The UK political elites have come up with a legal scheme almost identical in its content to our EEO (Equal Employment Opportunity) law. Anyone who keeps up with alerts coming out of Christian, libertarian or conservative groups in Europe will easily see that the same fascistic programs are being pursued over there as they are here in the US. That will not surprise anyone who knows about the international left and its agenda and the scope of its action. But, sadly, few of us do.
For those who have never been exposed to this concept, you need to understand that the Communist Manifesto, written when socialism was in its infancy, already spelled out that the communist must oppose family and religion. This all-important fact is almost completely ignored by Americans, and consequently, when they hear of plans to “protect” homosexuals, they buy it at face value, believing that this particular sexual orientation is undergoing some horrible holocaust-like pogrom and is subject to economic persecution that threatens the livelihood of every single member.
This could not be further from the truth. As David Kupelian points out in his book “The Marketing of Evil,” homosexuals have a higher than average income and level of wealth.
The real agenda behind “protection” of homosexuals and same-sex marriage bills, for example, is to take civilization one step closer to the utopia envisioned by Marx and Engels.
If this seems surprising to you (or even if it doesn’t), please read this Christian response to the Equality Bill, which was recently defeated in the House of Lords.
WHY CHRISTIANS MUST OPPOSE THE EQUALITY BILL.
By Graham Wood, UK
The defeat of the government’s Equality Bill by the House of Lords recently was of huge importance and significance, because it brought to a halt, albeit only temporarily, a long succession of laws restricting Christian liberty and freedoms. The Bill sought amongst other things to impose a perception of “equality” on Christians and churches and a duty on all public bodies, including Christian employers, to ensure that no discrimination takes place against homosexuals or lesbians in employment.
The Bill if passed would have compelled churches and faith groups to a course wholly alien to their doctrinal positions and ethos. Already Christians critical of homosexuality, or declining directly or indirectly to associate with this ideology have met with opposition and even suspension or dismissal from their places of employment, on what can only be described as grounded on unnecessary or flimsy grounds.
What was intended as a law to prevent discrimination and to ensure “equality” has in fact led to cases of direct discrimination against others who on conscientious grounds have objected to being compelled to
recognize and associate with an ethos with which they fundamentally disagree. Whilst the intention of the law may have been good, its practical outworking, and that of similar legislation already in place, has resulted in the very opposite of the original intention, and so reverse discrimination occurs.
In addition, such legislation is seen by Christians as being at best, a non existent problem, and at worst, a direct attack upon long held basic freedoms, of opinion, of expression and of association, formerly taken for granted under our Common law.
These have been secured for us at very great cost over the course of centuries by defenders of liberty from the ever present threat of loss through the encroachments of arbitrary governments which are often hungry to accrue power to the State at the expense of individual freedom. Such lovers of liberty believed these principles to be so fundamentally important, especially those grounded on conscience, that they were prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice in order to preserve such freedoms for their posterity. We do well to remember the costly price of those freedoms once again under threat.
Instead of the Common law assumption that all is allowed, except what which is directly forbidden by statute law or which endangers or threatens others, we now have increasingly the assertion by the State that it alone is the dispenser of such rights, to be granted or withheld through the will of Parliament or even by other unelected organsations.
In this respect we should remember that the Equality Bill and its predecessors have come to us primarily through mandatory European Union “directives”. As we know, these ride roughshod over the long held accepted norms of democratic political accountability, not to mention our national characteristics of easy tolerance of minorities, even when their views may strongly differ from our own. Indeed, the imposition of a homosexual ideology as seen in this Bill and similar legislation has the hallmarks of institutionalised bigotry and intolerance by the State, and ironically, a main function of which is to protect minorities to live in freedom and harmony within the rest of society.
Aware of increasing surveillance by the State on every aspect of private and public life, together with the avalanche of restrictive legislation militating against the freedom of the individual one observer notes: “slowly, and the political elites hope imperceptibly, we are being brought under totalitarian control. It goes largely unnoticed because the moves seem unconnected and journalists and opposition politicians are part of the same ruling class. This ‘ideological caste’ is made up of cultural Marxists that admits only those into power with the same views, and expels after disgracing, any who dissent” Is not this the central tenet of “political correctness” – i.e. an imposed standard of homogenous uniformity?. One familiar example is that of labeling dissenters to the ‘global warming’ theory as “deniers”, a pejorative term associated with those who ‘deny’ the Nazi holocaust of Jews in WW2. Similarly those who for various reasons reject a homosexual ideology are lumped together as ‘homophobes’. Cultural Marxism is now a world-wide phenomena in the Western world where the watchword is ”everything is political…… a total ideological system supplying opinions for every aspect of life”. This parasitic mind-set feeds on stirring up concepts of permanent victim-hood in which all perceived inequalities in life must be attributed blameworthy by, or to, somebody – described by some as ‘the politics of envy’, warranting it is believed ever more State intervention on one hand or ‘vexatious’ private litigation by the aggrieved on the other. Thus it is that those who do not accept a homosexual ethos can now be identified as creating “victims” merely by virtue of their dissent, and such victims are seen as being gratuitously “offended” and therefore requiring the protection of the law.
ATTACK UPON CHRISTIAN FREEDOMS .
There is a growing body of opinion which identifies cultural Marxism as having another and more sinister agenda, namely to systematically and deliberately undermine and eventually to destroy, all traditional Christian values and freedoms of expression and association. The route to these objectives is to so influence and then move public opinion to see normal Christian values as being regressive, backward, and the enemy of modernity and progress. The attacks are anti-family through homosexual indoctrination of the young in schools and education, anti independence of thought, and even anti academic freedom. Finally, this ideology seeks to corrupt and distort Western culture and the remnants of its Judeo/Christian elements at every possible level, particularly through a largely sympathetic media in popular TV programmes and print media.
STATE INTERFERENCE IN THE CHURCH
The unintended discriminatory elements of the Equality Bill against Christian employers is to be deplored and resisted as it represents a challenge to the independent nature and government of the church. It raises the question as to whether the State has the right or authority to legislate for the internal affairs of the Church of Christ, whether established or not, where the employment of church officers or youth workers or others are concerned? The question itself raises the ghost of past conflicts throughout church history in which arbitrary government laws have sought to regulate the life of the church. The church v State issue therefore is not new, and the Equality Bill and its predecessors serves to bring the issue to a head once again.
What is at stake is much more than a question of employment rights, or even some concept of ‘equality’, but rather one of the historic right of Christians, and indeed other faith groups, to independently determine their own course of action in these matters. The long established and recognised freedom of association principle whereby Churches alone govern their internal affairs would be set aside by the Bill. That freedom ensured for Christians the right to choose with whom they associate, and conversely, to exclude those who do not share their doctrinal convictions based on the clear teaching of Scripture. That includes, of necessity, the exclusion of ‘gay’ or lesbian applicants for employment within churches.
THE CHURCH SHALL BE FREE !
Until relatively recently that right was fully recognised by the State – a right incidentally that was expressed as far back as the Magna Carta of 1215. This stated in unequivocal terms:
“We have in the first place granted for us and our heirs for ever, that the Church of (in) England shall be free”.
It is noteworthy that this great Charter of civil and religious liberties pre-dated the existence of Parliament, and is not therefore subject to amendment or repeal by Parliaments to this day, representing as it does a contract between the Sovereign and people.
The same conflict re-emerged repeatedly when Tudor and Stuart kings sought to impose their will upon the church, and this prompted the great poet and pamphleteer John Milton to write his great treatise – “ Of Civil Power in Ecclesiastical Causes”, with the pointed sub-title, “Showing that it is not lawful for any power on earth to compel in matters of religion”.
Over 200 years later the principle was once again contested when the Presbyterian Church of Scotland claimed its right to full independence from the English Crown, asserting that the civil power had no authority over the Church. The dispute led to the passing of the Church of Scotland Act of 1921 by which the State recognised in law the independence of the Presbyterian Church. One main Article in the Act is the ringing declaration on the headship of Christ over his church in all matters. It can hardly be bettered:
“The Church as part of the universal church wherein the Lord Jesus Christ has appointed a government in the hands of church office bearers, receives from Him, its Divine King and Head, and from Him alone, the right and power subject to no civil authority to legislate, and to adjudicate finally, in all matters of doctrine, worship, government, and discipline of the Church”.
If the Equality Bill returns for the collective church to grapple with then two courses would provide a sure bulwark against the inroads of further secularism and mis-placed concepts of equality. The first is the recognition of the principle which the Scottish church expressed so clearly. All it requires is application, faithfully and fearlessly.
The second is not an available option but ought to be if any future government takes seriously a fresh appraisal of the church/State relationship. It should adopt the First Amendment of the great Constitution of the USA which stated so simply and clearly the fundamental principle in 1776:
“(Congress) may not establish a religion, restrict free speech or press freedom, or deprive citizens of rights to assemble peacefully or petition the government”