It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Williams joins faith symbols row

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 27 2006 @ 05:51 AM
link   


The Archbishop of Canterbury has entered the Muslim veil debate by saying people should be free to wear visible religious symbols.

Dr Rowan Williams said aiming for a society where no symbols such as veils, crosses, sidelocks or turbans would be seen was "politically dangerous".

It would treat the state as a "central licensing authority" which creates public morality, he told the Times.

In recent weeks many politicians have debated the veil's place in UK society.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


news.bbc.co.uk...

Its interesting that the Archbishop of Canterbury has used China as an example (when majority of Labour were members of the Communist Party) and the damage that Labour is attempting to do with its secular and atheist policies surrounding religion.

After July 7th, the Church of England has done wonders in non-christian communities, but our Government (who like to think of themselves of Gods) have just ignored the Church of England and other religions and decided what is best for us.(again)

Do the Labour Government want to turn this Country into France? (well, they are a pro-European Party) but restricting religious symbols is a stupid thing to do and its something you only expect Communists to do (....or New Labour
)




posted on Oct, 27 2006 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by infinite
(when majority of Labour were members of the Communist Party)


- What!?


Prove it, when were a majority of the British Labour party ever members of the Communist party?


After July 7th, the Church of England has done wonders in non-christian communities, but our Government (who like to think of themselves of Gods) have just ignored the Church of England and other religions and decided what is best for us.(again)


- Are you pi**ed?

You've posted an article showing Labour as having reached voluntary agreement with the Churches and now you want to pretend they're ignoring the Churches?

How does that work?

......and what the hell is that "Gods" comment meant to mean?


Do the Labour Government want to turn this Country into France?


- There's a lot to be said for the French idea, divorcing the Church from state entirely is no bad thing at all (and dis-establishment is not entirely without support within the C of E either.....particularly with Charles 3rd looming).


but restricting religious symbols is a stupid thing to do and its something you only expect Communists to do (....or New Labour
)


- Go on then infinite, show us the law where Labour "restricted" religious symbols.

The only story to that effect I have seen lately is a private business (British Airways) telling a member of staff not to wear a visible symbol.

But if you know the Gov has passed a new law and done similar please do tell........?



posted on Oct, 27 2006 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
- What!?


Prove it, when were a majority of the British Labour party ever members of the Communist party?


Peter Mandleson, Charles Clarke, John Reid, Jack Straw, the Left of Labour as well, need i go in? im sure MI5 can give you a list....



You've posted an article showing Labour as having reached voluntary agreement with the Churches and now you want to pretend they're ignoring the Churches?


If i recall, the Church of England has accused the Government of ignoring religion in a recent press release. That was about two weeks ago i believe. Shall i get other reports regarding the Church of England and their views on the UK Government?



- There's a lot to be said for the French idea, divorcing the Church from state entirely is no bad thing at all (and dis-establishment is not entirely without support within the C of E either.....particularly with Charles 3rd looming).


IF Charles gets the nod from Parliament (they have a say remember).

seperation of Church and State will only happen if the UK got rid of the Monarchy (cause the Monarch is head of the Church as well). but, that question will probably be raised if Charles become King because he has a habit of upsetting the Government by going public with his views

(i believe it was Charles Clarke who didn't see eye-to-eye with the Prince)



posted on Oct, 27 2006 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by infinite
Peter Mandleson, Charles Clarke, John Reid, Jack Straw, the Left of Labour as well, need i go in? im sure MI5 can give you a list....


- Oh I see, you mean when they were students and long before getting into serious politics?

........and a couple of names does not constitute a "majority".

Maybe you'd care to (in the interests of balance) add a little list of tory party members who also were members?


If i recall, the Church of England has accused the Government of ignoring religion in a recent press release. That was about two weeks ago i believe. Shall i get other reports regarding the Church of England and their views on the UK Government?


- The issue of the schools illustrates the falsehood of this point.



posted on Oct, 27 2006 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
Maybe you'd care to (in the interests of balance) add a little list of tory party members who also were members?


Tories in the communist party? ermmm maybe the NF.



and a couple of names does not constitute a "majority".


there is afew more and its always been the goal of the Communist party for Labour to go back to its traditional Marxists roots (which was 1903 i think). i really don't know how you can brush it off as it not being serious politics, when Labour was inflitrated by the Far Left during the 80s.



The issue of the schools illustrates the falsehood of this point.


So the Church of England is lying then?



posted on Oct, 27 2006 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by infinite
Tories in the communist party? ermmm maybe the NF.


- Well sometimes something close to that too.

Seriously....if you want to do the whole 'when they were students' thing you'll find the occasional prominent tory was also in the CP or hanging around them.

Then they grow up a little and get into serious politics.

BTW I can't find anything that proves Jack Straw was a member of the CP.


there is afew more and its always been the goal of the Communist party for Labour to go back to its traditional Marxists roots (which was 1903 i think).


- Labour did not have "Marxist roots".

It formally began in 1906 and it's beginning were all about giving a voice to and furthering the rights of the working man.
That is not Marxism or Communist.

en.wikipedia.org...(UK)


i really don't know how you can brush it off as it not being serious politics, when Labour was inflitrated by the Far Left during the 80s.


- It's easy to brush off. Look at what happened.
Some did indeed try to infiltrate.....just as BNP/NF types can be found hanging out around the tory party.

They identified (it wasn't hard) and threw them out.
They changed policies (away from a more left leaning stance).
They came into Gov and have been very moderate when it comes to political ideology prompting more than a few to attack them as little different from the tories.

......and if you or anyone else is trying to imply 'tory Blair' et al in this Labour Gov are really all secret commies then you really ought to make your minds up which plan of attack you wish to use.

That's always been the trouble with the standard tory attack one moment they're too right-wing and another they claim they're too left-wing unfortunately this flip-flop just shows that the attack itself is usually just too ridiculous to take seriously.


So the Church of England is lying then?


- No, they're playing politics, which is never a good idea for them.

Come on infinite you just posted a thread all about consultation and dialogue with the Churches......were you lying?



posted on Oct, 27 2006 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
Come on infinite you just posted a thread all about consultation and dialogue with the Churches......were you lying?


no,

there are reports were the Archbishop of Canterbury has hit out against the Labour Government. And i believe i did make a reference to it in a thread about the Muslim religious symbols.

Church of England are concerned and have accused the Government of ignoring Christians and the Church. Some members of the CoE have even accused the Government of favouritism of other religions (which is abit extreme)



posted on Oct, 27 2006 @ 12:45 PM
link   
Well I'd just like to point out the context.

'Religion' is supposedly 'hot on the agenda', but ironically the C of E itself isn't really a part of the discussion so far and so what does Williams do?

He (with a straight face and not a hint of irony) pops up complaining that religion is too much on the political agenda, thereby placing the C of E right in the middle of the debate.

Along side this contribution there are added side mutterings that the C of E doesn't get enough attention from this Gov - which the tory party and their media pals is only too happy to back up so as to theatrically demonstrate their 'care' for 'traditional British values' to those that lap up that kind of guff

The C of E has long been referred to as 'the tory party at prayer'
......but this does add to the tendency to pervert the term 'British', as the C of E can hardly be described as something traditionally and meaningfully 'British' outside of England.

(Anyone with a little memory might recall the last tory Gov.'s response to a publicly political C of E.......nothing so mild as quainy claims about being 'ignored', interfered with and regularly attacked is more like it)

It's not exactly hard to work out what's going on, is it?

The C of E are as much a political 'animal' as any huge vested and powerful interest in the UK, to pretend otherwise is simply naive.

The problem the C of E has though is that while they have the money and to some extent a lot power as part and parcel of the British establishment they simply no longer have the numbers in terms of 'hard support' amongst the general public to back them up anymore.

Hence Williams trying to chip in on a 'relevant' issue.


[edit on 27-10-2006 by sminkeypinkey]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join