International

* SOUTH DAKOTA LAW GOES INTO EFFECT: WOMEN MUST BE TOLD THEY ARE "TERMINATING THE LIFE OF A WHOLE, SEPARATE, UNIQUE, LIVING HUMAN BEING"
* FAITH GROUPS CAN’T DO SOCIAL WORK IF THEY EVANGELISE
* STATE TO BANKROLL MUSLIM THINKERS
* SEX EDUCATION PLANS ‘SIDELINE’ PARENTS
* CHRISTIAN REGISTRAR WHO REFUSED TO CONDUCT GAY WEDDINGS WINS CASE

* SOUTH DAKOTA LAW GOES INTO EFFECT: WOMEN MUST BE TOLD THEY ARE "TERMINATING THE LIFE OF A WHOLE, SEPARATE, UNIQUE, LIVING HUMAN BEING" - This month, a law mandating that South Dakota's physicians tell all women seeking an abortion that they are "terminating the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being" went into effect.

Though the state law was passed in 2005, Planned Parenthood successfully challenged the legislation in the courts, causing a preliminary injunction to be established that prevented the law from being put into effect.

That injunction, however, expired on Friday, 18 July, and now all physicians performing abortions at the Planned Parenthood clinic in Sioux Falls - the state's only acknowledged abortuary - must present the client with the specific language as it has been formulated by law. A woman must certify in writing that she understands no earlier than two hours before the procedure is conducted.

The law also mandates that a woman who seeks an abortion must be told that she is willingly putting herself at a higher risk of suicide and depression and that in choosing to end the life of her child she is terminating an 'existing relationship' that is protected by the US constitution and that her "existing constitutional rights with regards to that relationship will be terminated."

Another related law took effect on July 1, requiring doctors in South Dakota to ask a woman seeking an abortion if she wants to see a sonogram of her baby.

About 700 abortions are performed in South Dakota each year.

Although 32 states have informed consent regulations, South Dakota is the only state that includes the reference to an unborn baby as "a whole, separate, unique, living human being."
(LifeSiteNews, 22 Jul 2008) (to index)

* FAITH GROUPS CAN’T DO SOCIAL WORK IF THEY EVANGELISE – "Christian groups should be used in providing public services as long as they promise not to share the gospel," says Communities Secretary Hazel Blears.

In a White Paper entitled ‘Communities in control: real people, real power’, Mrs Blears outlines Government plans to commission services from faith-based groups.
However, during a Commons debate on the issue, Mrs Blears said that this will come with strings attached.

She acknowledged in the debate that "many people are motivated by faith of all kinds to do great acts of social good".
"However," she continued, "I am concerned to ensure that if faith groups become involved, they do so on a proper footing – not by evangelising or proselytising, but by providing services in a non-discriminatory way to the whole community".

Mrs Blears said that she planned to draft a charter for Christian groups along the lines of the one provided by Faithworks for churches and Christian agencies providing community services.

The charter requires groups to pledge to provide "an inclusive service to our community" in a number of ways. One of these is: "Never imposing our Christian faith or belief on others."

There have been cases of Christian groups being denied funding for the services they provide because they refuse to compromise on their ethos.
In 2005, one Christian-run shelter for the homeless was threatened with the loss of £150,000 of funding unless it stopped saying grace at mealtimes and putting Bibles out for use by guests.

Teen Challenge UK, an organisation in Wales that helps drug addicts, had £700,000 of funding withdrawn. During a debate in the House of Commons, Bob Spink MP said: "The organisation’s grant was removed essentially because it has Christian roots and is run by Christians." The Welsh Assembly denies that this was the reason.

Caring for Life, a Christian group providing help for homeless and vulnerable people, has also had problems accessing funding.
(The Christian Institute, 16 July 2008) (to index)

* STATE TO BANKROLL MUSLIM THINKERS - The Government is to fund a council of Muslim theologians to make rulings on controversial elements of Islamic doctrine.
The plans have been criticised by figures in the Muslim community who say that a state-sponsored commission will lack credibility with Muslims.

Communities Secretary Hazel Blears said that the idea was intended to tackle Muslim extremism, and was the result of discussions with Muslims.
She also said that although the Government would fund the discussions, they would be overseen by Oxford and Cambridge Universities, not by Ministers.

But Dr Azzam Tamimi of the Institute of Islamic Political Thought told the BBC’s Today programme: "Usually Muslims are suspicious of government-sponsored or government-organised commissions and this is a problem we’ve been having in Muslim countries, where there is no freedom, where governments intervene in the religious affairs of people."

He added: "Credibility is something that people decide, not governments. The government actually erodes the credibility of people by naming them as members of such government-appointed commissions."

Colin Hart, Director of The Christian Institute, said: "If Muslim scholars want to get together to support democratic values that’s fine. Involving the Government is another matter.
"Surely the extremists the Government wants to stop will not be influenced by this initiative, precisely because the Government are funding it.
"It is right for the Government to enforce the law and to promote democratic values. But when it comes to directly influencing the theological beliefs of a religion (however desirable it may be to do this) many people will have concerns about religious freedom."
(The Christian Institute, 18 July 2008) (to index)

* SEX EDUCATION PLANS ‘SIDELINE’ PARENTS - Calls for compulsory in-depth Sex and Relationships Education (SRE) at school threaten to "take parents out of the driving seat", campaigners say.

The criticism came as the Teenage Pregnancy Independent Advisory Group (TPIAG), which is responsible for advising the Government on its teenage pregnancy strategy, published its latest recommendations.
The TPIAG’s report says that all schools, including faith schools, should be required to "teach all aspects of SRE within the context of relationships in an anti-discriminatory way".
The report adds: "Contraception, abortion and homosexuality are all legal in this country and therefore all children and young people should be able to learn the correct facts".
It also says that current broadcasting rules ensuring that condoms are not advertised before nine o’clock, when they are likely to be seen by children, are "restrictive and outdated".

It says that television adverts containing "positive sexual health messages including the advertising of condoms" should be shown before the watershed.

The Government recently launched a review of sex education which is expected to report soon. According to its ‘SRE & Parents’ leaflet, schools can currently decide what sex education to provide beyond the compulsory minimum, and must involve parents in developing their policies. Parents can withdraw their children if they want to.

But groups such as the FPA (formerly known as the Family Planning Association) and Brook say that comprehensive, mandatory sex education should begin with children as young as four years old.

Ministers have insisted that advice and information will be available to parents to help them stay informed of what their children are learning at school.
However, Norman Wells of Family and Youth Concern warned that parents would simply be forced to comply with whatever the Government decides their children should be taught.

"This is really all about taking parents out of the driving seat and putting the state in their place," he said.

He added: "The teenage pregnancy strategy, with its reliance on sex education and confidential contraception services, has failed.
"To see the Independent Advisory Group persisting in its calls for yet more of the same calls to mind Einstein’s definition of insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
"The last thing children need is to see condoms advertised on daytime television."
"As many have found to their cost, the effectiveness of condoms is limited and they offer very little protection at all against some infections.
"The real need is not to normalise condom use, but to normalise keeping sex within a faithful and life-long marriage."
(The Christian Institute, 17 July 2008) (to index)

* CHRISTIAN REGISTRAR WHO REFUSED TO CONDUCT GAY WEDDINGS WINS CASE - A Christian registrar who refused to carry out gay weddings because they were "sinful" has won a landmark discrimination battle and hailed her triumph as a victory for religious liberty.

Lillian Ladele, 47, can expect a large payout from Islington Council after she was bullied and threatened with the sack for asking to avoid civil partnerships because of her deeply-held religious beliefs.
When she said she could not reconcile her faith with the union of gay men and women, she was treated like a "pariah" and the council showed no respect for her rights as a Christian, the tribunal found.

The ruling that employees should not be required to act against their consciences has implications for the 18,000 same-sex ceremonies conducted nationwide each year and could encourage other registrars with strong religious beliefs to take a similar stance.

Council officials had insisted it would send out the wrong message if Miss Ladele was exempted and her claim had outraged gay rights groups.

But the Central London Employment Tribunal upheld Miss Ladele's claims of discrimination, harassment and victimisation on the grounds of religion or beliefs.

The panel said: "Islington Council rightly considered the importance of the right of the gay community not to be discriminated against but did not consider the right of Miss Ladele as a member of a religious group."
"It decided that the service it provided was secular and that the rights of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual community must be protected.
"In so acting, Islington Council took no notice of the rights of Miss Ladele by virtue of her orthodox Christian beliefs."

The tribunal said the council's failure to take her concerns seriously and the decision to give her an ultimatum between her faith and her £31,000-a-year job was "a violation of Miss Ladele's dignity and created an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment".

It also noted that the council had admitted they could provide a "first class service" without Miss Ladele carrying out civil partnership ceremonies and that she had a good work record when dealing with gay men and women.

After the ruling, Miss Ladele spoke of her relief: "I am delighted with the decision. It is a victory for religious liberty, not just for myself but for others in a similar position to mine.
"Gay rights should not be used as an excuse to bully or harass people over their religious beliefs." (Telegraph.co.uk, 21 July 2008) (to index)