BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: MMario
Date: 03 May 10 - 03:56 PM

Our constitution states that Congress shall make no laws preventing the free excercise of religion.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Mrrzy
Date: 03 May 10 - 03:55 PM

Man, if only we could get that attitude to cross the Pond... and *we're* the ones who are supposed to have church and state separation!

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,mauvepink
Date: 03 May 10 - 12:43 PM

Things like this do not help

Rising Tory star Philippa Stroud ran prayer sessions to 'cure' gay people

and, while I fully respect the rights of individuals to practice their various needs (within the law), I do think that politics and religion should ideally be kept apart.

I would fight for the right for you to hold your beliefs banjoman, and the counsellor involved in this case, but to be able to express them in the right and proper place. I often have ethical, moral and spiritual dilemmas. I think I am lucky that seldom have they led me into a place where I was unable to do my job or practice that which I held dear. There but for the grace of God go I...

There are so many facets to the argument and it is never straightforward is it?

I just think it's time we all got on better, no matter what party or religion we are, sexuality or gender. We all inhabit the same planet. To agree to disagree on some things should not mean we have to fall out to achieve anything because then we all lose :-(

mp

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: banjoman
Date: 03 May 10 - 10:47 AM

As a practicing Christian, I have always held the belief that everybody should be allowed to worship, and act, according to theur own conscience. However, I agree that this particular person should not have taken a job as a sex counsellor unless it was specifically to bring this matter into the public eye through the courts.
What I object to is the continued effort by this and to some extent previous governments to tell me how I should exercise or apply my beliefs.
I do not believe in abortion, or same sex marriages but respect the right of others to do so.

Overall, we are in danger of allowing government officers to force their particular stance on certain matters on us all and I cannot accept that that does good for anybody.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,mauvepink
Date: 03 May 10 - 07:13 AM

I have always said that acceptance is far far better than tolerance. But there are some things that people find unacceptable for themselves that they do tolerate in other people. Tolerance is better than intolerance.

In counselling one can have your own issues and be allowed them, as long as you know what they are and do not let them affect your ability to counsel. If you know it is going to then you have a duty to pass the client onto someone you know better suited to help them. However, if you are employed to counsel certain types of problem, and accept that post, then you say you will not do it, you are bound to 'come unstuck'.

I know some brilliant counsellors in some areas that would be useless in others. They know it too. Counsellors spend huge amounts of time on personal development and knowing themselves. They also have supervision to aid them make the right choices. Going into a job where you know you will be expected to deal with problems that you cannot handle because of your own belief system/prejudices or whatever makes no sense.

Counsellors are human too and are entitled to have their own feelongs and emotions on subjects. What they are not allowed to be is discriminatory in the role they are employed in. Such questions of conscience are always difficult and, in such circumstance, there can be several 'victims'.

I wonder if the couple eventually got their problems solved and are back in 'safe space'? One can only hope they did and are.

mp

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 03 May 10 - 05:58 AM

Interesting to read through the posts here. Some very good arguments for and against the stance of the ex employee and the implications of the judgement.

I do feel though that such dilemmas will not go away whilst;

1. You can have the view that he may well have been good at his job in other respects. Sorry, but to use his own moral stance as prejudice when helping couples breaks the first golden rule of his job, you must never compare their situation with your own ideal standard. Never judge. Clearly this idiot was not capable of seeing beyond his superstition, and that made him patently unsuitable to his work.

2. I always appreciate the input in these debates of Joe Offer, as although we wouldn't exaclty agree on much if we ever met, I do like how he explains where he is coming from and never lets preconceptions cloud his view. But Joe! What do you mean by " I'm not sure how comfortable I would be, counseling homosexual or bisexual relationships. I do my best to be tolerant, but I'm not sure I want to hear all the details..."????

Nobody asks you to be tolerant. Nobody has the right to be tolerant of other's lifestyles, or indeed intolerant. You can like, agree, not like or disagree, but to say you tolerate something stinks of saying they can only carry on whilst it pleases me to let them get away with it. Sorry, but there is a huge difference between tolerating and accepting how the world spins. You are quick to point out you cannot make a judgement as a moderator on this website, so why make them as a human?

In the UK, we do have a state religion as a tradition, and sadly, allow it's leaders to have a voice in our upper house, the House of Lords. However, they are there because it pleases the politicians to allow it, to keep their followers quiet, same as restricting my ability to buy a tap washer on a Sunday. We are a secular society and politicians know that any attempt to enforce religion will be met by ridicule ignoring it by the vast majority of the population. Nobody wants to enforce anarchy.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 03 May 10 - 02:11 AM

"....Most people really aren't that stupid."
-Joe Offer-

Well...hmmm...The problem is, that they let other people do their thinking for them...then tell them what to think.

"The difference between GENIUS and STUPIDITY, is that GENIUS has its limits!"...........................................Albert Einstein


GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: mousethief
Date: 03 May 10 - 01:58 AM

Sorry, they're busy somewhere in the Middle East. I have some very scary militia groups I could send over, but I'm afraid they'd all kill each other on the way over.

Hey....

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 02 May 10 - 04:45 AM

You and what army, the piddlin' Marines? :-P

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: mousethief
Date: 02 May 10 - 03:51 AM

You tryin' to start a pond war, punk?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 02 May 10 - 02:54 AM

"since when is thinking people should perform the duties of their job a "liberal" position"

Since Americans tried to take over the English language. See what happens when you put the ignorant in charge?


;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: mousethief
Date: 02 May 10 - 02:30 AM

Ake, since when is thinking people should perform the duties of their job a "liberal" position? I should think any good conservative would say the same thing. Unless they were trying to make excuses for not performing the duties of their own job when it doesn't suit them. The old "Do as I say, not as I do" thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Joe Offer
Date: 01 May 10 - 06:37 PM

I don't agree with laws that prohibit abortion; but in all fairness, I have to suspect that the Polish anti-abortion laws were enacted by the Polish legislature, and not by Ronald Reagan or John Paul II. And I have to suspect that the members of the legislature are adults who voted for these laws, did so of their own free will; and not under the control of Reagan or the Pope.
I think the mind-control exercised by religion is vastly overrated. It happens, but it is far from universal. Most people really aren't that stupid.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 01 May 10 - 06:33 PM

It's a pity that
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2010/B1.html
was not read by all first.

but then never let the facts get in the way of a good trolling... :-)

As demonstrated by the text of the Appeal itself - the various opinions of the law by various citizens often has little to do with what the law actually is...

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 01 May 10 - 06:18 PM

QUOTE
Of course, there are countries - not in Europe, where religion DOES rule over civil rights and law.

Poland is in Europe. Look at their anti-abortion laws (imposed by John Paul 2 and Ronald Reagan, effectively).
UNQUOTE

And of course these are also failures of the separation of Church and state.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: theleveller
Date: 01 May 10 - 03:38 PM

"Religious Beliefs....no standing in law.
My previous post, shows how Sharia Law (most of which is based on religious belief) is being incorporated into the UK legal system to appease a minority religious grouping."

As usual, the reactionary and illiberal Mr Akenaton is talking out of his rear end. Maybe he should actually read his own post, especially this bit...

"provided that both parties in the dispute agree to give it the power to rule on their case."

Rather pissed on his own bonfire there.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Paul Burke
Date: 01 May 10 - 01:45 PM

If it was reported correctly, that appears to take conscientious objectors back to the status quo as of 1914. If your God and conscience tell you not to kill for the state, expect to be shot as a deserter.

That's a new one for me Jack. I didn't know Relate counsellors were conscripted, I thought they chose the job.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Penny S.
Date: 01 May 10 - 11:30 AM

I'm interested that there seems to have been an element of dishonesty on the part of the applicant, in assuring Relate that he would work with same sex couples, while not intending to do so. I did feel, until I read that, that Relate had been at the least, inconsiderate in dealing with him. But I also felt that there was an agenda the other way, as well, and that had made me uneasy. There seems to be a movement to bring cases like this to public attention which may not be helpful to the people concerned.

I was not happy to hear the applicant emphasising the discrimination against his strongly held Christian beliefs, and have written to the BBC PM programme, suggesting that as when referring to businesses or election candidates, they should add the rider that other Christian beliefs are available, in the interests of balance.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Ian Burdon
Date: 01 May 10 - 10:40 AM

In case anyone is interested, this is the text of the actual judgement:-

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2010/B1.html

The judge made no new law as such - the appeal was decided on the basis of existing precedent. The much quoted comments by the judge (from para 16 onwards in the judgement), with which I agree, were written in response to a statement lodged in the case by a former Archbishop of Canterbury and while they may be influential they are not binding (I think)

Ian

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Jack Campin
Date: 01 May 10 - 08:30 AM

Of course, there are countries - not in Europe, where religion DOES rule over civil rights and law.

Poland is in Europe. Look at their anti-abortion laws (imposed by John Paul 2 and Ronald Reagan, effectively).

And the bans on Islamic clothing in France and Belgium are simply Christian bigotry enacted into law.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 01 May 10 - 07:57 AM

"history is a bit more complex"

But some things arestill very clear - the 'right to religious sanctuary' is now overridden (abolished even) - I don't see too many NYPD boys not arrest a guy in church on TV - but if he has guns, knives, bombs & hostages, it does slow the process down. The same as the 'right to cannon sanctuary' no longer exists for the military.

The Pope waltzed all over Europe with his armies to hold on to his right to be supreme over Emperors and Kings. To no avail.

There once was a guy who said "Render unto Ceaser that which is Ceaser's - unto God that which is God's"

Of course, there are countries - not in Europe, where religion DOES rule over civil rights and law.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 01 May 10 - 07:46 AM

"history is a bit more complex"

But some things are very clear - the 'right to religious sanctuary' is now overridden (abolished even) - I don't see too many NYPD boys not arrest a guy in church on TV - but if he has guns, knives, bombs & hostages, it does slow the process down. The same as the 'right to cannon sanctuary' no longer exists for the military.

The Pope waltzed all over Europe with his armies to hold on to his right to be supreme over Emperors and Kings. To no avail.

There one was a guy who said "Render unto Ceaser that which is Ceaser's - unto God that which is God's"

Of course, there are countries - not in Europe, where religion DOES rule over civil rights and law.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,mauvepink
Date: 01 May 10 - 06:11 AM

Many years ago, when nursing, it was allowed that if you were against abortion then you could not be made to assist in the operating theatre if an abortion was being done. What you could not do is refuse to nurse the woman on the ward before or after the operation nor discriminate against her (rightly so). The objection rule allowed for those who felt they were being involved in the death of a child. Back then it was a common sense approach to a hotly debated topic. But that was then and this is now. I am not sure that that rule still exists in the NHS. Maybe a nurse now could comment

In the current case I see no space to allow a comon sense approach for objecting as one would be being specifically employed (potentially) to do the very thing you are objecting to. I empathise with the objectors spiritual beliefs but he should still do his job.

These days a lot of couples counselling centres around sexuality and sexual practices. More people are 'out' or get caught out, and it becomes apparent that the person cheating is actually doing it with someone of the same sex. They try to keep the relationship together and need help. Relate is there to do just that.

In the very least they are dealing with bisexuality in such an instance. Someone who applies arbitrary rules over sexuality has no place to be there. I say 'arbitrary' rather loosely and with no offence. Because if, as Christians, they applied the Jesus rule "Love one another" then it is not their place to judge or place judgement on others. They should help them all the more in fact! Their conscience, in helping resolve a relationship and keep people together, should be more than clear. If they feel, in all conscience, they cannot counsel LGB people, then they should not be there. It is that simple. They are showing discrimination that Christ himself never did.

He may have been an excellent counsellor in other areas. I respect him standing on his own personal beliefs. But he cannot expect to allow those beliefs to be so discriminatory and then keep his job. There are areas of my job that I do not like BUT I signed the policies and the contract when I joined. I have an obligation to my employer and my clients to do my job to my fullest extent. That is what they train me for and that is what I get paid for. If, at some point, I come against something I really cannot do because of conscience, then I would have to raise it and hope for the best... but I would not expect to be able to hold my job. I would have to walk. But that's just me. Everyone is different

mp

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,mauvepink
Date: 01 May 10 - 05:47 AM

I am sorry the link about the Equality and Diversity policy does not work. Maybe it's because it goes straight to opening or savinf a PDF document.

I just tried the link and it has opened for me using the URL but not the link I posted here. So, for those who want it, her is the link for you to cut and paste into a browser

www.relate.org.uk/assets/b186d2f5a8/Equality-Diversity-Watford.pdf

Hope it helps

mp

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 01 May 10 - 05:22 AM

""My previous post, shows how Sharia Law (most of which is based on religious belief) is being incorporated into the UK legal system to appease a minority religious grouping.""

Only in your twisted and biased interpretation.

In fact it is arbitration, not law.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Jack Campin
Date: 01 May 10 - 05:07 AM

The history is a bit more complex and contentious than Foolestroupe's post says. In Scotland, resistance to the state telling people how to run their religion got Mary Queen of Scots deposed, motivated three or four civil wars in the 17th century and was still provoking riots by 1800. From the other side, virtually all the splits in the Scottish church were caused by pressure from the state, with one faction conceding and another resisting. The result really needs to be put on a T-shirt:

Schisms in the Church of Scotland since 1700

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Mo the caller
Date: 01 May 10 - 04:28 AM

My first reaction was that even if Relate had the 'right' to end his employment maybe they could have worked round his beliefs in arranging his case load.
But then I started wondering what would happen if a married man and women were being counselled by him and it became apparent that homosexual tendancies of one partner was part of the problem. Or a family with a teenager uncertain about their sexuality.

Discrimmination legislation is a good thing (generally) but must be applied with common sense. So if a job has requirement they should come first. This could be discrimination in favour of one religion in some cases.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 01 May 10 - 03:38 AM

What country did this occur in? Not the USA, but across the pond.

Now much hot air has already been expended, but has anybody noticed that the concept of the authority of THE CROWN exceeding the authority of The Church was established by Henry VIII. He became head of the only church authorised - the Anglican - (which sorta made that argument moot!) and great fuss and murder of RCs ensued for some time thereafter.

Now some 'enlightenment' occurred later on, and RC followers are no longer in fear of their lives, due solely to practising their religion.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: akenaton
Date: 01 May 10 - 03:25 AM

The "Liberals" are busy tying themselves in knots.


"If you can't do the job, don't take the job. WTF does that have to do with Arabs?"(mousethief)

Religious Beliefs....no standing in law.
My previous post, shows how Sharia Law (most of which is based on religious belief) is being incorporated into the UK legal system to appease a minority religious grouping.

"liberals" want "their way", both ways, even if there is a direct contradiction.
Thankfully their excesses cant continue for much longer.

Biggest laugh of the week?   Brown ostracised by "liberals" for using the "B" word.....   :0)    Fucking idiots!

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Jack Campin
Date: 01 May 10 - 03:01 AM

How is a ruling requiring EVERY counsellor to consider a couple's needs, irrespective of their sexuality, specifically or generally anti-Muslim?

Because the words I quoted deny ANY legal concession to religious beliefs that conflict with the authority of the state. They were NOT specifically about counsellors, jobs or sexuality, and don't even mention those specific issues.

There was no need at all for the judge to try imposing such a general principle just to get a sensible answer in this case - as other people have said, the guy was violating the terms of his contract with his employer. But the judge said NOTHING specifically about contract law.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 01 May 10 - 01:05 AM

I have a friend who just went thru mediation re child access. They were bullied to insert the 'rubbish' about the child having alternate halves of the Easter 4 day weekend alternating in alternate years - about half a page of complicated nonsense!

Why 'rubbish' & 'nonsense' you ask? Well, since both parents are long term pagans (from about 10 years before the child was born), and thus non-Christians, what relevance does this Easter' rubbish have to their lives? Does this Aussie Christian based counselling service do the same to muslims or force Christians to respect ramadam in their agreements?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: mousethief
Date: 01 May 10 - 12:37 AM

If you can't do the job, don't take the job. WTF does that have to do with Arabs?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Joe Offer
Date: 01 May 10 - 12:29 AM

I think people should be allowed to stick to their religious beliefs, but it's quite clear from the Relate Website that they provide counseling for LGBT relationships. Seems to me, anybody wanting to work as a counselor for Relate, ought to be prepared to serve all of Relate's clients.

I suppose there's a great need for sex therapists for born-again Christians, and counselors with religious scruples would be better off at a born-again sex agency.

I have some religious scruples myself, and I'm not sure how comfortable I would be, counseling homosexual or bisexual relationships. I do my best to be tolerant, but I'm not sure I want to hear all the details...

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: katlaughing
Date: 30 Apr 10 - 11:39 PM

Isn't repressing Anti-Muslims a good thing? Or, is that the AnaBaptists?

Amazing how some will twist and turn another's words, innit?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Paul Burke
Date: 30 Apr 10 - 10:04 PM

Jack: you'r shooting yourself rather badly in the arse. How is a ruling requiring EVERY counsellor to consider a couple's needs, irrespective of their sexuality, specifically or generally anti-Muslim?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Jack Campin
Date: 30 Apr 10 - 08:00 PM

It's not a friggin example, it's an implication of what the judge said. If he was setting a precedent, it can be used in many ways that go FAR beyond the situation he was ruling on. He was stating a general principle. Look at his actual words, and what they mean - you can bet thousands of lawyers are thinking about what they can do with this, and they will NOT all be gay rights activists.

Specifically, as Richard Bridge seems to have been hinting, this is food for anti-Muslim repression, as if there wasn't enough of it already.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: mousethief
Date: 30 Apr 10 - 07:37 PM

Are you saying we can force people to eat pork sandwiches? What a stupid example.

If this guy hired on after this firm changed to accept non-married clients, he's screwed as far as I'm concerned (no pun intended) (oh hell, i'll come clean - pun was definitely intended). He knew the job was dangerous when he took it.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Jack Campin
Date: 30 Apr 10 - 06:47 PM

Only married couples get sex counseling? It's not offered or allowed for unmarried partners?

Relate used to be the Marriage Guidance Bureau. They changed their name (decades ago) specifically to make it clear they were there to help unmarried couples too.

So, quite reasonably, a humanitarian based objection to something (whether it be religiously inspired or otherwise) might be able to provide grounds for it's case from other avenues than simply "God Said!".

Fine, but if somebody's objection to killing people or eating a roast pork sandwich *is* simply "God says not to", are you going to tell them they have no right to that objection?

The judge: The promulgation of law for the protection of a position held purely on religious grounds cannot therefore be justified

That's completely unambiguous, and rules out any law that permits schoolchildren or prisoners to refuse institutional food that conflicts with their religion.

In the name of tolerance this dickhead judge has unleashed a repressive nightmare.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 30 Apr 10 - 06:40 PM

QUOTE
I would have liked to see "Relate: Equality and Diversity statements and policy," but the link doesn't work. Relate's stated policies would, of course, have EVERYTHING to do with this particular case. If the therapist in question took the job under false pretences ~ that is, if he were specifically required to work with everyone and anyone, regardless of the kind of relationships in which they are involved, he is indeed in the wrong.
UNQUOTE

Ha - in Aus, we have "Lifeline" & "Mission Employment" both church run entities, and there have been hassles with some of their employees being insensitive in matters of 'religious tolerance' in applying their wonderful corporate ideals...

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 30 Apr 10 - 06:37 PM

"(On the other hand, one might also ask why a person with religious scruples about certain aspects of sexuality would make a career of sex therapy if the profession customarily requires every practitioner to be conversant with every possible variety of human sexuality.)"

Well, Science lecturers for some time have been confronted with the dilemma of failing Science students who insist on using Biblical quotes to justify their Science theses...


"allows disputes to be resolved using alternatives like tribunals. This method is called alternative dispute resolution, which for Muslims is what the sharia courts are"

Will they be televised like their original - Judge Judy?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Stringsinger
Date: 30 Apr 10 - 06:03 PM

Conscientious objection in the U.S. doesn't require only a belief in a supreme being any more. The Vern Davidson test case means you can object on philosophical grounds.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: mousethief
Date: 30 Apr 10 - 06:02 PM

Only married couples get sex counseling? It's not offered or allowed for unmarried partners? If not, why not?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: PoppaGator
Date: 30 Apr 10 - 06:01 PM

I would have liked to see "Relate: Equality and Diversity statements and policy," but the link doesn't work. Relate's stated policies would, of course, have EVERYTHING to do with this particular case. If the therapist in question took the job under false pretenses ~ that is, if he were specifically required to work with everyone and anyone, regardless of the kind of relationships in which they are involved, he is inded in the wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 30 Apr 10 - 05:59 PM

He may have become a counsellor before gay marriages were legal here. So may not have had the conflict of conscience as a possibility when he joined Relate.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 30 Apr 10 - 05:58 PM

"It looks like some people here are saying it's okay to be a CO if your reasons are purely secular but tough shit if you're a Quaker, Witness, Buddhist or Baha'i."

No, exactly the opposite Jack. The Judge was commenting on issues of a purely religious basis. My reading was that the Judge was referring to purely FAITH based beliefs, which were otherwise unsupportable by any other secular and/or humanitarian means.

So, quite reasonably, a humanitarian based objection to something (whether it be religiously inspired or otherwise) might be able to provide grounds for it's case from other avenues than simply "God Said!".

I think that's a good thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 30 Apr 10 - 05:57 PM

""In practice, most conscientious objectors have always been motivated by religion. It looks like some people here are saying it's okay to be a CO if your reasons are purely secular but tough shit if you're a Quaker, Witness, Buddhist or Baha'i.""

That's pure bollocks Jack. Religious people have the same rights to invoke conscientious objection.

That's why it's call "conscientious", not "religious".

Or do you actually believe that religion is a requirement for having a conscience?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 30 Apr 10 - 05:50 PM

""Douglas Murray, the director of the Centre for Social Cohesion, said: "I think it's appalling. I don't think arbitration that is done by sharia should ever be endorsed or enforced by the British state""

This is a strawman argument.

There are arbitration services in many situations making rulings which are ratified by the courts, not least our own divorce proceedings (separation agreement, two years wait, then uncontested divorce).

This is not a parallel legal system as some would have us believe.

Two parties agree to accept the ruling of an arbiter whom they can both trust. Based on the arguments, that arbiter gives a ruling which is, with a very few exceptions, ratified by the British courts.

The exceptions of course are those decisions which conflict with British Law, which are set aside, so British law is in fact paramount.

This has been going on in industry for decades, and arbitration by the Sharia courts is no different.

Sorry Ake, you'll have to find something more convincing with which to beat Muslims over the head.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: mousethief
Date: 30 Apr 10 - 05:47 PM

This guy voluntarily took this job. But he can't perform all of the duties required. Drafted soldiers didn't voluntarily take the job, so allowing for a conscientious objector status only make sense. Apples and oranges.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Jack Campin
Date: 30 Apr 10 - 05:41 PM

In practice, most conscientious objectors have always been motivated by religion. It looks like some people here are saying it's okay to be a CO if your reasons are purely secular but tough shit if you're a Quaker, Witness, Buddhist or Baha'i.

If the judge had meant to confine himself to contractual obligation he could have said so. Judges are not in the job to make vague assertions. We have to assume he meant exactly what he said, which went WAY beyond that, to a level of generality which would normally require a decision from the highest courts in the land (or in the US, a constitutional amendment). It was such an extreme statement that it will certainly get slapped down, and thereby open the way for the bigot to try again.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,mauvepink
Date: 30 Apr 10 - 05:40 PM

Relate: Equality and Diversity statements and policy

Just found this to help hoepfully

mp