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.

 

Christians may have to give up public sector jobs! warns Bishop

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 10:35 AM
link   


Bishop of Winchester warns Christians may have to give up public sector jobs because of secular agenda

The Bishop of Winchester, the Rt Rev Michael Scott-Joynt, told peers that councils, police forces and judges are wrongly using equality and diversity rules to punish churchgoers.

He said that some in society now view religion as “undesirable” and want churchgoers to keep their faith “in a little box” rather than express it in public or at work.



He said in the Lords debate on Tuesday: “Religious faith and practice appears to be viewed in many places as abnormal, exceptional, deviant, as if it alone is ideological and controversial and, for a whole range of reasons, undesirable.

“Your Lordships may think that that is wildly exaggerated, but that is how very many people of faith, Christians and others, feel.

“It seems to be a thread that is at risk of running through the equality and diversity agenda. In fact, in my observation it does run through it; that fundamentally admirable agenda is often popularly followed out in many a town hall, in a significant element of the lower echelons of many police forces, at the more rarefied level of parts of this Bill, in Parliament, and even, if I dare say so, in some of the judgments handed down by the Joint Committee on Human Rights.

“My concern is for Christians, for the churches, for members of other faiths and their attempts to do what any honest believer would by not keeping their faith in some little box, only getting it out at home or with fellow believers.

“There is also a much greater danger for our society in that we could reach a point where Christians, and peoples of other faiths too, find it increasingly difficult to survive in the public service, and, indeed, in Parliament.

“There is a danger that a Government, of whatever complexion, who are coming to rely ever more heavily on faith-based social and voluntary and caring services, may find themselves making it impossible for bodies coming from a faith perspective into social service, which is often for the most deprived and needy people, to continue.”

Lord Alton, the Roman Catholic crossbench peer who proposed the amendment, said it was a response to fears over misuse of the law, which aims to protect groups such as homosexuals and ethnic minorities by outlawing discrimination of minorities in the provision of goods and services.

“My concern is that these provisions may be used, and indeed are already being used, by those whose intentions are hostile to Britain's Christian heritage. Others, who are more well-meaning, may simply be labouring under the mistaken belief that stamping out religious discrimination means stamping out religion. Under the nomenclature and language of equality, this has led to countless, ludicrous examples of risible things which public and private bodies have done in recent years, all under the guise of equality.”

Link





Indeed I would have to agree, religion is undesirable especially in the workplace and schools and I would advocate keeping it in a little box


[edit on 21-1-2010 by moocowman]

[edit on 21-1-2010 by moocowman]

Mod Edit - To place ex tags and provide attribution.

Posting work written by others. **ALL MEMBERS READ**

Please provide your own commentary when posting threads.

[edit on Thu, 21 Jan 2010 13:43:37 -0600 by MemoryShock]




posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 10:46 AM
link   
reply to post by moocowman
 


I am not a catholic,besides,I can't keep my mouth shut anyway.I will
always speak my mind,my beliefs and my opinion,at home,on the web,
in public...



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by mamabeth
reply to post by moocowman
 


I am not a catholic,besides,I can't keep my mouth shut anyway.I will
always speak my mind,my beliefs and my opinion,at home,on the web,
in public...


The you could very well end up having your mouth shut for you M, we're all have the right to an opinion on a subject M as long as we don't push it on others.



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 11:18 AM
link   
Than might as well ban every other religion and brotherhood in the workplace. If you ban Christianity than ban Freemasonry, or Islam, or Judaism. I agree that religion shouldn't be discussed at work but if you have a cubical and you want a picture of Jesus or Albert Pike who cares?



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by moocowman

Originally posted by mamabeth
reply to post by moocowman
 


I am not a catholic,besides,I can't keep my mouth shut anyway.I will
always speak my mind,my beliefs and my opinion,at home,on the web,
in public...


The you could very well end up having your mouth shut for you M, we're all have the right to an opinion on a subject M as long as we don't push it on others.
A lot of Congressmen don't seem to mind pushing their Healthcare opinions down our throats lately. I would rather they tell me who they think I ought to worship.



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by moocowman
 


Moocowman! How are you sir? Hope you are well. I agree that we all have a right to speak our opinions on subject M, and we all have a right to dismiss that opinion in favor of our own. I think that all mamabeth was saying is she upholds her right to freedom of speech. You can uphold your right to freedom of not listening, but not by "shutting her mouth for her". That's rather rude and oppressive. And this man is one of the worst representatives of ANY kind of faith that I know. How would Gandhi have been if he would have kept his beliefs "in a little box"? Not that I agree with his religious views, but my point is this: One of the best ways to show someone what your about is through your actions, be it at home, in public, at work, etc. How can a christian, or a peson of any faith, truly call themselves a believer if they don't live their beliefs? There's a name for that. It's called being a poser.



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by moocowman
 


Well,my husband tried using the mute button, on the tv remote, to shut
me up once.He knew it wouldn't work,but he enjoyed pointing it at me and
pushing the button.
Any man that could invent a mute button for women would end up being
a gazillionaire.



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 05:17 PM
link   
Apologies to other users and mods for not posting this correctly



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by one_man24
 





You can uphold your right to freedom of not listening, but not by "shutting her mouth for her". That's rather rude and oppressive.


Sorry for the late response I've had issues with the PC so had to leave it alone.

I did not intend to be rude and did not intend to imply that someone least alone myself would shut her mouth.

I was speaking in relation to what the Bishop was implying (or threatening) ie that the secularists/laws would shut people up.

Needless to say it came out the way it was taken apologies.



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by mamabeth
reply to post by moocowman
 


Well,my husband tried using the mute button, on the tv remote, to shut
me up once.He knew it wouldn't work,but he enjoyed pointing it at me and
pushing the button.
Any man that could invent a mute button for women would end up being
a gazillionaire.


Sorry M, as I have tried to explain to Oneman24 I didn't intend to be rude to you,. I think you know me well enough to know that if I was going to be rude to you I would be polite about it.

Actually a group of men did invent a mute button for women and they did make gazillions.

The button was called a credit card and the men were called bankers, they are still called something like bankers.



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 06:49 PM
link   
you misunderstand "freemasonry"; they are accepted in their rites ancient for their self acceptance of non disclosure of their rites.christians muslims and other "secular" religions are NOT of the same generational line in this regard.



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 06:52 PM
link   
I think the "angry Bishop" in the OP is more concerned in losing an area of influence, like the workplace, rather than expanding said influence on to more "subjects", "convert" more people to his own faith.

In his "plight" to avert, somehow, this "catastrophic" turn of events he doesn't hesitate to defend the right of followers of other faiths to practice their faith and declare it freely in order to retain some grasp to his own "right" to influence the workplace (schools in particular, most religions try to recruit them young!). He blows things out of proportion in order to motivate the whole organization of church in some kind of "retaliation" (although I find it hard to imagine what that would be).

In short, he seems more concerned to preserve his own "status" as religious "foreman" in the workplace than serve followers of his own and other faiths and help them preserve a right of theirs.

Or I may be reading him all wrong, years of experience with the way church establishment thinks and works in my country (Greece) has lead me to see only the "evil" in their actions (maybe it is so prevalent in most cases).



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 06:53 PM
link   
if your loyalty is to a king or queen then your individual opinions of your duties has little to do with your comprehension of the kingdom you exist in; what do you have to tell another person regarding the way you feel and the position you have for yourself versus them in a kingdom.lets pretend theres no king and theres a magical place where theres city states that sprang up from the mind, how does your belief in a king mean anything if you maintain that there is not one.



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join