Monday, March 08, 2010

It’s official: Conservatism is now a religion

That is the only logical conclusion of Harpy Hormone’s Equality Bill, and one which Cranmer not only foresaw but was sufficiently prescient to sound the trumpet about years ago.

The moment the state begins to define ‘religion’, and then attempts to apportion rights and liberties under the guise of an enlightened tolerance of relativist equality, there is no logical end to the official recognition of all manner of weird cults, strange sects, spurious beliefs and pseudo-religions, all of which have to be equal under the law irrespective of the common good and irrelative to the inherent counterknowledge believed or propagated.

If you wish to believe that a carpenter from Nazareth can rise from the dead, you are free to do so. But in the age of ‘equality’ and ‘non-discrimination’, this is no different from believing that a middle-eastern illiterate warmonger had a direct line to Allah; a man can walk around with the head of an elephant; you should never cut your hair; you can be cremated in the open air; you believe that a mortal man may speak infallibly; and if you walk around Tesco in a hoodie carrying a light sabre you are in harmony with ‘The Force’.

And if you want to worship Satan, that is perfectly cool. If you want to take Pagan holidays, that is accommodated. And if you want to believe in man-made global warming, the courts have already decreed that your devotion to such a philosophy is indeed the same as religious faith.

And now we learn that vegans are to enjoy the same protection against discrimination as religious groups.

And if they, why not vegetarians, non-dairy consumers, wheat-eschewers and teetotallers?

Oh, and Atheists are to be given the same protection as well.

Professor Dawkins will be very happy.

Now, this is going to get very interesting indeed.

An atheist in the House of Commons who presents himself in the chamber during parliamentary prayers will have the right in law to object to the affront. Those of all faiths and none will have the right in law to object to the 26 bishops who sit in the House of Lords, which is a manifest discrimination against not only Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus and Buddhists, but also the Nonconformists and Roman Catholics.

And it is difficult to see how the prohibition on the Monarch being or marrying a Roman Catholic can survive this Bill.

Especially if His Majesty or his spouse were to be a non-dairy-consuming, non-meat-eating, non-alcohol imbibing, non-leather-wearing, rarest kind of Roman Catholic: it would be entirely possible to challenge the Act of Settlement 1701 and the Treaty of Union 1707 on a plethora of grounds.

Cranmer can hardly wait for the embattled Trevor Phillips of New Labour's super-quango – the Equalities and Human Rights Commission – to sort out the mess.

Their official guidance points out that the 'ethical commitment' of vegans to animal welfare is 'central to who they are'. And the guidance explains: ‘A belief need not include faith or worship of a god or gods, but must affect how a person lives their life or perceives the world.’

Now then.

Inherent to conservatism is an undeniable ‘ethical commitment’ which is ‘central’ to who we are: conservatism has a distinct theology, articulated and expounded by Edmund Burke, which does not demand the worship of a god or gods (though neither does it preclude it), but it most certainly affects ‘how a person lives their life or perceives the world’.

And the EHRC code of practice further explains that religions need not be mainstream or well-known for their adherents to gain protection.

Ergo, the fact that few have ever recognised the conservatism is a theo-political creed is no reason for adherents to the philosophy not to be granted their rights under the law.

We could have a bit of fun with this.

The Equality Bill makes it a legal requirement for all public bodies to consider the impact of all their policies on minority groups.

At (say) the BBC, those of a conservative disposition are a distinct minority. Since, it now appears, that the burden of proof in cases of alleged discrimination falls upon the accused to prove their innocence, perhaps there ought to be a stream of cases brought against (say) the BBC by every conservative (or Conservative) who happens to be rejected for a job.

The EHRC says: 'Parliament makes the law, the courts interpret it and the commission offers factual and proportionate guidance to organisations where necessary. We are providing guidance on the implications of the equality bill.'

If the legislation covers 'any religious belief or philosophical belief', or ‘a lack of belief', and even now recognises cults such as Scientology, Cranmer is hard-pressed to understand why homosexuality may not also be recognised as a religion. To be sure, it is undeniable that a homosexual’s sexuality is ‘central’ to who they are: if one believes the likes of Peter Tatchell and Stephen Fry, it most certainly affects ‘how they live their life or perceive the world’.

Pope Benedict is right to point out that this odious Bill restricts religious freedom and violates natural law.

If any sinister sect, trivial ‘-ism’ and ephemeral ‘-ology’ are now no different from the Great Faith which forged the laws and culture of this nation, it is difficult to understand why political beliefs are not covered by the legislation.

Who has decreed that Islam is a religion and not a political philosophy?

How is the state distinguishing betweeen those religions which overtly espouse a political objective and those which purport not to?

Why does pacifism trump Marxism?

Why does humanism trump fascism?

Why does every ‘-ism’ and '-ology' under the sun trump Christianity?

Why does the non-belief in a god merit protection under the law, but not the belief that liberalism is antithetical to conservatism because of the consequent emphasis on individual autonomy and the rights of man?

Why is the decision not to eat meat merit protection under the law, but not commitment to conservatism which manifests itself in patriotism, custom, respect for the law, loyalty to a leader or monarch, and in the willing acceptance of the privileges of those to whom privilege is granted?

Why do those who decide not to wear leather merit protection under the law, but not those who in some deeper part of themselves yearn for a social order which is motivated and consoled by the forces to which the conservative instinct is attuned?

Why is the commitment not to imbibe alcohol worthy of protection under the law, but not the conservative tradition of social concern and action which is rooted in the historic Christian faith?

How can fashion and matters of eating and drinking be more important than one’s theo-political worldview?

Do Labour not yet know that it is not what goes into the mouth that a makes a person unclean, but the absurd policies which are spewed out of it?

143 Comments:

Blogger Simon said...

As originally worded the employment equality regulations on religion and belief explicitly exclude a political belief as a protected belief. No doubt when they wrote them Labour were concerned of a string of cases in which Conservatives would rise up against their left wing masters!

I haven't read the new equality bill wording yet. Wonder if that exclusion is still there.

8 March 2010 at 10:52  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Simon,

It would appear to be so.

But who is to define when a religion becomes a political belief or vice versa?

Is Islam a religion or a political belief?

If devotion to the creed of man-made global warming is a religion, why not the converse?

8 March 2010 at 10:59  
Blogger Nicodemus said...

The absurd policies of New Labour, their unworkable nature, their confused thinking, their deceitful resolve and evil intent, gives us great hope in preaching the gospel. The utter faiure of the secular agenda will cause the British people to search for something better.

8 March 2010 at 11:00  
Anonymous Kiwi said...

And what about Scientology? Not even a mention, shame.

8 March 2010 at 11:09  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace

There is a lot to gnaw in your article today.

A few preliminary thoughts are all I venture for the moment.

Making vegans protected under the law will strengthen their confidence, as they will be officially recognised, to shut down, by violence, laboratories that conduct animal experimentation. Once these are forcibly shut down then it will be the High Street butcher – a simple task. The next task will, of course, be the Jewish and Muslim butchers.

Just imagine the inner-cities going up in flames – under a Conservative government.

‘Why is the commitment not to imbibe alcohol worthy of protection under the law…?’

Because it strenghthens the hand of the Muslim in the office and on the factory floor: how dare his workmates, after work, celebrate a colleagues promotion or retirement down at the Admiral Lord Nelson. Discrimination! Sue the company and plenty of left-wing lawyers will make a fortune. In other words social behaviour will be changed using the threat of discrimination law.

8 March 2010 at 11:10  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr/Mrs/Ms/Miss Kiwi,

Are you blind or stupid, or just superficially hyper-critical?

8 March 2010 at 11:12  
Anonymous It's faith, stupid said...

Mr Nicodemus

As long as preaching the gospel is deemed inoffensive by the receiver of the good news and does not impinge their human rights!

8 March 2010 at 11:12  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace

You ask:

‘But who is to define when a religion becomes a political belief or vice versa?

‘Is Islam a religion or a political belief?

‘If devotion to the creed of man-made global warming is a religion, why not the converse?’

The judiciary are to define when a religion becomes a political belief or vice versa.

Islam, in the hands of the judiciary will remain a religion not a political belief for policy reasons.

Your third question seems at first difficult to answer. But when you examine the world-view of the judiciary it is left-liberal. Only those beliefs which left-liberalism upholds may be protected in the zone of belief. Notice also in the ‘global warming is a legitimate beief’ case that for it to be upheld it had far less criteria for fulfilment for it to be approved of for protection: recycling rubbish, riding a cycle etc. Whilst to, eventually, deny Christians protection a long list of criteria can be produced and if the plaintiff falls down on a ‘significant’ number he can be denied protection. For example, does he attend church every Sunday? Does he say prayers in the morning and in the evening? Or even at lunch-time? Does he forgive his co-workers? Has there been an incident when he has turned the other cheek rather than make a complaint to his boss?

Well has he?

Your Grace – we are finished. You can see they are loading the dice against us.

Never ever vote socialist.

8 March 2010 at 11:28  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

Like I have always said they should keep their bloody noses out.

However your article does seem to suggest that your particular hue of belief/faith should be accepted over others (accept my apologies if I misinterpreted this of course) and I can't agree with this.

To use a quote from D.Singh (but my no means should he take this as a reply to him or a desire to enter into any discourse):

"Making vegans protected under the law will strengthen their confidence, as they will be officially recognised, to shut down, by violence, laboratories that conduct animal experimentation. Once these are forcibly shut down then it will be the High Street butcher – a simple task. The next task will, of course, be the Jewish and Muslim butchers."

Or (providing you think that the belief in the claims of christianity is at least as justified if not more)

Or the christian protected under the law will strengthen their confidence, as they will be officially recognised, to shut down, by violence, hospitals that conduct requested abortions.Once these are forcibly shut down then it will be the stem cell research labs – a simple task.

It just doesn't wash. I appreciate that proof can't be given of the claims of religion (by any, not just the christian) this puts all religions on equal ground.

Until any one can show proof for their belief they should not have the rights to force anyone else to live by the rules laid out from their beliefs and they should have no special status.

This is why secularism is the way to go. Because it only asks for everyone to be treated equally on the grounds of their humanity, not their unprovable beliefs.

8 March 2010 at 11:54  
Blogger D. Singh said...

'This is why secularism is the way to go. Because it only asks for everyone to be treated equally on the grounds of their humanity, not their unprovable beliefs.'

Glovy - you're mate Harman is secularist and her chosen instrument is the Equality Bill.

Why don't you admit you're a socialist and go back to the Guardian?

8 March 2010 at 12:10  
Anonymous It's faith, stupid said...

"This is why secularism is the way to go. Because it only asks for everyone to be treated equally on the grounds of their humanity, not their unprovable beliefs."

Except that sometimes it treats people based on their perceived contribution (or lack thereof) to the survival of the species.

8 March 2010 at 12:12  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

Mr D.Singh.

She is not "my mate".

I don't vote Labour.

I am not a socialist.

I have read the Guardian on occasion as well as a number of other papers both broadsheet and tabloid.

I have also stated I do not desire any interation with you due to your childish name calling and immature behaviour as can be seen in your above post.

Kindly call an end to it.

Thank you.

8 March 2010 at 12:13  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

"Except that sometimes it treats people based on their perceived contribution (or lack thereof) to the survival of the species."

And where is the issue in this?

So it treats people on their contribution to the good of the whole?

I only wish it did then we wouldn't have waster lying about being given something for nothing. I am all for welfare don't get me wrong, it just shouldn't be more of an attractive choice than actually contributing.

8 March 2010 at 12:16  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Glovy says: ' This is why secularism is the way to go. Because it only asks for everyone to be treated equally on the grounds of their humanity...'

No it does not. As the case law stacked against Christians proves.

And as history has proved under Mao, for example.

8 March 2010 at 12:21  
Anonymous It's faith, stupid said...

"So it treats people on their contribution to the good of the whole?"

We are not the Borg.

8 March 2010 at 12:22  
Anonymous Tony B said...

>If you wish to believe that a carpenter from Nazareth can rise from the dead, you are free to do so. But in the age of ‘equality’ and ‘non-discrimination’, this is no different from believing that a middle-eastern illiterate warmonger had a direct line to Allah; a man can walk around with the head of an elephant; etc etc

Sounds reasonable - it isn't any different to those things.

8 March 2010 at 12:56  
Anonymous graham Wood said...

YG Read what that courageous Dutch politician, Geert Wilders, now defendent in a political show trial in Holland for his beliefs, has to say about Islamification.
Political Ideology or religion?
The following should enlighten:

#
Ladies and gentlemen, I don’t have a problem and my party does not have a problem with Muslims as such. There are many moderate Muslims. The majority of Muslims are law-abiding citizens and want to live a peaceful life as you and I do. I know that. That is why I always make a clear distinction between the people, the Muslims, and the ideology, between Islam and Muslims. There are many moderate Muslims, but there is no such thing as a moderate Islam.

Islam strives for world domination. The Quran commands Muslims to exercise jihad. The Quran commands Muslims to establish shariah law. The Quran commands Muslims to impose Islam on the entire world.....

Islam is merely not a religion, it is mainly a totalitarian ideology. Islam wants to dominate all aspects of life, from the cradle to the grave. Shariah law is a law that controls every detail of life in a Islamic society. From civic- and family law to criminal law. It determines how one should eat, dress and even use the toilet. Oppression of women is good, drinking alcohol is bad. #

This says it all.

8 March 2010 at 13:06  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

The case law stacked against christians that you talk about?

I assume this is the cases where christians special status in society has been challenged and ruled unfair?

Which the christians seem to mistake as persecution.

"We are not the Borg."

No we are not, but we are also not all belivers in your particular take on the christian faith so why would you deem it fair that we should all be forced to follow its teachings?

8 March 2010 at 13:08  
Blogger D. Singh said...

A Christian for wearing a small cross. Wow! What a correction to make for unfairness and reasonableness.

Supporting that seesm to imply you have fascist tendencies, Glovy?

8 March 2010 at 13:14  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace

There are many questions in your article today. But it seems to me that the chief one is: why do the values of humanism (and under its umbrella all the other ‘isms’) trump orthodox Christianity?

It is clear that Christianity is no longer an influential force in this country and, indeed, whenever its influence is mentioned it is its influence prior to the 1960s (for example the Crusades and the Inquisition).

So why do the values of humanism trump Christianity?

It is because most of our opponents do not yet want to be frank and candid that Christianity has fled the public square; they need it so that they can continue to use its mythical and supposedly malign presence to rebel against and introduce the full set of humanistic beliefs.

Imagine a world where the ‘heroic’ social reformer has nothing to rebel against?

He would no longer be a social reformer.

He would, in reality, have to be something else; a humanist, a communist, or perhaps a fascist.

Let us squarely face reality: Christianity has fled the public square.

How should we now live with each other? That is the question.

In such a world values have to emerge from somewhere; out of thin air.

Thus, in such a world there is nothing to support the proposition that heterosexual marriage is the norm. Nor is there anything to support that homosexual partnership is the norm.

All that is left is this: who is in power?

That is a question most often asked in totalitarian regimes.

8 March 2010 at 13:19  
Blogger Gnostic said...

I solemnly believe that the left wing bias of the BBC is not only an affront to my central being but an affront to my intelligence as well. I am forced to pay to be so affronted and so claim my rights to close the buggers down under Hairiest Hagwoman's new equalities bill.

Verification biledish - LOL

8 March 2010 at 13:31  
Anonymous It's faith, stupid said...

"No we are not, but we are also not all belivers in your particular take on the christian faith so why would you deem it fair that we should all be forced to follow its teachings?"

One reason is that your alternative "contribution to the survival of the species" is abhorrent.

8 March 2010 at 13:45  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

Mr D.Singh.

As I have said I really don't want to get into any conversing with yourself due to your childish slurs and your illogical ranting but you leave me little choice but to answers the charges you make. Unless you have anything worthwile to add following my reply to your points then please just desist.

"A Christian for wearing a small cross. Wow! What a correction to make for unfairness and reasonableness."

This confirms what I said then, it's a case of the special status being removed that you are talking about. In the case you cite as evidence to your point the defendant was complaining that she could not wear her cross.

It is not even a requirement of the christian religion to wear a cross before you try to compare it to the wearing of a turbin.

So lets break it down to what the actual case was concerned with she was upset that she couldn't wear visable Jewellary round her neck. But in actual fact this is the same rule that had to be followed by all other staff, so it was nothing to do with religion and certainly nothing to do with religious persecution.

She wanted special status awarded to her because of her religion that accepted she did not have to follow the same rules as all other members of staff. She was denied it.

"Supporting that seesm to imply you have fascist tendencies, Glovy?"

No supporting that seems to imply that I believe we should all have to follow the same rules as each other but these rules should never be based on one groups unprovable belief in the supernatural.

And your statments yet again seem to prove that you are a ranting illogical maniac?

8 March 2010 at 13:45  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

@It's faith, stupid

A bit of an ad hominem argument there and you don't even supply your reasoning as to why a contribution to the survival of the species is abhorrent.

You just make a statement as fact with no evidence.

This still doesn't answer my question though:

Why would you deem it fair that we should all be forced to follow its teachings?

word verification: untaxkd (it's a nice dream anyway)

8 March 2010 at 13:50  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Glovy says: 'It is not even a requirement of the christian religion to wear a cross...'

What you are saying is 'we' the secularists will decide what symbols are legitimate or illegitimate for Christian believers. That in itself is discrimination.

You are caught with your pants down!

Christians will recall that when Christianity began that the fish symbol was not present. When persecution began the early Christians used the fish symbol as a sign.

And what do we see on the back of some motor cars today?

The symbol of the fish!

8 March 2010 at 13:51  
Blogger OldSlaughter said...

I am increasingly wishing the world had a big red emergency stop button and I am allowed to press it.

Please stop, I want to get off.

8 March 2010 at 14:01  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

Mr D.Singh.

As I said before if you didn't have anything worthwile to add then just desist from posting a reply.

And what do you do? Post more slander and disparaging remarks.

I'm not "caught with my pants down!" as you like to put it. I mearly made a statment that to my understanding is correct.

The christian religion does not require its adherents to wear the cross as a religious requirement. If this is false then by all means tell me why, show me evidence.

But don't act like a ranting manic adding exclamation makes where they are not needed and making points that bear no relevance. I wonder how long it will be until your replies are given fully in capitals.

We are not discussing early christians and fish symbols on the back of cars. And if that is your evidence to support your point then why do not all christians have fish on their cars? Surely if it was a religious requirement they would all have them, no?

The point you made was about the BA worker who had her claims of special treatment denied.

8 March 2010 at 14:02  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

…all of which [cults, etc] have to be equal under the law irrespective of the common good…

Under the European Union’s Charter of Fundamental Rights, Britain is obliged to prohibit any discrimination ‘based on any ground such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation’.

If Britain left the European Union she would be able to fashion her own laws, and if the people had the good sense to elect a government that cared nothing for political correctness and the equality industry, our Statute Book would be wiped clean of ridiculous legislation.

I support a party, the BNP, that would do exactly as outlined above. Your Grace’s party, the Conservatives, will do none of it.

8 March 2010 at 14:06  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Glovy says: 'The christian religion does not require its adherents to wear the cross as a religious requirement.'

You know very well that that is not the point. You are falling over because your pants are down.

The point is, and I'm pointing this out to you a SECOND TIME: it is up to us what symbols we decide to use to show what faith we belong to - not up to you fascist secularists in exercising discrimination against us.

8 March 2010 at 14:07  
Anonymous It's faith, stupid said...

Glovy

When is glovy junior due? It's time you became a father and started contributing to the species properly. But no posts at 3 in the morning. That's cheating.

8 March 2010 at 14:16  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

Mr D.Singh.

No I think you are missing the point and I can see that the capitalised words are now creeping in.

Once again, you cite the case of the BA worker as evidence of your original statments.

The case of the original BA worker was over the fact that she was denied the right to wear an item of jewellary round her neck. This is the same rule that had to be followed by all other staff as well.

So you now try to change the facts of the case to suit your evidence by saying:

"The point is, and I'm pointing this out to you a SECOND TIME: it is up to us what symbols we decide to use to show what faith we belong to - not up to you fascist secularists in exercising discrimination against us."

If it is up to you what symbols you decide then you are backing up my statment that you want special status and rights awarded to you that are not awarded to anyone else and you seem to believe you should be able to wear whatever you want because you say it supports your religion even though your religious texts which you all clearly follow to the letter say nothing of the religious requirement to wear a cross.

To deny you this is not discrimination of your rights, to grant you this would be discrimination of everybody elses rights through support of yours.

Secluarism and fascisim do not go hand in hand.

I have already pointed out I am not a fascist and would appreciate it if you would recognise this and stop slandering me.

8 March 2010 at 14:20  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

20th of September and I can't wait to be a father. Although some people may be worried that I will eat my child I am sure.

Baby eating atheist that I am.

8 March 2010 at 14:22  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Glovy uses a typical fascist technique: 'If it is up to you what symbols you decide then you are backing up my statment that you want special status and rights awarded to you that are not awarded to anyone else and you seem to believe you should be able to wear whatever you want because you say it supports your religion even though your religious texts which you all clearly follow to the letter say nothing of the religious requirement to wear a cross.'

Sikhs are permitted to wear with BA uniform the symbols of their faith.

You are either misleading people, or lying to them or are pig ignorant.

8 March 2010 at 14:27  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

"Sikhs are permitted to wear with BA uniform the symbols of their faith."

Yes they are. The same symbols that are confirmed in their religious requirements, but we have already established that wearing a cross is not a requirement of a follower of the christian religion. However the same sikh's are not allowed to wear a visable necklace which is what the court case was about.

This means that a comparison between the two is apples and pears and you know it so stop acting the persecuted goat.

I will ask you politely again to stop implying that I am a fascist as both a slander on my person and a way to support your illogical ad hominem arguments further.

There is clearly one of us that is either "misleading people, or lying to them or are pig ignorant". But I would deny that it is me.

8 March 2010 at 14:36  
Blogger English Viking said...

Mr Glovner/Singh

I am a Christian, and I believe it is not only unnecessary to wear trinkets as an exhibition of faith, I personally find it distasteful that the cruel instrument of torture upon which Christ died should become a fashion accessory.


It should be apparent by one's words and deeds, and not a gaudy bauble, that one is a follower of Christ.

The fact that other 'religions' permit such things is irrelevant.

The fact that some companies permit the wearing of these symbols by some 'faiths' but not by misguided Christians is not irrelevant.

8 March 2010 at 14:38  
Anonymous Tony said...

How is it that we are, even in this day and age, still marrying religion and politics together? I am assuming that we all know, for the most part, that it is a failed marriage and that nothing will come of the two being paired together? I am sure that politicians love wielding the religious banner but it should be noted that the two have NOTHING in common; and that religion is used for nothing more then the advancement of agenda(s).

8 March 2010 at 14:39  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Glovy the reason why Sikhs wear a turban is in fact to keep their long hair in a tidy condition. They believe that when a Sikh dies he will be pulled up to heaven by his hair; that begs the question what happens to bald Sikhs?

The point is that to deny us from wearing a symbol that indicates our religion is to discriminate against us. The very issue which you claim (non-discrimination) to support.

Clearly, you do not.

It is only a matter of time before a Christian brings a case over wearing the symbol of a fish - an ancient symbol of the Christian religion: what then?

The further point is that symbols that indicate the Christian religion are slowly, step by step being eradicated from the public sphere (Christian posters in public libraries; Christmas for Winterval; the banning of carols in shopping precincts). And when that happens - it is a short step to eradicating Christianity from the public sphere: fascism.

That, I suggest is the world of Mr Glovner. Not a 'vibrant world' in 'celebration' but a monochromatic world of dull grey where the only thought form contenanced is the tediousness of secularism.

In such a world who would be the herioc social reformers?

8 March 2010 at 14:51  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Tony (14:39)—A. Millar’s article, Elections, Islamist Infiltration, and the Politicians’ Blind Eye, looks at the importance of Islam to the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties.

8 March 2010 at 14:58  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Christian Gentlemen

Notes from Mr Addison's blog (a link for it on His Grace's site (right-hand side):

Friday, 12 February 2010
Cross with the Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal has issued its judgment in the case of Eweida v British Airways [2010] EWCA Civ 80 where they said that prohibiting a Christian British Airways worker from wearing a small cross round her neck was not constitute Religious Discrimination.

I hate to jump on the usual "unfair to Christians" line but I do have to say that I find the Court of Appeals decision completely impossible to reconcile with the High Court decision in Sakira Singh [2008] EWHC 1865 (Admin) where it was held that prohibiting a Sikh School girl from wearing a "Kara" bracelet was religious discrimination. What, I ask myself is the difference between a religious cross around the neck and a religious bracelet on the wrist.

In the Eweida case the Court of Appeal attached importance to the fact that the majority of Christians did not regard it as a "requirement" of their faith to wear a cross. Leaving aside the point that this type of distinction is itself discriminatory it is also contrary to the finding sin the Sakira Singh case where the Judge said in para 29
"although the claimant is not obliged by her religion to wear a Kara, it is clearly in her case extremely important indication of her faith"
which is exactly what any Christian would say about wearing a Cross

I am also extremely concerned by para 40 of the Eweida Judgment where Lord Justice Sedley said

"This case has perhaps illustrated some of the problems which can arise when an individual (or equally a group) asserts that a provision, criterion or practice adopted by an employer conflicts with beliefs which they hold but which may not only not be shared but may be opposed by others in the workforce. It is not unthinkable that a blanket ban may sometimes be the only fair solution."

This aspect of the judgment ignores what Baroness Hale said in para 96 of the case of Begum [2006] UKHL 15

" If a woman freely chooses to adopt a way of life for herself, it is not for others, including other women who have chosen differently, to criticise or prevent her. Judge Tulkens, in Sahin v Turkey, at p 46, draws the analogy with freedom of speech. The European Court of Human Rights has never accepted that interference with the right of freedom of expression is justified by the fact that the ideas expressed may offend someone. Likewise, the sight of a woman in full purdah may offend some people, and especially those western feminists who believe that it is a symbol of her oppression, but that could not be a good reason for prohibiting her from wearing it."

8 March 2010 at 15:14  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

English Viking

Thanks for your views.

As far as I am concerned all religious trinkets, signs, whatever should be removed from the workplace. Religion is welcome to be a private choice which has no need to be advertised in the workplace. By all means the people can wear whatever they want in their own time.

However a precedent has been set that when it is a religious requirement it is to be allowed.

This is where D.Singh comparison between the Christian BA worker and Sikh's falls down. As you have already stated the wearing of the cross is not a christian religious requirement. The Sikh's 5 (or is it 4? I can't remember) K's are.

8 March 2010 at 15:16  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

D.Singh.

You are purposely time and time again ignoring the facts.

The christian religion does not require its followers to wear the cross, if they choose to do so this is their individual choice.

The Sikh religion which you use as an example hoping to give support to your illogical stance does require its followers to wear the 5 K's.

"It is only a matter of time before a Christian brings a case over wearing the symbol of a fish - an ancient symbol of the Christian religion: what then?"

Sadly it probably is only a matter of time since it seems the christians love to imply the sense of persecution on themselves even when there is none.

But when that court case comes then it should get exactly the same response as the case against the BA worker got for exactly the same reason. Wearing a fish is not a requirement of the christian religion placed on its followers. The choice to sport the fish is a choice of the individual.

8 March 2010 at 15:25  
Blogger D. Singh said...

And the conclusion?

The Socialists banned fox hunting.

But it is open season to hunt down Christians.

8 March 2010 at 15:25  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr Glovner: I have never known a poster like yourself who writes such incoherent gibberish - despite being issued with notes of the court case.

If you are dyslexic then you may be able to seek support under the 1995 Disability Discrimination Act (as amended).

8 March 2010 at 15:28  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

Once again, what a Sikh wears isn't even the argument. Or it is if you want it to be ad hominem.

The point is that a cross is not a a compulsory requirement of the christian faith.

End of story.

And like always you show your true "christian" nature by falling into your usual tirades, rants and insults.

The conversation is finished. You are a rude distasteful individual and I have no further desire to discuse any of this further with you.

8 March 2010 at 15:41  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

"The Sikh religion which you use as an example hoping to give support to your illogical stance does require its followers to wear the 5 K's."

Mr TheGlover,

Could you please tell us where this is authoritatively written down and which book of law prescribes it?

Many thanks.

8 March 2010 at 15:44  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Yet another example of small and narrow minds unnecessarily interfering with universal fundiments, to the confusion, detriment and potential harm of millions. New Labour has shown itself to be particulary adept in such unwarranted disturbancies. Why do I continue to be surprised?

8 March 2010 at 16:16  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

Cranmer

No problem, i'll let you know what I do.

Khalsa (meaning "pure") is the name given by Gobind Singh to all Sikhs who have been baptised or initiated by taking ammrit in a ceremony called ammrit sañcār. His establishment of the Khalsa is considered as one of the most important events in the history of Sikhism.

Baptised Sikhs are bound to wear the Five Ks (in Punjabi known as pañj kakkē or pañj kakār), or articles of faith, at all times.

If they are not a baptised Sikh then I would admit they have no religious requirement to wear these items. Also I don't have full teaching in the Sikh religion so couldn't tell you what book to find this in so no I can't tell you where it is "authoritatively written down and which book of law prescribes it?" but I don't really want to get in semantics. I'm sure you will agree that it is held as a religious requirement of Sikh's baptised in the Khalsa.

And I'm sure you will also agree that there is no fundamental religious requirement of a christian to wear a cross round their neck. So the point of comparing one against the other is pointless.

Although personally I would still rather that the precedent had not been set and all religious symbols had been banned.

8 March 2010 at 16:37  
Blogger English Viking said...

Mr Glovner,

I am not aware of any authority, other than tradition, within Sikhism, that demands the observance of the wearing of trinkets.

I think that It should be one thing or the other; either no religious articles in a place of work, and that includes dressing in what appears to be a bin liner, or else any. It does appear unjust to me that certain 'religions' are allowed to dress how they like, but Christians are not, regardless of my feelings on the jewellery.

I also think that Christian are explicitly told in numerous places of the Bible and in particular the New Testament that persecution is inevitable and if the world hated Christ, the master, what could his followers, mere pupils, expect? To resort to a human court for human justice over such a piffling offense (of sensibilities), rather than humbly accept the will of your employer and try to serve them as you would your Father in heaven, as The Bible commands, appears rather un-Christlike.

8 March 2010 at 16:37  
Anonymous It's faith, stupid said...

TheGlovner

"Although personally I would still rather that the precedent had not been set and all religious symbols had been banned."

And yet you object to being called a fascist! How can this be?

8 March 2010 at 16:41  
Blogger English Viking said...

D. Singh,

The so-called 'Christian fish' is not an ancient symbol of faith, it is another way of parting naive Christians from their cash and allowing them to wear a badge so that their faith can be identified, presumably because others would not know what it was otherwise.

It is a myth (a convenient one for trinket and bumper sticker manufacturers) that icthus, the Greek word for fish, is an acronym (trans-literated) for Jesus Christ, God's son, Saviour.

8 March 2010 at 16:45  
Blogger English Viking said...

D. Singh,

A clarification.

It is a myth that the symbol was used as an acronym in ancient times. It is more closely connected with the false-god, Dagon, of the Philistines.

8 March 2010 at 16:53  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Fellow posters; regardless of which way this thread is going, I want you to notice something that Mr Glovner has said and which the Socialists are now saying with greater frequency.

Mr Glovner said this: 'Religion is welcome to be a private choice which has no need to be advertised in the workplace.'

If the Socialists eliminate the Christian and Christians are far milder than other groups in society - then will start on the Jewish people. We already know in academe that there is virulent anti-semitism. Again, if people like Glovner are successful in elminating Christians then they will project the argument that anyone to the right of Christians are far more dangerous... if Christians have been got rid of then it will be Jews, UKIP and BNP.

What we are witnessing is the emergence of Socialist totalitarianism which begins by suggesting some beliefs, Christians (Catholic and Protestant) should be expunged from the public square; they will then be consistent and say if Christians then why not the others as well?

8 March 2010 at 16:58  
Blogger Nephilim Child said...

Your Grace,

What is the Jedi symbol?

8 March 2010 at 17:07  
Blogger srizals said...

"drinking alcohol is bad."

Who would be so stupid to utter such statement?

8 March 2010 at 17:16  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

@It's Faith

"And yet you object to being called a fascist! How can this be?"

Because I am talking about them being banned in the workplace.

As you well know, but you choose to ignore that and be purposely obtuse.

If you wish to wear them in your personal life then fine, but the workplace is not the place to advertise your faith, it is a place of work where you are hired to provide service nothing more.

@English Viking

If that's the case then I yeild to your superiour knowledge on the subject.

It does however certainly seem more of a religious requirement in Sikhism than wearing a cross or sporting a fish does in christianity.

But I agree, a blanket ban would have been the logical thing to do. Unfortunate when precedents are set though. I would also assume an additional reason for the precedent being set is that it is a minority religion. Two wrongs don't make a right though.

@D.Singh

Oh, it's Mr Glovner now? What have I done to deserve this.

But then you go and ruin it all by saying something silly like I'm anti-semitic nazi.

Ah calling someone a nazi, the last charge of someone losing an argument.

Once again I will try and explain that I am not a socialist, nazi or fascist regardless of what your insane opinions might be. The only point I make is that the religious groups (all of them so don't feel you are being unfairly persecuted against) cannot show any proof for their religious beliefs. This does not mean they should not be allowed to have their relgious beliefs (which I'm sure is how you would like it to appear) but until proof can be given there should be no special status or rights accorded to these religious beliefs. This is only fair.

Otherwise what is their to stop me having my own religious beliefs. I can then just make up all manner of rules that have to be recognised by my employers, because by your account because they are religious they should be observed. My made up religion would have just as much proof as any other, so why shouldn't it be given the same rights?

8 March 2010 at 17:23  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr Glovner said: 'Also I don't have full teaching in the Sikh religion so couldn't tell you what book to find this in so no I can't tell you where it is...'

In other words Gllvner has been writing complete twaddle.

8 March 2010 at 17:24  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr Glovner said: 'Otherwise what is their to stop me having my own religious beliefs. I can then just make up all manner of rules that have to be recognised by my employers, because by your account because they are religious they should be observed. My made up religion would have just as much proof as any other, so why shouldn't it be given the same rights?'


It is! Haven't you read the Equality Bill?

This is precisely the sort of remark by you which leads people to conclude that you are writing out of ignorance.

8 March 2010 at 17:28  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr TheGlovner,

His Grace thanks you for your kind response. But, with respect, 'what you know' is not a matter of Sikh law or compulsion.

His Grace is fully aware of the development of the Khalsa and agrees with all you have written, except on one point.

It is nowhere written in the manner of a book of law that baptised Sikhs, as you say, are 'bound' to wear the 5Ks. This is not, as you aver, a 'semantic' point.

Jews, Christians and Muslims have books which are considered by their respective followers to be the 'Word of God'. The extent to which this is believed is not the point. The point is that Sikhs have no such book: there is no 'law'. The Guru Granth Sahib is a book of devotion: it is an increasingly common 'Western' tendency to treat it as being somehow equivalent to the Torah, the Bible or the Qur'an in terms of divine revelation. It is not. And knowledgeable Sikhs would not pretend that it were.

You need to divorce cultural tradition from religious practice, for Sikhs in the UK have actually adopted a number of Islamic practices (like separating women and men in worship, which occurs in no Gurdwara in India).

The Sikh 'requirement' to wear the 5Ks is precisely equivalent to Christians wearing a cross: it is a cultural expression or an assertion of identity (and in 17th-century india this was of great significance).

In fact, there are a great many Sikhs who would say that those who insist 'religiously' on the wearing of the 5Ks have completely misunderstood the nature of what has become known as 'Sikhism'.

8 March 2010 at 17:28  
Blogger Ronald said...

What is the difference between the great faiths and an 'ology' except the numbers putting money in the collecting plate.

8 March 2010 at 17:37  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

Fair point and I bow to your greater knowledge.

But this doesn't change the fact that no special status should be awarded to any religions.

It was not even myself that brought the subject of the Sikh religion up but one of your most polite and loving communicants Mr D.Singh.

He brought it up to somehow give weight to the fact that a christian being told remove their cross shouldn't have happened becuase it didn't happen to a Sikh.

The is an ad hominem arguement and the case of the Sikh has nothing to do with the case of the christian.

The wearing of a cross is not required to follow the teachings of christ or to be a true follower of christianity (I am sure you will not disagree with this).

This is the issue here not what happened to a Sikh, as I said before, two wrongs don't make a right.

The facts that you have given concerning the Sikh religion don't change the facts of the case concerning the christian.

The fact is, that the christian being told to remove their cross was not being discriminatory against the christian, it was just refusing them special status that they feel they should be awarded due to their religion. The fact that a Sikh managed to obtain this special status does not add any weight to the christian's case.

All you have confirmed to me is that the Sikh shouldn't have been allowed to wear their 5 K's not that the christian should be allowed to wear their cross.

I was led to believe that it was a law of being baptised a Sikh, and I thank you for showing me otherwise.

8 March 2010 at 17:43  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

"In other words Gllvner has been writing complete twaddle."

No in other words Gllvner has been writing what his understanding of the subject was.

Now that I have been given new data which I wasn't aware of I am able to change my views. This doesn't however make your views anymore correct. One of the wonders of scientific method is when I am presented with new evidence that I wasn't previously aware of I can change my opinion based on the available facts.

"It is! Haven't you read the Equality Bill?"

Except lets face it, it isn't because if I was to invent my own religion it wouldn't be recognised so you are talking nonsense.

What you are upset by is the fact that other established religions can be seen on the same level as your religion, but as all the established religions can provide the same amount of truth you can't give any reason why this shouldn't be the case.

So instead you act the way you do.

"his is precisely the sort of remark by you which leads people to conclude that you are writing out of ignorance."

And this is just yet another of your many remarks that leads people to conclude that you are a raving madman with no real manners.

Maybe you should try taking a leaf from your hosts examples on how to speak to others, regardless of whether they hold the same beliefs as you.

8 March 2010 at 17:52  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

Ronald, apart from time and your point, absoultely none.

8 March 2010 at 17:53  
Blogger Pat said...

It'll be interesting when a biker, charged with doubling the speed limit, puts forward the defense that that action defines who he is.

8 March 2010 at 18:02  
Anonymous jeremy hyatt said...

Conservatism is a religion?

Nah - it's a cult like the Moonies or Scientology.

Hague would make a convincing thetan. Or is that Mekon?

8 March 2010 at 18:49  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Glovy

It will be a hung parliament.

Cameron and his gays will be gone.

A General election will be held in the Autumn.

Then our man from the Right will emerge.

And we shall use the same procedures and law to neutralise our opponents.

If you do not, after that, continue to post; we shall still discover who are and were our opponents. The EU is at this very moment issuing tracing powers over the Internet.

I am looking forward to the day when your views are merely held in your bedroom only or in exile.

You must not forget; after Cromwell won the war he encouraged 'sequestration'.

8 March 2010 at 19:03  
Anonymous It's faith, stupid said...

TheGlovner

"If you wish to wear them in your personal life then fine, but the workplace is not the place to advertise your faith, it is a place of work where you are hired to provide service nothing more."

How dull your description of work is. And you would seek to legislate so that we would all fit your description of how work should be and how/where we should express our beliefs?

You may not see yourself as a socialist, but this is typical of the socialist's attempt to reduce everyone to their level of torment.

I reject it.

8 March 2010 at 19:18  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr It's faith, stupid

You put that better than I did.

Outstanding.

8 March 2010 at 19:25  
Anonymous John Malcolmson said...

@The Glovner

//the wearing of the cross is not a christian religious requirement. The Sikh's 5 (or is it 4? I can't remember) K's are.//

8 March 2010 15:16

Now that you have acknowledged that this statement is incorrect, will you also acknowledge that Mr Addison's comments (as set out in D Singh's post of 15.14) and which I have copied and pasted below, are valid?

//In the Eweida case the Court of Appeal attached importance to the fact that the majority of Christians did not regard it as a "requirement" of their faith to wear a cross. Leaving aside the point that this type of distinction is itself discriminatory it is also contrary to the finding sin the Sakira Singh case where the Judge said in para 29
"although the claimant is not obliged by her religion to wear a Kara, it is clearly in her case extremely important indication of her faith"
which is exactly what any Christian would say about wearing a Cross//

8 March 2010 at 20:36  
Anonymous John Malcolmson said...

@The Glovner

//But this doesn't change the fact that no special status should be awarded to any religions.//

It isn't a fact old chap, it's your opinion.

8 March 2010 at 21:16  
Anonymous len said...

Why does every ‘-ism’ and '-ology' under the sun trump Christianity?

Because when man fell for the satanic lie that he could be like God that he could could be his own judge of right and wrong he lost touch with the Truth and entered into a maze of deception which he is unable find his way out of without returning to the only source of Truth in the universe.Satan will allow any ism and ology because it poses no threat to him and allows all sorts of religion because he knows they will be of no use for salvation but he will do all he can to ridicule,suppress and crush the gospel of Jesus Christ because it spells out satans end.If satan could not stamp out Christianity as he tried to do in the beginning( killing Jesus all the disciples) he tried to contaminate it by mixing pagan religions with it.
In theses last days the satanic delusion will be the 'new age 'all roads lead to God or all truths are relative which is what Harpy Hormones bill seems to be saying.

Jesus Christ stated the Truth when He said" I am the Way,the Truth and the Life".

8 March 2010 at 22:38  
Anonymous Kiwi said...

"Are you blind or stupid, or just superficially hyper-critical?"
None of the above. It was a tongue in cheek comment. L. Ron Hubbard would have been most disappointed to be left off your list of weird cults, strange sects, spurious beliefs and pseudo-religions. But then, so would have Joseph Smith, Jr., and Brigham Young!

8 March 2010 at 22:40  
Anonymous not a machine said...

your grace chooses a difficult angle , and the existenstialists have made some hay, I wish I had joined in earlier !

The idea that christianity is relative is perhaps not as new as some may think St Paul was faced with the very same problem , some for appolos ? But reference to scripture does little to asuage our foes stumbling blocks .


I will try this avenue which most of todays athiests seem to congregate around . If christianity is delusion of percieved events based on an indoctrinated program , why cannot athiesm be a delusion also ?

If christianity is a fake belief ,why did the appostles work have an effect , why did rome not revert back to its old gods ?

Is it right to be so sure that scientific knowledge that we currently have can explain that god really doesnt exist .

What is so different about what the bible says and equalities and human rights in terms of results .

9 March 2010 at 00:43  
Anonymous Atlas Shrugged said...

The absurd policies of New Labour, their unworkable nature, their confused thinking, their deceitful resolve and evil intent, gives us great hope in preaching the gospel. The utter failure of the secular agenda will cause the British people to search for something better.

Yes, and I do believe this is already happening.

However

When I was growing up religion was for sissies. It was something only people with skin problems, dressed in unfashionable trousers, got up to. It seemed that religion in general was in terminal decline and that its eventually demise was inevitable. This thinking seemed to be as common as it was also taken for granted to be so.

Now 50 years later on, and religion seems to be everywhere. The Pope is constantly on the BBC, and far from Muslims, Jews and Hindus happily throwing off the shackles of outdated dogma, the exact opposite seems to be the case.

Even the Christian faith has survived and in many cases flourished when once it seemed to be as doomed as the proverbial Do-Do bird.

WHY?

Whenever things seem not to make logical sense, and very especially when the BBC gives progressively more either good, or bad coverage to a given issue, a high up conspiracy is almost certainly afoot.

So why are the powers that be, promoting the issue of religion in general, you may ask?

The clue is in the fact that the establishment is evidently promoting religion in general, while denigrating, or marginalising protestantism.

Why would the establishment wish to do such a thing, apart from the well established fact that the high establishment answers to the Pope, not The ABofC?

Because the establishment is actively striving by fare means or foul to destabilise its own people, and their traditional society.

This is not unforeseen consequences, a big mistake, or some kind of accident, this is a very deliberate, systematic, well tried and tested method by which a nation is prepared for massively radical and murderously abrupt change.

Before a people, and their society are changed they must first be made mad, and very preferably utterly insane.

This method was used to divide and therefore rule the German people during the 1920-30's. The planned and very well FINANCED reaction inevitably came with the election of Adolf Hitler in 1933. At which point vile, murderous, and horrendous authoritarianism seemed to the German people the only way out of their corrupt, divided, confused and impoverished situation.

So who, or what had the incentive, the means and the POWER to plan such a thing so many years in advance????????

Well let me put it this way, the clue is in the words POWER and FINANCED.

For without conspiracy, massive finance, power, and incentive playing an essential seen or unseen hand. Absolutely NOTHING as large and important would ever have notably happened in the history of civilisation. Save ONLY that which is clearly an Act of God.

Please understand that the above statement is not a conspiracy theory, it is a history lesson. A history lesson that if describing classical or medieval times, would be taken as self-evident and evidential fact, and indeed still is.

Only relatively modern history is apparently caused by accidents, acts of chance, or bad fortune.

9 March 2010 at 01:21  
Anonymous William Wallace said...

Harriet Harman is making a dog's breakfast of this.

9 March 2010 at 03:41  
Blogger D. Singh said...

There is one further point I would like to make about this Equality Bill. Why would a Moslem-homosexual-socialist engineer an amendment, the implications of which are to pave the way for suing our priests for failing to provide a ‘marriage’ service (on consecrated ground)?

What if Moslem homosexual partners decided to have a ‘marriage’ ceremony in a mosque?

The mosque would be terminated.

And the majority of our priests rather than conduct such a blasphemous ‘ceremony’ will resign; our churches will close and become warehouses and our faith will be driven from the public square.

In other words the real, and clever, strategy is to close down Christianity; and given that nature abhors a vacuum, there will only be one religion left in the public square: Islam. And a new generation of Britons, every Friday afternoon will hear the call to prayer from the inner-city minaret.

Defend our faith.

9 March 2010 at 08:01  
Anonymous len said...

If Christianity is a fake belief who would have been better able to perceive that than the disciples?.Would they have been prepared to defend and die for a belief that they knew to be a lie?They could have simply renounced their faith and had their lives spared.Many are facing this reality in the world TODAY.



Fates of the Disciples,


Simon Peter crucified upside down
Andrew crucified. Peter’s brother.
James beheaded
John exiled, died of old age (brother of James)
Matthew speared to death
Bartholomew beaten then crucified. (aka Nathanael)
Philip crucified
Thomas speared to death
Simon crucified, the zealot
James stoned to death
Thaddaeus stoned to death. (aka Judas son of James)
Judas Iscariot suicide by hanging

--> Matthias replaced Judas (Acts 1:26)

This is only the beginning,there are countless martyrs through the ages and today who would die rather than renounce the Truth having found the Living Truth Jesus Christ.

9 March 2010 at 08:19  
Blogger gsw said...

Never understood all this fuss.
As a lacto-vegetarian, I have the right to demand that restaurants where I eat do not put ham on my salad. If they do (it has been done) I have the right to send it back to the kitchen and refuse to pay for it.
I have the right to demand that the restaurant serves non-alcoholic beverages to me, and if given an alcoholic drink I have the right to send it back to the kitchen and refuse to pay for it.

As a non-theist, I have the right to remain sitting while the the others "kneel to pay" at a school assembly.

I have lots of these freedoms and rights because we do not live in a theocracy.

I do not have the right to demand that others do not eat meat in restaurants (or shout carrion eaters at them when they are eating - however much I am tempted.) or do notdrink alcohol, or do not kneel to pray in a religious area (church whatever).

The right to religion is the right to believe, not to right to deny others of their rights.

9 March 2010 at 10:28  
Anonymous It's faith, stupid said...

@gsw

too many rights... must be wrong.

Are you getting enough iron?

9 March 2010 at 10:45  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

Well, i've been lambasted well and truely, my character called into question, I've been abused to the point of persecution (well if the christians can cry persecution in the UK then I can cry it on this thread) I've been given answers to questions that weren't even asked, I've been told facts about other relgions I wasn't aware of, I've been shown court documents of cases that don't bear any relevance, I've been told how the christians feel they are being persecuted against.

But at not point has anybody actually answered the question that was asked.

Why should the followers of christianity be given a special status in the UK society that is awarded to nobody else? What is it about christianity that can it can provide something that other religions can't to support its claims of special status?

9 March 2010 at 13:30  
Anonymous It's faith, stupid said...

TheGlovner

And yet you keep coming back for more. I wonder why?

9 March 2010 at 14:13  
Blogger D. Singh said...

'What is it about christianity that can it can provide something that other religions can't to support its claims of special status?'

Glovy baby! I love you! You are beautiful!

9 March 2010 at 14:23  
Anonymous len said...

Mr Glovner,
You are priceless I mean that in the nicest possible way.
Every preacher needs a heckler otherwise things get a bit flat,please whatever you do keep it up.

Blessings, len

Ps ,and your question was?

9 March 2010 at 18:13  
Anonymous John Malcolmson said...

The Glovner

I refer you to my post @ 20.36 on 8/3 in which I alluded to comments made by Neil Addison and quoted by D Singh in connection with the Eweilda v British Airways case.

In this case, far from "the followers of Christianity being given a special status" as you claim, it is clear, as Mr Addison points out, that the Court of Appeal has ignored precedent created by the Sikh case. The effect of this judgment is to discriminate AGAINST Christians.

Incidentally, in case you think I have a particular axe to grind, I am an agnostic.

9 March 2010 at 19:26  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr Atlas Shrugged at 1.21 am:

'When I was growing up religion was for sissies. It was something only people with skin problems, dressed in unfashionable trousers, got up to. It seemed that religion in general was in terminal decline and that its eventually demise was inevitable. This thinking seemed to be as common as it was also taken for granted to be so.'


Recall, Prof. C.S. Lewis's 'muscualr Christianity'.

You are about to see the rise of the Judaeo-Christian Gladiator in our country.

And we will not rest until our country is free from the slavery of the fascist EU yoke.

It has fallen upon my generation's shoulders to stand up against the European Union's powers.

Napoleon and Hitler could not conquer this wee island on the North-west coast of Europe.

The clerks in the EU are about to find out we're no sisses.

They know where to find us. We're right here boys! It is not a case of 'Come and get us boys!'

We're comin' for them.

As the old English proverb states: 'Attack! is the best form of defence!'

9 March 2010 at 19:38  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

Still no answer, still comments against myself, still comparisons to other religions and still smoke and mirrors.

Why should christianity be awarded special status above other religions, ideologies or beliefs?

10 March 2010 at 09:43  
Anonymous It's faith, stupid said...

TheGlovner

You've been called beautiful, beyond price, you've had expressions of love thrown at you.

Are these the comments you mean? Is this the smoke and mirrors you refer to?

10 March 2010 at 12:33  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

Your answer to everything but that actual question asked would be an example of smoke and mirrors.

Like your last post for example.

Here it is for you again:

Why should christianity be awarded special status above other religions, ideologies or beliefs?

Or if you can't answer that one, try a simpler one

Why should christianity be awarded special status at all?

Want to take a bash at answering the actual question again, or do you want to answer one that wasn't asked or draw attention to points that don't actually reflect the question?

10 March 2010 at 12:58  
Anonymous It's faith, stupid said...

TheGlovner

But your question was answered! You must have missed it.

10 March 2010 at 13:43  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

I think you mistake replies for answers.

There are many replies that pose themselves as answers but none answer the question being asked.

Again, feel free to reply to the question actually being asekd:

Why should christianity be awarded special status above other religions, ideologies or beliefs?

Or the simpler one:

Why should christianity be awarded special status at all?

10 March 2010 at 14:05  
Anonymous It's faith, stupid said...

TheGlovner

No. There was definitely an answer.

Seek and ye shall find.

It's a good question, though.

10 March 2010 at 14:27  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

If you are that sure then answer the question by confirming which of the replies you feel answers it.

Otherwise we are both satisfied it has not been answered.

10 March 2010 at 15:15  
Anonymous len said...

Why should christianity be awarded special status above other religions, ideologies or beliefs?

This is assuming it is?Or perhaps the question should be,

Is christianity awarded special status above other religions, ideologies or beliefs?

Or perhaps we should be asking is Secular Humanism given a status above and beyond all else?After all our children are being indoctrinated into Socialist/Evolutionist dogma.Our youth are being brainwashed by the media and you scream 'foul;because someone preaches the Gospel which you don`t believe anyway, so what is the harm?what are you scared of? ( according to the current philosophy) my truth is a relevant as yours?

10 March 2010 at 17:49  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

Once again the actual question is ignored and red herrings are thrown about like this is a fish shop.

"Is christianity awarded special status above other religions, ideologies or beliefs?"

Yes, without doubt it is.

Tax breaks which no other area of society can claim, the right to ignore areas of educational ciriculam that everyone else must adhere too or at the very least teach it in a way that they see fit rather than from a nutural position, given tax payers money, awarded seats in the house of lords.

Yes religion is given unfair special status in this country. Above all of these religions though the most special is awarded to christianity.

So, once again:

Why should christianity be awarded special status above other religions, ideologies or beliefs?

Or the simpler one:

Why should christianity be awarded special status at all?

10 March 2010 at 19:39  
Anonymous len said...

The simple answer is it isn`t.

10 March 2010 at 20:04  
Anonymous len said...

Mr Glovner,
Please list all the benefits Christianity enjoys?with regard to 'The special status'

Christians are dying for their faith in many countries around the world is that what you would call a special status ? There are now more than 300 million Christians who are either threatened with violence or legally discriminated against simply because of their faith - more than any other religion. Christians are no longer, as far as I am aware, thrown to the lions. But from China, North Korea and Malaysia, through India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka to Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, they are subjected to legalised discrimination, violence, imprisonment, relocation and forced conversion. Even in supposedly Christian Europe, Christianity has become the most mocked religion, its followers treated with public suspicion and derision.

I don`t consider myself as having a special status unless you consider the above' a special status'

10 March 2010 at 20:39  
Anonymous It's faith, stupid said...

TheGlovner

Len is right. It isn't awarded special status, but it is the foundation on which this country has been built. It is at the core of our judiciary and parliament. It is part of our history. It is part of who we are as a nation.

If you intend to convert this country from one based on Christian values to one based of secular ones then you will have to justify why.

10 March 2010 at 20:53  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

Len/It's faith:

You are ignoring the question yet again and hiding behind smoke and mirrors.

I make no comment of christians dying and being persecuted in other countries.

I am asking about this one.

And in reply to faith's one valid point.

Religion has been given a free ride. The values that the country is founded on are exactly the same as humanistic values. It is the religious values that we draw issue with. We now have scientific method that is used to determine truth in every claim. Except the claims of religion. Arguing for the status quo is not a reason.

Try again if you like:

Why should christianity be awarded special status above other religions, ideologies or beliefs?

Or the simpler one:

Why should christianity be awarded special status at all?

11 March 2010 at 09:34  
Anonymous It's faith, stupid said...

TheGlovner

"We now have scientific method that is used to determine truth in every claim"

Then you will never learn anything of value.

You cannot use the scientific method for this. Unless, of course, you believe that we are just the sum of our molecular parts. In which case you are just a robot arguing with another robot. What is the point of that?

Belief in a God is just one set of molecular pathways, atheism another.

By the way, your question has now been answered. Christianity does not get special treatment in this country. It is a natural part of this country.

If you want to change that then you will have to justify it using your scientific method. Would you care to give it a try?

11 March 2010 at 10:47  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

"By the way, your question has now been answered. Christianity does not get special treatment in this country. It is a natural part of this country."

Nope you ain't getting out of it that easy.

As I said, it shares a number of the same values as inherrent humanistic values. It is the religious beliefs that it needs to justify.

So you have still not answered the question I am asking.

And we have already established that it receives special status and perks in this country.

To answer your point.

Yes, quite easy really.

No Religion can prove itself factual based on scientific method which is used to determine the level of truth of every claim. There is no reason given that religion should not have to prove its claims as truth although there is no method religion can use to prove its claims.

As it cannot prove its truth using the same method applied to every other belief it should no longer be awarded the special status it currently has.

There is no argument for the status quo as relgion cannot defend its claims with factual supporting evidence.

Once more:

Why should christianity be awarded special status above other religions, ideologies or beliefs?

Or the simpler one:

Why should christianity be awarded special status at all?

It is a specific question I am asking and not once has an answer to the actual question been given.

11 March 2010 at 11:11  
Anonymous It's faith, stupid said...

TheGlovner

"Why are rasberries yellow?"

"They're not yellow. The're red."

"You haven't answered my question. Why are rasberries yellow?"

"I have answered your question. I said they are not yellow they are red!"

"Let me try again. Why are rasberries yellow"

and so it goes on.

This is what happens when you argue with a robot.

11 March 2010 at 11:23  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Glovy: you have expressed the correct definitions of 'ad hominem'.

What is odd is that it is clear from your writings you don't understand them.

So: shut it.

11 March 2010 at 11:28  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

And still it goes on.

I have given a handful of examples to show why christianity already receives a special status in society.

I have given a plain and honest reason as to why it should no longer receive the special situation in society.

I have pointed out that it should certainly receive no special situations above other beliefs (religious or not) until it can show proof of itself above all these other things. If it cannot then it can only be treated equally.

I have asked one question with two varations.

I have been abused. I have been given answers to questions that have never been asked. I have been told facts about areas that bear no relevance to the question I asked.

To this point I have still received no answer to the question that was asked.

Could it be perhaps this is down to the fact that there is no answer to give, except that there is no reason at all why christianity should be given special status in society above all other beliefs, ideologies or beliefs. In fact there is no real reason why christianity or any religious beliefs should be awarded any special status in society at all.

11 March 2010 at 12:32  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Glovy says: 'The values that the country is founded on are exactly the same as humanistic values.'

What utter tosh!

It appears you have no knowledge of this country's history and values.

You should be ashamed of yourself and your blatant lie.

Get out of my sight!

11 March 2010 at 12:41  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

Again, you fail to answer the question and continue with your ad hominem arguements.

You call my character into question as a means to discredit the question I am asking.

Would you now care to make out that this is not another example of ad hominem?

Or would you like to try and answer the questions.

Here you go, incase you have forgotten them:

Why should christianity be awarded special status above other religions, ideologies or beliefs?

Or the simpler one:

Why should christianity be awarded special status at all?

Or are you happy not to give an answer and remain satisfied with the proposed answer that I submitted?

"To this point I have still received no answer to the question that was asked.

Could it be perhaps this is down to the fact that there is no answer to give, except that there is no reason at all why christianity should be given special status in society above all other beliefs, ideologies or beliefs. In fact there is no real reason why christianity or any religious beliefs should be awarded any special status in society at all."

Or would you just case to ignore the question again and go off on a tangent to avoid actually giving an answer.

11 March 2010 at 13:26  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Because it is the Truth.

11 March 2010 at 13:30  
Anonymous It's faith, stupid said...

TheGlovner has no interest in the Truth. He is only interested in what can be proved by the scientific method.

11 March 2010 at 13:39  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

To reply to D.Singh's rather lame answer, making a statement doesn't make it fact. Funnily enough, which is also why I don't believe what is written in the bible as fact.

Although you do seem to beleive what is written in the bible is fact so you may well believe that if something is written down it validates the statment as fact.

As already stated.

Truth of all things is proved through scientific method and this is the accepted method of validating the level of truth of any claims.

For all things but religion. Which brings us back to the question:

Why should christianity be awarded special status above other religions, ideologies or beliefs?

Or the simpler one:

Why should christianity be awarded special status at all (like the fact that religion is the only thing ever that has no requirement to validate its claims of truth)?

11 March 2010 at 13:47  
Blogger D. Singh said...

By using the scientific method he can't prove his imagination.

Glovy only believes if something can be proved by science.

Glovy cannot prove his imagination exists by using the scientific method.

Therefore, Glovy has no imagination and is a dullard?

11 March 2010 at 13:49  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

Again, you ignore the question and give another ad hominem.

Why should christianity be awarded special status above other religions, ideologies or beliefs?

Or the simpler one:

Why should christianity be awarded special status at all?

11 March 2010 at 14:00  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Glovy doesn't believe in the Higgs Boson.

11 March 2010 at 14:00  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Why do you believe you are qualified to ask qustions at all? Given that you have no imagination?

11 March 2010 at 14:03  
Anonymous It's faith, stupid said...

TheGlovner

"Truth of all things is proved through scientific method and this is the accepted method of validating the level of truth of any claims."

No it isn't.

It isn't the accepted method of validating that I love my wife.

It isn't the accepted method of validating that music is beautiful.

It isn't the accepted method of validating that genocide is bad.

It isn't the accepted method of validating that the survival of the species is a good thing.

11 March 2010 at 14:08  
Anonymous It's faith, stupid said...

TheGlovner

"Truth of all things is proved through scientific method and this is the accepted method of validating the level of truth of any claims."

No it isn't.

It isn't the accepted method of validating that I love my wife.

It isn't the accepted method of validating that music is beautiful.

It isn't the accepted method of validating that genocide is bad.

It isn't the accepted method of validating that the survival of the species is a good thing.

11 March 2010 at 14:10  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

Who says I have no imagination?

I would disgaree, but that still has nothing to do with the question I have asked.

As for the Higgs Boson. Well I don't have proof it exists yet which is why nobody accepts its existence as fact yet. That is why their is testing being done using scientific method in order to validate its existence and prove it as truth.

It's Faith.

You make a claim you love your wife.

If you show behaviour that backs up this claim then it gives evidence to support your claim. If the evidence for your claim supports it more than denys it then we can accept that you probably love your wife.

You see, claim, evidence, conclusion.

You can apply this to all your other points.

Except of course religions.

Claim: God is real religions are true.

Evidence: [BLANK]

Conclusion: God is real religions are true.

You see, it just doesn't stack up.

Once again.

Why should christianity be awarded special status above other religions, ideologies or beliefs?

Or the simpler one:

Why should christianity be awarded special status at all?

11 March 2010 at 14:15  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Glovy if you believe you have an imagination: then prove it.

11 March 2010 at 14:17  
Blogger D. Singh said...

For Glovy to take part at all in this 'debate'; Glovy has to believe in the following - but he can't as he can't prove he has an imagination:

1. Sentences can be meaningful and are not just a series of marks.
2. Human beings can apprehend the propositional content of written sentences.
3. Human beings can be in the condition of either accepting, rejecting, or suspending belief concerning propositions.
4. Logical laws exist.
5. Human beings are capable of apprehending logical laws.
6. The state of accepting the truth of a proposition can play a causal role in producing other beliefs, and that propositional content is relevant to the playing of this causal role.
7. The apprehension of logical laws plays a causal role in the acceptance of the conclusion of an argument as true.
8. Persons exist throughout the moments of time required for a rational inference to be performed.

11 March 2010 at 14:18  
Anonymous It's faith, stupid said...

TheGlovner

You are being evasive.

How would you validate that the survival of the species is a good thing through the scientific method?

11 March 2010 at 14:24  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Glovy: 'Who says I have no imagination?'

I did Glovy.

You suggest you love your wife. But you can't prove it by the scientific method.

After all you said:"We now have scientific method that is used to determine truth in every claim"

11 March 2010 at 14:30  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Glovy says: 'If you show behaviour that backs up this claim then it gives evidence to support your claim. If the evidence for your claim supports it more than denys it then we can accept that you probably love your wife.'

What Glovy does is appeal to us on the claim whether or not he loves his wife to abandon the scientific method.

Not very sporting is it Glovy?

What he is doing is asking us to employ the balance of probabilities test to determine whether or not he loves his wife.

Not consistent is it Glovy?

Yet if we were to appeal to such standards of belief as the balance of probabailities test for the existence of God; would he dismiss it?

Let's see if he is going to be intellectually consistent or not.

If he isn't, then at least I can dismiss him.

11 March 2010 at 14:39  
Anonymous It's faith, stupid said...

TheGlovner

So you're scientific method consists of claim, evidence, conclusion?

In that case:

Claim:

Jesus is the son of God

Evidence:

The Bible. 2000 years of Christian experience. 100s of miracles, 100s of prophesies coming true. People prepared to die for their beliefs. People still testifying today (2000 years later) that it is true. The most followers in the world.

Conclusion: That's pretty strong evidence.

11 March 2010 at 14:39  
Blogger D. Singh said...

We mustn't forget the archaeological evidence: http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/rohl-1.htm

I didn't realise that Dr David Rohl was an agnostic!

11 March 2010 at 14:48  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

All very entertaining gentlemen, but still no answer. It is ironic that It's Faith should make the claim that I am being evasive however.

I'm afraid that I am being consistent regardless of what you believe.

Scientific method asks for evidence to support the claim as being truth.

You have given no evidence to support your claim.

"Claim:

Jesus is the son of God"

The issue with this claim is that you already make an assumption that the existence of god is true without the evidence to support it.

So your claim is really only as strong as Jesus is the son of "Something".

The overwhelming evidence of our entire knowledge of biology and human existence would be that "something" is parents.

So the claim:

Jesus was the son of his parents.

I have no issue with and the evidence we have supports it.


"Evidence:

The Bible. 2000 years of Christian experience. 100s of miracles, 100s of prophesies coming true. People prepared to die for their beliefs. People still testifying today (2000 years later) that it is true. The most followers in the world."

All that evidence does not support Jesus actually being the son of god, nor doesn it prove your early assumption of the existence of god.

Which leads us to your final conclusion

"Conclusion: That's pretty strong evidence."

Well I think now we know that since both your claim and your evidence to support your claim are on pretty shaky ground then your conclusion is not worth the cyberspace it is written on.

Again, the actual question I asked, still screaming out to be answered:

Why should christianity be awarded special status above other religions, ideologies or beliefs?

Or the simpler one:

Why should christianity be awarded special status at all?

11 March 2010 at 15:09  
Anonymous It's faith, stupid said...

TheGlovner

Would you care to to wield your scientific method over the question of whether or not the survival of the species is a good thing?

You see I am still unconvinced that it can be used to test all claims.

11 March 2010 at 15:22  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

Again you refuse to answer the question.

But again I will be good enough to give an answer to yours.

But you should understand that scientific method is not mine, I could never be egotistical enough to claim it as my invention, never mind hundreds of years of evidence to prove that it was around long before me.

You seem to be confusing claims with questions.

You are not making a claim you are asking a question.

Your question is:

Is the survival of the species is a good thing?

A claim would be:

Survival of the species is a good thing

or

Survival of the species is a bad thing

But these claims or the question raised are still incomplete.

You need to establish who/what it is a good thing for before you can use scientific method to attempt to prove anything.

I will make assumptions in order to humour you though.

I will assume you are going to stick with your question rather than make a statment. And I will assume that you mean a good thing for the planet earth and it's other species that we share it with.

There is overwhelming evidence that we as a species have had a negative effect on many things (environment, other animals habitat etc). So from that point of view then if we continue in the way we have done the our survival as a species being a good thing for these things then the answer to your question is probably not based on the available evidence.

Back to my question.

The claim has already been made that christianity should be awarded/should retain and be granted more of a special status.

My question is:

Why should christianity be awarded special status above other religions, ideologies or beliefs?

Or the simpler one:

Why should christianity be awarded special status at all?

11 March 2010 at 15:44  
Anonymous It's faith, stupid said...

TheGlovner

"You need to establish who/what it is a good thing for before you can use scientific method to attempt to prove anything."

How do you do this?

I cannot answer your question to your satisfaction until you show me how I can ascertain (using the scientific method) what is a good thing.

11 March 2010 at 15:57  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

I have pointed out your question is incomplete.

I made an assumption for you as you seen in order to complete your question.

I have made a claim based on the evidence in answer to your assumed question.

Your reply is redundant.

Now again, the question that was asked:

Why should christianity be awarded special status above other religions, ideologies or beliefs?

Or the simpler one:

Why should christianity be awarded special status at all?

I can start your answer off for you if you like?

Christianity should be awarded special status because......

Using this template will ensure you actually answer the question (or try to at least, rather than going off on an unrelated tangent in an attempt to avoid the question).

11 March 2010 at 16:05  
Anonymous It's faith, stupid said...

TheGlovner

Perhaps I am being unclear.

In order to answer this question I, at the very least, have to show that Christianity is a good thing.

In order to do this to your satisfaction I have to use the scientific method as it is the only way you use to validate anything.

Therefore, you will need to show me how one measures good and bad using the scientific method. If you please.

11 March 2010 at 16:17  
Anonymous It's faith, stupid said...

TheGlovner

You can take as your domain the human race, or, if you prefer, the entire planet.

11 March 2010 at 18:21  
Anonymous Mikec said...

There are absolutely no absolutes

I believe I have no beliefs

I have a conviction that I am not religious

I believe I am above criticism because there is nothing about me to criticise

If I wriggle enough, I can evade truth

12 March 2010 at 06:52  
Anonymous It's faith, stupid said...

Claim:

"Truth of all things is proved through scientific method and this is the accepted method of validating the level of truth of any claims."

Evidence:

1) It is used in the realm of science.

2) TheGlovner says so.

Conclusion: ?

12 March 2010 at 08:48  
Blogger D. Singh said...

This link is for any of our readers who are still searching. It is one famous British journalist's journey...

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/

12 March 2010 at 09:11  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

"If I wriggle enough, I can evade truth."

How right you are. Which is why there is still no answer to the question i posed.

12 March 2010 at 09:35  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Then Mr Glovner: you live the lie.

12 March 2010 at 09:46  
Anonymous It's faith, stupid said...

Mr Singh

Wonderful article from Mr Hitchens.

What an eloquent/heartfelt apologist!

12 March 2010 at 09:52  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr Faith

Yes. Woderfully honest account. I still admire Prof C.S. Lewis's account: how he described himself as England's most reluctant convert.

{PS Your Grace I've now added a link to your website on my 'blog' (which isn't really a blog).]

12 March 2010 at 09:56  
Blogger mack said...

I’d been taught that left-aligned labels are preferred, to support the prototypical F-shaped eye-tracking heat map of web browsing. The idea is that it supports easy vertical scanning.

But this study revealed this to be incorrect!

study from home

12 March 2010 at 13:14  
Anonymous len said...

I think what Mr Glovner is using is a technique called 'circular reasoning' a false premise is made and an answer demanded.( repeatedly)
This is not an attempt at discussion nor an attempt to get at the truth of a situation it is merely a device to appear to win an argument.
As the Preacher said ( in ecclesiastes) 'all is vanity.'

12 March 2010 at 13:26  
Anonymous It's faith, stupid said...

You are right Len. He is blinded by his beliefs.

12 March 2010 at 13:39  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

Quite, but the question has still never been answered.

But to avoid actually answering the question that has been asked why not just believe what you want and ignore the evidence and facts, wouldn't be the first time.

I think the lack of any answer, or even trying t answer, speaks volumes.

Thank you for your time.

12 March 2010 at 19:58  
Anonymous len said...

Mr Glovner, As you seem only intent on playing games I will bid you good bye.
All that stands between you and God is your ego.

12 March 2010 at 20:30  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Glovy: you have no imagination.

12 March 2010 at 20:59  
Anonymous It's faith, stupid said...

TheGlovner

Your question has been answered several times, but not apparently to your liking. When I tried to engage with the question based on your terms of reference I received silence.

I suggest that you answer your own question in the manner to which you would like it answered and then we can all go home to bed!

12 March 2010 at 22:05  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

And there I have my answer.

13 March 2010 at 11:00  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older