Scottish Christian Party to make Holyrood election a referendum on the Sexual Orientation Regulation

GLASGOW, Scotland, April 30 /Christian Newswire/ — With the Sexual Orientation Regulations becoming law at midnight last night the Scottish Christian Party has mailed 2 million anti- Sexual Orientation Regulation leaflets to voters in Scotland.

In the Glasgow and the Central region of Scotland ¾ million leaflets have been sent in personally addressed envelopes with a covering letter.

Reverend George Hargreaves, leader of the Scottish Christian Party said, “We intend to high-jack the political agenda as far Christians are concerned. The SOR’s are a far more urgent matter to many Scottish Christians than independence or any other current political issue. It is an assault on their faith and conscience.

Thursday is their chance to say ‘No!’ to the SORs.”

In the party’s election broadcast, aired on BBC and STV last Tuesday, the SORs were compared to anti- Semitic laws passed by the Nazis in the early 1930’s. The broadcast featured footage of Hitler addressing a rally in 1933.

Reverend Hargreaves noted, “We are turning the Holyrood elections into a de-facto referendum on the Sexual Orientation Regulations.”

Note to Editors: In 2000 Brian Souter’s Keep the Clause campaign gained the support of over 1 million Scots. The Scottish Christian Party are fielding 72 candidates across Scotland on the Regional List; more than any other political party.

Excerpted from Outlawing Conscience, by Chuck Colson, published Mar 20, 2007, by Breakpoint:

…The persecution against the Church has taken a decisive turn in the cradle of civil liberty—the United Kingdom (UK). And it will happen in America, also, if we do not wake up to the danger.

In London last month, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights recommended regulations that would make it illegal for private, religious schools to teach that homosexual conduct is immoral…

And we know about this. Last summer, the British government closed down our IFI unit because we teach that sex should be limited to heterosexual marriage. And if these regulations violate the rights of Christians—what does the government say? “Too bad.”

Luke Gormally, a fellow at London’s Linacre Centre, a Christian bioethics institute, put it this way:

“The Committee could not be clearer in saying that they believe the freedom to live a practicing homosexual lifestyle trumps the freedom to live a religious lifestyle.”

…Last Thursday, a House of Commons committee met to decide on the Sexual Orientation Regulations. Many MPs protested the Blair government’s refusal to allow a full debate in the House of Commons. And despite repeated appeals for a postponement, the chairperson insisted on taking an immediate vote: The regulations were upheld.

Now, the Blair government is attempting to rush the law through both houses of Parliament before opponents have time to organize. The vote will take place on Wednesday.

On that day, many Christians will be found at a prayer vigil in Old Palace Yard near the entrance to the House of Lords. [TAKE ACTION –] We need to be praying with them, because it is going to take a miracle to keep this law from passing.

Continue reading at Breakpoint…

A glimpse of our future unless you stand…

From UK Government Program Teaching Four-Year-Olds about Homosexuality, by Gudrun Schultz, published Mar 16, 2007, by LifeSite News:

Primary schools in the United Kingdom have begun teaching children as young as four about homosexuality, in anticipation of new anti-discrimination laws coming into effect next month, the Daily Mail reported earlier today.

Homosexuality-themed story books are being used in fourteen schools to introduce the children to the homosexual lifestyle. Among the texts in use are “King and King,” a fairy-tale about a prince who rejects three princesses before falling in love with another prince, “Spacegirl Pukes,” about a little girl with two mommies, and “And Tango Makes Three,” telling the story of two male penguins who fall in love at a New York zoo.

The schools are participating in a new government-funded program that is aimed at studying the best approach to familiarize school children with homosexual relationships — the study results will be made available to all schools to assist them in utilizing the books to normalize homosexuality.

The £600,000 No Outsiders program also includes workshops for local councils to help with the implementation of the Equality Act banning discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation, taking effect April 6.

A press release dated Mar 7, 2007, from The Lawyers Christians Fellowship (UK):

GOVERNMENT PUBLISH LANDMARK INTOLERANT LEGISLATION
SETTING GROUND FOR CLASH OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

After spending 9 months drafting the proposed SEXUAL ORIENTATION REGULATIONS (SORs), the Government have today published the final version of the new law without making any significant concessions to protect the rights of Christians and others with deeply held religious beliefs.

The SORs can be found by clicking HERE.

The Regulations, which make discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation unlawful in relation to the provision of goods, services, premises, education and public functions, are due to come into force on the 30th April 2007.

Under the Regulations:

• It will be illegal for a Christian printer to refuse to print material promoting homosexual sex,
  
• It will be illegal for a Muslim website designer to refuse to build a website for homosexual dating, and
  
• It will be illegal for a Jewish conference centre to refuse to accept a booking from a Gay and Lesbian society who wish to hold a meeting promoting homosexual practices.

Thomas Cordrey, Barrister and Public Policy Analyst at the Lawyers’ Christian Fellowship, commented:

“This legislation is unprecedented in its complete intolerance of those who have religious beliefs. The Government did not put forward a single piece of evidence to justify the need for the Regulations, they have ignored 72% of the public[1] who opposed their approach to this law, and they have ignored the majority of the 3000 responses to their consultation. Despite this weak basis to the law, the Government is prepared to take the landmark step of making it illegal for Christians to hold to the Bible’s clear teaching that God loves everyone and wants all people to know him, but also, that extra-marital sexual conduct (whether homosexual or heterosexual) is wrong.”

“To think that the Government would prefer to shut down the widespread and compassionate voluntary services provided by Christian adoption agencies, drug rehabilitation centres, homeless shelters and community centres, rather than accept that Christians should not be forced to promote homosexual practices, is astounding.”

Andrea Williams, Public Policy Officer at the Lawyers’ Christian Fellowship commented:

“Whilst Christian groups have been clear from the outset that they would not in any way wish to deny the provision of basic goods and services to homosexuals, the Government have refused all calls that the Regulations should contain a simple clause that no-one should be forced by this law to promote or actively condone any sexual practices which are contrary to their deeply held religious belief.

“Rather than balancing rights the Government have chosen to draft these Regulations so that in almost every case the right to live a homosexual lifestyle trumps the right to live a religious lifestyle.

“Every concern held by the Church of England and Catholic Church on the issue of gay adoption is magnified by the publication of these Regulations. The new morality being imposed by the Government on the British people has just taken a giant leap forward.”

[1] See the independent Communicate Research Opinion Poll See the independent Communicate Research Opinion Poll

Excerpted from Can Religious Freedom Survive Gay Liberation?, by David Frum, published Mar 9, 2007, by National Review:

…The movement for gay equality has rapidly evolved into movement to restrict personal freedoms, including freedoms of religion and conscience. The British example is not a special case. What is being done there today will be demanded here tomorrow…

Update: Andrew Stuttaford raises an excellent point on the Corner.

The more interesting question however is the extent to which religious belief should be privileged above all others. You can, quite legitimately, question the range and definition of anti-discrimination laws, but once a democracy has put those laws in place, I can think of no particular reason why some people should be exempted from that law, simply on the grounds of religion. To do so is to say that religious belief is somehow more deserving of special protection than other (perhaps no less deeply held) ideologies, an idea that, however well-intentioned, is irrational at best, dangerous at worse.

And of course he is right! When general laws are passed, they must apply to all.

That is precisely why the gay rights movement is inherently an illiberal one. When you decide to extend your nondiscrimination principles to behavior condemned by your society’s majority religion, you are embarking on a course that will sooner or later require the state to police, control, and punish adherents of that religion.

That was (or should have been obvious) from the start.

Continue reading at National Review…

Proof that homosexual “rights” will take precedence over freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, and freedom of speech…

Excerpted from UK: Religious Schools May Not Teach Christian Sexual Morals “As if They Were Objectively True”, by Hilary White, published Mar 5, 2007 by LifeSite News:

…The Joint Committee on Human Rights, made up of members from Parliament and the House of Lords, has issued a report on the implementation [in April] of the [Sexual Orientation Regulations] recommending that religious schools be required to modify their religious instruction to comply with the government-approved doctrine of “non-discrimination”.

Although religious schools will be allowed to remain open and may continue to give instruction in various religious beliefs, instruction must be modified “so that homosexual pupils are not subjected to teaching, as part of the religious education or other curriculum, that their sexual orientation is sinful or morally wrong.”

The report says the Regulations will not “prevent pupils from being taught as part of their religious education the fact that certain religions view homosexuality as sinful,” but they may not teach “a particular religion’s doctrinal beliefs as if they were objectively true”.

Published February 26, the report says, “We do not consider that the right to freedom of conscience and religion requires the school curriculum to be exempted from the scope of the sexual orientation regulations.”

…The homosexual political doctrine, accepted by the British as well as other governments, requires that no distinction be made between the person, the act and the condition or “orientation”, making any criticism of the movement’s political goals an offence against persons.

Excerpted from Judiciary Won’t Allow Christian Beliefs, published Mar 3, 2007, by WorldNet Daily:

A magistrate judge in Sheffield, England, has been told he cannot serve on the local court’s Family Panel, even though he’s been recognized as having “an unblemished record and is well regarded by fellow magistrates” because he is a Christian.

“This case is a clear picture of how Christian faith is becoming privatized in society,” said Andrea Williams, of the Lawyers Christian Fellowship. “It is yet another example of the repression of Christian conscience and signals the prevalence of a secular ‘new morality’ and the erosion of Christian values at the expense of our children’s welfare.”

The case arose when McClintock realized he would be assigned to hear cases involving adoption by homosexual couples, which are allowed now under England’s Civil Partnerships Act 2002. Realizing the concerns that might arise, he asked that his religious beliefs be accommodated and he be “screened” from such cases.

He also expressed concern that children would be put at risk by the unproven social experiment of homosexual duo adoptions.

“Andrew McClintock believes that the best interests of the child are served by placing them in a situation where they would have both a mother and a father and therefore he could not agree to participate in gay adoption,” Williams said. “The imposition of secular values in every aspect of our lives will force those who hold Christian beliefs out of jobs. It will be to the detriment of the whole of society.”

McClintock took his case to the Employment Tribunal in Sheffield…

The Tribunal, however, said the case did not involve religious freedom or conscience. Further, the Tribunal concluded even if Mr. McClintock had been able to show he made his decision to resign based on his religious beliefs, there still was no case for discrimination.

“If a judge personally has particular views on any subject, he or she must put those views to the back of his or her mind when applying the law of the land impartially,” the Tribunal ordered…

A report in the Telegraph said the decision came as the government in England prepared to introduce a plan to prevent homosexuals from being discriminated against in the “provision of goods and services.” And the report noted the Sexual Orientation Regulations now could require schools to give equal weight in sex education classes to homosexual and heterosexual practices.

A revolutionary assault on sex and gender norms requires a revolutionary new vocabulary. The homosexualist movement stole the word “gay,” and is busy redefining “marriage” and “spouse.” Next comes the basic descriptors of the family. Mom, dad, children? How utterly heterosexist of you! The following is excerpted from Good LGBT Practice in the NHS, a joint publication from the homosexual activist organization Stonewall Scotland and Scotland’s National Health Service:

Page 2 — Scots’ tax money at work…

Page 7 — “In order to avoid this confusion…”

Partners and “next of kin”
Using the terms “husband”, “wife” and “marriage” assumes opposite sex relationships only and will automatically exclude all LGB people. Using the term “partner” and “they/them” to refer to the partner will avoid this problem. This is also inclusive of all heterosexual couples, regardless of their marital status. Many people hold a mistaken belief that “next of kin” must be a married partner or blood relation. In order to avoid this confusion it may be advisable to use “partner, close friend or close relative”. This allows the patient to identify and choose who is important to them. For example, the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 200310 defines the most important nearest relative (after spouse or civil partner) as a
cohabiting same-sex or opposite-sex partner.

Page 7 — Anthing but mom and dad…

Parenting
LGBT people can and do have children, sexual orientation or gender identity has nothing to do with good parenting or good child care. According to a Scottish wide survey (11), one fifth of LGBT people have children. Some children will have been born or adopted into heterosexual relationships before a parent had ‘come out’ and some are born into same-sex relationships or adopted by an LGB individual. Individual circumstances lead to varied family structures and parenting arrangements. It is important to be aware of this. When talking to children, consider using “parents”, “carers” or “guardians” rather than “mother” or “father”.

The booklet advocates “a zero-tolerance policy to discriminatory language” for health care workers in Scotland.