religious freedom | Ain't Complicated

Homosexual Rights Trump Religious Rights

I know this is from the United Kingdom, but still….

In a landmark judgment, which will have a serious impact on the future of fostering and adoption in the UK, the High Court has suggested that Christians with traditional views on sexual ethics are unsuitable as foster carers, and that homosexual ‘rights’ trump freedom of conscience in the UK. The Judges stated that Christian beliefs on sexual ethics may be ‘inimical’ to children, and they implicitly upheld an Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) submission that children risk being ‘infected’ by Christian moral beliefs.

Today’s ruling relates to the dispute between married couple Eunice and Owen Johns and Derby City Council. The Johns applied to the Council in 2007 to foster a child but the Council blocked their application because they objected that the Johns were not willing to promote the practise of homosexuality to a young child. In November 2010 both parties jointly asked the Court to rule on whether the Johns were able to foster children, or whether they could be excluded from doing so under equality law because of their Christian beliefs.

Today (28th February) that judgment has been released. The judges declined to make the statement that the Johns, wanting to re-establish their fostering application, had sought. Instead, the judgment strongly affirms homosexual rights over freedom of conscience and leaves the Johns currently unable to foster a child as desired, despite their proven track record as foster parents. There now appears to be nothing to stop the increasing bar on Christians who wish to adopt or foster children but who are not willing to compromise their beliefs by promoting the practise of homosexuality to small children.

Source: High Court Judgment suggests Christian beliefs harmful to children. Fostering by Christians now in doubt.

And here’s a March 4 update: Johns Fostering Case: Effects of the Ruling and Further Analysis

Egypt: Fasting and Prayer

While many fear the Muslim brotherhood could hijack Egypt’s revolution, one organization says there’s a spirit of hope for Christians in that predominately-Muslim nation.

President of IN Network USA Rody Rodeheaver says, “There is a rejoicing. I think there is a genuine joy on their part that [President] Mubarak has stepped down and that there is some hope for change and maybe some real freedom and a voice in the country.”

[…]

Rodeheaver says Christians have set aside the next three days for fasting and prayer “that the revisions of the constitution will not shut out the Christians.”

[…]

Rodeheaver also says Christians are reaching out to help Egyptians adversely affected by the poor economy caused by the riots. “They used to be poor, and now they’re extremely poor and quite destitute. So our staff is reaching out to these people and trying to provide groceries.”

Source: Egypt: a window for the Gospel

Pew on Egypt: Apostates, Beware

Behold a little bit of what the Pew Global Attitudes Project found on the general subject of Muslim Publics Divided on Hamas and Hezbollah

At least three-quarters of Muslims in Egypt and Pakistan say they would favor making each of the following the law in their countries: stoning people who commit adultery, whippings and cutting off of hands for crimes like theft and robbery and the death penalty for those who leave the Muslim religion. Majorities of Muslims in Jordan and Nigeria also favor these harsh punishments.

Well, maybe that 75%+ is accurate or maybe it’s only for polling purposes.

In addition to the above link, you might also be interested in these:

Asking vs Demanding

Which will get you farther in life?

The American Center for Law and Justice has sent a letter to Lane Community College in Eugene, Ore., demanding that it rehire Barry Sommer and reinstate his course “What is Islam?” or face legal action.

The noncredit course was cleared by LCC officials and had been posted for registration on Dec. 1. Using the Quran as one of its textbooks, the course was designed to help students better understand the Islamic doctrine so they could be better informed to grasp the issues in news on Islam, Muslims and the Middle East.

But shortly after Sommer appeared on a local news broadcast promoting the course, CAIR Council on American-Islamic Relations e-mailed LCC and asked for the course to be cut. The group questioned Sommer’s qualifications to teach the course, saying he is president of the local chapter of Act! for America, which it has accused of being anti-Islamic.

Source: Legal Group Demands Community College Reinstate Canceled Islam Class

ACLJ “demanded” (I count four uses of the term or derivatives in the entire piece).

CAIR “asked.”

Lesson: You get farther by asking than by demanding.

Disclaimer: The lesson has plenty of exceptions and exemptions.

Both Sides Say, ‘Gross!’

There is widespread shock following the news that Duke Amachree has lost his case, having been sacked for mentioning God in the workplace. An employment tribunal has ruled that it was reasonable for Wandsworth Council to dismiss Duke. Duke was initially suspended for telling a client with an incurable illness not to give up hope and suggesting that she try putting her faith in God. He was later sacked for gross misconduct for his comments to her and for taking the story to the press. The decision has come as a huge surprise to Duke and to his legal team.

Duke, a father of two and committed Christian, had worked for Wandsworth Council for 18 years and had an unblemished record. Yet, as a result of the comments he made in one 45 minute housing interview, he was subject to 6 months of investigations and three interviews with the Council. His solicitor was even told by the Council that saying “God bless” to a client would require an investigation if the client complained.

Gross misconduct usually covers such behaviour as violence in the workplace, theft or other such serious conduct. Yet the client herself expressly stated that she did not want Duke to be dismissed for what he had said and Duke had never been told that such small talk in a housing interview was prohibited. The Council have always accepted that Duke’s motivation in speaking to the client was purely one of compassion.

Duke, backed by the Christian Legal Centre, took his case to the tribunal where it was argued that the Council’s decision to dismiss him was grossly disproportionate and unfair, and that they had discriminated against him on the basis of his religion.

For the rest of the story: Shock decision against Council worker sacked for mentioning God

Meanwhile, an observation: If this had happened in the States, the issue raised may well have been racial discrimination.

Kyrgyzstan: Did You Know?

Will religious freedom increase with new Kyrgyz government?

While Kyrgyzstan’s President Bakiyev refused to resign, an interim government has been established, headed by Former Foreign Minister Roza Otunbayeva.

Wednesday’s coup has left many in the country in fear, says Sergey Rakhuba, vice president of Russian Ministries.

[…]

Rakhuba is hoping the coup also means a repeal of restrictive religion laws.

[…]

That could happen as Otunabayeva wants the new government to draft a new constitution and hold new elections in the next six months.

In the meantime, reports indicate Bakiyev is trying to rally supporters in the southern portion of the country, which could mean additional bloodshed.

Mennonite Baptist?

That’s what I wondered when Google Alerts pointed me to this story this morning:

The Pollard Agency, a Fruithurst, Ala.-based contract security company, unlawfully discriminated against an employee because of her religion, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission EEOC charged in a lawsuit it filed on March 8, 2010.

According to the EEOC’s suit, the Pollard Agency violated federal law by firing Marian Lawson from a client location in Monticello, Ga., rather than accommodating her beliefs as a Mennonite Baptist that she cover her hair with a scarf.

Do they mean Mennonite Anabaptist? or Anabaptist Mennonite? or German Baptist?

Maybe Marian is a Mennonite Baptist.

Is there such a thing?

Anyway, towards the end of the story, this:

“Title VII protects employees from having to make the difficult choice between their religious beliefs and their employment,” said Robert Dawkins, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Atlanta District Office.

Maybe we American Christians are being spared too many difficult choices regarding our beliefs.

Maybe.

What do you think?

Oh, and here’s the source for the above story: Pollard Agency Sued By EEOC For Religious Discrimination