h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6243323.stm

I mean, why is this even news? Some people who have an imaginary friend don't like the idea of a new law because it will - horrors! - force them to treat everyone equally.

Well hello and welcome to the 21st century, where you can't put a sign outside your pub saying "No Dogs, No Blacks, No Irish". If you're a religious nutter and you run a business, you have a clear choice in future - serve everyone equally, or get a job.

Point of principle - sexual orientation is innate. There is bundles of scientific evidence for this. Religion, on the other hand, is very much a conscious choice.

What I'd love to know is just where these people got the idea that their nasty little prejudices matter? Where on earth did they get the impression that just because some middle-eastern death cult wrote some books, they have some sort of right to discriminate today?

Religious freedom means - or SHOULD mean - the right to worship freely IN PRIVATE. It does not, or certainly should not, mean the right to take your repellent opinions into the public domain.

SoRB

Maybe it can be discussed withouth the statutory mudslinging about racism and jibes about the media source reporting it this time . http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/brunel/F135418?thread=3783996&skip=16&show=20

I liked the thread title.

Yeah, Nog and I were just taking bets on who might have started it ...

az

One thing I'm hoping to come out of all this is that it will just increase the pressure to disestablish church and state in 21st century Britain. The very idea that the official head of state of our country, the monarch, is also the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, after several hundred years of the development of scientific thought and technology is utterly laughable. That's what gives so many Christians the deluded idea, (well they're prone to delusions generally aren't they?), that we are a 'Christian' country. It probably also encourages people of other religions to somehow believe religion plays a significant role in the life of the majority of Brits. It doesn't.

Isn't it odd, though, that the UK is perhaps one of the most secular countries in the West, while the one with the clearest separation of church and state (the US) is the most religious?

I can never understand why "Christians" decide to follow the nastier parts of the Bible and ignore Christ's teachings. AND where are the more reasonable Christians standing up to these imbeciles?

Ste

I had a quick glance at the BBC News Have Your Say discussion on this and was quite pleased to see just how many self-identifying christians were distancing themselves from this protest, and actually sounding quite reasonable about it.

Of course there were still a few supporting the protest, but not as many as I expected on such a reactionary message board as that one.

>One thing I'm hoping to come out of all this is that it will just increase the pressure to disestablish church and state in 21st century Britain.<

Not if the antidisestablishmentarians have anything to say about it!


Posted simply because I wanted to use the word, 'antidisestablishmentarians'

There was actually an extreme lecture I heard once on C-SPAN saying that tolerance of "moderate" christian belief was leading to tolerance of fundamentalists, and that the moderates should be lumped with the fundamentalists b/c of their tacit support.

I would say to counter this, look at Dover PA. The fundamentalists tried to ban evolution, and got voted off the school board. They weren't voted off by a massive atheist turnout - Dover has a really high Christian population (high number of churches per capita).

>>Isn't it odd, though, that the UK is perhaps one of the most secular countries in the West, while the one with the clearest separation of church and state (the US) is the most religious?<< Ste

Interesting point. We Brits are pretty weird and rather good at hypocrisy, and the CofE has traditionally been very moderate but I really do think we should try and take the risk of being a bit more rational. Maybe we could make the Monarch the Supreme Governor of Scientific thought? A typical British fudge!

I have to agree Arnie I no more go along with lumping most of the Christians I meet with these reactionary bigots anymore than I do lumping my friends who are Muslim in with the guys who took bombs onto the tube trains.

My good freind has three sons one of them is gay he speaks of all his sons with affection and without shame. He is a Christian. His christianity does not make him the same as the hardline faithers SoRB has highlighted infact his christianity is part of what sets him apart from them.

one love

Crikey I wish I could meet some nice christians Blicky. I find even the *friendly* ones look at you kind of askance, awkward and sort of pittying if you dare tell them you are gay.

Well he is an active christian. i find a lot of people who are only nominally christian who are pretty homophobic. I guess christinas just have a reason for what they say

Fair enough blicky, but I always get the impression that they can't wait to get away and *pray* for me. That's what I can never stand in any Christian, even if they accept you it's always bit like Jesus accepting Mary Magdolene, inside them, it's always on their terms and their deluded mindsets. They'd love nothing better than to *heal* you.

That's because they have a 'duty' to save you Fanny. They think they're helping you.

Remember if you want to get into the everlasting light you've got to believe.

Actually I think anyone should have the right to say who he wants over his doorstep.

Nowadays it seems I can say I don't want smokers, but I can't say I don't want homosexuals.

Hospitals can say we can't afford to give you cancer drugs, but can't say we're reducing our drug treatment program to save money.

The government can't say get out of our country, you're at terrorist, but it can tell its citizen's they can't protest over its actions.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6243323.stm

"New rules outlawing businesses from discriminating against homosexuals have been upheld in the House of Lords.
A challenge led by Lord Morrow of the Democratic Unionist Party failed by a majority of three to one."

"Nowadays it seems I can say I don't want smokers, but I can't say I don't want homosexuals."

An interesting comparison. The thing is, it's fairly easy to make a case that smokers are actually doing you harm, if they're smoking at the time. And I don't think you'd get away with keeping smokers out of your hotel if they weren't smoking at the time, would you?

I tend to favour the notion that nothing should be illegal unless it does actual harm to someone (or, in the case of environmental protection legislation, something). I know, though, that SoRB disagrees with me on that, and thinks that public nudity should be illegal. He said so.

TRiG.

>>but it can tell its citizen's they can't protest over its actions. << McKay

Care to be more specific about the government saying this?

<<"Nowadays it seems I can say I don't want smokers, but I can't say I don't want homosexuals.">>

Well, perhaps you could get away with a general no-sex policy in a hotel?

Because you can't say 'no smokers' (or at least I don't think you should, unless perhaps they regularly turn up smelling of smoke or somesuch) but you can say 'no smoking'. But then again its not even the saying is it - its the practice. You can criticize minority group x, but not refuse to employ or do business with them, segregate them, threaten violence towards them, etc.

I'm of the opinion that once someone makes their doorstep the doorstep to a public business then they have to abide by the rules of such. (For the moment I'm assuming you were referring to that case in the article).

Its legislating for politeness really. Its saying you can criticise - even criticise vehemently and perhaps offensively - but at the end of the day you have to let people get on with their lives and try not to hold it against them.

Because homosexuals may complain, but they don't have a policy of kicking straight people out of gay bars. Similarly, atheists may get angry, and sadly we may scorn, heckle and belittle, but I've yet to hear of 'no Christians welcome'.

"Nowadays it seems I can say I don't want smokers, but I can't say I don't want homosexuals."

As far as I was aware, you can't get cancer through passive homosexuality...