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.

I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned the ridiculous Sunday trading laws. Only Christianity has its holy day of the week protected like this.

Most people do not wish to have Sunday treated differently, but their views are over ridden by a small but vocal group of influential Christians, whose views are given priority over those of the majority.

Carmina, I can't possibly know which would have an impact on you as an individual, because I don't know you. The ones I have listed clearly benefit people who want to attend church, celebrate Christian festivals with their family and so on. You could be an unmarried, unemployed, childless satanist for all I know.

But different societies do have different values and I accept those.

And a scenario a bit like that did happen to me and DH, but with French secularists rather than gay people.

DH and I are Christians so we wanted to be married in a church, which we did in 2009, but in France. As far as French law was concerned we weren't married until 2011 which was when we had our British civil wedding certificate transcribed into the French register. The French don't view a church wedding as a legal marriage.

So we had to wait until we'd transcribed our English certificate before we registered DS' birth, otherwise it would have said we were unmarried.

The marriage that we feel was real is just a meaningless piece of paper in French law.

I don't consider that to be a privilege position for French secular society, that's just how it is. My religious beliefs count for nothing in the face of French law, a country that is perceived as Catholic.

On a plus side they don't tend to mock Christians to the degree that I've experience in the UK.

But I already said that I think it's unfair for gay people in the UK. But I don't think you can blame all Christians for that, or even all of those in the HoL. Look how long it took to get civil partnerships into secular law. It takes a long time to change the way people think.

I also think it's strange to suggest that Christians are the only ones who don't allow gay marriage. Or that they are somehow responsible for banning "any religious content" from civil partnerships, that was the work of the secularists.

There's a lot wrong with British politics, but the C of E is so toothless as to be really the least of anyone's worries. I'd rather have a few C of E bishops in the House of Lords than the likes of Lord Paul or Baroness Uddin.

Besides, if you want to ditch or revile anything associated with Christianity there's precious little of English cultural achievement left. Chaucer; Julian of Norwich; Pearl ; Milton; Herbert; Thomas Tallis to name but a few. Try reading any literature older than the twentieth century and it's nigh-on impossible to get a feel for it without a working knowledge of the Bible. The King James version is woven into the way we speak.

Likewise history: you may not like what's been done in the name of religion, but it's impossible to understand our relationship with the USA without a grasp of what happened in the Reformation, or understand where the two-party system came from, or why we have a constitutional monarchy without understanding the role played by religion in the Civil War and Glorious Revolution. The list goes on, and on, and on.

People should, and do, believe what they like. But it seems to me that if, in trying to support freedom of worship, we stop bothering to understand this country's heritage - a heritage with Christianity at its core - we're committing a kind of slow cultural suicide. We'll keep hating and denigrating English culture and heritage, in the name of being 'modern' and tolerating the cultures and heritages of others. And if we keep doing this we'll end up with no cultural position from which to be tolerant. I may not be a practising Christian but I think this is a great shame.

Hmmmm.

I don't really get the whole wanting privileges thing either. (And you think clergy not paying council tax a privilege? Try living on a clergy salary )
I kind of just want to get on with living life, valuing other people whatever their race/creed/sexuality/religion/favourite food etc. After all, that's what the founder of Christianity got on with. He didn't go for the privilege thing. Far from it. I reckon we should make a go of following in those footsteps if we call ourselves Christians.

I'm used to being called all sorts, but don't care all that much. I expect it I guess. I'd prefer to get on with loving people and justice and all that malarkey.

Milly. Mithras? I think you've been reading too much Dan Brown. Those parallels are refuted all over the place. :)

Don't want to get into the whole schools debate thing. These threads always turn into that sooner or later. can't be arsed right now

"Yes seeker, we know there are 25 Bishops in the House of Lords. This is because the UK is a Christian country. It doesn't mean we are being secretly sabotaged and brainwashed by Bibler bashers from within the government. Elder statesmen of the church have been involved in government for centuries, and not just in the UK."

Why are you so fixated on what other countries do? And anyway the French do very well indeed with a secular governmental system!

I wouldn't use language like 'secretly sabotaged' etc - but heavily influenced and voted against, if you like. Of course - that's what they are there to do!!

And turn your first sentence around - this is only a 'christian country' in any official sense because there are Bishops in the Lords! It may well be christian by culture and majority religion, but that doesn't earn the right to govern in that way! Britain would still be christian by cultural custom and practice, and by majority religious belief - undemocratic prvilige in government isn't needed toensure that.

The current system discriminates against other christians, too. In the past, disastrously for catholics, for example.

YANBU, though this is true of pretty much every majority. All majorities have a status quo that benefits them and their point of view is pushed around as the "normal" with points of views from minorities as the "other".

Flingon, I agree that it isn't the fault of Christians that we have ended up in this position at this point in history, and I don't think everything about this point is bad. Christian traditions are part of our culture and people in general want to retain them, but as time goes on, we will no doubt renegotiate some of what happens in our society to reflect the position we are in and who our society is made up of. Because change is what societies do.

And I don't think the point of this thread is that people want to get rid of Christianity; it is that people resent some Christians making out that they are discriminated against as a group, when they clearly have privilege as a group. Which isn't to say that individual Christians haven't been victimised. They certainly have been, and that is wrong.

"
"Don't want to get into the whole schools debate thing. These threads always turn into that sooner or later. can't be arsed right now"

You see - Christians never really do waht to "get into the whole schools debate thing"

Because it is so blatantly and obviously unfair that it is completely indefensible!

"But it is deeply unfair that church law will not allow a homosexual couple to contract a civil partnership in a church if they want to."

"Why though? I find it deeply repugnant, but it's their club so they can make up the rules."

Because if you claim to be a Christian, to live by Christian values, you are meant to not judge, to accept, and to cherish love wherever it is found. It's a huge hypocrisy to exclude gay people and I hate it.

Madhairday, I checked my facts on Mithras in the Catholic encyclopedia. It has nothing to do with Dan Brown.

And I am from a clerical family, and the entire benefits package compares favourably with other postgraduate jobs - particularly when you take into account free housing.

Nah seeker. I have to stand up and say I'd be in general quite happy to go into it all, and probably don't stand where you'd think I would on it.

However, as you can see by my words, I am somewhat mixed up today due to bloody medication and can't think very straight

public holdays:

Christian: Christmas day; Good Friday

Non Christian: Boxing day, New Years Day, Easter Monday (no religious significance), May Bank Hol (early may); SPring bank hol (late may) Summer bank hol.

ALso, in state schools,

1. Parents are permitted to withdraw their child from acts of collective worship;
2. most CofE schools are voluntary controlled,not voluntary aided. This means that the LEA is the admissions authority and that the admissions are according to the LEA guidelines, not faith or feeder school or any other criteria.
3. Catholic schools are open to other faiths, but not at the expense of children of that faith.

Ok Milly. It's just that Dan Brown brings it up in The Da Vinci Code

However, whatever the Catholic encyclopaedia says there really are no grounds for comparing the two, it's all on very shaky ground :)

Isn't one of the May ones for Pentecost?

"Which isn't to say that individual Christians haven't been victimised. They certainly have been, and that is wrong."

Where, when and how.

Remembering as you answer that the BA employee, the praying nurse, the fosterers, the registrar and the the bed and breakfast owners have all had their day in court and, IIRC have all been found to have not been discriminated agains according to the law of the land.

And that Winterval is a term invented by Birmingham Chamber of Commerce to describe a three month period including all the traditional Christmas celebrations.

And the Red Cross didn't ban Christmas either.

Free housing but nothing when you retire so in fact you generally are paying a mortgage for then or some such. I am from a clergy family and married to one. Growing up we struggled big time. I'd be more inclined to agree with you now. It's not too bad, but it is pretty low if the other can't earn.

Hatti - Easter Monday may have no religion significance itself, but it does make families getting togethr for Easter a lot easier.

And there are no Bank Holidays for people of other faiths. They have to take all their religious holidays off as part of their annual leave. Christians don't have to do that for either of their major holidays.

MHD, I wouldn't know - both my parents work. I think it is pretty tough for a lot of families where only one parent works.

Christians are not victimised. The views they hold that are contrary to developments in the law mean they occasionally end up in court trying to make the case for special treatment. Their rules have not changed, the law is constantly evolving. English law is a precedent-based system and, once what was once deemed acceptable is now deemed unacceptable, that is the new way forward. If societal norms change and one group stubbornly adheres to old norms it will inevitably find itself sidelined and/or subject to ridicule.

Seeker, there are people from every group in society who have been victimised. Sometimes people are victimised for being white, being a man, being Christian, being heterosexual, being a doctor. Anyone from any group can be victimised.

But that is an individual issue - it is not the same thing as discrimination in a society towards a whole group, which is a societal issue.

Blu- I am not fixated with other countries, I simply used one example as part of an argument. I think you seem fixated on my posts! I suppose I should flattered that they are so ripe for analysis.

seeker- once again- what is your religion? I am feeling uncomfortable about having my religion attacked by soemone who is obviously from another religion. As I have said before, if the shoe were on the other foot this would not be allowed. I have asked you this question four times.

Calling schools "indefensible" is a little strong. Parents can opt out of any religious stance in a school.

oh and the 25 bishops in the lords......

The Lords is a huge unelected group of individuals. There are 90 hereditary peers who can claim £46k for attending 145 days of "work" attending the Lords. There are 25 bishops. The rest are government stooges, cronies and former MPs and people with deep pockets who like to help their friends in the tory/labour party by giving them large amounts of dosh and promise them places on their boards. There are 790+ of them. That makes the 25 bishops count about 3% of the vote. No power at all really.

"Because if you claim to be a Christian, to live by Christian values, you are meant to not judge, to accept, and to cherish love wherever it is found. It's a huge hypocrisy to exclude gay people and I hate it."

It might well be a huge hypocrisy but I fail to see how it's a priviledge or somehow unfair. Every religion can set their own rules, nothing special about Christianity there.
I support gay marriage but I equally support any religious orders right to not allow it under their faith, in the same way I'd accept their right to refuse any union. It's their club they can make up their own rules.

flingon, pentecost is in June, so while the late May holiday may have a pentecostal origin, it is not a religious holiday, any more than Easter Monday is.