Christians ask if force is needed to protect their religious values

[Guest Warwick Green]

Christians ask if force is needed to protect their religious values

By Jonathan Wynne-Jones, Sunday Telegraph

Last Updated: 12:13am GMT 05/11/2006

A leading church group which represents more than a million Christians has raised the prospect of civil unrest and even "violent revolution" to protect religious freedoms.

In a startling warning to the Government, senior church and political figures have backed a report advocating force to protest against policies that are "unbiblical" and "inimical to the Christian faith". The Christians' report echoes protests made by radical Muslims

The menacing language of the report, which Lord Mawhinney, the Tory peer, Andy Reed, the Labour MP, and the Rt Rev Peter Forster, the Bishop of Chester, helped to produce, echoes comments made by Muslim fanatics.

Only days ago, Islamic activist Anjem Choudary said Muslims had become radicalised because they were "a community under siege".

The report from the Evangelical Alliance says "violent revolution" should be regarded as a viable response if government legislation encroaches further on basic religious rights. The church is urged to come to a consensus that "at some point there is not only the right but the duty to disobey the state"....

more

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...05/nrelig05.xml

[Charles Anthony]

....and, WarWickG, what do YOU think of that?

I will tell you what I think: those "senior church and political figures" have little faith.

In fact, ANY religious group who violently defends their religion against non-violent (even if in their minds, they believe it is violent) "policies" is foul.

However, your last quote was cut short. I will include the rest:

The church is urged to come to a consensus that "at some point there is not only the right but the duty to disobey the state".

The report, entitled "Faith and Nation", comes amid growing concern that people are being prevented from expressing their faith, including BA's

recent decision that an employee could not wear a crucifix

.

Disallowing a person from wearing a religious symbol is a direct act of violence against that person.

[betsy]

We already are experiencing a religious revolution....according to this guy (taken from from the same article above).

"Anjem Choudary, who helped organise the anti-Danish cartoon protests, last week said that the London bombings should not have come as a surprise. "How else do you expect Muslims to express themselves?" he said. "We are a community under siege. It's going to blow up one day in everyone's faces."

[Guest Warwick Green]

....and, WarWickG, what do YOU think of that?

Violence has been used throughout history to "protect religious values". So, what's new?

[Charles Anthony]

Throughout history, the "protect religious values" line has always been used as a pretext to justify violence.

So, what's new?

The tables have turned. That is new.

Now, we are seeing violence being used AGAINST religious values -- as your cut-short-but-now-complete quote demonstrates. Did you cut it short deliberately?

Without that last part, it is easy for people to say "Aaah! The religious people are violent! The religious people are bad!" after reading the opening post. Whereas after reading that last part, it is obvious that their freedom of religion is being subverted and they are victims of violence.

[Guest Warwick Green]

Throughout history, the "protect religious values" line has always been used as a pretext to justify violence.

So, what's new?

The tables have turned. That is new.

Now, we are seeing violence being used AGAINST religious values -- as your cut-short-but-now-complete quote demonstrates. Did you cut it short deliberately?

No. I was told by the moderator to keep quotes short. Otherwise I would be in violation of forum rules.

My preference is to quote in entirety. But I was told I couldn't do that.

[kimmy]

So, is the conflict of the future going to be Christians against Muslims? Or is it going to be rational people against knuckleheads? I vote for the latter.

-k

[Guest Warwick Green]

So, is the conflict of the future going to be Christians against Muslims? Or is it going to be rational people against knuckleheads? I vote for the latter.

-k

Who are the knuckleheads and who are the rational?

[sharkman]

So, is the conflict of the future going to be Christians against Muslims? Or is it going to be rational people against knuckleheads? I vote for the latter.

-k

Who are the knuckleheads and who are the rational?

I believe that is self evident. Those of any faith that want violent revolution instead of spiritual revolution are knuckleheads.

[betsy]

So, is the conflict of the future going to be Christians against Muslims? Or is it going to be rational people against knuckleheads? I vote for the latter.

-k

By the looks of it, rational people against Muslims.

The extremist Muslims...like the guy above.

[Guest Warwick Green]

So, is the conflict of the future going to be Christians against Muslims? Or is it going to be rational people against knuckleheads? I vote for the latter.

-k

Who are the knuckleheads and who are the rational?

I believe that is self evident. Those of any faith that want violent revolution instead of spiritual revolution are knuckleheads.

Or perhaps the battle between those who support freedom of religion and those who want to impose their views on others.

[Guest Warwick Green]

Bishop attacks 'Muslim hypocrisy'

Bishop Nazir-Ali's views differ from the Archbishop of Canterbury

A senior Anglican bishop has accused many Muslims of being guilty of double standards in their view of the world.

The Bishop of Rochester, Michael Nazir-Ali, told the Sunday Times some had a "dual psychology" in which they sought "victimhood and domination".

The Muslim Council of Britain said the comments were "not very helpful".

The bishop, whose father converted from Islam, also said situations such as teaching could require Muslim women not to wear full-face veils.

Mr Nazir-Ali argued it would never be possible to satisfy all of the demands made by Muslims because "their complaint often boils down to the position that it is always right to intervene when Muslims are victims... and always wrong when Muslims are the oppressors or terrorists".

He compared Bosnia and Kosovo, where he said Muslims were oppressed, with the powerful position of the Taleban in Afghanistan, who he said had been the oppressors.

He added: "Given the world view that has given rise to such grievances, there can never be sufficient appeasement and new demands will continue to be made."...

more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6117912.stm

[gc1765]

By the looks of it, rational people against Muslims.

The extremist Muslims...like the guy above.

So, which side will the extremist Christians (the ones mentioned in this article) take? They are neither rational nor muslim.

...or for that matter the moderate Muslims who are both rational and Muslim.

[jefferiah]

I dont support any sort of revolution. Especially a Christian one. I am Christian and I believe revolution is contradictory to our faith. However, I think that there are some recent cases of paranoia about religion which are noteworthy. In Tennesee, I believe it was, students were barred from studying the bible at school on their personal time.

"According to ADF, 10-year-old student Luke Whitson used his regularly scheduled recess time to read the Bible with a few friends on his school's playground. After receiving a complaint from a parent, the principal reportedly ordered the students to stop their activity, put their Bibles away and cease from bringing them to school."

"An extremely disturbing precedent has been set in Canada that homosexual activists in the U. S. are trying duplicate. According to a December 2001 decision by a Saskatchewan court of appeals, the Bible is hate literature if it is quoted verbatim and in context when it is used to condemn homosexuality as sin."

Cases like these. There are many.

[betsy]

I dont support any sort of revolution. Especially a Christian one. I am Christian and I believe revolution is contradictory to our faith. However, I think that there are some recent cases of paranoia about religion which are noteworthy. In Tennesee, I believe it was, students were barred from studying the bible at school on their personal time.

"According to ADF, 10-year-old student Luke Whitson used his regularly scheduled recess time to read the Bible with a few friends on his school's playground. After receiving a complaint from a parent, the principal reportedly ordered the students to stop their activity, put their Bibles away and cease from bringing them to school."

"An extremely disturbing precedent has been set in Canada that homosexual activists in the U. S. are trying duplicate. According to a December 2001 decision by a Saskatchewan court of appeals, the Bible is hate literature if it is quoted verbatim and in context when it is used to condemn homosexuality as sin."

Cases like these. There are many.

But doesn't it reminds you of Christians during the ancient times though when they had to make a stand?

I must say it was not in a bloody way...although who knows, maybe there were bloody skirmishes too.