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.

How you all do like to make a drama out of a crisis. Two percent of the House of Lords, two percent is made up of Cof E bishops. State schools are required by law to offer a broadly based Christian act of worship on a daily basis. In practice most don't anyway because they have no space, either physically or on the timetable! Blardy national curriculum! Grrr! Are these my massive privileges? Yippeeeeee! Get a grip, do!

But I don't want to get a grip. I want to relax my grip . And as an RC I find 'broadly based' forms of worship more offensive than none. Sorry, but I do. I'd prefer a blank.

Where do you get 'most don't' from? I would say 'most do'. And the law's an ass. The worshipping needs to be taken out of non-faith schools.

two per cent too many. And thats still an act of christian worship.

To fair, as a Christian country the UK is relatively one of the best countries in the world to live in.

Our foundations are built on Christianity. It's not perfect but it hasn't exactly brought the UK into the depths of despair either.

Agree. I bang on a lot about this and if I was a Christian I would be offended by the half-hearted nod towards my faith that happens in daily assemblies up and down the country. Get rid!!!

I do not see why Seekers own religion (if any) is at all relevant to the discussion unless she is using it to illuminate some point, as for instance, Fling has done.

Your pov in a debate stands or falls on the points made and in the context of of the challenges made and whether they are succesful or not.

Seeker's debating point is not invalidated by whatever religious beliefs (or none) she holds.

I'm of a similar opinion to Frantic51, and Nestia and HattyFattner.

Two things - a secular stance which removes all trace of religion from public life is not a neutral stance. Why is it assumed that non-religious human community life is the default and somehow "neutral"?

Also, if official representation of religions - already minimal representation - are removed from the unelected second chamber, and the people here debating this point are saying that religious opinions should have no input into the decision-making processes of our country, does that mean that they would be happy with people of faith being part of the House of Lords at all? Because their faith position would be influencing the decisions made?

Yes, I would be ok with religious H Of L people or HC people or town councillors etc, provided they didn't stand for election as 'Person of Faith - All RCS vote for me'.

I'm interested that most see the separation of church and state as a victory for secularists. Why? I think it is a victory for religion.

I have no objection to people who are religious being in the House of Lords (insofar as I support an unelected house at all - which I don't!), just as I have no problem with our electorate voting in MPs who are religious.

In our free and democratic land I have no wish to discriminate against religious people, to obscure or devalue the role of chistianity - or any other religion - in our cultural landscape.

But freedom and democracy is based on a principle. If we believe in freedom and democracy then the constitution of our state needs to reflect the values it is there to support. Giving 25 seats (whihc is actually 3%) to an institution - the church - to appoint it's own representatives to rule over us is not democratic.

It may well work pragmatically, but that doesn't make it RIGHT.

YANBU. But it's true of every religion. Religious folk are taught their imaginary magician person god is the most important, regardless of how ridiculous it all is.

YANBU. There are lots of horrible hippocritical (SP?=) CHristians around. I try and focus on the groovy kind who aren't judgemental.

nestaFlesta, if the views of Muslims or gay people had an entrenched position of privilege in society, I would be posting the thread titles that you suggest. But they don;t. Christianity does. Hence my thread.

If you explain to me why my own personal faith position is relevant to the debate, I will tell you what it is. I have already said that I am a secularist. Whay is it important that you know what my faith is?

more Christian bashing

are they some kind of protected species immune from criticism? It's a bit like middle aged middle class white men whining about being oppressed.

Where is the "bashing"? I honestly feel I have never "Christian-bashed" in my life. Please show me where I have. I do keep asking to be shown.

I haven't read the whole thread too long but have read a couple of posts and would just like to add I think it's demanded for muslims to cover thier hair in a mosque but dont think it says anywhere that they have to wear a headscarf everywhere they go as long as they dress appropriatly I think the just means conservative I could be wrong but this is what I've been led to believe so if it's ok for muslims to wear headscarfs I think it should be ok for christians to wear crusafix' or rosarybeads.

Whoever is complaining about all christian bashing in the UK, needs to come to the US. If you are NOT a christian here, you are the lowest of the low, communist, godless scum.

The religious right runs this country like its personal kingdom.

Blu you are absolutely right of course, Still only PR though. Not including those who expect to have church there for hatch/match/despatch when they want it but can't be arsed find it too tiring to get out bed of a Sunday morning and "tip" up!

hocuspontas 'Twas in a letter to Michael Grove last November, asking for the law to be axed. 'Twas signed by Teaching Union Peeps. They should know, I would have thought?

But you could also say anyone who doesn't like all the 'Christian privleges' should go to the US. I really think some people need to put it into perspective of atcually how lax it is in the UK.

LucyGoose As an American ex-pat, I'd say that mindset is very regional in the States, and that there is far more representation of religious minorities in daily life and in the media than here in the UK (I always wondered why Disney in the States has several adverts in December to represent different holidays, and nothing like that that I've ever seen here in the UK). Also, the UK basically shuts down for Easter and Christmas, whereas in the States there are still plenty of things open to do (which is why movies open on Christmas in the States, but on Boxing Day here in the UK -- one of the few things I miss there is going to movie and eating out with all the other non-christian groups).

Also, the crucifix necklace things keeps being brought up - the ban on necklaces have nothing to do with faith and everything to do with safety - people have been attacked and then held in quasi-choke holds by their own necklaces, and when in a volitile service industry (like airports) it's best not to take the risk. Wearing a pin with the same symbol is a lot safer.

I'm with Sieglinde, and I'm also RC.

As Roseflower said, the UK is a much more secular country than the US. My husband is from the UK, and fed up to his eyeballs with all the god talk/praising Jesus etc. etc. that goes on here from politicians, Fortune 500 companies and people who really should keep their mouths shut (Yes Sarah Palin, I am looking at you).

Insinuating that President Obama is gasp! atheist because he doesn't go to church every week?!

You have it good - trust me.

NotJustKangaskhan I am also american, and live outside Washington DC. I would think things would be better here than in say, Kansas City or the south, but we still got a lot of Jesus talk in these parts, especially the blowhards on Capitol Hill. You would think educated people would be less religious, but it seems they just have more ways to argue as to why they are right and you are not (and are going to hell).

Worth noting that the Catholic encyclopedia says that "Some apparent similarities exist; but in a number of details it is quite probable that Mithraism was the borrower from Christianity".

I think this is an interesting point. Clearly in the past it was all Christianity all the time, and there's still some remnents of that (but getting less, I think, every year). So now we have this weird thing where it's extremely prominent culturally, but fairly marginalised as a religion. While lots of people say they believe in God, only about 15% go to church, or something like that? So you could argue it's a minority that needs protecting (although I wouldn't).

I think the main problem is that, compared to other religions which are seem as kind of cool and exotic (I know Islam also has another bad reputation), Christianity is seen as dead dead cheesy and unfashionable and a bit crap. Which, as a Christian, is a hard cross to bear . It's also gained the reputation for homophobia and misogyny, which in some cases it really does deserve, but that ignores all the excellent stuff it does (and also that representatives from other religions can also be homophobic and misogynistic - even Buddhists). So erm... in short I don't think Christians are discriminated against, despite what barstids like Christian Voice say. So YANBU there. But I do think they are 'discriminated' insofar as they are sometimes given a reputation they don't deserve.