Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17

Thread: The Barnabas Fund - "Reclaiming Religious Freedom in the UK"

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Newport, South Wales
    Posts
    7,977
    Thanks
    1,132
    Thanked 928 Times in 777 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    The Barnabas Fund - "Reclaiming Religious Freedom in the UK"

    ISBN 978-0-9977033-5-1

    Interesting times

    for years (and I've no idea why it started) I've been getting regular begging letters from this group called the Barnabas Fund. Now most of it looks just like the "feed a man a fish ... teach a man to fish" and goes straight in the compost bin because it fails to align with my "deport him back home where he can fish in his own damn lake" stance

    But this time they've sent something different.

    It's an interesting document.

    "Turn The Tide: reclaiming Religious Freedom in the UK"

    It's worth a read. because it shows just how far the state has gone in eradicating the LAWS that were established in this country over centuries to allow freedom of religious opinion to not interfere with one's right to employment, for example.

    They claim a government report from 2016, the "Casey Review", has established a legal means to denounce Christianity that does not align to the "cucumber sandwiches and more tea vicar" standards of the ANGLICAN church as terrorist extremism.

    Radical madmen ? Or are they right in their statements that recent legal statutes have started to reverse a tide that began in the 1500's but only really finished in the 1800's granting the church that refused to be established, the nonfonformists, the roman catholic (when the sovereign is a protestant), the protestant (when the sovereign is a papist) and the members of those churches the right to hold their faith, the right to PRACTICE their faith, the right to PREACH their faith, and above all the right to INTEREPRET the faith according to THEIR holy writ.

    They say the Casey Review has already set in stone measures to roll back into place the sort of crap we had in the 1500's such as the Test Act which denied employment in public office to those not willing to swear allegiance to the state's idea of what the religion should be.

    Naturally, they're a little more than pissed that the state should force them to allow those whose behaviour does not align with their own the legal right to use their services; we're in the sesame street gay marriage cake territitory here, but they've started to see measures to deny the religious employment;

    We already have a state in which people (including a moderator on here, by his own words) enjoy seeing those whose POLITICAL opinions do not align with their own pay for it by losing their jobs; in my case this does not apply, for my own radicalisation came AFTER Tony Blair had already taken away my right to tender for government contracts as my father and grandfather had done, as a sole trader, away by denying me any means whatsoever to acquire the clearances necessary to tender for those businesses save through selling my body to cronies who paid him handsomely in loamns and donations to ensure that change was made as part of the establishment of the "Carrillion Model"

    But now it seems this 2016 Casey Review is coming after the Christians in the same way, denouncing their failure to adopt the doctrine of the anglican church where secular matters of state and establishment are concerned (as opposed to theological doctrines on matters con consubstantiation and transubstantiation which even the most fetid state sponsored anarchist knows they'll never get through parliament - yet)

    Rabid Nutters ? Or foretellers of Atheist Supremacy in a religion-free UK ? I thought the former when i started reading their document but now I'm very much convinced i see their pattern ... But then again, I saw, or rather heard, Matthew Parris's sick pleasureings on "The Reunion" when the BBC allowed him to celebrate the way so called equal rights for homosexuals were intrucuced through dodgy dealings in back passages in the commons as public opinion would not countenance what was planned were it put in the open.....
    --
    "The Inland Revenue is not slow, and quite rightly, to take every advantage which is open to it under the Taxing Statutes for the purposes of depleting the taxpayer's pocket. And the taxpayer is in like manner entitled to be astute to prevent, so far as he honestly can, the depletion of his means by the Inland Revenue"

    Lord Clyde: "Ayrshire Pullman Motor Services V Inland Revenue, 1929"

  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to johnofgwent For This Useful Post:

    Barry (13-02-2018), T00ts (13-02-2018)

  3. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Pixels on your screen
    Posts
    6,685
    Thanks
    1,010
    Thanked 950 Times in 699 Posts
    That's an interesting post. There is the recent case of a 63 year old Scout leader who suggested that a Muslim woman would drown if she went on a scouting canoe trip - dressed like "Darth Vader". The scouting body have got rid of him, he's a Christian, or certainly supports Christian ethics, part of what the scout movement was based upon.
    He says that the scout movement needs to return to its roots, but he has no chance of getting far in the current climate.
    So the result is that he has gone and the Muslim woman, clad in niqab, remains in the scouting movement. Only one example.
    It could be argued that the old scoutmaster has removed himself, by his behaviour, but it is a shift of politics that has made his exit more likely.

    I would say that there is still religious freedom for some religions. Christians cannot proselytise in the workplace and I'm OK with that. There have been Christians harassed for wearing crosses in the workplace - that should not happen.
    However few people will challenge other religions for wearing their uniform in the workplace.

    Well done the Barnabas Fund. I found the leaflet online but don't have time to read it now. If it provokes me to comment I'll be back this evening.

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Barry For This Useful Post:

    T00ts (13-02-2018)

  5. #3
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    14,841
    Thanks
    3,667
    Thanked 3,429 Times in 2,650 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Barry View Post
    That's an interesting post. There is the recent case of a 63 year old Scout leader who suggested that a Muslim woman would drown if she went on a scouting canoe trip - dressed like "Darth Vader". The scouting body have got rid of him, he's a Christian, or certainly supports Christian ethics, part of what the scout movement was based upon.
    He says that the scout movement needs to return to its roots, but he has no chance of getting far in the current climate.
    So the result is that he has gone and the Muslim woman, clad in niqab, remains in the scouting movement. Only one example.
    It could be argued that the old scoutmaster has removed himself, by his behaviour, but it is a shift of politics that has made his exit more likely.
    I honestly don't see how his Christianity had anything to do with his sacking.

    If I have understood the case correctly, he not only likened her to Darth Vader but also said she was likely to frighten children and animals. That's pretty offensive whatever religion the person saying them is. And whatever religion the person on the end of it is - one might say the same, for example, about a Benedictine monk (I know a few of those), and I believe it would certainly be offensive to say 'he's likely to frighten children and small animals in that cowl'. Perhaps less so if it was clearly a joke and understood as such by all sides, and I think it's a reason for him to have a talking-to rather than being sacked, but it was in a serious and angry email. At least, as far as I understand.
    It's amazing how common this narcissism is: I disagree with person A, and I also disagree with person B, therefore A and B are identical - Daniel Hannan

  6. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    London N16
    Posts
    3,816
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 411 Times in 339 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Barry View Post
    That's an interesting post. There is the recent case of a 63 year old Scout leader who suggested that a Muslim woman would drown if she went on a scouting canoe trip - dressed like "Darth Vader". The scouting body have got rid of him, he's a Christian, or certainly supports Christian ethics, part of what the scout movement was based upon.
    He says that the scout movement needs to return to its roots, but he has no chance of getting far in the current climate.
    So the result is that he has gone and the Muslim woman, clad in niqab, remains in the scouting movement. Only one example.
    It could be argued that the old scoutmaster has removed himself, by his behaviour, but it is a shift of politics that has made his exit more likely.

    I would say that there is still religious freedom for some religions. Christians cannot proselytise in the workplace and I'm OK with that. There have been Christians harassed for wearing crosses in the workplace - that should not happen.
    However few people will challenge other religions for wearing their uniform in the workplace.

    Well done the Barnabas Fund. I found the leaflet online but don't have time to read it now. If it provokes me to comment I'll be back this evening.
    There’s a CoE church round here that refused to allow the Scouts to hold some service or another in its premises on the excuse they prayed to the totem.

    As for workplace dress codes, I don’t see it matters how employees dress provided it conforms to health, safety** and security. It’s up to the employer to choose to insist on reasonable uniforms. But I can see problems with problems with employees wearing large dangling crosses in non-religious settings — even if that opinion upsets some indigenous people who are prone to being upset.

    ** Wasn’t the burka in the scouting context something to do with safety...?
    The poster reserves the right to amend or completely change any opinions he has posted at any time — meanwhile, still waiting for the whip hand that Enoch forecast...

  7. #5
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    14,841
    Thanks
    3,667
    Thanked 3,429 Times in 2,650 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Patman Post View Post
    ** Wasn’t the burka in the scouting context something to do with safety...?
    As I understood it, that was the man's initial point, but unfortunately he went a bit further and started saying stuff which was a bit unnecessary and rude.
    It's amazing how common this narcissism is: I disagree with person A, and I also disagree with person B, therefore A and B are identical - Daniel Hannan

  8. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Newport, South Wales
    Posts
    7,977
    Thanks
    1,132
    Thanked 928 Times in 777 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Patman Post View Post
    There’s a CoE church round here that refused to allow the Scouts to hold some service or another in its premises on the excuse they prayed to the totem.

    As for workplace dress codes, I don’t see it matters how employees dress provided it conforms to health, safety** and security. It’s up to the employer to choose to insist on reasonable uniforms. But I can see problems with problems with employees wearing large dangling crosses in non-religious settings — even if that opinion upsets some indigenous people who are prone to being upset.

    ** Wasn’t the burka in the scouting context something to do with safety...?
    God help the brownies then !
    --
    "The Inland Revenue is not slow, and quite rightly, to take every advantage which is open to it under the Taxing Statutes for the purposes of depleting the taxpayer's pocket. And the taxpayer is in like manner entitled to be astute to prevent, so far as he honestly can, the depletion of his means by the Inland Revenue"

    Lord Clyde: "Ayrshire Pullman Motor Services V Inland Revenue, 1929"

  9. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Pixels on your screen
    Posts
    6,685
    Thanks
    1,010
    Thanked 950 Times in 699 Posts
    Here's another example of Christianity being suppressed by another religion, this time in prison chaplaincy.
    http://www.christianconcern.com/our-...ian-domination

    EXTRACT: Pastor Paul Song was a volunteer Chaplain at HMP Brixton for nearly 20 years. Many prisoners became Christians through the courses he ran (including Alpha) and had their lives transformed. He had full security clearance for all his activities and had even been given keys to the prison as a sign of the high esteem in which he was held.

    But in 2015, this changed - the Senior Chaplain at the prison was replaced by a Muslim. Imam Mohamed Yusef Ahmed began scrutinising the material used in Pastor Song’s courses, commenting that the material was “too radical”; and that the Christian views expressed were “extreme” – despite the fact that these courses are mainstream Christian courses, used by Christians throughout the world.
    Save us all £22,000,000 a day. Leave the EU.

  10. #8
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    14,841
    Thanks
    3,667
    Thanked 3,429 Times in 2,650 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Barry View Post
    Here's another example of Christianity being suppressed by another religion, this time in prison chaplaincy.
    http://www.christianconcern.com/our-...ian-domination
    According to The Times article I read, there are two sides to this. If it were proven that the current chaplain had treated the previous one unfairly, I would expect him to be disciplined. Likewise, if the previous one had smeared the current one as claimed, I would expect his exclusion to stand.

    Because it shouldn't be about one religion over another, but about fairness.
    It's amazing how common this narcissism is: I disagree with person A, and I also disagree with person B, therefore A and B are identical - Daniel Hannan

  11. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    1,650
    Thanks
    453
    Thanked 304 Times in 230 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by uganda View Post
    According to The Times article I read, there are two sides to this. If it were proven that the current chaplain had treated the previous one unfairly, I would expect him to be disciplined. Likewise, if the previous one had smeared the current one as claimed, I would expect his exclusion to stand.

    Because it shouldn't be about one religion over another, but about fairness.
    But isn't it that the Muslim was appointed as Senior to the Christian? I agree your point of fairness but surely if the Muslim was senior in rank within the prison he was given advantage at the outset. Surely one faith should not be able to judge another's since both in this instance are so radically different. Perhaps some sort of mediation was required.
    By their deeds will you know them! xx

  12. #10
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    14,841
    Thanks
    3,667
    Thanked 3,429 Times in 2,650 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by T00ts View Post
    But isn't it that the Muslim was appointed as Senior to the Christian? I agree your point of fairness but surely if the Muslim was senior in rank within the prison he was given advantage at the outset. Surely one faith should not be able to judge another's since both in this instance are so radically different. Perhaps some sort of mediation was required.
    I don't know if there was any professional favouritism shown to the new one because he was a Muslim rather than a Christian - if so, that would be wrong, but I see no evidence of that. If the position is not religion-specific, then it surely comes to who is the right person for the job and that is decided by whoever in the Prison Service has responsibility for this sort of thing, surely? I would prefer they had changed the word 'Chaplain' rather than adapted it, if they were going to open it up to all faiths, as it is a bit confusing, but that is a separate matter.
    It's amazing how common this narcissism is: I disagree with person A, and I also disagree with person B, therefore A and B are identical - Daniel Hannan

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to uganda For This Useful Post:

    T00ts (19-02-2018)

Similar Threads

  1. Now "swing low sweet chariot" is "racist."
    By lankou in forum Political Correctness Forum
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 13-03-2017, 10:03 AM
  2. "New expenses system stops us doing our job" say MPs. "Good" say the rest of us.
    By Moriarty in forum United Kingdom Politics & Political Forum
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 04-02-2011, 02:33 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •