Religious liberty and the rights of others

There has been a tendency by some people who have chosen a religious lifestyle to seek to opt out of affording respect for the rights and freedoms of certain others whilst demanding respect for their own rights and freedoms.

EU law does not allow the United Kingdom to deny groups rights because they deny the legitimacy of rights or liberty to others. However if we are to be consistent, people with non-religious philosophical beliefs (eg Humanists) should be allowed to opt of of those Christian laws that conflict with the sincerely, strongly held secular beliefs of a significant number of their adherents. Thus a Humanist would be entitled to avail themselves of active voluntary euthanasia and enter into a heterosexual civil partnership. Meanwhile Christian laws would only in future be applicable to those who have chosen a scripturally consistent, Christian lifestyle. Marriage should therefore be decoupled from faith.

Equally, if a Christian offering bed and breakfast wishes to decide on faith grounds who to admit, they should be allowed to do so subject to being theologically consistent. Thus whilst they may exclude homosexuals, they must also be required treat divorcees, adulterers, menstuating women and other unions that conflict with, say Leviticus, in exactly the same way, or risk prosecution for religious abuse. The abuse of religion to justify enforcing some beliefs whilst ignoring others that may be personally inconvenient to the holder of those beliefs has led to the moderate Christian majority being seen as complicit in discrimination and double standards, thus undermining Christian legitimacy.

Alternately there should be no special rights for those who have chosen a particular religious lifestyle and the law should apply equally to all and be faith neutral.

Why is this idea important?

There has been a tendency by some people who have chosen a religious lifestyle to seek to opt out of affording respect for the rights and freedoms of certain others whilst demanding respect for their own rights and freedoms.

EU law does not allow the United Kingdom to deny groups rights because they deny the legitimacy of rights or liberty to others. However if we are to be consistent, people with non-religious philosophical beliefs (eg Humanists) should be allowed to opt of of those Christian laws that conflict with the sincerely, strongly held secular beliefs of a significant number of their adherents. Thus a Humanist would be entitled to avail themselves of active voluntary euthanasia and enter into a heterosexual civil partnership. Meanwhile Christian laws would only in future be applicable to those who have chosen a scripturally consistent, Christian lifestyle. Marriage should therefore be decoupled from faith.

Equally, if a Christian offering bed and breakfast wishes to decide on faith grounds who to admit, they should be allowed to do so subject to being theologically consistent. Thus whilst they may exclude homosexuals, they must also be required treat divorcees, adulterers, menstuating women and other unions that conflict with, say Leviticus, in exactly the same way, or risk prosecution for religious abuse. The abuse of religion to justify enforcing some beliefs whilst ignoring others that may be personally inconvenient to the holder of those beliefs has led to the moderate Christian majority being seen as complicit in discrimination and double standards, thus undermining Christian legitimacy.

Alternately there should be no special rights for those who have chosen a particular religious lifestyle and the law should apply equally to all and be faith neutral.

Religion is a lifestyle choice

Whatever gets you through the day is fine by me, but it is after all a lifestyle choice. Any perceived conflict between religious beliefs and equality are non existant, simply because people cannot choose, their colour, age, disability, sex, or sexual orientation (normally)

The law does not compel you to believe in a superior being, it is your choice, therefore it cannot trump someone else who cannot change themselves to suit a 2000 year old Abrahamic teachings, written at a time when a wheel barrow was state of the art science.

Why is this idea important?

Whatever gets you through the day is fine by me, but it is after all a lifestyle choice. Any perceived conflict between religious beliefs and equality are non existant, simply because people cannot choose, their colour, age, disability, sex, or sexual orientation (normally)

The law does not compel you to believe in a superior being, it is your choice, therefore it cannot trump someone else who cannot change themselves to suit a 2000 year old Abrahamic teachings, written at a time when a wheel barrow was state of the art science.

Disestablish the Church of England

 

 

The Church of England has an unnecessary role the governing of the UK. It is the established church in this country, with 26 of her unelected bishops sitting in the House of Lords playing a full role in the business of the upper chamber. They are there neither by merit or competency, nor for that matter politically allegiance. They justify themselves using intellectual moral grounds, and their contribution in debate is clouded by their religious doctrine. 

Why is this idea important?

 

 

The Church of England has an unnecessary role the governing of the UK. It is the established church in this country, with 26 of her unelected bishops sitting in the House of Lords playing a full role in the business of the upper chamber. They are there neither by merit or competency, nor for that matter politically allegiance. They justify themselves using intellectual moral grounds, and their contribution in debate is clouded by their religious doctrine. 

Repeal charitable status for “the advancement of religion”

I propose that section 2 2 c of Part one of the Charities Act 2006 be deleted.

This section creted a catagory of charity for  "the advancement of religion;"

I propose that the advancement of religion can not be reconcilled with the "public benfit" requirement and therefore should be removed.

Why is this idea important?

I propose that section 2 2 c of Part one of the Charities Act 2006 be deleted.

This section creted a catagory of charity for  "the advancement of religion;"

I propose that the advancement of religion can not be reconcilled with the "public benfit" requirement and therefore should be removed.

Bar to Catholics becoming Prime Minister

Not sure if this is correct but I understand it is ie a Catholic cannot become Prime Minister yet a Jew ,Hindu,Muslim & Protestant can – isn't this a gross inconsistancy considering the fact that the Catholic population make up a sizeable proportion of the population,are prepared to lay down their lives for this country etc etc

As a Catholic find this law deeply offensive

Why is this idea important?

Not sure if this is correct but I understand it is ie a Catholic cannot become Prime Minister yet a Jew ,Hindu,Muslim & Protestant can – isn't this a gross inconsistancy considering the fact that the Catholic population make up a sizeable proportion of the population,are prepared to lay down their lives for this country etc etc

As a Catholic find this law deeply offensive

Remove Religion from all State Activities Including Education

 

There should be a complete separation between the state and all religious views. This should be particularly applicable in education. No state pupil should be taught any religions ideology unless they choose to study religion.

In the 21 century, the state should operate and make decisions about the use of tax-payers money on the basis of objective, evidenced reason. Objective reason should have pre-eminence over medieval-esque subservience to theism.

I support the notion of showing tolerance and sensitivity to others’ beliefs but the development of such beliefs is a private matter and should be a matter for individual choice only.

Religion should have no place in primary school education what so ever. Until a child has developed sufficient skills of interpretation, they are vulnerable to indoctrination from others’ unverifiable beliefs founded on fear and superstition that contradict the grounding in objectivity, reason and a thousand years of human inquiry that  the school years should provide.

Why is this idea important?

 

There should be a complete separation between the state and all religious views. This should be particularly applicable in education. No state pupil should be taught any religions ideology unless they choose to study religion.

In the 21 century, the state should operate and make decisions about the use of tax-payers money on the basis of objective, evidenced reason. Objective reason should have pre-eminence over medieval-esque subservience to theism.

I support the notion of showing tolerance and sensitivity to others’ beliefs but the development of such beliefs is a private matter and should be a matter for individual choice only.

Religion should have no place in primary school education what so ever. Until a child has developed sufficient skills of interpretation, they are vulnerable to indoctrination from others’ unverifiable beliefs founded on fear and superstition that contradict the grounding in objectivity, reason and a thousand years of human inquiry that  the school years should provide.

protecting our tolerant liberal democracy

 

We currently live in a tolerant, liberal western democracy and we need to enshrine the ethos of our State in law in order to protect it from alien/foreign illiberal and intolerant influences. In order to maintain liberties you have to protect them from interference once they are given.

 

The State should be separate from any religion. Secular Human Rights should always 'trump' religious freedoms, 'non-believers' of religions should be protected from interference from religion. In return adherents of religions must be protected by the State from persecution.

 

Rights come with responsibilities to our tolerant, liberal western democracy. A social contract should be created where no individual or section of society can take assistance from the State without giving to the State, allegiance is to the British Nation and continuing it's freedoms. English should be the only language used, in print and spoken communication, by the state and all it's local and national authorities. Hiding ones face in public must be a crime. Refusal to engage in the Social Contract results in removal of voting rights and if applicable a reexamination of whether residence/citizenship is still legitimate. The aim is to stop sections of society from alienating themselves within the mainstream of society and living in cultural ghettos.

Why is this idea important?

 

We currently live in a tolerant, liberal western democracy and we need to enshrine the ethos of our State in law in order to protect it from alien/foreign illiberal and intolerant influences. In order to maintain liberties you have to protect them from interference once they are given.

 

The State should be separate from any religion. Secular Human Rights should always 'trump' religious freedoms, 'non-believers' of religions should be protected from interference from religion. In return adherents of religions must be protected by the State from persecution.

 

Rights come with responsibilities to our tolerant, liberal western democracy. A social contract should be created where no individual or section of society can take assistance from the State without giving to the State, allegiance is to the British Nation and continuing it's freedoms. English should be the only language used, in print and spoken communication, by the state and all it's local and national authorities. Hiding ones face in public must be a crime. Refusal to engage in the Social Contract results in removal of voting rights and if applicable a reexamination of whether residence/citizenship is still legitimate. The aim is to stop sections of society from alienating themselves within the mainstream of society and living in cultural ghettos.

Repeal archaic law for church chancel repair obligation

There is an ancient law where a church can force people living in the parish to pay for the cost of church repairs. There have been a few cases in recent years where people have had large bills. The funds are raised from all residents, regardless of ability to pay and regardless of whether they have any connection with the church.

Why is this idea important?

There is an ancient law where a church can force people living in the parish to pay for the cost of church repairs. There have been a few cases in recent years where people have had large bills. The funds are raised from all residents, regardless of ability to pay and regardless of whether they have any connection with the church.

Remove the rules around disposal of dead bodies

f people want to dispose of their bodies on death by any means that does not unduly harm others then they should be allowed to follow their wish.

This should open the way for funeral pyres (if we can have them for cattle, we can have them for people), air burials and other ways

 

Why is this idea important?

f people want to dispose of their bodies on death by any means that does not unduly harm others then they should be allowed to follow their wish.

This should open the way for funeral pyres (if we can have them for cattle, we can have them for people), air burials and other ways

 

Repeal Section 11(c) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973

This Section bans same sex marriage in this country. An item on the freedom bill repealing this section would there by allow equal marriage in this country. 

Why is this idea important?

This Section bans same sex marriage in this country. An item on the freedom bill repealing this section would there by allow equal marriage in this country.