THE vote by 168 to 122 in the House of Lord’s tonight (21 March) in favour of the Government’s Equality Act (Sexual Orientation Regulations) 2007 marks the imposition of a new morality.
It is a clear sign that despite saying they were going to consult and listen the Government has failed to respect the consciences of citizens whose values are formed and shaped by their deeply held religious beliefs, be they Christian, Muslim or Jewish. This could have been easily resolved by a simple conscience clause.
In a week where the whole country celebrates the 200th anniversary off the Abolition of Slavery, brought about, by and large, through the determined efforts of William Wilberforce, we would do well to remember his driving force and motivation stemmed from his Christian conviction. History will record that today’s vote marked the increased secularisation of Britain confining faith to private thought, rather than public manifestation in works of service for the whole community.
The consequences and implications of the SORs will unfold month by month. The result of the vote will mean that rather than balancing rights, the right to live a homosexual lifestyle will trump the right to live a Christian lifestyle. Many Christians will be affected by this new law.
Andrea Williams Christian Concern for Our Nation
Here is CARE‘s statement of two weeks ago
SECULARISATION MASQUERADING AS EQUALITIES SAYS CARE
Christian charity CARE has reacted with concern to the Joint Committee on Human Rights’ attempt to redefine what is meant by religious liberty in its highly controversial report published yesterday.‘The committee is effectively making the case that religious freedom, as per Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, is about belief in one’s head and the freedom to worship in religious buildings. Thereafter, if ever there is a conflict between manifestation of religious belief and any other right like sexual orientation, there is a first principle assumption that religious freedom is the category that must be compromised.
Daniel Boucher director of parliamentary affairs continued, ‘The truth is that the heart of the Christian faith and freedom to practice that faith has never been restricted to beliefs in one’s head or prayer meetings in religious buildings. It has always been about action. The work of Christians in welfare service provision has always constituted an absolutely central part of the outworking their faith. Indeed, as the book of James makes clear, ‘faith without works is dead.’ On this basis reducing the heart of religious freedom down to beliefs in one’s head and prayer meetings in religious buildings does not even constitute the erosion of religious freedom but in a very real sense its negation.
Although the report is ostensibly about sexual orientation rights, it reads rather more as a secularists bid to reduce religious freedom masquerading as support for gay rights. The truth is that any credible definition of religious freedom must embrace a respect for practice which whilst not absolute (See Article 9 (2)), is not overruled as a matter of course whenever there is a conflict with another right.’
