Tuesday, 13 October 2009

Open lives - Closed minds?

I was challenged recently, during a series of discussions relating to a young lady who was sacked from her job for posting an email with comments that opposed the position taken by a group who promote homosexuality as a viable Christian lifestyle option, regarding my attitude to such 'anti Christian' acts.

Now, this young lady, having found a website for the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement (LGCM), posted her views that homosexuality and Christian lifestyles were not compatible. What she actually wrote is not known, at least not be me, but I am told by others that she merely sent something 'Biblical' and therefore this is an attack on the Bible.

At first I wondered if she was sacked because she'd broken the rules relating to use of the official email system. But I was told that her use of the email system was within the rules, which rather confused me. If this was so, why was she sacked then? I assumed it was for using the corporate mail system for a personal email and yet I am told this is permitted.

Then I wondered whether what had been sent was considered to be offensive or to contravene something within the Equality and Diversity Regulations of the organisation. Having been an IT Manager I have a fair appreciation of the requirements regarding internet and email abuse. It is an offence to use either for anything that is considered, or appears to be, racist, homophobic, pornographic or anything else that will bring the company in question into disrepute or is otherwise illegal. Breach of any of these conditions is considered to be a 'serious offence' - which means dismissal rather than slapped legs!

Now, in my book, anyone with half an ounce of brain cells and even the minimum of discernment should realise that this is what hotmail, gmail and all the other mail services are there for. I know this because I come across people who are too cowardly to publicly make their statements as themselves who avail themselves of these accounts. Perhaps this is what was needed here (too late of course if it were!).

Having been privy to a few 'instant dismissal' situations where staff  had viewed porn or sent photographs of naked people (including themselves) using the company email or sent racist or otherwise 'negative' material out, or breached confidentiality of clients using the companies I know how this works. Seems to me that the person made a stand and having done it, using the wrong mail account, has (sadly) been the victim of her own folly.

Now my attitude was attacked as being anti-Christian. I was supporting the rejection of the 'Word of God!' My observation here is that if what was written to the LGCM were nothing more than the 'Word of God'  - To whom it may concern. An abomination to the LORD is a man who sleeps with a man as a man with a woman - or something like that then there might be grounds to say that the Bible was being rejected. But the minute I add anything to it, whilst I might be quoting the Bible, it is not the Bible that I am sending them. It is my writings with a Biblical extract included (see a few posts back regarding quoting, context and prooftexting)!

This is not a rejection of the Bible as I understand it. It is a rejection of a perceived (and by reason of Scripture, Tradition and Reason) Biblical standard which must therefore be considered 'orthodox' by its very nature. So for those who would seek to make mischief by stirring the 'Rejecting the Bible' route I have to resist and reject your argument and consign it to the CV (that well known purveyor of exciting misrepresentation and rabble-rousing) bin!

What is sad is that this email appears to have been sent to an email address that invites 'your views on homosexuality' or the like. Our now unemployed lady saw this and complied with the request. She sent here views that what the group support was, in her views (and supported by the Bible) not a right lifestyle choice for Christians. Now having done so it appears a little churlish and rather unchristian for the person asking for views to then complain that they got them. This is where (apparently) the Revd. Sharon Ferguson, the Chief Executive of the LGCM, steps up to the plate for it was she who made the complaint to the council which resulted in the sacking.

Seems to me that what we are looking at now goes something like this:

1. If you don't want to know - don't ask.
But ask she did and having got an answer that she didn't like it appears that rather than act like a grown-up and merely consign the view to the bin and move on, our hapless heroine decided to act and retaliate. Unless the comments contained elements like, "I know where you live and I'm coming round to get you," her actions here appear to be neither grown-up nor Christian.

2. If you ask and get what you don't like- then enter into reasoned debate, defending your position and/or correcting the 'error' on the part of the other person.
That there was apparently none of this leave me to assume that the position under consideration was not defensible and therefore the only route open was to attack the person sending the comments. Ad hominem par excellence I guess - a shiny example to us all of fair and open-handed debate.

3. If you wish to act against the person then do so in a way that demonstrates something right and noble in the cause you support and the claim to be Christian.
Strike three - you're out (or should that be 'outed' in this case?). Paul (the Apostle not my plumber mate) tells us that when we see someone ' in error' that we 'being spiritual' should 'restore them gently'. Don't see none of that here. In fact I see petty, bitter and totally unchristian response to whatever was sent (what me Mum used to call 'malice aforethought'). Seems to me that if anyone was looking to promote the LGCM in a negative light or was looking to help others to have doubts about this organisation and its views the prize belongs within the organisation rather than within Lewisham Council and this young lady (or rather thanks to the dismissal - not!)

Funny how people who claim to be liberal are usually the ones with the closed minds isn't it?

Hey Ho - by their fruits will you know them!

No comments: