Cleansing Society of Christianity and Sexual Morality.

The supremacy of identity politics has led to ethnic cleansing in some societies; and the assertion of the primacy of gay identity politics has already begun to fuel the effort to cleanse British society of Christianity and sexual morality.

Here is a snippet from the published remarks of Paul Diamond, Barrister to the Johns, a British couple excluded from the fostercare system:

Should we protect Children from being ‘infected’ with Christianity?

So argued the Equality and Human Rights Commission in the case of Johns v Derby using the word ‘infected’; an argument implicitly accepted by the Court who held that the views of Christian foster carers on sexual morality could be ‘inimical’ to the welfare of children in care. The Commission has now said it was an ‘error’ to have used this term but did not retract this statement when I raised it in court.

It is a very pertinent question to ask especially in light of the fact that I have reluctantly advised the Johns not to appeal; such an appeal would normally be expected but now, in my opinion, futile - a waste of resources. The Courts are so set against religious freedom for Christians that an appeal is likely to only make matters worse.

The problem is a combination of bad laws and, in recent years, a number of poor judicial appointments by the previous Government. Where there are excellent Judges they are restricted by bad laws. Unfortunately, there are also Judges making law based on personal predilections. Parliament must remedy this situation as a matter of urgency.

[...]

The law is now prejudiced, irrational and partial; it punishes individuals for ‘thought crime’ and the State endorses an inverse morality. Many British people despair of the law enforcement agencies and have (rightly) little confidence that they will achieve justice in the courts. There is no reason in law or otherwise why sexual orientation rights should prevail over religious rights. There is something deeply wrong with the ethical and legal compass of Britain.

* * *

Read the whole thing, here. (Hat-tip, Ruth Blog).

* * *

On a related note, John, a pro-SSM commenter over at the Ruth Blog comment section, accused me of seeking to "eradicate LGBT citizens" because of my remarks about protections for families in the nonmarriage category. (See my Opine blogpost, "Appeasement does not make for a viable compromise.")

I replied that his interpretation of my comments was his fantasy and far removed from what I had actually said. John repeated the smear, here and again, here.

I responded further:

As I said earlier, the nonmarriage category is not defined by gay identity politics, contrary to your gross misreading of my comment. And nothing I said even remotely suggests eradicating the millions of people who live outside of marriage — gay or nongay.

There will be families — especially those with children and other dependants — in the nonmarriage category even when our society reconfirms the core meaning of marriage. Extending protections based on their vulnerabilities is a reasonable response to a legitimate societal problem.

But some of the more radical SSMers are quick to manufacture strawman arguments to serve as mirror reflections for their own extreme views.

Also see: "Christianity isn’t dying, it’s being eradicated".

And: "The destructive fruits of sexual politics".