The Church still likes to think it can wield the sort of power that it had then, fortunately they can't but they still cling to very out dated policies, not just with regard to transgendered people either.

Nikki

Its good to see, that in this day and age that discrimination is alive & well in britain


The government has suffered a House of Lords defeat over a move churches said would prevent them denying jobs to gay people and transsexuals.Ministers insisted their move was only to clarify the Equality Bill and that the status quo would stay, but churches said it would create confusion.Peers voted by a majority of 38 to strike out the plans The current law allows religious organisations to rule out some applicants on conscientious grounds

The Archbishop of York, the Most Reverend John Sentamu, told peers: "You may feel that many churches and other
religious organisations are wrong on matters of sexual ethics."But, if religious freedom means anything it must mean that those are matters for the churches and other religious organisations to determine for themselves in accordance with their own convictions."


He added: "Where are the examples of actual abuses that have caused difficulties? Where are the court rulings that have shown that the law is defective? If it ain't broke, why fix it?"

Peers voted by 216 to 178 against the government.


.This just goes to show Just how ouf ot TOUCH the house of lords and the church really are. Discrimination of any sort is WONG and should be stamped on, its just a shame certain groups dont have the bottle to do it.



Lol xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Anna-Marie

I think the Lords should be voted in by the public. It would allow the public to choose which lords they felt represented the country. I would change how the politicians are selected too as they are voted in one every 5 years then they do what the hell they like.

The truth behind our so called democracy is in a life time say from 18 years to 80 years you get 12 chances, give or take, to chose who represents you in parliment, you think thats freedom? lol, no! You've been hoodwinked again!

I could go on but fear the internet might break.

cya! xxx

I don't do politics or religion, can you see why?

That's a lovely photo Miss Moo Moo.
xx

We don't have democracy, merely a form of representative politics, and a very narrow and restricted form at that. Social attitudes are changing, the advent of the internet and the easy access to information has helped power this change, hence the rush by the Authorities around the world to try to limit its proliferation or use it to garner information about its users. However, we shouldn't be fooled, If there was political capital to be made out of discriminating against the transgender community political parties would exploit it. As the internet provides the opportunity for a freedom of expression never before known but will probably in time become the procuror of our captivity; so religion, and a belief in a God and the trust in a moral good and spiritual liberation that transcends the petty prejudices and tiresome tribulations of human life, is a world more often than not inhabited by bigots, and those who love only to hate. We should not be surprised.

Love the new photo, Penny. You look so angelic. Which I guess may not be true, darling lol But what a lovely thought

hold on for a sec, let me get this straight then...

The non-discrimination act says it is against the law for anyone to treat anyone differently from any other individual regardless of their age, weight, sex, sexual orientation, gender etc etc so forth and so on unless you're the church and the individual in question is transgendered!!!!!!!!!


HOW BLOODY "RED"ICULOUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ok, i said my bit! lol

"reference the churches and discrimination..."

God DAMN the fckn church.
So those people who are legally female via a GRC can't have a civil union with a man; civil unions are only for people who are legally the same sex. And they can't get married in church either; the church may use its "discretion" to choose not to marry them.
It's a good job we have registry offices...
But Christian women with a GRC may not get married in church.
What a farce. The church is out of touch.
Paganism rocks!
xx

This just shows the church have their heads so far up their own backsides, that they can't see what idiots they are being. After all, this is the 21st century & not the dark ages.


Lol xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Anna-Marie

Too right Anna! However if the church had had their way the dark ages would never have ended.

Norman Tebbit once said of GRS that it is "mutilation", and in 2004 he put forward a wrecking motion to try to halt the Gender Recognition Act. There was also an attempt by Detta O' Cathain to thoughtfully include a movement allowing religious groups to exclude transexual people but this was defeated ironically by the Bishops of Worcester and Winchester. Ann Widdecombe was absolutely against the act as was Andrew Selous on religious grounds. So unfortunately Church ( i won't say Christianity) and politics are more intertwined in the contemporary Uk then many would lie to admit.

It has always struck me that the religious fanatic, ie anyone ordained by the CoE, roman catholic or whoever aren't just happy to find inner peace with their spiritual selves, they have to subvert everyone who is different or who has different beliefs. I'm sure their distaste to anyone different brings them lots of unhapiness. I'm sure they would have a much deep inner peace if they just accepted everyone for who they are and brought hapiness and pleasantness to everyone.

Ah well Penny in every group there tends to be an element who wish to dominate the rest, whether it be bosses at work or politicians clergy or even maybe the trans community....gosh did i really dare imply that? On the other hand many people think they have free thought but actually really wish to be told what to do and think; perhaps to admonish themselves from feelings of guilt, and quoting very old scriptures at people is a great way of casting judgement ( of course it can never be admitted that you are judgmental ), which might make a person feel superior maybe? Anyway I must go... God just told me to "clean the streets" I hear his voice you see.

You here God's voice too! Hes got a nice accent hasnt he!

There's nothing wrong with God or the concept......shoot, for all we know, God could just be a formula that defines order in our Universe...doesn't matter...it's about a "higher power", good vs. evil, right vs. wrong, etc...
BUT...in my humble opinion, Religion = organized scammers
I still believe in a higher power but definitely not the "vehicles" that promote godliness, holiness, and are out to get your money and lure you in...just another business out to make money...before all the religious fanatics jump my growing arse, I also beleive there are many, many good people who are believers and follow the rules of their religions. Their hearts are into the living the good life and I am not bashing these wonderful people. Wish there were more frankly! That said, I am just adding another comment to the basic principal of separation of the church and the state as proffered up in the beginning of this thread...
Now I am going to hide in a dark corner somewhere before I get struck down by not only society as a whole, but maybe God who is a bit mad at me right now! I'll be back out for air soon (I hope)
Traci xxx

Hi girls,can,t add much to that and I find myself agreeing with all of you.Had something of a spiritual insight in an old church in North Yorkshire today-probably confusing this feeling with patriotism-another dubious notion,but involuntarily it came to me'I could die for this';from the nice,gentle and slightly dotty old ladies changing the flowers to the wilting invites to coffee mornings and disaster appeals.All this,and this being only 600 years old,a mellow light on old carved stone,frayed old regimental flags-better than any museum-these old country parish churches-each the same and all different-Oh my England!

I was raised Roman Catholic and it has certainly shaped my personal moral code.For 16 years they indoctrinated me, not just in church on Sunday, but also in parochial school from second grade all the way through to my final year of high school, and for a while as an altar boy (got to wear a dress-like outfit...). If the church acted on what it preaches, I'd still belong. I really think the difference between what they say and how they . . . Er, knock at the door, be right back.

Hi, I wasn't expecting...

"NOBODY EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION!"

er, gotta go now

The only true way to have seperation of church & state is that no members of a church be allowed to work in government.
That way the churches teachings can't influence the way it thinks. But than the government wouldn.t represent all the people.
The only way to make change is from within by voting in the people the best represent us.
That is what the different churches do, it's why they stay so strong.

Everyones points are so valid. I supose it could be viewed like this...

in 50s america there were busses for whites only and busses for blacks only. this modern day travisty is saying that the church wants busses for church people only and busses for transgendered people only, or people who dont fit into their own little utopia, comunism is considered to be a utopian ideal.

it is wrong! the law should be there to protect everyone and everyones freedom. the house of lords have failed everyone in the UK to ensure that everyone is protected by the common law.

I just found this...

http://www.ekklesia.co.uk[...]e/11100

Its totally unbelievable in this day and age if it wasnt true.

Basically the house of lords have voted to allow any organisation to sack or exclude anyone who doesnt fit into their "ethos"

I say this because as it stands, its only religious organisations but the loop hole is extremely worrying.

Its such a big loop hole that is sends out messages to the whole of the UK that it is now ok to discriminate anyone who you fancy doing so to. How long will it be before other organisations umbrella themselves under religious organisations so they can enjoy the exclusions from the bill of human rights as well?

The loop hole isnt specifically aimed at the discrimination towards Transgendered people, the loop hole means that anyone regardless of age, gender, weight, sexual orientation can be freely discriminated, because religious organisations can simply say "they dont fit our ethos"

The house of lords have brought themselves into disrepute and made a huge travisty for the freedom of EVERY single person residing in this country.

Anna-marie,
I do not belong to the church of England, but I believe strongly in God. - I also believe in the Separation of Church and State.
If the State is truly separate from the Church, then the State can not, in all honesty, tell the Church to disobey it's own "rules of inclusion" as dictated by that Churches "Historical Basis and Beliefs".
The Opposite is true as well because the Church can not, in all honesty, tell the State to disobey it's own "rules of inclusion" as dictated by that States "Historical Basis and Beliefs.
In effect, what separates these two entities is what keeps both of them strong.

As for the State...it is accountable to the People
As for the both the Church and the People...they are accountable to God.
I for one, have complete faith that God will judge accordingly...when the time comes...

God Loves you anna..

The state is accountable to the people? Erm maybe in Canada but if you saw the 1,000,000 people marching on London in opposition to our criminal government's invasion of a foreign land based on lies. Then witnessed them pay not a blind bit of concern for public opinion and then send troops in our name into war, its possible you might feel differently.

Lord Harrison made a good statement in the house of lords yesterday at 2:35pm...

(You can skip to the 3rd paragraph if you fancy reading)

Lord Harrison (Labour)

My Lords, it is my great privilege to congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Carswell, on his maiden speech. In throwing off his Trappist vows, we understand the contribution that he will make in the future to this House. In sounding out colleagues informally about the noble and learned Lord, I found that not only is he well respected in the community of Northern Ireland but he is well loved, too. That is true of the noble and learned Lord and it is equally true of his wife, Romayne, who has taken a deep part in public life in Northern Ireland. Indeed, she is Her Majesty's Lieutenant of the City of Belfast.

The education of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Carswell, is interesting and unique. He attended the Royal Belfast Academical Institution, which I believe is known as the Inst, and was at Pembroke College and Gray's Inn; and, to add a touch of Tabasco, he also studied at the University of Chicago Law School. Perhaps he imbibed some of the epiphany enjoyed later by President Obama. His career has been in the law. After becoming a barrister, as he has told us, he rose to become Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, as well as being a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary until his recent graduation entirely here. His recreations are golf and hill walking and I hope that he will take the House of Lords as another of his recreations. He will be able to speak widely on so many issues, as well as Northern Ireland and the law, and we welcome him to the House.

The loss of the Law Lords is clearly made up for in part by the advent of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Carswell, but my thought for the day in this debate on further constitutional reform is that the Bishops should follow the Law Lords out. They are an anachronism-as were the Law Lords when they were arbitrating on laws which they had contributed to making-and there is no reserved place for religion in any other modern democracy. Indeed, the Bishops' vote has become a block vote of 26 Bishops-as was revealed on Monday in the Equality Bill-and this is unsatisfactory. Too often the block vote of the Bishops is exercised on a narrow set of issues-sex, death, birth and other country matters. The example they set on Monday in regard to the amendments on the protection of gays in employment was not good for the Church of England. Many Anglicans prefer the Bishops to deal with real life-and-death issues-poverty; the promotion of world peace-not party politics.

Often two reasons are advanced for retaining the Bishops: tradition and history, which always seeks to modernise itself; and, secondly, their special moral insight. I saw that in Lord David Sheppard, who used to sit on these Benches, but it is not evident to me in some of their followers on the vexed moral issues of the day. For instance, on the issue of assisting the dying of the terminally ill, four out of five Protestants are for the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Joffe.

If the Church retains these places in the House, why should it choose Bishops who are the most traditional and conservative in their views? If retained, the Appointments Commission may choose instead not people's Peers but people's preachers, who would be more representative of a modern Britain. Indeed, the bishops are under-representative of a modern Britain. It is still wrong that there are no women bishops-it is an affront. I have mentioned the attitude towards gay Christians. As my noble friend Lady Thornton suggested earlier this week, it really ought to be possible for reform in the Church of England to allow gay Christians to witness their civil partnerships within the churches.

Nor is the church representative of the United Kingdom. The Bank of England may operate as a whole but the Church of England is confined to England. Indeed, the Church of Scotland, interestingly, which is of course excluded, is zealous about the separation of state and religion.

The Church of England has simply not kept up with the changing times. Religious belief in Anglicanism is in full retreat; a special trend survey published this week shows that two out of five of us are now non-believers. Indeed, Prince Charles, the putative head of the Church of England, recognises the mosaic of religious aspirations; he wants to become a defender of the faiths.

Other Christian denominations and religions which have no reserved places-many would not accept them-believe that their religious freedom is curtailed by this engagement with the state. Other religions are represented by individual Members but there is no reason why that should not be the case for Anglicans after the Bishops leave.

In conclusion, this is a further reform, and I hope that it is seriously on the agenda. It would be good for the House of Lords, good for the polity of Britain, and good for the Bishops themselves.

KICK THE DOTERY BISHOPS OUT NOW! lol

I wrote this letter to Gordon...

Dear Gordon,

I am disappointed that the Bill of Human Rights is not as transparent as it should be. I feel the House of Lords have let the country down and I will explain my position.

Equality will never be achieved until every single person receives the same rights as every other person. No person or group should be exempt from this principle. Whilst there are exceptions to protect the security of this country there should not be exceptions for people who feel it is their ethos to select who has human rights and who do not. I heard Lord Harrison say the Bishops should follow the Law Lords out and I agree.

It is clear to me that the story of the Good Samaritan in the bible, where each priest passes the man lying in the road, these are the bishops in the House of Lords. The bishops might argue that they uphold tradition and family values but whom do they truly represent? Our diverse society or the bigoted and intolerant?

Thanks for listening,
Penny
A humble Samaritan.

Penny,I have to agree with you in every way though as a practising Anglican(just about) it grieves me to do so.It also grieves and torments me that such bigotry still persists in what I find to be an endearingly eccentric,gentle and liberal organization-I don't feel I am 'groaning' under an opressive Monarch(the Queen being Head of our Church) or am oppressed by my Lord of Cantebury(a formidably intelligent and learned man-nice as well,I've met him)
My mother belonged to the 'wee free' kirk of Scotland and after what she told me I shudder to think what the 'unfree' kirk was like.I say all this and waxed sentimental in my previous thread because i think that the situation is more complex than that-Christians and minority groups are not alone in feeling that our system has let us down and that our constitution is unravelling.May I point out that democratically elected Bishops might be much less liberally-minded than the great Temples,Fishers and Ramsays of the 20th century who served the poor and weak so well.
However I concede defeat and only lament the demise of a gentler Engaland-I fear that the Pharisees and the Phillistines are taking over.My threads are only a 'Forlone Hope'-a voice crying in the widerness!

what is needed with this is to try find other EU countries where the clergy have married fully transitioned people and ordained them and then take a test case to the ECHR claiming discrimination Article 8.

Frock Off!!

11But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.
12For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
This is from the book of Matthew chapter 19. I have no doubt people will say it is completely out of context but to me it says there are some people with altered by man, or ambiguous by birth genitals. I am chosing to believe this is a statement of non-judgement from a rather cool bloke called Jesus of Nazereth who came not to judge but to give himself for the iniquities of mankind. He clearly said it is not the place of mankind to judge each other as no man is perfect. Makes me wonder what he would think of the church....I reckon he would baulk

I know some may think I'm out-of-line posting comments to this thread but here goes.
Lady Hecete - I like your quote of Matthew - I use him quite often. Check out Matthew 6,6.
I was surprised and educated at the same time when I read that you (in the UK) have non-elected "peers." Do they propose legislation or just alter it to suite themselves?
On thinking about the non-elected - we're not much better off (in USA)- we have non-elected groups writing our laws. We call them "lobyists" they represent large groups who pay them- example Oil or Energy interests. Another small group interpretes the laws and the constitution- we call it the Supreme Court.
I don't have any answers - I still vote in any elections and I hope someday things will get better.
Finally, I'd like to mention that I consider "religion" as a control group - they tell you what to think. They have no concern with an individual's relation with the diety.
No offense intended to anyone.
hugs
Gracie

I know some may think I'm out-of-line posting comments to this thread but here goes.
Lady Hecete - I like your quote of Matthew - I use him quite often. Check out Matthew 6,6.
I was surprised and educated at the same time when I read that you (in the UK) have non-elected "peers." Do they propose legislation or just alter it to suite themselves?
On thinking about the non-elected - we're not much better off (in USA)- we have non-elected groups writing our laws. We call them "lobyists" they represent large groups who pay them- example Oil or Energy interests. Another small group interpretes the laws and the constitution- we call it the Supreme Court.
I don't have any answers - I still vote in any elections and I hope someday things will get better.
Finally, I'd like to mention that I consider "religion" as a control group - they tell you what to think. They have no concern with an individual's relation with the diety.
No offense intended to anyone.
hugs
Gracie

I know some may think I'm out-of-line posting comments to this thread but here goes.
Lady Hecete - I like your quote of Matthew - I use him quite often. Check out Matthew 6,6.
I was surprised and educated at the same time when I read that you (in the UK) have non-elected "peers." Do they propose legislation or just alter it to suite themselves?
On thinking about the non-elected - we're not much better off (in USA)- we have non-elected groups writing our laws. We call them "lobyists" they represent large groups who pay them- example Oil or Energy interests. Another small group interpretes the laws and the constitution- we call it the Supreme Court.
I don't have any answers - I still vote in any elections and I hope someday things will get better.
Finally, I'd like to mention that I consider "religion" as a control group - they tell you what to think. They have no concern with an individual's relation with the diety.
No offense intended to anyone.
hugs
Gracie

sorry - my computer is acting badly this morning
Gracie

Penny,
No, we shared buses in America, White and Black....but if you were Black you had to sit in the back and give up your seat to a White person. This was in the South, but it was. I saw it in 1962.

***

Lucy, my you are unusually peeved over this issue. I agree, but do not think I have ever heard you this angry.

Angry? Moi? Pfff…
More amazed really, Wendy. The Church seems to think that their belief in God gives them he right to treat human beings as they see fit, regardless of the hurt, offence or difficulties it may cause to normal, good-hearted, morally sound people. Not to mention the ensuing implications brought about by such a major institution’s insistence on what is basically “wrong” to them. But see Matthew chapter 19, verse 12 – thanks Lady Hecete (Hecate?) Bloody hypocrites, they interpret the bible in any way it suits them, or just ignore it completely. What a crock…
The official attitude by the Christian church in this country towards gays and transgenders is a disgrace, and wholly un-Christian.
To a devout atheist, the hypocrisy and absurdity that transpires when they try to control society in this way is shocking.

Happy and content as always, not angry, and not at all morally corrupt,
Lucy
xx

Lucy,I so agree and most of the time I am ashamed of my Church,as,unfortunately I am of my country .It's nice to know though that you have some kind of moral yardstick or compass-even if it is a 'Christian' one!(chuckles)XX

Just thought I would put in my 2 cents.

Discrimination is alive and well spread across the world, like the old Kris Kristofferson lyrics “'Cos everybody's got to have somebody to look down on. Who they can feel better than at anytime they please”.

Historically religions have rarely been inclusive of differences. I won’t bother with the litany of atrocities committed in the name of religion – and that includes Islam, Christianity, Hindu, Buddhist, and all that have held power over people. If the churches do not want to have me that is okay, their teachings would probably be pretty wonky anyway. That is why I am a firm believer in the separation of church and state.

On the other hand, governments, at least ‘democracies’, are supposed to represent all people and protect the rights of all their people. If we are a nation of laws then there should be one set of laws for everyone, not one for the rich and powerful, and another for the disenfranchised. Unfortunately most governments follow the golden rule, “whoever has the gold makes the rules”.


Jeri

right on Jeri

hugs
Gracie

It has just occurred to me.....isn't "Lord" Mandelson gay? So it is ok for peers of the realm to sit in The House of Lords unelected, privaledged, in judgement of others, whilst they seem not to mind sitting with homosexuals amongst them. Perhaps O'cathain's mortal soul is no less in danger in the Lords than it is in a church that has trans- people getting married. Best go home to Ireland I am thinking. Oh dear whilst I am thinking about it perhaps the blind and those born without limbs should be excluded too after all thats also a birth defect. And after today I am forcing my partner to cease her epilepsy medication because its all sorcery and demons you know!

The House or Lords rejection of the amendments to the human rights bill was because of the 26 or so un-elected bishops who happen to sit in the House of Lords. Naturally it was a block vote in their own interests and not for the interests of the people. Lets hope the bishops will go the same way as the Law Lords and follow them out.

I would like to say that the opinions of bigotry and intolerance that the bishops and other representatives of the church and religions is only the opinions and stance of their church and religion. I would not for any moment consider an opinion of man or religion to be the same of the deity that that religion holds faith for.

Wendy, I only used the bus analogy to show how the bishops came across to me, i dont really know how things were in the USA in the 60s, I only know from what the telly says, and we all know how truthful the media reports stuff, I hope, in my ignorance, that I didnt cause any offence to anyone.

Much Love
Penny
x

I would recommend abolishing the House of Lords. A national referendum would be required. Apart from Bishops, there are a large number of has been polititians, political party do gooders etc etc. These Upper Houses are meant to be Houses of Review but rarely live up to their names

Joanne, Its a tough call. I have seen the House of Lords do many good things by way of keeping the government in check when trying to pass ridiculous laws. However, I dont think it is appropriate for membership to be a birth right or the size of your cheque book. Personally, if I had the opportunity I would press for a regular review of its members and get rid of half of the dotery old gits! lol I would say though, looking at the quality of politicians we have I doubt there would be any improvement if the Lords' seats were elected.

Love
Penny
x

It's quite clear to me that we need a written constitution if not a revolution-where are all the rioting people?Britain seems to be dying from the head down!By the way,I've been talking to some Christian friends and theyre as incensed as us girls are about our liberties being taken away from us-what in hell is going on? I,m not going to vote come the General Election-lost faith totally in our so-called 'Democracy'-damn the monarchy and all lords!xxx-Nina P.

Revolution Nina would you like me to handcuff you to some railings. Do they do clogs with high heels on downt mill.


Janey woo. xxxxxx hugs.

OK,Janey-perhaps I tend to get my panties in a twist,but other girls on this thread take this issue very seriously and I ,to my shame hitherto took a more moderate line. This is an international site and I wouldn't want to bore other girls out there with our parochial politics but I for one,DO think it's time to stop this national cynicism-our liberties ARE being taken from us and this national obsession about 'not taking oneself seriously' has become counterproductive.I don't want to belong to a church that does not tolerate gays,TG's or any proscribed 'heretic'-so much so that in the interests of 'liberty' and the 'common wealth' I am prepared to abandon my religion which grieves me.The alternativef being a collaborator-however unimportant,in the construction of a British Theocracy or Police state-that is truly appalling and not improbable!

Dear Nina. Sorry, I am very sure other people take this seriously, No harm ment. Hugs Janey. xxxx

Janey,that's cool-I know youre intentions were the kindest.Isn't it great that a bunch of 'blokes in skirts' can agree to differ even while disagreeing so passionately about stuff? Hey-there's a germ of an idea there for a new 'Upper House' or Senate in our Peoples' Republic! Yours in 'Sisterhood,'Nina-xxx

Why should we want to change a doctrine that our society is based on just because we don't agree with it. Yes it is out of date with today world but that is not the point. Religon of any kind should be allowed to accept who can join and can not. Their ideals may be different to our own but it is their beliefs to be this way and our choice to be they way we are. We shouldn't be against such ideals rather than let them get on with their own thing instead of trying to use the law to make them let us join their "gang". What gives us the right to make them change when all they are doing is saying that we can't join their 'gang'.
I am an atheist and have questioned god since i was 6 years old, i was 16 before i became a full atheist after many years of thought and research. I do not have anything against religon at all and wish them all the best in whatever makes them sleep better at nights but to make them change just because we want to be allowed to be a part of their religon is wrong. Their philosophies on life differ from ours but what gives us the right to make them change because we think we are right.
I wonder how many i have pissed of with writing this.