December 9, 2009 A Christian Country?
You may have been following the story in the news of the Christian couple who were recently on trial under the Free Speech law, for an alleged argument with a Muslim lady in their hotel. Thankfully, the case was dismissed because of inconsistent evidence.
I am concerned about the now increasing erosion of free speech. Are we really heading towards a society where I am not legally allowed to say in public that God exists, Jesus is his son, eternal life is available exclusively through him? Church services are public places, if a Muslim came to one and heard me preach and took offence, will I end up in court? In the same measure, if I went into a mosque and took offence will the Imam be tried? Christians, Muslims, atheists (and even anti-theists) all should be able to express their views in appropriate and respectful ways without risk of prosecution for doing so. Although this case was dismissed, it does mark a shift in the erosion of free speech. Perhaps one day the house once a long way from the edge of the cliff top will begin to disappear under the disappearing ground beneath it.
In my mind, the two adjectives I used above are important: ‘appropriate’ and ‘respectful’. People from all faiths (or otherwise) and both sexualities should be allowed to dialogue, but it should be done appropriately – in the right forum and in the right way – and, above all, respectfully. Standing outside a Mosque, for example, with a banner proclaiming damnation upon Muslims, would be disrespectful. Discussing the differences over coffee with a Muslim work colleague who was happy to dialogue has more potential to be respectful.
Furthermore, lots of Christians take a hard line against homosexuals. Should, though, Christian hotel owners (not referring here to the ones in the news at the moment) refuse two men a double room for the night? Is that respectful? Is it appropriate? Or should a Christian photographer refuse to photograph a civil ceremony between two ladies? Such militancy is fraught with problems and inconsistencies. The gay couple will just go to another hotel, the lesbians will find another photographer. And to be consistent, the Christian hotel owners will have to refuse every non-married couple a room.
I disagree theologically with homosexuality and cohabitation. But I also happen to disagree theologically with stealing, lying and all other manner of sinful activity. Not being a hotel owner or a wedding photographer means I avoid the potential problems mentioned earlier, but am I going to check whether the person who owns the local coffee shop has a criminal record for theft before drinking one of their coffees?
I am increasingly coming to the opinion that militancy does not have a place within the Christian community. It is possible to hold unswervingly to the teachings of the Bible, without needing to treat other people in any way that is devoid of love. Rather than batter people into acceptance (which won’t work anyway) why not show people the way of life in the Christian community and let them see for themselves if it is better or not? Because it should be – if the Bible is true.
Perhaps the root of the problem is that too many Christians actually regard England as a ‘Christian Country’ when it clearly is not. The majority of citizens do not have an active Christian faith, we are in the minority and must accept that. Our task is simple, take the life-changing gospel of Jesus Christ into the world through our lives. Love people for Jesus’ sake. And if they don’t want to know, or they don’t want to change their lifestyle/beliefs, then we respect that and continue to show them love for Jesus’ sake.
To return to the case where we started. I don’t think the Christian couple were militant in their actions and I think that the effort spent to clear their names in court was well worth it and for that the Christian Institute are to be commended. But – I disagree with the view expressed of the country being regarded as Christian. In the interview below their representative says that “the reason this case is so important is that the freedom to share the gospel in a Christian country needs to be paramount…”
What do you think? I’d be interested in your views on any of the following questions:
1) Do you regard this to be a Christian country? If so, why?
2) How should Christians respond to a) Islam and b) homosexuality in society?
3) From an atheist perspective, how important is free speech to you?
Please keep comments focussed and if you want an argument about my theological disagreement with homosexuality, that’s not on offer here and any attempts to steer a discussion towards that will be moderated.
(watch from 2:30 for about 15 seconds).
Tags: Christian, free speech, islam, muslim, Vogelenzang
- 12 comments
- Posted under General
Permalink #
Eric
said
1. I would be interested in knowing what you mean by “militant” – clarififcation required.
2. You seem to infer that gay behaviour is on the same level as stealing and lying. I’m not sure that is correct. Read Romans 1 v 26, we see that “God gave them up….” and then goes on to condemn gay perversion. This would suggest to me that this sin is more deadly than others.
3. I am concerned by the inference that it would be ok for a Christian to allow two men to share a bed in his hotel/b&b etc. What they are doing in God’s sight is so vile and abominable that there must be no compromise with them in any way, shape or form.
4. I don’t agree that we are a Christian country in the evangelical sense of the word but one has to look at the context of the interview. In the broad, historical sense we are a country that has a Christian heritage and perhaps it is in that context that Mike Judge made the comments
Permalink #
Simon Hutton
said
good questions Eric
I’d rather not get drawn into a debate about biblical teaching on homosexuality etc. I agree with you that Romans indicates an order of severity, but all sin is sin. There are two groups of people in the world, those who have saving faith in Jesus and those who don’t. All sin is vile and abominable in God’s sight!
what sinners – all of them – need is to see that God’s people on earth love them (if you know what I mean…) as people who need saving, rather than enemies who need persecuting. And part of loving them is to show them God’s way of life which is different to their own, in whichever areas.
I suspect the comment just slipped out from Mike Judge, but the view that this country should be a Christian country (because of it’s heritage) and we should fight to keep it such, is, I think, an unwelcome distraction from the real work we are called to do.
Regarding your first question – what is militancy, the examples I quoted in my article would be classified (in my thinking) as such.
Thanks and regards
Simon
Permalink #
Mahmut
said
Simon I know this is off topic but don’t nuke it….
.
Mahmut – I’ve moved the comment to another thread (Friday Photo 25), so you can carry on your interesting discussion with Toby. I’m keen to keep this thread focussed, but happy for you to continue discussing the previous topic together on the other thread.
.
Simon I’ll get back to this post soon….
.
OK. Bye for now. Enjoy the end of term at school. Holidays soon… (but not for us ministers!)
Permalink #
Eric
said
I’m not sure that I like your statement about “enemies who need persecuting”. Outlining the Biblical teaching on gay perversion is not persecuting them but being truthful. Moreover, look at how the apostles in Acts dealt with sin, they boldly called upon people to repent, that is the approach we should take. Then God works upon “those appointed to eternal life” so that they believe (Acts 13 v 48).
As far as the word “militant” is concerned you haven’t really clarified this. Can you be specific?
Permalink #
Mahmut
said
Very quickly, I’ll respond to your three questions, (shame you don’t want to discuss homosexuality I wonder why?) you can imagine I’m busy over the pagan winter solstice, so here goes;
1) Do you regard this to be a Christian country? If so, why?
It certainly isn’t a christian country as most of it’s residents are not christians. It’s that simple, it has been influenced by christianity but I’d argue the ancient Greeks have had a more profound impact both on christianity and Western Europe. Our legal structure, democracy, philosophy, conception of the good life, the scientific process and the enlightenment were all originally developed by or because of the ancient Greeks. I suggest you read Democritus, Thales, Plato, Epicurus, and the Stoics. By the way there is concrete evidence for the points I’ve made which is why I baulked at Davids assertions (lies) that there is no connection between chritianity and ancient (rather than classical directly) Greek culture. I’ll challenge anyone here to argue the opposite with actual evidence.
2) How should Christians respond to a) Islam and b) homosexuality in society?
Christians have every right to challenge both if they disagree with aspects of any framework. Voltaire said as much a few hundred years ago. However, I’ll put a caveat in, ethical frameworks have been constructed on logical precepts, therefore if christians or muslims challenge homosexuality they have to within the frameworks of the law. If they don’t agree with the legislation then they have to challenge that. However, the legal system (that Greek invention) is constructed on logic that incorporates all evidence before accepting a premise. As I pointed out to David, Intelligent Design has been lambasted within three law courts with the conclusions being that it wasn’t science and Dembeski and Behe were charlatans. I have the transcripts if you want, those were the judges words. Punch in Dover court trials on google. So if you want to call homosexuality an abomination or a sin then it could be classed as hate speech because your premise for calling gays such things are logically flawed. It would be a bit like a paedophile saying within his framework he can have a loving relationship with a minor. The law discounts his framework as it’s skewed. So free speech and its implementation is constructed within logical frameworks.
3) From an atheist perspective, how important is free speech to you?
Free speech (again Greek) is the civilising component within western democracies. The Ancient Greeks constructed the dialectic as a theorem for explaining the adaptation of ideas. If an idea doesn’t stand up to scrutiny then it is invalid and the process of that scrutiny which is in part free speech must be challenged. However, as I have pointed out above, the process must encompass a logical epistemology (again Greek) in order for it to be valid. Otherwise paedophiles and the religious can discriminate unfairly within an isolated framework (fideism).
I hope that’s clear and as a gesture, embracing the ideals of the ancient Greeks and their free speech, I ask all of you to view the following as a present and in the vein and context of this thread,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o
enjoy,
Mahmut.
Permalink #
Mahmut
said
By the way the debate between Simon and Eric points out that the bible can be referenced for pretty much any ethical view you want to take. It has been and is still being used to justify Slavery, Genocide, Sectarianism, Misogyny, Racism, Homophobia, Torture and so on. Again I have concrete examples and evidence for each if any of you want. The bible, Quran, Torah are Rorschach tests, you don’t need them to be moral.
Mahmut.
Permalink #
Mahmut
said
In the interests of impartiality and parity here’s another download that propagates an idea under the umbrella of free speech.
Enjoy your spiritual interactions with your omnipotent maker that has made you in his image. So Zeus-like figure up beyond space somewhere.
Happy winter solstice,
Mahmut.
Permalink #
Mahmut
said
I was wondering what some of you thought of the Wooten Bassett demonstration. A valid democratical right to freedom of speech, where muslims are sharing their grievencies. Or are they flagerently promoting their faith which itself doesn’t respect the notion of democracy and given the chance they would bypass both the democratic process and freedom of speech? A bit like all christian cultures (check out what Justinian did to the Greek schools of philosophy in the name of christianity) before the enlightenment.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/beds/bucks/herts/8446410.stm
Permalink #
Mahmut
said
I think what the religious communities fail to realise is that the democratic process has been forged and applied within the varied cultural settings across Europe as a bulwark against it’s religious past. The adaptation of these Ancient Greek ideas were installed to promote a more meritocratic society where debate was open to the evidence and the best ideas (which are always in competition) would win out for the good of the majority. All of the technological advances and freedoms and legislation (both nationally and internationally) we enjoy today is a product of those ideals. The religious (within countries that have had an enlightenment) have gradually lost their influence and have been unable to reconcile why. People in developed contries are less likely to have deference to your opinion because it’s inspired by your religion, they will continually ask for evidence or logic that superceeds your fideism in order to make a good choice. Artists (cartoonists, novelists, musicals etc) will produce art that challenges you, minority groups will continue to be protected by legislature because it is logically coherent and Long may this continue. If you want to use the benefits of free speech (like the muslims in Wooten Bassett) then you must also realise that it was developed to resist your methods of misunderstanding reality, belief.
Permalink #
Mahmut
said
One last thing if anyone is out there. I feellike a SETI scientist. Compare the ideals of free enquiry, open debate and the way David runs his blog. On his website no decenting views or evidence against his very narrow, fundamentalist version of christian gets past his filtering campaign. Has he read 1984, it’s like a totalitarian regime where only his skewed opinion prevails.
Permalink #
Mahmut
said
With such a closed mind one begs the question, what is he scared of. I realise he’ll be ostricised from his community and the struts which hold up the edifice of his belief system will be kicked away and he will be forced to interact with the harshness of reality without his comfort blanket and I sincerely realise it’s a very difficult choice for many people. Simon for example has ‘educated’ himself and has a career pushing christianity, however, a creationist interpretation of reality retards the development of human progress. So these interactions are a vital way of testing if you are open minded enough the veracity of your claims. If they’re not coherent then what right do you have pushing them on other people and children especially?
Permalink #
Mahmut
said
Any chance debating theodicy in the light of current events?