Religious Hatred Bill

In what might have been a first of its kind in cooperation between pressure groups in the UK, yesterday witnessed crowds of Christian, Atheist, Homosexual and all other kinds of civil and human rights groups assemble outside Parliament to stnad in agreement together against the Governments proposed Religious Hatred Bill (BBC report here). The Government lost the vote in the Commons (here) and we're unlikely to see it on the statute book any time soon.

I'm doing a research paper on the Bill so I'll probably post more on this in the future, but my first impression is that a great many Christians involved in the protest are over-reacting. You'd think that the Gospel itself was being outlawed, but it isn't. The Blair government are hardly a fountain of truthfulness (remember all those weapons of mass destruction that could be launched at 45 minutes notice? Or how they weren't going to introduce tuition fees?) but this snippet of yesterday's debate between Home Office undersecretary Paul Goggins, DUP members Mrs Iris Robinson and Ian Paisley , and a few other MPS does bring a little clarity to the matter:

Mrs. Iris Robinson (Strangford) (DUP): Can the Minister explain whether if at a Christian open-air meeting reference were made to there being only one true God and to Jesus Christ, his son, being the only intermediator between God and man for the forgiveness of sins, that most basic and fundamental cornerstone of the Christian faith would be viewed as incitement to religious hatred?

Paul Goggins: The hon. Lady asks a serious question about a serious subject and my answer to her is absolutely not. That would not be covered by the offence. It would not have been covered even as the Bill was originally drafted and it certainly will not be covered if the Government amendments are accepted because they make it absolutely clear that an individual must have the intention of stirring up hatred, or stir up hatred by acting recklessly through their behaviour or use of words.

Paul Goggins: There will be plenty of time for hon. Members to intervene, so please let me finish my reply to the hon. Member for Strangford (Mrs. Robinson).

If it is clear that people have intended to stir up hatred, or behaved recklessly, they will be caught. If people express a strong religious belief, or adopt an attitude of ridicule, they will not be caught, even if they use intemperate language, unless there is clear intention.

Rev. Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP): This is an important issue because there was a recent case involving a minister of religion. He was standing in the open air on Christmas day reading the birth record of our Lord Jesus Christ in the gospel of Matthew, as he had done for years. A police officer said to him, "You must stop reading this because it has been objected to," and told the people standing round that they had to move on. I have accepted what has been said by Ministers and spoken about those assurances in speeches that I have made. However, when such a thing happens, we run into great difficulty. (If the Bill does become Law, Paisley ought to be more concerned about some of his remarks about Roman Catholics rather than worrying about being able to read the Bible in public)

Paul Goggins: The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point and I accept that there is sometimes a lack of clarity in the way in which the law is interpreted. I have said in Committee and on the Floor that, when the Bill is enacted, it will be important to draft appropriate guidance for the police and Crown Prosecution Service, in consultation with organisations outside the House, so that there is confidence in how the law will be interpreted.

 Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas (Crosby) (Lab): Further to the comments made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Mrs. Robinson), can my hon. Friend confirm that my constituents would not be caught by the Bill for saying, "There is forgiveness only in the name of Jesus," or, "Mohammed's marriage to a six-year-old was immoral, and a call for the right to marry children is to be condemned as immoral."?

Paul Goggins: I can confirm that to my hon. Friend. I hope that hon. Members throughout the House will take this as an assurance in response to various questions that have been asked of them: people will not be caught by the Bill if they use language about their belief, or other beliefs, even to the point at which the language is abusive and insulting, if they do not intend to stir up hatred.

Interesting point, though in practice I think it would be extremely difficult to tell whether or not an individual preacher had the intention of stirring up hatred or not. How do you define hatred? If Goggins is being truthful then Christian desires to declare Christ's uniqueness openly and publicly will not be under threat, despite much Christian rhetoric that they are. Much will also depend on the guidance given to the Police and CPS as to how to interpret the law. At the moment I can't see much for Christians to be upset about, or have I missed something?

Sex and worship

Blogging has been slower than I'd like this week because I've now started back at Uni and am fully embarked on my final semester. It's quite a happy time for me and a chance to get back to doing what I really love to do. I was supposed to graduate last year but at Christmas 2004 I got really ill with a virus that kept me sick for six whole months and so I had to drop out of my course. I'm now healthy again and am profoundly thankful to God for the opportunity I have to study once more, it's great :D

Our chapel service next week is on the topic of sex, and we were helping my tutor plan the service appropriately. He's preaching on Ruth chapter 3 but we students were left to choose the songs to worship to. The only snag is that they have to be related to sex, and suffice to say our forebears have not exactly been prolific in producing hymns and choruses that deal with the issue.

So far we're down to open with 'Ode to Joy' but otherwise we're stuck. Can anyone offer any suggestions?

Update: Several people have been blocked from commenting because they used sex-related words that my spam engine blocked :) I've temporarily disabled most of it so if you keep it clean you'll be able to comment ;)