After my appearance at the Scottish Parliament on Wednesday (you can read about it HERE) this is what the Daily Mail are reporting today. There should also be something in the Sunday Mail tomorrow:
Scottish Daily Mail13 Feb 2016
CHRISTIANS are now seen as ‘extremists’ who are persecuted for their views by internet hate ‘mobs’, a leading churchman has warned. The Rev David Robertson, moderator of the Free Church of Scotland, said some prospective politicians who interacted with Christians on social media were being hounded by gay rights activists. He called for the Scottish Government to intervene to ‘defend and maintain freedom of speech – in reality as well as words’ to prevent people being harassed and abused for their religious beliefs.
Mr Robertson made the call after addressing MSPs on the Holyrood cross-parliamentary group on religious freedom. The Dundee-based minister argued that the Scottish Government should fund professional research to gather evidence on anti-Christian abuse.
He said he was convinced that religious people’s ability to express themselves publicly was being undermined. The moderator also urged Holyrood political party leaders to go on the record and state that Christians, and those of other faiths, were welcome in their parties.
In 2014, Mr Robertson leapt to the defence of former Scottish Labour MP Jim Murphy, who had been targeted by opponents in the Scottish Secular Society purely because of his Catholic faith. Mr Robertson said: ‘I know of prospective politicians who have been hounded through social media by activists within their parties who wish to exclude everyone who dares to disagree with the liberal elitist zeitgeist on issues such as same-sex marriage and abortion.
‘Some time ago, a prospective Tory MP told me to remove a reference on my blog to her and her church from my website from several years ago because gay rights groups were trawling the internet trying to link her with known extremists – like Christians.
‘It is not right that anyone who dares to disagree with the current zeitgeist is discriminated against, abused and effectively removed from the mainstream political process.’
Mr Robertson said: ‘The Scottish Government must defend and maintain freedom of speech. ‘It must also defend and maintain freedom of ideas, because in 21stcentury Scotland there must be the freedom to discuss and hear ideas that one disagrees with in a respectful and courteous way.
‘Freedom of religion involves a whole lot more than an acknowledgement that we have the right to worship and serve God in private. We also have the right to be involved in the public square.’
He said political leaders ‘should discourage the use of social media to intimidate and abuse those who are believers and who might have different value systems’. He added: ‘Social media has become the 21st century equivalent of the 19th century mob.
Freedom of religion means greater freedom for all.
‘The removal of that will mean the state replacing God and greater restrictions for all but the elites who control and run that state.’
A Scottish Government spokesman said: ‘We are committed to creating a modern Scotland which protects and respects human rights, including upholding freedom of thought, conscience and religion. No one, of any faith, should face persecution or discrimination because of their religious beliefs.’
It may be that all people have the right to their beliefs and to speak out about them; however, it is also true that if someone is being hateful toward your beliefs or lifestyle, that person absolutely has the right to protest it.
It all depends who determines what ‘hateful’ is. If hateful just simply means disagreement then it is a mess.
There’s quite a difference between disagreeing with someone and trying to make them feel horrible about existing in a way other than they do because they are of a differing opinion. That is the difference between disagreeing and being hateful.
I agree – but what are you trying to say? Who is trying to make people feel horrible?
Honestly- both sides, now that I think about it. But my point was that it is typically the stereotypical, extremist Christian that initiates this vicious cycle. They try to make people feel like crap about themselves, and those people try to make their tormentors feel like crap for doing so. You generally don’t see a pagan or someone who’s gay talking about how awful and wrong Christianity is, because they don’t really care what you’re doing- they just want to be left alone and not judged for being themselves. So when people go out of their way to make such statements, they absolutely have the right to defend themselves against it, and this can under no circumstances correctly be considered “discrimination against Christians”.
Thats what I feared you were trying to say. Unfortunately you lump together a whole group of people and make a judgement upon all of them. It is of course completely untrue that you never see a pagan or someone who is gay talking about how awful and wrong Christianity is….I see it all the time. As for just wanting to be left along and not judged for being themselves – again thats npt true…indeed that was the point of the article. It is LGBT activists who are hounding Christian politicians and accusing them of all kinds of things. You have a rather rosy eyed view which is not realistic to facts and experience.
I actually didn’t lump people together- that is why is used the words “stereotypical” and “extremist”. Believe it or not I have no problem with moderate Christians- the ones who don’t try to forcibly shove their opinions down your throat. My point was that these protests are a response to something that was initiated by these type of Christians. They are “Hounding Christian politicians” in response to the very real discrimination they’ve had to deal with. Additionally, Christians are a massive majority, and therefore have much less right to complain about such things- they are never underrepresented.
But Zosime that is what you are doing all the time. You use emotive words like ‘extremist’ and ‘forcibly shove their opinions down your throat”. The Christian politicians I am referring to are not extremists and do not forcibly shove their opinions down your throat. But you justify the campaigns against them – why? That is where the intolerance comes in ……And Christians are not a massive majority. It would really help if you stopped being so prejudiced and judgemental and took time to consider others points of view.
It may be that in the circumstances you are referring to these campaigns are misguided. Obviously these misunderstandings could be easily rectified by the politicians you were referring to letting people know that they aren’t anti-LGBT etc. However, the fact remains that there are still many people who do this. Some of the people I love most in the world are Christians- open minded, amazing people who are saddened by the trend of politicians who use Christianity in that way.
And I’m sorry but statistically, no matter how you look at it, Christians are the majority and have been for a long time.
Again you need to get your fact right – Christians in the UK are a minority and have been for some time. And again what do you mean by anti-LGBT? It seems to me that you are engaging in a kind of bullying which says that if you do not accept my opinions/lifestyle then you can be abused….and again note how you use language. Anyway who agrees with you is ‘open minded’ whereas of course those who disagree are closed minded? Do you not think that that itself is a bit close minded? Your statement that if the politicians let LGBT people knew they agreed with them then they would not be abused is chilling. You realise what it is you are saying – and how you are illustrating my point in the main article?
A spectacular job at twisting my words.
Christians, again, are not a minority, especially in Europe. I’m not saying that people who might not necessarily agree with LGBT views are the problem- I’m saying the people who actively try to ban their rights are. By definition, open-minded are people who are willing to consider issues from a standpoint other than the traditional one and not condemn such things. Just because I consider myself to be an open-minded individual and therefore agree with such people does not mean that only people who agree with me are open-minded.
And to your use of language- to me it’s chilling how you classify people standing up for their rights as “abuse”. I believe the use of a dictionary would serve you well.
I am taking your words at face value – not twisting them.
Christians are not a majority in Europe. Where are you getting your facts and figures from?
And again note how you keep jumping to things that you presume are self-evident – like their rights. What do you mean by that?
And I love your definition of open minded – one of the most closeminded I have ever come across. Whose traditions are you talking about?
Speaking of twisting – who said anything about people standing up for their rights as being abuse? Unless you are prepared to say that anyone who dares to disagree with your position is someone against others rights.
As for a dictionary it would be useless because you just keep changing words to suit your meaning. They mean whatever you want them to. The bottom line is that you have made your mind up, no facts or evidence could ever be used to persuade you otherwise, and therefore you feel perfectly entitled to mock, abuse and accuse of bigotry anyone who dares to challenge your own particular worldview.
Here’s what frustrates me: each and every thing you are saying to me I could easily throw right back at you. This is getting neither of us anywhere.
It surprises me that I would have to explain to you what exactly gay rights are. Do you live under a rock?
If you look back at your comment, it was you who described theses protests as abuse. Also, who exactly do you think the majority is?
It honestly scares me that you actually believe these things. Both your reasonings and motivations remind me strongly of the Crucible- and trust me, that is not a good thing.
Yep I guess it can be frustrating and scary when people question you and don’t immediately bow before your self-evidently right faith! Its really interesting that you can’t cope with questions and certainly don’t answer them. You just resort to abuse…
As to your question – as the secular society just posted in todays paper – the majority in the UK and Europe are irreligious.
Zosmine,
Please define “extremist christian”,. In fact please define “Christian.” To say that christians are a massive majority, isn’t in line with recent research and ONS interpretion.
Whose ideology/world view prevails? So christians have lesser rights do they? What about equality, particularly when christianity is seen by some fundamentalist atheists and other pressure groups such as the LGBT are seeking to subvert certain aspects of Christianity. The Dan Walker debacle is a case in point. And please read David’s blog here “Persecution, Politians and false Prophets” for more examples.
You seem to be saying that “hounding Christian politians” is a justifiable generic response to any and all christians. I suppose that is not being discriminatory.
Which view of the world do you subscribe to? Which belief system, philosophy?
Does Germaine Greer have the equal right to criticise transgenger issues without being banned by the supersensitive, touchy, feely generations in universities.. She is perhaps a “one woman belief system”, not a christian.
If I, as a Christian, believe that you were created in the “image of God” and I lived consistently with that belief I wou.d treat you and others differently than if I believe we all crawled out of some primordial soup. It would affect my stance on abortion, and gender and morals and ethics. But that is not what Christianity is, it is much, much deeper than that.
But my obligation to love my neighbour and “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” would not necessarliy extend to giving you what you want or endorse error.
Geoff