The Church & the BNP.

[BigGully]

They might do, "Faith" schools have already faced challenges for refusing to employ people not belonging to their religion.


As an aside, it's hard to see how you can believe in the brotherhood of man and also be a racist.

Its the interpretation of what makes an individual a rascist within your eyes that might the problem.

Restriction on immigration does that make a rascist in your eyes ?

The word Paki does that make a rascist in your eyes ?

Telling/ laughing at Irish jokes is that rascist ?

Not wishing a mosque to be built within your comminity is that rascist ?

Its endless ....... and some are angry some or confused.

And why should we trust yours, the governments or anyones elses judgement on what should be considered rascists behaviour.

You see I think we instinctively know what rascists are, but the boundaries may well be blurred just now and hijacked by the authorities to subdue freedom of speech and thought, thats the worry.

 

[bhaexpress]

So if you work for the church you cant vote bnp? so thats another 65 thousand facing the sack then,dark times indeed. p.s so is it still ok to kiddy fiddle ? i need to get into my head in what perspective the church set their priorites. Frankly i think id rather vote for bnp than to be seen in a place with such double standard moralistic values. Kyn frootloops

It's interesting what you say. I've seen Fundamentalist Christians (note the 'mentalist') who are every bit as forthright (for want of a less polite expression) in their views in pretty much the same way that members of the Taliban are with Islam. I would think that there are Christians is this country who share similar views. In essence, they believe any religion that is not Christian is wrong and is in fact heresy. Therefore I would imagine these same people would want to vote BNP because of that party's stance on immigration and immigrants' 'pagan' religions.

Maybe it's not such a bad idea that no Church of England worshiper be allowed to be a member of the BNP.

 

[Dandyman]

Its the interpretation of what makes an individual a rascist within your eyes that might the problem.

.

The Synod was debating if membership of a specific party was compatable with their religous faith not if people have a general right to belong to a party.

The following are all documented instances of Nick Griffin's views - the issue is whether these views are acceptable to the Church of England's communion:

In the Panorama interview, Griffin said, "We haven't given up on our principle that mono racial countries... mono ethnic countries are more stable, it's far easier to preserve human rights and freedom within those whereas multi-racial societies always end up going right down the road of tyranny."

On anti-semitism
In 1997, Nick Griffin published a booklet entitled "Who are the Mind Benders?". It claimed to prove that Jewish people controlled the British media and thereby were able to brainwash white British people into accepting multiculturalism.

On the Holocaust
Between 1995 and 1997, Nick Griffin edited 'The Rune'. Griffin referred to the Holocaust as a "Holohoax".

In 1998 Nick Griffin said, "I am well aware that the orthodox opinion is that 6 million Jews were gassed and cremated and turned into lampshades. Orthodox opinion also also once held that the Earth was flat... I have reached the conclusion that the "extermination" tale is a mixture of Allied wartime propaganda, extremely profitable lie, and latter witch-hysteria."

On immigration
In 1995 Griffin, wrote an article in the Rune. He said, "Mass alien immigration and suicidally low birthrate mean that the White Race is poised on the brink of a precipice of rapid and irreversible decline. If we do not step back now, we face political and then physical extinction. A stark choice. UNITE OR DIE!"

On homosexuality
Griffin wrote an article for Spearhead in June 1999 after the Admiral Duncan pub bombing. He said, "The TV footage of dozens of gay demonstrators flaunting their perversions in front of the world's journalists showed just why so many ordinary people find these creatures so repulsive."

On the BNP
In 1995 he wrote in the Rune, "the electors of Millwall did not back a post modernist rightist party but what they perceived to be a strong, disciplined organisation with the ability to back up its slogan 'Defend Rights for Whites' with well-directed boots and fists. When the crunch comes power is the product of force and will, not of rational debate."

In April 2001 Griffin spoke to the American Friends of the BNP. He said, "So, what are we now doing with the British National Party? Well we tried to simplify its message in some ways and to make it a saleable message. So it's not white supremacy or racial civil war or anything like that, which is what we know in fact is going on, and we're not supremacists, we're white survivalists, even that frightens people. Four apple pie words, freedom, security, identity and democracy."

 

[mr sheen]

I live in Nottingham, and I don't remember this massive piece of news regarding the muslim doctor reaching the local press, let alone the nationals

 

[BigGully]

The Synod was debating if membership of a specific party was compatable with their religous faith not if people have a general right to belong to a party.

The following are all documented instances of Nick Griffin's views - the issue is whether these views are acceptable to the Church of England's communion:

In the Panorama interview, Griffin said, "We haven't given up on our principle that mono racial countries... mono ethnic countries are more stable, it's far easier to preserve human rights and freedom within those whereas multi-racial societies always end up going right down the road of tyranny."

On anti-semitism
In 1997, Nick Griffin published a booklet entitled "Who are the Mind Benders?". It claimed to prove that Jewish people controlled the British media and thereby were able to brainwash white British people into accepting multiculturalism.

On the Holocaust
Between 1995 and 1997, Nick Griffin edited 'The Rune'. Griffin referred to the Holocaust as a "Holohoax".

In 1998 Nick Griffin said, "I am well aware that the orthodox opinion is that 6 million Jews were gassed and cremated and turned into lampshades. Orthodox opinion also also once held that the Earth was flat... I have reached the conclusion that the "extermination" tale is a mixture of Allied wartime propaganda, extremely profitable lie, and latter witch-hysteria."

On immigration
In 1995 Griffin, wrote an article in the Rune. He said, "Mass alien immigration and suicidally low birthrate mean that the White Race is poised on the brink of a precipice of rapid and irreversible decline. If we do not step back now, we face political and then physical extinction. A stark choice. UNITE OR DIE!"

On homosexuality
Griffin wrote an article for Spearhead in June 1999 after the Admiral Duncan pub bombing. He said, "The TV footage of dozens of gay demonstrators flaunting their perversions in front of the world's journalists showed just why so many ordinary people find these creatures so repulsive."

On the BNP
In 1995 he wrote in the Rune, "the electors of Millwall did not back a post modernist rightist party but what they perceived to be a strong, disciplined organisation with the ability to back up its slogan 'Defend Rights for Whites' with well-directed boots and fists. When the crunch comes power is the product of force and will, not of rational debate."

In April 2001 Griffin spoke to the American Friends of the BNP. He said, "So, what are we now doing with the British National Party? Well we tried to simplify its message in some ways and to make it a saleable message. So it's not white supremacy or racial civil war or anything like that, which is what we know in fact is going on, and we're not supremacists, we're white survivalists, even that frightens people. Four apple pie words, freedom, security, identity and democracy."

The views are irrelevant, they are legal views, no matter what you or I might think of them.

For the life of me I couldn't think of why the Church would think that they somehow had a problem with BNP member's infiltrating their organisation.

The debate would of been loaded to specifically ban BNP memebership, in the first instance.

What exactly were they doing debating personal membership of any legal party and do you think there was much debating on the views of Liberals, Conservatives or Labour, of course not.

It wasn't a debate, it was a prelude to the banning.

Your quotes that are from the BNP seem to end in 2001, it is now 2009, bet someone could come up with some corkers from the church too.

You show me a man that wishes to ban something and I will show you a big fat hypocrite.

 

[Dandyman]

The views are irrelevant, they are legal views, no matter what you or I might think of them.

For the life of me I couldn't think of why the Church would think that they somehow had a problem with BNP member's infiltrating their organisation.

The debate would of been loaded to specifically ban BNP memebership, in the first instance.

What exactly were they doing debating personal membership of any legal party and do you think there was much debating on the views of Liberals, Conservatives or Labour, of course not.

It wasn't a debate, it was a prelude to the banning.

Your quotes that are from the BNP seem to end in 2001, it is now 2009, bet someone could come up with some corkers from the church too.

You show me a man that wishes to ban something and I will show you a big fat hypocrite.

To be honest, I think you are missing the point. Any employer has the right to decide if the activities of it's employees are compliant with it's aims and objectives. The C of E can not both minister to all and allow people with the views above to hold office in it's ranks. That does not mean it would not give communion to BNP members.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

You show me a man that wishes to ban something and I will show you a big fat hypocrite.

You show me the man that says nothing should be banned and I will show you the same.

 

[BigGully]

To be honest, I think you are missing the point. Any employer has the right to decide if the activities of it's employees are compliant with it's aims and objectives. The C of E can not both minister to all and allow people with the views above to hold office in it's ranks. That does not mean it would not give communion to BNP members.

And who do you think gave that employer the right to decide the activities of it's employers ?

The authorities of course.

Those self same people that are currently restricting the freedom of speech and thought, hardly a qualification.

Why the C of E cannot just say what their aims and objectives might be.

Surely that would be sufficient for it to be evident that probably a fully paid up member of the BNP needn'y apply and maybe a career within its organisation is not really appropriate.

But because of the politicising of this, you get people like me actually offering a degree of support to them !!

 

[BigGully]

You show me the man that says nothing should be banned and I will show you the same.

thought the big fat hypocrite thingy, was more profound !

 

[coventrygull]

This is a bit of a storm in a vicars tea cup. One the C of E doesn't have any members of its clergy who are members of the BNP. Two the C of E ceased being relevant years ago.

As for being members of political organisations and employment. Membership is not everything. I don't think there is anything to stop a policeman voting or donating to the BNP. When I was a member of the BNP we had loads of people help us who were not members. Also C18 never had members only supporters. So banning people from being members of Political organisations is irrelavant.

Come to think of it how many of us discuss politics at work anyway

 

[Dandyman]

And who do you think gave that employer the right to decide the activities of it's employers ?

The authorities of course.

Those self same people that are currently restricting the freedom of speech and thought, hardly a qualification.

Why the C of E cannot just say what their aims and objectives might be.

Surely that would be sufficient for it to be evident that probably a fully paid up member of the BNP needn'y apply and maybe a career within its organisation is not really appropriate.

But because of the politicising of this, you get people like me actually offering a degree of support to them !!

LOL. To be honest I was just wearing my HR Manager hat. "Placing your employers reputation at risk of disrepute" is a legitimate reason in law for disciplinary procedures and your suggestion above is probably not that far from that in reality.

 

[coventrygull]

LOL. To be honest I was just wearing my HR Manager hat. "Placing your employers reputation at risk of disrepute" is a legitimate reason in law for disciplinary procedures and your suggestion above is probably not that far from that in reality.

I don't think you are putting your employers reputation at risk if you are a member of a legal Political party.

 

[The Cardinal]

I don't think you are putting your employers reputation at risk if you are a member of a legal Political party.

If the aims and objectives of that party are in direct contradiction to the aims and objectives (and in some cases legal obligations) of your employer or would damage their credibility or standing with the public you could be. I would not say it was clear cut however.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

I don't think you are putting your employers reputation at risk if you are a member of a legal Political party.

Not a mainstream one that's for sure.

 

[User removed 4]

It seems a bit popularist to me.

did you mean populist ?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Agreed. I don't agree with the BNP at all but while it's a legal political party nobody should be prevented from being a member because of their job. At a stetch I might concede some jobs should prevent people being a member of ANY political party but it shouldn't be a small select band of parties.

Agree. I would not ban any employee of mine (should I employ someone) from being a member of the BNP. They're free to join.......but they need not bother coming back to work.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Funny how sticking BNP in the thread title brings out the same old clowns having the same old arguement. Yawn.

 

[coventrygull]

Not a mainstream one that's for sure.

depends on your definition of mainstream. Would you call the greens mainstream?

 

[Simster]

Funny how sticking BNP in the thread title brings out the same old clowns having the same old arguement. Yawn.

I was thinking the same thing and it's f***ing boring.

For the amount of BNP bollocks written on here, anyone would think the BNP were in some way relevant - when truth is that they have as much chance of winning a seat as I have of opening an oyster with a bus ticket.

 

[bhaexpress]

Agree. I would not ban any employee of mine (should I employ someone) from being a member of the BNP. They're free to join.......but they need not bother coming back to work.

Hmmm, which, unless the employee had signed a contract to that effect would mean you would get heavily punished by an Industrial Tribunal for Wrongful Dismissal.