Christians demanding the right to discriminate

(There is some offensive language in this post, used reluctantly in order to illustrate a point)

In much the same way that racists were angered by their children having to go to school alongside ‘niggers’, fundie Christians in the UK are complaining about their god-given right to discriminate being taken away from them. Funny enough, I believe some of nastiest racists from that era used Christianity as a justification, burning crosses being a fairly visible sign of that.

These Christians are trying to derail attempts by the government to pass a bill that would make it illegal to discriminate based on sexual orientation. This would allow homosexuals the same kind of protection that is given based on ethnic origins.

As part of their effort, there has been a nasty smear campaign in the media. This has involved small elements of truth combined with downright lies. One of which is the claim that Christian businesses will be forced to do business with homosexuals, or abominations as their god calls them.

This isn’t true of course, it would simply be illegal for the business to turn them away simply because they are gay. It’s going to work in much the same way that a business cannot refuse your business because you are black.

Christians have complained that their freedom is being infringed upon. Others claim that charities will close rather than be forced to cater for abominations. Any charity that is so discriminatory does not deserve to be in business and this is why I specifically avoid giving to charities that have any Christian connections. Charity must be given to the needy, not just to those that fit a certain moral profile.

“This is unfair that we are forced to do business with women when they are menstruating. This is offensive to our God and to us – they are unclean! I will not allow a menstruating woman in my shop, nor will I have any contact with them. The government is taking away my freedom. If one of them comes in to a Christian shop, the owner is going to have to wash themselves and their clothes afterwards, that is unreasonable!”

This rant is consistent with Christianity. God warned his followers to avoid contact with women who are menstruating, he considers them unclean. See Leviticus 15:19-30. This can’t be disputed, it’s the word of God. Would we tolerate this though?

I think this storm will in the long run benefit the atheist movement. The modern church and most Christians do not really give these arcane laws much thought. By speaking up, these prominent Christians demonstrate how backward and offensive Christianity is.


8 Responses to “Christians demanding the right to discriminate”

  1. Nate Says:

    Interesting article. I don’t want to weigh in with you on the political rights of homosexuals, but just so you know, Christians don’t have to go back to Leviticus to show that homosexuality is wrong. Leviticus is part of the Old Testament, or Old Law, and was therefore binding only to Jews. The New Testament is what applies to Christians today (don’t get me wrong, there are plenty of “Christians” who don’t understand that).

    Either way, the Bible does condemn homosexuality – you’re right about that. Some of the other passages that do so are Matthew 19:1-10, Romans 1:26-27, and 1 Cor 6:9-10. If you’re interested, I recently did a blog about the subject here

  2. Sean Kehoe Says:

    Hi Nate,

    Yeah, Romans is a good example – I should have mentioned that one. Nice write-up you have there. I disagree with the OT being obsolete.

    Whether Christians should obey the laws of the OT is open to interpretation. There are plenty of examples from the NT where Jesus directly invokes an OT law (such as death for unruly children) or references to laws that cannot be changed.

    Some of these examples are open to interpretation but even if a new covenant is created, this doesn’t mean that God has changed his mind regarding homosexuals. Unless the NT were to dramatically rehabilitate homosexuals, “And the Lord spake and he did say sorry lads, I was wrong about them homosexuals, they’re okay in mine eyes now”, we can assume that God still considers them to be abominations. All Good Christians must respect this and likewise make life difficult for homosexuals, perhaps killing them if they get the chance.

  3. Nate Says:

    I totally agree that God still considers homosexuals to be abominations. I don’t think it’s anything personal (I know that sounds pretty funny), but that’s God’s opinion of all sin. Liars and covetous are grouped right in there with them. Christians aren’t supposed to kill sinners – we’re all sinners. Christ preached love and forgiveness – don’t get me wrong, he also preached repentance. So even though he loves us, that doesn’t give us license to live however we want. But he does want all of us to repent and follow him – 2 Pet 3:9

    About the Old Testament. There’s a lot of confusion over this today, even among most “Christians.” But Galatians, Collossians, and especially Hebrews all teach that the purpose of the Old Law had been filled. It was meant solely as a way to teach people who God was and how to serve him, as well as set the stage for Christ. All the sacrifices that were offered in the Old Testament were a symbol of the one Christ would one day offer. The role of the priests in the Old Testament set the stage for Christ’s perfect priesthood. The kings from the line of Judah, set up Christ’s legitimacy to be our “King.” All of those things in the Old Testament were merely to set the stage for what Christ brought.

    It’s a really cool connection, but it takes a while to explain it. I haven’t done a blog about it yet, but I wrote something about it awhile back. If you’d like to check it out, go to and look for the post titled “Old Law vs. New Law.” And if you’re on myspace as well, feel free to join the group or message me. I’d like to hear what you think about it.

    Thanks for your comments.

  4. Nate Says:

    By the way, I can dig out the verses if you want, but Jesus said that his kingdom wasn’t of this earth; therefore, his disciples weren’t to fight…

  5. Sean Kehoe Says:

    I’ll concede that that Jesus does seem to be telling his disciples to either walk off or take one for the team when they encounter hostility.

    I think the point I’m getting at is leading by example. Jesus, with a few notable exceptions, set a good example. Arguably, his appearing to lose his temper at times was a healthy thing in the scripture since it creates a slightly more plausible role model. If people see him as perfect then are two issues.

    1) It’s an impossible role model. Anyone who tries to live up to his example will fail. It’s like trying to write like Shakespeare on your first attempt without ever having to write so much as a shopping list prior to that.

    2) If he was perfect when life was.. well.. too easy for him. A perfect person will be able to go through hell and back (quite literally) and it won’t be a big deal for them.

    The god of the old testament set a pretty poor example, as did his followers. Christianity would probably be a very different religion if the OT had been discarded. Would you say then the the OT is there purely for historical purposes rather than to provide guidance to Christians?

  6. Nate Says:

    The purpose for the Old Testament was both. We’re not under it today, but we can still learn a lot from it, especially about God’s nature.

    What we have to remember is this: according to the Bible, this life doesn’t really matter, especially when compared to eternity. When God told the Israelites to destroy whole nations, that sounds pretty severe to us; and I assume that’s the kind of thing that led you to say “God set a pretty poor example.” But what those commands showed us (and the Israelites at the time) was that God despised sin and would not allow it. Those other nations represented idolatry and heathenism – things that would have led God’s people astray. That’s a very important lesson for us today: remove sin from our lives!

    Again, it seems horrible to us that God would sanction entire nations to be wiped out, but God didn’t view it that way – this life is pretty insignificant when compared to eternity. Plus, it’s not like all those people would have been condemned to Hell. Acts 17:30 tells us that during those times, Gentiles were judged by some sort of moral law. Some of them were saved, even though they couldn’t be part of “God’s Chosen People,” since they weren’t Jews.

    I hope those points are clear. I was trying to fit a whole lot of stuff into just a few sentences. 🙂

    Also, you said if Jesus had been perfect he wouldn’t have been a realistic role model, and life would have been too easy for him. I disagree for a couple of reasons.

    First of all, Jesus HAD to be perfect; that was the whole point. See, in the Old Testament, the Jews were commanded to offer sacrifices, right? And they were told that the sacrifices had to be from the best of their flocks, etc. Hebrews tells us that those sacrifices couldn’t have washed away sin, but they were symbols of the sacrifice that God would send in his son. A perfect sacrifice.

    We’re also told that Christ was tempted in all respects, just like we are, yet he didn’t sin. If he hadn’t lived perfectly, then his death on the cross wouldn’t have been enough to save us all.

    You’re right, we are kind of set up to fail. The Bible even tells us that we all sin and fall short of God’s grace (Romans 3:23). But that’s the beauty of what Christ did. We don’t have to be perfect, because He is.

    By the way, we’re told that anger isn’t necessarily wrong. On the occasions when Jesus was angry and drove the money changers out of the temple, etc, they were the ones who had been wrong, not him.

  7. friendlychristian Says:

    what about your discrimination against christians?

  8. Sean Kehoe Says:

    Hi friendlychristian,

    Can you give me examples where I’ve discriminated? By discrimination, I assume you don’t mean criticism?

    I believe Christians, Muslims and all other god worshipers should have the same rights as any other human. We all have the right to equality and to be treated fairly, but we are also obliged to offer these rights to others. Demanding the right to discriminate on the grounds of religious freedom is nonsensical.

Leave a Reply to Sean Kehoe Cancel reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: