Skip to comments.UK Government Lawyer to European High Court: Christians Should Leave Faith at Home or Resign
Posted on 09/10/2012 8:07:56 AM PDT by scottjewell
From UK Christian Institute: "Christians in Britain should leave their faith at home or accept that they might have to get another job, a Government lawyer has told the European Court of Human Rights.
The comment came as the Court heard the cases of four Christians, including that of registrar Lillian Ladele who was disciplined for her stance on civil partnerships. All four say the UK Government failed to protect their religious liberty.
Dinah Rose QC, representing Miss Ladele, told the Court that her client had been used as an instrument of social change by her former employer Islington Borough Council.
She warned the judges that the submission from the United Kingdoms Government entails permitting Islington to treat Miss Ladele as an instrument for the propagation of its public message.
And we submit that to treat a person, an individual, as a means and not an aim in themselves, is fundamentally incompatible with individual human dignity and incompatible with convention rights.
James Eadie QC, acting on behalf of the Government, argued that the rights of the four Christians were only protected in private, and that they could not insist on being able to manifest their beliefs in any way they choose.
He argued that a Christian under difficulty is not discriminated against if they have the choice of resigning and moving to a different job."
I can only go on from where I ma from, who I know and I do know that the vast majority do not care about anything.
They complain but they do nothing, totally nothing, tey care about getting their drugs, having a beer, watching sport and having some money plus cashing in on welfare.
Just the other day my foster mother told me the neighbors at the back of her told her to piss off, called her a Cu## etc.
She’s 82 and all she wasked was if they could stop putting all their trash up against their fence as it was breaking the fence on her side
There was 3 of them and all around 20 years old and then another young woman turned up.
It turned into my foster mother, her neighbor to the side who are also old and her next door neighbor but two.
No one cares about anything, no respect no nothing, it;s all about them
Atheists should leave their faith at home or resign.
All part of the plan. Christianity is incompatible with the NWO's agenda for a fascist global government, while islam is the perfect tool for controlling the masses with fear in those rare cases that the 24/7 surveillance being installed fails.
Such people you describe are raised without any morality or principles in their lives. Each succeeding generation of such feral humans gets worse. They are like two legged animals but worse, because animals have no ability to be anything other than what they are.
The people you describe are the reason things are going to fall apart. There are too many feral subhumans.
Great Britain was once a blessed nation, and that about the same time as a large portion of its citizenry called on the name of the Lord Jesus.
It is still living on that status earned long, long ago. But, how the mighty have fallen and will continue to fall.
How can they? The mozlims might get mad at them, the pantywaists.
I think that my husband is among the last real men to have come out of England since the sun started setting on the British Empire.
There are certainly notable exceptions among my FReeper friends as well.
There be a few die-hards somewhere in the isles yet
There may be a few die-hards somewhere in the isles yet
I’m positive that there are, but they’re being outnumbered and shouted down by their Neville Chamberlains.
I am not unfamiliar with Dutch political history and modern political issues. I understand your point about what happens when average moderate conservatives wake up and find out what radical Muslims, Communists and homosexual activists are advocating.
However, citing Geert Wilders and his pro-homosexual political party is a better example of proving how sins cancel each other out than it is of any sort of Christian resurgence or even generically moral resurgence in the Netherlands.
Socialism doesn't work. Neither does toleration for radical Islam, or an emphasis on uncontrolled immigration combined with multiculturalism. The modern right wing in Europe is largely composed of secular conservatives of a libertarian stripe who have realized that, and are using secular conservative weapons to fight back.
Wilders’ party is largely based on the foundation of the former Pim Fortuyn List, whose openly homosexual founder was killed for his opposition to Islam. To quote Wilders himself, in an interview with the German publication Der Spiegel: “I want to provoke a discussion. Certain Koranic verses have moved their followers to commit the most abhorrent acts. Where is the imam who stands up in the Netherlands and says, for us, homosexuals are entitled to equal rights and everyone has the right to abandon their faith.”
How many people on Free Republic would want to say that? Few of us want to see homosexuals executed, let alone killed on the streets by Muslim mobs, but if any of us were saying “homosexuals are entitled to equal rights” on Free Republic we would quickly get asked important questions about whether we support homosexual marriage or just say homosexuals should have the same rights guaranteed to anyone else by the Constitution, i.e., not to be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.
There is no question that Wilders is opposed to Islam. He's more or less okay on economics, and I'll cut him some slack on his economic views because of the Dutch welfare state — in his context, he wants to move in the right direction from a place far more leftist than anything we have today in America. However, when it comes to homosexuality, he is in full support of a much more radical homosexual agenda than we have in most of the Democratic Party in the United States, and he advocates that based on what we would call libertarian principles of personal freedom without state involvement in private lives.
Wilders, Marine Le Pen, and similar politicians do represent a resurgence of a certain type of conservatism, but it is a conservatism that in the United States would be more like that of John McCain than like what is supported by most on Free Republic. I'm well aware of the differences between Wilders and the other “far right” political parties of Europe such as Haider in Austria and to a lesser extent the French National Front — Wilders is not a fascist by any definition of the word, and is strongly pro-Israel — but my point is that Wilders is not a conservative by the American definition of the word.
Things are so bad in Europe that maybe only libertarian secular conservatives have any chance of winning this war. However, when I talk to Dutch Christians who want to make common cause with that sort of ideology, I remind them of how much damage was caused to the Gereformeerde Bond, the Christelijke Gereformeerde Kerken in Nederland, and especially the Gereformeerde Gemeenten when too many Christian conservatives in the 1940s decided to make common cause with the Dutch Nazis in fighting Communism.
Much of the support in the United States for Geert Wilders is coming from people like David Horowitz who support Wilders because of his agenda against radical Islam, and who view Wilders as a co-belligerent in their fight to defend Israel. I understand why David Horowitz and other pro-Israel groups are supporting Geert Wilders. If I were in their shoes and if my primary goal were supporting Jewish causes and Israel, and if I were working to do so in radically secular environments such as that of Europe, I would probably do the same thing.
I certainly support Israel and will not criticize the efforts of others who want to support Israel. However, in a nation like the United States where Christianity is still a major influence, we need to choose our allies very, very carefully when we're dealing with non-Christian conservatives. Our agenda is not identical to that of Horowitz, though we're usually going to agree with him, though not always with Horowitz's secular conservative allies. Alliances are unavoidable, but we must always be aware of where we differ because it will limit how far two people who are not fully agreed can walk together (cf. Amos 3:3).
Here are some articles on Geert Wilders and his political party which show what his movement advocates, as well as some its problems. I think Freepers need to regard Wilders movement as a group of people who have been targeted by people who are also our enemies, namely, Islamofascists, but the enemy of our enemy is not always our friend.
Geert Wilders the big loser as Dutch voters put stability before intolerance
by Araminta Wordsworth
National Post Staff
Sep 14, 2012 8:30 AM ET
DECKER: 5 Questions with Geert Wilders: Islam is an ideology aiming for world domination
By Brett M. Decker
The Washington Times
Friday, September 14, 2012
Dutch lawmaker brings his crusade against Islam to conservative confab
By Ernest Luning
THE COLORADO STATESMAN
U.S. groups helped fund Dutch anti-Islam politician Geert Wilders
By Anthony Deutsch and Mark Hosenball
Reuters | Sep 10, 2012 5:10 PM ET
Anti-Islamic political leader Geert Wilders comes to Canada
By National Post Staff
May 5, 2011 6:00 AM ET
Jonathan Kay: Geert Wilders problem with Islam
By Jonathan Kay
May 8, 2011 7:48 PM ET
‘Moderate Islam Is a Contradiction’
Right-wing Dutch politician Geert Wilders wanted to provoke an international scandal with his anti-Islam film “Fitna.” He succeeded. He talks to SPIEGEL about his crusade against Islam.
‘I don't hate Muslims. I hate Islam,’ says Holland's rising political star
Geert Wilders, the popular MP whose film on Islam has fuelled the debate on race in Holland, wants an end to mosque building and Muslim immigration. Ian Traynor met him in The Hague
By Ian Traynor
Saturday 16 February 2008
Thank you very much for your detailed and informative reply.
Well worth reading for everyone.
I had read that Wilder was tolerant or pro-homosexual agenda, but I had not realized to what extent. Definitely not worth emulating or learning from in that regard; just his courageous opposition to Islamic aggression.
I think far too many of us in the conservative world are unaware of how bad things have gotten in Europe. What they call “conservatives” or even “far right” over there might well be considered left-wing liberals or (at best) libertarians in a United States political context.
I don't mean they would be considered liberals just by Freepers, RedStates, TownHallers, and those who frequent other assorted conservative websites. Many of our RINOs and GOP-e people are farther right than what Europeans consider “Far Right.”
We need to take a very hard look at where European secular conservatism has gone once the traditional conservative parties lost their Christian moorings. (Yes, in Europe we do need to say “Christian,” not “Judeo-Christian” — they have a very different history than America with established state churches.) People like Geert Wilders, to their credit, may themselves be lapsed church members who still believe in a moral foundation for society. Wilders is sympathetic to Christianity even though he is not himself a practicing Christians; he's spent significant time in Israel and has great respect for Judaism. However, others in the so-called “Far Right” are much less sympathetic to Christian traditional values. That may be understandable in the case of someone like Marine Le Pen who inherited a secular French conservatism that dates back two centuries, but it is much less acceptable for conservatives in European nations other than France.
I read an article recently talking about how openly pro-gay the British Conservative Party has become. Similar things could be said about the traditional Catholic parties of much of Europe which may be “Christian Democrats” in name but in reality are not Christian in any meaningful sense of the word.
That is the future of the Republican Party if we do not watch out, and take action **RIGHT NOW** to defend our Judeo-Christian base of “social conservative” support for the Republican Party.
The recent uproar over Todd Akin for Senate isn't just because of his stupid “legitimate rape” comments. It is because there are people in the less-conservative wing of the Republican Party who are embarrassed by the official Republican stance against abortion even in cases of rape and incest, saying abortion should be legal only to save the life of the mother. Ronald Reagan found out the hard way in California that a “health of the mother” exception would be abused — there are very good reasons for the official Republican position. We need to keep that position, and all the rest of the social conservative issues, because compromise will lead to wholesale collapse.
Akin isn't the issue; he made a really dumb comment and could lose what should have been a slam-dunk election as a result. He's only an example, and I know there are people of good will who believe he should step down. What **IS** important is that Republicans maintain social conservative principles. If we lose that foundation, we will become a European-style conservative party, and that is somewhere we do **NOT** want to go.
Amen! well said...the gop is supporting two pro choice senators and one made the following comment..”women with children that are on welfare are the same as women that have been raped” where is the media on that comment by a republican running for the senate? unlike Akin..this guy is pro choice.
You hit the bullseye. Except I think “Judeo-Christian values” are fine. In fact I agree with this: (Of course I leave Islam out of this quote!)
“Reading, reflection and time have convinced me that the interests
of society require the observation of those moral precepts ... in
which all religions agree.” —Thomas Jefferson
Let me correct my last post. The gop is supporting two pro choice candidates but Smith that made the following remark is pro life..Tom Smith, GOP Senate Candidate: Pregnancy From Rape Similar To ‘Having A Baby Out Of Wedlock’ However, I never heard much from the media or the gop about his comment...it makes me wonder why they want to single out Akin.
Rove’s comment on murder was given a green light by Fox News and Romney. Newt came down hard on Rove but he is one of the few
35 posted on Sat Sep 15 2012 23:37:08 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time) by katiedidit1: “Newt came down hard on Rove but he is one of the few.”
Good for Newt Gingrich! Can I get a link? I’d be interested.
What has happened with Akin goes beyond the surface issue of his stupid statement, which does deserve condemnation. The uproar is all out of proportion to the original offense and appears to be based on underlying issues.
I don’t have a problem with people like Sen. Scott Brown criticizing Akin — I believe in federalism and Sen. Brown needs to reflect the views of his Massachusetts constituents, where being conservative has a very different definition than Missouri conservatives — but it seems clear that the attacks on Akin by a lot of other Republicans are a smokescreen for discomfort with the Republican Party’s pro-life position.
Akin isn’t the issue, but he could easily become a symbol of a much more important fight. If we aren’t careful, the Akin race may get turned into a “test case” of whether social issues are a losing card for conservative Republicans. That would be a very, very bad development.
35 posted on Sat Sep 15 2012 23:37:08 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time) by katiedidit1: “It makes me wonder why they want to single out Akin. Roves comment on murder was given a green light by Fox News and Romney.”
The question of why Akin has been singled out is very significant. I’m responding to that as part of my comments about Thomas Jefferson below.
34 posted on Sat Sep 15 2012 23:23:12 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time) by little jeremiah: “You hit the bullseye. Except I think Judeo-Christian values are fine. In fact I agree with this: (Of course I leave Islam out of this quote!) ‘Reading, reflection and time have convinced me that the interests of society require the observation of those moral precepts ... in which all religions agree.’ Thomas Jefferson”
I think we mostly agree, though I can’t agree with the universalist principles of religion that Jefferson intended behind his quote. His words have more meaning than their face value and while I might be able to agree with the actual text of what he said, Jefferson was an open opponent in his day of what we would call a Christian conservative position.
Jefferson was a brilliant man as well as being a skilled politician — traits that today are rarely seen in the same person, unfortunately. That means his words need to be evaluated in context; they were deliberately crafted to gain allies for an anti-religious cause which he knew reflected a small minority position in his day, and which even today is still more radical than what most modern Americans believe.
Jefferson used the issue of disestablishment of the Episcopalians in Virginia to gain the support of Baptists, Presbyterians, patriotic Americans who didn’t like England and viewed Episcopalians as being closet supporters of the Church of England, and others. Most of those people did not in any way support Jefferson’s broader anti-religious agenda which was considerably more serious than disestablishment of a state-supported church in Virginia, but his “triangulation politics” worked and won.
The irony is that while Jefferson won the disestablishment battle, he certainly could not have foreseen the results of massive growth of Baptists and Methodists (who were initially viewed as being a subset of Episcopalianism) that happened as a result of disestablishment. God has a way of turning the plans of wicked men around and using them for his own purposes. In the decades after Jefferson’s death, Virginia, along with its de facto “colonies” of Tennessee and Kentucky, and more broadly the rest of the South which followed the lead of Virginia, became much more religiously conservative than probably would have been the case if Episcopalianism had continued to be the state-supported church in the South.
I am not going to compare Karl Rove to Thomas Jefferson on issues of personal faith, but I will say that both are highly effective tacticians who do not apply Christian values to their political lives. I’m afraid Rove is trying to turn Akin into a wedge issue to divide Republicans and marginalize social issues conservatives. Maybe God will turn Rove’s efforts around; maybe not. As a Calvinist, obviously I believe in God’s sovereignty, and in a free republic, people generally get the government they deserve. We deserve some pretty bad governors based on our American sinfulness.
On a related issue, I do think I need to clarify something — my point was not to say that I have any problem with the Judeo-Christian foundations of the United States but rather to say that European culture has a much more explicitly Christian history. We can’t say the Netherlands or most other European countries were founded on Judeo-Christian principles, Geert Wilders knows that, and our history in the United States of accepting help right from the days of the American Revolution from Roman Catholics and Jews is not the same as what happened in Europe.
Personally I happen to have certain views on Christian support for Israel and the Jewish people — views which were shared by Oliver Cromwell, by most of the Puritans, and by the majority of the Reformed Christian leaders of the Netherlands dating back to the 1600s. There are reasons why Cromwell fought hard to repeal laws forbidding Jewish people from living in England, and why the Dutch churches were encouraging study of Hebrew and helping rabbis get books published in the Netherlands at the same time that Jews were being harassed or even explicitly persecuted in much of the rest of Europe.
On this point — support for Israel — Geert Wilders has secular reasons for holding a political position that is largely the same as mine with regard to the state of Israel. While he is not himself a Christian (he’s a lapsed Roman Catholic), he believes that religious faith has been an important principle undergirding Western culture and respects the Christian and Jewish faith, even though he personally does not share those beliefs.