| We hope you enjoy your visit! You're currently viewing Catholic CyberForum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our online cyberparish, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of abuse, personal attacks, blasphemy, racism, threats, harrassment, and crude or sexually-explicit language. If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Equality Bill - More ludicrous legilation; could mean removing religious images | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Friday, 12. June 2009, 20:20 (384 Views) | |
| Deleted User | Friday, 12. June 2009, 20:20 Post #1 |
|
Deleted User
|
This weeks Catholic Herald highlights the shortcomings of the Equality Bill being discussed by parliamentary committee.Catholic Herald article Neil Addison continues the theme in an article in the same issue Religious Freedom under attack in Britain |
|
|
| Rose of York | Friday, 12. June 2009, 20:35 Post #2 |
![]()
Administrator
|
Catholic Herald article
I wonder what would be the position of a religious order, doing whatever it is that is in the Rule, if a nun were to get married. ? Are religious symbols on the exterior walls of places of worship to be banned, because they may offend the people passing by or standing at the bus stop? If so, I predict the muslims will put up a fight. The sight of the star and crescent does not bother me. Why should a cross upset an atheist? Please, Equality Minister, may I get my rosary beads out of my pocket when I walk on the grass opposite my home? |
|
Keep the Faith! | |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Friday, 12. June 2009, 21:49 Post #3 |
|
Deleted User
|
The sad truth is this is the elected government bring back Cuthbert Cringeworthy as Education secretary; Wilfrid, as foreign secretary; Toots , minister for culture; Smiffy as Home secretary;' Erbert , as Chancellor of the Exchequer; and of course Danny as PM with The Blob Street Kids as the Loyal opposition. They could do no worse. If this lot get away with this legislation it will be more than churches that will have to change. The Queen will have to adapt her crown, orb and coat of arms. Holders of awards for Valour, VC, GC, DFC,MC, and a few others will just be VM, or what? This must not be allowed to pass. |
|
|
| PJD | Friday, 12. June 2009, 21:50 Post #4 |
|
All of this sort of nonsense leads to contempt for the law, just as for the moment most hold our politicians in contempt. Another step towards breaking the law with good conscience. PJD |
![]() |
|
| tomais | Saturday, 13. June 2009, 19:24 Post #5 |
|
and the coins in our pockets/wallets/purses ! |
![]() |
|
| Rose of York | Saturday, 13. June 2009, 23:56 Post #6 |
![]()
Administrator
|
The Equality Bill is viewable on Hansard website. Equality Bill |
|
Keep the Faith! | |
![]() |
|
| Fortunatus | Saturday, 13. June 2009, 23:57 Post #7 |
|
I have long held to the belief that the only law passed in the last twelve years which still holds sway is the Law of Unintended Consequences. This government portrays the classic symptoms of mindless activity as described in 'Yes Minister' — "We must do something; this is something; therefore we must do it." There has never (I mean "never") been a government in my experience or my considerably extensive research as a historian which can compare with the current selection of knaves and fools for introducing new, ill-considered and pointless legislation to combat a problem which could equally be solved by the proper application of existing laws. It is almost as if they are obsessed with law-making for the sake of it. |
![]() |
|
| Rose of York | Sunday, 14. June 2009, 00:59 Post #8 |
![]()
Administrator
|
I had a quick skim through the Bill and could not see what the bishops are worrying about. If religious symbols were banned because they might offend atheists, by the same logic we could see banned: Gay pride marches (might offend Christians) Trooping the Colour (might offend atheists) Muslim veil (might offend BNP supporters) Pacifist parades (might offend service and ex service personnel) Weddings (might offend some idiot who finds marriage offensive) BRING BACK GOLLIWOGS ON JAM JARS. |
|
Keep the Faith! | |
![]() |
|
| OsullivanB | Sunday, 14. June 2009, 04:05 Post #9 |
|
Another panic got up by the Press - unfortunately this time the Catholic Press. Edited by OsullivanB, Sunday, 14. June 2009, 04:08.
|
| "There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." Herbert Spencer | |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Sunday, 14. June 2009, 06:57 Post #10 |
|
Deleted User
|
|
|
|
| Quicunque vult | Sunday, 14. June 2009, 08:05 Post #11 |
|
Fortunatus Absolutely spot on! OSullivanB wrote:
If only! Unfortunately, reality outstrips "panic". Who would have thought just a few years ago not only that homosexual couples would be allowed to adopt children, but that Catholic agencies would be closed down for refusing to facilitate such adoption. QV |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Sunday, 14. June 2009, 09:01 Post #12 |
|
Deleted User
|
Having read through the bill it does appear innocuous. I do think, however that KatyA was right to draw the bishops concerns to our attention and as QV has pointed out the small changes, each permitted and justified slowly eroded society to the point that we are losing the freedom to operate Catholic Run adoption agencies and my cousins youngster studying for medicine in Aberdeen has been told that if she wishes to be a doctor she will be required to assist in an abortion as an integral part of her training. She has no choice and the law no longer protects her, although if she were a millionaire and had years to spare she might be able to convince a judge somewhere, because another consequence of New Labour is the collapse of the legal aid system and justice is no longer available to the ordinary person. The point is as a 19 year old she is bullied by the system. (OSB I would be interested in your refutation of this popular perception) Having read through the bill it does appear innocuous. I do think, however that KatyA was right to draw the bishops concerns to our attention and as QV has pointed out the small changes, each permitted and justified slowly eroded society to the point that we have lost not only losing the freedom to operate Catholic Run adoption agencies but my cousins youngster studying for medicine in Aberdeen has been told that if she wishes to be a doctor she will be required to assist in an abortion as an integral part of her training, she has no choice and the law no longer protects her, although if she were a millionaire and had years to spare she might be able to convince a judge somewhere, because another consequence of New Labour is the collapse of the legal aid system and justice is no longer available to the ordinary person. (OSB I would be interested in your refutation of this popular perception) I am not a lawyer and so the above is merely an opinion which like that of Fortunatus is moulded through a study of history and observation. OSB I agree with your warning not to over react and panic, but QV also has a point which even if ill-founded is gripping the popular perception, so the warning is perhaps too late. As is perhaps mine on the thread relating to swine flu and the reception of Holy Communion. |
|
|
| Deleted User | Sunday, 14. June 2009, 10:13 Post #13 |
|
Deleted User
|
I think that the wording of the "harassment" clause is what gives the bishops cause for concern. Unwanted conduct, can mean just about anything. KatyA |
|
|
| Rose of York | Sunday, 14. June 2009, 11:35 Post #14 |
![]()
Administrator
|
I feel that in this case the bishops are getting wound up about nothing, and they would be better occupied doing something about the appalling lack of vocations to priesthood and religious life. |
|
Keep the Faith! | |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Sunday, 14. June 2009, 12:11 Post #15 |
|
Deleted User
|
The problem is how? Put an ad in the job centre but oh no of cause we can't do that because we are not an equal opportunities employer. More importantly at present we are excluded from the requirement to be an equal opportunities employer but in the Armed Forces, prisons, hospitals, universities and other chaplaincies we are increasingly being marginalised and excluded. The bishops protested but too late because they had failed to see the changes coming they were correctly criticized for failing in their duty in this regard and the responsibility to be vigilant remains. Also the Bishops conferences are divided into a whole range of specialist tasks some focusing on vocation, some on education and others making sure we do not get caught out by legislation which will make the promotion and practice of our faith criminal. We cannot bury are heads in the sand and hope that the state will look after us we need to be vigilant and the bishops are doing their job by looking closely into this matter. If the bishops in Germany during the twenties and thirties had paid closer attention to the plausible and reasonable changes slowly introduced to the constitution and state laws the NAZI party may have been thwarted before it became too powerful to resist. OSB rightly appeals for calm and that we keep things in perspective but that is not the same as ignoring or dismissing the issue as nothing. |
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Archived Discussions · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2







9:17 AM Jul 11