Column: A dark week for Christianity in Britain (From Lancashire Telegraph)
When news happens, text LT and your photos and videos to 80360. Or contact us by email or phone.
Column: A dark week for Christianity in Britain
9:00am Saturday 16th June 2012 in Opinion
By Rev Kevin Logan, Lancashire Telegraph columnist
Those who believe Britain is still a Christian nation saw their arguments take another battering this week.
First, the good old C of E may be forced to withdraw from State life if gay marriage becomes law, it informed the recently-ended government public consultation.
The 'State’ church doesn’t believe in, and can’t see the need for, same-sex marriage. Along with the majority of the gay community, the church observes that all the existing rights of marriage are already bestowed by civil partnerships, and so do most faith groups, lawyers and members of the public.
Most are saddened by what seems to be a political publicity stunt designed to make Tories more touchy-feely, though ‘saddened’ doesn’t quite describe the disgust felt by grass-root blues. Pray for one of the PM’s sensible U-turns.
It seems ironic that the politician who swept to power on promises of promoting family life and marriage should be the one to dismantle these cherished institutions.
Christianity was further knocked when the General Medical Journal told doctors this week to end opposition to assisted dying.
Odd how we choose soft words to lessen the sting of our actions. We never kill unborn babies; merely abort foetuses. Now, the likely extensive killing off of the terminally ill gets its own make-over.
A third Christian shock involves Dr Scott, who once kindly offered to pray with a patient, in line with his practice’s well-advertised offer of spiritual help for patients.
He now learns he’ll be taken to medical ‘court’, even though the patient didn’t complain and refuses to attend as a witness. The patient opts instead to give only telephoned evidence, making assessment and cross-examination of testimony quite unjust.
So, in this dark week, Britain chooses not only shut out of public life its official church but also its Christian carers.
Comments(39)
sean_brfc
says...
1:55pm Sat 16 Jun 12
l m h jones
says...
3:26pm Sat 16 Jun 12
manyarecalled wrote:i would hardly have thought that you could label marriage as a form of militancy but hey oh.
marriage is for having children , not for militant ''gays'' to push an agenda. we have got to suppose that since this government is only interested in money , that financial support for the Conservative Party etc is being offered by the ''gays''.
l m h jones
says...
3:29pm Sat 16 Jun 12
blog.com/2012/06/15/
church-of-englands-a
rgument-against-gay-
marriage-is-without-
foundation-paul-john
son/#more-14313
Ken Shuffles
says...
3:47pm Sat 16 Jun 12
.
Dont make any contract for sex and you won't look more and more ridiculous,or fall out of touch with the common love and affections of people.
.
An honest contract, is about the love and devotion not the **** and the desire for official christian rubber stamped sex.
.
It's impossible to kill any baby that isn't breathing, so that rules out anything in the womb and tomb.
woolywords
says...
3:54pm Sat 16 Jun 12
Two people, join together express in front of others, openly and freely, their wish to be considered as one, should by any yardstick, be enough for all of us.
To expect any cleric to feel comfortable in solemnising a union of same sex people within a church is a step too far, given the Bibles' admonishments upon their act.
And to what end? A piece of paper that is as valid if it's issued in a Registry office, some sanctioned place or the bowels of a prison.
Marriage vows are made to each other, according to Gods' ordinance therefore this becomes a pointless exercise and an embarrassment. You cannot opt out of the phrase in a church, so God stays in the deal. And therein lies the rub..
It's as if you want God for some things but not for others.
Do you take milk or cream with your God? If you grasp my point.
How can you, in good conscience, expect someone who has given his life to serve the Church, to abandon it in order to serve your needs? The Bible is cluttered with references against it in Genesis, Leviticus and as far as Corinthians in the New Testament, yet you would have us ignore all that.
And another thing, when you go abroad, you will encounter intolerance, either in public or under law, to what is your lifestyle choice, what then? Are we to come to your rescue?
Canaanites, Greeks and Romans did it, even the modern English did it but had the good grace to do it in private. That is where it should stay. This is a step too far.
With luck, General Synod will declare that they are against it and rule that they are not closing church doors but rather leave it to the individual cleric to make a choice on permission thus preventing a schism between Church and State. It will, after all, put the Sovereign in an arkward position, being the head of both institutions and as each coin in your pocket declares, Defender of the Faith.
Ken Shuffles
says...
3:55pm Sat 16 Jun 12
manyarecalled wrote:Manyarecalled,
marriage is for having children , not for militant ''gays'' to push an agenda. we have got to suppose that since this government is only interested in money , that financial support for the Conservative Party etc is being offered by the ''gays''.
.
Marriage is for having sexual intercourse. The contract doesn't say the marriage contractis legal if the couple have a child or several children. It clearly says the marriage is not legal according to church and state law until it has been consummated with sexual intercourse.
.
Marriage is not an opinion. You may have an opinion about it but an opinion is not what a marriage is.
woolywords
says...
3:59pm Sat 16 Jun 12
Am I correct in thinking that, under Common Law, two people living together, for a year and a day, are to be considered as a couple?
Ken Shuffles
says...
4:18pm Sat 16 Jun 12
.
Ken Shuffles
says...
4:30pm Sat 16 Jun 12
Ken Shuffles
says...
4:39pm Sat 16 Jun 12
woolywords wrote:as a couple of what ??
After thoughts..
Am I correct in thinking that, under Common Law, two people living together, for a year and a day, are to be considered as a couple?
.
Two people living together are still just two people. Two people who sign a contract are still two people. They don't stop being two people either before the wedding or after the dicorce.
woolywords
says...
5:18pm Sat 16 Jun 12
I was thinking more in terms of the need for these civil contracts or 'marriages'. Am not concerned with the gender, as it's none of my business as to what consenting adults do behind the front door. You may have a differing opinion on gender but I'm of the 'live and let live' school. As long as it never impinges upon my life, I'm more than prepared to tolerate it. Since a few have decided to jamb it down my throat, as if it is some right that they are being denied, I have stated my opinion, publicly.
As far as I am concerned, a written contract, duly witnessed, should be binding upon both parties and if notarised, should suffice. To go beyond this, and in effect, seek sanction from the Church to what is an unnatural and immoral act, goes against the grain with me.
Since writing earlier, I have spoken to a friend of mine, a Jew, mentioned this article, my response to it and got my ear nearly chewed off for being a bigot. Apparently, both Talmud and Torah forbid it, so me quoting Bible was a bit short-sighted, since it's the new book on the block. My ignorance of the old law, is no excuse, apparently. Am surprised to learn that in the old Jewish books, there is mention of the Egyptians having relations with Nile crocodiles that the Pharoahs made illegal. We live and learn, don't we...
Ken Shuffles
says...
10:24pm Sat 16 Jun 12
I agree, not everything people do is my cup of tea either, but things are created the way they are. People do strange things and go against the grain and push and stretch the envelope all the time, what's wrong with love, affection, devotion being an essential element instead of sex
.
People would have more respect for the church if sex was not a condition that means anything. Mary and Joseph and Jesus and God did ok without depending on biology why not the church do the same.
Ken Shuffles
says...
10:29pm Sat 16 Jun 12
Graham Hartley
says...
11:02pm Sat 16 Jun 12
Ken Shuffles wrote:There are many other reasons why people have relationships with others. They may indeed be siblings, or some other part of the same biological entity. Parochially, I have a relationship with one of my bank managers but it is not connected with the fact that my cousin's wife found employment as one of the branch staff, and in continuing this relationship I am seeking neither love nor sex; well, not directly... my cousin's wife is very attractive but I have learned from direct experience that it is foolish - if rather fun - to covet one's cousin's wife.
People have relationships with other people because they are looking for love and affection not sex.
Graham Hartley
says...
11:43pm Sat 16 Jun 12
For what is the Church of England good? I've read Augustine, and am more intolerant of his position in my tens than I was in my teens. I grant that the Church is old, from the perspective of humans.
Darwen Malc
says...
11:50pm Sat 16 Jun 12
Graham Hartley
says...
11:57pm Sat 16 Jun 12
Ken Shuffles wrote:funny, if not intentionally-so remark from Wikipedia - The simplest kind of couple consists of two equal and opposite forces whose lines of action do not coincide. This is called a "simple couple".
woolywords wrote:as a couple of what ??
After thoughts..
Am I correct in thinking that, under Common Law, two people living together, for a year and a day, are to be considered as a couple?
.
Two people living together are still just two people. Two people who sign a contract are still two people. They don't stop being two people either before the wedding or after the dicorce.
EricWatson
says...
7:09am Sun 17 Jun 12
woolywords wrote:I think thats a myth.
After thoughts..
Am I correct in thinking that, under Common Law, two people living together, for a year and a day, are to be considered as a couple?
egbutnobacon
says...
1:38pm Sun 17 Jun 12
jack daniels
says...
1:52pm Sun 17 Jun 12
Just seen statistics in the observer that showed that you Christians are a minority.
This means your opinion is not the word of the masses.
Lets hope we can now start removing religion from daily life.
Ken Shuffles
says...
2:24pm Sun 17 Jun 12
Graham Hartley wrote:We are miracles of love and devotion whether we have children or a partner or a father or a mother. whether we have an an intensely fit cousin or not we are still miracles of love and devotion seeking the ultimate in love and affection.
Ken Shuffles wrote:There are many other reasons why people have relationships with others. They may indeed be siblings, or some other part of the same biological entity. Parochially, I have a relationship with one of my bank managers but it is not connected with the fact that my cousin's wife found employment as one of the branch staff, and in continuing this relationship I am seeking neither love nor sex; well, not directly... my cousin's wife is very attractive but I have learned from direct experience that it is foolish - if rather fun - to covet one's cousin's wife.
People have relationships with other people because they are looking for love and affection not sex.
Ken Shuffles
says...
2:32pm Sun 17 Jun 12
Graham Hartley wrote:The finite and the infinite are co-existing and this has to be the simplest of all known coincidences. Happy Fathers Day!
Ken Shuffles wrote:funny, if not intentionally-so remark from Wikipedia - The simplest kind of couple consists of two equal and opposite forces whose lines of action do not coincide. This is called a "simple couple".
woolywords wrote:as a couple of what ??
After thoughts..
Am I correct in thinking that, under Common Law, two people living together, for a year and a day, are to be considered as a couple?
.
Two people living together are still just two people. Two people who sign a contract are still two people. They don't stop being two people either before the wedding or after the dicorce.
Ken Shuffles
says...
2:42pm Sun 17 Jun 12
Ken Shuffles
says...
2:49pm Sun 17 Jun 12
Ken Shuffles
says...
3:01pm Sun 17 Jun 12
Ken Shuffles
says...
3:05pm Sun 17 Jun 12
themink
says...
6:37pm Sun 17 Jun 12
Graham Hartley
says...
8:19pm Sun 17 Jun 12
Ken Shuffles wrote:Please have a happy fathers day, Ken. Should that be Happy Fathers Day, following your capitalisation? I am always careful to capitalise God, though in the plural I use the lower case.
Graham Hartley wrote:The finite and the infinite are co-existing and this has to be the simplest of all known coincidences. Happy Fathers Day!
Ken Shuffles wrote:funny, if not intentionally-so remark from Wikipedia - The simplest kind of couple consists of two equal and opposite forces whose lines of action do not coincide. This is called a "simple couple".
woolywords wrote:as a couple of what ??
After thoughts..
Am I correct in thinking that, under Common Law, two people living together, for a year and a day, are to be considered as a couple?
.
Two people living together are still just two people. Two people who sign a contract are still two people. They don't stop being two people either before the wedding or after the dicorce.
Heretical
says...
12:09am Mon 18 Jun 12
In that one phrase you demonstrate your blinkered ignorance about this subject.
I can honestly say that I am shocked.Shame on you!
davemcb
says...
10:52am Mon 18 Jun 12
Kevin Logan makes me embarrassed to be Anglican. Can this bigot not be replaced from another wing of the Church? Not all Anglicans are filled with bile and hatred; most of us are accepting, welcoming, faithful. The Telegraph should make it clear that the CofE is a broad church without a magisterium: there is a plurality of belief - everything from Pharisaical literalists like Kevin Logan to those who are truly Christian in loving God and Neighbour. Kevin Logan seems not to accept the work of the Holy Spirit in the present day and keeps banging on about culturally and temporally specific histories and mistranslated Hebrew and Greek terms.
Ken Shuffles
says...
11:21am Mon 18 Jun 12
.
People can be thankful for being who they are, and there can be peace without any strings and without any judgment and without any lamentable or fearful narratives.
.
The Beauty of Contentment, Peace, love when felt, is always Divine. The Life you have is Divine. Fear and hatred and guilt and anger, blame and shame, are all supported by, and come with narratives.
Ken Shuffles
says...
11:35am Mon 18 Jun 12
Ken Shuffles
says...
11:55am Mon 18 Jun 12
Books are not living, and therfore contain no living knowledge.
.
Living people require a living knowledge, and there is no possibility of finding that until your heart is clearly living and your master has come.
RUinsane
says...
12:04pm Mon 18 Jun 12
Joseph Yossarian
says...
12:53pm Mon 18 Jun 12
____________________
___
You are quite clearly not telling the whole truth regards Dr Scott. You are in fact deliberately misleading us.
You say he "once kindly offered to pray with a patient, in line with his practice’s well-advertised offer of spiritual help for patients."
You mislead us.
The facts of the matter are that he asked a patient with mental health concerns if he had considered faith in Jesus. This is a patient who in all probability is in a weak state of mind and possible open to influence. What he SHOULD GET IS IMPARTIAL MEDICAL ADVICE.
This good doctor (through is lawyer) is now trying to force the patient to appear in open hearing.
This is patient who may have mental health issues and you support opening the patient to open cross examination?
What nasty, bullying and vicious and downright disgusting tactics you seem to support Rev. So much for supporting the weakest in society. So much for helping those in need.
Quite clearly this week you show that you are only interested in supporting those who share your intolerances.
You should be ashamed of this doctor and the extra stresses he is forcing upon a person in need. You should be ashamed that the organisation which you purport to represent feels the need to stumble to such low tactics and desperate means.
____________________
This whole business with this doctor shows the appalling nature of fundamentalist regilious types at their absolute worst.
You are on very slippery grounds. The correct course of action for a patient with mental health problems illness or disease is medical care. You of all people should know that by now.
Dr Scott is just another beliggerant fundie who is mixing his job with his beliefs.
What you did not report is that Dr Scott is being represented by "religious freedom" lawyer Paul Diamond, famous for losing cases.
Perhaps what one should be asking is "why is the clurch of england spending so much money on ridiculous causes?"
____________________
___-
Separation of church from the state? What a splendid idea. It works for America, Brazil, Mexico, South Africa, China, Japan, Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Australia (etc etc etc etc etc etc....)
__________________
RK: Now, the likely extensive killing off of the terminally ill
You have hit a new journalistic low with that remark.
woolywords
says...
9:16am Tue 19 Jun 12
RUinsane wrote:I do know of a bar that has terms, pointers and setters, on the toilet doors. Was it this, that you had in mind?
I can never understand why the mincers and munchers aren't satisfied with their lot.Soon they will be pushing for their own toilets. Mens, ladies, and mincers and muchers, I wonder what the symbol would be? I also have to agree, there seem to be a helluva lot of touchy feelies in the conservative mincer and muncher club
Ken Shuffles
says...
10:34am Tue 19 Jun 12
Ken Shuffles
says...
10:44am Tue 19 Jun 12
manyarecalled says...
12:25pm Sat 16 Jun 12