Christians Discriminated Against, Bishops Warn

[Ignitionnet]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8591331.stm

I do actually see their point here. While not a religious man myself if we are to be as accommodating as reasonably possible of other faiths why do we at times seem so unable to accommodate Christianity and find issues suddenly where there previously where none?

It does strike me that there's a very clear disparity. I feel it's symptomatic of the relentless social engineering from one side of the political spectrum, so hopefully reversible when we are provided less authoritarian government.

More here.

[ceedee]

"Social engineering"?
"Authoritarian"?
You've evidently forgotten the fear, prejudice and brutality preached by the Christian church over the centuries!

It's only the out of date, puritanical elements who are desperate to retain their fundamentalist ideas (like their anti-evolutionary US counterparts) against the tide of modern society. They seem to believe that it's their human right to proselytise their religious symbols to the rest of us whenever they fancy.

Get real: wear your 'man-on-a-stick' idol *inside* your shirt and educate your kids *before* the dreadful sex education teachers get a chance!

[Kymmy]

We seems to have gone full circle in 2000 years, I wonder when he start fearing being thrown to the lions???

I don't see any discrimination against Christians.. the cross banning was a blanket ban on all jewellery with star of davids being banned as well

[Russ]

Originally Posted by ceedee

"Social engineering"?
"Authoritarian"?
You've evidently forgotten the fear, prejudice and brutality preached by the Christian church over the centuries!

It's only the out of date, puritanical elements who are desperate to retain their fundamentalist ideas (like their anti-evolutionary US counterparts) against the tide of modern society. They seem to believe that it's their human right to proselytise their religious symbols to the rest of us whenever they fancy.

Get real: wear your 'man-on-a-stick' idol *inside* your shirt and educate your kids *before* the dreadful sex education teachers get a chance!

You seem to be just as narrow-minded and prejudice as the people you appear to despise.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by ceedee

"Social engineering"?
"Authoritarian"?
You've evidently forgotten the fear, prejudice and brutality preached by the Christian church over the centuries!

This would be because I don't care about what happened 'over the centuries', I care about the present and the future as those are what I live in and will live in, and after I shuffle off this mortal coil what my daughter will live in.

Originally Posted by ceedee

It's only the out of date, puritanical elements who are desperate to retain their fundamentalist ideas (like their anti-evolutionary US counterparts) against the tide of modern society. They seem to believe that it's their human right to proselytise their religious symbols to the rest of us whenever they fancy.

Get real: wear your 'man-on-a-stick' idol *inside* your shirt and educate your kids *before* the dreadful sex education teachers get a chance!

I very specifically said I am not a religious man. My issue lies with Christians being discriminated against relative to other religions. I personally could not care less if all religion disappeared tomorrow but what I do care about is that there is at very least a perception to prefer other religions over Christianity. Either equal rights to all of them or no rights at all, either works for me, not having one rule for Christians another for Muslims yet another for Sikhs, another for Jews, etc.

[Xaccers]

Last time I checked, there are 26 CoE bishops in the house of lords who have a full and active roll in the work of the upper house.
So surely if any legislation has gone through discriminating against christians, it's partly the CoE's fault for having incompetent bishops in the lords?

If those at Nicea plotting the future of christianity has any real foresight they'd have invented a scripture stating that christians must wear a symbol of their faith. They didn't, so any such symbol worn is just jewlery rather than a religious requirement so therefore it is not discrimination to have a dress code banning jewlery.

The CoE, like most organised religions, are concerned with bums on seats. Run out of them and you lose your legitimacy of existance.
It's how all religions die.

[Gary L]

I think with the crucifix they probably thought someone would burn to a crisp if they were not of the same religion.
I do believe they are more lenient towards any other religion other than Christianity. the thing that always is used against Christianity is that it's offensive.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Gary L

I think with the crucifix they probably thought someone would burn to a crisp if they were not of the same religion.
I do believe they are more lenient towards any other religion other than Christianity. the thing that always is used against Christianity is that it's offensive.

Pretty sure there was a teacher who was sacked because she refused to remove her veil. She wasn't a christian was she?

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Pretty sure there was a teacher who was sacked because she refused to remove her veil. She wasn't a christian was she?

I don't think she was.

[QUOTE=Xaccers;34989263]
If those at Nicea plotting the future of christianity has any real foresight they'd have invented a scripture stating that christians must wear a symbol of their faith. They didn't, so any such symbol worn is just jewlery rather than a religious requirement so therefore it is not discrimination to have a dress code banning jewlery.QUOTE]



good point ,with most religions i know they have compulsory items of clothing or jewelry but with the christian religion i can't think of anything that has to be worn to symbolise membership of that religion so is not included in any legislation

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Gary L

I don't think she was.

Was sacking her lenient?

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Was sacking her lenient?

No, because it could be anyone hidden under there.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Gary L

No, because it could be anyone hidden under there.

Yes, it could have been Hagrid cunningly hidden by a veil. So tempted to ask if you were suprised when you found out Superman was Clark Kent with his cunning glasses disguise

Anyway, she was sacked because she breached an agreement not to wear it in the class as it would affect her ability to teach the children.

Eitherway, a clear case of not being more lenient to a non-christian, as you've agreed.

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Eitherway, a clear case of not being more lenient to a non-christian, as you've agreed.

Yes. I've agreed to one example where a non-christian didn't have any leniency. and everyone knew and trusted Superman