Some Reflections On The Ashers Case

The judgement in the Ashers bakery case is disappointing if not surprising. Many of us expected that they would lose the case given the political and legal climate which is developing in the UK (and Ireland) towards men and women of conscience. The McArthur family, who own Ashers, are facing what many other Christian business men and women have been facing for a few years now, including a business in Dublin - a paper shop that was forced to close, and a printing firm in Drogheda which is expecting to hauled before the courts in the not too distant future, all because they seek to reserve the right to conscience in their businesses.

Ms Justice Brownlie, the presiding judge in the Ashers case, revealed in her judgment that while people are allowed to believe what they wish and manifest that belief as they see fit, their faith and its manifestation must be accordance with the law. Now on one hand we see resonances of the tyranny of Henry VIII and Elizabeth I outlawing Catholicism and forcing their subjects to conform to their new religion;  in extremis this may well be the case. However, on one level what the judge says makes some sense. For example if there is a cult out there that believes human sacrifice is a necessary tenet of their religion and worship, as did the Aztecs, it stands to reason that a civilised society cannot permit such practices to be carried out. The law will prevent that and if this cult is to remain in the country it must respect the law and refrain from sacrificing human beings within the jurisdiction. 

On the other hand, for example, Muslims require animals to be slaughtered in a manner consistent with Quranic teaching - Halal. While these methods offend laws concerning cruelty to animals, the State permits them provided the animals are not subject to extreme suffering.  There is, then, a tension between some laws in the State and religious practices, but also a leniency, an understanding. Usually this is no problem. Given that religion has a role in society be to a leaven, though there are many out there who reject this, tension can be healthy and, with mutual respect, can be fruitful. The principle of the common good is usually invoked. But where does the Ashers judgment come in to all this?  

The judgement is the Ashers case is one which offends the common good rather than protects it. The case is specific and concerns freedom of conscience, not the slaughter of animals nor human sacrifice. Freedom of conscience is one of those values a civilised and rational society cherishes and seeks to protect for many reasons including the common good. Freedom of conscience allows for the development of a mature and respectful society and is a guarantee against the growth of tyranny which is always a possibility even within the most democratic of states, as we saw in Germany in the 1930s.  

Embracing this value will mean that there may be certain things a society may have to tolerate, even a blurring of the lines around laws in order to preserve a greater good. The toleration of pacifism within a society is a good case. There are those who refuse to join the army or fight, not because they are cowards or disloyal to the State, but because they seek to remain true to their pacifist principles. A wise government will not force them into the army or into battle, but rather will respect their position and give them other duties to assist the war effort - care of the sick and wounded etc. This may offend some laws regarding a citizen's duty to protect the nation, but respecting freedom of conscience the state is creative and will understand that duty in a broader context.

In the Ashers case we have people of conscience who cannot, in good faith, support gay marriage. They were asked to decorate a cake with a slogan promoting gay marriage - which is not legal in Northern Ireland by the way, using images, Bert and Ernie from Sesame Street, which are in fact copyright. (Ironically, Ashers are prosecuted for refusing to ice a cake with these images and if they had done so they would have been in breach of copyright and open to legal action! No word about that.) For refusing they are sued and lose. They are sued for not adhering to something that is not in force in Northern Ireland. Yes, they are said to have broken the law on discrimination, but strictly speaking one has to ask if a position is illegal in a State (gay marriage in Northern Ireland) and citizens refuse to support that position, can that properly be called discrimination?  In other words, if I can use the Aztec example blunt and all as it is: human sacrifice is not permitted in Ireland, an Aztec arrives to order a cake with the slogan "Support Human Sacrifice" on it and I refuse, can I be prosecuted for refusing to do so? I presume the answer to that question is: no, because human sacrifice is not permitted within the State. So if gay marriage is not permitted within Northern Ireland, why were Ashers convicted of discrimination?

Ashers's right to freedom of conscience should have been respected for the sake of the common good, for one thing their position is in agreement with the Judeo-Christian moral code upon which European and British/Irish society and legal codes are based. Ashers's honest declining to ice the cake (not bake it, by the way - they were willing to provide the cake just not ice what they saw as an offensive slogan on it), did not mean the customer was bereft of a service - there were many others happy to bake and ice the cake. Given the service would have been provided elsewhere and not too far away from Ashers means that the company should have been permitted to remain true to their principles. A wise judgement would have decreed that while Ashers position was unfortunate for the customer, they were entitled to freedom of conscience and the service should have been sought elsewhere. That is the position of most right-thinking individuals: common sense as much as respect for the differing views of others. Of course there is now the question of whether the law allowed space for this respect, or were the judge's hands tied: thatshe had no choice but to implement unyielding legislation?

There will be those who hammer home equality laws and the necessity to enforce them rigidly in order to prevent discrimination. Well, look at the bigger picture then and see where this case will bring us. It is no exaggeration to say that Jewish baking companies can be forced to produce cakes which call for the downfall of Israel or mock Moses; Muslim printers can be forced to print cartoons mocking Mohammed; gay magazines can be forced to run ads for gay reversion therapy; Presbyterians can be forced to advertise novenas to Our Lady in their papers; Sinn Fein can be forced to carry ads in their publications calling for oaths of allegiance to the crown. No one will escape, what is judged to be enforced for one group - Christians, will have to be enforced on all: everyone will have to renounce their beliefs and principles to satisfy this rigid law, there is no room for respect, or diversity! Such laws will not end discrimination, but rather create even greater discrimination, and perhaps attitudes and situations that are even worse.

This enforcement will produce (and I honestly believed it is designed to produce) a monolithic society where diversity and difference are hammered out in the name of a particular ideology.  Today it is the Christians in Ashers bakery, it will be someone else tomorrow, and some will say that's fine because it's only the Christian bigots that will be targeted. But some day soon it will be those who put these rigid laws in place who will fall too. Remember what Martin Niemoller wisely wrote. These harsh equality laws which dispense with conscience, indeed seek to quash it, will one day devour us all, and it seems few have the sense to see it. Today Ashers are the victims, tomorrow the common good, the day after that the very society generations have struggled to build.

UPDATE:  Word is coming through that Tesco is now being targeted by gay activists in an attempt to force the supermarket to cancel its order with Ashers bakery. Though they won in the courts, equality militants want to destroy Ashers completely. This comes as no surprise, it is the pattern we have seen emerge in other cases.

A Christian Holocaust

Are they coming to a town near you? Or are they already there?

The last few weeks have been awful for Christians the world over as we look helplessly on what is happening to our brothers and sisters in the faith in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. The self-styled "Islamic State" group have been slashing their way through Christian villages, homes and churches, forcing people to flee for their lives, stealing their belongings and presenting the ultimate ultimatum to those unable to get away from them: convert or die.  This is a Christian holocaust. And it has been happening for the last number of months.

There has been a response from the west, the US has sent the air-force in to hamper IS's progress towards Kurdish territory and some supplies are being dropped to thousands of refugees, the UK air-force is assisting in this. While supplies are needed, these military actions will not stop IS: the Patriarch of the Chaldean Church has expressed his disappointment with the anemic response from the west.  When you listen to the news, certainly here in Ireland, the emphasis is on the unfortunate Yazidis and the humanitarian crisis facing them, the massacre of Christians for the last number of months is hardly referred to, so much so that many do not even know Christians are being obliterated. 

But of course those who see the reality of the problem know that we are now facing the most serious problem with militant Islam in recent times.  With the west's head firmly stuck in the sand, and with such a late and paltry response, one which may well convince these militants that the west is fast asleep, there is a danger that this radical group's progress will not be hampered. One of the problems the west may not have thought about is the real possibility that radicalized Muslims around the world, seeing the effectiveness of this group, may well rally to IS's cause. IS has already proclaimed a Caliphate, the dream of so many radical Muslims, particularly young disillusioned ones, and though it may sound silly and anachronistic to us, it may not to young men ambitious to turn the world into the realm of Islam.  So far, I have been told, IS controls an area as large as Great Britain.

And lest we think this progress is confined to the Middle East, we have to remember that IS has its sights set on Europe and eventually the US. They have to reestablish Istanbul as their city - members of the group have already said they are planning a campaign to take Istanbul, and after that undo the defeat at Vienna. If they were to seek to invade in the usual way they may not achieve those aims - people have said that the west's military ability will be well able to stop them. But how will the west stop members of IS already present in Europe and the Americas who wage a guerrilla war as the first stage of an invasion campaign? Lest we fool ourselves it is sobering to remember that IS flags have been seen at pro-Palestinian marches in recent weeks.

That said, the appalling truth is that the west, the US, EU, UN, have stood by as thousands of Christians in Iraq have been forced out of their land, many of them executed in a most brutal way. It seems from this lack of response that when Christians are being killed it is of no interest to the secular governments of the "free world", however, when a group like the Yazidis are in danger, then it is okay to come to their rescue, that is acceptable. And I am sad to say leadership in the Catholic Church has been no better: pious words, calls for peace and an envoy will not achieve much; they will not stop IS terrorists hacking the head off another Christian child.

The Yazidi are getting the help they need, thank God for that. On Mount Sinjar supplies are being distributed and journalists are crawling around like ants. But in the refugee camps outside Ibril where Christians are taking refuge, people are starting to die. As one person working there tweeted to me a couple of days ago, they need so much and are getting so little, no one seems interested.

I note with some chagrin that our government here in Ireland has said next to nothing. The Americans may complain about their President off playing golf on his holidays, at least he sent the air-force in and yes, more needs to be done. But our lot here are doing nothing. Our Senate was recalled a few weeks ago to give Senators an opportunity to condemn Israel in the conflict with Gaza. No sign of any of them being recalled to propose and consider what to do to assist Christian men, women and children in Iraq who are facing annihilation. Alas they will not, there are no votes in it, and after all, what are martyred Christians in comparison with an American Country singer?

Kitties In The Can

The reaction to the guilty verdict handed down by a Russian court with regard to the Pussy Riot group's protest in an Orthodox Church was interesting.   First of all the three women's reaction was the most interesting of all: as they were found guilty they were smirking - that says a lot, I think, and reveals a lot about them.

The reaction of the usual celebrities was as predicted - talk of free speech, valid protest etc etc.  Yet the same celebrities are not too keen on free speech when it comes to issues and people who disagree with them. How often have we in the pro-life movement been condemned by celebrities who toe the Planned Parenthood line and proclaim it is a woman's right to choose and there is no room for discussion?

The Orthodox Church's reaction was also as expected - decrying what was an act of deep offense against the Christian faith, yet calling for mercy following sentencing. 

And as for Putin, well he's tough anyway: I have no doubt these ladies knew that if they were caught he would not be inclined to be conciliatory - and I think they factored that into the equation, at least my interpretation of their haughty smirking in the dock leads me to that conclusion.  I think they want to be martyrs for the cause - the protest was to continue in the courtroom.  For that reason I think a public trial might have been a bad idea - it just gave them publicity.  Ladies like these need to be treated like naughty toddlers - ignored and sidelined.

And then there is the media's reaction, falling in line with the celebrities.  Watching the coverage I see the media up to their old tricks, ignoring some facts and exaggerating others.  First of all the accepted version of the story is that these ladies were engaged in a political protest, they are bona fide dissenters courageously defending freedom of expression and seeking political freedom.  Yet the media have ignored what the women were actually doing.  They were dancing in the sanctuary of a Christian church - a sacred place, mocking Christian worship with a song whose chorus is anything but fitting.  Is that a protest against Putin? 

But the media are also hiding a lot of facts about these women.  Pussy Riot are not as noble a group as we are led to believe: LifeSiteNews has a comprehensive piece,  and here is another interesting article with some background on the group. Some have compared the woman with Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, I don't think so.  Protest is fine, the day will come, I'm sure, and not too far away either I think, when we Christians may be protesting against our governments and engaging in civil disobedience, but protest must always respect others and the faith of others.  As some have asked, would these ladies do the same in a mosque?  They would not for two reasons - it would not be politically incorrect and they might end up being stoned to death before they had a chance to get out of the building.  Is it legitimate to mock faith and descecrate places held sacred by people in order to protest against a political regime? 

Some will say these ladies did so because the Orthodox Church is too close to the Russian government. Okay, well Judaism is considered by many to be too close to Zionism and the State of Israel - well, where are the lewd feminists dancing in the synagogues mocking Abraham and Moses?  They are not there because they know it is inappropriate and wrong - just as it is inappropriate and wrong to desecrate a place of Christian worship.  As the homosexuals are always saying: all we want is to be treated equally, but as we all know, when it comes to Christianity equality goes out the window and double standards are all the rage.

As regards the verdict, as a Christian I would side with the Orthodox Church and look for mercy since we must forgive, but in doing so I would recognise that they got what they deserved.  Perhaps they, and the secularists need to understand that Christians, while they will forgive, will also demand justice.

Irish Bishop May Face Criminal Charges For Preaching The Gospel

My attention has just been drawn to an attack on the Bishop of Raphoe, Bishop Philip Boyce, by an atheist who is offended by the bishop's homily during a pilgrimage to Knock last August.  In fact this atheist, Fine Gael party member, John Colgan, has reported the bishop to the Gardai (Irish Police), who in turn are preparing a file for the Director of Public Prosecutions, and it may happen that Bishop Boyce may well faces charges.  The charge is the old chestnut, "incitement to hatred".  The fact that the Gardai are preparing a file means that they believe there may be a case to answer.

Here are the two extracts from the bishop's homily that may be, it seems, illegal in Ireland:

"The moment of history we live through in Ireland at present is certainly a testing one for the Church and for all of us. Attacked from the outside by the arrows of a secular and godless culture: rocked from the inside by the sins and crimes of priests and consecrated people, we all feel the temptation to lose confidence. Yet, our trust is displayed and deepened above all when we are in troubled and stormy waters. It is easier to be confident when we ride on the crest of a wave, when the tide is coming in. Not so easy, however, yet every bit as necessary, when what is proclaimed by the Church namely the truth of faith with its daily practice and influence on behaviour, is under severe pressure."

And:

"For the distinguishing mark of Christian believers is the fact they have a future; it is not that they know all the details that await them, but they know in general terms that their life will not end in emptiness."

For the full text of the bishop's homily, which is very good, see here.

The complaint has been made by John Colgan, a retired chartered engineer and economist from County Kildare.  He was the leader of the "Campaign to Separate Church and State" in the 1990's so he has a history of antagonism against the Catholic Church.  He was also an unsuccessful Fine Gael candidate in parliamentary elections.  From the article in the Irish Independent, Mr Colgan seems to describe the passing on of the Christian faith to members of the Christian faith as "hostile propaganda".  So I take from that we are not allowed, in his eyes, to teach the faith to members of our own religion. 

We shall have to see if the DPP is foolish enough to go ahead and press charges, if he does, then it will be time for bishops, priests and faithful to roll in behind Bishop Boyce and oppose them.  Are things bad enough in Ireland for such stupidity to reign?  That the freedom of religion and freedom of expression so cherished by the founding fathers and mothers of our nation, can be put aside because a non-believer is offended by a Christian pastor proclaiming the Gospel?  The answer to that question is, sadly, yes: we are near that stage.  However, I personally think, at this time, the DPP will pass on prosecution: such a decision would go down very badly with many.  There is already a lot of anger.

We must pray for Bishop Boyce.  He is a good bishop, orthodox, gentle and compassionate.  He is a Discalced Carmelite, so a brother of mine in the Order.  We entrust him to the maternal intercession of our Holy Mother, St Teresa, and to the prayers of his great friend, Blessed John Henry Newman.

To be honest, this appears to be another black mark against Fine Gael: first the unjust attack on our Church and Pope by the leader of the party, Enda Kenny in July, creating a serious diplomatic incident and exposing Ireland to international criticism; then they close down the embassy, and now it seems a member of their party is trying to prosecute a Catholic bishop, not for neglecting his duties with regard to child protect procedures, but because he preaches the Christian faith at a Catholic shrine.

God help us, is it not time for the ordinary Catholics of Ireland to rise up against this insane tyranny?  I think if anyone needs to be prosecuted for inciting hatred, it may well be Mr Colgan.

Boycott Tesco?

Fr Ray Blake has rather disturbing news on his blog: Tesco, it seems, are berating orthodox Christians for our moral beliefs with regard to homosexuality.  He refers us to the Iona Institute website where we are told the Head of Research and Development for Tesco's website, Nick Lansley, called us "evil" for not supporting the gay political agenda. 

It seems Tesco has a history of attacking Christian teaching.  So much for tolerance.  One would imagine that Tesco would stick to retailing rather than promoting political agendas.

I was going to do some of my Christmas shopping in the company's outlet in Drogheda, but I will no longer give them my custom.    If Tesco is so ready to attack the sincerely held beliefs of Christians, then they do not need our business.  So spread the word - don't shop at Tesco, go elsewhere.  If you want to register a complaint, you can contact the Chief Executive at: philip.clarke@uk.tesco.com.

Kudos to the Iona Institute for exposing this one: they deserve our support. 

UPDATE:

I have just sent an email to Philip Clarke, Chief Executive of Tesco, I am posting it for your information.

Dear Mr Clarke,

My attention has been drawn to comments by your Head of Research and Development, Mr Nick Langsley, in which he referred to Christians as being "evil" for not supporting the redefinition of marriage so as to facilitate homosexual "marriage".

While Mr Langsley is entitled to his opinion, he is not entitled to judge the sincerely held beliefs of others and brand us Christians as evil because we follow the teachings of Christ and his Apostles with regard to moral matters.  Disagree with us if you want, but please respect our beliefs. 

Contrary to what some in the homosexual lobby would have us believe, we Christians do not hate them nor want to deprive them of their rights as human beings.  While we do not support the idea of "gay marriage" and we will refuse to define our understanding of marriage to faciliate it, we seek to treat all people with respect.

Given that many of your customers are Christians, and I was one myself, I suggest that you as Chief Executive deal with this issue and seek to make amends to Christians who are deeply offended by your employee's remark. 

Until such time as a proper response is made, I will no longer be shopping at your retail outlet in Drogheda (Ireland), and as a pastor of a parish I will be encouraging my parishioners not to shop in your stores either.  I will also encourage similiar action through my blog which has a wide readership.

I hope as Christmas draws near and your stores benefit from the celebrations of Christians who buy food and other items from your company for their annual feast, your company may take careful note of the need to respect our sincerely held beliefs and not just take our money and then denigrate us.

Sincerely,

Rev. John Hogan