Sunday, 20 January 2013
Sunday programme discusses European court rulings
The BBC Radio 4 programme Sunday today has a major feature on this.
Starting at about 27 minutes in, there is a lengthy discussion, not only of the court’s rulings, but also of the role played in them by advocacy groups such as the Christian Legal Centre.
The BBC’s own description:
In light of the European rulings on 4 religious discrimination cases this week William asks if the courts are the right place to decide what expressions of faith and belief are acceptable in the workplace. Christian Legal Centre’s Andrew Marsh, gives his opinion.
Also in the programme:
Posted by Simon Sarmiento on
Sunday, 20 January 2013 at 7:24pm GMT
A leading Evangelical, Steve Chalke, this week published an article arguing that the Church should bless committed homosexual partnerships without requiring that they should be celibate. He debates with Dr Stephen Holmes of the Evangelical Alliance who defends their current teaching that gay sex is sinful.
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
I found the mention of this week a little confusing (though the link works). The programme is called 'Sunday'.
I heard it live and it was very refreshing to hear such balanced and intelligent approach to the issues considered by ECHR, and the guy from The Christian Legal Centre was well interrogated. The weaknesses of the Centre's approach was laid bare.
The discussion between Chalke and the Evangelical Alliance chap was also very good. What a change of tone from opponents of the human rights of lgbt ! We are no longer sinful, criminal or perverted ! They sounded like alumni friends in substantial agrement with each other, except for one small point - as Steve's interlocutor put it.
Ms. Chaplin came across as disgruntled and unappreciative of the efforts of the NHS to accomodate her.
The programme also raised Martin Reynolds' point about whether these people had been used by the campaigning organisations, in question, - The Christian Legal Centre and Christian Institute.
I would agree that (my former St Andrews colleague) Steve Holmes was very gracious. I am glad the host allowed him some time, vis-a-vis the loquacious Chalke. I suspect in time the resistance to ss marriage will be viewed as criminal conduct. (Though it was intriguing to read that the secular French public do not want the word used beyond its customary sense).
Laurence I have adjusted the text to make the date of broadcast clear.
I agree with Laurence's comments about the Christian Legal Centre - a busted flush? Shirley Chaplin came over as obdurate and offended that anyone who dare suggest there might be a health issue with jewellery was immediately attacking her faith. What she didn't seem to realise is that if she is the salt of the earth and acted in a Christlike way what need would there be for badges and symbols?
As for Andrew Marsh - was that his name? - such an uncompromising solipsistic self-justification is like wormwood in the mouth.
In this country, same sex marriage is starting to open up a serious generational divide between older and younger Evangelicals. Many younger Evangelicals appear to want to cut ties to right wing politics and to pursue other issues such as economic justice and environmental stewardship. Policing everyone's sex lives appears to them to be a waste of time and energy, as well as too great a risk of looking hypocritical and ridiculous. Hardly a month goes by in this country without some earnest public moral scold getting caught with his (it's almost always his) pants down with a boy or a girl.
Thanks very much for that, Simon.
'I suspect in time the resistance to ss marriage will be viewed as criminal conduct.'
I have no doubt that you regard the incarceration of lgbt in the UK with repentance and great regret. Never mind, the imprisonment and killing in many countries in the present century.
I look forward to hearing you support those voicing concern and abhorrence for the treatment of lgbt poeple around the world.
"Steve Holmes was very gracious"
As gracious as one can be while deprecating other Christian families as sinful (particularly when the alleged "sin" is simply adherence to the same standard of monogamy and fidelity we hold up as positive for heterosexuals).