ANOTHER ASSAULT ON FREEDOM

Once a group which has seen itself as disadvantaged achieves its goals what does it do? Too often it remains in existence and adopts the very behaviours it once condemned in others.

At one time campaigns concerning homosexual rights were about protecting a small minority from intolerance and creating the reality of freedom for them to be themselves without pressure from what was seen as the prejudiced within society. Today homosexual campaigning is about protecting the right of homosexuals not to be offended, and the way they do this is by being constantly offended by and intolerant of any who do not go along with the homosexual’s social programme. As a result freedom of moral choice is being restricted and conformity is being institutionalised and enforced.

To a fanfare of publicity quickly taken up by the mainstream media the British Humanist Association made claims this week that it had’ uncovered’ some 44 schools in England and Wales, mainly faith schools, which state in their sex-education guidelines that teachers will not be allowed to ‘promote’ homosexuality.

One would think that they would be pleased to find that out of the approximately 23,000 schools in England and Wales there were only 44 schools not signed up to their agenda. Unfortunately rather than hailing their success in changing society they claimed that this is a return to the ‘bad old days’ of Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988 which banned teachers from ‘intentionally promoting’ homosexuality. Amidst a barrage of criticism that this was a form of discrimination against homosexual pupils the Act was overturned by the Blair government in 2003.

Speaking of the BHA findings Peter Tatchell went even further and compared the sex-education policies of certain schools as  being: “Spookily similar to Section 28 in Britain and the new anti-gay law in Russia. These schools are abusing their freedoms to pressure teachers to teach gay issues in a way that will discourage them from saying anything positive that could be construed as “promotion”.’

Unfortunately this is what we would expect from the homosexual and militant secularist lobbies whose spokesmen have to create a furore over ever smaller instances of supposed discrimination in order to justify their position in the movement.

I'm Shocked

I’m Shocked

The BHA and Stonewall have got themselves into a lather and are shocked upon discovering that many people who hold to the traditional Christian faith have a less than positive and welcoming attitude towards homosexual behaviour. Their reaction is spookily similar to that of police Captain Renault in Casablanca who when Rick’s Bar is raided proclaims “I’m shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on here”, only to immediately pocket his winnings.

What is more disturbing is the reaction within government. The Department of Education has apparently issued instructions that its officials are to launch an immediate investigation of the ‘anti-gay’ schools.  One Department spokesman was approvingly quoted in Pink News as saying that, ‘What these schools have done by singling out homosexuals is simply unacceptable.’ Is the government really so taken aback by the revelation that there are still Christians who take the Bible seriously that the Department of Education feels the need to take immediate action? Is the state education system in England and Wales in such robust health that this should assume priority?

To be free a society has to be confident enough to allow a pluriformity of views. Is the homosexual rights lobby really so fearful of Christians that they must demand measures to censor our views out of existence, the same types of measures which once drove homosexuals underground? Homosexual rights are now accepted as thoroughly mainstream and traditional morality has an ever weaker influence on society. Having won the argument homosexual campaigners cannot bear the thought that there might be someone out there who disapproves of homosexuality and insists that their views be stamped out.

Ours is a secular society supposedly committed to freedom of religion. Yet strident activists and compliant MPs are insisting on controlling what is taught in faith schools with regard to morality. The claim to be upholding the principle of equality increasingly looks like a smoke screen to attack the Church and thus undermine a central facet of a free society, that religious people are free to hold and promote their beliefs. To claim that faith schools are being intolerant is the rankest hypocrisy when one considers that these militant atheists and homosexuals are unrelentingly intolerant in their need and desire to suppress traditional Christianity.

The drive to enforce conformity is being focused on the churches because of our commitment to traditional morality, especially marriage. We are seen as a roadblock hindering the drive of the state to manage the nature of our personal relationships and informal communities. When traditional Christians stick to their belief in the importance of family relationships and put their trust in faith schools to educate their children they cause offence to those who are suspicious of unregulated educational relationships between adults and children. The attempt to interfere with and clamp down on what is taught concerning sexual morality in faith schools is the latest attempt by deliberately hysterical campaigners and parts of the state apparatus to diminish parental and communal autonomy over the raising of children.

This furore is not about homosexual rights, what we are seeing is an attack on parental autonomy.

Christian parents send their children to Christian schools because they approve of certain values and wish to pass them on to their children. By launching an investigation into how faith schools teach sexual relationships and morality the state is effectually questioning those values and the right of parents to hold them. Secularist militants and homosexual campaigners are using the supposed hurt feelings of homosexual teenagers as a fig leaf in their attempt to stop Christian adults from passing on their beliefs to their children.

Advertisements

About Campbell

Now retired but once upon a time a parish minister in Glasgow, before that the South West and initially the Black Isle. Been a prison chaplain and lecturer. Still am constantly bemused by the weird world around me.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to ANOTHER ASSAULT ON FREEDOM

  1. John Allman says:

    “The drive to enforce conformity is being focused on the churches”

    Wrong! The drive to enforce conformity is also targeting natural parents whose children social services have taken away from the parents concerned, as a direct punishment for the parent’s homophobia.

    This is the modus operandi. A wild, unsubstantiated, random allegation that one has (for example) smacked one’s two year-old, allows social services access to one’s family in the first place. That false allegation of smacking is dismissed quickly enough. It is decided that the malicious allegation is no reason to take the child off the parent. So far so good. But, at this point, the social worker hits the now relieved wrongly-accused parent with something along the following lines: “Whilst we were investigating the unsubstantiated allegation of smacking, we have discovered that you have unacceptable beliefs. Your son may have been born gay. We have discovered that you would be unlikely to be pleased about this, when he tells you he is gay, twelve years or so from now. We must therefore make sure now, that he never sees his father again, and forgets all about you.”

    Parents targeted like this don’t even get the chance to say “goodbye” to their children, whom they will quite possibly never see again, unless they are wiling to change their beliefs, to beliefs that are acceptable to the social workers. The newspapers cannot publish these stories, because the family law courts sit in secret.

    I have been extremely disappointed in the lack of interest shown on the part those whom one might expect to be up in arms about this, in *this* sort of enforcement of conformity.

    See “Why foster carers, but not natural parents?”

    http://johnallmanuk.wordpress.com/2013/07/07/why-foster-carers/

  2. Jon Gleason says:

    The driving force behind the homosexual agenda, I believe, is not rights, but validation. Internally, they cannot do away with the feelings of guilt over their sin. Anyone who expresses anything but complete affirmation / validation reminds the sinner of those guilt feelings. So that must be silenced, at all costs.

    Yes, I believe parental autonomy is also a target, but you’ve really got two forces at work here. Both are pulling in the same direction on this issue, both come from the same spiritual source, and both may be working in the same individuals at times.

    One force is statism, that wants to have the state control and dominate people. This is the force that wants to remove parental autonomy. It is not of God.

    The other force is the homosexual need for affirmation / validation. It’s a real need, too. The need the affirmation that comes of turning to Christ, of being forgiven, of knowing His love. It’s not that the need isn’t real, it is that they are looking for it in the wrong place on the wrong terms.

  3. Pingback: Spiritual bravery, panic, and social pressure to conform (re gay marriage, diet, etc) | power of language blog: partnering with reality by JR Fibonacci

  4. Pingback: Sitting in the Back Seat of the Rainbow Coloured Bus | Phenomenal Lady

  5. Pingback: Tolerating Intolerance? | ijoey.org

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s