So just to re-cap. This statement is part of a legal case involving Gary McFarlane, who recently lost an employment tribunal case involving his refusal to give sex therapy advice to gay couples on the basis of his religious convictions. Having lost the tribunal, Mr McFarlane is appealing, but is requesting that the appeal be heard by a specially constituted court of appeal, on the basis that he doesn't think he'll get a fair hearing from the judges who have previously ruled on these matters.
Clayboy has a thorough dissection of the witness statement, and whilst I don't agree with every word, his overall critique is accurate. Mouse will just add a couple of observations:
1. Why on earth is Lord Carey appearing as a witness in this case? Witnesses usually either have particular specialist knowledge (e.g. expert medical witnesses) or have direct first hand experience of the events in question. Whilst Lord Carey does have expertise in the field of being the Archbishop of Canterbury, his witness statement had nothing to do with that or with questions of faith which which he is uniquely placed to answer. So why on earth is he involved?
2. The statement is strangely worded, vague in some areas whilst pulling in random details in others. It appears to be very badly put together. Mouse has had to read the statement at least four times just to understand what point Lord Carey is trying to make. This, in part, has led to some dodgy reporting of what it is about.
3. The secular lobby and press are now having a field day with this. It pushes so many buttons for them. Christians claiming persecution (which they're not, by the way), Bishops in the Lords, homophobia (which Mr McFarlane is undoubtedly guilty of in their eyes) and claims for special privilege for religion. Whilst many of their claims are inaccurate, its hard to avoid the conclusion that they have a point in some respects, and Christians in Britain would have been better off without this. The result is that even those who would naturally support Mr McFarlane are now feeling that they don't want to be associated with Lord Carey's demands for special treatment.
Mouse suspects Lord Carey's intervention has done nothing to bolster Mr McFarlane's legal position. If there is a legal argument to be made for the appeal to be held by a specially constituted appeal court, Lord Carey is not the man to make that case, and he provided no legal backing for that argument. The fact that he disagrees with prior decisions, no matter how strongly, does not make him a witness in this case.
What this media frenzy has done, however, is to foster the feeling that there is a group of Christians who feel that they are being persecuted if they don't get special treatment, which includes the right to be homophobic. That is not helpful for anyone.
Calling people homophobic just because they belive homosexual behaviour to be sinful doesn't make it so. Insults are no substitue for reasoned arguments!
ReplyDeleteI don't think Mouse was saying that, he was saying that most people will see Gary McFarlane as homophobic.To most people, saying "your relationship is a sin" - is- well- homophobic!
ReplyDeleteI would like to know whether Mr McFarlane also refused to give therapy to co-habiting couples, or to remarried divorcees? If not, then his objections were not based on an ethic that marriage is the only place for sex, nor upon scripture, but inconsistently on his prejudices.
Do 'most people' have a similar insult for anyone expressing their view of any other 'sinful' action or relationship?
ReplyDeleteYes, if you thought co- habitation was immoral, you might be called a "bigot", if you thought mixed race relationships were unnatural and perverted, you might be called a "racist."
ReplyDeleteWould you actually be a bigot though? I try and set my morality by the bible not current opinion. (If I did that adultery would be acceptable!).I see nothing in the bible to even suggest mixed marriage might even have a hint of sin. You seem to me to try and stretch a point too far in this example!!
ReplyDeleteI am certainly not trying to stretch a point, merely pointing out that there are similar "insults" used towards people because of their attitudes to actions and relationships- whether "Christian" or not. If you set your morality purely by the bible then you might be said to condone polygamy and slavery, for example, and you would have to condemn remarriage after divorce ( except in the case of adultery) so I am not sure how far that gets us.
ReplyDeleteIs adultery acceptable to most secular people? Not the ones I know!
Personally, I think it is best not to call an individual a racist/ bigot/ homophobe as it can be seen to define them in ways that can be narrow or assumptive.
I don't personally think that someone who has thought about the issues and come to the conclusion that homosexual practice is wrong is, by virtue of that fact alone, homophobic. Indeed I know gay people who hold this opinion. I don't believe people who think cohabitation is wrong are bigots.
I do think that people who impose those views on other are wrong to do so. I have many cohabiting colleagues. I don't comment adversely on their private lives, and if I act differently towards them on that basis, I should expect the law to take their side.