Archbishop Warns of “Civil Unrest” in Wake of UK Court Ruling against Christian Counselor

  • Thread starter Thread starter Soutane
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Soutane

Guest
Archbishop Warns of “Civil Unrest” in Wake of UK Court Ruling against Christian Counselor

LONDON, April 30, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The clash between Christians and the state has intensified, with a UK court now having upheld the dismissal of a Christian psychologist who refused to give advice on sexual intimacy to homosexual couples - a decision the former Canterbury Archbishop Lord Carey has denounced as a prelude to “civil unrest” between Christians and the secular government.

lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/apr/10043007.html

The time is coming when we will NOT render unto Caesar what does not belong to Caesar.The Secular authorities should bear in mind that if enough people refuse to comply They lose their authority to govern and there will be a moral revolution.They should also bear in mind the eventual fate of all dictators-the Caucescues come to mind.Heaven Forbid.
 
Soutane said:
The time is coming when we will NOT render unto Caesar what does not belong to Caesar.The Secular authorities should bear in mind that if enough people refuse to comply They lose their authority to govern and there will be a moral revolution.They should also bear in mind the eventual fate of all dictators-the Caucescues come to mind.Heaven Forbid.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, the implications of this landmark case where a judge boldy comments that “Christians have no rights” are not felt at grassroots level. Such seems to be the case anyway, if one were to judge by the lack of popular furore over the court’s decision and the judge’s comments in the McFarlane’s case over here. It is only when the average individual is personally inconvenienced and aggrieved by equality laws as are applied to respective circumstances that court decisions make an impact.

And, because the judiciary proclaims we have no rights, then it would only encourage conduct such as this.

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1270021/British-Muslim-daubs-war-memorial-Islamic-slogans–CPS-says-NOT-racially-motivated.html

What to do? What to do? 😦
 
I have to agree with Santi2. Christians here don’t really speak up. Discrimination is increasing but there is not much protest. I wonder what has to happen for things to change.
 
I dont know about anywhere else in the UK but I can tell you there are no protests, public meetings, planned civil uprising or even a squeek here in Essex.

Wishful thinking on the part of the Archbishop perhaps.
 
Then the time has come for demonsrtations and civil disobedience.There nust be a moral revolution in the western countries led by Chistians.We need martyrs.Our ancestors did not equivocate and tremble before Caesar they went to their martyrdoms instead of hiding and trembling and recanting.We,you,me have to be willing to be the first to be martyred,emotionally,socially and physically.Our Crucifixtion is beginning to happen,pick up your crosses and send the Enemy and his minions back under their rocks.It CAN happen if we live our faith and are willing to be INDIVIDUAL examples-to quote Mr Mcawber “the law is a ***”.
 
And yet, aren’t certain Christians already barred from some jobs in the U.K. based upon deeply held religious beliefs? Indeed, haven’t Roman Catholics been barred for centuries from holding the position of Prime Minister or from being able to rule as King or Queen? What does the Archbishop of Canterbury have to say about that?
 
Tsuwano said:
And yet, aren’t certain Christians already barred from some jobs in the U.K. based upon deeply held religious beliefs? Indeed, haven’t Roman Catholics been barred for centuries from holding the position of Prime Minister or from being able to rule as King or Queen? What does the Archbishop of Canterbury have to say about that?
Click to expand...
No, Catholica aren’t banned from being Prime Minister now - not for over a century, I believe., You are partly right, though, in that Catholics weren’t able to be MPs once, which would prevent them from being PM.

The heir to the Throne not being able to marry a Catholic, or be one him or her self, is still in force, although often debated in Parliament. The problem is the Monarch being Head of Esatablished (Anglican) Church. Obviously, there can’t be a Catholic Head of the C of E.

I was wondering if non-Brits realised that the Archbishop of Canterbury is not a Catholic Archbishop, but of the C. of E.

I can’t think of any other jobs Catholics are barred from - can you give examples?
 
paperwight said:
No, Catholica aren’t banned from being Prime Minister now - not for over a century, I believe., You are partly right, though, in that Catholics weren’t able to be MPs once, which would prevent them from being PM.

The heir to the Throne not being able to marry a Catholic, or be one him or her self, is still in force, although often debated in Parliament. The problem is the Monarch being Head of Esatablished (Anglican) Church. Obviously, there can’t be a Catholic Head of the C of E.

I was wondering if non-Brits realised that the Archbishop of Canterbury is not a Catholic Archbishop, but of the C. of E.

I can’t think of any other jobs Catholics are barred from - can you give examples?
Click to expand...
I’m glad I’m wrong about the position of Prime Minister and that Catholics can hold that office, though I do seem to remember something about Tony Blair delaying his conversion to Catholicism based upon the scandal that would ensue if he had converted while Prime Minister. Have there been Catholic Prime Ministers in Britain since the law was rescinded over a century ago? Yes, I understand the problem concerning Britain’s established Church and the reigning monarch being the head of that Church and, like many Britains, find it rather odd, which is why it strikes me as somewhat hypocritical for the Archbishop of Canterbury to complain about Christians being denied positions based upon religious conviction. Of course, I agree with the Archbishop’s complaint, but still think it strange that he should make it. As for other jobs that Catholics in Britain are barred from holding, no, I can’t give you examples, though I feel sure that there are men and women, especially in Northern Ireland, who have been denied positions based solely upon their religious convictions. I would hope to see all such bigotry disappear, from the top to the bottom, though I certainly won’t hold my breath.
 
Tsuwano said:
And yet, aren’t certain Christians already barred from some jobs in the U.K. based upon deeply held religious beliefs? Indeed, haven’t Roman Catholics been barred for centuries from holding the position of Prime Minister or from being able to rule as King or Queen? What does the Archbishop of Canterbury have to say about that?
Click to expand...
Perhaps, he would argue that it is not a matter of religious belief but, a tradition of loyalty…for all the historical, political and ecclesiastical reasons that the Church of England became the established Church, of which the Monarch is the Supreme Governor. One must also mind that Archbishop Carey’s plea to the judiciary does not exclude Catholics.
 
Santi2 said:
Perhaps, he would argue that it is not a matter of religious belief but, a tradition of loyalty…for all the historical, political and ecclesiastical reasons that the Church of England became the established Church, of which the Monarch is the Supreme Governor. One must also mind that Archbishop Carey’s plea to the judiciary does not exclude Catholics.
Click to expand...
Well, I would agree . . . it should be a matter of loyalty and not religious belief, and yet for several centuries it wasn’t. Thomas More made it very clear that he could serve the King’s interests to the best of his ability and still be a faithful Catholic, but more than mere loyalty was demanded of him. Conformity was the demand. British Catholics have been extremely loyal to the British throne and to Parliament, volunteering and dying in numerous wars fighting for both institutions which, with little subtlety, disdained them. Of course, the attitudes of many Britains to Catholicism has changed for the better over the centuries, including, no doubt, the attitude of the Monarchy, Parliament and the Church of England. I simply hope the laws will also reflect the changes in those attitudes. British Catholics, in my opinion, deserve equal opportunity and recognition for their long devotion and loyalty to their nation. And, of course, it is noted that the Archbishop’s plea does not exclude Catholics.
 
paperwight said:
No, Catholica aren’t banned from being Prime Minister now - not for over a century, I believe., You are partly right, though, in that Catholics weren’t able to be MPs once, which would prevent them from being PM.

The heir to the Throne not being able to marry a Catholic, or be one him or her self, is still in force, although often debated in Parliament. The problem is the Monarch being Head of Esatablished (Anglican) Church. Obviously, there can’t be a Catholic Head of the C of E.

I was wondering if non-Brits realised that the Archbishop of Canterbury is not a Catholic Archbishop, but of the C. of E.

I can’t think of any other jobs Catholics are barred from - can you give examples?
Click to expand...
The Monarch should NOT be the head of the CofE that is an anachronism held over from the heretical King Henry VIII.Canada is TECHNICALLY a constitutional monarchy but I hold no love or allegiance for a country or monarchy which has traditionally treated Catholics like dirt.No wonder you had people like Guy Fawkes(a hero).It’s only too bad that the Spanish Armada did not succeed.England would now be a Catholic Nation as she once was.
 
Can you imagine the philandering adulterer and cad Chuckie Saxe-Coburg and Gotha as Head of the Cof E.?Pathetic.
 
As regards Prince Charles’s sins, at least he has not had anyone beheaded for adultery. Does “Divorced, beheaded, died, divorced, beheaded, survived” have ay meaning to anyone? King Charles 1 was executed as much for his Anglican religious beliefs as for his politics. He is not called “Charles the Martyr” for nothing. Prince Charles has also insisted on including all religions at services involving him or his children. BTW Guy Fawkes is what we would now call a terrorist.
 
sandynj said:
As regards Prince Charles’s sins, at least he has not had anyone beheaded for adultery. Does “Divorced, beheaded, died, divorced, beheaded, survived” have ay meaning to anyone? King Charles 1 was executed as much for his Anglican religious beliefs as for his politics. He is not called “Charles the Martyr” for nothing. Prince Charles has also insisted on including all religions at services involving him or his children. BTW Guy Fawkes is what we would now call a terrorist.
Click to expand...
One faction’s terrorist is another faction’s freedom fighter. And on and on the argument goes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top