Wednesday, October 24, 2007

Christians told to deny faith to foster

As expected the Labour party's anti-Christian laws have claimed their first victims. See below:

    Vince and Pauline Matherick

    Committed Christian couple, Vince and Pauline Matherick, have been told they will not be reregistered as foster carers following their refusal to sign an Equality policy which forbids discrimination on the grounds of homosexuality. Mr Matherick, a 65 year old minster at South Chard Christian Church and his wife, Pauline, have been fostering since 2001 and have looked after 28 children. Earlier this year they were asked to agree to a new Equality policy which would require them to say that homosexual relationships were equal to heterosexual marriages if asked by a child about such relationships.

    Mr Matherick explained that he and his wife had never discriminated against anybody, but that they would not teach children about the practice of homosexuality because the Bible condemns any kind of sexual practice outside of a marriage relationship.


The Daily Telegraph reports their MP, David Davies (Monmouth) saying:

    "It's absolutely horrendous that Christian men and women doing their bit for the community are being discriminated against because of their beliefs. I'm quite certain that social services would never dare to ask a member of any other established religion to agree to such a stance on homosexuality."


Quite. What is it about Christianity that the Labour party hates so much ?

Update: from CCFN

Council Accepts Christian Foster Parents should not be forced to Promote Homosexuality

Vince and Pauline Matherick, the Christian couple from Chard, Somerset, who last week were at the centre of national media attention when Somerset Social Services ordered them to sign up to a new Equalities Promise saying they would have to agree to facilitate and promote a homosexual lifestyle yesterday won the right to have their personal convictions and conscientious objections recognised.


The couple met yesterday (31 Oct) with Social Services leaders and secured an agreement to this effect. The Mathericks hope now to continue to foster children as before.


Mr and Mrs Matherick are represented by Paul Diamond (Counsel) and Michael Philips (Solicitor).


Andrea Williams comments, 'This is a significant step forward for Christian freedoms in that the Council has agreed not to force Mr and Mrs Matherick to act against their Christian beliefs. This should be of enormous encouragement to all Christians who want to take up the important role of caring for vulnerable children.'


Links


The Daily Telegraph

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/24/nfoster124.xml


The Times

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2727855.ece


The Daily Mail

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=489285&in_page_id=1770


ENDS.


4 comments:

Elliott said...

I'm afraid this is one of those revolutions which happen by accident. Prosecuted by a small group of extremists, the Labour government merely opened the door.

The more people who wake up to this bizarre moral revolution, the better chance we have of denying the extremists their chance.

Letters From A Tory said...

Labour seem to hate most religions, unless there is a political motivation for liking them. I'm not a religious person myself, but these people have a right to stick by their religion when bringing up a child.

Anonymous said...

David Davies is wrong. The guidelines apply to all religions, and atheists too.

Basically, if a child you are fostering shows an interest in a religion, or 'community', then the foster parents should support them in exploring it further. It applies just as much to a religiously curious child with atheist foster parents, although I suspect this aspect doesn't make for good copy in a 'bahhh-humbug!!' right wing newspaper ;)

Man in a Shed said...

I guess there is an issue here as to what the role of foster parents actually is.

But I imagine its important that they have an impact on the child in their care. Under these circumstances laissez faire and religious conviction are both possible courses of action and influence - but they are also both choices.

Part of the point of parenting is transfer ideal, values and maybe faith 9 though I think if that's not through good example - most teenagers will reject it immediately.

In part there nature vs nurture here.

Oddly we have the right in favour of nurture and the left nature. In most other cases its the other way round !