food4thought

Back in the mid 1980s, the Radio 1 DJ Steve Wright and his posse wrote a song about a character known as Llama Man. I can still remember the lyrics that used to belt out of the school bus radio. ‘He can bleat. He can trot. He’s got everything that a llama’s got!’ What was a joke back then could now become a reality. No seriously, I’m not winding you up. And more importantly, neither is the Government. As you’d expect I’m overstating it a little. But in a raft of horrific ethical decisions what used to be a laugh is about to become legislation. This time, we’ve really lost the plot.

In case you’d not realised, we’re talking about the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. It’s already been debated and voted in the House of Lords where sound common sense gave way to powerful political lobbying. Well financed scientific institutions and some medically qualified peers trounced the voices of reason seeking sensible amendments.

But before I really let loose in a fresh tirade I ought to substantiate the strength of my feeling. There are in essence three main objections to the proposals. But before I enumerate them, it’s worth saying that I understand and identify with the compassionate impulse that underpins the motives of some who support this Bill. The noble aim of much scientific research is to reverse the effects of human disease; especially debilitating illnesses with which some of our friends are afflicted. Anyone who’s seen someone struggle with Cystic Fibrosis, Parkinson’s or Alzheimer’s to name but three will sympathise with the impulse to do all that we can to rid this world of such horrors. But the end does not justify the means. And the means are ethically very dubious, especially when viewed through a Christian ethical framework.

Therefore fuelled by the helpful material produced by Christian Concern for our Nation, the Christian Institute and CARE these are my objections.

1. The Bill undermines the biblical view of the species

The existing legislation will make it permissible for scientists to create animal-human hybrid embryos for research purposes. In a classic piece of spin doctoring they’ve renamed these embryos, which are part human and part animal, ‘human admixed embryos’. Others who are closer to the mark have decided to call the process ‘in vitro bestiality’. There are three types of animal-human embryos that scientists seek.

• First there are Cybrids in which the nucleus from an animal egg is removed and replaced with a human nucleus.
• Secondly there are Chimeras which are created by bringing together a set of human cells and animal cells during the early stages of development.
• Thirdly, there are Hybrids in which animal DNA and human DNA are mixed with the resultant embryo being a new part-human species.

Scientists want these hybrids because they produce a large number of embryonic stem cells and there are insufficient numbers of human eggs. And so, in each of these hybrid ‘creations’ the stem cells are harvested and used for research. The embryo is then destroyed. A fully fledged llama man may have been averted but we’ve just killed a person made in God’s image in the process. And that’s not funny in the least. In response to these proposals, it’s been argued that

a. The process is unnecessary. Adult skin cells can be reprogrammed to act like embryonic stem cells. Stem cells from sources such as bone marrow and umbilical cord blood have now been used to successfully treat a number of conditions.

b. The process is unsuccessful. Human embryonic stem cell research has failed to produce any treatment or cures in the last 17 years. Some scientists maintain that since these embryos will not develop in the same way as human embryos they are unlikely to yield knowledge of the process by which human stem cells develop.

c. The process is unethical. The issue with this proposal is that the legislation blurs the distinction between animal and human. If we erode the boundaries between the species we destroy the basis for the uniqueness of the human race. There is the world of difference between a rat and a human. It’s on this basis that we have things like human rights. But the foundation for human dignity is about to be obliterated.

2. The Bill undermines the biblical view of the significance of families

This Bill opens the door to three things that are potentially destructive to the family.

a. The creation of Saviour Siblings. When I was a child my father drove a Fiat. It was always breaking down, he was frugal and he was an engineer. And so very often we’d spend a Saturday morning at a ‘wrecker’s yard’ scouting for spare parts to keep the car on the road. Dad was brilliant at taking an old distributor, alternator or thermostat and transplanting it to give new life to our sick vehicle. It’s that image that we need to have in mind when we think about ‘saviour siblings’. Under new legislation scientists would be allowed to create sibling children for the purpose of using them for spare parts. As we might expect with such a controversial proposal there are consequences. This process involves pre-implantation testing of IVF embryos so that those that are a match for the sick sibling can be chosen and those that are not a match can be destroyed. A child that’s a tissue match can then be created for the purpose of seeing his or her body parts removed in order to patch up the sick sibling. In addition, no one has any idea what the anticipated psychological consequence will be for the child as it grows up and realises that it was created principally to resource his or her brother or sister.

b. The removal of Fathers. Whilst many wives lament that their husbands have become emotionally absent fathers and regrettably many women struggle under the burden of raising children as sole parents, this Government wants to enshrine in law the principal that fathers are no longer necessary in families. The Bill removes the need for IVF providers to take into account the child’s need for a father when considering an IVF application. The House of Lords amended the Bill so that it was deemed sufficient for the child to have ‘supportive parenting’. This obviously means that lesbian couples can have their ‘own’ child by IVF. This is undoubtedly going to have a detrimental effect on the development of a child. Apparently studies already confirm this. But you don’t need to be an educational psychologist to work out that being the kid at school who grows up with two mummies is going to have issues. And quite apart from that it simply doesn’t match up to God’s ideal of a father and a mother making their different contribution to the child in the context of a family.

c. The threat of cloning. The Bill allows the Government to introduce regulations in the future which permit a specific form of human reproductive cloning. Previously, any cloned human embryo had to be destroyed at 14 days. But in some circumstances this new Bill could change that. It allows cloning techniques using cell nuclear replacement to be used to prevent the transmission of some genetic diseases from the Mother to a child. The process will create a child with three parents since an egg cell from a second woman would be needed to develop the child. The child would therefore have two mothers and a father. It would also essentially be a clone of its ‘diseased’ mother. The moral and legal issues alone are bewildering let alone the likely psychological effects on the child. Worryingly, the Bill does not introduce regulations that limit this practice being extended beyond the avoidance of mitochondrial disease.

3. The Bill undermines the biblical view of the sanctity of human life

At the Marie Stopes Centre not far from our house a giant banner proudly proclaims, ‘Celebrating 25 years of reproductive healthcare’. I ought to complain to the Advertising Standards Agency for an utterly misleading promotion. It’s worth noting that there’s very little healthcare being offered to the unborn child. As a result of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, the law on abortion is up for grabs. Both ‘pro-life’ and ‘pro-abortion’ groups will table amendments. Rather perversely, given the underlying presupposition that it’s ethically acceptable to destroy human embryos, the Bill provides opportunities to improve the law on abortion and lessen the damage that it causes. This could be the case in the following three areas.

a. Reducing upper limits. At the present time the upper limit for a legal abortion is 24 weeks. However, there’s overwhelming public support for a reduction. In 2005 two thirds of the public, 63% of MPs and three quarters of women supported a reduction. In addition, a 2007 survey reported that 65% of GPs would welcome a reduction. Three factors have contributed to this. First, recent ultrasound images of the embryo in the early stages of development in the womb have made people realise that the embryo is simply an unborn child. Secondly, the bizarre juxtaposition in hospitals of neo-natal units preserving the lives of pre term children and abortion units where pregnancies are being terminated at the same gestation period. And thirdly, there’s mounting medical evidence that the foetus may be aware of pain at less than 20 weeks.

b. Ending abortion for disability. Currently the law allows abortion up to birth if there’s a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from physical or mental abnormalities such that the child could be classified as handicapped. Not only is this an outrageous devaluation of the value of human life but it discriminates against the disabled. Within the current legislation incredibly there’s no definition of what constitutes abnormalities. There’ve been reports of abortions being performed on children with minor medical conditions like a cleft lip and palate, webbed fingers and extra digits. It’s outrageous that these should be regarded as disabilities, especially when medical science can deal with them. We mustn’t lose sight of the fact that we’re destroying a person for having an extra toe.

c. Providing independent counselling. The Royal College of Psychiatrists recently warned that having an abortion can damage a woman’s mental health and they should be told the risks before proceeding. Not all women are aware of the facts about abortion, the consequences of abortion or the alternatives to abortion. In order to protect the women who proceed to abortion under pressure from others, it’s imperative that they receive the guidance they need to make an informed decision. Criticism has been levelled at the accuracy of the advice provided by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Accusations have been made that much of the counselling advice originates with proponents of the abortion industry. Therefore in the presence of vested interests it seems wise to provide statutory independent guidance for all women seeking an abortion.

Conclusion

Our country is not in a great place. Morally speaking. We can’t stand by and do nothing. This is our holocaust. Since 1967 6.7 million children have been terminated. It’s genocide. We have an opportunity to speak the truth and stem the tide. So what should we do? There are three simple things that we could do. We could pray, pester and protest.

1. We should pray because God has not stopped ruling His world. He alone has the power to reverse the downward trend into immorality that this country is witnessing and participating in. Pray that there’s widespread media coverage of these issues and that the dissenting voices are heard loud and clear. Pray that God would have mercy on this nation so that evil is restrained. And pray that the pro-life Politicians and pro-Life groups working to oppose this Bill have the courage, wisdom and resources necessary to do so. Stop reading this now and pray.

2. We should pester our MP and bring him or her up to speed on our issues with this Bill. We can write a letter, send an e-mail or pitch up in person at a surgery to voice our displeasure at the liberalisation proposed in this Bill. Details on how to do this are available here.

3. We could protest outside Parliament on 14th May from 12.30pm onwards. The events is being organised by the All Party Parliamentary Pro-Life Group. It’s being supported by organisations like CARE, Christian Medical Fellowship and Christian Concern for our Nation. Details are available here. We could also take a few minutes to sign the online petitions at www.aliveandkickingcampaign.org.  

This is helpful background information for understanding the progression of a bill through Parliament. 

The following is a letter I sent to Keith Hill, MP for Streatham expressing concerns about a proposed amendment. The proposed amendment would make it a crime to name homosexual practice as a sin. Those found guilty would be liable to a sentence of up to seven years.

Dear Mr Hill,

I am writing to ask you to oppose the introduction of an incitement to gay hatred crime in the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill. I recognise that you rarely, if ever, vote against the Government but can I please implore you to take the objections to the proposed amendment seriously.

Let me begin by categorically stating that no Christian worthy of the name would ever support violent or intimidating behaviour against any person. Christ called us to love our neighbours and the overwhelming majority of Christians take that moral obligation very seriously. However, the orthodox Christian position has always been that the practice of homosexuality is morally wrong. More importantly we hold that view not simply because it’s the traditional view and we’ve inherited it from our forefathers but because it’s unequivocally the Biblical position.

There is a world of difference between graciously critiquing a lifestyle choice and causing homophobic hatred but I’m not at all convinced that in the current climate that distinction will be recognised and affirmed. And more importantly I’m not convinced that this proposed legislation allows us to do the former. As an Anglican Minister I have taken a Canonical Oath to teach the biblical position and, I am led to believe, that I would be vulnerable to prosecution for ‘inciting hatred’. You can begin to see why I’m concerned!

This Government must recognise that though it is a highly emotive and personal issue, homosexual orientation is not like gender or race. We cannot change our gender and we cannot change our race. But we can change our sexual preference and our sexual activity. Even proponents of gay rights concede this point. We may be born with an inclination or propensity towards homosexual attraction but it is not an inalienable right to exercise that desire. Homosexual activity should not need to be protected from critique by Government legislation. Gay rights lobbyists cannot expect legislation to protect them from moral evaluation. Churches, and any other institution or individual, should to be allowed to gently and sensitively say that something is wrong without fearing the Police pitching up. This ought to be the case in a country that purports to support free speech.

I wouldn’t expect you to remember, but we spoke at length at one of your surgeries about the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill. The introduction of an incitement to gay hatred crime is an even greater threat to free speech than that flawed piece of legislation was. Please vote against it.

Yours sincerely,

Richard Perkins

Further information can be found here http://www.christian.org.uk/issues/2007/gay_rights/hatecrime/index.htm

Despite a valiant effort by Baroness O’Cathain on Wednesday night her amendment to the proposed Sexual Orientation regulations was defeated in the House of Lords by 168 votes to 122. The SORs will therefore become law. For the background to the SORs follow the links here http://richardperkins.blogsome.com/2007/03/20/sors-meeting-with-sadiq-khan/.

This is how the matter was reported by Christian Concern for our Nation

http://www.christianconcernforournation.co.uk/sor/22mar7.php

This is how the result was reported by the Christian Institute

http://www.christian.org.uk/soregs/lords_result_21march2007.htm

The judicial review on the Northern Ireland version of the regulations goes ahead as planned in June. This court action may yet have implications for Great Britain. We should continue to pray for success in the courts.

One of our church elders and I met with the Sadiq Khan, MP for Tooting, Balham, Earlsfield and Wandsworth Common this morning in Westminster. Sadiq is a delightful man. He listened to our concerns, understood them and agreed to write on our behalf to Meg Munn, the Minister Responsible for the SORs. I undertook at that meeting to send a copy of our representation to him. This is a copy of the letter that was sent.

Dear Sadiq

Thank you for meeting us this morning and for allowing us to express our concerns about the Sexual Orientation Regulations (SORs).

We recognise that these regulations have now passed through the House of Commons. Although there’s a vote in the House of Lords on Wednesday we accept that it’s unlikely that they will be sent back to the Commons since all three major parties have supported the legislation. However, we remain hopeful that Baroness O’Cathain’s amendment will meet with widespread support and the Peers are persuaded to reject the SORs in their current form.

The essence of our discussion this morning was that in the delicate balancing act between the freedom of personal sexual expression and personal religious freedom this legislation discriminates against faith communities. We obviously made representation on behalf of your Christian constituents at Christ Church Balham (CCB). Our issue was not so much with the protection and exemption afforded to religious organisations but that ordinary Christian men and women will be forced by this legislation to act against their consciences or risk being sued.

I mentioned five important qualifying statements.

First, we are not homophobic. Homophobia is an irrational prejudice against homosexual people and leads to unfair discrimination. As Christians we want to love our neighbours irrespective of their sexual orientation. Many of our congregation have homosexual friends. I was converted to Christianity through a dear friend who is now a practising gay man. Within our congregations we have men and women of homosexual orientation who continue to reject the homosexual lifestyle. But though we are not homophobic we do stand by the Bible’s teaching that the only appropriate place for sexual activity is within the marriage relationship.

Secondly, in general Christians will be very happy to provide goods and service to people of different sexual orientation. In most circumstances there will be no need for discrimination. But in some instances the SORs compel Christians to promote or assist what the Bible regards as sinful sexual activity. Christians would therefore become complicit in sin themselves.

Thirdly, we understand that the Government wants to protect homosexual people from homophobic harassment. We laud and support the Government in the efforts to provide that.

Fourthly, we would not choose to campaign on the homosexual issue and realise that for many people this brings unwelcome attention. Not least, to those of a homosexual orientation within our own congregations. This has become an issue on which we have needed to say something because the traditional liberty of religious conscience is being threatened by Government legislation.

Fifthly, we appreciate the protection given to religious organisations but we seek further protection and exemption from the SORs for individuals. The Christian faith is not simply about doing Christian things on a Sunday, it’s about living in obedience to Jesus Christ throughout the rest of the week. This will mean that under some circumstances Christians will decide it’s inappropriate to allow their expertise to be employed.

The three specific examples that I provided from with our own congregations were as follows:

1. The SORs will require Christian teachers to teach that homosexual civil partnerships and sexual activity is equivalent to marriage. Both the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and the Joint Committee on Human Rights recognise that the curriculum is not exempt from these regulations. So for example, one of our primary school teachers would be vulnerable to a legal case being brought against him or her if they thought and taught that homosexual activity was immoral.

2. The SORs will require our self employed personnel to facilitate, condone and promote sinful homosexual practice or risk litigation. So for example, if the Pink Paper sought the services of our Management Consultants, our Graphic Designers or the Printing Company whose offices we’ve been using and any one of those Companies decided that in conscience they couldn’t help the Pink Paper because of their homosexual agenda they would be acting unlawfully.

3. The SORs will require our church leaders to reinvent or remain silent on the Bible’s teaching on sexual ethics. This appears to be an inadvertent error in drafting but I am advised by Christian Lawyers that there is a crucial gap in the protection of Vicars and Ministers because of a potential breach of either Regulation 9 or Regulation 11.

In essence this legislation makes it illegal for our congregation to live by the Bible’s teaching. In some instances it requires us to quash our conscience or makes us law breakers. That can’t be a good thing for the Government to propose.

Thank you for your willingness to pass our concerns on to Meg Munn. We look forward to hearing her response.

Yours sincerely

Richard Perkins

What are the odds of getting Christians, Jews and Muslims to agree on something? With one single piece of ill conceived legislation the Government have achieved what years of inter faith dialogue have failed to accomplish. But that’s not as encouraging as it sounds.

Consider the following three statements.

The Bishop of Durham, Tom Wright

“This completely fails to take into account the views and beliefs of all those involved. …the idea that new Labour can come up with a new morality which it forces on the Catholic Church after 2,000 years; I am sorry, this is amazing arrogance on the part of the Government.” The Times, 30 January 2007

The Muslim Council of Britain

“The Muslim Council of Britain fully supports the principled stand taken by the leaders of the Catholic and Anglican churches on the Sexual Orientation Regulations (SORs). The right to practise one’s faith… is a cornerstone of our society…” MCB Press Release, 25 January 2007

The Federation of Synagogues

“This legislation is forcing religious groups to operate against their convictions and that sets a very dangerous precedent.” The Jewish Chronicle, 2 February 2007

Spokesmen for all three faiths have identified the threat to religious belief posed by the Sexual Orientation Regulations [SORs]. Now, religious leaders are not known for straight talking, perhaps especially Anglicans! So when someone like Tom Wright uses the word ‘arrogance’ and aims it at the Government we ought to sit up and take notice.

I have written on the SORs elsewhere http://richardperkins.blogsome.com/2007/01/02/sexual-orientation-regulations/. I wrote to several Peers in anticipation of the forthcoming debate this Wednesday http://richardperkins.blogsome.com/2007/03/14/sors-letter-to-house-of-lords/ . I’d encourage you to read the material from the links to the Christian Institute and Christian Concern for our Nation.

In essence, these regulations will make it illegal for anyone who provides goods, services, facilities, premises, education or public functions to discriminate against a person on the grounds of their sexual orientation. Therefore, under these regulations Christians would be compelled to be involved in promoting behaviour the Bible teaches is immoral or face litigation and prosecution. In balancing the freedom of people to exercise their own sexual ethics and the freedom of people of the Christian faith to exercise their religious conscience the pendulum has swung well and truly in the favour of sexual activity.

There are four main areas that will be impacted by these regulations

1. Provision of teaching on sexual ethics in Schools

The curriculum must comply with these regulations regardless of what the Government claims. Both the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments [the Parliamentary Lawyers] and the Joint Committee on Human Rights stated that though the SORs are unclear they ought to apply to what is taught in schools. Therefore, the teachers in our congregation would be required to teach that homosexual relationships are just as acceptable as married relationships. If they failed to do so and a parent felt that a pupil had been disadvantaged by the homosexual position not being advocated he or she would have been deemed to have acted illegally.

2. Provision of advice in the medical profession

Within the SORs there is no protection for individuals to guarantee their freedom of conscience. Therefore, a Christian GP would not be able to refuse to give a reference recommending homosexual parents as suitable for adopting because the GP did not consider it would be right or in the best interests of the child to be raised without a father and a mother.

3. Provision of goods or services by our self employed personnel

If any of our self employed personnel are approached by a homosexual group wanting to employ their services they are obliged by the SORs to quash their Christian convictions. They could therefore be required to be involved in promoting activities that he or she believes to be immoral.

4. Provision of Bible teaching on the issue of sexual ethics

It will be illegal for Church Pastors to teach a congregation that they should follow the Bible’s teaching on sexual morality even when it conflicts with the SORs. So if one of our staff were to teach that the Christian GP should follow the Bible’s teaching and risk being sued rather than be involved in encouraging immoral activity they would be vulnerable to litigation.

It doesn’t take long to realise that dear friends within our church are threatened by these regulations if they decide to live obediently to the Bible’s teaching. It seems very likely that we will lose the debate in both Houses. The Government are pushing this through regardless of the concerns of many and to the consternation of many MPs. Iain Duncan-Smith, the ex-Conservative Leader said

‘There should have been a full SOR debate in the House of Common, the procedure used by the Government has brough Parliament into disrepute’. 15th March 2007

Some who choose to obey the Bible’s teaching will be sued. A few many decide to go to prison rather than pay the financial penalty. Our children may one day ask what we did to oppose the persecution of Christian teaching. What will you say?

A letter sent today to the House of Lords in the light of the ongoing work to prevent the sexual Orientation Regulations (SORs) becoming law. I have written on SORs here http://richardperkins.blogsome.com/2007/01/02/sexual-orientation-regulations/. Further information can be found from the Christian Institute web site here http://www.christian.org.uk/pdfpublications/sor_newsletter_march07.pdf.

Dear Lord *****

I write as the Senior Pastor of Christ Church Balham, an Anglican Church in South London, on behalf of our church members.

As a result of proposed Government legislation the rights of a small percentage of people are about to take precedence over the religious freedoms of many. The Sexual Orientation Regulations (SORs) currently being rushed through Parliament will effectively promote homosexual activity and rights at the expense of conscientious Christian liberty.

British Law should surely allow people of the Christian faith (and those of other faiths and none) to withhold their support of an activity they regard as morally wrong. The SORs will undermine this principle and leave upright members of the community liable to prosecution and vulnerable to litigation.

Some of our congregation would be affected by the SORs.

We have a number of School Teachers who could face legal action under the regulations for saying that homosexual practice is wrong. The Government has given assurances that this will not be the case but legally that is inaccurate. The Parliamentary Committee for Human Rights recognises that the SORs apply to schools since there is no exception for the curriculum.

Several of our church are involved in small businesses or self employed as management consultants, graphic designers, architects and so on. If the SORs are passed they could face legal action for refusing to offer their support on the grounds of religious principle.

I understand that Baroness O’Cathain has tabled a motion to stop the regulations becoming law. When the House of Lords vote on 21st March can I please urge you to support her motion?

Many thanks for your attention to this matter.

Yours faithfully

Can I urge everyone to familiarise themselves with the issues, pray about them and write to the House of Lords. I’m told that in these days of mass mailings a letter produced on a computer is ignored and that Peers pay more attention to those that are hand written. The letter above was therefore sent in my illegible scrawl! 

You may find some of the materials here helpful http://www.christian.org.uk/soregs/index.htm.

Sexual Orientation Regulations

On Tuesday 9th January 2007 the House of Lords will debate Lord Morrow’s motion to annul the Northern Ireland Sexual Orientation Regulations (SORs). This is an encouraging development. It’s no doubt the result of the prayerful response of Christians throughout the country. However, many of us may be unaware of the threat to our freedom that these regulations pose.

This short article is an attempt to explain the main issues. For those who wish to investigate the matter, further additional information can be found on the Christian Institute web site at www.christian.org.uk and the Lawyers Christian Fellowship at www.lawcf.org. But perhaps the most useful site is the Christian Concern for our Nation web site http://www.christianconcernforournation.co.uk/.

Background

In November 2006 the Daily Telegraph reported that ‘controversial new gay rights laws are being bulldozed through parliament despite protests from churches and other groups’ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/21/ngay21.xml.

The 2006 Equality Act gave the Government power to push through these new regulations. The new SORs will make ‘homophobic’ discrimination and harassment illegal in many aspects of life. But they threaten to curtail religious liberty. They’re set to cover: the provision of goods, facilities and services; the selling or letting of premises; education; and public authorities. In essence the SORs outlaw discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and harassment on the grounds of sexual orientation. At one level that sounds laudable. And the Government proposals are no doubt well intentioned. But those who drafted these regulations seem unaware of the consequences not only for Christians but also for many faith groups. In practice these regulations will prevent these groups from deciding to exercise their religious conviction to withhold support from activities they deem immoral. And so, in reality they could be used by

• An aggrieved pupil to sue a teacher who says in a lesson, or an assembly, that sex is only for marriage.

• A homosexual student who argues that a University has created an ‘offensive environment’ by permitting the ‘homophobic’ CU to advertise its meetings on campus.

• A gay couple to sue a Christian photographer if he/she refused to photograph their civil partnership.

Consider also the following situations

• If a Graphic Designer refused to produce fliers for a Gay Organisation who sought to promote the gay lifestyle, he could be prosecuted.

• If a Management Consultant refused to offer assistance to a Gay Organisation since he did not wish to be involved in endorsing that lifestyle, he too could be prosecuted.

• A Teacher could be sacked and fined if they refused to teach that practising homosexuality should be actively considered by children as an alternative and an equal to heterosexual marriage.

It is these sorts of situations that has prompted some to suggest that these regulations are a greater threat to religious freedom than the ill conceived [but ultimately defeated] Religious Hatred legislation.

The following four things are offered as a reason for our opposition to the SORs.

1. Christians ought to be allowed to uphold Christian morality

Yet the SORs make it illegal for Christians to choose not to condone actions which are contrary to the Bible. We must make clear that Christians are commanded to love our neighbours. There’s no exemption to the Lord’s commandment to do this. We must therefore love all people equally regardless of their sexual orientation. Christians would never want to be homophobic [fearing homosexual people] or discriminate against homosexuals out of bigotry or prejudice. However, Christians long to see all people respond to the gospel in repentance and faith. We do so because of our desire to love the Lord and all people. Therefore Christians should not endorse, promote or assist anyone in any lifestyle that is incompatible with Christian discipleship.

2. Christians ought to be allowed to live by the Bible

Yet the SORs discriminate against those who do so. The SORs give freedom to homosexuals to live according to their lifestyle but they take away the freedom of Christians to live by theirs. The Bible is clear that the only appropriate place for all sexual activity is a marriage between two people of the opposite gender. Consequently there will be times when Christians need to be free to discriminate against homosexuals in order to make it clear that we believe in the Bible’s teaching that homosexual practice is morally wrong. There are a huge number of people in this country who believe the Christian teaching on marriage and family is not an outdated or extreme belief. But these proposals make it illegal to hold these views.

3. Christians ought to be allowed to teach Christian values

Yet the SORs will seriously inhibit the freedom of Christians to raise children according to the values of the Bible. It would be illegal for a school to have a ‘bias’ on their curriculum in favour of heterosexual relationships since this would discriminate against any possible homosexual pupils or homosexual parents who wanted their child to be taught about the acceptability of homosexuality. The health of our nation depends upon the degree to which our children are taught Christian morality and the degree to which they conform in practice. The regulations threaten those who would teach Christian morality with a criminal record and a financial penalty.

4. Christians ought to be allowed to live a public faith

Yet the SORs provide exemption only for activities that occur in church. Consequently a Christian wanting to live consistently by the Bible in the public sphere is not protected from prosecution by these regulations. It is vitally important that Christians are as free to be Christians outside a church as inside it. But these regulations prevent that from being the case.

In the light of this it seems that the only sensible course of action is to add the following exemptions to the SORs. The Lawyers Christian Fellowship has suggested this exemption. `Nothing in these Regulations shall require a person to provide goods, facilities and services, education or to use or dispose of premises, where such provision of goods, facilities and services, education or such use or disposal of premises would promote, facilitate, encourage or assist the practice of a sexual orientation in a manner which is contrary to the strongly held religious convictions of the person.’ Not to add this exemption would be tantamount to making certain aspects of Christianity illegal.

What can we do?

1. We must pray about the situation. God answered our prayers about the proposed legislation for the Incitement to Religious hatred and He could choose to do so again.

2. We can represent our concerns to the Ministers in charge. Ruth Kelly and Meg Munn are the Ministers who will make the final decision.

3. We can meet our local MP and urge him or her to pass on our concerns to Meg Munn and Ruth Kelly.

4. We can sign the petitions at www.christianconcernforournation.co.uk/sorpetition.php and http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/NISexOrient/

5. We can join hundreds of fellow Christians at a rally outside Parliament being organised by the Lawyers’ Christian Fellowship. Groups will be meeting in Old Palace Yard, opposite St Stephen’s entrance to the House of Commons. People have been requested to bring a torch! The Rally will take place from 5.30-8.00pm on 9th January 2007.