Is that really the case?
For me the recent furore surrounding the appointment of an openly gay minister in the Church of Scotland showed one thing loud and clear.
This is not a point about whether the guy should be a minister or not, at all. That is a seperate discussion. But reading the article I was concerned by the following quote.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission Scotland said it was "delighted" with the result. Spokeswoman Alyson Thomson, said: "The Church of Scotland General Assembly has tonight set out a clear stall - it is a modern church for a modern Scotland.
"The commission is delighted that the church has, as Scott Rennie requested, taken an honest look at itself over the issue of sexuality and decided that the values of fairness, equality, dignity and respect are of more worth than those of ignorance and intolerance. "We are certain that this decision will be welcomed by the majority of Scots and certainly the majority of Queen's Cross parish in Aberdeen who overwhelmingly demonstrated their support for Mr Rennie."
It is interesting that they were called in to pronounce their "blessing" on events. Am I right in thinking that the "moral compass" in this article is an unelected secular government-appointed QUANGO?
Is the traditional evangelical position regarding practicing homosexuality now officially "ignorant and intolerant" in the eyes of government?