Long overdue update, its not looking good for the Christianity in the UK.
Repeated from 2011 - Britain Is No Longer a Christian Country - Official
I first published this article in 2011. I suppose I should republish it every time a court or tribunal rules against a Christian position. When will people grasp that the revolution has happened, and the other side have won. No need for guillotines and gulag.
I just thought I should expand on the amazing developments in the courts in the last year, culminating in the recent case of Mr and Mrs Johns (pictured below), the foster parents banned from fostering because they were not prepared actively to endorse the sexual revolution.
The effect of this case (and once again I'm uninterested in discussing the issue of homosexuality which has been the pretext for this development, and will not respond to posts on that subject, which I regard as exhausted and diversionary) is revolutionary in two ways. First, the Law of England is no longer based upon Christianity but upon the new secular dogma of 'Equality and Diversity', whose origins lie in the thinking of the 1960s revolutionary left.
That is to say the national dogma is suspicious of national sovereignty and the things which accompany it - patriotism, immigration control, national loyalty, national institutions. It actively defines many of these ideas as 'racist' , that is a sort of thought-crime ( a defamatory smear made much easier by those, some of whom post here, who think that a man's ethnic origin, rather than his culture, defines him).
The same dogma is militantly in favour of sexual liberation - the liberation of adults from the marriage bond, the consequent liberation of children from parental authority - which is more or less unlawful anyway.
Once again those who oppose this development are not reasoned with, but defined as thought-criminals and classified as suffering from various isms and phobias which rule them out of mainstream discourse.
And of course the Christian religion itself is allowed to continue to exist as an eccentric choice, but has no special claim on the law and must compete for status and attention against any other belief, including the fantasy of man-made global warming.
This latter is a work in progress, which is why one of the law's most important activities is to ram home the message to individual Christians that they have lost the status they formerly held (much as its prosecutions of people such as Tony Martin ram home the message that the law no longer takes the view of crime that it used to hold, and is much more concerned with asserting its monopoly of force than with apprehending, let alone punishing, wrongdoers) .
A former Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Carey, has experienced bluntness verging on rudeness when he has protested against the new judicial attitude.
All revolutions do this. One of their most important features is the public personal degradation of figures formerly held in high regard. This lets people know that things really have changed (Charles I knew he was doomed when his military guards started blowing tobacco smoke in his face). The ejection of the Bishops from the House of Lords, which will take place within ten years by my guess
(***PH notes August 2019 : I would now put this a little further off. The European constitutional crisis has paralysed almost all other processes in our society. But plainly the House of Lords in its present form cannot be sustained much longer) , will be accompanied by a great deal of cruel jeering and bad manners, you see if it isn't.
The second crucial feature of this is that it involves a totalitarian imposition. The Derby case arose not because of anything the couple had said, but because they would not promise, in a hypothetical conversation with a child, to endorse, positively, a certain type of behaviour.
Now, I'm told (I would be glad of any more details) that in a 1985 case, a sports team successfully challenged a local authority which tried to compel it to make a denunciation of the apartheid system before it would be allowed to use its facilities. What you think of apartheid has nothing to do with this. The principle is 'Can you be compelled by a government body to hold or at least express an opinion?'
A judge is reported to have said that telling people what to say was pretty much a Nazi attitude,and foreign to the laws of England. This no longer seems to be the case.
The couple said that their Christian beliefs caused them to hold a different view. The Judges, if I have correctly understood their ruling, said the couple's views did not necessarily flow from their Christianity, and thus didn't qualify for the protection granted to 'minorities' by Equality Law.
One wonders what the position would have been had they been a Muslim couple, but this has yet to arise.
But this is a technicality alongside the heart of their judgement, which ran thus. First, they said that it was not yet “well understood” that British society was largely secular and that the law has no place for Christianity.
“Although historically this country is part of the Christian West, and although it has an established church which is Christian, there have been enormous changes in the social and religious life of our country over the last century,” they said.
It was a “paradox” that society has become simultaneously both increasingly secular and increasingly diverse in religious affiliation, they said.
'We sit as secular judges serving a multicultural community of many faiths.
We are sworn (we quote the judicial oath) to 'do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this realm, without fear or favour, affection or ill will’.”
Actually, it ought to be well-understood, following the striking and rather militant judgement by Lord Justice Laws last year in the case of the 'relationship counsellor' Gary McFarlane. He said legal protection for views held on religious grounds was 'deeply unprincipled'.
'This must be so, since in the eye of everyone save the believer, religious faith is necessarily subjective,' he said.
'Law for the protection of a position held purely on religious grounds cannot therefore be justified. It is irrational, as preferring the subjective over the objective. But it is also divisive, capricious and arbitrary.'
Plainly, the message has not wholly sunk in. Interestingly, in his summing up before sentencing last November at the end of the trial of a Muslim fanatic who stabbed the Labour MP Stephen Timms, Mr Justice Cooke said of Mr Timms 'I understand that he brings to bear his own faith, which upholds very different values to those which appear to have driven this defendant.
'Those values are those upon which the common law of this country was founded and include respect and love for one’s neighbour, for the foreigner in the land, and for those who consider themselves enemies, all as part of one’s love of God. These values were the basis of our system of law and justice and I trust that they will remain so as well as motivating those, like Mr Timms, who hold public office.'
I fear his trust is misplaced. It is true that the English legal tradition was until recently consciously and specifically Christian. Here's a description of the building of the Royal Courts of Justice in the Strand (whose architect, G.E. Street, was also the designer of several fine churches) 'Over the highest point of the upper arch is a figure of Jesus; to the left and right at a lower level are figures of Solomon and Alfred the Great; that of Moses is at the northern front of the building.'
The Old Bailey, the Central Criminal Court, has above its main portal the words "Defend the Children of the poor, and punish the wrong-doer'. This is a quotation from the 72nd Psalm (Verse 4, Miles Coverdale version). Its Great Hall is adorned with the words 'Moses gave unto the people the laws of God'.
Likewise, the Houses of Parliament (where laws are made) are founded upon the original St Stephen's Chapel. They contain a consecrated and functioning chapel to this day. The Central Lobby is decorated with murals depicting the four Christian patron saints of the nations of the United Kingdom, George, Andrew, Patrick and David. The quarter chimes of Big Ben are based upon Handel's aria (from the Book of Job)
'I know that My Redeemer Liveth' . And the Monarchy itself is legally based upon a wholly Christian Coronation service. St Edward's Crown itself is surmounted with a Christian cross and the anointed and crowned monarch is presented with a copy of the Bible.
When will people learn that we live in a post-revolutionary society? In the Blair years the last traces of Christian conservatism were removed from law and government, and in the Cameron-May years nobody tried to restore them.
So Dr David Mackereth really shouldn’t have been surprised to have been sacked as a claim assessor for refusing to bow down to the Trans lobby, by saying he would refuse to call a six-foot bearded man ‘Madam’.
This defiance was described by a tribunal as ‘lack of belief’ in transgenderism. And so it is. These ‘isms’ are our new highly-intolerant religion. We must all now either get our minds right, or retreat into private life and internal exile. The Tories aren’t going to save us.