MEMBERS of the Scottish National Union of Students are attempting to ban a Christian course on relationships from taking place on university and college campuses.
At tomorrow's (26 May) Annual Meeting of the Scottish NUS in Glasgow,
a Private Members Motion calls on delegates to pass a resolution
banning the Pure Course on the basis that it is homophobic.
The course, run by Christian Unions, is based on the orthodox
Christian teachings concerning marriage, and teaches the importance of
fidelity in relationships. It has been run on campuses throughout
Scotland over the past 18 months. The Pure course was suspended from
being taught on campus by Edinburgh University at the end of last year
following claims by the Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Trans-gendered
Society that it was discriminatory and breached Equal Opportunities
Policies. However, the University, after examining the course, allowed
the CU to continue to teach it on campus, rejecting the claims.
The NUS motion to be debated claims: "The pure course is a
homophobic course that denounces homosexuality as 'sexually immoral',
supports the suppression and 'healing' of homosexuality, and advises
students with 'same sex impulses' to consult homophobic literature to
attempt to cure them of their homosexual tendencies."
However, Anna Shilliday, a Christian who supports the right of
Christian students to meet and discuss the Bible's teaching on
relationships, in the same way she defends the rights of all students
including gay groups to hold seminars based on their beliefs, will
speak against the motion on two grounds.
Miss Shilliday
will tell delegates that approving such an amendment will make a
"laughing stock" of the way NUS Conference resolutions are made, and
that the claims of the motion are groundless.
In her
speech she will say: "The Motion calls for a ban on the Pure course,
but there has been no official opportunity for delegates to hear
proper representation from UCCF, or the course writers, or presenters.
This makes a mockery of quality debate, and is an insult to those of
us being asked to vote on it. It invalidates any serious attempt we
may wish for Conference decisions to be taken seriously by the outside
world.
"Delegates are being asked to ban something they
have never seen, read or in some cases, ever heard of. This is
nonsense. As undergraduates or post graduates, we are taught, and
pride ourselves, in research, examining the evidence, reflecting and
then forming sound judgements and opinions based on careful analysis.
Where is the evidence from both sides to this motion?
"Conference, voting on this motion without each of us having at
least read the materials encourages us to be as prejudicial and
intolerant of the Pure course as this motion claims the Pure course is
of our friends and fellow colleagues who are homosexuals."
Miss Shilliday will tell fellow students that the Lesbian Gay
Bisexual and Transgender societies in Aberdeen and Glasgow have very
good relationships with the Christian Unions and the Pure course has
been run in both these universities, without problems, despite holding
disagreements."
Kay Cathcart, UCCF staff worker for
Edinburgh CUs, said: "The purpose of the Pure course is to help
Christian Union members develop a biblical perspective on their
relationships. It is about living out relationships in the light of
God's love, forgiveness and design. God values us all as people made
in his image and it is in response to our relationship with him that
Christians choose not to satisfy their sexual desires outside of
marriage, whether in a heterosexual or homosexual context. Refraining
from acting on some of our sexual desires is a good and normal part of
human experience. None of this promotes homophobia.
"The
Pure course is not a 'healing' course for homosexuality. If someone on
the course recognised strong feelings of same-sex attraction and
requested guidance, we would encourage them to contact the True
Freedom Trust, which would empathise and help them to work out what
they actually want to do.
Miss Shilliday will advise
conference that the allegations of homophobia could easily have been
refuted if UCCF/Pure course leaders had been allowed representation.
what is the difference between 'homophobic" or "Christianophobic"?