I think thats where religion lets itself down. i remain open minded but when you recieve things like that in the post i feel like i'm being black mailed. if thats the only way they can encourage people to attend church etc then i'm afraid it's not for me. i believe you make your own church by treating others how you would like to be treated and respecting each other. if as they say  you won't go to heaven if you don't praise god even if your a good person then i'm not sure i want to go to heaven anyway as i feel that a god like that doesn't care how you live your life as long as you believe and praise him all your life. theres good and bad people everywhere even in churches so will the bad people who do terrible things but go to church end up in heaven but the good people who go through life helping each other etc but don't go to church end up in hell.  hhhmmm  that doesn't seem right to me

Stuart Sorensen:

Last night I had a CD pushed through my door from the local Emmanuel church. The cover threatens damnation and asks "Are you good enough". Apparently if we don't become Christians we will be damned in Hell. I haven't listened to the CD itself but the cover is pretty threatening.

My 5 year old has just got to the point where he can read independently and so he reads everything he can get his hands on. My 11 year old is pretty likely to read what comes through the door too. Fortunately they didn't find this filth - I did.

Is this indiscriminate peddling of threatening material really acceptable to Christians? It certainly isn't acceptable to this atheist.

This is shocking Stuart but, sadly, not surprising as some churches favour this approach. People are entitled to their faith, and to be able to express it, but posting such CDs through letterboxes is totally unacceptable to me.

What concerns me is when potentially vulnernable people (children included) are exposed to what can only be described as threatening religious propaganda. The case of the man in Exeter who tried to blow up a restaurant springs to mind. He was a recent convert to Islam and is reported to have mental health and/or learning disabilities.

I spent much of today driving down country and so I played this Christian CD in the car. It's appaling!

The first section is a minute or so of disjointed sound bytes saying things like:

"The clock is ticking for us all" "Are you good enough?"

and generally threatening hell and damnation.

Then there's a sermon extract. This guy assures us that the reason the recent natural disasters occured in China and Burma was because of God's displeasure at the sins these people committed. He goes on to say that we're all just as bad and so the same thing will happen to us if we don't repent in Jesus' name.

Then there's a rather superficial and semantic pedantry fest in which the word atheist is broken down in an attempt to demonstrate that atheism doesn't really exist anyway.

Finally the cd suggests that since atheist have a lot to lose if they're wrong then why not hedge your bets and become a Christian instead?

An extremely thinly veiled threat from start to finish. I shudder to think of the effect that this coercive CD would've had on my 11 year old. His self-esteem is shaky enough right now (he's not sure whether to be a boy or a man right now) without that.

I telephoned the bloke who's number was on the packaging. He's coming round to discuss it on Thursday when I get home. That'll be interesting. Apparently he's going to show me proof of the existence of God. I thought that proof denied faith and without faith he is nothing.

He also assured me that he's 'saved'. I was always taught that nobody knows who is saved until the Lord comes 'like a thief in the night'. He thinks he'll 'save' me too. I think he'll get a flea in his ear for putting my kids at risk.

When I complained about the threatening tone of the thing he just said 'that's the message' as if he had no part in choosing to distribute it. I wish these people would take responsibility for their actions occasionally instead of just announcing that 'God told me to do it'. This sort of moral cowardice is no basis from which to take the moral high ground and purport to tell the rest of us how to live.

Wow Stuart, I'd love to be a fly on the wall when you meet the man on Thursday! Hopefully you'll keep us posted on how your meeting goes...

Rupert M:

'Aitch' - not all Christians believe that one goes to heaven at death and would dispute 'eternal life' = heaven-going. The same as not all believe in immortal souls or the Trinity. You see 'christians' are a very mixed bunch with very different ideas and beliefs.

Rupert - I quite agree Christians are a very mixed bunch and there are various interpretations and shades of meaning, however in the comment I was making I was picking up on the phrases used by sporty and, rightly or wrongly, guessing he/she would be preaching something along the lines of the fundamentalist (and even that is a term open to interpretation and discussion) Christian message, which is largely that your soul either goes to heaven (as eternal life spent in the presence of God) or hell (as eternal damnation, pain and torment).

Perhaps I need the slapped wrist here because what I was succumbing to in my previous post was a note of sarcasm about sporty's arrogant and flippant way of communicating through his/her posts and my view that, whatever religious belief system you have, this is not the way to go about getting anyone else to share your views!!  Of course, in a double blind, sporty could be completely disbelieving of the whole Christian viewpoint and writing in said arrogant and flippant tones just to give that particular faith a bad impression.  Perhaps he/she is doing the same for other subjects in other places.  But then as sporty has airily declared him/herself no longer a part of this discussion maybe we will never know.

That's a bit of a jump, from a bombastic CD to a Bomber! Was the CD produced by an African Church? If so, their use of language tends to be rather more expressive than is normal for middle-England. All too easy to fall into the trap of being as intolerant in opposing these things as are the people are who propagate them. We always seem to excuse ourselves for that sort of intolerance, because we express it in middle-English; but it remains intolerance.

As a pagan social worker I have read the threads with interest - and thought it was time I added my thoughts. Like Stuart, having been brought up in a strict Christian household I chose to turn away from a God who didn't seem to understand modern life, my sexuality, or the equality of women. But a few years later I noticed that I still had a belief - not in a God who said "I will only love/accept/protect you if..." (conditional love) but a belief in deity (I'm polytheistic) that said "You are accepted - not because of what you do or don't do, but because I created you" (Unconditional regard and acceptance - what as a professional I am asked to give others). My own view - and I accept that other may have a different one - is that any god who made me fallible then threatens to punish me forever if I screw up is not worthy of my love and respect.

 However - for all those Christians out there who are feeling attacked... The words and intent of Jesus (rather than those necessarily of some of his diciples!) are very real and meaningful, and a good basis for living, whoever you are. It's worth remembering that throughout history, the content and translation of the bible has been open to change, not always for the better, mainly to serve the interests of the changer (council of Nicea in the 7th century, Henry 8th, King James - all created their own "version" of the Bible). Jesus said "I come not to  enforce the Law (the Old Testament) but to fulfil it - there is only one Law... love God with all your heart etc, and love thy neighbour etc"  - we have an odd understanding of the word Love so change it for "respect" and it makes sense. "You are all children of God, and if you had faith" - yep, I can go with that one, it accords with my faith too - I have as much right and strength and power through my deity as anyone else - and as a child of my god I have no need of an intermediary to tell me what to beleive, or forgive me. I do not worship my deity, or pray to her; I talk to her, ask her advice, thank her for the day being beautiful. She always answers me, even if the answer is no, or "are you sure you want to know that?". Maybe it's my subconscious - I neither know nor care, my faith is comfortable with me, and I with it.

But to go back to the original thread - I don't swear if I can help it, knowing I and others are offended by swearing. I may use an innocuous word when the situation warrants it (daisies is a good swear word...) but I try to behave in an adult (and therefore responsible) fashion around peers, children and service users. Doesn't always work, there are situations where it feels good and right to swear - but those are particular situations, with particular people! 

I'll be really interested to hear how you get on, Stuart. I predict that this person will be completely unfazed by your criticism. These sort of people are fundamentalist in their belief and therefore have no ability to take on board the views of others, however right they may be. Their belief is absolute. There is no room for questioning. He might not leave with a flea in his ear but I bet the encounter will do your blood pressure no favours. There's no way I'd let someone like that over the threshold.

Changing the subject, what are your views on religious beliefs and whether people with certain views should be allowed to refuse to carry out some work tasks that they feel conflict with their beliefs. There was a case a few weeks ago where a woman employed as a registrar won a discrimination case against Islington council. She had refused to carry out civil ceremonies for gay couples because she said it was against her religion.

The tribunal agreed that she shouldn't have to marry gay couples but surely this is wrong. If she feels she cannot carry out that role, which is a part of the job, then surely she shouldn't be employed as a registrar. 

A very prejudicial attitude towards someone you don't know! I thought a basic principle of social work is that you don't adopt a prejudice about a person from second or third hand reports. At least wait until you meet them!

Hi Surfer,

I asked the bloke where the CD came from. He'd made it himself. The sermon blaming disaster victims was a recording of his local pastor in Workingtion, Cumbria, N.W. England.

surfer:

That's a bit of a jump, from a bombastic CD to a Bomber! Was the CD produced by an African Church? If so, their use of language tends to be rather more expressive than is normal for middle-England. All too easy to fall into the trap of being as intolerant in opposing these things as are the people are who propagate them. We always seem to excuse ourselves for that sort of intolerance, because we express it in middle-English; but it remains intolerance.

Hi Sally,

sally:

Changing the subject, what are your views on religious beliefs and whether people with certain views should be allowed to refuse to carry out some work tasks that they feel conflict with their beliefs. There was a case a few weeks ago where a woman employed as a registrar won a discrimination case against Islington council. She had refused to carry out civil ceremonies for gay couples because she said it was against her religion.

The tribunal agreed that she shouldn't have to marry gay couples but surely this is wrong. If she feels she cannot carry out that role, which is a part of the job, then surely she shouldn't be employed as a registrar. 

My views are really very straightforward here. I believe primarily that the conventions agreed by the majority (in this case through our laws and court system) stand. My personal opinions are not particularly relveant in terms of the word 'should'. We have a society that is governed by consensus (at least in theory).

Therefore, although I disagree with her I will not presume to be sufficiently important to object to the ruling.

Don't get me wrong - there can ccasionally be a case for insurrection (living in a neo-fascist state would present such a case in my view) this is not an issue to fight over. After all - she's not the only registrar in the world is she. Now if the ruling had been that registry offices per se didn't have to do it then I'd stand up for that one. But this woman has a right to her beliefs - however bigotted and discriminatory they appear to me - and I'll support that as does the law of UK.

That said - I am appalled at the ease with whioch people who claim to love everyone discriminate agianst those who din't fit their world view. I remember the spectacle of religious people from all of the big 3 religions protesting for their right to discriminate against gay people outside parliament last year (or was it the year before?).

That argument about obeying the law probably sounds like a cop out but it isn't. I simply acknowledge that it's not up to me to decide right or wrong - that's what the court is there for.

Incidentally - I think that that's a major difference between me and many Christians, including the one I met yesterday. He believes that he can over-rule the law because he knows best. He knows best because his pastor told him so.

how did the meeting go? i am desperate to know....

sally:

 

Changing the subject, what are your views on religious beliefs and whether people with certain views should be allowed to refuse to carry out some work tasks that they feel conflict with their beliefs. There was a case a few weeks ago where a woman employed as a registrar won a discrimination case against Islington council. She had refused to carry out civil ceremonies for gay couples because she said it was against her religion.

The tribunal agreed that she shouldn't have to marry gay couples but surely this is wrong. If she feels she cannot carry out that role, which is a part of the job, then surely she shouldn't be employed as a registrar. 

 

 

I think her attitude is a disgrace. Parliament deliberately avoided having gay marriages, deliberately to exclude gay people from the state of marriage (as opposed to the rights conferred) so that people like Ms Ladele could be comfortable with it.  Given that she's had her beliefs catered for, it seems ludicrous that she's still complaining.