David Cameron supports judgement against Christian foster parents

The Prime  Minister, David Cameron has publicly supported the High Court judgement against Eunice and Owen Johns, a Pentecostal couple, who have been told that they cannot foster children because they uphold traditional Christian morality about homosexuality.

The Derby Telegraph reports:

Pointing out that he also went to church, Mr Cameron said: “This matter was decided by a court in the appropriate way and I think we should rest with the judgement that was made.I think Christians should be tolerant and welcoming and broad minded.”

A spokesman for the Johns said Mr Cameron’s response was “lacking in any understanding of the critical situation and conflict between the two groups involved”.

Does Mr Cameron realize that by giving his unqualified support to the judgement against Eunice and Owen Johns he is  supporting the legal precedent that Christians couples who uphold the Church’s traditional moral teaching about homosexuality are now disqualified from fostering and adoption?

Does he also realize that he is supporting the judgement that homosexual rights always trump the rights of Christians who uphold the moral teaching of the Church?

‘Lord Justice Munby and Mr Justice Beatson 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.’

Protect the Pope comment: Was it David Cameron’s intention to alienate the UK’s orthodox and faithful Christians from his coalition government and the Conservative party? The Prime Minister’s crass comments suggest he believes that Christians should be tolerant and welcoming and broad minded about homosexual acts that scripture and tradition categorically state are sinful.

Obviously, Christians can and must be welcoming to homosexuals as our brothers and sisters made in the image of God, but it would be untruthful and uncaring to be tolerant and broadminded about behaviour that God identifies as harmful and destructive of human well-being, just as Christians could not be tolerant and broadminded about adultery or abortion.

When this intervention is seen in the context of Michael Gove’s proposals to exclude RE from the English baccalaureate the Coalition government is starting to appear as anti-Christian as the previous Labour government.

http://www.thisisderbyshire.co.uk/news/PM-Court-right-foster-row-case/article-3303125-detail/article.html

40 comments to David Cameron supports judgement against Christian foster parents

  • Mary Hume

    My children have all been taught that sex outside Catholic marriage is a sin. I’m quite sure that none of them would dream of being homosexual.

  • louella

    We cannot accept this ruling….it is evil and discriminatory! Who is Cameron to pontificate?! Once again as is the constant story of the past century…..that which should be rendered to God…is rendered to Casear. We cannot accept this.

    There is no doubt about it….all secular governments want to clamp down on and destroy Christianity. And it is we Christians who have supported them. This must change.

  • Karla

    What about Muslims adopting, David Cameron? No problem I suppose, but surely you must know their views on homosexuality.

    ‘Gay’ atheist warns of ‘tyrannous new … liberal morality’ oppressing Christians: http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/gay-atheist-warns-of-tyrannous-new-liberal-morality-oppressing-christians

    • Tim

      The law applies equally to Muslims. There are many many examples where the law and UK judges have made it clear that protection for islamic beliefs is not absolute abd inviolatable and that it must be balanced with other rights and responsibilities.

      The court cases that have qualified Muslim freedom of religion mostly concern refusal to handle haram pork and alcohol (remember the guy in Tesco’s warehouse driving a fork-lift full of alcohol and the Muslim in the Police canteen stories?).

      The details are different (I don’t know why different religions choose different battles to fight), but the principles are the same. Freedom of religion may be qualified to a limited extent if neccessary to protect other legitimate rights. You may disagree with that, but it isn’t true to say that the UK courts and policians have set out to target one particular religion and not others.

      • louella

        Tim what about the rights of practising Catholic parents…. not to have their children adopted by liberal secular parents should the need for adoption arise?!

        I think this must be investigated and our rights regarding our children’s upbringing in such cases upheld!

      • Karla

        The question Tim is where do you draw the line. Why stop this one Christian couple who have a long history of fostering, because they disprove of homosexuality or homosexual acts. What about other Christians who foster?

    • Mary Hume

      How utterly ridiculous. I don’t care what any archaeologist says. God doesn’t have a wife and never did.

      • Tim

        IF she is an athiest then she doesn’t believe that there is really a God, married or single. The archeology merely suggests that in the dim and distant past there was a group of people who thought that there was a God who had a wife. Whether or not that is true, I can’t see how it is relevent to anything very much other than as an example that over the centuries people have shown a capactity to belive all sorts of weird and wonderful things at least some of which must be false (because of mutal incompatibility), but we knew that anyway didn’t we? If you want to fit this history with your own Christian beliefs then that really isn’t too hard to do – you simply have to belief that there has always been one true God, but that until a few thousand years ago people had incomplete or only partially correct comprehension of this (including wives of God and other manifestestions of ploytheism). Is that not the conventional non-contraverial Christain understanding of this issue?

        It is an uncontravertial scholarly possition that the Jewish mono-theist religion involved from polytheistic pagan beliefs, probably via an intermediate stage where the Jews had only one God but the existance of other Gods (“foreign gods”) was not denied, it was merely that they were not to be worshipped by the Jews.

        Surely all that this proves is that the BBC’s new head of religion is a scholar of religion and knows a bit about its history and that she is facinated by the subject. All that must count in her favour.

    • Catholic Pro-lifer

      All she has done is unearth (as if it were hidden) a developing understanding of God. It did not happen all in one go, and in any case, the ancient Israelites werent always faithful. That is the story that unfolds in the OT. God doesnt change, only man’s understanding of Him changes

  • SpeSalvi23

    Hurray to the conservative dragon who runs our country!! I’ll take her ahead of ANY other EU politician!!

    BTW: there is an official petition calling for the official withdrawal of Germany from the EU!! *hoping*
    Considering the decision made on abortion today – I’m ALL for it!!

  • Michael Petek

    When Mr Cameron says he goes to church, is he referring to the Metropolitan Community Church?

  • pascalstriangle

    Sooner or later we will be dragged out and told to give worship to the Empress

  • louella

    In fact….by not allowing Christian couples to foster vulnerable children…it is actually the children that are being punished. But then…..that’s what secular governments are good at when you think about it. It’s always children that bear the brunt of secularism’s favourite fads! Sickening.

  • Andrzej

    PLEASE someone tell me:

    Why doesn’t the Queen do anything?

    She is a serious woman and serious about her duties.

    Why doesn’t she do anything about this growing madness in her kingdom?

    • Deacon Nick

      If the Queen involved herself directly and publicly in politics or law there would be an constitutional crisis. In the US they have the separation of State and Church, in the UK we have separation of the monarchy from the parliamentary and legal process.

    • A. Nicot

      Well, the Queen is rather unfortunately the victim of modern constitutional monarchy. She has no power other than as a figurehead. Were she to attempt to take action on such matters in a way that is protected by her rights as sovereign, the government would likely force her to abdicate (for example, she can technically dissolve parliament – not that they’d let her do that) or reduce her powers even more. It’ like King Baudouin of Belgium who declined to give assent to a law liberalizing abortion laws in 1990. The government made him “unfit to reign” and passed the law, and then reinstated him.
      If the Queen had more power, she would likely do something about his without need of fearing a repercussion against the monarchy in some form. She is after all, a devout Christian.

  • Andrzej

    A. Nicot:

    Good point.

    Your write: “If the Queen had more power, she would likely do something about his without need of fearing a repercussion against the monarchy in some form. She is after all, a devout Christian.”

    But surely, her duty as a monarch is primarily to God, no?

  • Andrzej

    Just to clarify: I am not suggesting the Queen interfere in this particular case. Rather, why doesn’t she speak up – in a informal way- against the general madness that is consuming your fine country

    • Tim

      aside from the constitutional considerations, we don;t actually know that this is an issue that the Queen feels strongly about. I don’t think you can just assume that she feels as strongly about this as you do.

      In any case, if she did have concerns it would be more likely (and more appropriate perhaps) for her to voice them through her anglican Archbishop (and maybe she has spoken to Rowan Willaims about this – we simply do not know)

  • El Nino

    I was always suspicious of David Cameron.

    Eton, working in PR (like most of the Browns), working for media companies, representing an almost all-WASP constituency. It all looked too similar to the profile of a member of metropolitan liberal elite.

    What I didn’t realise is that he is an idiot.

    By whom exactly does he think his Big Society policy is going to be executed? I can assure you it isn’t going to be the Liberal Elite. They aren’t going to raise a finger to found (or fund) a school, soup kitchen, youth club or charity (with the exception of medical charities). It’s going to be the religions, so being unsupportive of us is a stupid move. If we’re not allowed to bring our religion into institutions, why should we contribute out time and money? As voluntary taxation?

    I think the cause is that there was such an enormous clearout of MP’s at the last election, parliament has forgotten just how powerful the religious are in this country. The bruising we gave the Establishment over Faith Schools in 2006 has been forgotten. Why has the Papal Visit (not so long ago) been forgotten?

    Only one thing for it. A political campaign to demonstrate our strength.

    Archbishop Nicholls, as de facto leader of England’s religious, just say the word and we will make it so.

    The Battle Roll of Honour:

    Faith Schools (2006)
    Papal Visit (2010)
    ? (2011)

    And in 2011 we will have support of Muslims, Pentecostalists and not a few conservative Anglicans. The opposition simply doesn’t have the numbers, organisation or motivation to match us, that’s been proven in the two previous battles.

    David Cameron needs reminding of this fact of British political life.

    • louella

      I wouldn’t bank on Islamic support…..they only fight for Islam and the Caliphate. I think an offensive as opposed to a defensive campaign for the return of Christendom could get a lot of broad support…..especially if we highlighte the destructive nature of secularism on the population and culture of Britain. Secularism is leading the West to its grave…..and secular politicians don’t care. In fact they continue to aid and abet it.

      This treachery has to be shouted from the roof tops.

    • Tim

      “By whom exactly does he think his Big Society policy is going to be executed? I can assure you it isn’t going to be the Liberal Elite. They aren’t going to raise a finger to found (or fund) a school, soup kitchen, youth club or charity (with the exception of medical charities). It’s going to be the religions, so being unsupportive of us is a stupid move. If we’re not allowed to bring our religion into institutions, why should we contribute out time and money? As voluntary taxation?”

      Have a look at http://www.westlondonfreeschool.co.uk/ for an example of a free school set up by a group of parents including Toby Young – you don’t get any more liberal elite than that.

      more generally. The report ‘Faith and Voluntary Action’ from the National Council of Voluntary Organisations (2007) finds that: “Religious affiliation makes little difference in terms of volunteering”.

      The 2001 Citizenship Survey finds that the proportion of people who volunteered and had a religious affiliation is similar to the proportion of people who had no religious affiliation, and this is true of both informal and formal volunteering. In both categories of those with religious affiliation and those with none, 39% participated in formal volunteering at least once a year, and 68% of those with no religious affiliation participated in informal volunteering versus 67% of those who describe themselves as having a faith.

      (Source: Religion in England and Wales: Findings from the Home Office 2001 Citizenship Survey, Home Office Research Study 274)

      And anyway genuine charity ought to be unselfish.

      • El Nino

        Toby Young.

        Yes, one school. And boy, has the Liberal Elite done everything it could to stop him. Check out his blog on the Telegraph for evidence from the horse’s mouth.

        Meanwhile, Catholic schools? c2,300.

        So, they’ve got some catching up to do.

        I’ve briefly scanned the report you mention and note it (and you) mention affiliation, rather than practice. So, in other words, the vast majority of ‘cultural’ Christians in the UK bring the average down. Those who practise a religion are more likely to volunteer (see table 4).

        But, here’s the problem. Where are all these Atheist charities? Especially locally, I just don’t see them. I do note some non-religious charities closing down when public funding is withdrawn, though. Nationally I do see secular charities, but they do seem very corporate and, if I may say so, rather in thrall to the government.

        But yes, there is no monopoly on charitable giving.

        http://www.ncvo-vol.org.uk/sites/default/files/UploadedFiles/NCVO/Publications/Publications_Catalogue/Sector_Research/Faith_and_Voluntary_Action_0.pdf

    • Tim

      I’d love you to try it. You will loose resoundingly. You don’t even have a majority of Catholics behind you on issue of sexual “morality”.

      An offensive campaign will force all the liberal cafeteria Catholics to face up to the issues they have been trying to ignore and you will end up with a purer but much smaller church that will be less respected and listened to by everyone else in the country.

      If that is what you want then fine, but the terrible side effect will be the loss of a home for all the decent tolerant board-minded people in the Church who currently find great comfort and support from the their faith and traditions but do not support the nasty authioritarian side of Catholicism.

      • spesalvi23

        Tim. I’m quite surprised that you’d be able to make a judgment on what the majority of Catholics actually think about sexual morality. Possibly you’re basing your comment on the published opinion? On polls??
        Please remember that the Church is global and that not all cultures are so deeply saturated with hedonism and sex as ours.
        In any case! The Church is not seeking worldly respect of anybody. She will say and do what is needed and what has been the essence of her mission. And if current culture cannot accept that, then she will shrink; and if she will lose influence and worldly possessions, so be it.
        The Church has seen and buried many of her enemies during the last 2000 years and she will continue doing so.

        Which is always a problem for puritan secularists, because they have nothing else to cling to when systems, structures, ideologies and ways of life collapse in an infinite loop.

        • Tim

          I was talking about the UK. My judgement was based on both talking to the Catholics I know and polls like this one http://www.secularism.org.uk/pope-completely-out-of-step-with.html

          You opposition certainly has the numbers. As to whether or not we have the motivation – that remains to be seen.

          • spesalvi23

            That’s what I thought.

          • El Nino

            This is just comical!

            Tim, I seriously suggest you put your faith in God rather than opinion polls.

            Let’s just tear this apart.

            The link you provide is dated 17th September 2010 and was taken when anti-Catholic hysteria was at its height. So, you’re expecting truthful answers?

            It gets better.

            “a third believe it [Roman Catholic Church] is a force for ill.”

            These are Catholics saying this? So, a third of respondents say they are members of an institution which is a force for ill? Er, leave chaps, or are you actually FOR evil?

            “Only 14 per cent of those polled say they are positively in favour of the visit, regardless of cost”

            OK, so I just imagined those vast crowds in Hyde Park (Yes, I was there).
            For something so unpopular an awful lot of Catholics turned up to see the Holy Father.

            Now, turning to numbers. How many turned up to Protest the Pope? Now, this isn’t some opinion poll but actual headcount. Just Roman Catholics outnumbered protesters 50:1. A serious lack of motivation, methinks.

            I suggest you view your sources more critically in future, though your faith in opinion polls is touchingly naive.

  • The logic of this ruling leads from one thing to another. If it is
    detramental for children to be fostered by christians when will
    it be assumed that it be considred detramental for christians to bring up
    theier own children??? Just how far will it be pushed?? The logic seems
    to be there. Anybody thought of that?? Does it sound outlandish??
    A precident seems to have been set here,and food for thought!!

    • spesalvi23

      This is a good point – and it’s quite realistic.
      I think the situation will get a LOT worse for Christians until they finally realize what is happening and until they are beginning to take action against open, government approval/support of various from of discrimiation against them.

      Currently, political correctness, indifference and tolerance prevails. Let’s see how much longer…

  • [...] Protect the Pope – David Cameron supports judgement against Christian foster parents [...]

  • Pedro

    “David Cameron supports judgement against Christian foster parents”

    What judgement against Christian foster parents? The judgement is available online.

    http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/375.html

    Paragraph 109: For the reasons given in [107] we have concluded that we should MAKE NO ORDER.

    Derby City Council have also not decided whether they will place children with them (paragaph 21).

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>