Militant atheism attempts to erase Christian belief
GERARD McCulloch (Letters, October 12) demands an answer. Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights guarantees the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. It is a rational document accepted by reasoned people. Judeo-Christianity has a respectable intellectual history. Its content has been understandable and communicable throughout history. The Bible is a series of testimonies of those who have claimed a relationship with God. New Testament writers were proficient in literature. Paul was more than that, a genius who interpreted the meaning of Jesus for all mankind and provided the structure of social Christianity to this day for the world’s 2.3 billion Christians. Judaism and Christianity have provided the human community with many intellectuals, pioneers, scientists, philosophers, musicians, writers and humanitarians.
Jews and Christians have given thanks to God in adverse circumstances throughout history. The Bible is full of such examples. Jesus suffered and was crucified. Christians today are the most persecuted group in the human community. Belief is the outward description of what is a personal reality for Christians. Communism sought to erase this and failed. Militant atheism tries to do the same today. The LGBT ideology succeeded in subverting Judeo-Christian teaching on human sexuality. It is reasonable and rational to advocate Judeo-Christian standards for human conduct, distinguishing them from those of a micro-minority whose behavior is at odds with the means of generation and continuation of the human race.
Reverend Dr. Robert Anderson,
8 View of Old Auchans, Dundonald.
THAT The Herald should go up to philosophy is welcome (“The court ruling that avoided a kind of half-baked liberalism”, The Herald, October 12). But we must not confine ourselves to liberalism, despite the good start.
The problem in the case of the bakery is the confrontation between, on the one hand, the customer’s right not to be discriminated against because he is homosexual; and, on the other hand, the right of the baker to refuse to perform the act of writing a message on a cake in icing, which expresses a point of view which he despises. This is not a political question, but a moral question.
In the half century that has passed since I read R. M. Hare’s The Language of Morals, I have applied his solution to moral problems daily and have never had difficulty in deciding anything. . The solution was to determine which moral principles were affecting the problem and decide which had arisen: the most important. Act on this basis. It never took more than a few minutes to decide.
No one has the right to demand that a person P, who is addressed for a service, provide it, if P is offended by the message he is required to write. No one can be forced to conform to the beliefs of others that he does not share. “He discriminates against me,” says the client, under the pretext of homophobia. Not so. “You asked him to do something that offends him. He has the right to say: I am not obliged to practice my profession when it goes against my conscience.
There’s even a technical reason for his answer: “I may be unable to perform my task to my usual standards due to the offense caused by the message the client asked me to write.”
Baroness Hale was right. The lower court judges had not read RM Hare. Therein lay their confusion.
23 Argyle Place, Rothesay.