So it is tolerance for my point of view and tough luck for your view. This is what liberal democracy comes down to in Broken Britain. Anyone who thought the defeat of Labour was the answer must now be thoroughly disillusioned.
They are considering an appeal but the Prime Minister, who was told of the case yesterday while in Derby to hold a meeting of his Cabinet, said the judge's decision should stand.
Pointing out that he also went to church, Mr Cameron said: "This matter was decided by a court in the appropriate way and I think we should rest with the judgement that was made."Asked if he thought Christian views were incompatible with an acceptance of homosexuality he said: "I think Christians should be tolerant and welcoming and broad minded."
But the Church has dealt with little boy imitators of the Anti-Christ before and they are all dead, buried and mostly forgotten. But the Church remains and will remain until the end of time witnessing to the Biblical Gospel of sin and salvation. Arianism, Pelagianism, and the false liberal "gospel" of accepting your acceptance will not endure. The preaching of Jesus Christ on the basis of the Holy Scriptures will endure because the Word of our God endures forever.
A Christian in the UK, David Robertson, writes an open letter appealing to American Christians to pray for the UK:
This week a Judge gave a ruling against a Christian couple who had appealed for the right to be allowed to adopt/foster. I was not surprised that they lost the case, but it is the basis of the decision, which is now a formal legal opinion and case law, which is astonishing.I won't go into all the details but the judgment was made on the grounds that Britain is not a Christian nation, and that our laws now have no basis in Judeo-Christian teaching. Indeed as can be seek from the extract below – the Christian faith is officially defined as being solely subjective, being incapable of proof and evidence.•The Judea-Christian tradition, stretching over many centuries, has no doubt exerted a profound influence upon the judgment of law-makers as to the objective merits of this or that social policy, and the liturgy and practice of the established church are to some extent prescribed by law. But the conferment of any legal protection or preference upon a particular substantive moral position on the ground only that it is espoused by the adherents of a particular faith, however long its tradition, however rich its culture, is deeply unprincipled; it imposes compulsory law not to advance the general good on objective grounds, but to give effect to the force of subjective opinion. This must be so, since, in the eye of everyone save the believer, religious faith is necessarily subjective, being incommunicable by any kind of proof or evidence. It may, of course, be true, but the ascertainment of such a truth lies beyond the means by which laws are made in a reasonable society.The importance of all this cannot be understated! I have never come across such an explicit anti-Christian statement in a court of law (a court by the way which relies on witnesses swearing on the Bible). The implications are enormous. This absolute privatisation of Christianity, and its exclusion from the law of the land, means that we will be subject to the arbitrary whims of judges and the fashions of the day (the judge in this case takes it as read that any child who is brought up and not taught that homosexuality is normal will be damaged – the judge of course does not tell us the basis for this, or whether we should also consider polygamy or incest to be 'normal' as well).