Bishop Nazir-Ali, shame on you!

'A senior Church of England bishop have warned that Anglican youth clubs, welfare projects and charities may close because of new gay rights laws.

The Bishop of Rochester, the Right Reverend Michael Nazir-Ali, said that the Church of England's charities would be "affected" by the rules, which will force them to give equal treatment to homosexuals.

He declared: "It will be the poor and disadvantaged who will be the losers."'

--Steve Doughty, writing for Daily Mail in the UK

Here's some background. The UK government is passing some new laws that would forbid discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation. Churches in the UK have put up a united front against the regulations. The Roman Catholics have threatened to close adoption agencies rather than give children to gay couples. Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali is the Bishop of Rochester in the UK, and you've heard his threats above.

Here's what it sounds like. It sounds like +Nazir-Ali is trying to hold the "poor and disadvantaged" hostage, to force the government to give ground on a piece of legislation that he doesn't like. In fact, it sounds like he's saying that Church of England charities already discriminate against gays and lesbians in the provision of services, and that he supports such discrimination.

+Nazir-Ali may have been quoted inaccurately or out of context. But I haven't heard him protest. And from where I stand, his statements sound like bigotry, plain and simple. They bring to mind what Jesus says in Matthew 18, "But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea."

Furthermore, some of the claims made by religious groups at what they would be forced to do are outlandish. An advertisement claims schools would be forced to "actively promote homosexual civil partnerships (from primary school age)" in their curricula. It claims that heterosexual policemen and firemen could not legally "refuse to join" a Pride parade. For the first, it is not likely that schools will teach alternative forms of marriage from primary school age. Additionally, the words "actively promote" give the false impression that schools are going to be able to force the children to be gay, that the minute after this hypothetical lesson, all the boys will be screwing each other like rabbits in the bathroom. This is a ridiculous idea.

For the second, I think the authors deliberately confused the act of providing police and fire coverage for a Pride parade with joining a Pride parade as participants. I'm not familiar with UK laws, but police and fire departments probably cannot refuse to provide coverage for a Pride event, and since they're getting paid with public dollars, it seems fair that they can't. It would also seem fair if the emergency departments tried to assign people with no objections to the Pride events, but that's beside the point. The point is that some Christians in the UK are deliberately misrepresenting the facts. It should remind us of what was done with the Equal Rights Amendment in the US.

Is a compromise possible? Elizabeth Fernandez, writing for the San Fransisco Chronicle, highlights how a US Catholic adoption agency came to an accomodation between San Fransisco nondiscrimination laws, and the instructions of the Vatican not to place children with same-sex parents.

'While the agency will no longer directly place children in homes, it will provide staff and financial resources to connect needy children to adoptive parents, expanding from 25 placements a year to assisting in the adoptions of as many as 800 children annually, say those involved in the program.'

Indeed, some children are being placed with same-sex couples. But the workers in this adoption agency are OK with it. Indeed, it seems their Board of Supervisors passed a nonbinding resolution asking the local church to challenge the Vatican. Their new archbishop, +George Niderauer, told them to find a solution that would allow them to be faithful to their mission: allowing families to adopt children. For +Niderauer and Catholic Charities of San Fransisco, the children came first.

For +Nazir-Ali, either the children and the poor come second, or he's too stupid to find a solution.


Doughty's article:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=419280&in_page_id=1770

Fernandez' article:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/08/27/BAGDLKQ52G1.DTL

Christians concerned advertisement:
http://www.christianconcernforournation.co.uk/sor/docs/LCFAdvert.pdf