to think that Christians do not want equal treatment, they want their views to be given a privileged in public life.

[seeker]

and that the discrimination that some Christians claim they are suggering is actually just the withdrawing of that privileged position, and the levelling of the playing fiels for people of faith and people without faith.

Although I do agree with secularism: Religion and Law/Government should be a totally separate matter.

But yes, Christianity has been built into our culture on many levels. That's what happens when it is the dominent religion in a country for about 2 millenia. But then, as I don't spend more time worrying about religion than I do thinking about the everything around me, I can see how this is not that different from arguements about, for example, the Welsh language (and no, I'm not starting a debate, I'm just comparing something totally different that I see as being treated the same in many ways). Some people think it is inseparate part of our culture and history, and some don't. And, just a with that subject, I think we should not be forced to or not to include it in how we live and how we raise our families.

Cantspel then as I said, it is up to you to judge the situation as you are the person most capable of doing so. I suspect if you spent most of your time in gay culture and it was an intrinsic part of your life, and that was well known to other people, you could make jokes, because everyone makes jokes about their own culture.

25 automatic seats for bishops in the House of Lords is a pretty major privelige if you ask me, especially as due to rules within the religious institution these bishops places are not open to women.

I do hate how religions wanting some sort of special treatment always compare themselves to other religions. The crucifix case, for example, why always compared to a headscarf and not to a necklace worn by a non religious person (which might have a huge sentimental meaning, family heirloom type of thing to that person). It makes every religion look kind of petty IMO and I can't see any kind of resolution just endless bickering.

I would have so much more respect if religious groups fighting for certain causes went to the general principal (rescind the no jewellery rule, or make exceptions case by case) instead of thinking that believing something gives them extra rights or special arguments. I feel this way about headscarves too, I would happily support a movement to allow people complete freedom over their dress choices (from nudists through to fully covered) but when it turns into "we should get X because we believe Y," I just feel tired of it all and apathetic. I went to a protest when they were considering removing the gay church of Scotland minister from his post and instead of it being about equality, it was different groups throwing bible passages at each other. They obviously believed different things and weren't going to get anywhere like that, why can't they be expected to make their cases like adults instead of expecting special weight to be afforded to whatever they happen to believe and just repeating it ad nauseum.

I don't think YABU, but think it is down to people thinking their personal beliefs should matter to other people, whatever faith. Christians are just more used to thinking this and having their points validated, it must be a shock to suddenly be expected to be on a par with less established beliefs and none.

Runner, because the law gives special protection to people who have religious beliefs. You can't win a court case by comparing your wearing of a necklace to someone wearing their dead mother's necklace or the anarcho-syndicalist star, because their is not protection in law for people who hold firmly held beliefs about their ancestors, or their political views, or their philosophical ideas. And there have been test cases based on non-religious ideology, and they have failed.

So there would simply be no point to a Christian demanding to wear a crucifix to work on other grounds, because it is religious beliefs that the law gives special rights to.

I find it extraordinary that there are about 5 examples that Christians claiming discrimination always come up with (2 have been quoted on this thread) and they have all been repeatedly discredited.

If Muslims or gay people demanded a privileged postiion in public life I would be challenging that too. But they don't. They simply want equality before the law. Some Christians seem to want more than this. That is the point of the thread.

Christians, as all other faiths, should be free to practice their religion in any way they wish. But they should not be able to impose their views on other people, or have a "block" vote in any public policy.

seeker, I find you Op and posts anti- Christian. You have singled Christianity out.

Out of interest, what is your religion?

It seems to me that the central problem in this debate is:

1. Part of contemporary British culture is about respecting diverse faiths and cultures
2. Another part of contemporary British culture is the fact that it is rooted in nearly 2000 years of Christian tradition
3. When these two things collide, which one takes precedence?

In the commonly accepted liberal viewpoint, Christian tradition has to give way to respecting other cultures. In other words, respecting other traditions and cultures happens - sometimes - at the expense of ignoring or even denigrating the Christian one.

Why is this so? If we respect diverse cultures, why shouldn't that include Christianity? And if we respect the right of other countries to protect their own religions and cultures, why is this privilege not extended to the British Christian one?

There is an odd seam of self-loathing within modern left-leaning liberalism. It emerged out of a mixture of Christianity and Enlightenment thinking, and has spent a lot of energy since trying to destroy the traditions that gave birth to it. I find this strange and saddening.

Also seeker, Muslim countries have Sharia law. By contrast, Christian countries (i.e the UK) have some Bishops involved in part of the national policy/law validation process.

The House of Lords has representatives from different sections of society (e.g Alan Sugar- enterprise, Ruth Rendell- literature, Floella Benjamin- children and media) so its only natural in an Anglican country to have some representation from the church. They are by no means a majority in the House of Lords. I don't think this qualifies as Christians seeking priveleges and superiority.

Seeker - I'd like to remind you that you're living in one of the most tolerant and diverse countries in the world, Christians have not hindered that process, if fact They've welcomed it in most cases.

I suggest you look at how some other countries operate before you whinge and moan anymore - or immigrate somewhere you'll find peace.

Carmina, because in a tolerant and diverse country, we listen to a range of perspectives, rather than ask people whose opinion we disagree with to leave. That is kind of what it means to live in a democracy.

There are a number separate issues here

The role that Christianity has in the UK because it is the "state" religion, which is the whole ongoing (for centuries) discussion about the separation, or not, or church and state. As the UK consitution stands, officially it is a Christian country and they aren't separated officialy, like they are in countries like France and the US. The head of the country (the Queen) is also head of the church, there are seats reserved in the House of Lords for Bishops, pretty much all the Public Holidays are Church related.
Then, there's the identification of "British" culture as being Christian, to varying degrees. That's a seaprate issue. You could completely separate the church from the state and ban any publicly organised/recognised religious festivals, and cancel things like Christmas which is (despite its pagan roots) seen as a Christian holiday. I bet if you tried that there would be rioting in the streets because, in the UK, Christmas is an integral part of British culture; as many people have said, lots of people who don't identify themselves as "Christian" still celebrate Christmas (e.g. my sikh boss, my atheist SIL).

Then, the other issue is people who feel that because they are Christian, they should get special treatment like the crucifix woman - there is no religious requirement in Christianity to wear a cross. It's a "nice to have". A head covering and dressing modestly is, however, required in Islam. They're separate things but linked to the issues above.

NestaFiesta - yes, a wide range of reps from differnt fields, appointed by consultation etc - totally different from the enduring right of the CoE to place 25 people (a significant percentage, actually) at the seat of government.

Structurally, within our very government and constitution, the CoE has power and privileges that are not democratically bestowed and are not available to any other religious group.

In a democratic secular society there sholdn't be any automatic seats on the basis of religious office. Or hereditary peers, either.

And not all muslim countries have sharia law - and what if they do? We should base our gvt and laws on our own democratic values - not in reaction to what some other country does!

And I agree with OhTheHuge - the clash between the Enlightenment ideals of acceptance and tolerance and the older Christian tradition in the UK.

Both are an integral part of British culture, so there's a bit of an internal personality clash. How much is the culture willing to sacrifice one ideal/identity for the sake of the other?

Seeker clearly has trouble living in a tolerant diverse country - I'm not really sure where she'd rather live - Nirvana perhaps?

YABVVVU. If you had said subsituted Muslim for Christians in your OP then all hell would have broken loose. To be honest, I'm sick of Christianity being constanstly taken the piss out of and belittled in the media and by people. You're not 'allowed' to do it to any other religion, so why is it acceptable to to it about Christianity?

Well we can certainly work towards making the country a better place, but I doubt we'll reach Nirvana.

"But I honestly don't see why it is wrong for people to criticise, laugh at or make fun of other people's beliefs."

I made it quite clear when posting the above comment that I think we should be polite to individuals.
Making fun of a religion is bullying if done to an individual - making fun of a religion per se isn't bullying.

Examples of making fun of a religion that some christians I know heavily objects to - drawn cartoons, films like Life of Brian, jokey t-shirts.

Laughing at a religion doesn't have to mean you laugh at an individual. IME many people who ask you to "respect" their religion mean that you shouldn't do any of the above.

I'm c and ping this post because people seem to have missed it.

"If Muslims or gay people demanded a privileged postiion in public life I would be challenging that too. But they don't. They simply want equality before the law. Some Christians seem to want more than this. That is the point of the thread.

Christians, as all other faiths, should be free to practice their religion in any way they wish. But they should not be able to impose their views on other people, or have a "block" vote in any public policy."

I would be very grateful if anyone could point out where I have been anti-Christian or "taken the piss" out of Christians.

Abs - yes, well summed up!

The role of the CoE as state religion really rankles with me. I find it deeply unjust and wrong in principle. I am not anti-Chritians, or the CoE, or even particularly against most individual bishops who sit in the Lords. I am steeped in British culture and we celebrate any cultural festival going. That is no reason or justification for the government which rules over the country of which i am a citizen to award seats of power to one specific religious group and give governmental power to one specific religious group.

Frankl;y I am amazed that individual Chritians wish to defend such a self-serving undemocratic system.

Oh, and I don't think my own religious persuasion is remotely relevant.

actually it says in the quran that muslim women should cover their hair as well as dressing modestly.

As an atheist......
TBH i found the pope's visit incredibly annoying.
I hated his prothletising, I hated him telling our country that we were leading unmoral lives.

Non-catholic christians i generally find to be more liberal and less annoying (sorry if this is a generalisation, it's just personal experience. I do love Rowan Williams FWIW)

I admire some of the things religious people do to help people in need (i also admire non-religious people who do the same thing)

Everyone can have their own belief system, I don't give a damn. However, everyone must abide by the laws of our country and accept them. As country are being more secular and liberal and religious people must accept that

(just to make it clear, I'm not Christian, I'm a minority religion - Jewish. There's more Jedi in the UK than Jewish people, apparently)

The thing is - the church has been tangled up with the state in the UK for centuries (my British history's a bit patchy, but I know that much), so to remove these special provisions for the CofE would be incredibly difficult and could be perceived as an attack on British culture (particularly by the Daily Mail). Imagine if the Queen stopped being the head of the Anglican Church, or if they cancelled all the Church related public holidays/activities? You could go down the French route of complete separation, but it took a revolution and complete overhaul of the government to do that. It's a lot of work. On this front - I don't think British Christians are asking for a special place - this is the status quo and how the UK has been for ages.

The OP was talking about christianity i feel, e.g. because if a leader of the muslim or jewish religions came here and started spouting on about how shit we all were, we would all be furious.

Christianity has been given a 'special' place in our culture and its leaders feel free to impose their beliefs onto everyone in the country.