Clergy told to take on the 'new atheists'

[cleanhippie]

The Church of England will this week vow to fight "new atheism" in an attempt to combat the rise of secularism and defend Christianity in Britain.

Clergy are to be urged to be more vocal in countering the arguments put forward by a more hard-line group of atheists such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, who have campaigned for a less tolerant attitude towards religion.

A report endorsed by Dr Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, warns that the Church faces a battle to prevent faith being seen as "a social problem" and says the next five years are set to be a period of "exceptional challenge".

It expresses concern that Christians are facing hostility at work and says the Church could lose its place at the centre of public life unless it challenges attempts to marginalise religious belief.

The rallying call comes amid fears that Christians are suffering from an increasing level of discrimination following a series of cases in which they have been punished for sharing their beliefs. :rofl:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8305803/Clergy-told-to-take-on-the-new-atheists.html

------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Quick, someone get me a dictionary so I can look up the word "persecution", because it seems it doesn't mean what everyone thinks it does. :rofl:

I think some poeple who think this is persecution need to read this...http://atheists.org/blog/2011/09/03/repudiating-the-myth-of-christian-persecution-in-the-united-states

[classof56]

1. Persecution, eh? As a lapsed Baptist, I keep wondering the same thing.

Christians really do think they're rights are being "tromped on" as one told me recently. I'd refer them to Fox's Book of Martyrs, or perhaps the recounting of the death of Stephen in the book of Acts, but pretty sure that wouldn't resonate with them. Thanks for the link--I'll keep it handy.

Tired Old Cynic

[LeftishBrit]

2. What is also interesting here...

is that this is a relatively small part of the report, and rather vaguely expressed - and to be slightly cynical, *any* organization wants to promote its brand against rivals! But it is the one aspect that the Daily Telegraph reporters seize on gleefully. Typical. These days, with only about 12% of the population going to church regularly, the churches on the whole have far less political influence than the RW press.

Having said this, I know for a fact that there were people preaching on one fairly large local church who were openly recommending a Tory vote against the incumbent MP in 2010. I don't know if they actually affected the outcome (a very narrow Tory win, so one does wonder), but it's not the sort of thing I need in my backyard!

[humblebum]

3. As usual, you refer to an atheist source to validate an atheist position.

It is perfectly true and if you don't believe us, just ask us and we'll tell you it's true.

[SwissTony]

4. Oh, you poor dears. You can't burn us at the stake anymore?

My heart bleeds.

[laconicsax]

5. Ho hum, ad hominem. n/t

[SwissTony]

6. Projecting much?? nt

[laconicsax]

18. Umm...no.

Do you disagree that humblebum's response in #3 was an ad hominem? That's the comment I was responding to.

[Leontius]

9. Why is it not appropriate to use an atheist scource?

I just don't understand, no one would ever complain if someone uses a Christian scource to validate their opinion. I mean really now has this ever occurred here. That anybody would do such a thing is unbelievable.

[deacon_sephiroth]

23. guess we'll have to start n/t

[deacon_sephiroth]

22. weird, Humble's on our side now???

I always thoguht he was an advocate of religion, but here he ironically sums up the ENTIRE arguement for religion, in a way so simplistic it must be satire.

"It is perfectly true and if you don't believe us, just ask us and we'll tell you it's true."

[ZombieHorde]

7. Excellent. I welcome the debate. nt

[LAGC]

8. Jesus Christ, that archbishop needs to trim his eye-brows!

SRSLY -- out of control!

[Meshuga]

10. No way!

Instead, he should change his hairdo to match the same way he styles his eyebrows. Color and shape.

[backscatter712]

17. Then the Doctor would see through his disguise!

Can't the Master have a little peace and quiet to take over the Earth by indoctrinating humans with religious nonsense?

[Angry Dragon]

11. I am just going to sit here and wait while everyone decides

which god we are all suppose to follow


:popcorn:

[edhopper]

12. Why would a Christian be discriminated at work?

Unless they are a pain in the ass about God and Jesus. Or want things done or not done based on scripture rather than the law.

[LAGC]

13. I can think of an instance...

Back when I worked for Hewlett-Packard for a couple years doing quality-assurance testing on some of their prototype laser printers just before the tech bubble bust (1997-1999), I'd over-hear some Christians in the break-room taking offense at the company's diversity awareness campaign, with all their tolerance and pro-LGBT posters strewn all over the place. There was this one guy who took such offense that he plastered a bunch of Christian posters up in his cubicle which everyone could see when they walked by, and made it a point to have a Bible (King James "Authorized Version", of course) sitting there prominently on his desk, and he'd go out of his way to "share the good word" with anyone who took notice or asked about them. He was politely asked by his superiors to leave his religious propaganda at the door, as there were many foreign workers and visitors who didn't share his particular religious views that might take offense or feel uncomfortable, as it simply wasn't professional or conducive to the business environment. He ended up getting fired over it, claimed "persecution" and tried to sue the company for discrimination, but his complaint was quickly dismissed by the courts who said the company was completely within their rights trying to foster a more inclusive and business-friendly environment for all workers.

Some people just don't know when to check that shit at the door. I mean, my boss at the time was a hard-core fundie Baptist himself, but he was always real circumspect about it, never preached or flaunted it while at work. Sure, he'd invite us to his church every once in awhile after hours to hear a "special speaker" which even I indulged him once, visiting his church after work and getting an earful about how the dinosaurs really lived side-by-side with man (in true Creationist young-earth lore) but he was always professional enough to not preach while at work. He ended up leaving that job to become a pastor at some small, forsaken church down in Arizona. I even attended his "ordination" at his Baptist church before he left. Even though he was a fundie, I have a lot more respect for him in knowing what the proper boundaries are between work and "recreation" are, and he never held my religious skepticism against me, even gave me a healthy promotion just before he left.

Bottom line: Christians are only "discriminated" against if they go out of their way and try to peddle their shit at work.

[LeftishBrit]

20. It's usually one of three things in the UK...

One is workplace objection to public symbols or demonstrations of Christianity; e.g objecting to people wearing crosses or talking about their faith. These in fact occur rarely and not usually in isolation: e.g. there may be a generally restrictive dress code, or the person has been trying to convert others on work time. The most exasperating untruth is that local councils or businesses are trying to 'ban mention of Christmas'. So far as I know, this has not happened since the days of Oliver Cromwell, and the allegation usually results from the use of another term than 'Christmas' for some winter event or sales promotion that had nothing to do with Christmas in the first place!

Another is that some workmates are hostile to Christians, and/or force people to listen to anti-religious diatribes. Just as with Christian preaching, this should not generally be happening on work time; but again, it's rare.

The commonest is that people are being forced at work to act in ways that offend their 'moral beliefs'; most usually by laws against discrimination against gays. I find it rather difficult to sympathize with this one; after all, a vegetarian wouldn't be able to claim discrimination because they chose to work for a shop and the shop wouldn't let them off selling meat products.

[darkstar3]

14. Harassment is often met with hostility. It should be expected.

[struggle4progress]

15. February article from the Telegraph, which gets cut and paste from time to time,

causing a flurry of web activity

It's no secret I don't think much of the Telegraph as a source

Do we have a link to the actual report? What did the Synod do with it at the February meeting?

[LeftishBrit]

19. Here...

http://www.churchofengland.org/media/1163101/gs%201815.pdf

As can be seen, there is rather more about the use of church buildings, and about what in a secular organization would be called business management and salemanship, than about persecution (the term is not in fact used though 'discrimination' is) by evil atheists. But that doesn't make good copy for the Torygraph!

[struggle4progress]

21. Thanks. The Telegraph had to do its usual very limited reading to find its take.

[NMMNG]

16. Good grief

In recent years, a number of Christians have taken legal action against local councils and hospital trusts after being disciplined for expressing their faith by wearing crosses or refusing to act against their orthodox beliefs.

The Shirley Chaplin case had nothing to do with "New Atheists" or "Christian persecution". It was a whiny nurse who didn't want to comply with the hospital's safety policies. She wasn't told to remove the cross, merely to keep it inside her clothing during working hours. She http://timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7089691.ece">tried to make it into a case of Christian Persecution because she was expected to put patient safety before her desire to flaunt her Jesus bling . It wasn't.

Lillian Ladele's case also had nothing to do with "New Atheists" or "Christian Persecution". She's nothing more than an anti-gay bigot who refused to do her job and fell back on her "religious beliefs" as a convenient excuse. Then she cried persecution when she was rightfully disciplined. She didn't have a problem handing out marriage licenses to divorcees, adulterers, non-virginal women, murderers, liars and the like--but suddenly she's all about her "faith" when it comes to gay couples. And she's soooooo persecuted because she's expected to do her frigging job or face the consequences just like anybody else.


Christians need to stop thinking their chosen religious lifestyle puts them above the law, then crying persecution!1!1 when they're informed that it doesn't. The problem is they've been getting away with so much for so long just by citing their "religious beliefs" that they actually think they are being persecuted when they're held to the same standards as everyone else.

[Nihil]

24. "Clergy told to take on the 'new atheists' "? I should think so too!

You can't discriminate on grounds of religion (or lack thereof) when it
comes to hiring people! What on earth were the clergy thinking?

Oh ... wait ...

:hide: