Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Terry Sanderson

GET UPDATES FROM Terry Sanderson
 

Why the Church Must Not Win in This Confrontation With the State

Posted: 13/06/2012 00:00

The Church of England has thrown down the gauntlet to the government over the issue of same-sex marriage. The message is clear: "Do as we say or there will be dire consequences."

Their response to the government consultation on its intention to legalise civil marriages between same-sex couples is overwrought to the point of hysteria. It is manipulative to the point of blackmail.

It seems the Church of England has decided to adopt the tactics that are currently being used by the Catholic Church against the Obama administration in America. There, the Church is bringing a legal action to challenge to the President's health insurance mandate on the grounds that it would involve them in the provision of contraceptives.

Although the US Government has said that the Catholic Church would not have to pay this element of the insurance for its employees working in hospitals and schools, the bishops are still undeterred. They have banded together to launch a court challenge to force the government into retreat.

And it is at this point that it becomes clear that this is not, as they claim, about "religious freedom" at all. It is about establishing how far the power of the Church can reach into secular government; how much ground it can gain in the lawmaking process.

The primary - but hidden - purpose is to humiliate the President and cause him to climb down from the main plank of his election promise - which was to introduce health insurance for all. Grandiose talk of protecting "religious freedom" conceals what is really going on. Now "religious freedom" seems to mean the right for religious bodies to do whatever they like without consequences.

If Obama capitulates, the Church will then move on to its next objective which will probably be the banning of abortion. The politicians, anxious not to receive another bloody nose from their eminences will offer little resistance..

The same thing is happening in Britain. The Church of England says that eventually the European Court of Human Rights will force it to conduct same-sex marriages in churches. And besides which - according to the consultation response - there is no difference between civil marriage and religious marriage. They are both for the same purpose - for a man and a woman to produce children.

It says the government doesn't have the right to "redefine" marriage.

But the government regularly redefines marriage, as does the church. Let us not forget that in the Old Testament it was usual for men to have several wives. Indeed, King Solomon is said to have had 700 wives.

At one time divorce was illegal, but the government changed that (again, in the teeth of furious opposition from the churches). Marriage has changed constantly over the centuries and it will weather another change - it might even be strengthened.

But the real purpose of this challenge from the Church of England is as much about staking out its territory in the political arena as it is about gay marriage. Mr Cameron is in the same position as Barack Obama - if he backs down the Church will have won a major political victory on which it will build an even more reactionary empire.

And that is bad news for all those of us who value the progress our society has made in the past few decades.

Let us not forget that the Church of England tried to exempt itself from the Human Rights Act when it was going through parliament. It tried to exempt itself from the Equality Act, saying it had a special right to discriminate where others had none. It stands in the way of the legalisation of assisted dying, even though polls show that 80%of the population would support it.

It wants more money for its buildings, its schools and the many other projects connected with the Big Society that would help it extend its influence into a society that has mainly rejected it.

The increasingly reactionary and unpleasant church has a regressive agenda that it will, if it can win this battle, happily impose on us all.

 
FOLLOW UK POLITICS
The Church of England has thrown down the gauntlet to the government over the issue of same-sex marriage. The message is clear: "Do as we say or there will be dire consequences." Their response to th...
The Church of England has thrown down the gauntlet to the government over the issue of same-sex marriage. The message is clear: "Do as we say or there will be dire consequences." Their response to th...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 181
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3  Next ›  Last »  (3 total)
23:01 on 05/08/2012
All I want is my same sex partner union to be recognized LEGALLY. Don't want me to get married in your/church? Fine. I REALLY Don't want to get married there, all I want is my parners rights and mine. That's ALL I want, ditto for my mate!
photo
Mneme
The truth shall make ye fret.
00:54 on 15/06/2012
So what the CofE is basically saying is that they have the God given right to tell everybody else what to do, believers and non believers alike. I can't believe that in this day and age, that kind of attitude is allowed any kind of platform or power; it's tyrannical, unethical and goes against everything Britain is supposed to stand for.
19:50 on 14/06/2012
Surely at the root of all marriage, aside from the physical partnership, is the commitment to each other in the eyes of the community and if religious, the presence of the deity? That commitment cannot solely be between fertile people, or those who intend to have children, otherwise many older or disabled persons who are quite legitimately able to marry should not! This argument is quite simply pointless. If two adults want to have their union blessed, then there is a simple human right at stake, based on their choice to worship and express spirituality through the Christian doctrine. All humans are equal in the 'eyes of God'... Surely?
20:42 on 14/06/2012
I cannot see that in the sight of any religion, marriage is there to sanctify physical relations. If it was the pope would probably be a porn star. Accepted, in many older religions they probably were.
History has proved that marriage is no boundary for who people have sex with. With regards to commitment, surely the only need to commit everlastingly is for the sake of family, Vis any offspring. I dont know how common marriage between older couples has been over the centuries, but I would guess it is a fairly new phenomenon. I dont suppose for a moment that marriage was introduced to provide any salvation for the elderly specifically.

Im sure all humans are equal, and as such we all deserve the same chances and opportunities. However, some peoples endeavors and commitments are greater than others and therefore the bonds and rewards should reflect that..
13:54 on 14/06/2012
I don't support gay marriage, but I am VERY worried about the Church's opposition. The CofE should remember that it is a creation of Government. Churches were for centuries a mechanism for controlling the masses, and in some places they still are. I think it is quite legit for a church to say that they will not participate and if they just took that view I'd look on that as freedom of religion. Once you try to tell people who don't belong to follow doctrine that is a return to the Dark Ages. What worries me much more is that our current and previous two PMs at least have religious attachments that I fear cloud or clouded their judgement in a potentially dangerous manner. Whilst it may well be a like a plot from a trashy novel, I continue to have a dark fear that one day the PM or the US President (More likely) will announce that God has told him/her to rid the world of Arabs, or Chinese, or Jews or people with red hair and our world will descend into a true Hell. Want to bet against Bush and/or Blair saying at some point in the future that Iraq was an instruction from God? Nuclear, biological and chemical weapons do not scare me, it is the mental stability of those who could authorise their use, and an irrational belief in some controlling deity implies to me that such a person is not to be trusted.
02:50 on 17/06/2012
The Church is the people, not a building or organisation and Christians are of Christ who said that homosexuals will not enter the kingdom of God, along with adulterers,murderers, thieves etc.
21:39 on 17/06/2012
You make my point for me more eloquently than I ever could. Just as a matter of detail (like I care) exactly where did Christ say that? Given that none of the Bible is written by Jesus, just people who followed him (Therefore, about as reliable as Sun journalists) we have to rely on their reports as they appear in the Gospels, but if you are so sure, how about chapter and verse? By the way, I'm an adulterer (Biblical adultery is just sex outside marriage, so like the vast majority of the population I fulfil the criterion) so I'm not going to the kingdom of God. I'm also a republican so I'm not interested in going to any monarchist dictatorship anyway. Lastly, if the Church is the people (I do actually agree with that; churches, religion, deities and devils have no existence outside of human invention) then the people can change the church and indeed have been doing so for millennia. That's why I don't get stoned for wearing poly cotton (notwithstanding that there's a strong case for it).
13:30 on 14/06/2012
It seems to me, the whole problem is in how we wish to term these unions.

I believe the church has a distinct and sacrosanct right to define male / female unions in keeping with their beliefs.
Also, I would not wish to deny any person their legitimate right to seek happiness in their own way.

It does seem clear to me that a union between a male/female for the purpose of raising their offspring (and dont get me wrong, love and sex do play a part) is fundamentally different to two people seeking to legitimize their love/desire for each other. This type relation ship can be the focus of same sex and different sex couples.

However, the two types of relation ship (i would see) require fundamentally different types of commitments.

They are not mutually exclusive nor are they mutually inclusive I agree.

I cannot see why the church should have the right to define its own rules without fear of being labeled discriminatory.

To avoid the confusion one or other should adopt a different term to use. As these new life style people are so bent on changing established protocol, Im surprised they havent invented there own
protocols and terms.
Scotch made any where other than Scotland cannot legally be called scotch?.

No idea whose got the monopoly on what defines marriage. As has been pointed out there are many religions all with there own take on it.
FrancisKing
Unitarian Christian
20:37 on 31/07/2012
"It does seem clear to me that a union between a male/female for the purpose of raising their offspring (and dont get me wrong, love and sex do play a part) is fundamentally different to two people seeking to legitimize their love/desire for each other. This type relation ship can be the focus of same sex and different sex couples. "

It is not at all clear. Homosexual couples can adopt, and they can also have children by means of a surrogate.
21:21 on 31/07/2012
U seem to be re-affirming my point that there is a fundamental difference, by pointing out that the methods involved would be different. For that, thanks. The next step is to argue whether the difference is at all relevant in the context and purpose for which marriage as an institution exists and whether changing the rules changes the game.
The rules have been watered down so much over the years that the vows taken are already almost meaningless in a social context any way.. I can still see that introducing a context of gay marriage for some would simply bury it altogether. My point is why should one persons sense of perspective be destroyed just because someone else claims they want to join in but only at the expense of changing the game.
When they could easily invent there own game and call it something else, when that's what it is.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
11:22 on 14/06/2012
See How the theocrats are still with us and still trying to hold back progress. Its seems the the Roman church is prepared to put at risk the health of the American people. The church of England is just the same. They want to be able to discriminate on the grounds that they have special dispensation from their imaginary friend
The darkness that was the pre enlightenment world is still lurking in the shadows.
Disestablish this bigoted cult and be done with them. Separation of church and state. Now that's a good idea.
FrancisKing
Unitarian Christian
20:44 on 31/07/2012
"Disestablish this bigoted cult and be done with them. Separation of church and state. Now that's a good idea."

Yes! Thomas Jefferson got it right. "If my neighbour tells me there is no God, or that there are 20 gods, it neither picks my pocket, nor breaks my leg". Take away their residual powers in the House of Lords, and then they can scream at the wind for all the good it will do them.
23:03 on 05/08/2012
Francis King, Really well said! Thank you!
11:15 on 14/06/2012
It makes no sense for the church to resist civil marriage, the government has clearly stated that they will create an exemption for all religious bodies, and they have no exclusive position on marriage, it existed before the Christian churches and will exist after their downfall.

But marriage is not just about producing children, statistically this is untrue now, more children are born to unwed parents than wed parents, and this implies that married persons who choose not to have children are not ‘truly’ married, because they haven’t done what marriage is for, which is absurd.
All religions want preferential treatment, not just the Christian church, look at the differences we have in our schooling sector for a clear example, with faith schools being exempted for the national curriculum and healthy food guidelines.

If the government doesn’t have the right to redefine marriage who does then, because the church has been doing it for millennia.
09:49 on 14/06/2012
I cant stand politicians, detestable creeps, but in this situation, I hope they dont back down, what would the C of E do then? Disolve? If it did there are still plenty of other christian religians to choose from if it is needed
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
SonnyBono
Cogito ergo sum ​​liberalis
09:39 on 14/06/2012
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."

Mahatma Gandhi

The Churches in the UK seem to be putting up the same arguments that they do here in the US - claiming attacks on religious freedoms when they don't get everything they want - you would think that they would be happy with their tax exempt status and the right to wear those pointy hats in public. And just what "dire consequences" is the Church of England threatening? Sounds a lot like what the Pope and the Catholic Church threatened Henry VIII with - don't seem to remember that it worked out well for the Catholics.
11:37 on 14/06/2012
Gandhi was so Christian he was Hindu
09:34 on 14/06/2012
HuffPost, will you really not let me comment? You are simply proving my point that Christains are unable to voice there opinion without being judged and are expected to accept with everyone elses!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
11:40 on 14/06/2012
Your right Christians should and of course do have the right to voice an opinion. Even if it is a bigoted one
09:23 on 14/06/2012
What amazes me is that Christians are expected to be tolerate and accepting of every opinion, yet are unable to have their own without being accused of discrimination ect.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
11:50 on 14/06/2012
Isn't that what J.C. told you you should do. My advice is ditch him and start thinking for your self.
Good luck!
15:06 on 14/06/2012
Only if their opinion is discriminatory, or in this case openly homophobic. Unfortunatly there are too many people who call themselves Christian yet behave in a very unChristian manner - usually involving abuse.
08:32 on 14/06/2012
The Church 1 The Gays 0
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Thismortalcoil
Science is the poetry of reality
11:19 on 14/06/2012
I think you're being a tad premature there ladybird...
11:40 on 14/06/2012
The Church: 600 Billion The Gays: 0...oh sorry I thought this was a kill count
18:44 on 14/06/2012
Your entitled to your opinion and who knows maybe you are correct.
12:12 on 15/06/2012
If you say so. Who are we to argue.
photo
edmurfin
Old man, on Bonus Time:-)
05:30 on 14/06/2012
The government is not going to legislate to force churches to hold gay weddings. The real objective of religious opposition to the idea of civil marriages between gay people is retain its ability to deny freedom to others and decide how we may or may not conduct our lives. No religion should have even a whisper of influence over civil matters. We cannot yet abolish the tyranny of religions, but we can ensure that the religious do not assert their quite unwwarranted control of our lives, for the sake of enforcing the irrational dictats of believers in myths, supersitions and fairy tales.
00:35 on 14/06/2012
Never a fan of comment removal though, regardless if how ignorant the comments are. You can't educate fools by sealing their lips.
11:40 on 14/06/2012
True unfortunately
This comment has been removed.