In a story I originally read in a post by Family First which can be found here I decided to look a little closer and so followed the story to the Mail Online here.
While both sources clearly laid out the details of the story, what I sensed lacking, was a clear articulation of how this was not only unfair but quite plainly ludicrous. Just further evidence of a global trend to marginalize the Christian voice and presence whether by force as in the sort of violence seen against Christian minorities and others in ISIS controlled Middle East or by legalese and political correctness as found in Olde Englande as was rightly pointed out by Michael Nazir-Ali, former Bishop of Rochester in a separate development of the story on the same page entitled:
"influenced by his religious beliefs and not by the evidence"
Why should a secular worldview not be put aside for purposes of making judgements with regard to the evidence? Why is it necessarily assumed that a naturalistic view of the world is automatically presupposed to be a more accurate representation of reality?
The secularist who tells the religious to forget his prejudice and look only at the evidence with the same eyes as the secularist is actually asking us to ignore his own blindspot, to ignore the reality not to mention the sheer arrogance of believing his view is the only possible view through which reality can be viewed. Now I use the word arrogance guardedly, because it is only arrogance in so far as his view is merely assumed to be the only correct way to look at the world- evidence and all. It is not arrogance if he has done a thorough job of it. It is not temerity to hold to a worldview that is believed on thoroughly grounded evidence to be the best possible explanation for reality in as far as we are capable of knowing it.
So as far as the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice are concerned, on what epistemological basis is their own wordview grounded? On what evidence do they hold that a philosophical naturalist perspective of reality is superior to a Christian one?
In fact I would take it much further, on a naturalistic basis on what grounds do they even believe in a thing called justice? How can they account for it? If anyone should be asked to be reeducated it should be those who cannot account for even the idea of justice.
I would echo the words of Fyodor Dostoevsky which a Russian speaker assures us he did say through his character in the novel "The Brothers Karamazov"
Without God there can be no moral absolutes, and without moral absolutes there can be nothing but arbitrary human judgement, there can be no such thing as justice in this world or any other."If God does not exist, everything is permitted."