Christianity has "no legal standing..."

[BlueSapphire]

British Judge:

Christian Beliefs Have

No Legal Standing

By Al Webb
Religion News Service

LONDON (RNS) A top British judge has ruled that Christian beliefs have no standing under secular law because they lack evidence and cannot be proven.

Lord Justice John Grant McKenzie Laws made the declaration on Thursday (April 29) in throwing out a defamation suit by Christian relationship counselor who refused to offer sex therapy to gay couples.

Gary McFarlane protested that he was fired because offering sex therapy to same-gender couples violates his Christian principles.

But Laws said “religious faith is necessarily subjective, being incommunicable by any kind of proof or evidence.” He added that to use the law to protect “a position held purely on religious grounds cannot therefore be justified.”

No religious belief, said the judge, can be protected under the law “however long its tradition, however rich its culture.”

Laws also dismissed as “misplaced” and “mistaken” former archbishop of Canterbury George Carey’s warning that a wave of discrimination against Christians threatens “civil war” in Britain.

See the full story at:
huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/30/british-judge-christian-b_n_559244.html

 

[Bob_Crowley]

This is one of the consequences of the separation of church and state doctrine.

And I believe it’s one of the reasons God has left Islam with its belief in the supremacy of religion as a challenge to the post-Christian West. We haven’t seen the end of Islam yet - not by a long shot. I think God’s going to use it, whether we like it or not.

 

[Suspicious_Mind]

This is one of the consequences of the separation of church and state doctrine.

And I believe it’s one of the reasons God has left Islam with its belief in the supremacy of religion as a challenge to the post-Christian West. We haven’t seen the end of Islam yet - not by a long shot. I think God’s going to use it, whether we like it or not.

You want to go back to the period where church and state were one? Are you kidding me?

Look at all the scandals that have been happening when the church and state were separated, who knows the amount of abuse that will happen if it were one.

I don’t see anything wrong with what the judge states, the judge is absolutely right. How can a judge honestly pass a law in regards to his religious conviction when there is no obvious evidence available?

Similarly with the talk of rich traditions and rich cultures. Who cares what Islam is doing, it will never be accepted in the west, if Britain is becoming so secular, and not embracing Christianity, what makes you think Islam will be a challenge?

 

[Darkbloom]

You want to go back to the period where church and state were one? Are you kidding me?

Look at all the scandals that have been happening when the church and state were separated, who knows the amount of abuse that will happen if it were one.

I don’t see anything wrong with what the judge states, the judge is absolutely right. How can a judge honestly pass a law in regards to his religious conviction when there is no obvious evidence available?

By that logic there would be no sort of protection for convictions of conscience.

Similarly with the talk of rich traditions and rich cultures. Who cares what Islam is doing, it will never be accepted in the west, if Britain is becoming so secular, and not embracing Christianity, what makes you think Islam will be a challenge?

Islam certainly seems to have much more protection than Christianity in the UK.

 

[Suspicious_Mind]

By that logic there would be no sort of protection for convictions of conscience.

Convictions of conscience eh? That is such a broad phrase, then we could be protecting people’s conscience who feel that practicing female circumsion would be a good thing too because it’s part of their rich culture.

Luckily I follow that logic you seem to despise.

Islam certainly seems to have much more protection than Christianity in the UK.

Linking to a single doom and gloom article is conclusive evidence how? Don’t be a drama queen and blow things out of proportion.

 

[JohnDamian]

The Legal System makes many assumptions and pressuppositions without proof:

Eg;

The law presupposes morality;

It cannot be proven per say; and this is compounded by incongruency in the law;

Consequently, the law should not reflect morality(?!)

---

His (the judges) reasoning is fallacious*, the plaintiff should appeal the case.

*If one holds only that which can be “proven” then one has to first “prove” ones own presumption about said claim, thus, one must then take on to demonstrate apodeictically the “proof” for morality etc.

Moreover, to “flog the dead horse”, we can say the same thing about secular law as he stated about religion, and say:

"No belief, can be protected under the law “however long its tradition, however rich its culture. - without evidence”

We can then apply this modum irrespecitve of a beliefs religiousity, his particular interjection of “religious” in that sentance is not only discriminatory etc. but also wrong, viz. The prohibition of murder is religiously based, and yet is accepted - a credulous and sensible judge could only, with integrity apply a general standard* with regards to all beliefs - irrespective of religiousity.

To hold that religious beliefs are per say, essentially unfounded (evidentially) may hold some water in a secular court, but such a standard must go hand in hand with general moral claims that cannot be secularily justified or evidentially varified** - a discriminatory and presumptious standard on the “falsehood” of religious belief essentially is evidence at least of the bankrupcy of sensible thought in British Courts.

• Either Positive or Negative.
  ** Such as the right to free speach, the right to freedom; these cannot be evidentially defended.

 

[Suspicious_Mind]

The Legal System makes many assumptions and pressuppositions without proof:

Eg;

The law presupposes morality;

It cannot be proven per say; and this is compounded by incongruency in the law;

Consequently, the law should not reflect morality(?!)

This is incorrect, many facets of the law presupposes a moral code because of the obvious effect if the law doesn’t exist to protect a certain moral value.

Since morality is determined by the effects it has on society, one can reasonably say, the law has consequences for murder, because if it was allowed, society would crumble.

---

His (the judges) reasoning is fallacious*, the plaintiff should appeal the case.

*If one holds only that which can be “proven” then one has to first “prove” ones own presumption about said claim, thus, one must then take on to demonstrate apodeictically the “proof” for morality etc.

The judge is not there for a high-school debate, he has to judge according to the law. You seem to be using some terms used in the legal system; apodeictally, so I assume you have some knowledge of law, shouldn’t this be pretty obvious to you?

The issue in question was something regarding beliefs, the judge was right, it cannot be proven; what exactly does the judge have to prove Why on earth would the judge have to prove morality in a court of law, when the issue really has nothing to do with something as wide as that? Talk about irrelevancy, I find it funny you talk about fallacious reasoning on the part of the judge, when you’re committing one yourself - ignoratio elenchi.

Moreover, to “flog the dead horse”, we can say the same thing about secular law as he stated about religion, and say:

"No belief, can be protected under the law “however long its tradition, however rich its culture. - without evidence”

That’s true, the same should apply.

We can then apply this modum irrespecitve of a beliefs religiousity, his particular interjection of “religious” in that sentance is not only discriminatory etc. but also wrong, viz. The prohibition of murder is religiously based, and yet is accepted - a credulous and sensible judge could only, with integrity apply a general standard* with regards to all beliefs - irrespective of religiousity.

How is the prohibition of murder religiously based?

You are going in all kinds of tangents here.

To hold that religious beliefs are per say, essentially unfounded (evidentially) may hold some water in a secular court, but such a standard must go hand in hand with general moral claims that cannot be secularily justified or evidentially varified** - a discriminatory and presumptious standard on the “falsehood” of religious belief essentially is evidence at least of the bankrupcy of sensible thought in British Courts.

• Either Positive or Negative.
  ** Such as the right to free speach, the right to freedom; these cannot be evidentially defended.

I agree with what you said here, it must be looked into whether the judge’s ruling was correct, and if it was, a similar standard must be applied all the way through, I’m 100% with this. I don’t want to presuppose that it’s discriminatory and accuse the judge, I guess only another case where the roles are reversed will truly determine the standing of judiciary system on this.

 

[JohnDamian]

The judge is not there for a high-school debate, he has to judge according to the law. You seem to be using some terms used in the legal system; apodeictally, so I assume you have some knowledge of law, shouldn’t this be pretty obvious to you?

Perhaps it is different where you are, but in Britain we have the Common Law system, a Judge is there to reiterate precedents or to create Laws, and his decisions must be expounded in the:

Ratio decidendi & Obiter dictum (why I made this judgement)

Now, if he is to hold X view on a subject, he must explain his reasoning per say, he must elaborate on why it is presumed that a “Religious belief” is essentially unfounded, but his pressuposed notion of “Secular justice” or “Morality” are not essentially and un-evidentially founded.

If the judge is unable to demonstrate the reasons why Religiously held beliefs are as said, evidentially flawed, and unable to demonstrate how the nessecity of religiousity in a belief essentially makes it distinct (conceptualy or really) from a non-religiously held belief, then his Obiter dictum, or Ratio decidendi will be torn apart at appeal, and his decision will be overturned.

So, in British Law, a judge makes a decision, then explains. If he cannot justify why Religious beliefs (without evidence) are different from Moral beliefs (without evidence) - then he will be overturned.

In the case of English Law, if he in his “Ratio decidendi” makes it clear that:
“Beliefs without evidence cannot be used”
Then he must nessecarily, to avoid discrimination apply this decision to the;
Magna Carta Libertatum, and overturn Habeus Corpus (the right not to be imprisoned unjustly), because this right cannot be evidentially proven.

By making a judgement that “beliefs without evidence cannot be used”, (paraphrased) then he essentially sets a precedent for the legality of wrongful and indefinite imprisonment, for these cannot be evidentially rebutted.

Thanks

 

[inocente]

McFarlane and Carey are cherry-picking.

To make another fruit analogy, we need to compare apples with apples. Habeas Corpus, the right to free speech, non-discrimination and so on were not enshrined in the law lightly. A judge does not need evidence in favor of them, but surely does when being asked to rule against.

Professionals - councilors, police, nurses, etc. - have a duty of care. If a doctor were to refuse aid simply because he/she didn’t like Christians then Carey would be making a whole different rant in court. If McFarlane felt out of his depth counseling a gay couple, he should have asked for help from his colleagues and boss. To just give up was unprofessional.

And for the love of God, where exactly was the love of God in this - would Jesus have turned the couple away? For that matter, would Carey?

By any code - legal, ethical or religious - the councilor did wrong and the judge did right.

 

[Darkbloom]

Convictions of conscience eh? That is such a broad phrase, then we could be protecting people’s conscience who feel that practicing female circumsion would be a good thing too because it’s part of their rich culture.

Luckily I follow that logic you seem to despise.

Are you really equating female circumcision to not wanting to counsel a gay couple? I’ll count myself well accounted not to follow that logic.

But there is several examples of protections for convictions of conscience. Quakers and Amish are often exempted from military service as conscientious objectors.

Linking to a single doom and gloom article is conclusive evidence how? Don’t be a drama queen and blow things out of proportion.

I invite you to do your own research. I know that will be harder than simply sticking your fingers in your ears and humming whenever you hear something you might disagree with, but it is also more rewarding.

Sharia law is binding on UK Muslims.

More than one source confirms this.

The Archbishop of Canterbury spoke out on this.

Yet another source for the prevalence of Sharia law in the UK.

So, is a Catholic really out of place to decline counseling a gay couple, considering the leeway given Muslims in the UK?

 

[Kaninchen]

I invite you to do your own research. I know that will be harder than simply sticking your fingers in your ears and humming whenever you hear something you might disagree with, but it is also more rewarding.

Sharia law is binding on UK Muslims.

More than one source confirms this.

The Archbishop of Canterbury spoke out on this.

Yet another source for the prevalence of Sharia law in the UK.

So, is a Catholic really out of place to decline counseling a gay couple, considering the leeway given Muslims in the UK?

Perhaps you might find this enlightening. Pity about the lack of ‘Shock! Horror!’ though.

 

[Kaninchen]

Oh, and here’s the Jewish version.

 

[curlycool89]

British Judge:

Christian Beliefs Have

No Legal Standing

By Al Webb
Religion News Service

LONDON (RNS) A top British judge has ruled that Christian beliefs have no standing under secular law because they lack evidence and cannot be proven.

Lord Justice John Grant McKenzie Laws made the declaration on Thursday (April 29) in throwing out a defamation suit by Christian relationship counselor who refused to offer sex therapy to gay couples.

Gary McFarlane protested that he was fired because offering sex therapy to same-gender couples violates his Christian principles.

But Laws said “religious faith is necessarily subjective, being incommunicable by any kind of proof or evidence.” He added that to use the law to protect “a position held purely on religious grounds cannot therefore be justified.”

No religious belief, said the judge, can be protected under the law “however long its tradition, however rich its culture.”

Laws also dismissed as “misplaced” and “mistaken” former archbishop of Canterbury George Carey’s warning that a wave of discrimination against Christians threatens “civil war” in Britain.

See the full story at:
huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/30/british-judge-christian-b_n_559244.html

I’m putting Britain on my list of places to never, ever go. I wonder if this can be overturned on appeal, or how this would then affect the established Church of England (or if they are watching this train wreck).