Court Rules That Belief In The BIBLE Is ‘Incompatible With Human Dignity’ — Here’s The 411

Written by Wes Walker on October 4, 2019

For anyone wondering why Trump’s emphasis on religious freedom matters so much, here is a reminder. Not everywhere guarantees such freedom.

In fact, the land that gave us the Magna Carta and whose queen bears the honorific ‘Defender of the Faith’ doesn’t even guarantee that freedom. That freedom has been eclipsed and devoured by the new religious dogmas that have been ushered in by secular humanism. And heresy will not be tolerated.

Seriously, Queen Lizzie’s official title is “Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith”

So… then why not defend it already, Lizzie!

Trending: Antifa Tinkerpots Don’t Want Their Pics Shared – So, Let’s Share Them Far-N-Wide

There was a time, not so very long ago, that the nation understood the core principle from that quote by the Apostles in the book of Acts

So they called them and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus. But Peter and John answered and said to them, “Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you more than to God, you judge. For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard.” So when they had further threatened them, they let them go, finding no way of punishing them, because of the people, since they all glorified God for what had been done.

With that as a backdrop, here is what’s been happening across the pond.

On Tuesday, a British court ruled that belief in the Bible was “incompatible with human dignity.”

That statement came in a case involving Dr. David Mackereth, a devout Christian who had worked as an emergency doctor for the National Health Service for 26 years. He said he was fired from his job because he refused to call a biological man a woman. The court’s ruling stated: “Belief in Genesis 1:27, lack of belief in transgenderism and conscientious objection to transgenderism in our judgment are incompatible with human dignity and conflict with the fundamental rights of others, specifically here, transgender individuals.” The court added. “… in so far as those beliefs form part of his wider faith, his wider faith also does not satisfy the requirement of being worthy of respect in a democratic society, not incompatible with human dignity and not in conflict with the fundamental rights of others.”
Source: DailyWire

Does the judge know so VERY little about human history that ‘hizzoner’ doesn’t even have a clue about how much of our modern notion of human dignity can be traced directly back to the exact verse in scripture that he or she so roundly disparaged as antithetical to fundamental rights?

Mackereth’s supervisor ‘interrogated’ him for his beliefs set up a hypothetical case where a big dude with a beard demanded to be addressed as a chick and when Mackereth gave the ‘wrong’ answer to this hypothetical, he was fired… his 26 years of service be damned.

Would any judge in the Kingdom have had the stones to tell a Muslim that his sincere religious convictions were likewise unworthy of respect in a democratic society, or incompatible with human dignity or the fundamental rights of others?

I think we’ve seen enough evidence from the UK’s systemic failures to prosecute rape or ‘grooming’ gangs on the grounds that they were afraid of being labeled ‘racist’ to know the answer to that question.

Related…

Also Related…

 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please hover over that comment, click the ∨ icon, and mark it as spam. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.