成人论坛

Dr Hamilton refers to the "strange" position that churches occupy in our community and draws our attention to a widespread criticism of their role: "Churches are part of the problem for they have sustained division". He then lambastes the "equality agenda" for helping to perpetuate divisions in society, but he conveniently fails to elaborate on the role of his own and other churches in this respect.

He refers to the dwindling numbers of people attending churches, and writes on how churches should "urgently" work together to maximise their income from taxpayers. But it is not just money that he wants, it is also minds. Of the need to 鈥榠ncrease religious literacy on the part of public agencies" he is like a dog with a bone! He writes:

"In particular there ought to be an explicit responsibility that following the elections in May 2011, each local council should be required to carry out an audit so as to develop a clear plan for the building of high quality working relationships with all the faith based groups in its area."

"Faith based groups" should not be privileged in their relationship with government, and to privilege them in the way Dr Hamilton wishes would only serve to perpetuate the divisions in our society. Dr Hamilton's agenda is clear: to secure advantage for church groups.

What comes to me is that Dr. Hamilton believes he has a right to our souls and taxes and unfortunately I also see the church putting its moral foot in midst of it.

"This is most certainly not to say that everything that people do is acceptable or should even be tolerated. But it is to say that there is an equal place in that society for the sinner and the saint; for the powerful and the weak; for the politician and the immigrant; for the rich and the poor."

Who will decide this? god? it almost sounds like love the sinner not the sin mantra again which has no place in a society where people and their lives are valued equally. It is certainly not for the CSI or the PCINI to define what is acceptable or tolerated. Those things are already defined in section 75 and in HR legislation from UN/EC etc.

Guys

As a Christian I have made it abundantly clear on a number of occasions on this blog that the church should not expect preferential treatment or a right to be heard. I have argued, frequently, that the best response to a real or perceived limiting of the 鈥楥hristian鈥� voice is to demonstrate what we believe by what we do; I do not plan to rehearse all that here again.

What I will say, however, is this. If I were an atheist I would be arguing that you get your act together and start making your voice heard. Organize. Mobilize. Get your message out. Up your levels of humanist and atheistic literacy. Win minds! (newlach, of course he wants to 'win minds', don't you?)

I say this because this endless mantra, 鈥�"Faith based groups" should not be privileged...鈥�, 鈥淒r. Hamilton (more generally read, the church) believes he has a right to our souls and taxes...鈥� isn鈥檛 actually a message. You鈥檙e telling me nothing. You鈥檙e giving me nothing to think about, nothing to believe in, nothing to change my mind.

Any chance of some positivity here?

:-)

He has a point here .Quote from main article
"We live in a community where it is now completely acceptable to rubbish others and their views than to either listen carefully or respond graciously. For as long as any of us regard this as either acceptable or normal, relationships will not be built. Good relations cannot emerge from bitter tongues, because bitter tongues betray bitter hearts and bitter thinking."

Etiquette/politeness go along way in oiling the cogs of society. Social cohesion is simply treating others around you with a little respect. Otherwise antagonisms & hatreds arise or people just stop engaging with the idea of community in general and batten down the hatches. It does start with the individual to treat others with civility and not open contempt. One way to start is offering social interaction classes in school

Ryan,

If the good doctor is so concerned about good relations and respect maybe he would consider changing the way the bible (and the clergy) speak about people whose morality they do not agree with. You cannot respect someone you think is an abomination and it is difficult to respect someone who is prejudiced against you because of who you are. Maybe after all the persecution the church is responsible for they would like to make a move in a conciliatory way.

Peterm2,
I understand what you are saying but the way I see it is that atheists are individuals and have no structure around which to band. I am not sure I want to see atheism structured anyway as it is one of the fundamental things I am wary about religion - the organised religion part. My efforts will be through other interest groups in the rainbow sector, the Human Rights umbrella such as Amnesty and secular groups who also provide strong input into the consultations. I see that as the best way to negate any church influence to try and gain special status or to allow them to maintain their right to discriminate.

peterm2

A news story with the headline '"Hugely disappointing" and "fatally flawed"'does not emit positivity.

I am interested in the substance of the story, that is why I made my initial comment. I have no wish to go "off topic" and seek to "win" anyone's mind. I may have given you "nothing to think about", but you are now better informed.

newlach

I'll put it another way. I simply disagree that "Dr Hamilton's agenda is clear: to secure advantage for church groups."

From above:

"No single party, group or individual has the definitive answer, However, none of us, whether we are in politics, or the public service, or in arms' length bodies, or the voluntary sector, or in church circles, or in business, or in trades unions, can back away from the urgent need to help create a much more attractive and uplifting community life than we now have."

That's more than the church.

The 'news story' may not emit positivity, but I would have thought that Norman Hamilton's concern was to ensure something more positive and sometimes to do that you have to complain.

I warmly welcome the document "Coming Together 鈥� for a change". Dr Hamilton is to be commended for this well researched contribution. It is a big challenge, not only to Government, but also to the churches, community groups and individuals who ought to be concerned for reconciliation and understanding in our community. I believe with Dr Hamilton that many evangelical middle class Protestants, who sincerely prayed for an end to 鈥渢he troubles鈥�, remain only marginally involved in the building of better community relations.

There are worthy exceptions to this, but many have not faced up to the Dr Hamilton鈥檚 challenge, based on Scripture (Jer 29:4-7) that God鈥檚 people were instructed 鈥渢o actively seek the welfare of ALL the people of the city, not just themselves. This included the welfare of the very people who had oppressed them.鈥� (p. 42)

We are avoiding the unavoidable teaching of Jesus that we are to love our enemies (Matt 5:44).

Dr Hamilton makes shrewd use of the writings of his fellow Ulsterman, Dr Chris Wright. As the recent Lausanne Cape Town gathering demonstrated, Wright is now an evangelical statesman on the world stage. Hamilton (p. 43) quotes him appropriately as he challenges us to see 鈥淭he need for practical political involvement with courage and integrity; the balance of profound prayer and pragmatic ability to seize the given moment and its opportunity for the cause of the Lord, his people and his justice.鈥�

Dr Hamilton has seized the moment. How will others respond?

Taxes as mentioned are used for a variety of good community causes. As far as I am aware the salaries of Church Ministers and the Moderator himself are low. There is so much good the Church does that seemingly goes un-noticed.

grace_and_peace,

Looking at what you say I cannot help but comment - if all this is your christian duty, why do you need a CSI document from the government to get on with it?

Paul,
There are also good community causes fulfilled which do not require churches or religion but are fully accountable. I do not in any way deny that churches (through many very good people) deliver much good but it could be delivered a different way without the baggage of religion like it is in other sectors (ones the churches will not engage in). The basis of the delivery of services from the church is discriminatory (and likely to remain so), this alone biases any input into the process.

Having said that, its a much better submission than the .

Belonging to the Reformed Faith, I am confused by Dr Hamilton's comments. Firstly he is responding to the CSI document issued by the Secularist Stormont Executive; it is the political establishment that is introducing this trinity of Secular Humanist philosophy into a Christian society. I could concur with Dr Hamilton, if he considered the CSI to be 'hugely disappointing and fatally flawed' on the basis of Biblical Christianity; however, Dr Hamilton's remarks were made in the context that church leaders were not included nor consulted at the draft stage of the document; showing a willingness for him to engage in such a process; I could not concur with this.

It is patently obvious that it was Secularism that waded into evangelical Protestant churches and dragged them down the ecumenical route while simultaneously casting the Word of God out of their pulpits. Now that Secularism is casting the Word of God out of society, Dr Hamilton is unhappy that churches were not allowed to participate in the forward planning of such wickedness, this does not add up.

Dr Hamilton desires that churches urgently create a short statement on 'common purpose' with regard to a cohesive and integrated society'; as a starting point he cites 'hospitality and manners' as worthy subjects to be addressed. With respect, this is playing further into the hands of Secular Humanism which promotes atheism and agnosticism. The sort of short statement that should come from those of the Reformed Faith to this trinity of evil document, is 'NO'!