Doug Chaplin has fisked the witness statement at One law for us, one for you: the Carey-a Sharia revisited.
Afua Hirsch in the Guardian has written Lawyers reject calls for Christian-sensitive judges.
Stephen Bates at Cif belief has written Lord Carey’s bloated conscience.
Earlier yesterday on the Today BBC radio programme, Barrister Dinah Rose and Andrea Williams of Christian Legal Centre discussed the implications. (hat tip SB).
This whole thing is very confusing. If a judge can be shown to have shown legal bias, you appeal with evidence. If your rights to freedom of religion are infringed, you take it to the European Court of Human Rights. In order to sustain what appears to be his view, Lord Carey would have to prove on the balance of probabilities, for example, that it is a conscientious requirement of the Christian Faith to wear a crucifix, or object to Civil Partnerships. For a court to accept such an argument, it would have to be established that this was in… Read more »
Thank you Bishop Alan for your clear comments. For myself I wear a crucifix, and enjoy a God given same sex relationship, after many years as a widower.At the back of my mind is Archbishop Rowans Easter sermon in Canterbury cathedral. When he put this discussion in the full context of Christians throughout the world , and the persecution of much greater substance.
I very much respect Lord Carey, but disagree on his stance on this matter.
Fr John (Scotland)
“It’s difficult for them (Carey & Co.) to admit openly, but impossible to escape the conclusion that as far as they are concerned gays have no rights that might cut across a Christian’s. The Christian conscience is so precious, virtuous and superior that it must trump all others. Is that what Lord Carey truly believes? If so, he should come clean and say it.” – Stephen Bates in The Guardian – I think, from his previous meetings with other disaffected Anglicans from conservative ‘think tanks’, this is precisely what Lord Carey really does believe. One of the problems with that… Read more »
My memory from when GC was my diocesan is that there were many categories of Anglicans whom he wished did not exist. Cerrtainly as a fairly conservative liberal catholic I was made to feel that there was no place for me in his scheme of things, and was told by him that he felt I would be unsuitable in a parish. (Perhaps, of course, he was right!!)
I think Lord Carey would greatly benefit from spending a large amount of his time without the company of other Christians.
As an American Episcopalian, I find the flap over Lord Carey’s recent comments interesting, but not after all really our business. It’s for the Church of England, and the people of the U.K., to deal with. But to those who have their gaiters in a twist because The Episcopal Church has allegedly failed to exercise “restraint” (by their own definition) in the ordering of our own Church’s life: why on earth should we?
I have a close friend who used to work in banking. When an issue or proposal was beyond further critique or discussion, the code phrase was, “It’s a religious issue.” So there seems to be even in the secular world an understanding that religious rights are to trump all others. I find the notion absurd and destructive to true religion. It is the ultimate idolatry of personal conscience — projecting one’s own beliefs upon the whole society and demanding obeisance to them. “Le veau d’or est toujours debout!”
Does anyone know if the former counsellor from Relate gave sex therapy to unmarried heterosexual couples? Given the demographics of Britain, it is hard to imagine that he didn’t. Just as a survey of marriage Special Licence applications would reveal most couples are already living together when they get married. IF this really is about the view that ALL sex outside of marriage is wrong and not about homophobia, where is the zeal of Lord Carey and others on these questions?
When any group has had priveledges denied to others for centuries they will feel persecuted to lose their advantages. It is not long ago that admission to the most influential universities and professions was restricted to members of the Church of England. Even here in Maryland, USA, as long as the Episcopal Church was Established (note capital) others were denied full many opportunities. And we all know about racial and ethnic restrictions.
Columba Gilliss
“impossible to escape the conclusion that as far as they are concerned gays have no rights that might cut across a Christian’s” — quote from Stephen Bates’ column *** Or in other words, gay people have no rights which Christians need respect, to paraphrase Stephen Bates’ quote in the words of one of the most infamous USA Supreme Court cases of all time, the “Dred Scott” case. The appalling thing about the former Archbishop of Canterbury’s intervention is that he makes it in the name of “Christians” or “Christianity”. From what I can tell in a brief scan or reading… Read more »
If (the former) Archbishop Carey is going to go down in flames, can he take his baby, Lambeth ’98 1.10, with him? O_o
It is really a venture in theocracy we see here. The archbishop expects British law to favor his co-believers (a distinct minority in the Church he formerly miss-led) and impose his will on the State. Not gonna happen.
FWIW
jimB
@Bill Moorhead – Doesn’t the fact that Lord Carey specifically invoked his supposed responsibility for our spiritual welfare as ABC mean that we’re already involved?
It is indeed confusing Bishop Alan and your point about the obvious remedy being an appeal is spot on. The Ladele appeal was heard by a Court presided over by Sir Patrick Elias, who is himself a committed Christian. It was this Court which first articulated the reasoning to which Lord Carey objects. There was then a further appeal to the Court of Appeal. In that Court, three more judges (Lord Neuberger being only one of them) agreed with Sir Patrick Elias. All three of them. There was then a further appeal to the Supreme Court. Last month, three judges… Read more »
Surely, the point must be, peterpi, that if you don’t agree with George Carey you can not be a Christian. Me neither it would seem.
And yet, as Carey has given up on the permanence and indisolubility of matrimony, one might have thought he would feel it honourable –or logical, to adapt other ideas — even those not impinging directly upon himself and his family.
Badman presents the facts thoughtfully
But much of the discussion I hear has swallowed the spin from Diamond and Co.