The law has permitted places of worship to host civil partnership ceremonies since December

A letter signed by 120 clergy is calling for the Church of England to reverse its ban on civil partnership ceremonies being held in churches.

The signatories, from the diocese of London, want discretion to uphold loving homosexual relationships.

It is the first sign of significant resistance within the Church to its refusal to permit civil partnership ceremonies in Anglican churches.

The law has allowed them in English and Welsh places of worship since December.

In their letter, the signatories stopped short of calling for same-sex marriage.

However, they said they should be given the same discretion in deciding whether to hold civil partnerships in church as they currently have in deciding whether to remarry divorced people.

One of the signatories said they were dismayed at having to deny “the Church’s fullest ministry” to increasing numbers of gay couples with loving relationships, said BBC religious affairs correspondent Robert Pigott.

The Church said in December it would not host civil ceremonies, just as a “gentlemen’s outfitter is not required to supply women’s clothes”.

‘Dictatorial, homophobic’

Secretary general William Fittall wrote that no religious premises would be allowed to host the registration of civil partnerships without written permission from the general synod – the Church’s governing body.

The government said no religious group would be forced to hold ceremonies.

However, the Church’s stance angered pressure groups and gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell urged clergy to defy the ban, which he called “dictatorial and homophobic”.

The government will open a consultation on the issue of same-sex marriages – as opposed to civil partnerships – in March.

A consultation on the subject by the Scottish government ended in December.

On Wednesday, more than 50 people protested outside York Minster at comments made by the Archbishop of York on same-sex marriage.

Dr John Sentamu had told the Daily Telegraph that marriage must be between a man and a woman, adding it was not “the role of the state to define what marriage is”.

Civil partnerships give same-sex couples the right to the same legal treatment across a range of matters as married couples but the law does not allow such unions to be referred to as marriages.

Serious concerns are due to be voiced at next week’s General Synod over a plan to homogenise pre- and post-ordination training.

The Phase 2 Report of the Ministry Council Working Party into the Church of England’s Higher Education (HE) and Initial Ministry Training (IME) practices was approved by the House of Bishops last December. The report is to be examined at the upcoming Synod in London.

There were concerns that the report was going to be ratified by Synod ‘under the radar’ in the midst of the main business of women bishops. But according to Anglican evangelical campaign group, Reform, one of the parties concerned about the proposals, the report is not going to a vote at this Synod and will be properly scrutinised.

Just to explain the report’s terminology, IME 1-3 is theological training at college or on a course before ordination; IME 4-7 is post-ordination training for curates.

The Working Party’s stated vision is as follows:

We believe that there are compelling reasons for the Church of England, with our partner institutions, to develop a suite of HE Awards with a single validating HE partnership which would provide the main highway of training and formation for IME 1-3, which would also provide dioceses with an option for IME 4-7 and for Reader training; and would also make provision for independent students pursuing a variety of vocations in discipleship and ministry.

The Working Party, chaired by the Bishop of Sheffield, Dr Steven Croft, who was Warden (head) of the evangelical theological college in Durham, Cranmer Hall, from 1996 to 2004, recommends that

the Church of England, with our partner churches establish a single suite of HE awards suitable for IME 1-7, Reader training and independent students, with a single HE set of validation arrangements as outlined in this report.

The report’s bustling timetable presupposes ratification at this month’s Synod. May 2012 is cited as the target date for identifying the validating university for the new awards through a tender process. With the vote delayed until at least summer’s Synod, that date is presumably having to be put back. The report states September 2015 as the target for transferring all accredited Church of England training institutions to the new regime.

The concern over homogenised clergy training is essentially this: currently ordinands who wish to be trained in line with the doctrine of the Church of England as expressed in Canon A5 can be theologically educated at Oak Hill or Wycliffe Hall.

At those colleges, the Reformed theology of the Church of England’s 39 Articles of Religion is clearly upheld. The perspective expressed in the Book of Common Prayer that the atoning death of the Lord Jesus Christ propitiated the wrath of God on sin is clearly upheld. Rigorous and responsible biblical studies, including biblical theology, are taught in line with the Church of England’s doctrinal stance that the Bible is the Word of God written. Pro-active biblical evangelism and apologetics, in line with the Ordinal’s stipulation that clergy are called to seek out Christ’s sheep dispersed abroad, are also positively taught.

What will happen to these confessional Anglican emphases under a homogenised training regime?

Perhaps such fears are groundless but they cannot be dispelled until the new homogenised curriculum and syllabi are published.

What should be non-negotiable in clergy training is the New Testament fact that Bible teaching is at the heart of pastoring the precious flock of Jesus Christ.

By Julian Mann, Virtueonline

“Should I stay or should I go?” was the 1981 song by the English punk rock band The Clash. It is the question looming over conservative evangelical members of Reform in the shadow of next week’s meeting of the Church of England’s General Synod in London.

The General Synod elections of September 2010 did see gains for traditionalists but with 42 out of 44 English dioceses having voted for women bishops since then, the bus is now unstoppable.

The Archbishops of Canterbury and York would like to supply traditionalists with their own stream of bishops, and that is due to be a major bone of contention at the upcoming Synod.

It is possible the Archbishops will get their way over ‘co-ordinate jurisdiction’, but the current momentum does not favour institutional generosity towards traditionalist opponents of women bishops. The Archbishops need the backing of the House of Bishops at their next meeting in May to change the Draft Measure agreed by the Synod in July 2010, when Canterbury and York saw their last attempt to introduce co-ordinate jurisdiction sunk.

With fears that changing the Draft Measure would mean it would have to go out for consultation to dioceses all over again, thus delaying the advent of women bishops, the Archbishops are likely to struggle to gain the support of their episcopal colleagues.

Conservative evangelicals would therefore be ill advised to bank on a posse of authorised traditionalist bishops riding to the rescue.

Anglo-Catholics have a hide-out in the form of the Ordinariate provided by the Roman Catholic Church. All they have to do is to cross a river to get there.

But conservative evangelical caravans are encircled on the wild plain of an ecclesiastical institution dominated by dogmatic, politically-correct liberals who have rejected the clear teaching of Holy Scripture that leading churches, whether as a bishop or as a presbyter, is a man’s job. The appointment of women bishops means Bible-flouting ungodliness becomes institutionally entrenched in the Church of England.

The conservative evangelical congregation and minister in a diocese is set to be left facing the choice as to whether to accept the ungodly oversight of a person the Lord God Almighty has forbidden to exercise pastoral oversight over the precious flock of his Son Jesus Christ or to leave the institutional Church of England.

Read here

The Anglican Church in North America will hold its Archbishop’s Cabinet and Executive Committee meetings, as well as Anglican Relief and Development board meetings in Florida Capital City.

The bishops and leaders will be shaping orthodox Anglicanism in North America.

There will be a Worship Service, followed by a reception, on Tuesday, January 31, at 7:00 p.m. The meetings will happen on February 1-2.

All events will take place at Saint Peter’s Anglican Church, which is located on 901 Thomasville Road.

The Anglican Church in North America unites some 100,000 Anglicans in nearly 1,000 congregations across the United States and Canada. The Anglican Church is a Province-in-formation in the global Anglican Communion.

The Most Reverend Archbishop Robert Duncan is the archbishop of the Anglican Church in North America and bishop of the Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh.

The “overarching theme” of the Bible is not “a preferential option for the marginalised and the need to offer them justice,” but “a preferential option for the repentant and the faithful, and the mercy to offer them salvation.”

Having been in this fight for so long, we sometimes forget – those of us who write about these things and those who read them – that our side of the debate is not obvious to everyone, and that from time to time we need to articulate our positions again, both because there are people who are open to considering them, and because we need to keep our skills sharp.

This interview with Winnie Varghese, a lesbian Episcopal priest at St. Mark’s in New York City’s Bowery district, reminded me of that. Two passages in particular, beginning with this one:

I was raised in the US in a very liberal Christian family, as my parents, who were young adults right after [Indian] Independence, grew up with an understanding of Christianity that was framed by the many Independence movements of the 20th century. The Bible is organised around the story of the Exodus, which is that God saves God’s people from slavery in Egypt, and we learn that God is on the side of the oppressed. In fact, the theme throughout the Bible, whether the Old Testament, or the New, is that of God redeeming people, not because they are good, or doing the right thing, but because they are marginalised.

It astonishes me that an ordained priest in a church that prides itself on rigorous religious education for its priests, actually has this understanding of the Bible; or if this is in fact not her understanding of it, that she would decide deliberately to push this nonsense as what the Bible is. Shorter version: This “priest” is either very ignorant about the Bible, or very duplicitous, although I suppose it could be both.

So off we go:

First, the Bible is not “organized around the story of the Exodus.” It is organized – as is, Christians believe, the whole of human history – around the birth of Jesus Christ, His revelation to us as God incarnate, and His role as our Savior and Redeemer.

Neither does Christianity teach that God redeems people “because they are marginalised.” What Christianity teaches is that God redeems people because they accept Jesus Christ as their savior. Why they should do so – because they are sinful and repentant – is almost secondary if one is looking for a single, simple lesson to take from the Bible. But it is most certainly not that redemption is offered because one is “marginalized.”

Here’s the second passage. In answer to the question, “What about the notion that homosexuality is a sin?” Varghese replies:

In the Levitical Code in the Bible, there are many acts that are prohibited, like wearing fabrics of two kinds in one garment or eating shellfish. These may seem absurd to modern people, but these were specific things that communities did to distinguish themselves from other communities, but which most Christians do not follow now. So it’s not difficult to take the Levitical Code — where a sexual moral code is discussed — and say that that’s from another time and another culture. The Code, for instance, says things like, if your child talks back at you, stone her. We don’t observe those practices now.

If we look at the Bible’s overarching themes, the most consistent one that runs through the text is a preferential option for the marginalised and the need to offer them justice, which is what people of a sexual minority need today, as they are marginalised and denied justice legally, and in terms of human rights.

This can be summarized as “the shellfish argument,” but the more complex issues of the Levitical codes aside, it never ceases to amaze me the simple failings of logic made by people who offer this “defense” of homosexual behavior.

The first failing is the notion that because items A, B, and C in a list are no longer applicable, then item D is therefore no longer applicable either.

To make my point, remove the list of prohibitions entirely from the context of Christianity, or even faith in general. Let’s say you’re writing a manual for automobile drivers, and the year is 1912. Your manual might very well include the following:

- Do not wear a veil to protect yourself against flying road debris; yea, verily I beseech thee, wear sturdy goggles.

- Do not attempt to start the motorcar with a crank made of wood; alas these will soon splinter, and cause you only grief.

- Do not honk your horn when approaching a horse-drawn buggy from behind; this may spook the horse and cause injury to the buggy’s riders.

- Do not operate your motorcar while intoxicated; it will impair your judgement and could result in serious injury or death to you and your passengers.

If I’m an advocate of the patently idiotic position that drinking and driving is a great idea, how seriously would I be taken if I insisted that, because cars now have windshields and thus no need for drivers to wear goggle; that cars are now started with keys and thus no need for cranks; and that horse-drawn buggies are virtually extinct, obviously the prohibition against drinking and driving is a quaint anachronism that can – and should – be reversed?

Why, then, does anyone take seriously people like Varghese, when their advocacy for homosexual behavior follows the same pattern?

The second failing is to offer the one example in Leviticus, make the case that it is “problematic,” and then proceed as if the case is closed – as if nowhere else in the Bible is homosexual behavior ever mentioned. Homosexual behavior is mentioned several other times in the Bible – Old Testament as well as New – and it is univocal in its prohibition of it as sinful.

The third failing is, again, a thoroughly incorrect characterization of the “overarching theme” of the Bible. It is most certainly not “a preferential option for the marginalised and the need to offer them justice.” Certainly the marginalized are lifted up, to the extent that by “marginalized” we mean the poor, the downtrodden, and the powerless; but the overarching theme of the Bible as regards the treatment of different kinds of people, is that no one of faith gets preferential treatment. The Gospel is the ultimate societal flattener: Repent of your sins and place your faith Jesus Christ, and you are saved, no matter your station in life or the magnitude of your sin.

So the “overarching theme” of the Bible is not “a preferential option for the marginalised and the need to offer them justice,” but “a preferential option for the repentant and the faithful, and the mercy to offer them salvation.” To focus more narrowly on sexuality, the overarching theme of the Bible, as Kendall Harmon has always reminded us, is one that repeatedly and pointedly prohibits sex outside of marriage, and one that very clearly defines and blesses marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Finally: As long as we’re brushing up on things like spotting flaws in the other side’s positions, it’s always a good practice to apply some simple math whenever you feel like you’re reading an explanation of the Bible and Christianity that just doesn’t seem to add up. For example, Varghese uses approximately 1,000 words to explain to a lay audience what the Bible and Christianity, at their core, are all about. So go to the linked article, open your browser’s “Find” tool, and count how many times the word “Jesus” appears.

Anglican Mainstream has received this detailed comment on the Report on Relations between the Anglican Church of North America and the Church of England

1. It is good that the Faith and Order Commission, under the chairmanship of +John Hind, has identified the major issues in this regard.

2. They have shown that it is the Church of England which decides with which church it is in communion. They have not shown how this is consistent with belonging to an existing world-wide Communion.

3 They claim that churches of the Anglican Communion are those whose bishops have been invited to attend and to vote at Lambeth Conferences.

4 And they distinguish this from membership of the ACC.

5 They also make a useful distinction between churches which are in communion with the C of E and churches whose orders the C of E recognises. It is important to remember that these are not at all the same thing.

6 The statement declares unequivocally, that the C of E is in communion with the Anglican Church of Canada and TEC but says nothing about ACNA as far as this issue is concerned.

From the above a number of issues arise:-

Read the rest of this entry »

The “marriage equality movement”: that’s the name chosen for themselves by same-sex “marriage” supporters. The implicit argument is that the state’s granting marriage licenses only to opposite-sex couples is undue discrimination. The claim has an initial plausibility: the state grants a marriage license to John and Mary but not to Jim and Steve. Isn’t that unequal treatment? But this charge, I will show, rests on a profound confusion about both marriage and equality. A state’s recognition that marriage is only between a man and a woman is not unjust. What’s more, a state’s endorsement of same-sex “marriage” does create an arbitrary and invidious discrimination.

A law is unjust only if the distinction it creates is not essentially related to a legitimate purpose of law. But whatever one holds about the morality of homosexual acts, it is clear that the state does have an interest in promoting and regulating marriage as traditionally defined, and that the sexual relationships of same-sex couples are distinct in kind from that. So, even if—contrary to fact—the state did have an interest in promoting same-sex sexual relationships, that interest would be different from the one served by promoting marriage. And so the two types of relationships or arrangements should not be lumped together. Moreover, falsely to equate the two is to obscure the nature of marriage.

What is marriage? The traditional view of marriage is: the union of a man and a woman, who have consented to share their lives, on the bodily (sexual), emotional, and spiritual levels, in the kind of community that would be fulfilled by having and raising children together.

Two points need emphasis here. First, marriage is a bodily union, as well as emotional and spiritual. For in sexual intercourse—which consummates the marital union—the spouses become biologically one: they complete each other to form a single subject of a single biological action, the kind of action that could procreate, provided conditions outside their conduct are present. This biological union (a procreative-type act) embodies their procreative-type union (provided they have consented to share their lives in that kind of union).

Second, marriage is the kind of union whose fruition is procreation. It is the kind of union that would be fulfilled by having and raising children together; the union of the spouses is embodied, prolonged, and enriched by enlarging into family. Still, marriage is not a mere means in relation to procreation, but a sharing of lives (bodily, emotionally, and spiritually) that is good in itself—and so a man and a woman who have consented to such a multi-leveled union are genuinely married, and have an intrinsically fulfilling marital union, even if it turns out they cannot procreate together.

Now of course not all agree with the traditional definition of marriage. But the point I want to make is simply this: marriage, as traditionally defined, is a distinct type of community and not an arbitrary set. Unmarried cohabitators have a different type of relationship. Alliances to raise children also are not necessarily marriages: a group of celibate religious women running an orphanage, for example, are not married. And, plainly, same-sex sexual relationships are a different kind of relationship: they cannot become biologically one, nor is their relationship of the kind that would find its fruition in conceiving, bearing, and raising children together. (True, same-sex partners can form an alliance to raise children—for example, those from a previous marriage or produced by artificial reproduction; but that alliance is not an extension or prolongation of a bodily-emotional-spiritual union already begun, as is the case in marriage.)

Now it is precisely the distinctive features of marriage that ground the state’s interest in promoting and regulating it, and that make the general strength or health of marriage a public good. First, marriage is a distinctive way in which men and women are fulfilled, an irreducible aspect of their flourishing, and one that can be easily misunderstood. And so marriage needs cultural support—and can be harmed by cultural confusion about it. Clarity within the general culture about the value and nature of marriage enables young men and women, as well as those already married, to participate more fully than they otherwise would in this distinctive good—just as a clear public understanding of health or learning assists individuals and families to participate more fully in those goods.

Second, while good in itself, and not a mere means to an extrinsic end, marriage also provides the crucial social function of encouraging parents (and potential parents) to commit to each other and to whatever children they may have. A healthy and strong marriage culture will provide the safest and healthiest environment for children. For these reasons it is in everyone’s interest for the state to promote a sound understanding of marriage, and certainly to avoid obscuring its nature.

Since a same-sex couple is unable to form the kind of union marriage is, not granting same-sex couples marriage licenses is simply a decision by the state not to engage in a confusing and harmful fiction. Marriage is a certain kind of union. Denying a marriage license—or the privileges, protections, and obligations of marriage—to those who are unable to marry is not unjust discrimination. The state denies marriage licenses to threesomes or foursomes (refraining from declaring polyamorous groups marriages) and denies marriage licenses to twelve-year-olds (requiring valid consent for a marriage). These denials are not unjust because threesomes, foursomes, and twelve-year-olds are unable to form the kind of union that marriage is. But the same is true of same-sex couples. So, just as the distinction between eighteen-year-olds and twelve-year-olds is relevant to the purpose of marriage—because the former but not the latter are actually able to form the union that is marriage—in the same way, the distinction between opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples is relevant to the purpose of the marriage laws, because the former but not the latter can actually form the kind of union that marriage is.

According to same-sex “marriage” proponents, the public interest served by marriage laws is the stability of households. For example, in striking down California’s pro-marriage constitutional amendment called Proposition 8, Judge Vaughn Walker claimed: “The state regulates marriage because marriage creates stable households, which in turn form the basis of a stable, governable populace.” Stability of households might of course be a legitimate public aim, but laws to promote that (and to provide benefits and privileges for stable households as such) are not marriage laws. Such laws, benefits, and so on, would—if applied justly—have to be given also to groups who do not have sexual relationships and groups not pledging permanence and exclusivity.

Clearly, though, same-sex “marriage” supporters want much more than certain benefits and privileges. Discussion of concrete benefits such as hospital visitation, inheritance rights, and so on, is really a side issue—such benefits could be secured by other means for individuals who need them (for example, a durable power of attorney for health care, a will, etc.). Nor—contrary to how it is usually portrayed—is the same-sex marriage proposal aimed at tolerance, since persons with same-sex attractions are already free to engage in private sexual behavior and to establish for themselves long-term romantic and sexual relationships. Rather, what proponents of same-sex “marriage” principally desire is the social affirmation and endorsement of homosexual relationships as such. Judge Walker indicated this point clearly in his Proposition 8 decision: “Plaintiffs [some same-sex couples] seek to have the state recognize their committed relationships . . . . Perry and Stier seek to be spouses; they seek the mutual obligation and honor that attend marriage.”

So, the proposal is for the state to promote something called marriage, and that marriage is to be understood in a way that will include same-sex partners. This sounds like old news. But what, on their view, is the thing called “marriage,” and why should the state promote it? What distinguishes marital unions from others, such that the state should promote them? One cannot just pronounce that these couples will now count as married; there must be something one means by “being married,” something held in common by all married couples. But the same-sex “marriage” position cannot provide a coherent account of what that something is.

If marriage is not a bodily, emotional, and spiritual union of a man and a woman, of the kind that would be fulfilled by procreation, then what makes a union marriage and why should the state support it? It is not simply a union that is formed by a wedding ceremony: that would be a circular definition. Nor is every romantic and sexual relationship a marriage, and certainly there is no point in the state promoting all such relationships. Perhaps one will say that it is a stable, committed, and exclusive romantic-sexual relationship. But how stable would a romantic-sexual relationship need to be in order to be a marriage? Suppose John and Mary have a romantic-sexual relationship while college students but plan to go their separate ways after graduation: is that stable enough to be a marriage? If not, why not?

Or suppose Joe, Jim, and Steve have a committed, stable, romantic-sexual relationship among themselves—a polyamorous relationship. On what ground can the state promote the relationship between couples, but not the relationship among Joe, Jim, and Steve? The argument here is not a slippery slope one. Rather, the point is: There must be some non-arbitrary features shared by relationships that the state promotes which make them apt for public promotion, and make it fair for the state not to promote in the same way other relationships lacking those features. Without this the distinction is invidious discrimination. The conjugal understanding of marriage has a clear answer: (a) marriage is a distinct basic human good, that needs social support and that uniquely provides important social functions; (b) marriage’s organic bodily union and inherent orientation to procreation distinguish it from other relationships similar in superficial respects to it. But the same-sex marriage proposal’s conception of marriage has no answer. In fact, its conception of marriage is actually an arbitrarily selected class, and so the enactment of this proposal would be unjust.

The problem is not solved if one adds to one’s description or definition of marriage, that it must be a permanent commitment (as Judge Margaret Marshall did in her decision striking down Massachusetts’ marriage law: “It is the exclusive and permanent commitment of the marriage partners to one another, not the begetting of children, that is the sine qua non of civil marriage”). For it is fair to ask: why should the commitment be exclusive and permanent? The college students’ relationship (lacking permanence) and the celibate monks’ relationship (lacking exclusivity—others can join the religious order), both form households and contribute to social stability. In contrast, the conjugal understanding of marriage allows a clear answer to these questions: since marriage is a bodily and procreative-type union, and an irreducible basic good, it is non-arbitrarily distinct from other types of relationships. The promotion of this kind of relationship, for its own sake (because it is a basic good), and for the sake of children generally (since a strong marriage culture provides a safe haven for children), makes it in accord with justice to recognize, as marriage, only a relationship between a man and a woman, pledged to be permanent and exclusive. The conjugal conception of marriage is just and coherent; the same-sex marriage proponents’ conception of marriage is unjust and incoherent.

Patrick Lee is John N. and Jamie D. McAleer Professor of Bioethics at Franciscan University of Steubenville.

Recent statement by the newspaper’s Chair of Trustees:

“In October 2011, the Church of England Newspaper published an article by Alan Craig entitled “Confronting the Gaystapo”. The article was clearly identified as a personal opinion by a named individual. Its theme was that the gay rights lobby uses aggressive methods to advance its cause and should be confronted.

“The newspaper is a forum for informed debate on matters of Christian interest, of which gay rights is one. There is no topic that we regard as “too hot” for us to debate. In the following edition, the newspaper published responses taking a different view. The overall editorial policy of the newspaper is determined by a board of trustees of which I am the chairman.

“With the benefit of hindsight, it would have been better had Alan Craig’s article been written more gently and if he had avoided references to Nazism. However, even with that caveat, both his article and the subsequent responses are within the scope of the editorial policy of this newspaper.

“Certain members and supporters of the gay lobby responded vigorously, and even reported the newspaper to the police who have taken no action. By doing so, they have added credence to the main thesis of Alan Craig’s article.

“In the course of dealing with this organised agitation, a statement was made by the newspaper to one reader that appears to have gained some currency.

“Again with hindsight, we can see that this statement could be read as questioning Alan Craig’s status as a Christian, and suggesting that the newspaper supports gay marriage. It was not the intention of the editor to convey any such impression. For the avoidance of doubt, the trustees affirm that the newspaper does not support gay marriage. We regard Alan Craig, and those in the church who agree or disagree with his views, as brother Christians.

“We further acknowledge that Christians do disagree on many issues. These are best addressed by temperate debate.”

Read here

By Ben Todd, Mailonline

Veteran broadcaster says belief in evolution is not incompatible with religion

His award-winning programmes on the natural world follow evolutionary history and the teachings of Darwin.

Now, however, Sir David Attenborough has speculated that there may be a God – and insisted it would not be ‘inconsistent’ with the theory of evolution.

Speaking on Desert Island Discs, the 85-year-old naturalist told how recognising the possibility that God could exist meant he was an agnostic rather than an atheist.

Sir David was a guest on yesterday’s edition of the Radio 4 programme to mark its 70th anniversary. It was his fourth appearance on the show, having previously been a guest in 1957, 1979 and 1998.

He told presenter Kirsty Young: ‘I don’t think that an understanding and an acceptance of the 4billion-year-long history of life is in any way inconsistent with a belief of a supreme being. I am not so confident as to say that I am an atheist. I would prefer to say I am an agnostic.’

Read here

The courts are endangering religious freedom because the judiciary are giving it a lower priority than equality, a leading philosopher has claimed.

Prof Roger Trigg of Kellogg College, Oxford, said that judges increasingly “curtail” the religious views of people in favour of other “social priorities”.

After studying a series of judgments throughout Britain, Europe and North America, he concluded there was a “clear trend” of judges favouring equality and non-discrimination over religious freedom.

Prof Trigg, a member of the university’s faculties of theology and philosophy, argued this was proof of how religion was coming under threat from the judiciary as part of a “hierarchy of rights”.

Prof Trigg, the founding President of the British Society for the Philosophy of Religion, said that as a result the courts were “limiting human freedom itself”.

“Religious freedom and the right to manifest religious belief is a central part of every charter of human rights,” he said on the eve of the launch of his book on Wednesday.

“But in recent years there has been a clear trend for courts in Europe and North America to prioritise equality and non-discrimination above religion, placing the right to religious freedom in danger.

“There should not be a hierarchy of rights, but it should be possible to take account of all of them in some way.”

He added: “No State can be a functioning democracy unless it allows its citizens to manifest their beliefs about what is most important in life.”

Read here