Leftfooter has an interesting observation about the matter of Catholic adoption agencies. Go here to read his point and please note, once again Trevor Phillips chooses the wrong side (a speciality of his, this).
I understand Leftfooter’s argument, and agree with him; but I would, personally, choose a different perspective, one which has to do with the very soul of the country.
Muslims (or Hindus, etc) should have no right to be treated absolutely in the same way as Christians, because this is supposed to be a Christian country. Individual freedom rights can only exist within the fabric of a country, not be the negation of it.
We have been conned into believing that “equality” means the lie has the same rights as the truth, and whatever applies to one must apply to everyone else.
This is just plain wrong.
The battle for Christian values must be fought *defending Christian values as such*, not in the name of an abstract “equality” which, at some point, does have to end. There will always be a point in which two different cultures come to a clash.
If we make of “equality” the metre of what is right and decide everyone must be free to follow his religion as they please, because we want to be free to follow ours as we please we’ll soon have infibulation galore, no obligation to work on Fridays in the office, the occasional Suttee in the heart of London, and “sacred cows” on the North Circular.
In the end, no country can do without basic values, which then inform the entire system, including the way “equality” is lived, or “freedom” exercised. The sooner we get this, the better. The alternative is an endless squabble about respective “freedom” and “liberties”, at the end of which there can only be blood.
You’d think Mr Trevor Phillips would be happy to enjoy a privileged position as the head of one of the many perfectly useless organisations paid from the taxpayers to persuade themselves that they are doing their part to protect “equality” – or more probably, imposed to them by a Government looking for favours to distribute, and without the nerve to react – and would just shut up. The problem is, the man can’t do it as he must, every now and then, show that his “equality watchdog” has some justification for his sorry existence.
Being Mr Phillips’ unofficial job to “protect” minorities, he must every now and then shoot at the mainstream and cause the one or the other headline. This in turn gives the public the impression that he is not entirely useless after all.
This time, Christians and Muslims are his subject of choice: the first group (being a non-minority, and therefore clearly wrong) is attacked; and the second (being a minority, and therefore clearly right; and this minority always useful to flatter a bit) given as an example to the baddy baddy Christians.
I kid you not. Welcome to the new, “tolerant” and “inclusive” United Kingdom.
So, Mr Phillips has a problem with Christian values. Christian values go against his grain, because they are not “inclusive” enough. In Mr Phillips’ enlightened opinion, Christians should change Christianity in order to make it more acceptable to the likes of himself. Mr Phillips expresses himself in this way (emphasis mine):
I think there’s an awful lot of noise about the Church being persecuted but there is a more real issue that the conventional churches face – that the people who are really driving their revival and success believe in an old-time religion which, in my view, is incompatible with a modern, multi-ethnic, multicultural society.
It is clear from this masterpiece of intelligence that for Mr Phillips there are two Christianities: a) the new-time religion (pass) and b) the old-time religion (fail). But even he is perceptive enough to realise that the new Christianity is dying, and the old one is resurging. This is, in Mr Phillips world, clearly bad, as this old religion doesn’t comply with the (barking) requirements of the Equality watchdog, its obvious problem being its… Christianity.
It doesn’t end here. As Mr Phillips doesn’t like Christianity, the idea that Christians may fight for Christian rights is, to him, fully incomprehensible. It just can’t be. When Christians fights for Christian rights, then, the reason must be not a religious, but a purely political one. How can it be otherwise, when Christianity doesn’t comply with Mr Phillips requirements? Again, let us see how Mr Phillips expresses himself:
‘I think for a lot of Christian activists, they want to have a fight and they choose sexual orientation as the ground to fight it on. I think the argument isn’t about the rights of Christians. It’s about politics.
So, if a Christian owner of a bed and breakfast is forced to give his house to a bunch of homos making of it a sodomy heaven, this is about politics. Enlarging a bit, if a Christian is not allowed to carry a pendant with a cross, this is about politics too; and coming back to the “sexual so-called orientation” matter, if the Catholic Church must close adoption agencies because the government wants to force them to go against Christian values, this is “about politics”, too. And they “want to have a fight”, these bullies….
Congratulations, Mr Phillips. You have just won the prize for the ass of the year.
The next masterpiece comes with the edifying comparison between Muslims and Christians, made for the benefit and edification of the non-inclusive people of the latter group:
Muslims, he says, are “doing their damnedest” to develop “an idea of Islam that is compatible with living in a modern liberal democracy”
I’d like to know how many devoted Muslims have a different attitude to homosexuality than serious Christians. My best guess is: zero.
I’d also like to know whence Mr Phillips got this strange idea that religions are supposed to be changed and be “developed” according to his “ideas” of society. He can create a new religion if he so wishes (“Equalitism” would be a nice name), but his thinking that Christianity must be “developed” to please him is stupid besides being blasphemous.
The day he wakes up, he’ll discover that among the Muslims there aren’t very many subscribing to his idea of religion, either.
But all this doesn’t matter. Mr Phillips has made some headlines and done his best to try to persuade us that his wage is not entirely wasted. One day, he’ll be a Labour MP in some predominantly Muslim constituency, beautifully playing his double whammy: Black and pro-Muslim*. But I can also see a future for him among the Lords, as soon as the necessity to “kick him upstairs” becomes compelling enough. If you can make happy two minorities for the price of one, it’s an idea that should be …… developed.
* I can’t imagine being Black and with Christian background would be a problem for Muslim voters, as they are clearly doing their damnedest.