RETURN TO CONSCIENCE

"I am quite satisfied as to the genuineness of the defendants' beliefs (Christianity) and it is, I have no doubt, one which others also hold."  'It is a very clear example of how social attitudes have changed over the years for  it is not so very long ago that these beliefs of the defendants would have been those  accepted as normal by society at large. 'Now it is the other way around." 

The words of Judge Andrew Rutherford (JAR) in awarding costs of £3600 against Peter and Hazelmary Bull for refusing unmarried homosexuals and heterosexuals double room bookings in their home based guest house. As devout Christians, the Bulls believe that they are accountable to God for whatever occurs under their roof, hence the long standing policy not to let double room to unmarried persons.

JAR seems to say, yes you're beautiful and admirable people but unfortunately that which you call your conviction or belief or faith is archaic. Christianity is no longer relevant and pitched against homosexuality, it would be beaten any day. In one breath JAR appears to extol the virtues of the Bulls but in another makes them look like outdated religious bigots. He then takes the Bulls back to school in order to lecture them about how fast society has changed and their inability to alter their conviction to conform to society has landed them in this trouble and as punishment, charged them £3600. This high level disregard for religious conviction, conscience and Christian beliefs is sheer moral bankruptcy. In fact JAR words reveal how low society has sunken to abject depravity. 

JAR  by these words show he does not regard the eternal weight or value of conscience and conviction. To him they are dispensable to be sacrificed on the altar of  popular opinion and not eternal principles. How appropriate is the law if it seeks to compel people to act against their deep seated convictions and beliefs and not just any beliefs but the same beliefs and principles upon which Britain was founded and continues to  pride itself in. For the Bulls in this case their crime was to hold on to time tested beliefs of not just the fathers of  the nation but a faith which goes back thousands of years with about 2 billion following today. It seems JAR did not think his thoughts through as he indirectly pitched the homosexual men against 2 billion Christians and concludes that the convictions of 2 billion people no longer matter in the scheme of the world. Amazing! 

This is militant atheism at its best.  Imagine having to preserve  your conscience all your life living by certain convictions and principles only to be compelled to violate those in a ripe old age in the very democratic land of your birth. If the church and its leaders do not fight this ruling, we would have just conceded that JAR was right. Christians are now the nuisance of society and their convictions and conscience are of no moral or eternal consequence and could be sacrificed on the altar of equality or inequality.

The right to follow ones conscience is a fundamental human right. The sanctity of the individual and the individual conscience is the foundation of all our freedoms. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, all follow from the freedom of the individual to judge for himself or herself what is right and wrong, what is wise and what is foolish. Individual conscience is not infallible, but any political system that forces people to violate their conscience is surely worse: it is totalitarian. (David Chandler).

During wars people are allowed to object by reason of their conscience.  "Conscientious objectors" (people who opposes war for religious, moral, or ethical reasons) are offered alternate ways other than direct combat roles to serve the national good. 

It is clear from JAR's pronuncement that in a postmodern world, there are no absolutes. Compelling the Bulls to admit homosexuals in their own home is nothing more than religious persecution. 

For the homosexual couple in this case it was a matter of choice in that there were other hotels to choose from as they confirmed that the police did help them find alternative accommodation. The Bulls on the other hand do not have the luxury of swinging their conviction around. They cannot and should not be made to sacrifice their deeply held convictions to satisfy other people's preferences. In recent times People have sacrificed their moral compass for convenience and society has lost its raison d'etre.

However, like Martin Luther (the reformer) we must rediscover our inner resolve in the face of hostile postmodernism and militant atheism. When faced with the wrath of Rome to recant his writings, Martin Luther said;

"Unless I am convinced by the testimonies of the Holy Scriptures or evident reason  I am bound by the Scriptures adduced by me, and my conscience has been taken captive by the Word of God, and I am neither able nor willing to recant, since it is neither safe nor right to act against conscience. God help me. Amen."

Can we stand by our convictions today as Christians even if it costs us? Like Luther, we should not expect much from the church establishment. It might just be time to go it alone and lift high the banner of Christ in the midst of a hostile world.

PRECEDENT

The judge in his ruling has also equated civil partnerships with marraige. This must have come as a shock even to homosexual activists. (Refer to my blog, Sings of the Times). The reason being that the Gay Liberation Front (GLF) led by Peter Tatchell in December 2010 launched a campaign to redefine marriage in the UK. In a well orchestrated plan four homosexual men to applied for marriage licences at register offices across England, fully aware that it would be refused. Also four heterosexual couples also applied to be legally recognised as civil partners. Both applications failed as expected and now a joint application to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg claiming discrimination is to be heard by the end of January 2011.

JAR's ruling is therefore an interesting development as the ECHR in June 2010 in a test case brought by an Austrian homosexual men ruled that there is no universal right to same sex marriage.The homosexuals in their application sought a redefinition  of article 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights which states;

Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family, according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right.

The court ruled that states were under no obligation to grant same-sex couples access to  marriage”.The UK government backed the courts ruling.

By his ruling therefore, JAR has amazed both homosexuals and heterosexuals alike including the UK government.