I was under the delusion Thomas Becket and Henry II had more or less settled that civil laws took priority.

To play the devil's advocate, if civil law takes priority, then what right do we have to tell Uganda, for example, what is just?

Religious organizations and religious corporations get benefits from the State, most spectacularly tax exemptions for donations and property tax exemptions. By doing this they open themselves to the state having some control over their life. The IRS for example essentially forced most clergy into an employee status from what used to be independent contractor status.

So for the state to propose laws that govern secular aspects of the church seems fair to me. The makers of the English bill claim it would not regulate clergy, but I suspect even regulating who could be secretaries and sextons was too much for the Lords.

The Roman Rite Church recently threatened the District of Columbia with closing its social services if it was going to require that they serve and/or employ without discrimination, just as they have done with adoption agencies in Britian. Let them close them all, others will step in to do the work.

John Chilton in playing Devil's Advocate misses the point about Uganda. There a civil law is being fueled, somewhat by religious hysteria, but it is still a civil law that puts it in contention with International human rights standards. They can choose to pass the law and face the opprobrium of the world community, and there the issue is do world standards eclipse national ones.

A century ago international standards on sodomy were quite different. I believe you've delivered me a tautology, Michael.

Doesn't the answer to my question have to do with the application of reason to questions of morality, fairness, and justice? Thus, one can question what is per se immoral about loving homosexual relationships, and thus why shouldn't homosexuals have the same protections as every other human being.

The question that this sort of thing stirs up in me is, Why is misogyny and heterosexism/homophobia magically acceptable when it wears religious clothing? If a business excluded certain people from certain positions based solely on their sex or orientation, I'm sure few would stand for it. So why do the RCC and other religious institutions get a pass?

-Grant Charles Chaput

The controversy about, first Church of England Bishops, and next the Pope, intervening in the Equality Bill debate illustrates that democrats and Church leaders are setting out from two very different starting points. Understanding the foundations of the differences between the two may shed some light on the conflict that is certain to continue for some time. Churches tend to see religious liberty largely in terms of liberty from coercion by the state. Dr. Franklin H. Little recognized the problems in this approach when he commented on “The Declaration on Religious Freedom” of Vatican II over forty years ago. Franklyn (an American protestant) wrote this about The Declaration “The implications for the nature of a just government are less thoroughly treated” (Documents of Vatican II. Abbott English Edition p. 699). The Declaration on Religious Freedom fails to address the consequences of its own logic i.e. governments of, for and by the people, so necessary for religious freedom, must sometimes protect citizens from religious tyranny. One section of The Declaration stands out as its most underdeveloped idea. “…government is to see to it that equality of citizens before the law …is never violated for religious reasons whether openly or covertly…” (Declaration on Religious Freedom (1) (6)). The political situation within the Churches is largely reactionary. Our Anglican communion has a cadre of fundamentalists. Benedict is eagerly advancing the canonization of the last pre-Vatican II Pope—part of regressive rather than a progressive strategy. It pertains to those who are passionate about human and civil rights, Christian and secular alike, to work together for the common good. Doing such is leading to the discovery of common ground. Such work will also challenge churches to develop a largely underdeveloped theology of human rights. It will also help the Churches confront their own hypocrisy. –Rod Gillis

I've appended Bishop Scott-Joynt's op-ed to the post.

No wonder the church in the UK is dying.

Funny, nobody mentions Jesus in these sorts of debates: not Rome, not the bishops, not the politicians. I guess we'll have to insist that Jesus be part of this conversation. Would Jesus cite the "Natural Law" or diplomatic spin or popes or parliment or would he point to the Reign of God and God's justice? Perhaps we should stick to Jesus' lead.

Yes, Peter Pearson. Or to put it another, as Bishop Gene Robinson said yesterday, "you can talk about Jesus all day, but if you are not doing what Jesus would have you do, then it matters not. God save us from admirers of Jesus."

It doesn't take much reasoning to know what side Jesus would be on. The side of justice.

It is no wonder that the young find the Church irrelevant. They fully realize that one can be ethical, "moral" without religion (and that one can be unethical and immoral with religion) If this reflects the Good News - it clearly is only good for some.

Pam Alger

"I guess we'll have to insist that Jesus be part of this conversation"

Never a bad idea:

"Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's."

"I have prayed for you [Peter] that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren."

"I have prayed for you [Peter] that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren."

As tempted as I am to say "Yes, Peter DID do a pretty good job till he was crucified; we may still ask his intercession in heaven"...

...I'll play along, rick, w/ your "Peter."

Just WHO is "Peter 2010"'s brethren, anyway? RC prelates? RC politicians?

Or are they not PRECISELY those who face discrimination on the basis of WHO they are---for being as God made them (AND loving as God made them to love)---"the least of these"?

Your "Peter" should---as "Servant of the Servants of God---be strengthening those made LGBT, NOT Worldly Power!

JC Fisher

While we're judging those across the pond, we might also think about our own knitting. For example, what about equal domestic partner benefits for federal jobs? Has the situation changed since this article?

http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=&sc2=news&sc3=&id=92652

It suggests the Obama administration is resisting full equality. At any rate, we're not as far along as the UK. The government discriminates and it is legal for other employers to discriminate except where local laws are in place.

The roundup in Episcopal Café quotes the following from (Rabbi) Lord Sacks in The Times: “John F. Kennedy made a similar statement in his great inaugural address: ‘The rights of Man come not from the generosity of the State, but from the hand of God’ That is why using the ideology of human rights to assault religion risks undermining the very foundation of human rights themselves”. Actually, What President Kennedy said was: “And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe—the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.” The omitted section of the President’s sentence refers to revolutionary beliefs and is almost certainly an allusion to The Declaration of Independence “We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are crated equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable Rights…” Human rights are described as inalienable, part of the essence of the person, something that is self-evidential. Special revelation, for instance, is not required. Rights are grounded in the inherent worth and dignity of the human person. I suspect J.F.K., in rejecting that rights flow from the generosity of the state, had in mind the role of totalitarian states in which people have rights not because rights are intrinsic to the person but because they are politically expedient. So Lord’s Sack’s misinterpretation of J.F.K sets up a familiar false dichotomy that unnecessarily pits religion against rights.
-Rod Gillis, Nova Scotia

The Rabbi's use of that quote is fascinating. Let's accept his premise that rights are from God and that Kennedy is talking about the Declaration of Independence. Then the inalienable rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, all of which are violated by some religious in their pursuit of notions of enforced purity. If these are God given, then they are God given and not subject, to invert Kennedy, to the generosity of the church.

++York's comments are appalling. Why not suggest that the misogynists and homomisanthropes be magnanimous? Would not the rule of mercy be that in a time of uncertainty and debate generosity is extended towards the marginalized. Hooker suggested that when situations are ambiguous charity should prevail. The charity that glby people offer is that of honesty and transparency, the generosity Sentamu should offer is welcome to those whose pursuit of life, liberty and happiness may run a slightly different course than his own.

Despite the First Amendment we have forced civil laws upon religions. Mormon polygamy had to be abandoned. First Americans' use of peyote and other hallucinogens was outlawed and even we Episcopalians might be pushed on our practice of giving wine to children. In our financial affairs we are governed too, by the courts to some extent.

Finally, though we can see the shape of a religious attack on the notion of human rights. It is loudly voiced in Uganda around their criminalization bill, and now ++York and the Pope parrot it. It would be wise for us as a world civilization to insist that the UDHR and other statements of Rights based in Reason and practice be defended in the face of this assault.