Debate Over Discrimination Against Christians in Britain Gains Steam
The issue of Christian marginalization has gained new heat as the National Secular Society (NSS) recently accused Christian church leaders, including former Archbishop Lord Carey of Canterbury, of seeking special treatment at the Court of Appeals (CA).
In a separate instance Shirley Chaplin, a nurse, was banned by Devon and Exeter NHS Trust from wearing her crucifix on the job although she had done so without incident for the last 30 years.
This has sparked new debate among Christians, Muslims and secularists about the issue of discrimination of Christians in favor of secularists.
Stephen Evans of the NSS said “Equality for all before the law must be non-negotiable.”
However, Paul Diamond of the Christian Legal Centre filed the request on behalf senior church leaders after religious activists had already lost several cases of church discrimination.
Diamond also represents Gary McFarlane, who was fired from his job for refusing to give sex therapy to gay couples.
The church is requesting that McFarlane’s case is heard by a specialist panel of five judges with a proven understanding of religious issues. They also requested that the panel is headed by Lord Judge and the Lord Chief Justice.
The Christian Concern For Our Nation (CCFON) website noted that senior churchmen felt the CA judges are biased against them.
Lord Carey and others said that in the long term there is a need to appoint a panel of judges – of all religious faiths – to hear sensitive religious rights cases.
In a separate instance Shirley Chaplin, a nurse, was banned by Devon and Exeter NHS Trust from wearing her crucifix on the job although she had done so without incident for the last 30 years.
Others Protest
Dr. Taj Hargey, chairman of the Muslim Educational Centre of Oxford said secularism in Britain is “virulent”, and that Britain should be defending Christianity as the faith of the British majority instead of marginalizing it.
Hargey said “As a Muslim, I am filled with despair at the attitude of our politically correct officials towards Christianity” in his article entitled “What Has Britain Come to when it takes a Muslim Like me to Defend Christianity?”
Hargey expressed regret that the core of religious liberty, which was a “…cornerstone for our democratic, respectful and tolerant nation” is slowly ebbing.
Donald MacLeod, principle of the Free Church college in Edinburgh was featured in guardian.uk.com saying “Muslims may wear their burkas, gays their earrings and Sikhs their turbans, but Christians may not wear crucifixes. Marriage is attacked because of presumed links with Christianity, and euthanasia promoted because it is presumed to have none.”
In the same article Mary Warnock said “We need an established church. There are occasions when the cultural traditions and ceremonies of religion are essential, and nothing else will do. Christianity is not just a private but a public matter, woven into our constitution and our shared imaginative life.”
Dear Religious Folks,
The sane inhabitants of Planet Earth wish that you all would simply close your mouths, go to your chosen churches, worship as you please, and leave the sane among us completely out of your warped, limited view of the world and humanity.
Do you know who believes in religion? Stupid people.
Do you know why religion is so immoral and dangerous? Because, no matter the brand, religion is the root of all war and human suffering and everything that is bad in the world. It prevents progress. It squelches people’s humanity and compassion.
But mostly, to the sane among us, the religious simply come across as stupid people who can not and will not think for themselves. Instead choosing to believe in an afterlife and a heaven that does not exist, while abandoning their only REAL experience on planet earth before they are simply 6 feet under and worm food. Just like us heathens.
So, while the sane among us watch religious fools fighting for their rights – their rights to treat others badly – just know that while we do laugh at you, we also feel great animosity toward you for causing so much pain and destruction in this world. And ALL OF IT can be directly traced to religion. ALL OF IT.
But hey, all this religious nonsense quells your fear of your own mortality, so I guess its OK that you destroy the world and humanity in exchange for your own personal comfort of believing that you are going somewhere after you die besides the ground.
Hope that helps!
God Bless!
Wow, Bill…so much hostility. It’s interesting how you are so “tolerant,” but intolerant at the same time.
@ Tiffany:
Why would a sane human being NOT feel hostility toward people trying to destroy the earth and humanity in order to live out their personal Armageddon fantasies.
Also, I never uttered a word about tolerance or intolerance.
You lack critical-thinking skills.
And apparently a reading comprehension past a 3rd grade level as well.
But God Bless!
See, this is what I’m talking about… all the ad hominem attacks. You don’t have to “utter the word tolerance” to be talking about it. For some reason, you believe that the world would be in a state of harmony without religion. Okay, I get that. Let me show you my lack of critical thinking skills in action: How can you tell everyone else that there’s no afterlife, when you’ve never been dead? How are you coming to the conclusion that life would be so great without Christianity? We’ve already had a few societies that banned Christianity and the outcome wasn’t so great. Since you’re internet savvy, I’ll let you Google those. And how can you call Christianity or any religion “immoral?” What standard are you using to asses these things? Instead of being fueled by emotion, why not stop and actually think about things for a moment.
@ Tiffany,
I have also read some of your other ‘work,’ I believe, at The Examiner.
I know what you espouse.
You have no room in your soul to even utter the WORD tolerance.
Great. I’m glad you know what I espouse. I’m not ashamed of anything I have said. Obviously, you don’t even know what tolerance is.
Let me get the definition for you:
From Merriam Webster: 2 a : sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one’s own b : the act of allowing something :
People are allowed to have their beliefs. I don’t have to agree with them, so there is room for debate. Think about it, if I was intolerant, I would disallow your comments.
If you aren’t ashamed of your beliefs and your statements, it is because you do not have the sense god gave a billy-goat, dear.
You pride at your own ignorance dishonors the god you worship.
You should do something about that. You should try to be a better person.
That way, your soul won’t need ‘saving.’
Just a thought.
Oh my – I see the Underground has drawn the ire of a non-believer simply for printing an article suggesting that religious people not be denied the same freedom of speech as everyone else.
The fact that a Muslim came to the defense of the Christians in Britain should illustrate that not all religious people stand against each other or attempt to cause trouble. There are quite a few ecumenical councils in the world.
I believe it takes just as much faith to believe there is no God, as to believe there is one. So, I don’t think you are a man totally without faith. And faith believes in things which remain unseen.
I’m sorry if something has happened to “Bill” personally that draws such vitriol from him toward people who believe in God. If you return here, Bill, I assure you, God doesn’t want us (people of biblical faith) to treat people badly. I am convinced that those who do treat people badly really don’t have a strong prayer life or relationship with God. He tells us to display these traits: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, faithfulness and self-control (Galatians 5:22). No Jewish person or Christian I know believes in things like killing abortion doctors or gay people today, for example. This is a myth brought about by the acts of a few criminals who truly may not have all their sanity as you say – but not religious people in general.
However, when we believe in Jesus, we do believe we are commanded to have a voice in society – to be “salt and light”, to gently bring forth what the Bible says is behavior that may be harmful to people, and to do things which will show people the magnificence of our God – not hatred – so that others will begin worshipping him, too (Matthew 5:13-16).
@Sheryl,
Thanks for the backup.
I was thinking the same thing, but thought it would be foolish to continue arguing with somebody who is not trying to hear what I was saying. I sort of felt like I was living what Jesus said, “for which of these offenses do you wish to stone me.” I don’t believe it’s right to persecute gay people; but I don’t affirm their lifestyle either. I’m against racism; I believe that we should help the poor and marginalized; We should take care of the earth that God called us to be stewards over; I don’t think that Christianity should be mindless, etc. etc. And I’ve arrived at all these views by careful study of the Scripture.
You have secularists discriminating against the religious. What? This shows the person does not understand English.
Secularism is the system where everyone is given equal respect for their ideas and no ideas are privileged. It is essential in a democracy. Some one with atheist ideas, protestant ideas, catholic ideas, don’t really know ideas, Muslim ideas all are respected the same. No-one can say my ideas are better than yours as of right. You have to discuss and negociate and vote to get a consensus and make laws.
Thus secularism actually protects the religious… where would the catholics be in this country without secularism… discriminated against by the protestants? This is the problem in many countries round the world.. one set of ideas (often religious) is privileged and then can suppress/dominate others.
Secularism is not set against religion, it is essential for it… unless the religion wants to have a privileged place. and this is exactly what this Christian campaign is asking for.
We don’t want to be equal before the law, they say. I suggest they go and look up secularism in a dictionary and get over it.
Tiffany: “I’ve arrived at all these views by careful study of the Scripture.”
The writings of primitive, ignorant people in ancient Palestine are not a sound basis for your moral development. That’s why most Christians in the world are misogynistic homophobes.
@Chris
Wow, your hatred is showing. I’m glad you are omnipresent and omniscient. I’m glad you lived in ancient Palestine and know for a fact that they were primitive (when archaeological evidence suggests they weren’t); and I’m really glad to know you watch over all Christians, monitoring their behavior and thoughts to know that they hate women and homosexuals.
It’s worth remembering that we have a head of state who is a Christian, as are the prime minister and the leader of the opposition, along with many MPs.
Christians have Parliamentary representation by way of 26 bishops, and there are chaplains in all prisons, the armed services and most hospitals.
Hundreds of millions of pounds a year are given by the state in subsidies and tax breaks, and the Church of England has almost a third of the education system under its control. Both parties are also committed to handing over parts of our welfare system to religious bodies.
So Christians aren’t being ‘persecuted’ in the same way they are in many parts of the world, where they face threats and violence on a daily basis.
But are they being victimised, abused, discriminated against or pushed to the margins of society? Many Christians feel they are.
It may be that these feelings are largely symptoms of a general move away from religious belief across the nation.
In a modern Britain where nothing is considered sacred or above criticism, disagreement may appear to be persecution.
For well over a thousand years, Christianity was central to people’s lives. It contributed immensely to British culture, and an awareness of Christian beliefs and history is vital in understanding how our society evolved.
Almost nothing about our past, our laws, traditions, art, literature, music or customs makes sense without it.
Now we see Britain changing, and it is a difficult change for many people. Consequently, there is a real and understandable unease among some committed Christians as their influence and authority shift.
They may then see their traditions being eroded or under attack by other faiths, from a powerful PC brigade, or undermined by inflexible health and safety rules.
This can lead, as we have seen, to friction between employees and the organisations they work for. Yet those managers taking action, and developing the policies we all need to work with, are often just the people on the front line.
They are the first to see the changes that are taking place, and it is they who must respond to the demands of the law and the need for good practice in the workplace.
Significantly, when claims of discrimination and persecution have been brought before the courts and tribunals and the full facts examined, every one of them has been thrown out.
We are moving towards a more level playing field that recognises all the faiths and beliefs represented in the country.
In response, each religion is finding a new place in our society and, inevitably, there will be friction.
One suggestion is that mainstream Christianity is in decline. As it loses its ability to act as a moderating influence, the zealous of all faiths will become more vocal.
We will then see further disputes as each belief competes to defend and acquire special privileges, leading to more demands on our local businesses, councils, hospitals and schools.
As they continue to diverge, conflicts will increase between religion and modern society.
Disagreements will always occur, and misunderstandings or mistakes will happen. In the past, many of these disputes were resolved amicably at local level, though now we see positions quickly becoming entrenched.
This can be because organisations from outside those communities have become involved and have raised the stakes, so damaging those individuals and the institutions concerned.
We should be aware of the work of these pressure groups and see what is driving their efforts, who is funding them and the links to what is going on in the United States.
It’s also important not to see these cases as a battle between religion and a secular society, or in terms of winners and losers.
Across our nation, many of us – whether we have a faith or not – are constructively working towards ways in which we can all live together.
So, beyond the headlines, there are often bigger stories about how Britain is changing, and how we are reacting positively to these challenges.
We just need to investigate these conflicts and disputes properly. Otherwise, it’s just an angry exchange of opinions between opposite ends of a spectrum.
Let us make sure that the majority in the centre – those who are quietly making changes and compromises – are not being drowned out.
Tiffany: “Let me show you my lack of critical thinking skills in action: How can you tell everyone else that there’s no afterlife, when you’ve never been dead?”
Actually, you’ve done a good job at displaying your lack of critical thinking skills. A similar question could be put to theists: How can you tell everyone that there is an afterlife, when you’ve never been dead?
There is no tangible evidence for the existence of an afterlife. Yet theists – through their own selfish desire to avoid death – continue to tout its existence as true. Now, as many are aware, theists generally jump for the it’s my faith cop-out when questioned about their beliefs – which is really the admission that their beliefs are founded upon unsubstantiated twaddle. This, of course, adds more weight to the fact that there is no evidence supporting their claims.
“We’ve already had a few societies that banned Christianity and the outcome wasn’t so great.” – Tiffany
Likewise, we’ve had societies that have banned non-belief – and the outcome wasn’t so great. We also have societies that haven’t banned Christianity(Africa for example) – and again, the outcome hasn’t been so great.
Now, concerning the comments made by Bill, I must admit that I agree with some of his points. However, I don’t agree with his attitude; especially when claiming the religious are stupid(no doubt true in some cases). For the most part, the religious aren’t stupid. This being said, I do think many are gullible, vulnerable, desperate and extremely selfish – but this could be said about anyone from any walk of life.
It is, of course, a shame that people like Tiffany resort to the silly morality arguments. It’s unfortunate that some get so-wrapped-up in their beliefs, they can’t see through religious propaganda: the same sort of propaganda that the Romans, Nazis, Muslims used in their attempts to dehumanise the opposition. And that’s all these silly morality arguments are: propaganda and rhetoric designed to dehumanise others – and it’s one of christianity’s biggest and most divisive flaws.
Enough said… for now.
@Ryedo, thanks for your comments and quoting me accurately. I don’t back down from what I said.
Regarding life after death–You can think whatever you want about my critical thinking skills. I’m fully aware that if Christ was not raised from the dead, then my faith is futile. If this is the case, then you should pity me and everybody else believing this lie. However, the fact remains that neither of you can claim that there is no resurrection if you’ve never actually been dead before. You don’t have a basis for your beliefs, but Christians do. The crux of Christianity is the resurrection of Jesus.
Don’t try to lump Africa into one culture. Africa is a continent with hundreds of diverse people groups and cultures. You’re going to have to give me an example of a true Christian society in Africa where the outcome wasn’t so great because I can’t recall one right now.
I know the difference between ethics and morays, so you won’t see me resorting to a “silly morality argument.” Ethics deal with what we ought to do and morals refer to our morays-what a culture actually does.
You are mistaken if you think Christianity “dehumanizes.” Christians believe that we are made in the image of God. That’s why each human being has value. You can’t say the same thing from an atheistic or evolutionary POV. If there is no god who created you; you have no value. If we evolved from nothing, then we are still nothing. Any value you try to assign to nothingness is arbitrary.
I do dispair a little at the thought that secularism can be mistaken for Atheism. It must surely be more important that everyone has the right to make up their own mind on the issue & then to follow it without persecution. Secularism is about preventing religious organisations from unduely infulencing the activities of the state and from preventing individuals the freedoms they need to make their own minds up on matters of faith.
It must be important that no individual religion is given preferential treatment and that employers are not forced to make unreasonable concessions simply because an individual follows one faith or another. Religious organisation must also be prevented from having the legal right to discriminate against any other group or individual because of their own beliefs.
In the end, faith is incredibly important to the vast majority of people on this planet and must be protected. But faith is an individual thing and their should never be a case for forcing a particular religions views on anyone.
Christians are obviously concerned that the life of their schismatic little cult is coming to its natural end. If we are lucky then a diversity of such minority cults will persist with none of them having the undue political influence that Christianity in its various forms has managed to have over the last thousand years or so (in this end of Europe anyway).
And as for resurrection of semi-divine figures. It is a myth and, in the case of Christianity, a second hand and plagiarised myth at that. It only becomes a lie when it is taught in schools to small children as if it were history. Then it becomes a justification for anger, if not necessarily for intemperate language. I’m sorry if this offends any residual Christians who may indeed be pitiful and/or pitiable. The right not to be offended is what these spurious “persecution” claims appear to rely on. I find many things offensive but would hesitate to claim the right to have them eliminated.
Oh Tiffany, how can one put this without risking the complete collapse of all you believe in? You say that your faith is built entirely upon the truth of the resurrection. Has no-one ever told you that the whole Jesus story was borrowed (not to say stolen) from the very much earlier ones of Osiris and Mithras? Try reading a little wider than your scriptures and have your eyes, and mind, opened.
But don’t worry too much. Once you’ve realised that all religion is hocus-pocus and bunkum, you can become a Humanist.
@james jones
I suggest you actually investigate the historicity of the Resurrection instead of regurgitating the lies you learned in high school and from Zeitgeist. History shows that rather than borrowing from Mithraism, Christianity was a rival system of beliefs. Has no one ever told you that the similarities between Mithras and Jesus are not really all that similar at all? Mithras being born from a rock is hardly the same as Jesus being born of a virgin. Furthermore, the fact that Mithras supposedly had 12 in his inner circle means not much. Lots of religious leaders have disciples. Jesus was a real person who actually existed in space and time, not a some sort of weird spinx-creature with an animal head and a human body.
The story is so clearly mythical, sharing features with other contemporary myths and showing a derivation trail, that it would be ridiculous to try and find historical record to support the view that it is real history.
In spite of this, many people have tried to shoehorn the Jesus story into a historical context. When no evidence was forthcoming some then attempted to fabricate some – exacerbating JC’s credibility problem.
Tiffany – if you have any historical evidence for your special resurrection myth that other resurrection myths lack, or any credible evidence for the historicity of your particular resurrectee whatsoever then please tell us where we can find it. Some of us have investigated extensively but found the well-known square root of zero.
Your Jesus was not a real person in any meaningful sense and exists in the imagination of his devotees, not in space and time – unless you can show otherwise.
@Aiken
If the story is so clearly mythical, why not give examples? The gospels are proof. Acts, the Biblical history is proof. The epistles to the different churches are proof, and if that weren’t enough, many ancient historians mention Jesus as well as Christianity. As for your claim about a myth being repeated, show me a myth that is exactly like the historical fact of Jesus’ life and times. Not anything that’s vaguely similar. No, “Horus is believed to have died and been resurrected” stuff, because one can draw parallels between most things. If you’ve ever read Joseph Campbell, you’ll know that types and archetypes exist. The burden of proof is on you, since you claim you can debunk the fact that Jesus actually lived, when history shows that this is simply not true. If you’ve searched all around the world and found that the gospels as historical documents are false, where are all the experts who agree with you? Where is all your proof. Name names and give examples.
Tiffany
Archetypes certainly exist. A semidivine character appears and the basic plot resembles the standard archetype. This one is placed in a fairly recent historical context but with significant historical and geographical errors. He has some of his back-story filled in later along with the fabrication of some “evidence” i.e. the best his supporters have ever come up with is the Josephus passage – a non-contemporary forgery.
If, as you claim, many historians mention Jesus then I would ask you to name me one contemporary historian or writer of any description. The gospels are religious stories – Even Freke and Gandy do not claim they are historical records. They were written no earlier than the late first century CE and no documentary or archaeological support for their events has ever been produced.
It is difficult to show abscence of evidence as it just isn’t there. I could list the historians and writers present in the area and aware of the significant events (and cults)of the time. Philo of Alexandria and several others seem to have completely missed JC! But you are wrong; the burden is on you. You are the one making an unlikely assertion without any evidence to back it up. So name names and give examples or accept that all you’ve got is a story that might appeal to you but has very little appeal to many.
@Aiken Where did you find out about our site? We’re not an apologetics site per se, but I do try to “always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks [me] to give the reason for the hope that [I] have (1 Pet. 3:15).”
Here you go: Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny (the younger), Lucian, and the Talmud all mention Jesus/Christianity. All of these mentions during the 2nd Century AD (the 100′s AD).
Surely, we can agree that just because a historian doesn’t mention an event doesn’t mean that it didn’t happen. Most histories are written with a “market” in mind. So, a Greek historian would write a history that appealed to the Greeks. U.S. history books gloss over most of the stuff that happens in Europe to focus on what happened in the main and plain in “America.” Let me ask you this: Do you doubt that Socrates existed or any other ancient Greek philosopher?
In the case of Jesus, because there are so many histories along with the gospels, which are ancient historical documents in themselves (most scholars agree that most of the books in the New Testament were completed before 100 A.D.), and because people have acknowledged the fact of Jesus’ life for so many millennia, if you stand up and say that he didn’t exist, you’re the one who has lots of ‘splaining to do.’
I’m not trying to be rude, but let me explain the concept of burden of proof to you: If you think of the burden of proof on a scale of 1 to 10, the idea that is less likely requires the most burden of proof.
Wikipedia has an adequate representation of this:
Statement Burden of Proof
Fairies exist. **********
Fairies probably exist. *******
Fairies possibly exist. ******
I don’t know whether fairies exist.
Fairies possibly do not exist. **
Fairies probably do not exist. ****
Fairies do not exist. *****
Sorry, really should have realised earlier. This is a Christian apologist site based in the USA and Tiffany is one of the administrators of it. I don’t have the time or inclination to try and help with that degree of conditioning.
Suffice to say that I think the point has been made that Christians are not being persecuted in Britain. They are getting upset at being asked to stop claiming special privileges on religious grounds. They are also steadily diminishing in numbers.
@ Bill
Do you know who believes in religion? Stupid people.
So Einstein was stupid? Way to prove how stupid you are! You blindly follow your Darwin and text books!
Atheists are no better, because Atheism is still a religion, don’t say I’m wrong just because you wouldn’t dare classify yourself as one. You are end of story. Atheists are the ones who need to go away, you always complain about religion, it’s like listening to a bunch of babies cry. BTW, since you can’t prove God DOESN’T EXIST, your just as stupid as we are for denying it. Tsk tsk! Also, don’t pull the “Prove he exists” attack, its called Negative proof which states, just because your almighty science hasen’t observed God, MUST mean he D0ESN’T exist! Now who looks stupid? Go ahead and say something like this comment is stupid or blah blah blah. Its not, its just your atheist mind going into defense mode because you can’t disprove God. BTW more crimes have been committed by atheists than Religion. HITLER, STALIN, N0RTHA K0REA, AND THE MUSS0LINI