In a landmark case. The High Court of Britain is to look at the issue:

"Are Christians fit to foster care?"

The background to the events is as follows:

HUMAN RIGHTS CONVENTION (Freedom of Religion)

Article 9: Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion.

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

EQUALITY ACT (UK) (sexual orientation) 2006

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equality_Act_%28Sexual_Orientation%29_Regulations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equality_Act_2010
Anti-discrimination law in Great Britain. This was, primarily, the Equal Pay Act 1970, the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, the Race Relations Act 1976, the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and three major statutory instruments protecting discrimination in employment on grounds of religion or belief, sexual orientation and age.

CHRISTIAN FOSTER PARENTS.
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=227553

The issue of course is....when there is a conflict of 'rights'...which rights trump others? and why?

It very much IS a case of religious vs secular rights, which makes me think secular and religious people aren't so compatible to share a society;

But then again, there never WAS such a thing as a "right" that does not infringe upon what someone else considers a "right"- it's a matter for society (via a majority vote) to decide which rights are more important then the other, and to what extent.

Quite frankly, the majority of public should decide this too.

But I for one will be damned if my city (majority NOT catholic and NOT religious) be forced to shoulder World Youth Day by a few crooked oligarchs trying to suck up to the Pope because they, personally, actually ARE catholic.

This is an interesting case, but it's incorrect
to characterise it as being about
"Are Christians fit to foster care?".
Clearly, the case is about whether foster parents
should be allowed to subject potentially homosexual
children in their care to their homophobic
beliefs and attitudes.

Many Christians I know would be quite comfortable
with telling a child in their care that
"it's OK to be homosexual". It seems to be only the
fundamentalists who seek to legitimise their
homophobia by reference to their faith.

this is yet another case of secular fundamentalist wanting to live at ease in their degradation and being threatened by anyone trying to live by any standard of decency.It really is not very surprising. You only have to look at those who are bent on destroying the normal family unit. Soon the fundie secularist will want anyone happily married for over 5 years banned from adopting kids. Thankfully the public are waking up to the demented immoral secular values. They continue to cause many even non religous to send their kids to schools with religious values. Sad but also amusing.

Simply put, there may be cases where a foster family, because of extremist religious beliefs, are deemed unsuitable to raise another person's child even for a short time. What if a potential foster family were apt to using 'the rod' to punish a child into submission as regards religion. What if the biological parents who are incapacitated for a time for whatever reason, do not want their child to come under the influence of radical (or even moderate) religious elements (of any creed). That is their right too. Rights will always involve conflicting points of view and judgements about what is 'best'.

What if a child is gay or will be gay as they develop and their awareness of their sexuality dawns? How will a judgemental religious family cope or accept a child when their religion may encourage them to punish or at worst exorcise their 'demons'.

Secularism protects people from being persecuted for their religous beliefs and ensures there is a separation of State and Church, which works in the interests of all religions.

The fact is most Christians are moderate and many are now accepting that homosexuals should not be demonised as some Churches are still apt to do - that they should be accepted into 'God's Kingdom' as equals and with equal respect and standing. The ugliness of prejudice towards gay people by some religious folk (eg. likening them to pedophiles) is abhorrent and is akin to witch burnings. No civilised society should accept this form of prejudice and abuse towards human beings.

Pedophilia is also abhorrent and has been committed largely by heterosexuals. Religious folk would be better off adopting a 'no tolerance' policy on pedophilia seeking harsher penalties rather than wasting time on prejudice against homosexuals. These are acts of evil people not the act of people whose sexual preference may be different from our own.

I suspect this proposal is to prevent the worst abuses of religious extremism not the moderate touch of the majority of Christian families. Like any other requirement, foster organisations have a duty of care to the child first.

Fascinating case, thanks Boaz for bringing it to our attention.

As has been mentioned, there will often be friction when "rights" are asserted or challenged.

Here we have the "rights" asserted that the child be raised/cared for in an environment that is not threatening to him/her. Against them, the "rights" of the foster parents to raise/care for the child in the manner that suits their lifestyle.

In all such situations, it is far more useful to look at it in isolation, instead of assuming that it is some form of test case, and that the decision will set an unwavering precedent.

The child is represented by the council, whose task - first and foremost - is not to consider any "rights" that the foster parents might assert, but to ensure that the environment is appropriate for the child in their (the council's) care.

The council may have on their books a whole bunch of potential foster parents, Christian or otherwise, who are happy to look after a jewish/muslim/homosexual/bisexual without feeling it necessary to convert them to a different way of life. I expect those are the families that the council prefers.

But when faced with an intractable, "our way or the highway" attitude, they might decide that the placement would be inappropriate.

"'But I said I couldn't do that,' Johns continued, 'because my Christian beliefs won't let me. Morally, I couldn't do that. Spiritually I couldn't do that.'"

It is unfortunate that they are making a "federal case" out of an isolated local incident.

"The implications are huge. It is no exaggeration to say that the future of Christian foster carers and adoptive parents hangs in the balance."

It is, of course, a gross exaggeration.

Most Christians understand the difference between raising their own children in a particular way, and license to impose their beliefs on a child placed in their care.

Those who put the child's interests before their own will continue to foster. Those who consider their rights trump those of the child, won't.

The findings of the court, incidentally, will have no bearing on this at all.