A British Judge Ruled Christianity "has No Legal Standing" was He Right?

A British judge ruled in April that Christian beliefs have no legal standing because they are subjective, lack evidence, and can't be proven.

Lord Justice John Grant McKenzie Laws made the declaration on Thursday, April 29th, in throwing out a defamation suit by Christian relationship counselor who refused to offer sex therapy to gay couples.

The judge said "religious faith is necessarily subjective, being incommunicable by any kind of proof or evidence." He added that to use the law to protect "a position held purely on religious grounds cannot therefore be justified."

There are two equally important aspects to this story.

First, is the idea that a supposed professional can object to providing services to a person based on religious beliefs. No doctor should be able to refuse care to someone, no therapist, no pharmacist, not a trash collector, a carpenter, or salesperson.

If a person is in a profession, they should do business with all comers, professionally. To not do so isn't always illegal, but it always unethical.

The second important part of the story revolves around the idea of just what is acceptable as evidence, and how much evidence should be required to grant legal standing.

The judge is absolutely correct, there is no proof whatsoever for any claim made by the faithful relating to what they profess to believe to be true. Not once has science validated a myth from the Bible. To imagine that any belief system should have rights goes against what should be common sense.

There is indication the ruling may have also been a rebuke to Lord Carey of Clifton, an outspoken fundamentalist and purveyor of the myth of Christian persecution in Britain.

Carey asked for the case to be reviewed by judges "who have a proven sensibility to religious issues ..." and also asked that specific judges "recuse themselves from further adjudication on such matters as they have made clear their lack of knowledge about the Christian faith"

The first thing anyone with wits will tell you about going in front of a judge is that you don't insult the judge. Good move, Lord Carey.

If only courts in America could be persuaded to stand up so firmly against fundamentalist religion pushing itself into the secular realm at every opportunity.

The UK is well on it's way to becoming a society where religion is a quaint thought of the past for the vast majority of people. America isn't there yet, but there are signs of hope. Portland, Oregon, for example, is the only city in America with more strip clubs than churches. But like most of America, the suburbs are dotted with megachurches.

And of course it's not just Christianity - all religion doesn't have a leg of reason to stand on, and therefore cannot be given special protections under the law. People can be free to worship, but if that worship puts them in conflict with acceptable parameters of professional behavior, the law can give no quarter.

Laws are to protect people, property, and common interests. Not mythologies. What people are, not what people are, not what they believe. They can believe as they wish, as long as those beliefs have no bearing whatsoever on people who don't share those beliefs.

Christians rant when they deem another religion getting a benefit they don't have. And they should - but by the same token, they cannot expect those benefits either.