Sunday, 20 July 2008

Equal measure

I have little time for Lillian Ladele the Islington Council registrar who refused to perform civil ceremonies for same sex couples on religious grounds, and who earlier this month, rather ironically, had her claim that she being discriminated against upheld by an employment tribunal. Like everyone else, Ms. Ladele is fully entitled to her views and her religion, what she does not have a moral right to do is take a salary whilst refusing to do her job, or at least those parts of her job which she doesn't like.

On the subject of homosexuality, which is currently a hot topic for the Anglican church, I take the view that we should remember what Christ said about it, which was precisely nothing. Surely if it was such a big deal he would have touched on it at some point.

With the multiple horrors currently facing mankind, the fact that religious leaders from across the planet consider that the subject of premier importance to them should be what people do in bed, is the true obscenity, and a perversion of the Christian message.

I am aware that many will not agree with me, however, it is worth noting that, like Lillian Ladele, the majority of those who are most strongly opposed to gays, and who are the first to quote scripture in support of their views, are African or of African origin. It is of course nothing new that people who claim to be the victims of prejudice are frequently only too willing to discriminate against groups whom they dislike, so this should not come as a surprise.

However, Lillian Ladele and those African bishops who use the bible is support of their views on gays, conveniently forget that a mere two hundred years ago, or less in the case of America, passages from the good book were used in a similar manner in support of slavery.

I don't intend to venture further into the issue of gay rights, it is a contentious one, in respect of which, strong and genuine views are held on both sides. However, I suspect that it is fair to say that my views on the matter are likely to be closer to those of the panel who adjudicated over Ms Ladele's tribunal than many.

Therefore I think it is legitimate to ponder on the chances that we would have seen the same result had a white person claimed the right to discriminate against a minority on religious grounds.


ZZ said...

"we should remember what Christ said about it, which was precisely nothing"

Absurd. Christ is God, and therefore inspired the whole Bible, which contains condemnations of homosexual acts in both the old and new testaments. The fact that we have no specific record of him verbally condemning it during his physical incarnation is irrelevant. He also never specifically condemned theft or murder.

It is hypocrisy to self-identify as a Christian while picking and choosing what parts of it's teaching to believe.

If one doesn't claim that title, then citing Christ's words as authoritative is also hypocrisy.

Sarah Maid of Albion said...

Unlike the Quran which was apparently written my Mohamed God May have inspired the bible he did not write it.

There are many instances not least the writings of St Paul where he went far beyond the teachings of Christ.

Christ in his teachings made no reference to homosexuality, neither is there any reference to it in the ten commandments, despite the attempts made to imply that adultery means something other than adultery.

Christ freed us from the strictures of the Old Testament including the rabid rantings of Leviticus where everything not performed on bended knee, and a few which are are condemned as mortal sin.

I repeat that when compared to the multiple threats and horrors facing mankind at the present time, the fact that our churchmen are wittering on about what people do in bed, is the real obscenity and the REAL PERVERSION.

The hypocrites who pompously quote Romans I (which they usually do, because that is the only reference in the New testament which unlike Timothy and Corinthians is not beset by questions regarding translation) whilst carefully ignoring Romans II which is clearly connected given that it starts with the word "therefore" and instructs us that those who judge others are far worse than those they judge, should be ashamed of themselves.

The bible also tells us that we should not eat seafood and that it is okay to own slaves so long as they are not our own countrymen.

Do those who tell us that we can't pick and choose which bits of the bible we like, embrace those teachings?

Incidentally, this thread will not be allowed to become a debate about homosexuality, the point made in the main post was whether a white person would have won a tribunal in similar circumstances.

Andruu said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sarah Maid of Albion said...

Hi Andy

You are a welcome, if unexpected visitor! :)


alanorei said...

Hi Sarah

As always, I appreciate the forthright manner in which you express your views.

On the central issue of this item, it probably comes down to what may/may not be in the person's contract of employment, i.e. w.r.t. what extent employment conditions should be permitted to take precedence over personal beliefs.

I happen to think the individual concerned acted correctly but she may well have had to perform ceremonies for other couples whose way of life and/or beliefs she could well have considered as anti-Christian, even if they were 'straight' couples, e.g. if they were avowed atheists.

So it could be asked, was she therefore being consistent?

The only long-term resolution would seem to be to reach a negotiated understanding with her employer about her duties or find another job where her beliefs are not compromised.

I note your views concerning the scriptures and would be happy to address this topic should you ever wish to post it as a separate item.

Just briefly, re the Lord's comments, or apparent lack of, w.r.t. to sodomites (the biblical term), He did make a profound statement in Matthew 11:23, 24, which see. What is significant here is that God's judgement on Sodom preceeded Leviticus, i.e. condemnation of sodomy was not a creation of the Mosiac Law. The Lord also made a prophetical statement about "the days of Lot" Luke 17:28, 29 indicating that attitudes to 'gay rights,' so-called, would be the same just before His return, verse 30, as they were back in about 2000 BC, when Lot lived (probably as a civic leader or even 'mayor' of Sodom).

I believe that these scriptures merit reflection. The test of whether or not the Bible is God's words is fulfilled prophecy. Certainly the Qur'an fails this test, according to an examination I did some years ago of a book called The Prophecies of the Holy Qur'an by Q.I. Hingora, kindly forwarded to me by the then Islamic Propagation Centre, Green Lane, Birmingham (where the mosque is), now the Islamic Darwah Centre, I believe.

Steve said...

Good post Sarah.

The other problem with this case is that, if Lillian Ladele wins the appeal, it will basically allow anyone to duck out of the bits of their job they don't like, on religious grounds and give troublemakers free rein.

Muslims who work in shops will be allowed not to sell booze, bibles and pork. Muslim doctors will be able to refuse to treat people with alcohol related diseases. Muslim shift wokers will demand evey Friday off, Jews will do the same on Saturday and Christians on Sunday.

The public, customers, employers and non-religious staff will all be inconvenienced for the sake of the religious zealots. It's a recepie for chaos.

Sarah Maid of Albion said...

Thanks alanorei

As usual you posts are very interesting and informative.

And thanks for being so gracious, I suspect we don't agree on this issue, but that is not a problem as we agree on so much else.


alanorei said...

Thanks again, Sarah

Actually, there is another possible anomaly with this case.

The basic question arises, for obvious reasons, how is the performance of civil marriage ceremonies consistent with specifically Christian belief (as distinct from what is permissable currently in law)?

St Paul said, "Provide things honest in the sight of all men" Romans 12:17b.

I believe that statement has to do with all-round consistency.

Anonymous said...

I would not have so much of a problem with her refusal, would she be a native British woman. Although I think, then certainly that task being reduced from her work load, should also be deducted from her wages. She should not be in that function in the first place. A black person holding ceremonies for white persons is ridiculous. And I certainly would not tolerate her to be part of my marriage in whatever way.

The fact that she is not British and then tries to influence the culture and laws that we have created, to become more like those of the country and culture where she is from originally, is an outrage.

It demonstrates quite clearly why immigration and its offspring bring about the end of Western civilisation.

Moreover, if gay men / women want to get married, that means they have all the more reason to engage in a wholesome lifestyle. So at the same time these kind of people condemn gays for their "perverse" lifestyle, but equally so they do not wish them to enter in relationships that will protect them from its ills.

If anyone should be barred from even existing in this country it is this black woman. Gays and lesbians have been born within our white our own people, although no one can force to agree with them, they are natives, and therefore we have to try and come to terms with each other and work out some sort of modus vivendi. This lady is not a native British, she just needs to be deported back to wherever the hell she came from.