Christian rights cases go before Strasbourg court - a case of double standards?

[scottycelt]

Don't be silly. Your lot probably reckon it was Peter the naysayer, but really it was the pharisee Saul once he became Paul.

'My Lot'?

Here is 'silly' old me believing it was, er, Christ who founded Christianity but maybe 'my lot' have simply read the wrong history books and bibles ... ?

Back to the drawing-board!

[Simon]

That's the trouble with quoting from the Guardian. Too many articles are poorly written, biased and full of factual errors. But then that does describe the Gruniad USP!

It does indeed.

As for GongGong and Flossie, RM - when such as they pop up in a discussion like this, you can generally wave goodbye to any real debate. Ah well.

And for Flossie to call someone else muddled ... well, that takes the biscuit.

[MrGongGong]

So rather than believe your "received wisdom" or even your "academic research" prof

what exactly is the problem with these questions ?

Well please DO enlighten me as to the REAL story here
and show me the supposed "bias" ???

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

A related question. Well, not really a question; more an observation:-

I do wonder why "professional atheists" often feel so insecure that they have to attack those with different views with such vehemence. It suggests an element of fear. But fear of what, I don't know.

[Flosshilde]

EA - I'm not a professional atheist - if I'm a professional anything now, it's an artist - so perhaps you aren't including me in those who 'attack different views with vehemence'. But if you are, you're wrong anyway. In my posts above I simply pointed out that there are 'professional christians' who claim discrimination where none exist, and pointed out that Christ wasn't the founder of Christianity. Two of the people in the case in question wanted to practice discrimination against others, which was why they were disciplined, not because they were Christian. I'm sure that somebody from any other religion, or none, who refused to carry out their duties would be similarly treated. The other two wanted to wear a cross while they were in their working uniform. I don't know about air crew, but I'm pretty certain that policies on nurses' uniforms would prohibit them from wearing any jewelery that might pose a risk to their patients or themselves.

I only 'attack' christians (or anyone else) when they attack me - by trying to impose their values on me. If they let me get on with my life (including getting married if I want) than I'll let them get on with their life.

[Pabmusic]

EA - I'm not a professional atheist - if I'm a professional anything now, it's an artist - so perhaps you aren't including me in those who 'attack different views with vehemence'. But if you are, you're wrong anyway. In my posts above I simply pointed out that there are 'professional christians' who claim discrimination where none exist, and pointed out that Christ wasn't the founder of Christianity. Two of the people in the case in question wanted to practice discrimination against others, which was why they were disciplined, not because they were Christian. I'm sure that somebody from any other religion, or none, who refused to carry out their duties would be similarly treated. The other two wanted to wear a cross while they were in their working uniform. I don't know about air crew, but I'm pretty certain that policies on nurses' uniforms would prohibit them from wearing any jewelery that might pose a risk to their patients or themselves.

I only 'attack' christians (or anyone else) when they attack me - by trying to impose their values on me. If they let me get on with my life (including getting married if I want) than I'll let them get on with their life.

I'm entirely with you. In our topsy-turvy world Christians (the majority) often perceive they're under attack from atheists (the minority). [I note that Mr GG in 44 seems to equate atheists with satanists - they are, of course, opposites, as satanists are clearly theists. You could even argue they're theists from the Abrahamic tradition. I think the post is ironic, but it's an unfortunate confusion.]

Of course, it's much worse in America. A current issue arises from the Obama administration's drive to outlaw bullying in schools (following a number of highly publicised suicides). States have to enact their own anti-bullying legislation. This has led to a constitutional challenge, on the ground that the new laws prevent freedom of religion, because christians can no longer openly bully gay students (or, I suppose, point out the enormity of their sins). Michigan has even amended the anti-bullying laws to allow bullying for "a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction.". This gives a flavour: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1406757.html and underlines why we should try to prevent any growth of this intolerant attitude.

To discriminate against others should not be all right just because it's done for religious reasons.

[scottycelt]

...I only 'attack' christians (or anyone else) when they attack me - by trying to impose their values on me. If they let me get on with my life (including getting married if I want) than I'll let them get on with their life.

Nobody's stopping you 'getting married' if you so wish ... nobody's discriminating against you personally or attacking you whatsoever.

The arguments over 'gay marriage' are about the nature of the institution itself. It is the union of two differences not similarities. Gay people are perfectly free to lead their lives as they wish without interference from others and indeed, some might argue, they get more support and sympathy from the general media nowadays than do Christians

From a traditional Christian viewpoint, this is rather about liberal secular society interfering in a centuries-old and revered institution and altering its nature on the bogus grounds of 'equality'. I'd love to get a chance to play for the Scotland Under-21 football side on the grounds of 'equality' but they say I'm too old and I'm not good enough anyway ... discrimination, of course, but we live with such things all the time. and these rules are there for good reason.

In truth, if secular society is hell-bent on changing the nature and laws regarding marriage it's going to come about, whatever Christians and others think.

I'd relax, Floss ... these days, it's rather much more likely that it will be traditional and long-established religious belief that will be contemptuously shoved aside by politicians (The Right Honourable Nick Clegg, for example ), not the demand for marriage 'equality' by some (but apparently by no means all) in the gay community.

[MrGongGong]

In truth, if secular society is hell-bent on changing the nature and laws regarding marriage it's going to come about, whatever Christians and others think.

and the sooner the better IMV

[amateur51]

It's siumply another attempt by christians to claim that they are uniquely discriminated against, just as white, heterosexual males complain that they are discriminated against because, they say, equalities legislation covers everyone but them.

Both claims are nonsense.

[amateur51]

Oh come off it Floss
you know there is an atheist conspiracy to "marginalise" christianity , I noticed on a visit to Lincoln that they now turn the lights off that used to illuminate the cathedral late into the night , the supposed reason is to "save money" but it's clear that it's really a signal to the hordes of satanists gathered downhill to commence their ceremonies.

[amateur51]

Indeed ... but many self-proclaimed 'liberals' invariably appear so totally blind to such glaring ironies and inconsistencies.

Priceless

[amateur51]

A related question. Well, not really a question; more an observation:-

I do wonder why "professional atheists" often feel so insecure that they have to attack those with different views with such vehemence. It suggests an element of fear. But fear of what, I don't know.

Could it be down to the age-old strife, terror and general unhappiness generated in the world all for the purpose of establishing/maintaining that 'my god is better than your god'?

[amateur51]

Nobody's stopping you 'getting married' if you so wish ... nobody's discriminating against you personally or attacking you whatsoever.

The arguments over 'gay marriage' are about the nature of the institution itself. It is the union of two differences not similarities. Gay people are perfectly free to lead their lives as they wish without interference from others and indeed, some might argue, they get more support and sympathy from the general media nowadays than do Christians

From a traditional Christian viewpoint, this is rather about liberal secular society interfering in a centuries-old and revered institution and altering its nature on the bogus grounds of 'equality'. I'd love to get a chance to play for the Scotland Under-21 football side on the grounds of 'equality' but they say I'm too old and I'm not good enough anyway ... discrimination, of course, but we live with such things all the time. and these rules are there for good reason.

In truth, if secular society is hell-bent on changing the nature and laws regarding marriage it's going to come about, whatever Christians and others think.

I'd relax, Floss ... these days, it's rather much more likely that it will be traditional and long-established religious belief that will be contemptuously shoved aside by politicians (The Right Honourable Nick Clegg, for example ), not the demand for marriage 'equality' by some (but apparently by no means all) in the gay community.

Equal marriage, scotty not gay marriage

[Serial_Apologist]

The arguments over 'gay marriage' are about the nature of the institution itself. It is the union of two differences not similarities.

Well I'd never want to marry (or for that matter have a close relationship with) someone like myself in the first place! And while not gay myself, I'm sure the same applies to most other people (apart from outright narcissists), gay and otherwise.

[scottycelt]

Well I'd never want to marry (or for that matter have a close relationship with) someone like myself in the first place! And while not gay myself, I'm sure the same applies to most other people (apart from outright narcissists), gay and otherwise.

I am referring, of course, to a difference in gender, S_A ...