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 are discriminated against and 'treated with disrespect', senior bishops warn

page: 3
24
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 06:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Yissachar1
 


You state that the roots of this country are founded on christianity. You could in fact we are actually originally a pagan Isle. A look around the country side you will see many stone circles and pagan burial grounds. Christianity was forced on to the naitives originally as catholicism and when King henry vIII couldnt get a divorvce, he changed from cathollic to establsh The Church of England, furthering my argument that its all a load of nonsense.




posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 06:08 AM
link   
reply to post by woodwardjnr
 


Yes it was pagan, but Christianity was in England wayyyyy before that Henry and the church of Romes shenanigans and powerplays.... It was Christianity that united the fragmented warring celts/saxons into a country... Our laws come straight out of Christian principles... The nations foundation is Christian.... Before that we were many tribes with many languages.... Christianity bought us together and made us world leaders.... You cannot deny that..

[edit on 29-3-2010 by Yissachar1]



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 06:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Yissachar1
 


OK, I'll give you that, but we are now in 2010 and to expect people to still believe in the Bible is expecting a lot in a society where we have a greater understanding of science than at any other point iin history. No matter how christianty will try to match the Bible with science, we know it doesn't really wash anymore.

How can the Church be taken seriosly in this day and age, you cant help questioning the stories from the bible.

Just because it may have been successful in the past, you cant expect non believers to suddenly start believing in something because it may be better for society.



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 06:54 AM
link   
reply to post by woodwardjnr
 


This thread is not about converting people but pointing out the marginalization of a large portion of this country whose voice has been muted for the sake of a few and its concerns ignored... No representation.. After all we pay taxes and are voters and citizens of this country... There is no respect given... Whether you believe or not is irrelevant.. This is about civil liberties being trampled on..



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 06:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Yissachar1
 


the reason it has a muted voice is because no one really follows chritianity or goes to church anymore, unlike the other religions.



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 07:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
the reason it has a muted voice is because no one really follows chritianity or goes to church anymore, unlike the other religions.


That's not really true though, is it ?
While Christianity may have lost some popularity and believers in recent decades, it is by far and away the biggest religion in terms of believers and worshippers in the UK.
I just found some research dating from 2007 that suggested that 10% of the population attend church weekly, and 15% monthly - if those figures are accuarate, then it's not a huge proportion of the population, but it is still far more than all the other religions combined.
Also, I'm not sure that going to church is a pre-requisite to being a Christian, because I know a few that hardly go to church, but still believe in Christianity.



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 07:33 AM
link   
www.statistics.gov.uk...

Just to add some figures from the 2001 UK census:

Christian 71.8%
Muslim 2.8%
Hindu 1.0%
Sikh 0.6%
Jewish 0.5%
Buddhist 0.3%
Other 0.3%

All non-Christian religions only account for 5.4% of the population, so I think you need to reconsider your belief that Christianity is not as popular as other religions, when your view is overwhelmingly not backed up by statistics.







[edit on 29-3-2010 by Benji1999]



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 07:50 AM
link   
I don't think people get what this really is. It's manipulation pure and simple. They associated Islam with terrorism and then they show favoritism to it to piss off Christians further. Thereby causing these so called peaceful people to see Muslims as subhuman and worthy of having bombs dropped on them.

It's all really easy to figure out but, everyone still wants to keep playing the game.



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benji1999
www.statistics.gov.uk...

Just to add some figures from the 2001 UK census:

Christian 71.8%
Muslim 2.8%
Hindu 1.0%
Sikh 0.6%
Jewish 0.5%
Buddhist 0.3%
Other 0.3%

All non-Christian religions only account for 5.4% of the population, so I think you need to reconsider your belief that Christianity is not as popular as other religions, when your view is overwhelmingly not backed up by statistics.







[edit on 29-3-2010 by Benji1999]


Then this is a failure of the church, If they have such a large majority and following how could they ever feel discriminated against. It's because most people who condier themselves christians are more likely to be found in an out of town shopping centre on a sunday rather than a Church.



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
Then this is a failure of the church, If they have such a large majority and following how could they ever feel discriminated against. It's because most people who condier themselves christians are more likely to be found in an out of town shopping centre on a sunday rather than a Church.


I agree a lot of self-declared Christians are probably Christian in name only, but I was just saying that whichever way you look at it, Christianity is still by far and away the largest religion in the UK, and also does have the highest religious attendance. I think it's the fact that they are the largest religious group that makes them an easy target for some people, who seem to think that prejudice and discrimination against the majority is somehow justified to ''even things up'' - of course these people are puerile and wrong to think in this way.

I do believe there is some discrimination, but I agree with the above poster that says that it's all just part of the divide and conquer techniques.


[edit on 29-3-2010 by Benji1999]



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 09:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Benji1999
 


Does it really matter if 72.8 percent is an easy target for .3 percent? It just seems to me that he was trying to point out that if such a small percent of the people can upset such a huge majority, then it is the majority's problem for letting it bother them, affect them, get in their way, whatever.



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Wait Just a Minute Here



There is a policy against jewelry (or jewellery). This necklace IS jewelry. It's NOT because it's religious that there is a problem. It's because it's a possible danger to patients. Their policy doesn't allow necklaces!



The trust says the policy was nothing to do with the crucifix specifically, but motivated by health and safety concerns about patients grabbing necklaces.


Source

It sounds like the Christians in this case are expecting a special case be made that they can wear their crosses because they are not jewelry. BS! It's a chain around her neck with a piece of gold hanging from it.

From the source in the OP:



Official policies that considered Christian crosses as items of jewellery were 'deeply disturbing and distressing'.
...
The NHS Trust allows exemptions from its uniform policy to other faiths, including allowing Muslim nurses to wear headscarves.


That's because their policy doesn't consider headscarves to be potentially dangerous to patients.

I'm all for the freedom of religious expression, but this is SO typical of many Christians these days. They demand special conditions BECAUSE of their religion, and then cry discrimination when they don't get them. This is NOT about religion, it's about a safety policy. They are making it about religion. She's playing the religion card ("It's because I'm a Christian"!) Bullpucky! If she wants to wear the cross as a pin or under her blouse, that would be fine, she just isn't allowed to have it dangling out where patients might grab it.

I hate this victim stance that SOME Christians are taking these days.
I think it's a self-fulfilling prophesy. I swear, if they're told not to speed, they cry, "It's because I'm a Christian! - Discrimination"!!!

[edit on 3/29/2010 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Wait Just a Minute Here



There is a policy against jewelry (or jewellery). This necklace IS jewelry. It's NOT because it's religious that there is a problem. It's because it's a possible danger to patients. Their policy doesn't allow necklaces!



The trust says the policy was nothing to do with the crucifix specifically, but motivated by health and safety concerns about patients grabbing necklaces.





The NHS Trust allows exemptions from its uniform policy to other faiths, including allowing Muslim nurses to wear headscarves.


That's because their policy doesn't consider headscarves to be potentially dangerous to patients.



Ironically, necklaces with religious symbols are generally made of the same precious metals that combat virus, bacteria etc., whereas fabric headscarves are damp, warm environments for all manner of malbug to lurk.



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I'm all for the freedom of religious expression, but this is SO typical of many Christians these days. They demand special conditions BECAUSE of their religion, and then cry discrimination when they don't get them. This is NOT about religion, it's about a safety policy. They are making it about religion. She's playing the religion card ("It's because I'm a Christian"!) Bullpucky! If she wants to wear the cross as a pin or under her blouse, that would be fine, she just isn't allowed to have it dangling out where patients might grab it.

I hate this victim stance that SOME Christians are taking these days.
I think it's a self-fulfilling prophesy. I swear, if they're told not to speed, they cry, "It's because I'm a Christian! - Discrimination"!!!

[edit on 3/29/2010 by Benevolent Heretic]


You may be right about the jewellery, but your above comments just re-enforces the stance that they are discriminated against.
You specifically single out Christians, and specifically accuse some Christians of having a victim mentality, when it is in fact some people from all religions/beliefs that show this behaviour.

[edit on 29-3-2010 by Benji1999]



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by K J Gunderson
Does it really matter if 72.8 percent is an easy target for .3 percent? It just seems to me that he was trying to point out that if such a small percent of the people can upset such a huge majority, then it is the majority's problem for letting it bother them, affect them, get in their way, whatever.


No, it's not the majorities fault for letting it bother them, it's the person who discriminates against them that has the problem. You can't justify discrimination just because it's against a people that form a majority. Discrimination is wrong, regardless of the numbers.



[edit on 29-3-2010 by Benji1999]



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 09:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


And there is nothing, in the Bible, that states you have to wear a necklace to prove you are a Christian. It is not compulsory.



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Yissachar1
 

millions of tax paying Christians and whether you like it or not have a right to be heard in parliament.
Of course they do & they can vote for whoever they like to become their MP. However, there are bishops in the house of lords who get to sit there merely because they are bishops. Its a holdover from the fact that the CofE, archaically, is still not disestablished from the state. If they were appointed in the same way as other peers, I'd just complain that they're unelected! As it is, its disproportionate representation.

Whats wrong with a tiny flippin cross??
As I said, I wouldn't employ a person who wore any identifiable religious paraphernalia. No turbans, hijab, yarmulke, crosses, pentacle... I'm an equal opportunity discriminator. Why? 1) I find the kind of person that needs to flaunt religion likely to be a pain in the arse. 2) Its potentially divisive. My business is in quite high pressure media. Often enough, we work very long hours to changing deadlines, in close proximity to volatile artists. Tempers fray. I dont need people around that disapprove of such things as swearing, promiscuity, various types of innebriation, homosexuality, nudity, etc. as these are all common enough in media circles.
I have my spiritual beliefs. I have no need for anyone at work to know what they are. They are irrelevant to the job & potentially counterproductive. Its the same with this woman. What has her faith got to do with caring for a diverse cross section of people? She was also warned that confused patients grab things, which, depending on how it happened, could leave the hospital open to legal action. She wouldn't be allowed to wear her hair long & loose either...



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benji1999

Originally posted by K J Gunderson
Does it really matter if 72.8 percent is an easy target for .3 percent? It just seems to me that he was trying to point out that if such a small percent of the people can upset such a huge majority, then it is the majority's problem for letting it bother them, affect them, get in their way, whatever.


No, it's not the majorities fault for letting it bother them, it's the person who discriminates against them that has the problem. You can't justify discrimination just because it's against a people that form a majority. Discrimination is wrong, regardless of the numbers.



[edit on 29-3-2010 by Benji1999]


No, that was not what I was saying. I am not justifying discrimination or saying people that do it are not wrong. I am saying that there is no reason that .3% of the population should even be heard by 72.8%. Why should such a small number of people even matter to such a large number? If one person in this entire state opposed me...I am pretty sure I could carry on.



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by teapot
Ironically, necklaces with religious symbols are generally made of the same precious metals that combat virus, bacteria etc., whereas fabric headscarves are damp, warm environments for all manner of malbug to lurk.


I'm not arguing with the policy. THAT'S the policy. If she wants to wear her necklace, she can do so according to the policy. If she wants to change the policy, that's another story.


Originally posted by Benji1999
You specifically single out Christians, and specifically accuse some Christians of having a victim mentality, when it is in fact some people from all religions/beliefs that show this behaviour.


I single out Christians because that is my experience. But you're probably right. It's all religions, I'm sure. I certainly didn't mean to discriminate.
There's enough victim mentality to go around to all religions.



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 10:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Yissachar1
 


Nowhere in the article do I see that she was singled out for being of the 'Christian' faith. The article makes it very clear that this was the result of a 'safety' issue,not a 'religious' issue.

Until you are able to show that she was 'discriminated' against for her 'display of faith' then your implication has no merit whatsoever.

Until you can show that persons of other faiths are allowed to wear necklaces displaying signs of their belief, while she is not allowed to do the same, then again, no merit to what you are implying .

Until you can show that there are other persons who are allowed to wear ropes, chains or necklaces of whatever persuasion or design, alongside of her, while she is not allowed to, then where is your discrimination issue ?

Would you have posted this thread if she had been wearing a 'star of david' ? How about if she had a buddha hanging around her neck ? How about if she were a Muslim, and had a necklace of a star and crescent around her neck ?

Would you have still posted this thread ? Seeing that you are a self-professed 'semite' , from other posts, and apparently a christian, would you have been as quick to run to the defense of someone who holds to a belief system other than your own ?

We have centuries of 'christians' persecuting, burning people at the stake, wiping out entire indigenous populations, and countless untold atrocities. And they have did all of this in the name of their 'belief' system, which assures them that 'God' is on their side !

The christian 'religion' has inflicted countless horrors upon mankind.

But to stay on topic, here you are twisting something to suit your agenda,when it has nothing to do with the woman's belief system. If she feels that strongly about it,then why doesn't she try wearing a lapel-pin or earings which depict a cross ?

Or is it simply that this is a case of the 'persecuted christian' syndrome ?

You people really amaze me .



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join