Wednesday, March 9, 2011

Liberalism versus Liberal Fascism

This story on the recent British case, in which a Christian couple was banned from being foster parents because they would not promise to teach the children (aged 5-10 years) in their care that homosexuality is morally right, describes some of the bigger implications of this case. Christine Dhanagom points out that the judges have taken it upon themselves to define what is and is not true Christian doctrine.
"Following the decision of London's High Court last week that a Christian couple could be banned from foster care due to their unwillingness to support the homosexual lifestyle, some commentators are pointing out that the decision amounts to a ruling on what is and is not authentic Christian doctrine.

The court's ruling found that Eunice and Owen Johns had not been the victims of religious discrimination when the Derby City Council declined their foster care application, based on the Johns' alleged inability to "promote diversity."

Despite the Johns' statement in a conversation with a social worker that their beliefs regarding homosexuality "stemmed from their religious convictions and beliefs," both the Fostering Panel and the High Court attempted to disassociate the Johns' religion from their views in support of traditional marriage in order to avoid charges of religious discrimination.

According to the Court decision, in a 2007 Panel meeting considering the Johns' application, the Fostering Panel expressed concern that its decision would not appear to discriminate against the Johns' on religious grounds.

The Panel wrote: "The department needs to be careful not to appear to discriminate against them on religious grounds. The issue has not arisen just because of their religion as there are homophobic people that are non-Christian."

In its analysis of the City Council's defense of its actions, the Court commented: "the defendant says that it has approved foster carers who are very committed Christians who hold to orthodox beliefs . . . and devout Muslim carers who are similarly committed to their religion, but who in both instances are able to value diversity notwithstanding their strongly held religious beliefs."

Refusing to overturn the Council's decision, the Court concurred that the decision was not discrimination because it was based on the Johns' disapproval of homosexuality rather than on the fact of their Christian faith.

According to the highest judicial authority of the United Kingdom, then, these two things are, apparently, separable in principle."
This is not liberalism, but liberal fascism.

So now secular courts feel free to decide what authentically Christian belief is and is not. This opens the door to persecuting traditional Christians while claiming not to be anti-Christian. The Government, just like the wicked kings of Israel and Judah in the OT, self-righteously point to their own tame, court prophets who are paid well to nod wisely and claim that everything the king wants to do is A-OK with God and God told them so.

There is, as C. S. Lewis points out in The Abolition of Man, no tyranny so evil and intrusive as that perpetrated with a clear conscience.

Dr. David Starkey is an historian and self-described "gay atheist" but he apparently is a liberal in the classical sense and not the totalitarian type of leftist that is currently campaigning to eradicate Christianity from public life. He decries the imposition of the tyrannical new liberal morality by judicial fiat and says it is just as bad as the old days when Christian morality was imposed. He and I would disagree about homosexuality, but he is an honorable man. If only all liberals were really liberal.

Liberals are civilized and easy to get along with; liberal fascists are dangerous fanatics who must be restrained in the name of the public good.

No comments: