March 19th 2011

  Buy Issue 2847

Articles from this issue:

EDITORIAL: Taxpayers to help subsidise UN's $100 billion climate fund

CANBERRA OBSERVED: Greens give marching orders to Julia Gillard

NEW ZEALAND: Questions about Christchurch earthquake

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE: Elton John and the new stolen generation

DRUGS: Latest push to promote needle/syringe programs

ECONOMIC AFFAIRS: Mondragón worker co-ops ride out global slump

UNITED STATES: How the recession has hurt working-class men

MIDDLE EAST I: Misunderstanding the events rocking the Middle East

MIDDLE EAST II: Are Western diplomats up to the job?

RUSSIA: Gorbachev slams 'rich and debauched' elite

UNITED KINGDOM: British High Court's assault on Christianity

EUTHANASIA: What must patients do to avoid being killed?

OBITUARY: Abortionist who became pro-life crusader: Bernard Nathanson (1926-2011)

OPINION: Politicisation of our public service

Howard left federal Budget in surplus (letter)

National investment fund (letter)

Bob Brown's machinations (letter)

BOOK REVIEW: COURTING DISASTER: How the CIA Kept America Safe and How Obama Is Inviting the Next Attack, by Marc A. Thiessen

BOOK REVIEW: THE STORY OF ENGLISH: How the English Language Conquered the World, by Philip Gooden

Books promotion page

British High Court's assault on Christianity

by Bill Muehlenberg

News Weekly, March 19, 2011
In another appalling case of judicial activism, anti-Christian bigotry and ruthless social engineering, two English High Court judges have effectively declared war on Christianity.

These two mere mortals have made a ruling so bizarre, so immoral, and so mind-boggling, that one has to wonder why the British public have not run them out of town covered in tar and feathers. Their ruling makes a number of simply incredible declarations that:

• the 1500-year Christian heritage of England is now simply to be dismissed altogether;

• the tiny minority of homosexual activists are now the undisputed wielders of power in the nation today;

• the well-being of children is not to be even considered or worried about in the slightest;

•parents (at least foster-parents) have no right to instil values into children except the PC dictates of the godless state; and

• reality is now whatever a few activists judges decide it will be.

I can see no way around such a conclusion, based on recent British headlines. Here is how the UK's Daily Telegraph opened its report on February 28: "There is no place in British law for Christian beliefs, despite this country's long history of religious observance and the traditions of the established Church, two High Court judges said on Monday.

"Lord Justice Munby and Mr Justice Beatson made the remarks when ruling on the case of a Christian couple who were told that they could not be foster carers because of their view that homosexuality is wrong.

"The judges underlined that, in the case of fostering arrangements at least, the right of homosexuals to equality 'should take precedence' over the right of Christians to manifest their beliefs and moral values.

"In a ruling with potentially wide-ranging implications, the judges said Britain was a 'largely secular', multi-cultural country in which the laws of the realm 'do not include Christianity'.

"Campaigners for homosexual rights welcomed the judgment for placing '21st-century decency above 19th-century prejudice'. Christian campaigners claimed that it undermined the position of the Church of England."

The judges declared that "the equality provisions concerning sexual orientation should take precedence" over religious rights.

Let me translate: the "rights" of activist homosexuals to wage war on our children must trump the rights and convictions of any religious person.

Fortunately, a few voices of sanity are still left in the UK. The article continues: "The Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali, the former bishop of Rochester, described the judgment as 'absurd'. He pointed out the monarch took a coronation oath promising to uphold the laws of God, while Acts of Parliament are passed with the consent of 'the Lords Spiritual', and the Queen's Speech finishes with a blessing from Almighty God."

Dr Nazir-Ali said: "To say that this is a secular country is certainly wrong. However, what really worries me about this spate of judgments is that they leave no room for the conscience of believers of whatever kind. This will exclude Christians, Muslims and Orthodox Jews from whole swaths of public life, including adoption and fostering."

The Telegraph reported a personal comment by Canon Dr Chris Sugden, the executive secretary of Anglican Mainstream, who said that the judges were wrong to say religion was a matter of private individuals' beliefs.

He said: "They are treating religion like Richard Dawkins does, as if Christian faith was on a parallel with Melanesian frog worship. The judgment asserts that there is no hierarchy of rights, but itself implies there is one in which the right to practise one's religion is subordinated to the secular assumptions about equality."

And the Telegraph itself editorialised: "Eunice and Owen Johns are a God-fearing Christian couple, married almost 40 years, who offered a secure and loving family home to foster children aged between five and 10. But they are to be denied the opportunity to do so any longer because they are unwilling to promote a homosexual lifestyle to a child. Neither Mr nor Mrs Johns has anything against gay people but they are not in favour of sex before marriage, whatever an individual's orientation.

"Equality laws are supposed to uphold the rights to religious belief. Yet the High Court ruled that laws protecting people from discrimination because of their sexual orientation 'should take precedence' over the right not to be discriminated against on religious grounds.

"Why has it been left to judges to decide whose rights trump those of others? This should have been decided by Parliament but, yet again, another sloppily drafted measure will have far-reaching consequences for freedom of conscience in this country.

"Already the Roman Catholic Church has had to close its adoption agencies because they cannot conform to the law. Perhaps there is a historical irony here, because we are witnessing a modern, secular Inquisition - a determined effort to force everyone to accept a new set of orthodoxies or face damnation as social heretics if they refuse. Parliament and the courts should protect people like Mr and Mrs Johns, but have thrown them to the wolves. It is a disgrace."

Yes, it most certainly is a disgrace. And isn't it amazing that even a secular newspaper can see this for what it is: a "secular Inquisition". Exactly right. All over the Western world our secular elites and activist judges have declared war against Christianity, and bit by bit they are destroying it.

The next time some secularist complains to you about how religious folks are forcing their agenda on to others, after you stop laughing, let him know that the exact opposite is now the case.

A secular Inquisition has been unleashed, and it is shows no signs of abating until the secularist takeover of society is complete.

Bill Muehlenberg is a commentator on contemporary issues, and lectures on ethics and philosophy. His website CultureWatch is at:



Tim Ross, "Foster parent ban: 'no place' in the law for Christianity, High Court rules", The Telegraph (UK), February 28, 2011.

Telegraph editorial, "Foster parents defeated by the new Inquisition", The Telegraph (UK), February 28, 2011.

All you need to know about
the wider impact of transgenderism on society.
TRANSGENDER: one shade of grey, 353pp, $39.99

Join email list

Join e-newsletter list

Your cart has 0 items

Subscribe to NewsWeekly

Research Papers

Trending articles


GENDER POLITICS Transgender sport policies are now in Morrison's court/pitch/field

CLIMATE ALARMISM Governments plan to do what the climate itself has so far failed to do: Impoverish our lives

EDITORIAL Gladys Liu controversy ignores reality of China's interference

COVER STORY Hong Kong's David and Goliath struggle

COVER STORY Greta Thunberg: she's not doing it all on her own

COVER STORY Federal Government should abolish Renewable Energy Certificates

© Copyright 2017
Last Modified:
April 4, 2018, 6:45 pm