Thinking Anglicans

Derby foster care case redux

A(nother) lawyer wrote Foster care and religion: the legal debate.

Bishop Alan Wilson writes again today: Munchausen loses Court Case.

…Ah, but you may say, there are people out there who don’t like Christianity. There are, and there always were. Some English Christians seem hell bent on behaving like a persecuted minority, and who am I to try and stop them? They’ve obviously never been to Pakistan or anywhere else Christians really are persecuted as Christians.

Historic Christianity does have massive historic, cultural and legal influence in the UK, not least in the pursuit of ancient rights founded on the principles of Equity that gave rise to our human rights law in the first place. The surest way to destroy this influence is for a group of zealots to take upon themselves the role of being the “one prophet left,” and indulge in the legal equivalent of Munchausen’s Syndrome by Proxy

Andrea Minichiello Williams at Christian Concern wrote Permanent Exclusion and the Johns.

…I hope that the highlighting of the issue in the press will shatter the misconception that the Equality Act means equality for all. Some are very much more equal than others. We are currently living in ‘Animal Farm’ days; “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others”.

And Paul Diamond wrote Why the Johns Case will not be appealed.

…I have reluctantly advised the Johns not to appeal; such an appeal would normally be expected but now, in my opinion, futile – a waste of resources. The Courts are so set against religious freedom for Christians that an appeal is likely to only make matters worse.

The problem is a combination of bad laws and, in recent years, a number of poor judicial appointments by the previous Government. Where there are excellent Judges they are restricted by bad laws. Unfortunately, there are also Judges making law based on personal predilections. Parliament must remedy this situation as a matter of urgency.

The ideals of the Equality Acts and the Sexual Orientation Regulations have much to commend them in so far as all civilised people would not accept overt discrimination against any person based on irrelevant considerations as to their sexual orientation or faith. However, the laws are bad. They are poorly drafted leaving too much discretion to the Courts; they are contradictory in so far as one cannot have a society without substantive values. Finally and most importantly these laws are political laws seeking a political objective.

The laws are currently being used to eradicate Judeo Christian morality and usher in secular values. The secular movement is but a variant of the Utopian ambitions that have inspired man from the beginning of time. However, the end game of such programmes is always the same. To repeatedly promote a failed ideology is base ignorance or at its worst criminal. Coerced morality or coerced immorality (depending on one’s perspective) is not the hallmark of a free society…

Mr Diamond was interviewed this morning, along with Lord Falconer, a former Lord Chancellor, on the BBC’s Today radio programme, listen at Are courts enforcing a ‘new morality’?


  • Erika Baker says:

    “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others”.

    That’s not actually true. It’s just that animals who want to cause harm to other animals are being firmly told they can’t.
    Precisely because the other animals are equal.

  • Randal Oulton says:

    That Andrea chick is a real piece of work (and no, I don’t mean just her dollar-store eyeliner.) She is opposed to allowing the construction of mosques in the UK: “A mosque is not just a place of worship, it is a power base, where particular ideologies are promoted.”

  • Cynthia Gilliatt says:

    Can someone tell me why this particular case has such long legs?

  • Laurence Roberts says:

    Diamond and Williams are either very dishonest (can this be ?) or self deceived.

    Can no one advise and help them ?

    Diamond will not appeal the non-ruling as there is nothing to appeal. Not what he irresponsibly alleges.

    Can he not pursue ordinary law ? (May be he cannot).

  • “There is great modernity in the inclusiveness of the Anglican Church because it places human kindness to the fore. And that simple grace should never be mistaken for weakness…”

    – Bishop Alan Wilson’s Blog –

    Here again; what a lovely sentiment is expressed by a Bishop of the Church of England as he writes so eloquently of the ‘inclusiveness’ inherent within the culture and integrity of the Church of England at its best.

    Who of the many outsiders who find themselves at one of the occasional services of the C.of E. (funerals, weddings, baptisms, etc.) could not but be impressed by the structured inclusiveness of ‘all who come’, when the Vicar or Curate puts themselves out to be welcoming – as Jesus himself was welcoming – of each and every person who found themselves within the orbit of His welcome?

    Evangelism, at its very best, is not the province of the hot-headed, but rather of the warm-hearted

  • Pat O'Neill says:

    I suppose it is hopeless to expect Mr. Diamond to point out exactly which religious freedoms Christians are being deprived of in the UK?

  • What Erika said. Well and clearly stated.

  • “A mosque is not just a place of worship, it is a power base, where particular ideologies are promoted. Some of these mosques are focal points for extremist preaching. They have been used across the world as places where jihad is instigated and encouraged.”

    – Andrea’s Blog –

    Try substituting – for the word ‘mosque’ the words
    ‘Nigerian Anglican church’, and see how the contruction can alter the understanding of what the writer is trying to convey. Not all Christian Churches are free from bigotry, ideology, and ‘extremist preaching’. Just look in on some of the web-sites of fundamentalist ‘Christians’, and see the level of hatred and disregard for common human rights. We Christians have little cause to preach to other religious bodies about the need for self-discipline in matters of hatred

  • David Shepherd says:

    Animal Farm: the great parable of communism gone wrong, showed the ease with which the oppressed set up their own tyranny after claiming to want no more than their due.

    Oliver Cromwell, overthrew the Royalists for the cause of equality only to make himself Lord Protector, robes of office, £100,000 a year and accepting ‘Your Highness’ as his customary address. The high price of our eternal vigilance.

    A man came to Jesus, disenfranchised by his brother, wanting him to intervene and arbitrate over the fraternal dispute. He only wanted what was fair. 

    It was a perfect opportunity for Christ to advance His moral credentials in the ‘real world’. I really can’t see why He didn’t relish the opportunity. (Luke 12:13 – 15)

    Instead, He asks, ‘Who made me a judge or divider over you?’ Well, my social justice answer would have been, ‘Didn’t God?’

    Adding insult to injury, He warns in the next breath, ‘Beware of covetousness’. Surely, it’s not covetous to know with complete conviction that you want no more than perfect fairness. Hmm…

  • RPNewark says:

    “A mosque is not just a place of worship, it is a power base, where particular ideologies are promoted.” – Andrea Williams.

    Try replacing the word “mosque” with the words “Christian church”, Mrs. Williams. Recognise anything familiar to you?

  • Bob says:

    This may have been asked and commented on elsewhere (apologies if so), but I’m trying to get round my head round the meaning of tolerance….

    It is the variety of opinions on something isn’t it? And just because there is tolerance on an issue doesn’t mean that we have to agree with all the opinions. For example, I can be tolerant of X & Y but my preference is Y. This is what the Anglican Communion has been built on, held to and at its core what Anglicanism is all about. We see this in churchmanship, use of liturgy, etc etc can it not also be the same for issue such as women and LGBT as well?

    If this is right, I guess then it comes down to what we mean by “preference”….

  • Perry Butler says:

    Mrs Williams is now, of course, a member of General Synod.

  • Erika Baker says:

    you may tolerate it if people want to discriminate against me,believing themselves to be superior and therefore, somehow, entitled to placing themselves above me.
    You will forgive me if I don’t.

  • drdanfee says:

    One way I experiment, to see if I can cut through all the right wing believer fogs, is to substitute words. When the conservative believers/leaders opine about queer folks – high handed as ever, traditional – I simply put another (other) less confusing word (words) in place of queer folks.

    I use various substitute word(s), to try to experiment in getting a clearer sense of who is being targeted and why and how.

    Possible experimental substitute words include – slaves, women, people of color, believers with any education beyond high school, followers of other religions, and so forth.

    This little experiment often begins to clear the foggy air, remarkably.

    Just sayin’.

  • drdanfee says:

    I suppose I’m just being silly from across the pond.


    Well, is there perhaps any way in which the reigning monarch who is head of the church could appoint Bishop Alan as the next pending occupant of Canterbury? I so far read him/hear him as being nimble and very capable in dealing with some of our allegedly conflicted/diversity issues in church life?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *