BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law

Subject: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: theleveller
Date: 30 Apr 10 - 07:04 AM

When Gary McFarlane was fired from his job as a Relate sex therapist because he refused to advise homosexual couples on the grounds that it was against his Christian beliefs, he took his case to an industrial tribunal. He has lost his case.

The Telegraph reports:
"Lord Justice Laws ruled that while everyone had the right to hold religious beliefs, those beliefs themselves had no standing under the law.
"In the eye of everyone save the believer, religious faith is necessarily subjective, being incommunicable by any kind of proof or evidence," he told the court.
While acknowledging the profound influence of Judeo-Christian traditions over many centuries, he insisted that no religious belief itself could be protected under the law "however long its tradition, however rich its culture".
"The promulgation of law for the protection of a position held purely on religious grounds cannot therefore be justified," he said.
"It is irrational, as preferring the subjective over the objective. But it is also divisive, capricious and arbitrary." "

IMO this is an excellent judgment, as to permit any antisocial actions, be they homophobic, racist, anti-feminist or whatever, on the grounds of religious belief would be the thin end of the wedge that would allow any bigot to defend the most loathsome of opinions by claiming that they were his/her religious views.

Let's not forget that the bastion of South African apartheid for many years was the Dutch Reformed Church.

Good judgment or bad - what do you think?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 30 Apr 10 - 07:15 AM

About damned time. A light in the darkness this ruling is.

thanks Leveller.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: bobad
Date: 30 Apr 10 - 07:21 AM

Hear, hear!

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Jack Campin
Date: 30 Apr 10 - 07:22 AM

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.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 30 Apr 10 - 07:27 AM

"If your God and conscience tell you not to kill for the state, expect to be shot as a deserter."

I thought it was specifically aimed at beliefs based *purely* on religious faith, rather than otherwise supportable secular (and perhaps humanitarian) ones?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: theleveller
Date: 30 Apr 10 - 07:44 AM

"If your God and conscience tell you not to kill for the state, expect to be shot as a deserter. "

Don't follow you logic here. We don't shoot people for desertion these days and haven't done (with, I think, 1 exception) since the end of WW1.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 30 Apr 10 - 07:49 AM

Good for Laws, LJ.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: greg stephens
Date: 30 Apr 10 - 07:50 AM

So what would the leagal situation be if he had refused to counsel a sheep-shagger?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Emma B
Date: 30 Apr 10 - 07:51 AM

In 1914, after compulsory call-up for British men looked increasingly likely, pacifist members of the No-Conscription Fellowship, set up in 1915, successfully campaigned to secure 'the conscience clause' in the 1916 Conscription Act: the right to claim exemption from military service.


The story of Harold Bing who was not thought to qualify for exemption....

" '18? - you're too young to have a conscience,' said the chairman. But not, apparently, too young to be sent to war. A policeman came to his home to arrest him, and he was taken to Kingston Barracks. When he refused to regard himself as a soldier, or obey military orders, he was court-martialled.
The sentence: 6 months hard labour. In the end Harold spent nearly 3 years in prison."

was not unusual but they were not actually shot for their beliefs - not all of which were, as CD points out, based on religion.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Ed T
Date: 30 Apr 10 - 07:54 AM

This is an interesting Canadian case of human rights versus "Catholicity" in a RC school.I suspect there will bbe significant legal wrangling over this one, since the Canadian Constitution makes it illegal to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.

A lesbian is hired to teach music (employer did not know she was a lesbian, and I suspect it is not legal to ask), and signs a contract that included a clause "indicating that as a non-Catholic she would not speak out against the Catholic faith or try to influence students with non-Catholic values" She has a baby, and the church learns she is a Lesbian. She is told she cannot teach in the classroom, and is given a non teaching post, which keeps her out of the school. The teacher says she never discussed her sexual oriantation in the classroom and her sexual orientation was never discussed.

The womans job was teaching music...nothing more. So, I suspect that any claim that she could influence "Catholicity" through her teaching job would be a hard case to make. While she was not fired, her employment and career were likely impacted by reasignment, based only on her sexuality.

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/sports/Sexual+orientation+firing+teacher+claims/2963249/story.html#ixzz0maDxMFrx




http://www.vancouversun.com/sports/Sexual+orientation+firing+teacher+claims/2963249/story.html

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: greg stephens
Date: 30 Apr 10 - 07:59 AM

Some of these rulings go one way. Some the other. But thank heavens the general flow of history at the moment seems to be in favour of tolerance of other peoples' sexuality, and removing bigotry from public life.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: theleveller
Date: 30 Apr 10 - 08:01 AM

"So what would the leagal situation be if he had refused to counsel a sheep-shagger?"

I suspect it would depend on whether it was consentual sex on the part of the sheep.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 30 Apr 10 - 12:32 PM

Excellent decision by the courts. Religion has no standing in law for a very good reason; we are a free country. Freedom of worship includes freedom from worship.

Nice to note the only contribution by a God Botherer is about being shot for being a conchy. Yeah, and even further back in history, you were put in a wicker man and burnt for upsetting your non existent God.

Regarding the sheep; the last time I looked, sheep shagging was a bestial crime whereas people making love to each other wasn't. Putting love making in the same category as the crime of bestiality is a rather sickening move on your part? Resorting to such hate and vitriol just goes to prove that god is love at any cost eh? ZZZ

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 30 Apr 10 - 12:45 PM

I hope this ruling will be applied to, and observed by, adherents of all religions, as only Judeo-Christian has been specified in the OP.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 30 Apr 10 - 12:46 PM

It also depends on whether the sheep is over the age of consent.

Some sexual acts cannot be consented to - I think the case is "Jaggard": some people who indulged in beating and flogging for sexual satisfaction were convicted by the UK courts of GBH (or was it ABH?) despite the victims' consent. UK law did not recognise the possibility of a valid consent to such things. I think it was the ECHR not the European Court eventually concluded that their human rights had not been infringed.

But I wonder how Laws' actual words would play in the context of a ban on wearing garments that impeded recognition of the face?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Jack Campin
Date: 30 Apr 10 - 01:13 PM

I am not a god-botherer. But this verdict seems to remove any conceivable basis for conscientious objection to anything, ranging from participation in genocide to eating pork and beef in school lunches. I don't believe the judge was thinking very carefully about the logical implications of this decision, and I would be very surprised if it doesn't get kicked into limbo in a legal millisecond.

There were far less drastic ways to legally declare that bigot out of order.

(The sadomasochism case was known as "Spanner" to most of us, the law may have a different name for it).

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: PoppaGator
Date: 30 Apr 10 - 03:43 PM

Why in God's name (or anyone else's) would a gay person, or gay couple, insist upon receiving advice and counseling from someone with no sympathy or knowledge of their sexual practices? Just to stir up shit, and score some kind of political point?

I am certainly not defending discrimination, but common sense (seems to me) would dictate that not every therapist is right for every client, and that a case of incompatablity should not lead to a therapist losing his/her job.

Now, if the job description specifically stated that anyone hired as a sex therapists must be qualified to tender advice regarding all possible sexual practices and preferences, then Mr McFarlane deserved to be dismissed as lacking specified qualification. I would think it more reasonable to accept that different staff members be recognized as having different strengths and specialties, and that clients be matched up with therapists in an intelligent and sensitive manner.

(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.)

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Apr 10 - 04:27 PM

Well said poppagator, and why should sexual orientation be any more valid in law than religious belief?

How are the "liberals" going to spin this!

From The Sunday Times September 14, 2008

Revealed: UK's first official sharia courtsAbul Taher Recommend? (88) ISLAMIC law has been officially adopted in Britain, with sharia courts given powers to rule on Muslim civil cases.

The government has quietly sanctioned the powers for sharia judges to rule on cases ranging from divorce and financial disputes to those involving domestic violence.

Rulings issued by a network of five sharia courts are enforceable with the full power of the judicial system, through the county courts or High Court.

Previously, the rulings of sharia courts in Britain could not be enforced, and depended on voluntary compliance among Muslims.

It has now emerged that sharia courts with these powers have been set up in London, Birmingham, Bradford and Manchester with the network's headquarters in Nuneaton, Warwickshire. Two more courts are being planned for Glasgow and Edinburgh.

Sheikh Faiz-ul-Aqtab Siddiqi, whose Muslim Arbitration Tribunal runs the courts, said he had taken advantage of a clause in the Arbitration Act 1996.

Under the act, the sharia courts are classified as arbitration tribunals. The rulings of arbitration tribunals are binding in law, provided that both parties in the dispute agree to give it the power to rule on their case.

Siddiqi said: "We realised that under the Arbitration Act we can make rulings which can be enforced by county and high courts. The act 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."

The disclosure that Muslim courts have legal powers in Britain comes seven months after Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, was pilloried for suggesting that the establishment of sharia in the future "seems unavoidable" in Britain.

In July, the head of the judiciary, the lord chief justice, Lord Phillips, further stoked controversy when he said that sharia could be used to settle marital and financial disputes.

In fact, Muslim tribunal courts started passing sharia judgments in August 2007. They have dealt with more than 100 cases that range from Muslim divorce and inheritance to nuisance neighbours.

It has also emerged that tribunal courts have settled six cases of domestic violence between married couples, working in tandem with the police investigations.

Siddiqi said he expected the courts to handle a greater number of "smaller" criminal cases in coming years as more Muslim clients approach them. "All we are doing is regulating community affairs in these cases," said Siddiqi, chairman of the governing council of the tribunal.

Jewish Beth Din courts operate under the same provision in the Arbitration Act and resolve civil cases, ranging from divorce to business disputes. They have existed in Britain for more than 100 years, and previously operated under a precursor to the act.

Politicians and church leaders expressed concerns that this could mark the beginnings of a "parallel legal system" based on sharia for some British Muslims.

Dominic Grieve, the shadow home secretary, said: "If it is true that these tribunals are passing binding decisions in the areas of family and criminal law, I would like to know which courts are enforcing them because I would consider such action unlawful. British law is absolute and must remain so."

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

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 30 Apr 10 - 05:26 PM

""I am not a god-botherer. But this verdict seems to remove any conceivable basis for conscientious objection to anything, ranging from participation in genocide to eating pork and beef in school lunches.""

Conscience is not a religious belief Jack. Atheists have consciences too, and conscientious objection to killing is a moral, not a religious, concept.

It is unaffected by this ruling, which concerns only religious belief, not moral or ethical viewpoints(accepted norms of right and wrong), which are in fact what most law is originally based upon.

Don T.

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

If one is employed by an organisation that counsels relationships, and they have an equality and diversity policy (which I am almost sure Relate will have), then one signs up to that code when you sign your contract. If he did not raise the issue in interview (for example, "I am a Christian and will not expect to counsel Gay couples") and signed the contract then he has agreed to carry out Relate's policies.

The subject matters not. Had he said he was a black male who only wanted to councel non whites I suspect the ruling would have gone the same way. I think this judgment is not totally about religion but is totally about contactual obligation.

What if a vegan applied for a job at a butchers, got the job, and then refused to serve anyone wanting to buy meat? Would that not be similar? How far do you think the vegan would get in a tribunal?

Couples turn to relate for help. People at Relate should be able to offer that help or not be employed. That goes for us all. If we cannot do our job, or refuse to do it, then we would be sacked.

I think this ruling has come about more on employment law than anything to do with religion and sexuality

mp

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 30 Apr 10 - 05:34 PM

""Why in God's name (or anyone else's) would a gay person, or gay couple, insist upon receiving advice and counseling from someone with no sympathy or knowledge of their sexual practices? Just to stir up shit, and score some kind of political point?

I am certainly not defending discrimination, but common sense (seems to me) would dictate that not every therapist is right for every client, and that a case of incompatablity should not lead to a therapist losing his/her job.""

I suspect that it wasn't quite like that Poppagator. The sexuality of a client would only become evident in the course of the first session, and if the person you are paying for counselling suddenly says something along the lines of "Get out of here, I don't do queers", I suspect it might constitute a valid reason for complaint.

What do you think?

Would you just quietly go, or would you want the bigot dismissed.

Don T.

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

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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.