
In the same way, the church has warned against extra marital sex. Society has ignored it - and know we have massive rates of teenage pregnancy, massive rates of sexual desease, massive abortyion rates, and a culture that no longer knows how to sustain the bonds of relationship. And while the gays are demanding the right to marry, heterosexuals are runing in the opposite direction and demanding equal rights for unmarried couples. And as families break down, we now have a housing shortage because we now live as individuals instead of couples, doublig our housing needs.
The church has also preached agianst abortion. Society has ignored this. We now have very low birth rates, and a workforce that is too small to sustain the social security system we thought we could rely on.
Now the church [most of it] preaches against homosexual acts. Society ignores it. If it follows the above pattern, I fear for what the consequences will be!
But the whole issue is makeing me reconsider my own position on homosexuality. I have come a long way since the times when I was subjected to sexual abuse by other boys at school. Where some of the church insists that homosexuality is NOT inherited, I believe that it is. Most gay people know that they are gay while still at primary school. If you do an autopsy on a transgender person who felt like a woman trapped in a man's body, you do find that the brain was a female brain. Some behaviours are learned, but many are congenital.
So if gays are born that way, why should the church condemn? Jesus said of the man born blind "Who sinned, his man or his parents, that he was born blind?" and the answer was neither. It is not a sin to be born in a particular way, and we must not condemn. But Jesus went on to change the blind man, and make him see. And that is where I am at present - I do not condemn, but I do seek to bring people to Jesus so that he can heal anything that needs healing.
So what about Leviticus? Jesus has fulfilled the Old Testament law on our behalf. It remains as light on God's character, but is not there for us to follow each letter. However, we need to distinguish between laws associated with ceremonial cleanliness (eg not having sex during a woman's period) and moral laws about who we can and can't have sex with - the former have spiritual meanings that we learn from, while the moral laws are nearly all repeated in some form explicitly or implicitly in the New Testament.
So what about Corinthians? " Let no one be decieved ...[list of sinner types]...will not inherit the kingdom of God, and some of you were such". The word generally translated as 'homosexual offender' is arsenokoitoi. I don't know what an arsenokoitoi is. Bishop Ingham, quoted in the Church of England newspaper thinks that St Pauls would never have encountered romantic homosexual love, only pederasty. What nonsense! Gay relationships are not a new phenomenon and to suggest they were not in existance in Corinth beggars belief. But the Corinthians passage makes it clear you can stop being an arsenokoitoi, and I don't think you can stop being a homosexual. So I don't think an arsenokoitoi is a homosexual. But you can stop doing homosexual acts, and so it could refer to that. Yet that is a big thing to ask of anybody, to cease their sex life. And yet that is what we expect and demand of pedophiles and people into animal sex. We also say it to sexually promiscuous heterosexuals, and standing as a virgin the day before I met my wife I had accepted that I might never marry and have sex. So we are asking something big, but not impossible, not different to other people, not different to the standards that I had expected to live by myself.
What I have writen here tries to be open and honest about how I see things today. Tomorrow I may have thought more and moved.
I don't want to condemn what God has blessed.
I don't want to bless what God has condemned.
I welcome your comments, particularly from gay christians. Give me Biblical Theology, medical science, a correct definition of arsenokoitoi, and your experinces of good and bad practice in the church.
I seek the truth!
Thursday, January 11
Sexual Orientation Regulations - letter from my MP
As promised - the letter from my MP. Click on the image to enlarge it.Wednesday, January 10
Pink is the new Black
I wrote the ideas below before I received a letter from my MP, which basically demonstrated that there are exemptions to the SORs for churches, etc, and so I have typed a whole rant for nothing. Apologies to all! I will scan the MPs letter for you tomorrow if I get a chance.
There was a time when Racism was part of our institutional culture. Laws were passed to protect ethnic minorities. Equality ensued. But of course, there is always the tendancy for the pendulum to swing to far, and for some time it seemed that it was imossible to sack a black person because it would be deemed to be racist. Even now, if a person states to the British police that he/she has been the victim of a racial incident, it is recorded as a racial incident, regardless of whether it really was. The vast majority of people in any ethnic groups do not use the race card to their advantage, but some do.
We now have the sexual orientation regulations. And in just the same way I predict that the pendulum will swing too far, and that some militant gay activists (as opposed to the vast majority of basically decent folk who just happen to be genetically gay) will target religious organisations to provoke them into stating their religious beliefs, and then they will accuse them of homophobia, and basically decent folk who happen to be genetically religious (yes gentically - see BBC article here)
will be in trouble with the law.
In fact, because it does not unanimously condone gay 'marriage', the Church of England, with the Queen at its head and its Bishops in the House of Lords, is now basically an illegal organisation.
There was a time when Racism was part of our institutional culture. Laws were passed to protect ethnic minorities. Equality ensued. But of course, there is always the tendancy for the pendulum to swing to far, and for some time it seemed that it was imossible to sack a black person because it would be deemed to be racist. Even now, if a person states to the British police that he/she has been the victim of a racial incident, it is recorded as a racial incident, regardless of whether it really was. The vast majority of people in any ethnic groups do not use the race card to their advantage, but some do.
We now have the sexual orientation regulations. And in just the same way I predict that the pendulum will swing too far, and that some militant gay activists (as opposed to the vast majority of basically decent folk who just happen to be genetically gay) will target religious organisations to provoke them into stating their religious beliefs, and then they will accuse them of homophobia, and basically decent folk who happen to be genetically religious (yes gentically - see BBC article here)
will be in trouble with the law.
In fact, because it does not unanimously condone gay 'marriage', the Church of England, with the Queen at its head and its Bishops in the House of Lords, is now basically an illegal organisation.
Tuesday, January 9
Hi I'm back
Well back for now anyway. Life is still very full.
Mrs is still strongly pregnant, with loads of morning sickness etc, but is suffering a few small bleeds. in the past these have always heralded the doom of the pregnancy, but we feel so strongly that this is the Lord's will that we still hold hope.
At work I am busy with engineering projects which leaves little time for blogging. Following the success fo our Carol service we are starting an Alpha course next week. Please pray that people will come and find the Lord Jesus.
I wrote the ideas below before I received a letter from my MP, which basically demonstrated that there are exemptions to the SORs for churches, etc, and so I have typed a whole rant for nothing. Apologies to all! I will scan the MPs letter for you on Thursday if I get a chance.
A dark day for the UK today with the Sexual Orientation Regulations. Thyey were originaly introduced through the back door without proper consultation. An attempt to annul them in Northern Ireland was defeated by one party using the vote of a deceased member. And in the hosue of Lords today the english objectors were overruled. The regulations in themselves are well intentioned, and I would support their intent, but they have been taken to far. A Church that now declines to hire out its hall to a gay group on the grounds that their objectives are not compatible with the church's theology can now be fined large sums of money. The pastor/Vicar would also be fined personally. This clearly exchanges one oppression for another. Fair enough, in society at large, let people do as they will. But why should we be forced to let them do and say things that we object to on our property? Why should people be forced to do things that are contrary to their religion? Next Buckingham Palace will be forced to sell anarchist flags in its gift shop. It seems to me that politicians are even more frightened of the gay lobby than they are of Islamic fundamentalism.
Mrs is still strongly pregnant, with loads of morning sickness etc, but is suffering a few small bleeds. in the past these have always heralded the doom of the pregnancy, but we feel so strongly that this is the Lord's will that we still hold hope.
At work I am busy with engineering projects which leaves little time for blogging. Following the success fo our Carol service we are starting an Alpha course next week. Please pray that people will come and find the Lord Jesus.
I wrote the ideas below before I received a letter from my MP, which basically demonstrated that there are exemptions to the SORs for churches, etc, and so I have typed a whole rant for nothing. Apologies to all! I will scan the MPs letter for you on Thursday if I get a chance.
A dark day for the UK today with the Sexual Orientation Regulations. Thyey were originaly introduced through the back door without proper consultation. An attempt to annul them in Northern Ireland was defeated by one party using the vote of a deceased member. And in the hosue of Lords today the english objectors were overruled. The regulations in themselves are well intentioned, and I would support their intent, but they have been taken to far. A Church that now declines to hire out its hall to a gay group on the grounds that their objectives are not compatible with the church's theology can now be fined large sums of money. The pastor/Vicar would also be fined personally. This clearly exchanges one oppression for another. Fair enough, in society at large, let people do as they will. But why should we be forced to let them do and say things that we object to on our property? Why should people be forced to do things that are contrary to their religion? Next Buckingham Palace will be forced to sell anarchist flags in its gift shop. It seems to me that politicians are even more frightened of the gay lobby than they are of Islamic fundamentalism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)