Tuesday, March 06, 2007

Things to Come?

With a new law regulating how Britons are to support homosexual lifestyles, it was only a matter of time before this enforced tolerance would become legalized intolerance against any who disagree.
LONDON, March 5, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - After this April's implementation of the Sexual Orientation Regulations (SOR's), British religious schools may no longer be allowed to teach school children that the Christian viewpoint on sexual morality is "objectively true," a government report says.

The Joint Committee on Human Rights, made up of members from Parliament and the House of Lords, has issued a report on the implementation of the 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."
(emphasis added)
Just think of how much has changed in just 30 years of relentless campaigning on the part of GLBT forces in the western world. In the name of “non-discrimination” has come legalized discrimination redefined as "tolerance." Don't think that the same thing isn't happening in your neighborhood.

Universities regularly require entering students to take "orientation" courses where Biblical values are routinely dismissed, if not ridiculed. Elementary schools throughout the US are including early sex education designed to undo the teaching of traditional morality. Mainline denominations like the Episcopal Church and the PCUSA are marching in lock-step with the revisionists' agenda.

Progressivists know that faith standards must be removed in order for the world they envision to arise. They know that they must somehow counter what children are taught in the home and, especially, in church or synagogue. As in Britain, the most obvious target is the school. There you have a trapped audience made up of fresh minds upon which all kinds of truth--or falsehood--may be written.

I have long believed that we need to teach our children not only the Christian worldview, but the worldview of others, so that they will not be surprised or twisted by unbiblical ways of thinking and living. This will be increasingly difficult to do as our culture is increasingly influenced by small groups with big agendas. It will also be harder to stand out from the crowd. But any alternative is too dangerous for our children and, ultimately, our culture.
In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I give you this charge: Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction. For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. But you, keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry. (2 Timothy 4:1-5)
This passages commands us to hold fast to what we believe and teach. Written in a time not too different from ours, it reminds us of just how important the Truth of faith is. It is more important now than ever.

Keep praying--keep the faith,
Tom

15 comments:

Jodie said...

Tom,

What exactly is the “Christian Worldview” you want to teach?

England has a state religion and the Queen is the head of the church. If you think State religion is coming to a neighborhood near you and if you think the President is about to become the head of the American church, then I suppose your British example applies. But I personally don’t think the neo-cons will get that far.

Teaching children to single out a whole class of people as inherently more sinful and immoral than the rest of us will teach them religion sanctioned hatred of that class of people. What faith standard permits that? The prohibition against teaching state-religion sanctioned hatred of homosexuals is like a prohibition against teaching state-religion sanctioned anti-Semitism.

Such forms of “legalized intolerance” are anything but wrong.

Whenever the State or anyone else teaches our children to hate someone, we Christians should be the first to cry foul. That is the Christian World-view >I< would like to teach.

Jodie

Anonymous said...

Jodie - I don't believe that Tom has said that Christians should teach their children to hate homosexuals at all...he said to teach our children the word of God. I think you are choosing to misinterpert his statements.

If we teach them the Word they will
"Learn to love their neighbor as themselves" Mark 19:19
However in doing so we do not turn a blind eye to sin...of any kind and both homosexuality and hatred are sins.

nhc

Ted D Rossier said...

About an hour's worth of internet research has failed to turn up a definitive statement on the exact wording of England's version of the SOR's, but I did find the Northern Ireland version which is said to be close to identical.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/sr/sr2006/20060439.htm

I agree that it certainly is extremely troubling, but only time will tell how the English courts will interpret it. There's enough wiggle room in the language and definitions that I think a Christian school could fashion a way to still teach the whole counsel of God without violating the regulations. Not enough room to go into it here.

Jodie's right on one point. The fact that they do not have separation of church and state in England (as we do here) makes passage of this kind of law easier for them. As it's worded, it would never pass Constitutional muster in the US. Also, as it stands now no Federal regulation or law can touch educational instruction in Christian private schools or homeschooling. US Supreme Court precedent from many years ago affirmed the right of religious groups to educate their children according to the tenets of their religion (see for example Wisconsin v. Yoder from 1971), and these decisions would have to be overturned, which would be a difficult task for a number of reasons.

I do need to dispute a few more of Jodie's straw men, though:

Teaching children to single out a whole class of people as inherently more sinful and immoral than the rest of us will teach them religion sanctioned hatred of that class of people. What faith standard permits that?

You could be talking about Islam, or Mormonism for that matter, but certainly Christianity does not permit such teaching.

1) the Bible teaches that we are all equally sinful and depraved, and that God is no respecter of persons (i.e., no one class of persons has claim to moral superiority over another, just because of their class). So to teach that homosexuals are "inherently more sinful and immoral" than heterosexuals is not in accordance with God's Word. That having been said, it should also be observed that those who engage in the homosexual lifestyle have a greater tendency to be involved in other immoral behavior than persons who do not, and that the prevalence of homosexuality in a given society is evidence of its spiritual condition; i.e., rebellion against God. Romans 1 bears out both of these points.

2) Telling a person they are sinning is not the same as hating them. Never has been. If it was, we could never preach the Gospel, because we are commanded to speak the truth in love. (Eph. 4:15) So your statement is illogical and unbiblical.

3) A person's race or ethnic origin are not sins, so your analogy to anti-Semitism is fallacious.

I agree with your final paragraph.

Ted

TomGray said...

Jodie,
We don't teach that classes of people should be discriminated against. We teach that Biblical Christianity calls for a particular way of living that other people may oppose.
Our kids need to know that there are other points of view out there. How could you be opposed to this?
Tom
PS who on earth was talking about neo-cons?

Jodie said...

Tom,

Of course you do not intentionally teach that classes of people should be discriminated against. That is something that happens quite naturally when we fail to teach the opposite.

But if you make a display out of one segment of the population over all others, then rather than upholding the Gospel all you end up doing is opening the door for more sin.

It's pretty embarrassing when it takes the British Parliament to figure that out.

Jodie

PS who was talking about the neo-cons? You were, when you brought up the Progressives.

Brian Huddleston said...

Re: "We teach that Biblical Christianity calls for a particular way of living...."

Frankly, except for things like our articles of faith (e.g., The Apostles' Creed) that we all accept as objective truth, in actual practice, I have not seen a great consensus, even amongst Biblical Christians, on what our particular way of living entails.

What say you?
Brian

TomGray said...

Jodie,
Progressives are not neo-cons. I still don't get it.
Tom

Anonymous said...

Jodie, How about the 9th circuit of appeals hating Christanity? There is an article or court "memo" about how the court is stifling christian free speech since words like "family values", and "marriage" are hate speech yet allowing all sorts of pro-gay activities in the municipality in question on office bulletin boards and via email to promote the gay agenda. If that is not the govt at work to squash christianity, I dont know what is.

P.W.

Arthur said...

P.W.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals didn't say anything like what you reported here. Not one word about "hate speech" in the entire memorandum, and nothing concerning "pro-gay activities" was even appropriate evidence for deciding the case.

You should read the memorandum before you pass judgment on it.

You'll find it here:
http://www.profamilylawcenter.com/_docs/35.pdf

Arthur

Anonymous said...

"A ruling from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has concluded that municipal employers have the right to censor the words "natural family," "marriage" and "family values" because that is hate speech and could scare workers. "

However, as the Pro-Family Law Center noted, the court "completely failed to address the concerns of the appellants with respect to the fact that the City of Oakland's Gay-Straight Employees Alliance was openly allowed to attack the Bible in widespread city e-mails, to deride Christian values as antiquated, and to refer to Bible-believing Christians as hateful. When the plaintiffs attempted to refute this blatant attack on people of faith, they were threatened with immediate termination by the City of Oakland. The Ninth Circuit did not feel that the threat of immediate termination had any effect on free speech."

Leave it to you to ignore the first paragraph of the story to apply it to their agenda. Hate speech term is clearly listed.

Further, if you are a christian Arthur, why are you not standing up against this censorship of Christanity? The pro-gay movement is being promoted at expense of Christians. Why dont you try reading the whole article, I can post if for you if you like
P.W.

Ted D Rossier said...

P.W.,

Don't confuse Arthur with the facts!

Ted

Arthur said...

P.W.

Apparently, contrary to you, I don’t see this case as one in which Christianity is being censored. I see it as censoring the apparent tone in which the Good News Employee Association’s flyer was written. The use of phrases like "preserve our workplace with integrity" and “If you would like to be a part of preserving integrity in the Workplace” could easily be seen by some (gays for instance) to be inflammatory speech. They didn’t just say come to our meeting and see what we are all about; they were implying that those who disagreed with them didn’t have integrity. It may very well be true that those who disagree with them don’t have integrity, but it doesn’t make it right to rub their noses in it in the workplace.

The fact that pro-gay emails were routinely sent around in the same workplace has no real bearing on this case. If someone wanted to make a legal issue out of that, then maybe they should have rather than forming a group (Good News Employee Association) to combat it on their own. I don’t know what the pro-gay emails said, so I can’t rightly comment on whether or not they were appropriate for the workplace, but my gut (the totally depraved part of me) says they probably weren’t.

It looks to me like things were getting out of hand; the City of Oakland changed a policy in an attempt to defuse the situation, and then took a hard line in enforcing it.

The articles I’ve read about it don’t say anything about whether or not the pro-gay folks were told (after the policy change) to stop sending around their emails or risk termination. I’m not going to make an assumption either way, and unless you have evidence either way, maybe you shouldn’t draw conclusions either.

It looks to me like you’re just buying into the propaganda being doled out by the side carrying the sour grapes. I’m trying to look at it from both sides.

You said:

“Further, if you are a christian Arthur,…”

What kind of speech is that?

Arthur

Anonymous said...

Arthur,

If there is anything I have learned, it is you dont have a clue at looking at stuff from both sides. This is a generalization, but 99.99% of liberals have one side, theirs, and whenever any other opinion is stated contrary to theirs it is termed, homophobic, mean spirited etc etc etc. Liberals always claim they are fair and balance, PLEASE nothing and be farther from the truth.

Now to the issue at hand, was it not the LORD that said love the sinner hate the sin? I have no problem with gay folks. I know a few. I strongly believe they are sinning, I can still hope they change. But most are unrepentant and thinking that Christanity should adapt to them or we are mean spirited and homophobic or not staying up with the times. I do have a serious problem with them forcing their agenda down the throats of America and more so the world. I KNOW you will think I am crazy but there again, your liberal side does not think so.

I made my comment about your faith to get you to think and get a rise out of you because you apparently for what I gather do not condemn the sin. The LORD intended marriage to be between Adam and Eve, not Jim and John or Judy and Julie.

Do I sin, absolutely we all do. But the issue is repentance, they have NONE and want our schools, the church itself which PCUSA is doing, our state and federal govt which they are doing, to approve of them.

What also drives me crazy about you and the PCUSA is you are SO FOCUS on your precious B.O.O. Liberals are holding near and dear the wrong book.

Jodie made the comment that whenever the state or anyone teaches children to hate someone we Christians should be the first to cry foul. Well the absurdness of that statement is beyond my comprehension. We dont teach children to hate gays, we are teaching that it is a sin. We teach love they neighbor, we teach the difference between right and wrong, homosexuality is wrong, if we cannot agree on that basic principal then I dont know what else to say. Which i am pretty sure you will not agree on. Nor do you seem to have any problem or see that there is in fact a pro-gay agenda worldwide and within our liberal side of the govt, courts and Christanity is being squashed at the expense of this agenda.

P.W.

Arthur said...

P.W.

You've got an interesting, although somewhat twisted, perspective on these issues.

Let me make one point perfectly clear to you, since it apparently has gotten by you. I'm not a Liberal. You just think I am because I've disagreed with you on this secular issue and other Conservatives on this blog. You seem to look at people (in particular me) in such simplistic us-or-them terms. My comments weren't about taking sides with either group, and I thought I had made it clear that my gut tells me there is plenty of blame to go around on both sides.

The court was not asked to make a determination on whether or not the terms Marriage, etc... constituted "hate speech". They were asked whether or not the City of Oakland was within its rights to remove a flyer placed there by a group. This wasn't about taking sides with either the gay group or the non-gay group.

You still haven't brought forward any evidence that indicates that the City either did or didn’t come down on the gay group as well. That doesn’t stop you from ranting on and on though…

You said:

“I made my comment about your faith to get you to think and get a rise out of you because you apparently for what I gather do not condemn the sin.”

Who’s sin? This thread was about the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and whether or not they declared “Marriage” (and other terms) to be “hate speech” (as is claimed in the article you quoted). What sin did they (the Court) commit? I’ve stayed on topic; I don’t know where you’ve gone.

With all the complaining some people do with regard to "activist Judges", it surprises me to no end that these very same people will complain when Judges are not activist enough to support their particular non-secular philosophy by their decisions.

---

I don't know why you think I'm so focused on the BOO. I'm not; I'm focused on the Lord. The BOO is the constitution which specifies the Form of Government of the PCUSA as well as the Directory for Worship and Rules of Discipline.

In case you weren't aware, Governments are a gift from, and are ordained by God, and we are expected to follow the rules they make unless they directly contradict God’s laws. The Government of the PCUSA denomination is just as legitimate a Government as is the Government of the USA, regardless of whether or not you agree with their rules, decisions, or the beliefs and behaviors of other members.

We aren't just expected to follow God's laws as given to us in the Bible. When our church pastors and elders take a vow to follow the rules that govern the PCUSA, it is an affront to God when they break them, just as it is also an affront to God whenever we break a secular law. The fact that I (and others) admonish Tom, Wayne and the Kirk’s Session for breaking their ordination vows isn’t because I’m focused on the BOO, it’s because I’m focused on God.

Arthur

Jodie said...

Dear P.W.

Your heart may be in the right place as far as your desire to please God and teach your children well. However you may be teaching your children wrongly.

For example, you stated “was it not the LORD that said love the sinner hate the sin?”

Not true! The LORD most emphatically did >not< say that, nor is it anywhere in the Bible. What He did say was that we should >forgive< the sins of others so that we too may be forgiven. It is even in the Lord’s prayer.

To that effect see the parable Jesus taught in Matthew 18:23-35. In it a King (i.e. God) forgives a slave (i.e. you) his debt (i.e. his sin) but then this slave turns around and instead of forgiving a fellow slave his debt (i.e. the other man’s sin) he condemns him and throws him in jail. When the King hears of this (from the other slaves) he is outraged at the slave whose sin he had forgiven, calls him “wicked”, rescinds his forgiveness, and throws him not just in jail but to the torturers.

We are taught to love each other as we love ourselves. We are taught to forgive each other’s sins as God forgives us of our own. There is no penalty for failing to “hate the sin”, but the penalty for accepting God’s forgiveness and not paying it forward is quite severe.

Jodie