TandemJeremy – Member
I will answer this one –

When their freedom to be religious means I lose my freedom then its wrong

What personal freedom have you, as an individual, lost as a result of the Christian religion ?

Do racists have unlimited freedom to espouse their views? No. Should the religious? No – the limits should be the same – you can do what yo want so long as it does not limit someone elses freedom.

So you want to “limit” people’s right to express their religious beliefs in the “same” way as there are limits on people expressing racism ?

I know you believe that racist views shouldn’t be tolerated on this forum TJ, I now know that you think people’s religious views shouldn’t be tolerated either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Hamza_al-Masri

double post

Why should the religious be able to prevent homosexuals marrying?

Do they? I thought same sex civil marriages were prevented by law?

What personal freedom have you, as an individual, lost as a result of the Christian religion

I cannot work in many schools as I am not of that faith…a workplace discriminating against employees on the grounds of religion

I believe religious views should be limited in the same way as any other.

You specifically said in the same way as racism is limited. You freely chose to make that specific analogy – no one forced you to. The inference is very clear – there is no difference between holding racists views and having religious beliefs. And therefore that stevewhyte should be banned for this forum for saying “The LORD is my strength and song, And He has become my salvation” and other stuff, in the same way that he would be for making a racist comment.

I’m not going to bother arguing with you, I just wanted to understand exactly what you think. And you’ve made that very clear now.

I cannot work in many schools as I am not of that faith…a workplace discriminating against employees on the grounds of religion

Not just christianity though is it? How many Muslim faith schools would you be permitted to work in?
We are really not very limited by the Christian faith here in Britain. Look at those poor people living under sharia.

The inference is very clear – there is no difference between holding racists views and having religious beliefs.

Oh for crying out loud you are reading way to much into that.
Face palm but i cannot even be bother linking
I deliberately said faith there wrecker as I meant them all.
Aye we have slowly broken free from the yoke of christian law in this country but it has not been given away…..no one expect an inquisition etc

I agree with Ernie here.

I cannot work in many schools as I am not of that faith…a workplace discriminating against employees on the grounds of religion

But they are faith schools. Certain “qualifications” are needed for every job. I can’t work in a hospital because I’ve no medical qualifications; I don’t feel discriminated against though.

I am teacher I could work there 🙄
can you name another workplace allowed to discriminate on religious rounds except for religious organisations?
they are exempt from discrimination law on the grounds of religious freedom.

flash and ernie in a tree K I S S I N G
I think we have reached this level of playground taunts and I am am out

TJ

Laws limit the things you bring up and are made by governments ,more often than not elected by the public.For right or wrong.You usually espouse democracy and self determination etc
Now if you’d have brought up circumcision….
You are not allowed by law to smack a child in the UK but you can in the name of religion permanently mutilate one only a few days old.

Prevent me doing what I want on a Sunday?

What are you prevented from doing on a Sunday that you want to do? Shopping? Hardly an abuse of your human rights is it, not compared with the rights of shopworkers to some family time.

at the moment religions have exemption from the equality laws – I would remove that.

You say you don’t like religion interfering in your life, but now you are trying to do exactly the same. That is forcing your own views on another grou of people.

Ernie – that not what I said or meant – I used Racism as an example as is quite obvious

I shall copy the whole thing

All religious.

Nope – like all freedoms it is limited by the need not to impinge upon anyone elses freedom.

Do racists have unlimited freedom to espouse their views? No. Should the religious? No – the limits should be the same – you can do what yo want so long as it does not limit someone elses freedom. when you want to tell me what I can and cannot do because of your religion then that is to be rejected.

and with that the ban hammer must be descending upon me quickly My email is in my profile if anyone really wants to argue this further.

can you name another workplace allowed to discriminate on religious rounds except for religious organisations?

Why would any others want to?

And anyway, my own view is that employers should be entitled to hire whom they like. If they want a workplace staffed by one-legged black lesbian aethiests then that’s up to them; it’s their business; literally.

I don’t care what you believe, and the argument of ‘it’s all a load of tosh’ is a busted flush. Does it matter if someone believes a load of tosh? No. Does it matter if what they believe infringes upon other people? Yes.

A big problem is that religion is adept at playing the victim, look at the cries of ‘oh the hatred’ in this thread for example (harking back to the free speech rubbish spouted earlier – does free speech only matter to the religious if their faith isn’t criticised?) and CMD’s reference to ‘a fight back’.

Faith schools are nothing but propaganda machines taking people at a time when they are most malleable, suggestive and trusting and using that to secure the next wave of followers. They are also divisive, where else in our society do we tolerate such segregation?

The Lords Spiritual wield disproportionate power and their block voting on selected issues renders the upper house pointless.

“That this block vote of 26 bishops does have influence was exemplified in a recent vote in the Lords to extend adoption rights to gays and lesbians under the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations when, to a man – and they all are! – they supported opposition to this human rights measure, invoking mumbo jumbo* in preference to tolerance towards fellow human beings, a quality that some of us thought was championed by a certain Jesus of Nazareth.”
Lord Harrison

*He wasn’t talking about religious texts but the rhetorical contortions that the Lords Spiritual are often reduced to in order to justify the way they vote.

There is only one other country in the world where the leaders of a single religious institution have the same power over the legislature as the Lords Spiritaul; Iran. The selection process for Bishops has also shown how the ‘slice of cake’ (a very useful but absolutely bullshine characterisation) CoE reacts by breaking the rules when confronted by a candidate they do not like (Rev. Jeffrey John).

This post is getting a bit long now – tbc

and with that the ban hammer must be descending upon me quickly My email is in my profile if anyone really wants to argue this further.

Don’t see why it should be. I’ve disagreed with loads of what you’ve said on here tonight, but none of it has offended me or bothered me in the least. It’s been a free and open exchange of views, as it should be.

mmm – this isn’t going to end well kenny. The rules are more ‘anti-discrimination’ rather than positive discrimination. Employers shouldn’t be able to refuse someone for certain reasons

and with that the ban hammer must be descending upon me quickly

The noise is your therapist knocking at the door 😉

Faith schools are nothing but propaganda machines taking people at a time when they are most malleable, suggestive and trusting and using that to secure the next wave of followers.

You must have very little respect for the ability of your children to think for themselves

It’s the old argument about how much right the state has to interfere in the lives of private citizens, even if the majority of the population finds the views of those citizens morally repugnant. It’s not an easy call in some situations.

The Lords Spiritual wield disproportionate power and their block voting on selected issues renders the upper house pointless.

What percentage of the upper house does 26 votes represent, it’s certainly not 50%
🙄

300 ‘undred

edit: missed. Elf would never have let that happen 🙁

nick1962 – Member

TJ
Now if you’d have brought up circumcision….
You are not allowed by law to smack a child in the UK but you can in the name of religion permanently mutilate one only a few days old.

Its worse than that you are allowed to Murder a child up to 24 weeks.

Just in case you didnt know what that age looked like

http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.lovingit.co.uk/images/2010-06_23-week-baby.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.lovingit.co.uk/2010/06/can-babies-feel-pain-at-24-weeks.html&h=286&w=468&sz=55&tbnid=_GxVhJ9ByAz_pM:&tbnh=90&tbnw=147&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dbaby%2B24%2Bweeks%26tbm%3Disch%26tbo%3Du&zoom=1&q=baby+24+weeks&docid=EgCYRvbVCMJ1UM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Ssh8T46GKMLb0QW3rrDRDQ&sqi=2&ved=0CDQQ9QEwAg&dur=2683

Holy shit.

leffeboy – Member
You must have very little respect for the ability of your children to think for themselves

I don’t have children. But they are children, and if sent to a faith school then it’s reasonable to assume that their parents are religious. Where will they get a conflicting view if their home and school life is based on the same doctrine?

big_n_daft – Member

What percentage of the upper house does 26 votes represent, it’s certainly not 50%

I never said it was, I said it was disproportionate.

Father christamas…yes kids sure are great thinkers and dont fall for tall stories
I hope they dont fall for anything else their teachers tell them and think that is true as well
Good point well made kenny

kennyp – Member

“and with that the ban hammer must be descending upon me quickly My email is in my profile if anyone really wants to argue this further.”

Don’t see why it should be. I’ve disagreed with loads of what you’ve said on here tonight, but none of it has offended me or bothered me in the least. It’s been a free and open exchange of views, as it should be.

Kenny – I have been banned for excessive argueing and am basically under notice for it.

stevewhyte – Member

Its worse than that you are allowed to Murder a child up to 24 weeks.

What a vile way to try and score points. Have some facts:

http://www.rcog.org.uk/what-we-do/campaigning-and-opinions/briefings-and-qas-/human-fertilisation-and-embryology-bill/brie-0%5DRoyal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists[/url]

Currently, only 2% of all abortions carried out in the UK each year occur between 20 weeks and 23 weeks and 6 days, and these are carried out in instances where the women’s or baby’s health are at risk. The vast majority of abortions occur within the first trimester of pregnancy.

Lowering the time limit will not result in a lower abortion rate. Women who are desperate to have an abortion will look for the means to have one, and this includes having an illegal and unsafe abortion in their own countries or travelling to a country where late abortions are carried out.

Awaiting the ‘hand of hope’.

stevewhyte

You’ve opened a can of worms there.
Did think it was ,at best insensitive, for TJ to bring up laws about abortion and Sunday Trading in the same post.
Not specifically a religious issue IMHO but one that is certainly very devisive.
Read The Pre Persons anyone?

TandemJeremy – Member

Ernie – that not what I said or meant – I used Racism as an example as is quite obvious

I shall copy the whole thing

All religious.

Nope – like all freedoms it is limited by the need not to impinge upon anyone elses freedom.

Do racists have unlimited freedom to espouse their views? No. Should the religious? No – the limits should be the same – you can do what yo want so long as it does not limit someone elses freedom. when you want to tell me what I can and cannot do because of your religion then that is to be rejected.

It is very clear from “No – the limits should be the same” that you are equating the rights of people with religious views with the rights of racists. You clearly feel that their freedom of expression should be limited.

Backtrack if you want and say you didn’t mean it – I don’t mind. But it’s very clear what you said.

By arguing about this stuff you endow it with meaning, don’t argue and it becomes less important.
It’s hocus pocus, leave it be.

..oh and congrats to steve for posting a real thread killer. When you’ve been a bit closer to the subject than shitehawk propaganda, you’ll have a different opinion.

nick1962 – Member
Did think it was ,at best insensitive, for TJ to bring up laws about abortion and Sunday Trading in the same post.

Why?

And it’s certainly not as insensitive as standing outside an abortion clinic telling lies to vunerable women based on your personal faith.

Nick you are corrct there it is.

Life, funny you call me vile when i oppose the Murder of Children regardless of age. Hardly an issue to score points on.

That’s exactly what you’re doing though. You oppose 24 weeks if it saves the life of the mother even if both mother and child would die otherwise?

Don’t like abortion? Don’t get one.

bump glitch

Lifer – Member

nick1962 – Member
Did think it was ,at best insensitive, for TJ to bring up laws about abortion and Sunday Trading in the same post.

Why?

And it’s certainly not as insensitive as standing outside an abortion clinic telling lies to vunerable women based on your personal faith.
Being able to buy a tin of beans at a supermarket after 5pm on a Sunday is surely a trivial thing whereas the other is not?

Lifer – Member

Don’t like abortion? Don’t get one.

I can go one better,

Dont like abortion, dont get pregnant.