Speak your mind!
By Mike Cunningham On October 23rd, 2011
Colour me as in total agreement with Adrian Smith, who was demoted for expressing himself freely on a subject which is anathema to him.
I too would state that : ‘No, not really. I don’t understand why people who have no faith and don’t believe in Christ would want to get hitched in church.’
‘The Bible is quite specific that marriage is for men and women. If the State wants to offer civil partnerships to the same sex then that is up to the State; but the State shouldn’t impose its rules on places of faith and conscience.’
Good on you Adrian; I wish I had known you earlier, so I could have e-mailed you and offered my unconditional support!
X-posted from Fire, Pillage & Plague
I am glad that this is going to court. Free speech is the bedrock of our society and this sort of behaviour is intolerable. Where are all the Human Rights Organisations now, which side of the fence do they stand. We need to know in the same way that we need to know our governments opinion and our government needs to know the peoples opinion. We still elect them.
I agree, this is an appallingly intolerant decision. The man was simply expressing what is already current policy in most mainstream faith groups. He is however factually wrong in his claims that the State is imposing it’s rules on the church, it is’t, it is simply going to ALLOW religous organisations to host civil partnerships ceremonies if they wish to, which is perfectly right. However, he is entitled to express his views and shouldn’t be penalised at work for them. If he can do his job and treats all his colleagues and clients fairly and professionally that is all that his bosses should judge him on.
The bible also says its okay to own slaves and commit incest, funny how you wish to cherry pick tidbits from a 2000 year old faerie tale
He hasn’t a prayer in court. Judges are notoriously prejudiced against chaps who
a. resemble Ricky Gervais’s older brother
and
b. ride about on red scooters.
Support for a government worker on ATW?
In any event he was wrong factually but said nothing as far as I can see that justifies the action taken against him.
but the State shouldn’t impose its rules on places of faith and conscience.
Why not? Are we suggesting that places of faith and conscience (whatever that might mean) are exempt from the laws of the land? That battle was lost a very long time ago. Simply because you have a make-believe friend doesn’t get you a pass on the law.
And as always with these religious types they are incredibly selective about which bits of the bible they like to follow. We have seen on this site someone who wears his christianity on his sleeve saying he would celebrate and toast the deaths of innocent children. So many of these religious types use it as an excuse to justify their prejudices.
However should people be sanctioned for expressing views which are antagonistic to the views of the organisation? Given that the source of this is the Daily Mail, I would be very skeptical indeed about that newspaper presenting the facts of the case clearly.
The government has no authority to tell the church what to do and the church has no authority to tell the government what to do
That’s separation of church and state, and it is good for both.
The government has no authority to tell the church what to do and the church has no authority to tell the government what to do
As has been demonstrated on many occasions over many centuries the government has plenty of authority to tell the church what to do and quite rightly very often does.
I wish that the church had no authority to tell the government what to do but as far as I know only two countries grant political power to clerics simply by virtue of them being a cleric: Iran and the UK. The (arch) bishops of Canterbury, York, London, Durham and Winchester are all ex officio members of the House of Lords. Absurd, but true. Remember there is no separation of church and state in the UK. Quite the opposite – we have an established church.
And yet, so few Christians, in either church or state.
Government has no authority over church matters, none at all.
No, it doesn’t matter if everyone in Parliament agrees that it would be jolly good to regulate church affairs, government has no legitimate or moral authority to do so.
In matters of conscience, government is the last institution with anything useful to say.
Government has no authority over church matters, none at all.
There you go, yet again, making these pronouncements but are just simply wrong. Still at least you are consistent.
There is wealth of history that shows how wrong you are. Even at the most mechanistic level, government has rights over the church. Who do you think appoints Bishops?
The church is no different to any other body and as such is subject to the laws of the land. At least in the real world it is – in that fantasy world you inhabit who knows?
Geoff
Of course the church and it’s officiates are subject to the law of the land just as the rest of the population are, but that is not the same thing as the government dictating to faith organisations what doctrinal policies they must adhere to.
The funny thing about this man’s complaint is that he and all other Christians and members of other faiths should actually welcome the government’s proposals not condemn them. It is the current policy (that bans faith organisations from holding same sex civil partnership ceremonies) that is an imposition on the independence off faith groups. Removing that government dictat is the right thing to do regardless of opinions on same sex relationships
EP
What is wrong with faerie tales?
Is the Bible in the faerie tale literary genre?
Do any of the biblical laws really permit slavery and incest?
Is the Bible only 2000 years old?
Does the truth of an ethical principle rest entirely on its age?
Do all people who appeal to biblical norms pick laws according to preference?
Do not all people ultimately pick and choose their ethical principles? You have chosen not to confer moral authority on the Bible. What alternative should the man in question choose?
Jonathon
You ask too many questions
Sorry.
Colm
Once again there is a super abundance of evidence that says it can. Now government can’t pass laws about the nature of the holy trinity or whether or not transubstantiation is a fact or not, but it can certainly pass laws that define marriage. It already has done – ages of consent, who may get married etc.
Having an established church works in both directions, but even without the church being established such authori exists.
Being an organisation dedicated to a make-believe person doesn’t exempt you from the law.
“Being an organisation dedicated to a make-believe person doesn’t exempt you from the law.”
Damn, I knew I shouldn’t have listened to my mates down the pub
I’m renouncing my Jedi membership forthwith.
Geoff
Of course the State can change the law to define the legal constituent of a secular marraige , but it is not the role of the State to change the definition of the SACRAMENT of marraige which is what is celebrated and conferred in the church service.
is not the role of the State to change the definition of the SACRAMENT of marraige which is what is celebrated and conferred in the church service.
Well I think we are about to find out, aren’t we?
Like I say – the briefest of jaunts through English history will tell you that the battle between church and state has been fought time and time again – and every time the church has lost. I wouldn’t put money on it winning this time.
We have an established church don’t forget – that gives the state powers which it frequently exercises.