|
Post by StEtienne on Feb 10, 2012 22:14:36 GMT
Sorry Paddy but English Law is our constitution. We don't have a Bill of Rights but there is a written constitution with all the Acts of Parliament throughout history.
And the very laws that protect religious groups from intolerance seem to be the ones that religious groups don't like, because they also protect other groups that they wish to be intolerant too, e.g. gay people. Sadly there seems to be an unofficial hierarchy where groups pick and choose what is and isn't tolerated.
Religion holds back humankind IMO, not least the belief in an after life...the promise if something better leads people to some awful acts against other humans...
|
|
|
Post by simmo70 on Feb 10, 2012 22:21:38 GMT
Very well put, (saintpaddy)but I don't agree. I don't think this case is about devaluing or removing Christianity, it's about time and place and I feel there are places for people to worship, and I do not believe the place as mentioned on this particular scenario is one of them. Maybe the thing that fills the void left by people not being forced into Christian beliefs is a rationality that could be positive.
|
|
|
Post by channonite on Feb 10, 2012 22:39:03 GMT
Very well put, but I don't agree. I don't think this case is about devaluing or removing Christianity, it's about time and place and I feel there are places for people to worship, and I do not believe the place as mentioned on this particular scenario is one of them. Maybe the thing that fills the void left by people not being forced into Christian beliefs is a rationality that could be positive. Actually, you are right, it is about time and place. The normal workplace is not the time and place, but I am not sure councils come under that heading. I know the arguments about church and state being separate, but this is down to en even simpler level than that. This is one man (albeit being backed by others in no way connected with the council) is imposing his wishes on the rest of the council. At it's simplest level, surely this is wrong and flies in the face of democracy? I think that is what offends me so much, rather than getting into complicated arguments about religion.
|
|
|
Post by saintpaddy on Feb 10, 2012 22:51:31 GMT
And the very laws that protect religious groups from intolerance seem to be the ones that religious groups don't like, because they also protect other groups that they wish to be intolerant too, e.g. gay people. Sadly there seems to be an unofficial hierarchy where groups pick and choose what is and isn't tolerated
Ok Etts as you bring the subject up let us take the Gay movement for an example. I am very concerned when I hear people such as Peter Thatchell state "equality is not enough". What he means by that I have no idea, but it worries me.
I have spoken on this issue with Gays living abroad, not one of them sees anything good in the Equality Act for them. Wrong has been done to Gays over the years but when the law on homosexuality was changed that was fair.
We now have a situation, where Gays can hold whatever opinion they like on Christianity, and voice it. That is fair or reasonable. As far as homosexuality is concerned I am totally neutral. I have never offended or acted against them. In spite of what is claimed I have never heard a sermon against Gays. I have never been told to have an opinion one way or the other. My next door neighbours son is Gay, I have no bother with that.
I do accept that not only in Christianity, but in society as a whole, there are those who are intolerant to Gays. The only way you change that is by education, not law.
One thing I do have a big problem with is Gay adoption. Very selfish people have caused the closure of Catholic adoption agencies. Agencies which councils have used to home the more difficult placements. People with religious beliefs could be found who would take on this challenge. Because of my family break up when I was 2 years old, this subject is close to my heart.
Do you Etts, truly feel that it is ok to replace one set of intolerence with another? Do you really want a society, whereby you examine, every word you utter, either to a Gay or an ethnic minority. Because that is where we are heading.
There is a saying which I believe to be very true and it goes "beware of preventing what you do not want to hear. By doing so you may find that you will not be allowed to hear what you want to".
|
|
|
Post by StEtienne on Feb 10, 2012 23:18:19 GMT
The thing is, it doesn't really effect me. Its sad that there is a need for sections of society to be protected just because of their lifestyle/beliefs. That goes for ethnic, religious, sexual etc.
Education is great but despite that, some will still base their bigoted views on something else. Education isn't enough.
|
|
|
Post by Mandochris on Feb 11, 2012 7:57:02 GMT
France is a secular country in that the Church and the State are separated. No exterior religious symbols may be worn to school for example. This includes crosses round the neck and head scarves - which caused a bit problem a short while ago when some Muslim girls insisted on their "right" and "duty" to wear the scarve. However, France calls itself a Catholic country and is built on Christian/Catholic values. Britain (England?) is built on more tolerant Christian/Protestant values - even if essentially secular. I am not religious and probably on the err on the "anti-religion" side for similar reasons to Crashhot. However, I am with Paddy in my concern that we are on a slippery slope and are in danger of losing some of the powerful values (including tolerance and openness) that hold our society as we try so hard to be open and tolerant.
The "racism" issue in football is an interesting one. Britain has gone so far, much further than others, in its campaign to kick racism out that everyone has to be on their guard at all times what they say - even in gest. Britain can be commended in this but is it the only country to have got it right? Are all the other countries so wrong on this issue?
I don't know the answer but it seems at times to be a caricature.
|
|
|
Post by Furry Frank The Combat Wombat on Feb 11, 2012 8:44:36 GMT
TBH I have a lot of sympathy for Paddy's views here, not because I'm religious, and not because I don't agree with Etts that it does a lot of harm, but because I too am worried about the direction the country is heading from an overall socio-moral-ethical point of view.
However, on to more important things:
1) Clive Bone! 2) let us take the Gay movement
;D
|
|
|
Post by saintpaddy on Feb 11, 2012 9:43:53 GMT
To be honest, what Mado, Jehram and Etts have replied does give me hope. Subjects such as this should be open to debate without fear or favour.
Religion has not been helped by actions from within. Currently I am a christian, without a church, because I have personal problems with the church I was born into. My problem lies with administrators of the church not the beliefs.
However I refuse to be blinded to the great work being done world wide by believers. But bigotry is certainly confined to religion.
|
|