When religion conflicts with rights

Due to their efforts if secular ’rightists’ over the last 2 generations in seeing off Christianity, we now have no sense as a nation of culture, heritage, identity or continuity. We seek to reinvent 'Britishness' every ten years or so.
We don't believe in anything apart from ‘rights’, we are morally defunct and directionless. Secular humanism has emasculated family life, indulged selfish rainbow lifestyles, corrupted our children, made education pointless and ineffective and infantilised our men.
We are truly the 'Have I got News for You" and "Mock the Week" society. Nothing is truly valued that should be valued.
We feel we should have had something to offer that prefigured the arrival of Islam here, but we don't know what it was.
Just in case you need telling, it was Christianity.
Christianity is unashamedly regarded as something ridiculous and which should be marginalised and not taken seriously. Hence the two generations of 'comedy' caricatures from "All Gas and Gaiters" to "The Vicar of Dibley". The intention is to get Christianity out of the public sphere and into its privatised 'box'. At the same time education and family life and the moral socialisation of two generations have been ruined by secular and humanist experiments.
Along comes Islam filling this awful moral and ethical vacuum, probably encouraged by New Labour.
This faith doesn't comprehend being put back into its 'box'.
And what happens? Christianity is used consciously or unknowingly as the proxy for the fears of secularists of Islam. So bishops, vicars and lay people get continuously pilloried as hypocrites while political correctness and fear accommodates Islam.
It was a plan of secularists and the left to water down our Christian base and cut us adrift from our historical moorings. Removal of those conservative instincts and identity would stop us forever voting conservative or using religion as a reference point for social policy.
Well, it didn't work like that. With those immigrants came not just culture but religion of a far more essential variety. Islam particularly was something that gave countless immigrants identity and respect in a humanist and immoral society they didn't want.
You couldn't write a more ironic script.

Couldn't agree more, hope. Europe is dying, both metaphorically and literally. The secularists talk a big noise about 'inclusivity' and respect for other cultures, but all they see in Turkey, for example, is 70 million people they can use to replenish the collapsing birth rates in this secular paradise, a birth rate that is collapsing because to the population of Europe, the universe begins at one eardrum and ends at the other. There is no concept of country, society, neighbourhood or even family. Everything is me, myself, my rights. And why wouldn't it be? The idea of anything bigger than the self is laughed out of the public forum by those who control it, but sooner or later the chickens are coming home to roost. It has been said that the current Pope is of the opinion that Catholics should begin withdrawing now into the monestaries and convents in preparation for the new Dark Age that is coming; if he is, I would be in agreement with him on that. Once secularism has destroyed this continent we will need somewhere to begin rebuilding. Other Christians should think about doing the same.

Thank Zeus that people who "think" like hopeforhappiness are in an ever decreasing minority.

You sure of that, flibbly? Because from where I'm sitting, the whole of Europe is an ever decreasing minority.

Casur1 and hopeforhappiness,

It's dreadful isn't it? This society of ours with monstrously high crime rates, increasing levels of intolerance and hatred, the large numbers of people in abject poverty and facing starvation, a complete lack of security and no opportunities for future generations. Don't forget the complete suppression of free speech, inability to participate in government and total censorship of the media.

Compare that to other, more enlightened, societies with high levels of religous adherance and birth rates where they're so much better off than ourselves.

Oh yes, this dreadful rise in secularism and equality. Absolutely dreadful.

Natman,

I agree with you. This country is still much much better than those countries which have provided the bulk of our immigration over the last 3 generations. But our government has sort to solve the problem of pensions and an increasingly disfunctional indigenous working class by importing people with a better work ethic, often better educated in the basics, and stronger family values. We threw out or rather despised what was really good about Britain - our protestant work-ethic and strong sense of individual responsibility for a destructive maelstrom of 'rights-demands' where those who can play the system get the legislation that benefits their life-style.
And all done with asking us.
And in a way it's not about the better moral behaviour of those new immigrants. It's about the markers they (especially Muslims) have laid down in areas where our secular democracy has been fractured. (family values, fatherhood, teenage sex, banking, alcoholism)

Listening to the Moral Maze tonight a person would be forgiven for thinking that it was Martin Hall and Steven Preddy who were found guilty of breaking the law and who had to pay compensation!

People who run guest houses should not be excluded from the law of the land simply because of their religion. Claire Fox said that she would support the right of guest house owners to hang signs outside their homes bearing racist or sexist epithets - what about sectarian ones!

The narrative that the pendulum has swung too far in favour of secularists did not hold up. If a guest house owner excluded someone because he was a Christian the law would be applied with equal rigour. Christians need to bear in mind the recent words of Lord Justice Laws:

"The general law may of course protect a particular social or moral position which is espoused by Christianity, not because of its religious imprimatur, but on the footing that in reason its merits commend themselves."

It is the loss of privilege that upsets many Christians who firmly believe that others should follow the dogma of their sky fairy.

It has been said that the current Pope is of the opinion that Catholics should begin withdrawing now into the monestaries and convents in preparation for the new Dark Age that is coming; if he is, I would be in agreement with him on that.

Don't let us stop you.

hopeforhappiness,

Do you not accept that people should all have equal rights and be treated equally under the law? or do you think that Christians should have rights and everyone else only has the right to follow a christian lifestyle?

What is a selfish rainbow lifestyle, is it code for something?

If you characterise an up and coming dark age by rising secularism and human rights with freedom to personal morality instead of an imposed conservative morality then I welcome it, all christianity seems to have done is persecute people it doesn't like (foreigners, slaves, the disabled, women and sexualities which they have but don't want).

On the actual topic it will be no surprise that I agree with the judgement and also agree that the correct balance was drawn between the qualified rights of christians and a Civil Partnered couple. The right to express a religious belief does not allow someone to break the law, for example a religious person whose religion called on him to be polygamous would still be done for bigamy no matter what he believed.

The Bulls had complete freedom to act within their religion, the law and their conscience. They chose to break the law because they said their conscience demanded it, they also had a choice to close their business when they realised they could not comply with the law. I have to say, given the financial state of their business, they should have closed long ago anyway as they have been losing money since before this even started.

This situation is not unusual and other people have acted on conscience against laws in the past and taken the consequences. Oscar Wilde and Alan Turing are two famous examples who broke the law when they felt it infringed on their right to a private life. Both new the consequences if caught but did so any way. Wilde was imprisoned, Turing sacked, put under a house arrest and committed suicide. The Bulls have got off lightly but then secular punishments have a habit of being more humane than religious ones.

I have to say I have done the same and broken the same law, luckily I didn't get caught and the punishments were lesser anyway (I can't be done for it now so I can say this). This is my only similarity with the two gentlemen as I can't write for toffee and, although a good Sudoku player, do not even come close to Turing's mathematical genius.

Casur, Societies that are emulated don't die. Ancient Greece & Rome still soldier on through our modern society and I must say Im surprised with everyones fascination with the dangers of Islam. China is a powerhouse. Does it look to the Middle East to emulate? No. Are the middle classes in China emulating Arabic dress and custom? No. It's Europe China emulates with luxury goods, tastes, wine and religion. It's christianity that's being reflected in modern chinese society, so I wouldn't sound Europes death knell yet. Religious extremism isn't condusive to trade and social stability. Not many buy into the idea of a new Dark Age and if we did, it would be because people like the Pope are too weak of mind. He sees Islam as a threat and thinks we should re-calibrate our society to mirror its medieval attitudes. Nice going

The travesty of the gospel of Christ which has passed for Christianity in Europe since the middle ages is crumbling - hooray! The incorporation of a subversive and revolutionary philosophy into an exploitative and oppressive domination system must surely be one of the greatest ironies, and greatest tragedies, of history.

The disintegration of the institutional church gives Christians an opportunity to meet with the real Jesus; the rejection of arbitrary proscription in favour rational debate about morality is leading to a freer and, ultimately, a happier and more accepting society; the exposure of the self-indulgent hypocrisy which has consistently characterised the lives of the Western ruling elites is surely an opportunity, were it seized, to overturn the hereditary privilege which corrupts the very fabric of British life.

The lost British identity which hopeforhappiness laments was nothing but a whited shell concealing a stinking mess of the quasi-totality of human foulness. To be proud of being British requires either a scarcely credible degree of imbecility or an inordinate capacity for denial.

This liberal Christian thinks modern Britain is in just about every conceivable way an improvement on what went before with, of-course, way yet to go.

If I may comment about the rise of Muslim fundamentalism, let me do so with regard to Baroness Warsi: if you were supping chez Parrhasios Islamophobia is not merely acceptable it is practically de rigeur.

I agree with Dave broadly about the Bull case. Society has a right to require that people offering goods or services for reward do so in a fair, honest, and non-discriminatory manner. The state has exercised that right through Parliament and legislated accordingly. The Bulls were operating a commercial enterprise, a consideration which makes their home into business premises - the law concerning non-discrimination in business is clear, they chose to break it. The consequences were both fair and just. The level of discrimination against gay people in British society has been such that stringent corrective action must be taken to redress the balance.

The gay couple have the right to fair access to commercial provision, the 'Christian' couple have the right to cease to trade as hoteliers if they cannot in conscience comply with the law. They are not being forced to provide accommodation to homosexual guests nor indeed are they being prevented from running a different business - boarding kennels suggests itself to me as a potential non-contentious alternative.

Quite right Hope old chap, things haven't been the same since we lost the Empire. Bloody foreigners and godless heathens, praise the lord and pass the ammunition!

Hopeforhappiness, RE:
We are truly the 'Have I got News for You" and "Mock the Week" society. Nothing is truly valued that should be valued.

You will find me decidedly in agreement with you here, though perhaps for different reasons. What sort of things are there that should be valued? Well, that's the question. The glory of God is one answer. Happiness is another. I have something of a personal like of the idea of Flourishing, and bringing about a world of aesthetic depth and breadth.

The problem, I think, is that the practicalities of our own survival by-and-large supplant these in our estimations. At the base level of it, humans are animals, and not really as spiritual as we would like to think. We're weak, needy creatures that only flourish in environments conducive to our development.

I think there's much to be said for the idea of strength of will. In overcoming these base desires and turning them to our own ends, we can do so much more than in allowing ourselves to become slaves to them. In the modern age, we seem to be slipping backwards in that regard. Religion is one way of combatting this. On the other hand, maybe all we need is a general sense of purpose, responsibility and constructiveness.

If you offer a service to the public, and especially if you expect to get paid for it, you cannot discriminate on any grounds, save issues of legality due to the various ages of consent (although watching a 17 year old suing a pub for age discrimination would be amusing).

I am of the opinion that it was less to do with their religous beliefs being offended and more a prudish, Victorian attitude to sex that is (relatively speaking) a recent creation. I'm sure they have no problem offering a double room to non-Christians who harbour opinions that they'd find offensive to their religion, but for some reason sex, and the choice of partner involved, triggers their sensibilities more?

It's telling that as a society we view sex (which is something the vast majority of the population do and something every adult has to accept as being present) with such a reserved attitude. It's a perfectly natural activity that is crucial for the survival of the species and on top of that it's fun and nobody's business what goes on between consenting adults.

I blame the various patriarchal and religously inspired leaders over the centuries, who have made us all assume that because it's such fun, it must be 'wrong'. I also blame our genes, which have made the drive to propagate our own genetic code such a strong driving force in our pysche that it can, if left unchecked, dominate our thinking.

tl;dr summary - sex and religion. When you get down to it, that's the story of human existance.

One of the most brilliant ploys of those who control our country - (the real wielders of power, not the politicians) has been to turn the poor against the poor.

As we can see with some of the posts above, they have actually CONVINCED huge sections of society that the enemy is secularism. (Not long ago it was Communism.)

We have lost our family values, no one listens to the church any more, the unemployed dont want to work, people are only bothered about their rights these days, etc...

They have been CONVINCED very effectively and blinded to the fact that a small group of people, who dont give a damn about society, have stolen billions from that society, have attempted to crush communities, made millions of lives miserable, have turned people - quite deliberately - against each other and have hopped off to the bank, laughing at how easily they have been able to do it.

A friend of mine just lost his business and everything in it. He was visiting me and we were having a coffee when the News came on showing the student riots in London. He became very animated, called the students for everything and expressed the desire that every single one of them should be locked up. "Those are the people who are destroying our society!" he fumed.

Quite astonishing.

@hopeforhappiness @Casur1,

Offered a choice of your Dark age and an age where the effects of christianity are Vigilantes and OT Punishment I know which I think is a better society.

How much are the effects of christian missionaries reported to the congregations in the UK or do they just see the 'positive' effects and not the horrific realities of evangelism.

To me it is not just the subject of the report which is sickening, but the chilling views (stoked by Scott Lively and the Abiding Truth Ministries amongst others (some for UK)) of some of the media in Uganda

Surely what matters here is not whether the law is upheld or not but what the law is based on. This law is based on the idea that you cannot hurt and humiliate other people on the grounds of their sexuality by discrimminating against them if you run a business.ie You cannot abuse their human rights. That seems to me to be a very good basis on which to run a society or a business.
I would ask any sincere Christian, how are your beliefs harmed if somebody else does something that you believe is wrong on your business premises? Remember they are doing it in the privacy of their hotel room, and if your weird beliefs are true then they will suffer in the long run while you will remain true to your God. Who loses?

From daily contact I would say that the standards and behaviour of the non religious is far better than the religious. I do not consider that the Organised Religions hold any kind of moral high ground and there is no proof that any doctrine or any book has divine origins. If you are going to tell me that is why they are called Faiths then I would agree but that does not seem to be a justification for trying to impose their superstitions and suppositions on others. I consider The Organised Religions, by their doctrines, to be the most discriminatory organisations, against other religions and the non religious, in the world.I think morality is an evolutionary trait and that religion perverts into a lower standard. I do not see any reason to adopt the second best standards of the Organised Religions. Having said that I think there is a debate about the acceptability of publicly displayed homosexual behaviour to be had out side of the invented fantasy of religion. Sexuality may be inborn, and I would not like to see a return to the legal persecution of 50 years ago, but so are all sorts of human characteristics and some are and some are not acceptable.

Publicly displayed homosexual behaviour should be accepted at exactly the same level as publicly displayed heterosexual behaviour. Isnt that what this debate is all about?

Casur1, I'm sure the pope is gleefully rubbing his hands in glee at the thought of a new Dark Age. After all, the Catholic Church ruled supreme during the last Dark Ages, in a reign of terror that involved endless inquisitions, pogroms, witch hunts and crusades.

Let's also not forget that the blessed Catholic Church was partly responsible for the destruction of classical civilization that brought it about in the first place, with its zealous destruction of temples, libraries, and academies and it's systematic proscription and persecution of any form of philosophy, learning or religion other than the Bible.

I agree with Romejellybeen and post 18, when Freedomknight says "From daily contact I would say that the standards and behaviour of the non religious is far better than the religious"

It's religious standards that have slipped.

Catholics are given a Pope who was once a Nazi and whorehabilitated a holocaust denier in 2009(just to keep pressing home the issue , not all German youth Ratzingers aged joined the Nazi's, some were of stronger mind and will.)

In Iran you have religious extremism putting teenage boys to death for daring to share intimacy and affection with someone of the same sex

In Pakistan you have religious extremism & society lauding an assassin & celebrating the death of a moderate.

In America you have the Westboro Baptist Church of Hate picketing funerals. Even picketing the funeral of the little girl killed in the recent shooting rampage in Phoenix.
Quote "Fred Phelps, in an offensive press release you may not want to read in full, announced Sunday he will bring his tiny band of followers, fresh from last month’s Elizabeth Edwards funeral, to this wounded city because, “That’s how God the avenger rolls,” he says.

Phelps’s video is headlined “God sent the shooter.”


People use religion & holy books to uphold their sick and destructive prejudices. Luckily in the case of Martyn Hall and his civil partner Steven Preddy , the law rises above this discrimination, which is no different from having a sign up at their B&B saying NO Blacks, NO Jews, NO Irish, NO Dogs

3. At 8:04pm on 26 Jan 2011, flibbly wrote:
"Thank Zeus that people who "think" like hopeforhappiness are in an ever decreasing minority."

Zeus or no, conservative Christians, Jews & Moslems as a whole have larger families, therefore I would see them as an ever increasing majority.

RJB, #19,

It'l not surprise you to know I agree with you, It is amazing that people can have a really good night out, everyone having fun and a few drinks, but let your guard down and actually touch your partner, or even give him a peck on the cheek and in straight world all hell breaks loose.

Straight people always ask why we have to have gay bars, well that's your answer.

Ryan (@ 21) -

I tend to agree with the sentiments you have expressed in this post, and I am glad that you appear to have clarified that... "People use religion & holy books to uphold their sick and destructive prejudices" (my emphasis on the word 'use', by which I assume you mean 'exploit').

The issue I have (and I am not saying that it is an issue with you in particular, but more with certain other contributors) is that I fail to see how a 'belief that reality is ultimately mindless and purposeless' could possibly be the antidote to the outrages you listed. Phelps' idiocy, for example, is what any sane person would term 'mindless'. How then can a philosophy of 'mindlessness' be the antidote to such vile actions? But, would you believe it, there are those who seem to be suggesting that these outrages are examples of a certain view of reality, the chief defect of which is 'the belief in an intelligent creator'.

I'm afraid I just can't see the connection between 'belief in an intelligent, just and compassionate creator' and the actions you have listed. Just because some deranged people use the name of God to commit evil, this tells us nothing about 'belief in God' per se. I am someone who fervently believes in God, but I don't find in myself an unquenchable urge to picket funerals, condemn gays, or, in fact, condemn anyone at all.

But isn't it strange how when an issue like the Christian hotel saga comes up, there are certain contributors who use the opportunity to make sweeping statements about 'religion', when, in fact, this is only partially relevant? Yes, the hotel owners turned away the gay couple on the basis of 'religious conviction', but it was on the basis of their particular religious conviction. There are other Christians, for example, who would have had no problem with the gay couple staying at their establishment. But who bothers to talk about them?!?

And when 'religious' people have differences of opinion, there are those who then argue that this diversity among 'religious' people somehow invalidates 'belief in God' itself - hence all the 'Zeus and Shiva' rubbish that we read about on other threads. Of course, if atheists disagree on various issues (e.g. political, such as Ayn Rand versus Lenin etc), that doesn't invalidate atheism, apparently!

So those who come on this thread pontificating about 'religion' in general, would do well to explain clearly the precise connection between 'belief that there is an ultimate intelligence and purpose to reality', on the one hand, and evil actions, and the other, and, furthermore, explain precisely how a 'belief that reality is ultimate mindless and purposeless' is the only way to combat 'evil' (however 'evil' is supposed to be defined within that philosophy). If they cannot do that, then it might be worth their while taking a good long hard look at the integrity of their motives, not to mention the coherence of their logic!

LSV,

You have locked yourself into your 'argument', this is completely different debate. This is on religion, ethics and rights - not about the existence of gods in fact this debate is ignoring the arguments about existence and concentrating on the hierarchy of rights.

Have you been on the sauce, because it would almost appear that you are trying to wedge your beef into this thread because everyone on the other tread has either laughed at you or ignored you.

Concentrate on the clash of rights.

Freedomknight,

So you are happy that sexual freedom is OK as long as it is your sexual freedom and not those you disagree with.

Having said that I think there is a debate about the acceptability of publicly displayed homosexual behaviour to be had out side of the invented fantasy of religion

As long as we can debate the acceptability of publicly displayed heterosexual behaviour, we are either equal or we are not, you have displayed ignorance and prejudice.

I agree LSV, re religion there is a diversity of opinion. Im spiritually religious,so are others who often find themselves in agreement with Atheists and Agnostic contributors. Maybe there's a sense of no safety valve for those who are using God and Religion to justify cruelty, death, punishment.They can just claim the sciptures or that they know God better than anyone else- and who are we to argue with them. Within Religious traditions like Catholicism. Anglicanism, sects of Islam etc you have the moderates. It's just , at this moment in time, the religious dialogue we're being exposed to is often being driven by extremism, lack of tolerance, a siege mentality and to quote the Dad's Army character a lapse into "we're all doomed" patterns of thought.

I think you would find alot more Atheists and those who are unsure coming aboard if Religion wasn't so often hijacked by the extreme and the disruptive and the intolerant.

Humility would help as you and I have both mentioned before, and for those that look at Holy books metaphorically and not being infallible- not one of us on this earth has a hotline to God. It's surely better to be tolerant of those who are different, if they are tolerant of you. The world would be an easier place to live in if we only had the elements and weather to contend with and not the hatred , aggression , violence and intolerance of other human beings added to the mix. Humans use Religion and God to justify alot of that. People abuse God like a tool to wield against others far too often. To some , maybe it's just another form of weapon

@mscracker #22

I am delighted to tell you that the opposite is true. Results of the recently published British Social Attitudes Survey, carried out in 2009, showed the following results regarding beliefs:

No religion: 50.7%
Christian: 43.7% (20% C of E, 8.6% RC, 15.1% all the other sects)
Muslim 2.4%
Hindu 0.9%
Sikh 0.8%
Jewish: 0.4%
Buddhist 0.2%
Other non-Christian 0.3%
Don't know: 0.1%
Refusal: 0.3%

So you see, contrary to what the loudly vocal minority (the religious) would have you believe, reason is prevailing, at long last, in this country. We "non-believers" are finally in an overall majority and, unlike our government, we don't even need a coalition.

A truly secular society with strong equality laws is the most moral society of all.

Ryan: **not one of us on this earth has a hotline to God.**
on the contrary - everyone has a hotline to God - they just don't know it! :-)

**It's surely better to be tolerant of those who are different, if they are tolerant of you.**

why do you put the qualification of 'if they are tolerant of you' - so you are waiting for others to be tolerant of you before you will be tolerant of them??? IMV - it starts with self - not waiting fr others to change first.....u might have a long wait!! I would go further than tolerance but I'll leave it at that at the moment because tolerance isn't it.

Also re man using God as excuse for inhumane treatment of another only reveals how far they are from God - 'by their fruits ye shall know them' - love, compassion, acceptance of all others - these are the fruits and perhaps it is time that the sort of behaviour you are describing is called for what it is - evil and far from any God driven activity rather than saying 'who are we to argue with them'. I hasten to add the people are not evil but it is evil working through them - in their emptiness and separation from God. Not that I'm advocating arguing with them - just saying that it is clear to most people with half a heart that those sorts of attitudes are nothing to do with love/God....and perhaps we need to be saying or claiming that more?

Lol Eunice- I know what you mean- people can feel intimately close through meditation & prayer but it's not the same as many religious people thinking they're Gods best buddy and they can speak on his behalf.

On the tolerance thing, it's not that I'd be waiting to be shown tolerance before I reciprocate it- it's that in my own view it's a given. It's just a little harder to be tolerant of someone who isn't tolerant of your views. I guess that's something alot of us have difficulties with. I guess underneath it all, we all want to be accepted and whatever skills we can offer to be appreciated. It's saddening if X can't get treated the same as Y simply for how they look or act and not for their character or skill

jamesjones950,

Don't worry, by morning websites like 'Focus on the Family' or NARTH or Christian Voice will have rubbished your numbers. They wont have done this through research but by lying with the power of god who needs no numbers coz he is always right no matter what the numbers say, we can make our own stuff up and have god behind us, checkmate!

As a fundamentalist Christian my natural sympathies are with the hoteliers but I wonder is it now time for Christians to rethink their involvement in the hotel business. The UK like almost all other western societies is pro-homosexual and it is very clear that Christian hoteliers will be obliged legally to facilitate the homosexual lifestyle. That is not a reality that I like but its one I have to live with. In these post-Christian circumstances I wonder would the gospel be better served by believers getting out of situations (when they can without compromising biblical principles) in which they will be forced to act in a way which they find repugnant.

Amazing that people have such an issue with homosexuality. It's a tiny part of the Bible that doesn't register with me at all. There are plenty of other parts of the Bible that do. That homosexuality registers with so many people demonstrates a great many who are insecure in their sexuality. It's like people are punishing part of themselves. If it didn't register on some level with them and they were secure in their own sexuality it wouldn't be an issue. I wonder if the media hold some responsability for inundating us with so much nudity & salacious imagery in our daily lives. It must be arousing people in ways they do not wish to confront. On the other hand people should just grow up

Ian Hall

s a fundamentalist Christian my natural sympathies are with the hoteliers

Why ? your Christ always seemed to side with the underdog, the oppressed. He seemed to stand up to the orthodox religion and favour those who were victimised by it.

I find the way you have sex repugnant, but I understand that it is in your nature to have sex that way and you would be welcome to do it under my roof (for the usual B&B rates) at any time. I won't be standing at the end of your bed so it really won't affect me.

"The UK like almost all other western societies is pro-homosexual..."

Not quite, it's anti-discriminatory. If that offends your religous beliefs then perhaps it's your belief that's wrong, not the desire of society to accept all, regardless of their opinions.

Trust me, if someone was denying a service to a Christian simply due to a difference of beliefs, I'd be up there defending the Christians.

PS... 04.14am?! Dave, don't you ever sleep?!

Natman,

of course I do but, just like me, my sleeping pattern is a tad disordered at times although not intrinsically evil.

Quite an interesting development in terms of rights/religion/law in Mississippi, of all places.

A bill has just gone before the senate (Bill 2498) making it obligatory for a priest to break the seal of confession and report to the police anyone who confesses to him that he/she has been abusing children sexually.

Can I ask those who believe in the unfettered rights of the religious, are we wrong to be prosecuting in this case. Hate Crime Pair Charged. are we infringing their religious freedom.

Dave,

It's abhorrant what those two believe but that's free speech for you. If they were to specifically instruct someone to kill gays, then you should charge them, but to express an opinion that, according to their religion, gays must be killed is more honesty than anything else. At least they have the convicition in their religion to stick to it. A lot of fervent religous types have the same opinion as them, their only 'crime' is to speak it in public.

I don't like the crime of inspiring hatred, for any grounds, as it smacks too much of thought crime. There's a lot of things people say that I don't like, but I ignore it, I don't demand the police take them away. I'd rather see those two pulled up infront of a crowd, on TV, to try and justify their opinions in the face of debate. That way we can all see them for the narrow minded bigots that they are. To prosecute is to make them a martyr to their cause.

You can't legislate away peoples opinions, all you can do is educate them and hope that they don't get infected from their less open-minded peers and social leaders.

Natman,

I guess I kind of agree with you. I would have to see exactly what it said though. If it simply the same as the christian biblical verses then I would agree, if it is saying that the faithful have a duty to execute then I would say there is a case for prosecution.

The sensitivity at the moment is that there are 3 men in danger of imminent execution and three who were executed this week in Iran and the killing of a gay activist in Uganda. The Iranian ones are state sponsored the last one specifically is a result of the incitement to hate by some religious people and the media calling for the execution of gay people and then giving out their pictures, names and addresses. It does not take much sometimes for religious fervour to overspill into righteous acts.

I do believe in freedom of speech which is why I do not try to frustrate protesters at Pride parades, they are welcome to their opinions, but they do have to accept that I can be just opinionated and even rude (perish the thought) in return.

Dave,

I'd fight to the death for the right for a racist to say what he likes about different skin colours, or for an anti-semetic to accuse international Jewry of controlling the world's banks. But that doesn't mean I don't want to punch their lights out after they've said their narrow-minded garbage.

Anything else and you have to then start thinking who decides what's acceptable speech and what's 'incitement to hatred', and that's a long slippery slope to censorship.

28. At 8:47pm on 27 Jan 2011, jamesjones950 wrote:
@mscracker #22

I am delighted to tell you that the opposite is true. Results of the recently published British Social Attitudes Survey, carried out in 2009, showed the following results regarding beliefs:

No religion: 50.7%
Christian: 43.7% (20% C of E, 8.6% RC, 15.1% all the other sects)
Muslim 2.4%
Hindu 0.9%
Sikh 0.8%
Jewish: 0.4%
Buddhist 0.2%
Other non-Christian 0.3%
Don't know: 0.1%
Refusal: 0.3%

So you see, contrary to what the loudly vocal minority (the religious) would have you believe, reason is prevailing, at long last, in this country. We "non-believers" are finally in an overall majority and, unlike our government, we don't even need a coalition.

A truly secular society with strong equality laws is the most moral society of all.

***********************************************************************
Thank you for the statistics & I apologize for my post being unclear in that I was referring to the birthrate of conservative religious groups worldwide.Children do not always hold to their parent's beliefs, it's true, but if even half of the children of a family of eight or ten carry on the conservative moral beliefs of their parents you only have to do the Math to guess the outcome twenty or fifty years down the road.

Dave (@ 25) -

It's OK, Dave, your secret's safe with me. I won't tell anyone that you're incapable of addressing the issue I raised, which, if you had bothered to read other posts on this thread, is highly relevant - but please don't strain yourself, if reading with a basic degree of comprehension is too much trouble for you.

Please have a good hearty laugh at my expense. I really really really do not mind. As I have said before, the only thing with any potential to trouble me on this blog is a decent argument. All other stuff goes over my head.

So please carry on, dear 'rationalist' (ha ha!)...

37. At 11:37am on 28 Jan 2011, romejellybeen wrote:
Quite an interesting development in terms of rights/religion/law in Mississippi, of all places.

A bill has just gone before the senate (Bill 2498) making it obligatory for a priest to break the seal of confession and report to the police anyone who confesses to him that he/she has been abusing children sexually.
*********************************************************************
It appears the bill passed, but with this wording that I could pull up on the site:


"(f) "Member of the clergy" means any priest, rabbi or duly-ordained deacon or minister, except that the clergy member is not required to report a confidential communication that is protected as a function of the church, but shall then encourage that person to come forward and report the allegations to the proper authorities."


Compelling priests to break the Seal of Confession isn't the law in America, or even in the state of Mississippi.

mscracker

I know that it is very carefully worded but, according to an article on abusetracker website, they are not compelled to report other things that happen to minors, only when the confessor states that they sexually abused a child.

https://www.wapt.com/r/26640060/detail.html

Now here's an interesting thing. The point being made is that the law does not allow discrimination in a business on the ground of homosexual orientation. Even though there were many other B&Bs (I have heard 46) available which would have taken this couple in.
But it's OK for the University of Leicester to get away with discriminating against non-halal eaters in its one cafe out of 24 on its campus. The argument is that again there are alternative places where you can get what to want. What if the customer just doesn't WANT to eat anywhere else?
Oh, of course - it's the law. And it's an inconsistent muddle. If we are going to have a muddle lets have a good old common-law common-sense anglo-saxon non-legislated muddle and just let the Bulls and people like them alone.

hopeforhappiness,

Was the daily mail closed tonight, you really do not understand discrimination do you.

Will,

I would say one was exclusive and another was inclusive, one excluded homosexuals and the other was able to include muslims. I am not aware of halal meat being a harram for christians. Not sure if that was the fallacy Will.

The problem is human rights and equality bodies have set up rights which are in conflict. William, your headline implies that religion and human rights are two different things, when religious freedom is one of the oldest rights identified in law. And of course when you look at the make up of official rights bodies, such as the Equality Authority in Ireland you will discover every minority grouping represented except Christianity. The fact is equality officials could care less about discrimination against Christians.

And yet Mcc religion, and christianity in particular, is the most privileged right in the western world. This debate occurs because religion does not recognise that it is only an equal right, one which is required to be balanced against other rights.

hopeforhappiness: your restaurant argument does not stand up. That's like saying I'll go to a chinese restaurant and demand Indian food - even though they don't serve it, I know they don't serve it but I'll just ask for it anyway cos I want it! The food I or anyone else eats is a choice and we can choose to go to places that serve the food we eat - not every restaurant has to serve food that caters to everyone's dietary habits, likes and dislikes. That is not discrimination. There are certain things I choose not to eat in my food and choose restaurants accordingly - halal meat eaters can do the same.
Being gay is not a choice - it is a part of someone's being, how they are made and to exclude people on that basis is very different - its saying you as a person are not accepted here. In the restaurant, there is no discrimination on the person who eats halal meat - they can come into the restaurant freely - just so happens the restaurant does not serve that type of food.

@Will

Ignoratio elenchi or simple whataboutery.

RJB - think you're mistaken re Mississippi - definite exemption for confession or analogous situations.

Will (@ 48) -

"can anyone name the logical fallacy..."

If you need to look up a logical fallacy then grokesx is your man. I understand that he has quite an impressive collection of them. I should know, because I have been 'privileged' to have a small sight of part of it.

He even has fancy names for them, as his post 53 reveals!!

(Mind you... he does have a rather unfortunate tendency to bring out his collection at inappropriate times, but that's a small point, really....!) ;-)

MCC

Not according to the link I gave. Either way, I think that it would be a good thing to force priests to report certain confessional matters to the police. One of them would definitely be the sexual abuse of children.

And the link you gave is wrong so there's no "either way". Who would go to confession if the confessor were required to report them? The measure would defeat it's own point.

He even has fancy names for them, as his post 53 reveals!!

Yeah, well, William actually knows a thing or two about philosophy, unlike you and me, so I thought I'd try and luk a bit cleva. I'm on the South Park level, so it's just the Chewbacca Defence, really.

MCC

The point being that paedophiles could not get absolution (if they couldnt go to confession for fear of being reported.) They would then - according to your beliefs - go to Hell.

Grokesx, it's not obvious that it really is the Chewbacca. The point that's being made is that there is a relevance link in that both are about the attitudes towards religious stipulations.

If there is a fallacy, it's simply one of false analogy - there's something importantly different between a religious position against actually serving people and a religious position against giving people specifically what they're asking for. This is plainly the case - Leicester isn't denying non-halal-eaters service, they're just having their options limited.

The point that's being made is that there is a relevance link in that both are about the attitudes towards religious stipulations.

The ignoratio elenchi casts a pretty wide net. If HFH's argument is a false analogy, it is also a case of presenting an argument that doesn't address the issue in question, even if it is tangentially related. In the Chewbacca version, of course, there's no relation at all.

Also, the conclusion demonstrates the perfect solution fallacy - basically he's saying since it's too difficult to balance the interests of everyone when trying to work through the details of anti discrimination policy on the one hand and catering for minorities on the other, we should just let people discriminate at will.

45. At 9:27pm on 28 Jan 2011, romejellybeen wrote:
mscracker

I know that it is very carefully worded but, according to an article on abusetracker website, they are not compelled to report other things that happen to minors, only when the confessor states that they sexually abused a child.

https://www.wapt.com/r/26640060/detail.html

******************************************************************
Thank you for the link & I see how this does appear to suggest what you say, however the wording of the bill would not force priests to break the Seal of Confession. If that were so, the law would not stand up under the Constitution.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Right, let me have another go (on the assumption that my previous post won't be approved).

There is a particular British travel agent (I won't mention their name, for fear of being moderated) which arranges holidays to 'gay exclusive hotels'. On their website, under the heading 'gay exclusive' they state that some of their hotels are women or male-exclusive, which focus specifically on bookings from lesbian or gay holidaymakers. I won't put the link (for obvious reasons), but anyone interested can dig around on Google, and I am sure you'll find it.

This looks to me like a policy of 'sexual orientation' discrimination (and I use the word 'discrimination' in a non-libellous sense, meaning a policy which deliberately includes some people and excludes others). If (note the word) the factor of 'sexual orientation' is never to be regarded as a 'Halal' type issue, but is something far more fundamental and personal that should never be subject to the provision of special services that exclude others, then I assume that that company is engaged in a practice which is both immoral and illegal (and they only get away with it, because presumably the hotels are located overseas)?

If those who condemn Mr and Mrs Bull's policy do not also condemn the policy of this travel agent, then it would appear that 'hopeforhappiness' in post #46 has a point. The analogy is not quite as dodgy as it initially appears.

Disclaimer - to allay the fears of the moderators: I am not condemning this company, or attempting to libel them in any way. I am simply using this inconsistency to defend Mr and Mrs Bull, who, it should be noted, have been well and truly 'hung, drawn and quartered' in the media without moderation!

@LSV

Seems to me that your example is relevant to the argument, but I still can't see any reason why the halal issue should be dragged in.

grokesx -

"Seems to me that your example is relevant to the argument, but I still can't see any reason why the halal issue should be dragged in."

Well, the question to ask is: should sexual orientation be regarded as a fundamental aspect of a person's humanity to the extent that it must always be respected in the provision of all 'general' services? By 'general' service, I mean a service that is not specific to sexual orientation, but to general human well-being, such as accommodation. Obviously there are inevitably going to be services specific to a particular sexual orientation, such as the provision of a gay dating agency, or something like that.

If 'general' services must never discriminate, and if the provision of accommodation is regarded as a 'general' service, then logically there should not exist exclusively gay or straight hotels.

If sexual orientation is to be regarded as an aspect of specific 'cultural' identity (like 'halal' meat), then I can see that specific services (even including accommodation) could be provided to cater exclusively for gay and straight people, if the different 'cultures' are so divergent that they cannot co-exist within the same four walls. It seems to me that the example I gave of the travel agency falls into this category. So we could compare 'exclusive gay' with 'exclusive halal'. If there is such a thing as 'exclusive gay' and 'exclusive halal', then it follows that there must be a legitimate 'exclusive non-gay' and 'exclusive non-halal'.

A just society cannot have it both ways. Either we totally integrate as regards sexual orientation, or we totally discriminate.

I am not saying that the analogy is a particularly good one, but it is not without some merit. I don't think it's a complete fallacy.

@LSV

Well, we'll just have to differ on whether the analogy brings anything to the table. To me it's pretty cut and dried - if the B and B owners can't discriminate against gay couples then the hoteliers shouldn't be able to discriminate against straight ones.

And to go off on a complete tangent, halal and kosher abbatoirs should, IMHO, be subject to exactly the same regulations as any other.

Will, and LSV,

I agree if the accommodation was within the UK you cannot discriminate as it is UK law which prevails however if the rules were made under another jurisdiction the Travel Agent would simply be describing accurately the restrictions in force in that place, he would not be discriminating. Other countries do things differently. I cannot wait to see the adverts for accommodation for Qatar in 2022.

In parts of Spain for instance specific types of accommodation (chalet bungalow types) in holiday resorts can be licensed as private clubs. This allows them to provide spaces where specific groups can behave in ways which would not be possible in public or in non exclusive accommodations due to either public offence or danger (or intimidation) to the group identified. These behaviours range from nudity through to familiarity and affection shown between same sex couples. These are behaviours which are not illegal but the people engaging in them could reasonably expect that they would feel uncomfortable, disapproved of, abused or ridiculed in a more inclusive environment and so they are afforded this protection.

It is likely that the more prudish nature of rules in the UK negates the need for a lot of these sensitivities and the weather probably plays a part.

But to LSV's point, the Spanish rules do not allow for discrimination in goods and services in the general case as sexual orientation is, as you say, "fundamental aspect of a person's humanity to the extent that it must always be respected", which is why they allow full marriage to same sex couples. However they recognise that there is a case for ensuring that any minority who could be under threat due to their behaviour (not orientation or belief) can carry out that behaviour in a safe and free environment. This is why they allow for same sex accommodation.

The reason it does not work both ways is that there are not too many cases of heterosexuals being attacked by gay people for kissing while naked in a pool. The reverse is not the case and so protection is applied where needed.

Two different systems. The UK system is more adversarial though in that it challenges heterosexuals to view same sex activity as acceptable as opposite sex activity. People will have to turn down their horror metre when they see two guys kissing in public and stop attacking them when they hold hands over a candlelit supper. We only ask for equality not special or separate rules. Rules for our protection should only be there for as long as the protection is needed.

Is religious conviction really a CHOICE and less worthy of protection and even promotion than sexuality?
Not in my case and in the lives of the muslims I know. For us our religion gives us our sense of identity and dignity in a far deeper way than our gender or sexuality. We would change the latter rather than lose our assurance of God. But of course the atheist/liberal mindset has been nurtured and comforted by "Vicar of Dibley" sitcoms, where even the religious don't take things too seriously. Islam has come as rather a surprise, hasn't it?

After all, our sexuality, gender and race is only for this short life.

H4H,

"For us our religion gives us our sense of identity and dignity in a far deeper way than our gender or sexuality." (emphasis mine)

See the key part? -For you-. Why should I have to give up my rights to pander to what is essentially a personal conviction of yours? Perhaps my belief, giving me a sense of identity and dignity, is that everyone who I meet must bow and give me money. Should I insist that my beliefs are taken into consideration? Of course not.

Have you beliefs, believe what you like, but the moment you interact with anyone else, you must accept that they have different opinions and, perhaps, just possibily, they don't care what yours are.

Islam is a younger faith from christianity and has much of the same zeal and fanatism as christianity did when it was the that age. Once it becomes more ingrained into western society (bear in mind it's only been a major voice for about 50 years) it'll gain the same level of apathy and inconsequence as christianity has.

You might not like secularism and western societal values, but they make people better off and happier.

Hopeforhappiness- Talking of surprises,I'm sure the Chinese will come as much more a surprise to Muslim sensibilities .
Where is the humility in many muslims approach to Islam. Muslims often project a self-righteous anger to anyone outside of their faith and when that doesn't satisfy , it's funnelled into sectarian shia/sunni hatreds. What if God is alot more loving & tolerant than Islam. What if God encompasses all people (not just the Abrahamic faiths) & the only element required is we approach life and other people with open hearts and kindness. No-one has a monopoly on God. We could all be wrong or all partially right, but not one religion should claim any higher authority over the other. Who knows, after this life we might be reborn into Jewish or Hindu families- experience life from another perspective. It would certainly make sense for a well rounded soul to experience the receiving end of their anger and intolerance

HFH: religion is only for this short life too - in how it is understood today. There is no need to seek anything outside of oneself to be identified by if one knows who one is. That said, seeking identification, recognition and acceptance are all part of the human condition and are all things to recognise as false and keeping us separate from who we are. If you know who you are you do not need anything outside of yourself for identification. The root meaning of religion is relationship with God - and that is cultivated within oneself not outside of oneself and does carry through from lifetime to lifetime and is dependent on our choices.

ps meaning do we choose to be with God or not with God in all that we say and do.....do we choose to express with love or that which is not love (eg expressing with anger, frustration, rage, resentment etc etc) in all that we say and do. Of course its not about perfection - takes practice & commitment though - such is the depth of our lovelessness for self and other.

hopeforhappiness,

"Is religious conviction really a CHOICE and less worthy of protection and even promotion than sexuality?"

Well people seem to change their religious alignment a lot more than people change their sexuality so I guess you can take what you want out of that. In reality I do not care if you think your religion trumps who I am - it is irrelevant.

The real point is that neither matters and we should be free to follow our conscience within the law and not discriminate against others based on our beliefs.