Fri 29th Aug 2014 | Last updated: Fri 29th Aug 2014 at 16:54pm

Facebook Logo Twitter Logo RSS Logo
Hot Topics

Latest News

European court rules on religious freedom cases

By on Tuesday, 15 January 2013

British Airways employee Nadia Eweida celebrates winning her case in London (Photo: PA)

British Airways employee Nadia Eweida celebrates winning her case in London (Photo: PA)

The European Court of Human Rights has today given its judgment in the cases of four Britons who alleged they suffered discrimination as a result of their Christian faith.

Only one of the four was successful in their claims.

Nadia Eweida, a worker for British Airways, and Shirley Chaplin, an NHS nurse, both complained when their employers ordered them to cover up crosses worn around their necks.

Ms Eweida was initially told by BA that crosses were prohibited as they undermined the professional presentation of staff – despite hijabs, turbans and skull caps being acceptable. BA subsequently changed their policy, and today she has won her case for discrimination.

Ms Chaplin, along with Lillian Ladele and Gary McFarlane, lost their appeals before a panel of seven judges.

Ms Ladele was a marriage registrar for Islington Borough Council who asked not to perform same-sex civil partnerships when these were introduced. She requested to do other work instead, but was told this was against the council’s equality and diversity policy. Mr McFarlane, a relationship counsellor for Relate, did not want to participate in sex therapy with homosexual couples. Both cited Christian teaching in defence of their objections.

All four are Christians who claim that their actions are aspects of their faith which are protected under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights. This defends the right to “manifest religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance”, subject to proportionate limitations, “prescribed by law and necessary in a democratic society for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others”.

The three who lost their appeals are believed to be considering a final appeal to the Grand Chamber of the European Court, where their cases could be heard before seventeen judges.

John Duddington, editor of the Christian Law Review, said: “I expected this. The decision of the UK courts that a Christian could be prevented from wearing a cross at work was plainly wrong and thank goodness that the European Court of Human Rights has seen sense here. However, the courts have a very poor record of upholding the rights of Christians when other rights are involved, such as those of homosexuals, and so the other decisions, although very disappointing, come as no surprise.

“All is not lost. however. The UK Government is looking at the whole area of human rights and now is the time for Christians – and those of other faiths – to make a strong case for the reasonable accommodation of religious beliefs to be protected in law.”

  • Charles Martel

    BLT “rights” always and everywhere trump the rights of Christians. They now hold the whip-hand over us and it is time to prepare for real persecution.

  • JFJ

    I
    am not necessarily a person who over-reacts, but these other cases scare
    me.   While I applaud the ruling in the case of Mrs Eweida, it seems
    clear from the other cases that were lost, that one’s religious and theological
    convictions must now pass muster with and be subject to popular scrutiny before
    one will be allowed to fully participate in this society. It seems that if
    one’s theological beliefs within Christianity are consistent with the teaching
    of the Catholic Church, for example, or traditional or conservative in their
    content, then the a whole area of employment may be closed to such a
    person.  They may not, for example, act as a registrar or work within the
    NHS or with an organization like RELATE as a counsellor.  Such people have
    been relegated to the position of second class citizens, suspect and subject to
    special scrutiny because of our aberrant beliefs relative to popular
    culture.  And this is so, despite the fact that we are in no way
    homophobic or inclined to demonise those who are different.  It may also
    mean, as it seems to have meant in the past, that one cannot open a Bed and
    Breakfast and refuse to allow couples that are not married to use your
    property, whether they are heterosexual or homosexual, for fear of offending,
    not the heterosexual couples, but those who are homosexual.  In other
    words, while we may applaud the one ruling, those of us who are Catholic
    Christians and others who are Christians should be afraid.  This is
    especially so, since these rulings seem to make a complete mockery of the
    government’s empty promises to those who will not wish to perform same sex
    marriages, that they will not have to.  That is now, if was not before, a
    complete nonsense.  I know that gay activist groups and other groups who
    fight, supposedly, for ‘human rights’must be gearing up as I write, to
    challenge anyone who would have the audacity to believe that they should not
    perform a marriage between to homosexual people, once the law passes – and it
    certainly seems, despite the efforts that it will pass.  And, knowing that
    this government has demonstrated that it has no intention of listening to
    anything the public has to say, but intends to run roughshod over all to ‘modernise’
    itself in the case of the Tories and to bring unwanted change of a liberal
    nature in case of the Liberal Democrats, there is little hope for anyone who is
    a Christian and who does not intend to alter their belief to conform to modern
    culture.  I’m sure for those who are so inclined, things will be
    fine.  For others, Catholics especially, who intend to follow the
    teachings of Scripture and the Church, things will be different.  I have
    no doubt that teachers in the state system will one day surely be forced to
    teach that marriage is and must include those who are gay and should they
    refuse, will probably lose their jobs.  I am saddened by this most
    illiberal of rulings and though I’m glad for Mrs. Eweida, one can take little
    comfort from this in light of the other rulings.  This is not a good day
    for free speech, for the free exercise of religion or for democracy or so it
    seems. 

     

  • http://profiles.google.com/jill8.gfl Jill Armstead

    You should read the judgment including the facts of each case before you deliver your judgment

  • JabbaPapa

    Exactly.

    Don’t let the thought crime obsessives dictate the nature of truth !!!

  • Sweetjae

    This is the very essence of Vat2 Dignitatis Humanae and Religious Liberty. Today we as Christians are being subjected to litigation, threat of incarceration and ridicule because of our deep moral and religious beliefs.

    The Church cannot allow a civil right if it does not have a moral right as its foundation. For without a moral right, there can be no licit civil right. A moral right to exercise his opinion in religious matters is the same thing as saying man has the freedom to choose. This exercise is a good in the sight of God because it allows God to accept man’s choice of Him above all else. It is in this open and free relationship that glory is given to God. Such a choice, therefore, is properly termed a “right” since it is an inherent part of man’s dignity. While it is true that any particular choice in religious matters may not be a right, nevertheless such a choice is to be tolerated in order to uphold man’s freedom.
     
    The fundamental underlying basis for religious freedom rests on the dignity God affords to man. Before any appreciation can be given to submitting to the truth, there must be a mechanism – a mechanism which respects his intrinsic dignity – to allow man to arrive at that truth. In one fundamental respect, the moral right to religious freedom comes before the obligation to submit to the truth once it is found. To suppress religious expression – even erroneous religious expression – does not and indeed cannot be seen as an authentic call to submit to the truth in freedom.

  • mollysdad

    Since persecution is listed in statute as a crime against humanity, don’t expect Christians to turn the other cheek on this one.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/PWZKI7JBARE4DDT3NQ22RWMOJE Benedict Carter

    The right to act according to one’s conscience has been severely curtailed by these judgements. The persecution gathers another notch of momentum. 

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/PWZKI7JBARE4DDT3NQ22RWMOJE Benedict Carter

    “Right”

    “Tolerate”

    My goodness, I knew you were confused but this is the best.

  • Kevin

    Why? What did he miss?

  • Tim

    I would first of all state that I do not in any way support homosexual civil partnerships or abortion. However, if this is permitted by law then the employer concerned is in a difficult position as they have duties to carry out and need employees to do it.

    However, if I look at these cases against the measure of good employment practise expectations it seems clear that two of these people, Ms Ladele and Mr Mcfarlane, have been seriously discriminated against on the grounds of religious belief.

    Under best practise, if new business practices are brought in and an employee is unable (even allowing for training) or unwilling to carry these out they would be put on notice of potential redundancy. There would then be a period in which both employee and employer would see if there is any other work they could transfer to. If not redundancy would follow.

    In these cases though, one was disciplined and the other dismissed for gross misconduct on the grounds of discrimination relating to sexual orientation.

    I wonder if unemployment benefits will be withheld from these people for deliberately making themselves unemployed.

    Our progress down the slippery slope gains pace.

  • JabbaPapa

    Quite.

  • TreenonPoet

     Most of this.

  • Sweetjae

    What I’m saying was, there is no real and true freedom if you can not tolerate the exercise of it even if the end result is error. I’m not saying that error has rights rather man has the freedom to choose and this freedom is not based on the error he might profess in searching for the Truth. In other words, you and even God Himself can not suppress the freewill of man to choose.

    Intiende?

  • Sweetjae

    Next time put some real meat in your comments and try to support it instead of one liners. Look at your friend below yours. Typical gibberish.

  • Sweetjae

    Predictable.

  • Gildaswiseman

    I have read all of “this” and I completely concur with the viewpoint of  jfj. What is quite clear to Orthodox Christians is that the Government,judiciary and society at large throughout Europe have lost its moral compass. Christians and all people with Judeo-Christian moral values will suffer because of this ruling. The current ideologies behind equality, liberty, and diversity are fallacious and extremely discriminatory towards the majority of practicing Christians and Muslims. There will be a some point a backlash. 

  • Alan

    Thank God for the European Court, otherwise none at all of these 4 cases would have been won.

  • JFJ

    I have read the case and the judgments.  The court was simply wrong, given the facts that they accepted.  Perhaps the nurses case could be justified on the health and safety and the other criteria, but as to the rest, no.
     

  • TreenonPoet

     Simply following a religion does not entitle somebody to special privileges. Giving somebody privileges on such an undeserving basis results in others being unfairly discriminated against. The ‘discrimination’ you complain of is actually an attempt to treat everybody fairly. It seems that that is not good enough for some Christians, and even when they are granted certain privileges, they demand more like spoiled children.

    Not only does the judgement not represent a swing away from supporting the rights of religious people; to my mind it reinforces a bias that gives religious people preferential treatment.

    I wonder what your reaction would be if an air steward wore a swastika armband as a manifestation of his religious belief that God created the Aryan race to be superior to all other races?

  • rjt1

    Treating homosexual acts as equivalent to the relations between a husband and wife is an absurdity, and therefore to do so is not an example of fairness. That is not a question of religious belief.

  • Sweetjae

    This is the real issue of what Vatican2′s Council Fathers had in mind when they penned the Documents of Religious Liberty, they exactly knew what was happening back (Communism) then and what will happen in the future (radical secularism) that is today. Error has rights was NEVER been taught by Vat2.

  • Charles Martel

     Not sure about that, Alan. European courts are all infested with politically correct ideas. I interpret this simply as them throwing us a bone. They give us 25% in order to take 75%. We need 100%, which would only be simple justice. This is a sham. Shame on Cameron and his fake ‘conservatives’; shame on the EU and their fake European Court of “Human Rights”, which is nothing of the sort.
    Don’t trust any of these shysters, and don’t feel grateful for any paltry recognition of something that we used to take for granted. We are living in the middle of a vile revolution against nature, the likes of which Robespierre and Lenin could only have dreamt of. We must fight in the courts but get ready for the showdown. The real question now is about how much longer we can carry on pretending that this is all just part of living in a democratic society and there has to be a certain amount of give-and-take. Francisco Franco knew when enough was enough. sadly we don’t have access to the military hardware that he had, but at some point we are going to have to take the same hard choices he made in 1936; continue in servitude to Satan or reclaim our country for the natural order and the Faith, regardless of the consequences.

  • JabbaPapa
  • TreenonPoet

    Providing sex therapy and relationship counselling services (as Relate, who employed Mr McFarlane, do) does not mean treating homosexual acts as equivalent to the relations between a husband and wife. It only means that both services are provided.

  • Gildaswiseman

    I am afraid I have to disagree with you again.The document Dignitatis Humanae was largely influenced and  drafted by Fr. Courtney Murray SJ;a progressive theologian. In general the Council Fathers were not so clear in their minds as to the content of the documents.(read the autobiography of the Council Father, Cardinal Heenen for one example) The preparatory documents that had taken two years to prepare were shelved and new liberal schema were hastily contrived. One of the greatest influences upon the Council were from the progressive mind of Karl Rahner. I realize that the Holy Father, Pope John XXIII commanded that the authentic teaching of the Church was to be treasured and faithfully adhered to. I realize that a majority of the Council Fathers agreed with this instruction.Unfortunately the Control of the Council was in the hands of liberal, progressive bishops from the Rhine countries and France and their theologians.(read, the Rhine flows into the Tiber by Ralph Wiltgen). Pope John became more and more depressed by the things that he was witnessing before he died a most agonizing death.
    What is clear to most investigative Catholics is, that there was a clear difference between what the Council Fathers expected in reality and what was practiced also in reality. The last fifty years has witnessed a significant departure from the traditional teachings of the Church. This fact is recognized by many theologians including the last four popes. To what degree this departure is perceived is a matter of great theological debate and argument.
    One of the greatest progressive influences that has lead to this crisis of ideology and faith was the Jesuits, especially under the control of O’Keefe. (Study “In the Murky Waters of Vatican II” for a more comprehensive understanding of the ramifications regarding this most unusual Council).How could this happen? Ambiguity throughout many of the Documents lent themselves to a more radical and progressive interpretation than the Council Fathers expected is one reason. This was deliberately contrived and put into practice by the real influences behind the Councils: The progressive theologians and periti, the press and the perennial enemies of the Church, The devil and his collaborators.
    Please do not reply with more of your myopic viewpoints regarding the Society of St. Pope Pius X. Pleas reply with some evidence for your assumptions. 
    Here is a link for you to study.It is a very interesting and scholarly paper.
    http://kenan.ethics.duke.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Case-Study-Vatican-II.pdf

  • Gildaswiseman

    Absolute nonsense! Swastika? The Catholic faith is not some religion, It is the ancient religion that gave birth to modern Europe, science, education. universities, ethical and moral understandings, in fact everything civilized we hold dear. To treat everybody fairly? Please be rational. The ethical secular ideologies are repugnant as much as the swastika is to those who defend traditional family, pro-life and pro-christian morality .It is a battle between good and evil. Christianity should be given preferential treatment in a Christian country, which we still are despite being under attack by secular atheists and the like. 

  • TreenonPoet

    The Catholic Church hinders scientific and educational progress (mainly by encouraging irrational unscientific thought). The impact on ethical and moral understanding is disasterous even in a world in which the Church is not as strong as it used to be. This is reflected in your post; if you think that a fair world is one in which Christians are given preferential treatment, then you have got a lot to learn about morality. You will not learn it from the Pope who seems oblivious to the damage caused by, for example, portraying homosexuals as inhuman.

    The European hierarchy is infected by Catholicism, but even so is restrained by institutions such as the European Court of Human Rights because they have to explain their judgements, and explain them in real-world terms, not in vague religionese. That is not to say that they will not sneak in religious bias (either conciously or sub-consciously) where they might get away with it, especially if the law is so worded as to give licence to it (as in Article 9), and the judgements in question demonstrate this. It is my view that this effect has been sufficient to rule against BA in th Eweida case…

    The wearing of an armband with a black swastika in a white circle and red background makes a statement as loudly as a voiced remark. I hope you would not expect BA to permit its staff to deter customers by, for example, telling Jews that they are inferior. The (Nazi) swastika is repugnant partly because that is one of the messages that it conveys. Yet, because the view is religious, it seems the ECHR would penalise BA for disallowing such a manifestation!

  • JabbaPapa

     The Catholic Church hinders scientific and educational progress

    This is a direct lie.

    The impact on ethical and moral understanding is disasterous even in a
    world in which the Church is not as strong as it used to be

    Unsupported assertion, logical failure, spelling mistake, and gross intellectual short-circuit all rolled into one.

    Engage brain before using keyboard.

    if you think that a fair world is one in which Christians are given preferential treatment

    This is an extremely irrational comment, given that nothing of the kind has been mentioned by anyone.

    portraying homosexuals as inhuman

    What planet do you live on ???

    That’s the most stupid and ignorant suggestion I’ve seen all week …

    The European hierarchy is infected by Catholicism

    Your bigotry is loathesome.

    The wearing of an armband with a black swastika in a white circle and
    red background makes a statement as loudly as a voiced remark. I hope
    you would not expect BA to permit its staff to deter customers by, for
    example, telling Jews that they are inferior. The (Nazi) swastika is
    repugnant partly because that is one of the messages that it conveys.
    Yet, because the view is religious, it seems the ECHR would penalise BA
    for disallowing such a manifestation!

    The intellectual incoherence of this statement is extremely depressing.

    I don’t suppose that it has even occurred to you that the Nazi Swastika is an Atheist symbol…

  • Sweetjae

    Your post could be great conspiracy movie, it has great potential to be a blockbuster, really, like the Da Vinci Code movie, remember that?

    All misrepresentation, misunderstanding and IMPRESSIONS! Though you were right that there are some progressive clergy involved however, as I said even if Satan was present at the Council, no power of Hell can influence the outcome of a duly convened Council.

    The departure was due to the modernist interpretations which the ultraTrad as yourself is also equally to blame.

    I could also put a lot of links that would debunked your false assertions… like St. Thomas Aquinas did not reject the concept of Immaculate Conception, in his own very words he did in fact reject it, GOOGLE IT.

    Though I agree with you that what the Council Fathers intended were not the ones practiced in reality however, as I said over and over they were due to SOME clergy with modernist tendencies but NOT THE GREAT MAJORITY of priests. You are of the gloom and doom type of a group.

    Some of the accusations by ultra-Trads are unwarranted, unBiblical and very judgmental, like using non-traditional musical instruments used in the Liturgy or presentation of different cultural customs, music and dances of people in the Church (though must be done outside of the Mass). The Old Testament is replete with the Isralites singing, dancing with cymbals and trumpets for the Glory of God and you know what? God Himself was very pleased.

    There are also some good points from SSPX that I agree with like the practice of receiving the Host in the tongue, though kneeling should be an option but they are considered non-Dogmatic.

    Anyways, I put a brief response about V2 (Vatican 2) Religious Freedom to point out that it didn’t contradict past writings of the Popes; that what V2 has been referring to is a distinction between a civil and moral rights to freedom with which it clearly says that man has the freedom to exercise his religion without duress and violence by anyone, civil or government authorities. V2 has NEVER taught that error has rights that SSPX and Sedes are falsely accusing a legit Council of the Church.

    Can you put some REAL substance in your response next time?

  • Sweetjae

    The Catholic Church hinders scientific progress? Are you serious?

    Some of the best minds of Science were in fact Catholic priests and people. Do you want some samples now or you want to google it yourself to save you some embarrassment?

  • TreenonPoet

     I am very serious. You can name as many scientists as you want who considered themselves to be Catholic, but that does not excuse the deliberate promotion of unscientific thought in youngsters (belief without evidence etc.).

  • TreenonPoet

     

    This is a direct lie.

    Please see my reply to Sweetjae.

    Unsupported assertion, logical failure, spelling mistake, and gross intellectual short-circuit all rolled into one.

    Thank you for pointing out the spelling mistake. It seems I have been mispronouncing disastrous all my life. I don’t know what you think the logical failure is. I gave a minor example to support my assertion immediately after the quote you selected by referring to Gildaswiseman’s post (which I note you do not criticise for its lack of supported assertions). A major example would be the blocking of the teaching of religion-free ethics (which, by the way, implicitly gives licence to other religious prescriptions, such as those dictated by Islam).

    This is an extremely irrational comment, given that nothing of the kind has been mentioned by anyone.

    I was responding to Gildaswiseman’s ”Christianity should be given preferential treatment in a Christian country, which we still are”. Giving Christianity preferential treatment gives Christians preferential treatment.

    That[portraying homosexuals as inhuman]‘s the most stupid and ignorant suggestion I’ve seen all week

    I had in mind the Pope’s recent address to the Roman Curia.

    The intellectual incoherence of this statement is extremely depressing.

    Where is the incoherence?

    I don’t suppose that it has even occurred to you that the Nazi Swastika is an Atheist symbol

    No, because it is not. It is a symbol of spiritual force that was adopted by Hitler to represent the force of God in creating and promoting the master race. (It is another example of the disastrous nature of morals based on religion.)

  • JabbaPapa

    Where is the incoherence?

    In your brain, most likely.

    Nazism is atheistic.

    Only atheists claim otherwise.

    Not that most atheists can ever be bothered to peruse the Nuremberg trial documents …

  • Gildaswiseman

    I diametrically disagree with you. Your hatred of the Church is the worst type of discrimination and extremely disturbing.

  • TreenonPoet

    Strange, isn’t it, that the Nuremberg trial document ‘Persecution of the Catholic Church in the Third Reich’ turned out to be a work of propaganda? We can observe blatant propaganda in the media today, especially in the Telegraph and Daily Mail, in which statements that have been proven to be lies are nevertheless repeated over and over again in order to give the impression that Christians are being persecuted in the UK. Since religion thrives on lies (the biggest lie of all – that God definitely exists – being shamelessly drilled into young children), so it is no surprise that figures such as Lord Carey consider it to be a legitimate way to achieve an end goal. This is yet another example of the danger of the sort of morals that can result from religion.

    How you can describe a doctrine in which God creates ranked races as atheistic is beyond me. Have you forgotten what ‘atheist’ means? As usual, you make unsubstantiated assertions, yet you have the cheek to criticise others for doing so. In a comment box, it is sometimes appropriate to leave the reader to use the internet to check some assertions. It seems that your claim about incoherence was also unsubstantiated, but of course I cannot search the web to find out what you meant.

  • TreenonPoet

    You painted a picture of Christians versus ”secular atheists and the like” as being a battle between good and evil – that is, you effectively said I am evil – and now you accuse me of discrimination! Likewise, some Christians persecute homosexuals, and then then claim that attempts to stop this constitutes the persecution of Christians! If you can’t see the fallacy here, then I feel sorry for you.

  • Sweetjae

    You also don’t have any evidence to support your position! Ours is more logically tenable however yours is a GIANT LEAP OF FAITH by claiming something caused itself to exist from nothingness. Even if you mathematically formulate your conjecture about the so called “randomness theory” it still is very, very highly probable, almost impossible, say 0.00000000000000000000000000000009 percent (I’m a Mathematician myself) that you are going to be a functioning human being with a faculty of intelligence and reasoning from randomness and chaos.

    Add to the mixture of chemical compounds the human body is made of is, life itself.

  • Sweetjae

    This is the problem with you ‘traditionalists’, how in the world you are going to have a dialogue, plant a seed and thus possible conversion to the Faith IF YOU bashed the head with a Bible of those who don’t agree with us. You are doing more harm than good to evangelize the Word, THOUGH theologically I do agree with you but you must take a lead of the Great St. Francis, “Preach the Good News and IF* necessary use words”.

    TO TREENON POET:

    Treenon you must understand this, we Catholics are human beings too, susceptible to mistakes but here’s the caveat, our deep beliefs are to serve and love our neighbors as our own which Our God commanded us to do, if we happen to being off, it’s not because of our beliefs but us being unfaithful to our beliefs. Hope you do understand that.

    To prove my point, the Catholic Church is the LARGEST charitable institution of the world, second to none! Google it. Plus the biggest provider of local Community Care Centers, Hospitals, invented University system when Europe is under the Barbarians, primary and secondary schools, Orphanages, Homes for the poorest of the poor that most people don’t even want to look at, Soup Kitchens of food and basic human needs et, etc, etc.

    So please try to be reasonable and ask yourself this, what have I done personally and lately to alleviate and help my fellow marginalized neighbor?

  • Sweetjae

    The numbers signify impossibility in mathematical terms like using 0.9999 (four Nines) to signify number 1 in purity. See how they classify Gold bars.

  • JabbaPapa

    a doctrine in which God creates ranked races as atheistic

    Not exactly the most competent definition of Nazism I’ve ever come across —

    — next you’ll be telling us that they never attempted to extinguish the Jewish religion, and that Hitler was a devout Church-attending social worker…

  • Gildaswiseman

    Conspiracy theories?
    The sources of information that I have drawn from are threefold. First my own experience of the Church since and before the Council, I was a teenager when the Pope John XXIII convoked the council. Secondly, The abuses and failures within the realm of education,catechesis and the liturgy, are well recorded and documented and are linked in one way or another to failures emitting from the Council; intentionally or unintentionally. Thirdly, I have also researched the works of fellow academics,scholars, eminent theologians,and holy, traditional cardinals, bishops and priests. I think there is substance enough for satisfaction in order to conclude a veritable case for my argument. As usual you are wrong about St. Thomas, as you are in other matters. I do not need to “Google it” as you suggest, I am quite familiar with his works and he did not disavow the Immaculate Conception.To be honest, I do not Google much; I prefer to study academic books, written by, again, Catholic men of repute regarding the history of the Council, the Church and anything else come to that. As for theory’s of conspiracies I do not know your location, your age or your abilities to absorb knowledge, however, I suggest that you might like to read an number of books upon this issue written by reputable Catholic historians and theologians so that you may know what you are talking about. 

  • Gildaswiseman

    I am at loss to see where I have “bashed the head with a Bible” as you put it. I am simply defending Christendom from secular attack. Church militant, you know. 

  • Gildaswiseman

    OK! I would not presume to accuse you of being evil. I do not know you. However, I do think that atheism is evil because it denies the rights of God to be acknowledged and worshiped and it denies Christ and His cross. I also believe that abortion, practicing homosexuality, fornication, murder,adultery, pedophilia and other moral crimes are evil. 
    I would never advocate the persecution of homosexuals or anyone else come to that, that would be evil too. I would however defend the Christian moral order from the incursion of a politicised homosexual agenda that seeks to further  invade our education system and society at large and so corrupt our children.
    Be fair, of course you discriminate against the majority of Christians. As I discriminate against you.I discern that your position is untenable I draw a distinction, as far as a Catholic faith is concerned.  I will never agree with secular atheism and I consider it to be destructive and devoid of all truth.
    What I do not fully appreciate is why you are contributing to a Catholic blog, unless it is simply to wind us up.

  • Max

    I would like to thank this Lady for all she has done for Christians in standing up for her beliefs . We should be able to wear a cross in a Christian country.

  • TreenonPoet

     

    You also don’t have any evidence to support your position

    I am not sure which position you are referring to. My earlier assertion was that simply following a religion does not entitle somebody to special privileges. Gildaswiseman attempted to justify privilege for catholics on the false basis that the Catholic Church gave birth to modern science (amongst other developments). Even if it had given birth to modern science (and I emphasize that it did not), that would be no reason to grant all followers of the Catholic Church special privileges. Generally speaking, science has developed despite the powerful influence of the Church, not because of it. It is true that some catholics seem to be able to compartmentalise – to do science at and yet believe in miracles, demons, angels, etc. The latter are not scientific and at best offer no contribution to scientific thought whatsoever; at worst they reduce the quality of the science that might be done by the same person if their thinking had not been damaged by religion. To take miracles as an example: There is no proof whatsoever that miracles happen, there are plenty of examples where claims of miracles have been debunked, and miracles are incompatible with out latest knowledge. The Catholic Church repeatedly, publicly, and blatantly refutes the scientific conclusion that can be drawn from that. Each time it does so, it reinforces anti-science.

    I have no idea what you mean by the ‘randomness theory’. I suggest that you are not where you are at the moment because the chances of you being in that exact spot are just so infinitesimal.

  • Sweetjae

    The point I’m driving at which you don’t seem to understand is, yes there might have been dark forces that have lurked during the Sessions of Vatican 2 according to your sources, so what? Secondly, the abuses are due to the malicious interpretations of both and NOT IN ANY WAY related to the Documents of Vat2, when are you people going to realized this???This was the theme of your sources nothing more besides these so called evidences are non-infallible, non-binding as compared to the Teachings of a duly convened Council of the Church, and you apparently have chosen the former.

    Once and for all can you show us here by directly quoting V2, I mean DIRECTLY! OFFICIALLY and EXPLICITLY the ff:

    1. Where does it say the priest can perform clown masses?
    2. In education, Where does it say masturbation is natural or Contraception is permissible?
    3. Where does it say that all religion is equal?
    4. Where does it say all the abuses you have in mind?

    If you can’t, then I suggest you repent.

    Secondly, to put this St. Thomas thing to an end that I’m just saving you from further embarrassment, directly quoting the Angelic Doctor from his Compendium of Theology:

    “Likewise, if Mary had been conceived without original sin, she would not have had to be redeemed by Christ, and so Christ would not be the universal redeemer of men, which detracts from His dignity. Accordingly we must hold that she **was conceived with original sin,*** but was cleansed from it in some special way.” St. Thomas Aquinas.

    The purpose of this exercise is to show that men can succumbed to error even the Great Angelic Doctor. The good part is the Catholic Church has the Magisterium through her Councils that rectified that error. The problem is people like you still insist on claiming you are right in the interpretation of Tradition not the Pope nor the Magisterium, get the point?

    Now again, will you put REAL substance to your reply next time.

  • Sweetjae

    Your above post and the rightful complain below of our atheist friend named TreenonPoet by saying outright he is evil.

  • Sweetjae

    I thoroughly agree with you but here is the problem, let’s say if a catholic is dealing with a prospective protestant convert to the Faith, you CAN NOT just say to his face that his father (Luther) or his religion is of false, evil, heretical or a big lie, that is synonymous like “bashing the head with the Bible” approach. Same with this atheist man you are dealing with, you already have defeated the purpose. End of the story.

  • Sweetjae

    Atheists like famous ones are Dawkins, Hawkins, Hitchens etc, believed in the “nothingness” or “random theory”. You are an atheist right?

  • Sweetjae

    To be more precise, the whole notion of your sources and evidences…like the abuses and profanations etc. that followed V2 might be true, I’m not denying that, the problem is, putting the blame to V2 itself.

    It’s like blaming the Holy Bible for the abuses of Martin Luther and rise of the Protestants, do you get the crux? It’s logical fallacy.