Government assaults our Christian identity

10:13am Friday 30th March 2012 in Your Letters

MAY I please respond courteously to M. L. Grey (BFP March 23), who states, “The institution of marriage is open to all, homo or heterosexual, as a basic human right – it is a matter of equality”.

I respectfully disagree.

What has Britain come to that to keep God’s commandments on marriage is now deemed to be a human rights abuse?

Do we now also have to change UK law to allow polygamy, because not to do so would be inequality towards polygamists?

Do we now have to say that adultery is acceptable, because to say otherwise would infringe the human rights of those who want to commit it? If we abandon the parameters of Christian morality, then the alternative is presumably ‘anything goes’.

I wonder how many BFP readers really want the words ‘father and mother’, and ‘husband and wife’, to disappear from the British legal system?

In Spain, where marriage has already been redefined, birth certificates now use the terms ‘Progenitor A’ and ‘Progenitor B’, instead of mother and father. Imagine a tearful young child in a busy shop crying out, “I’ve lost my progenitor A!”

It is appalling that the Conservative Party, desiring to reinforce its new, trendy liberal image, should ride roughshod over God’s laws in order to do so.

In addition to redefining marriage, the Government also wants to abandon Sunday trading legislation for two months during the Summer, and perhaps beyond.

In other words, the 4th commandment is now thought to be a national irrelevance.

We are witnessing a Government-sponsored assault on Britain’s Christian constitution and identity. Yours, in a spirit of polite, respectful debate.

Rev. Peter Simpson, Penn Free Methodist Church

Comments (2)

1:00pm Sun 1 Apr 12

Firm Bottom says...

There's an awful of of rubbish in the bible, which is hardly surprising since it's a bronze age text and reflects the views of those time. I know of a minister who insisted his wife slept in a separate room when she had her period because he believed that's what the bible said and, frankly, that's barmy. We could argue for years about many other similar daft things in the bible.
There is a very great deal of sensible stuff, too and we would all be better off if people followed those good parts. The same could be said of any major text of any major religion. Personally, I would strongly recommend the tenets of the British Humanist Society.
Extrapolating society's acceptance of marriage, in all its forms, in no way justifies polygamy, adultery or a degradation of morality. Acceptance and understanding of other peoples views, cultures and ways makes us all richer as a society. Of course there must be a moral framework within which to accept these views - not harming another, for example.
I don't think there is a government-sponsored assault on Britain's Christian constitution, it merely reflects society's views and, as such, is 'behind the curve'; it is catching up with society's views.
There's an awful of of rubbish in the bible, which is hardly surprising since it's a bronze age text and reflects the views of those time. I know of a minister who insisted his wife slept in a separate room when she had her period because he believed that's what the bible said and, frankly, that's barmy. We could argue for years about many other similar daft things in the bible. There is a very great deal of sensible stuff, too and we would all be better off if people followed those good parts. The same could be said of any major text of any major religion. Personally, I would strongly recommend the tenets of the British Humanist Society. Extrapolating society's acceptance of marriage, in all its forms, in no way justifies polygamy, adultery or a degradation of morality. Acceptance and understanding of other peoples views, cultures and ways makes us all richer as a society. Of course there must be a moral framework within which to accept these views - not harming another, for example. I don't think there is a government-sponsored assault on Britain's Christian constitution, it merely reflects society's views and, as such, is 'behind the curve'; it is catching up with society's views. Firm Bottom

12:50am Fri 6 Apr 12

Peter Simpson says...

Dear Firm Bottom, Thank you for your comments. The starting point for properly understanding the Bible is humility before our Maker. You spoke of the Government catching up with society's views, but is it right to assume that what society currently thinks must be preferable? If society thinks differently in 50 years time, will that new position then be obligatory? Can morality be determined on this basis?
God's moral law is absolute for all time. I courteously submit that, as we owe our very existence to God, we are in no position
to reject His moral law according to the changing fashions of the day.
Yours amicably, Rev. Peter Simpson.
Dear Firm Bottom, Thank you for your comments. The starting point for properly understanding the Bible is humility before our Maker. You spoke of the Government catching up with society's views, but is it right to assume that what society currently thinks must be preferable? If society thinks differently in 50 years time, will that new position then be obligatory? Can morality be determined on this basis? God's moral law is absolute for all time. I courteously submit that, as we owe our very existence to God, we are in no position to reject His moral law according to the changing fashions of the day. Yours amicably, Rev. Peter Simpson. Peter Simpson

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree