Recent attacks on Christianity (the RC version) in UK.

Stonewall - a pressure group for homosexuality - has named it's Bigot of the Year. This is the Roman Catholic Cardinal Keith O'Brian, due to te refusal of the RC Church to consider homosexual marriage within the rules of the church.

Personally I think it demonstrates the bigotry of Stonewall for not allowing the RC Church to follow it's long established beliefs.

Next - just heard on Radio 5 News that the RC Adoption Society may have to shut up shop as it will not allow homosexual couples to adopt from it's resources.

Personally, with all the fuss in the UK at the moment of perverts interfering with and raping children, then the Society is absolutely correct in excluding deviants from adopting, even if there is no criminal record of child abuse. Protection of the child is paramount.

But both these news items are being used to denigrate the attitude of the Church, not to apply rational thought to the principles involved on the Church's side.

With regard to cattle and sheep being killed by halal method, rather than by 'humane' bolt - if done properly I understand that the throat cutting is quicker and less painful. But I don't know anyone who has been through both processes and compared them later.

The animal bleeds to death. This methos of slaughter is illegal under EU law but if done for religious reasons then there is an exception. Why? Why special treatment?

Recent attacks on Christianity (the RC version) in UK.

Stonewall - a pressure group for homosexuality - has named it's Bigot of the Year. This is the Roman Catholic Cardinal Keith O'Brian, due to te refusal of the RC Church to consider homosexual marriage within the rules of the church.

Personally I think it demonstrates the bigotry of Stonewall for not allowing the RC Church to follow it's long established beliefs.

Next - just heard on Radio 5 News that the RC Adoption Society may have to shut up shop as it will not allow homosexual couples to adopt from it's resources.

Personally, with all the fuss in the UK at the moment of perverts interfering with and raping children, then the Society is absolutely correct in excluding deviants from adopting, even if there is no criminal record of child abuse. Protection of the child is paramount.

But both these news items are being used to denigrate the attitude of the Church, not to apply rational thought to the principles involved on the Church's side.

OMG, you just called homosexuals deviants!

Personally, with all the fuss in the UK at the moment of perverts interfering with and raping children, then the Society is absolutely correct in excluding deviants from adopting, even if there is no criminal record of child abuse. Protection of the child is paramount.

That'll be Jimmy Saville and his mates? All accused of fiddling with girls? So are you going to stop straight couples adopting ?

With regard to cattle and sheep being killed by halal method, rather than by 'humane' bolt - if done properly I understand that the throat cutting is quicker and less painful. But I don't know anyone who has been through both processes and compared them later.

The animal bleeds to death. This methos of slaughter is illegal under EU law but if done for religious reasons then there is an exception. Why? Why special treatment?

because religious reasons also allow that the peckers of little baby boys are mutilated

Don't just blame hala/kosher rules for ill-treatment of food animals.

You can always eat pork, which is not affected by those rules.

And as regards chicken - when I was working in the UK many years ago, I had to build a new laboratory for one of the main chicken producers in the West Midlands. In addition to building the laboratory we did some refurbishment/upgrading of other buildings.

This meant that I went round many buildings, watching the chicken processing.

They are (or were) put up on a travelling overhead carriage, suspended by their necks, through a steam-line, then plucked by rubber mechanical fingers, then killed. I asked why they weren't killed first and was told that it made plucking much more difficult.

With regard to cattle and sheep being killed by halal method, rather than by 'humane' bolt - if done properly I understand that the throat cutting is quicker and less painful. But I don't know anyone who has been through both processes and compared them later.

I didn't want to narrow the discussion to culinary tolerance and could have picked another example, but yes, there is the option to eat pork, provided the mere presence of pork in the kitchen is acceptable to those not eating it, in a modern pluralistic society of course. My point is not just theoretical, I know having as a student shared a house with Jewish students, who insisted I kept my eating utensils separate from the communal ones as I didn't keep Kosher. During my school days the choice was either the standard offering or bring a packed lunch. Now in the UK/U.S in 2012 I suspect this like it or lump it deal has been supplanted by the majority cow towing to the culinary demands of Muslims.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/9335831/Bangers-ban-in-hundreds-of-schools.html

Don't just blame hala/kosher rules for ill-treatment of food animals.

You can always eat pork, which is not affected by those rules.

And as regards chicken - when I was working in the UK many years ago, I had to build a new laboratory for one of the main chicken producers in the West Midlands. In addition to building the laboratory we did some refurbishment/upgrading of other buildings.

This meant that I went round many buildings, watching the chicken processing.

They are (or were) put up on a travelling overhead carriage, suspended by their necks, through a steam-line, then plucked by rubber mechanical fingers, then killed. I asked why they weren't killed first and was told that it made plucking much more difficult.

With regard to cattle and sheep being killed by halal method, rather than by 'humane' bolt - if done properly I understand that the throat cutting is quicker and less painful. But I don't know anyone who has been through both processes and compared them later.

I didn't want to narrow the discussion to culinary tolerance and could have picked another example, but yes, there is the option to eat pork, provided the mere presence of pork in the kitchen is acceptable to those not eating it, in a modern pluralistic society of course. My point is not just theoretical, I know having as a student shared a house with Jewish students, who insisted I kept my eating utensils separate from the communal ones as I didn't keep Kosher. During my school days the choice was either the standard offering or bring a packed lunch. Now in the UK/U.S in 2012 I suspect this like it or lump it deal has been supplanted by the majority cow towing to the culinary demands of Muslims.

http://www.telegraph...of-schools.html

Reading that article it doesn't seem that the majority are kowtowing to the culinary demands of Muslims at all:

"In Luton, 23 out of 57 schools which contract their dinners from the local authority have a “no pork” policy. In Bradford the figure is 24 out of 160; in Newham, east London, it is 25 out of 75; in Tower Hamlets, east London, it is 85 out of 90. In Haringey’s infant, junior and primary schools, 37 out of 47 serve no pork."

Luton 40%

Bradford 15%

Newham 30%

Tower Hamlets 94%

Haringey 78%

You'll notice that those places with the highest percentage are London bastions of political correctness and that Bradford, which you'd assume would be up near the top of the table due to the ethnic make-up of the city is bottom by some considerable degree.

The article goes on to say :

"Muslim and Jewish leaders said they had never asked for schools to ban pork.

In its most recent report on “meeting the needs of Muslim pupils in state schools”, the Muslim Council of Britain asked only for halal and non-halal meat to be handled separately, to avoid contamination, and for clear labelling.

Jon Benjamin, the chief executive of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, said: “This is simply not an issue. Jews of a certain level of observance would not eat in non-kosher restaurants or dining halls.

"Children at mainstream school who are bothered would probably have packed lunches.

"Children who are comfortable with using the same cutlery and crockery as everyone else would choose their dishes from the options available. It is live and let live - we are certainly not calling for this.”"

So it looks as though, as usual, Muslims are being blamed for something that they neither asked for nor want.

and for clear labelling.

I wrote a piece on that a couple of years back which I must still have.... somewhere. Off the top of my head amendment 205 of the EU food regulations was watered down because of mass complaints by both Jewish and Muslim groups. They considered that labeling ritually slaughtered meat as such was discriminatory and it would drive the price up because people wouldn't eat if they knew. 2 years ago, or maybe more.

Surely the labels 'halal' and 'kosher' would have done the job. Most people have no idea what they mean anyway.

Surely the labels 'halal' and 'kosher' would have done the job. Most people have no idea what they mean anyway.

People should be informed and given a choice IMO. Why do people buy free range goods or organic goods?

The article goes on to say :

"Muslim and Jewish leaders said they had never asked for schools to ban pork.

In its most recent report on “meeting the needs of Muslim pupils in state schools”, the Muslim Council of Britain asked only for halal and non-halal meat to be handled separately, to avoid contamination, and for clear labelling.

Jon Benjamin, the chief executive of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, said: “This is simply not an issue. Jews of a certain level of observance would not eat in non-kosher restaurants or dining halls.

"Children at mainstream school who are bothered would probably have packed lunches.

"Children who are comfortable with using the same cutlery and crockery as everyone else would choose their dishes from the options available. It is live and let live - we are certainly not calling for this.”"

So it looks as though, as usual, Muslims are being blamed for something that they neither asked for nor want.

Perhaps I should not have used the word 'demands', seeing as the driving force behind schools not serving pork may be as much down to voluntary accommodation through political correctness. As stated in my other post I could have chosen another example other than food, for example the number of Muslims who desire to live under Sharia law, or the small minority who go so far as to put up 'Sharia controlled zone' stickers in certain areas, but again we digress.

The original question; Is restriction of religion a growing trend? Well I could quite easily point to recent restrictions made on all religions taking a world wide view. I could point to atheists over-zealously trying to ban civic religion based festivities for fear of excluding them, but the same objections have indeed been used by one religion against another. There is also the converse happening where religions try to curb secular non-religious influence, I would cite the recent tendency in the U.S to teach 'creative design' alongside evolution. Evolution seems to be on a collision course with elements within Islam too.

To sum up I think intolerance in general is on the rise and religion, or lack of it, is just another means of dividing people so their intolerance has an outlet. As to why this is on the increase, I believe social mood reflects the state of the world economy.