h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Thought for the Day, 12 January 2007
The Rev. Dr Giles Fraser

As a Christian I'm protected by the law against discrimination - and I'm grateful for it. No one can legally deny me access to goods and services because of my faith. No one is allowed to put a sign up in their hotel window that reads 'No Christians' - or 'No Muslims' for that matter. Discrimination on the grounds of race and gender is equally outlawed. All of which is an unambiguously good thing. As indeed, I believe, is the extension of these provisions to include sexual orientation. For no one should be allowed to display a sign that reads 'no gays' either.

Some Christians, however, are strongly resisting this legislation. They argue that being obliged to provide goods and services to gay couples makes them complicit in what they regard as sin, and that this complicity compromises their deeply held religious convictions.

For some, however, these so-called 'religious convictions' are little more than a mask for prejudice. Why, they argue, aren't these same Christian hoteliers up in arms at a legal obligation to provide hotel rooms for unmarried couples? After all, conservative Christians believe sex outside marriage to be equally a sin, yet they haven't been protesting about this. Indeed, many of them may well believe gluttony is a sin, but they haven't been campaigning for Christian waiters to have the right to refuse fat people extra chips on moral grounds.

No, there is real inconsistency in the way some Christians apply the argument from complicity. Moreover, this inconsistency is indicative that they are treating homosexuality as a special case. In other words, this inconsistency is a tell-tale mark of prejudice.

And the sad truth is, there'd be little need for this sort of legislation if there wasn't so much prejudice about - both in the church and elsewhere. Indeed, it's worth saying that discrimination doesn't only shelter behind religious belief. There's prejudice outside the churches and mosques too. For the idea that this is an argument between Christian prejudice and secular enlightenment is a lazy media distortion that likes its arguments simple and binary.

Within the church there is real debate and much disagreement. Many Christians don't think homosexuality is a sin in the first place. In fact, I believe it a God-given gift - sure, it's a gift that can be abused like any other - but often it's a channel of grace, a means by which some human beings show love and commitment and hospitality, just like anybody else.

There's a hymn we often sing in church that goes like this:

For the love of God is broader than the measure of man's mind
And the heart of the eternal is most wonderfully kind
But we make his love too narrow with false limits of our own
And we magnify his strictness with a zeal he will not own.

copyright 2007 BBC

Can hardly call it a party political broadcast - we don't get to vote for them - and I notice Tony's reform of The Lords didn't get amongst the Lords Temporal.

Obviously planning on their support in a war against the heathen.

Thanks for putting up todays TFTD, Trig.

Firstly, the very fact that they have the alternative stance justifies my starting of the thread: it was deemed that the opposite view, for once, was required. I just find it humorous that we have two Christians, under one God, having polar viewpoints.

Although I could (and will) comment on some of the things he said that I find strange, it was good to hear him 'defending' the gay position...I wish I had written something different there...

Many interesting lines in it:

"Within the church there is real debate and much disagreement."

Doesn't that tell him something? i.e. why a lot of people think its fiction. Any God who wanted to give unambiguous instructions of how to live would have got it right first time.

"Indeed, it's worth saying that discrimination doesn't only shelter behind religious belief. There's prejudice outside the churches and mosques too. For the idea that this is an argument between Christian prejudice and secular enlightenment is a lazy media distortion that likes its arguments simple and binary."

Correct, however, you can simply call a non-Christian bigot a bigot and they have nowhere to hide. A Christian bigot hides behind the Bible.

If a bunch non-Christian bigots stood outside Parliment and shouted:

"We 'ate poofs cos they stick their willies up each other." They would get mover along or arrested straight away and Radio 4 news certainly would not interview any of them."

But have a load of Christian bigots standing outside Parliment and shouting: " Homosexuality is a abhorrence against God and nature." and they get interviewed on Radio 4 and are allowed to carry on with their protest.


Also,


"In fact, I believe it a God-given gift - sure, it's a gift that can be abused like any other - but often it's a channel of grace, a means by which some human beings show love and commitment and hospitality, just like anybody else."

Now, the things I have heard a number of things recently being described as 'a gift from God' or 'part of Gods' plan. A blind Monk said his blindness was a gift from God.(I would ask for the receipt and swap it for a token for something else).

Also, an friend from many years ago died at 33yo last year from lung cancer that had spread from is bowel cancer. He already had epilepsy which stopped him driving 2years out of 3. But he accepetde his cancers and epilepsy as a part of Gods plan. Yes, the plan of messing up his life by stopping him driving and having fits, of going through the 'embarassing' hell of bowel cancer and then when he thinks he is cured hit him with lung cancer and kill him. Rabbie Burns said “The best laid schemes o’ mice an’ men / Gang aft a-gley." well Gods plans are doozies!

So, the speaker fell back on one of the two pat comments for 'something bad' or 'something not exactly agreed with by every religious person': it's a gift from God or 'it's all part of God's great plan'.

Also, how can 'the gift' of homosexuality be abused? It simply defines who you are attracted to and how you show that love....mainly in where you stick things though pretty much any sex can stick most everything anywhere they please so what's the difference there? Therefore, hetrosexuality can also be abused in the same way...draw your own diagrams. I really do not know what he was getting at there.

The last thing I will comment on is this: 'As a Christian I'm protected by the law against discrimination' Yes, he is protected for having AN OPINION/BELIEF. Race, gender and sexual orientation are not AN OPINION/BELIEF they are something natural that cannot be chosen.

Ah this is the old "democracy" type thread in a different guise.

The BBCs policy and practice s not fair. Yes its a way better and *more* balanced service than commercial sevices and for the the money it costs compared to the money raked in by US networks it provides an oustandingly good service of information and entertainment, it is in all likelyhood the best in the world.

Its not perfect though. the BBC as to keep people happy just as much as commercial stations do it is beholden to good will from the public and the goverment of the day. Te goverment of the day nomally deals with it fairly but can get stuck into some score settiling from time to time. Ask Greg Dyke or Andrew Gilligan.

Thought for the day is a sop to the UKs small 'c' conservative irratinalists who tune into radio4 for all the people who are outraged by the fact that gays, pro-choice and lefties get an even trreatment in the news. We on the progresive left dont write as many leters as elderly conservatives do to the government or the BBC. If we did things might be different.



If you want to see the difference in "having your voice heard" and peoples attitudes to it look at the difference in the "Thought for the day" broadcasts by Sihks and Christians. Im not like SWL i find Sihks just as objectionable as Christians, ie equally deluded and a mixed back, some of them if they feel under a train Id think "What a shame and a loss to our community" others Id think "Damn now the trains going to be delayed".

Sihks approach "thought for tha day" as thrilling opportunity to share some of their religious and cultural wisdom with the listeners and a sign that they are being granted a level of acceptance. Christians use it as a vehicle for chiding the straying sheep and to moan that fewer adn fewer people are taking them seriously anymore.

If TFTD wasnt christian dominated I think it might have charter reprocussions for the BBC. I see it as a necessary evil to include songs of praise and such like programmes in the BBCs output, a necessary evil much less evil than advertising.

Phew, I thought my last post was giong to get pulled properly. All credits to the community team for seeing that everything is in context. Thanks.

A shame it has lost its immediacy .

Good post too Blicky.