Nelson Jones

Belief, disbelief and beyond belief

Permission to speak

Is Adrian Smith a Christian martyr or just a casualty of corporate conformism?

By Nelson Jones Published 27 October 2011 14:20

It's an everyday story of religion and society in 21st century Britain. A man, who happens to work for a housing trust, expresses an opinion on his Facebook page to the effect that churches should not be compelled to conduct gay marriages. He gets demoted and loses a third of his wages. He's suing. The Mail on Sunday has taken up his case. So has Cristina Odone, who compared the plight of Britain's Christians with that of the Nonconformists who left for the American colonies in the 17th century rather than submit to the established church.

Hmm. Adrian Smith's case certainly shows something, but whether this is really a story about religious freedom I have my doubts.

But let's look at that disputed Facebook post. Adrian Smith's considered view, expressed in response to a question from one of his online friends, was that

The Bible is quite specific that marriage is for men and women. If the State wants to offer civil marriages to the same sex then that is up to the State; but the State shouldn't impose its rules on places of faith and conscience.

Which seems uncontentious enough. As Peter Tatchell has said, it's not a particularly homophobic comment. Indeed, it represents government policy. As the piece which Smith linked to shows (from the date, the incident took place in February) there are no plans to force places of worship to conduct gay weddings; merely a possibility that they might be allowed to do so. But misunderstanding the import of suggested legislation is not much of a reason for taking someone's job away from him. Unless there were aggravating factors (and Trafford Housing Trust has declined to go into much detail), this looks like an overreaction. It looks vindictive.

The Trust has issued a statement, the first two paragraphs of which, ominously, are taken up with self-congratulatory remarks about how it has been "rated as one of the best 100 public sector employers in the UK", has won various community award and received a number of "big ticks". The main charge against Adrian Smith appears to be that he is in breach of a condition in a new code of conduct which limits the use by employees of social networking sites. In particular, he made his comments in a page "that identified him as a manager at Trafford Housing Trust."

The Christian Institute has a template into which it invariably fits the cases that it highlights: a template of persecution. The template is that of Christians targeted and oppressed by a secularist establishment that is intolerant towards any expression of their faith, and most especially intolerant of Biblically-derived but politically incorrect opinions on matters such as homosexuality. It's a template that appeals as much to the Daily Mail as to Christian pressure groups such as the CI, because it provides a simple explanatory model covering everything from a street preacher calling on gay people to repent, to a local authority's alleged desire to replace Christmas with "Winterval".

Yet there's a huge variability even between individual instances of "oppression" championed by the Christian Institute. Adrian Smith merely expressed a personal opinion on his Facebook page, an opinion that had no relevance whatever to his job. Compare this with Lilian Ladele, the Islington registrar who has now taken her case for unfair dismissal to the European Court of Human Rights. She was disciplined for refusing to perform gay civil partnership ceremonies, which was part of her job. There's a difference, but it's a difference easily overlooked if you're predisposed to view all these cases as instances of religious persecution.

The fact that Adrian Smith was expressing a view derived from his understanding of Christianity is (or should be) incidental. The real question is whether, in a free and democratic society, an employer should have the right to limit what its employees do or think in a private capacity.

Smith's Facebook page was, we are told, readable only by friends (or at any rate by Facebook friends), but even had it been public the number of people who saw it will have been small. No one can have been under the impression that Smith was making the statement as an official representative of Trafford Housing Trust, even if he did mention his job in his personal profile. The very notion is absurd. Had he been commenting on housing policy or making offensive personal comments about colleagues, the Trust would have been entitled to take disciplinary action. But Smith's opinions on gay marriage or the Bible are utterly irrelevant to his functioning as a housing manager. Public or private, and so long as they are not criminally inciteful, his opinions are his business.

Trafford Housing Trust seems to have embraced (and even codified) a dangerous doctrine that their employees are never off-duty; that everything they do or say publicly is done or said on behalf of the company; that their opinions are no longer their own but they can only express views in accordance with company policy. In a free society, this is outrageous. Indeed, it is tyrannical. It so happened that Adrian Smith had an opinion about gay marriage. Someone else might have views about the Euro, or take part in a political protest, or have an unconventional sex life. This case is not really about religious freedom at all. It's about freedom to be yourself, even if you are fortunate enough to work for a company that has been "recognised by Investors in People with their Gold and Health and Wellbeing Awards."

Tags: Christianity Religion

More from Nelson Jones

35 comments

Thu, 2012-05-17 16:32 — terkrlvuds (not verified)

Louis Vuitton handbag Solicitation seeking Spring/Summer 2012 is designed after different women: callow and in ages, who likes sport and classic line, preferring pastel and bright colors. Some handbags are suitable to casual impel, some to more formal. Spring/Summer 2012 Hoard doesn’t be struck by one border or one style. The barely junk that can league with all the units is open like fabrics.
http://www.bagoutletes.com,We’ve gotten a great scads formidable comments from our consumers and deserve a very good noted in foreign makerts, greater than 90% shoppers are happy with our goods and checking, plough now our on the internet members are beyond 80 Louis Vuitton Damier Geant Canvas M93601 Starless,000. As of acceptable fashionable, we a while work prospects from more than 18 nations, and we’re everything considered developing. We certainly hope to heighten our project close conduct of auspices with people and providers from worldwide.

In shared, everybody can chance at least individual cream to his taste. Most purses wishes regurgitate you select feminine look. And of course, each one tells ‘I’m a Louis Vuitton handbag’. http://www.bagoutletes.com/Monogram_Canvas_NEVERFULL_GM_M40157-p-4053.html By a hair's breadth suspect, but inseparable fancy can dilate your trust and it is a handbag from Louis Vuitton mercantilism house.
So, Louis Vuitton handbags are cipher and clearly women can upon these purses to
who like to bring back recent luxury Louis Vuitton during low evaluate

Fri, 2011-10-28 14:22 — Yonmei

See Caroline - this is what makes a bigot. Keir can't defend his beliefs intelligently, so he's reduced to being insulting.

Fri, 2011-10-28 15:00 — David (not verified)

It's unclear whether this individual is actualy a homophobe, but he is clearly blinded by dogma. I think his employers have certainly over-reacted (why wouldn't a discussion about it rather than a demotion and salary reduction have been a more appropriate cause of action?), and I think it shows why we have to think again about employees' versus employers' rights to freedom of speech in relation to social networking sites. He was not, I assume, making his comments (which I fundamentally disagree with) in an official capacity, so it is therefore nothing to do with his employers.

Mon, 2011-10-31 20:18 — Aoise El Wifla (not verified)

Good article! It's free speech which is being targetted. Organisations should not be allowed to stop citizens saying whatever they damn well please in their own time. Or is indentured servitude coming back in?

Bigotry cuts both ways, and a lot of it seems to be coming from people with a rather strange and narrow conception of "diversity"...

Thu, 2011-10-27 17:48 — Jens (not verified)

I think Yonmei has a problem with understanding plain English or is just plain stupid...

Fri, 2011-10-28 16:10 — Yonmei

"(why wouldn't a discussion about it rather than a demotion and salary reduction have been a more appropriate cause of action?)"

If you click on the link which Walter provided to the Trust's statement, you'll find that:

"At the end of 2010, we updated our Code of Conduct for Employees and provided it to all staff. This version of the Code clearly set out what use employees can make of social networking sites such as Facebook."

The statement on Facebook was made a few months later, and according to the Trust, clearly contravened their guidelines.

The comments were found "by a full disciplinary investigation in which he had Trade Union representation, to be in breach of the company's code of conduct and other policies".

So there was a discussion about it. And Adrian Smith had his trade union rep at his elbow during the discussion, which makes it unlikely that the Housing Trust were going beyond what they were lawfully entitled to do.

Whether it's acceptable for an employer to discipline an employee for making bigoted comments where s/he is clearly identified as working for that organisation, I should think depends on the employer's purposes and mission statement. As this Trust is accredited by the Albert Kennedy Trust, they would fairly require their employees to avoid making public homophobic statements.

Fri, 2011-10-28 14:09 — Yonmei

"Ahaaah. Now you're getting funny, to be sure. You find cardinals hob-nobbing with Jesus, Paul and Barnabas in the NT. All over it. O' course you do. "

... I don't get this. Have we moved on from discussing how Christians justify hating gays to claiming that Cardinals and Archbishops aren't Christian because those titles aren't found in the New Testament?

For what it's worth, Keir, I have invited Christians many times to try to identify for me one single verse in the gospels which can justify their belief that Jesus wants them to oppose same-sex couples marrying, or deny shelter to gay people, or any of the other Christian expressions of hatred and contempt which they are so sure of.

They never can. Oddly enough, Jesus isn't much comfort to Christians trying to justify persecution and prejudice by their faith.

Thu, 2011-10-27 15:36 — Yonmei

"Is Adrian Smith a Christian martyr or just a casualty of corporate conformism?"

He's a homophobe. As the site makes clear, the housing association for which he works is accredited by the Albert Kennedy Trust - trusted to provide for homeless LGBT young people.

If Adrian Smith holds homophobic views, therefore, it was incumbent on him (as again, the page to which you provide makes clear) to keep his negative feelings about LGBT people to himself, and express them nowhere where he was clearly identified as the manager at a Housing Trust which provides for young people who have been made homeless because of parents who may, like Adrian Smith, believe that what their children are is hateful to God.

That Christians are so eager to identify their religion with hatred, and Cristina Odone in particular claims that expressing hatred and contempt of gay people is an intrinsic part of being a Christian, is kind of sad.

Thu, 2011-10-27 15:38 — swatantra nandanwar

It may come down to a question of conscience when it comes down to 'gay marriages'. I doubt if Ladelle would refuse to officiate in a 'mixed marriage', because society as a whole has moved forward and accepted mixed marriages. But there's still a bit of hesitancy over gay marriages, which will no doubt change with time.
So she should not be forced to officiate, but at the same time she should not voice her opinion against gay marriages publically.
With Smith, a Housing Trust is a public body in a sense and should have an Equal Opps Policy and housing managers should adhere to that policy; gay couples are entitled to housing as are straight couples. So any mention and any link with the Trust and Smith, could damage the reputation of the Trust, even though the comment was not broadcast widely. And he broke the code of conduct.

Mon, 2012-02-06 08:10 — Benedict

It should get a three stretch, doing what you do. Everyone knows that the Christian gospel states that God loves everyone- burglars, serial rapists, drunks, homosexuals, slave traders. Even bankers. Christians know that even their greatest persecutors are to be loved. Honest, a homosexual minding his own business is nothing. http://www.diykitchenremodeling.net/

Thu, 2011-10-27 16:48 — Yonmei

"So she should not be forced to officiate"

Absolutely not. Lillian Ladele should have been found another job in the same office at the same salary, since she found it objectionable to publicly celebrate the relationships of people whom she morally disapproved of. She should never have had to officiate as a registrar again.

I'm not sure why this deal wasn't offered her from the start - it seems only reasonable that civil registrars who discovered homophobic depths being tested, should be allowed to quit registering with no loss of salary or pension.

Thu, 2011-10-27 17:27 — Keir

'That Christians are so eager to identify their religion with hatred'

What is so difficult about Christianity is that hatred is off the menu.

As everyone knows.

Thu, 2011-10-27 18:05 — Yonmei

"What is so difficult about Christianity is that hatred is off the menu."

How then do you explain so many self-identified Christians arguing that they've got to be allowed to publicly express hatred and contempt for gay people, they've got to be allowed to be able to discriminate against gay people, or they're not being Christians - their religious freedom is being infringed?

If you have a difficulty with this as a definition of Christianity, Keir, take it up with the Christians who promote it - there's unfortunately lots of them about.

Jens, thanks for making clear you have no notion of how to argue with the facts!

Fri, 2011-10-28 17:38 — Peter Tatchell2

I think the housing trust was decision was well-intended but excessive and disproportionate. I support free speech, even for my critics. Adrian's opposition to churches being FORCED to conduct gay marriages echoes the views of all equality and human rights groups. See my full reasons here:
http://www.petertatchell.net/religion/christian-manager-wrongly-demoted-...

Thu, 2011-10-27 18:20 — Drew Rae (not verified)

Nelson, Thank you for this piece. As you say, we can't know if there were other circumstances behind the disciplinary action, but the public issue is clearly not religious freedom.

I don't think that there is anything seriously anti-gay in his facebook statement (where by "serious" I mean offensive enough to warrant his employer being concerned about his personal opinions).

The issue as made public is that the employer wants to impose the same standards of conduct that they expect of employees acting as employees to apply to employees acting as private individuals.

There's a line there somewhere where this switches from appropriate to draconic.

Thu, 2011-10-27 19:04 — Yonmei

Drew, suppose Adrian had written: "The Bible is quite specific that races ought not be mixed. If the State wants to offer civil marriages to interracial couples then that is up to the State; but the State shouldn't impose its rules on places of faith and conscience."

Would you argue that a statement like this is "seriously racist enough" that it warrants his employer being concerned about his personal opinions? Or would you, as you do over the equivalent statement made about lesbian and gay people, feel that this is just his personal view as a private individual and his employer ought not to be concerned?

Is it "draconic" to feel that employees of publicly-funded organisations owe a responsibility to their employers and to the public they serve, not to express bigoted views in public?

Thu, 2011-10-27 21:43 — Caroline Farrow (not verified)

Spot on Nelson. Adrian Smith's faith is an irrelevance here, what is of far more concern is that his freedom of speech to express a personal point of view, is under threat.

I do wish the CI would desist with the Christian persecution cases.

The truth is that Christians aren't persecuted because they profess faith in Jesus Christ, but we do face opprobrium for views which flow from that faith which are in opposition to today's cultural norms. The difficulty is that these "unacceptable" views do not require a religious belief, after all it is perfectly logical to oppose the concept of gay marriage on philosophical grounds, but for a Christian, ethical principles are inexorably linked with their religious faith.

A Christian faith requires apologetics at the very least. Whilst this may not be appropriate at work, it is perfectly acceptable to defend one's point of view if asked and in a non confrontational manner.

Mr Smith is being denied a freedom of expression which relates to his Christian faith, but it is this inability to express his point of view, in his own time, on his own private FB page which should cause everybody concern. The relationship to his faith is incidental.

Thu, 2011-10-27 21:56 — Keir

'How then do you explain so many self-identified Christians'

That's not for me to do. Explaining the falsification of the views of others is not for me to do, either.

Though who the hell you are talking about, God only knows!

Fri, 2011-10-28 00:11 — Yonmei

Caroline Farrow: thanks. Yes, you don't need to be a Christian to be a homophobe: many homophobes aren't Christian. It's not "persecution" to be told "no matter what your homophobic feelings about lesbian and gay people, you may not discriminate".

Keir; "Though who the hell you are talking about, God only knows!"

Oh. People like Lilian Ladele, and Garry McFarlane, at one end of the scale, who demand the right to discriminate against gay people as an essential part of their being Christians: people like Archbishop Conti and Cardinal O'Brien at the other end of the scale, who call on their fellow Christians to discriminate against gay people. People like Brian Souter, who claim that being a Christian means being a homophobe. People like Caroline Farrow and Adrian Smith, who claim that they've found justification in the Bible for believing God holds gay people to be inferior Christians to straight people.

Haven't you noticed what this discussion is about? It's about claiming Christianity is about hating gay people.

Tue, 2011-11-01 13:46 — MikeHypercube (not verified)

The real issue here as elsewhere is the oppressive instincts of a certain kind of middle management wonk. They see something which, without having formed any views of their own, they identify as possibly pushing some bad buttons, so they put a stop to it. Unlike with Ladele (who was refusing to do her job), there was no good reason for them to do so.

I'm someone who fully supports gay marriage, and I do not believe in God or Christianity, yet I could just as easily express the view that the religion which I do not believe should not be forced to do things which it does not believe. It's a view, yet this would presumably get me into trouble with those who (as Lord Soper once put it) cannot recognise an argument but from time to time may recognise a word.

Fri, 2011-10-28 03:44 — Mr. Divine (not verified)

I'm actually 100% with you on this Yonmei. Can you believe that!

Fri, 2011-10-28 03:52 — Raphael Wong (not verified)

Yonmei,

on your comment to Drew: I think that apart from the contentiousness of what would be Adrian's comment on the Bible, the statement is mostly right. The problem with the statement as you have put it is that its argument isn't racist in itself, rather its application is.

Because I am guessing - if Peter Tatchell or Richard Dawkins, avowed atheists, were to make the statement, they would be praised for their political astuteness. So there is a double standard if Adrian would be accused while the two people are not. And in this context, the CI has a valid case about Christian persecution.

The employer, as in the real case, has the right to be concerned, but not the right to undertake punitive action. Punitive action taken is like the "War against Terror" in Afghanistan and Iraq, and we all know how that went...

I don't know about Gary McFarlane, but the Lilian Ladele case is a bit more than just the right of Christians of discriminate against gays. To look at it objectively, beyond the haze caused by the frequent reference to homophobia, Islington Council is guilty of applying laws in retrospect, which breaches the usual standard of laws. Ladele's (secular) case is that the law was forced on her without the option of opting-out or even transferring to another department, since she has now been effectively fired from the whole council, and not just the registry department, which is rather disproportionate. In addition, her refusal wasn't - or at least there has been no indication that it was - against a live client; she was fired in response to a petition she made to management, so technically there is no actual infringement of the law that she committed. So, in a way, Ladele's case is similar to that of Adrian Smith. She wasn't fired for an action, but for an opinion that she made known within the company/Council.

Fri, 2011-10-28 04:10 — Raphael Wong (not verified)

Caroline:

You can't really separate the faith from the view that flow from it, because otherwise the faith has no content.

In any case, seeing that it is facebook, Mr Smith might not even be expressing his own views at all. The link given either supports his view, or is an elaboration of a summarized reference i.e. he is linking to another page and providing a description. In which case, he is being targeted for presumed opinion, which sets yet another precedent. Although, I would argue, this seems in line with everything to do with the gay rights movement.

The gay rights movement likes to presume that people are like this or like that, they see one word and presume it is an expression of homophobia, a term which has virtually no practically clear definition at all.

Also, an appeal to emotion is a logical fallacy you should probably be careful of. Because you don't like an opinion doesn't mean it is wrong (racist, homophobic or otherwise) in objective terms.

Fri, 2011-10-28 11:38 — Yonmei

Raphael Wong : "I am guessing - if Peter Tatchell or Richard Dawkins, avowed atheists, were to make the statement, they would be praised for their political astuteness"

Or criticised for their religious ignorance. The notion that the Bible says anything like "Marriage is between a man and a woman", anywhere, is homophobic hokum. Homophobic scaremongerers like to raise the spectre of churches being "forced to marry" same-sex couples, but this is obvious nonsense.

"Ladele's (secular) case is that the law was forced on her without the option of opting-out or even transferring to another department"

Absolutely - and (I have read the initial report from her first industrial tribunal) it is clear that she was subjected to bullying at work because of her views. Of course her views were nasty bigotry, but her manager should have managed the situation better - she shouldn't have been allowed to discuss her views openly *at work* - we can all agree that open expressions of bigotry are out of place in the workplace! - and she shouldn't have been subjected to bullying by her colleagues, no matter what the provocation.

She should simply have been able to transfer to another department or to another post.

"The gay rights movement likes to presume that people are like this or like that, they see one word and presume it is an expression of homophobia, a term which has virtually no practically clear definition at all. "

Perfectly clear definition: it's the term describing bigotry against people for their sexual orientation.

Dotcottonshandbag.wordpress.com's picture

Wed, 2011-11-02 15:35 — Dotcottonshandbag.wordpress.com (not verified)

In the olden days, tolerance was of the individual. I could disagree all day long with someone, but still hold a high opinion of them as a person and enter into robust debate over the content of the idea.

Now days tolerance has been redefined to mean that I must not say that anyone is wrong. This means that I am no longer tolerant of individuals, but of all positions.

The only view that is not tolerated is the one that says this view of tolerance is wrong. Thus is born the Intolerance of tolerance.

Therefore, when I articulate that this new view of tolerance is wrong, under the new view I am labelled a 'Bigot' and therefore should not be tolerated.

So then, tolerance which tolerates all views (not individuals) except the one that says that view is wrong, is not truly tolerance and is in fact incoherent, because any view of tolerance presupposes that I must first disagree with someone or something before I can tolerate it.

Therefore, for an individual to tolerate those who promote homosexuality or same sex marriages, they must first have to disagree with them before they tolerate them. It is impossible to tolerate something or someone that you agree with.

So the new tolerance is in fact less tolerant than the old, because it has to dismiss all opponents as intolerant and bigoted and is in fact totalitarian.

This is what you are doing Yonmei and others. You want to stifle debate, silence all other voices using convenient 'homophobic' and 'bigot' labels and are happy to see all who disagree with you punished, no matter how unjust.

Thanks to Don Carson for help with the wording of this.

Steve

Fri, 2011-10-28 12:48 — Sue (not verified)

Rule no. 1 Don't use Facebook. Ever.
Rule no. 2 If you disagree with the ethos of the firm for which you work, look around for another job. Then disagree in public with them.
Rule no. 3 Everyone has prejudices. There shouldn't be different laws for different prejudices and no particular prejudice should trump another.
Rule no. 4 Grow up everyone. While all this nonsense is being chewed over, small children are being killed in the name of religious ritual by one lot of god-botherers, whilst others are being sexually abused by another lot.
Let's worry about that before agonising over Facebook trivia.

Fri, 2011-10-28 12:58 — Caroline Farrow (not verified)

Raphael - good point although a faith in Christ does not encompass a belief in the superiority of heterosexual marriage for all Christians. I agree that homophobia is a meaningless phrase. The phrase homophobia-phobia seems more apt. "An irrational fear or aversion to suspected homophobia".

Yonmei - the MP for Hove has proposed in a letter to David Cameron that Churches that refuse to perform gay weddings should be forced to close, so it is not scare-mongering.

A bigot is a person who has an obstinate belief in the opinions of others and who refuses to tolerate a dissenting point of view. Like a person who seeks to call a Christian with traditional views on marriage theologically ignorant and homophobic and consistently fills comments boxes shouting down and attempting to misrepresent and belittle the views of others.

I would be interested to learn what qualifies you to be able to call others theologically ignorant?

Fri, 2011-10-28 13:03 — Caroline Farrow (not verified)

Apologies, that should have a read "a bigot is a person with an obstinate belief in the superiority of their own opinions and who refuses to tolerate the opinions of others"...

Much like Trafford Housing amongst others...

Fri, 2011-10-28 13:26 — Yonmei

"the MP for Hove has proposed in a letter to David Cameron that Churches that refuse to perform gay weddings should be forced to close, so it is not scare-mongering. "

Oh, wow, Caroline. So an MP writing a letter to the PM, which he takes care to publicise in his constitutency in the hope that it wins him some votes, is going to dictate legislation in the UK? You do surprise me! I had NO IDEA that was how legislation got written!

That's exactly what I mean by scaremongering. It's like the Daily Mail working itself into a fit over the dangers of asylum seekers. It's a nonsense.

"bigot is a person who has an obstinate belief in the opinions of others and who refuses to tolerate a dissenting point of view. "

Exactly - Christians who claim that it's essential to their faith to promote discrimination against gay people, and who claim that restricting civil marriage to mixed-sex couples only is just upholding "traditional" views.

"I would be interested to learn what qualifies you to be able to call others theologically ignorant?"

Knowing enough about theology - and having thoroughly read the Bible - to be able to note the purely ignorant errors of others.

Sat, 2011-10-29 01:52 — Mrs.Josephine Hyde-Hartley (not verified)

Everyone is entitled to an opinion - what a great leveller this could and should be in the public services.

Sat, 2011-10-29 01:53 — Mrs.Josephine Hyde-Hartley (not verified)

Surely, in my view the true charge against Adrian Smith appears to be to do with the terms and conditions ie including the time and space and place where he's working. Therefore in order to avoid unnecessary and inappropriate court type disciplinary or appeal scenes regarding whether there may or may not have been some breach of a condition in a new code of conduct which limits the use by employees of social networking sites - I should say perhaps things would be better (cheaper) generally if we could all take note of any comments made by anyone involved or concerned or associated with public services in a page that identifies and effectively treats workers the same as any other ordinary member of the public.

Fri, 2011-10-28 13:46 — Keir

'Oh. People like Lilian Ladele, and Garry McFarlane'

Lordy. The earth shakes.

'Archbishop Conti and Cardinal O'Brien'

Ahaaah. Now you're getting funny, to be sure. You find cardinals hob-nobbing with Jesus, Paul and Barnabas in the NT. All over it. O' course you do.

'Haven't you noticed what this discussion is about? It's about claiming Christianity is about hating gay people'

Come back when the Synod of the Church of England, when the Methodist Conference and the Baptist Union announce that homosexuals are to be hated. Until then, do try to keep your tedious, off topic wailing to yourself.

Perlease.

Fri, 2011-10-28 14:01 — Keir

'Rule no. 1 Don't use Facebook. Ever.'

Oh wise young judge, how I do honour thee!

Fri, 2011-10-28 14:03 — Yonmei

"Everyone knows that the Christian gospel states that God loves everyone- burglars, serial rapists, drunks, homosexuals, slave traders. "

Everyone, apparently, but the Christians who claim that their faith obliges them to hate gay people.

"Christians know that even their greatest persecutors are to be loved."

So why, do you suppose, do so many Christians argue that it's an essential part of their faith to discriminate against and publicly promote the hatred of gay people?

"Come back when the Synod of the Church of England, when the Methodist Conference and the Baptist Union announce that homosexuals are to be hated."

Interesting that you restrict yourself to those three specific organisations. Are those the only Christians you recognise?

By the way, in case you missed it - the only honest gay Bishop in the whole of the Anglican communion was banned from attending Lambeth at the last 10-year conference, in case his presence gave offense to homophobic bishops...