Christian Group has bank account removed due to "unacceptable views"

quote:

---

The Co-operative Bank has asked an evangelical Christian group to close its account because of its anti-homosexual views.

​

The bank said the opinions of Christian Voice were incompatible with its support for diversity.

​

Christian Voice said the bank, based in Manchester, was discriminating against it on religious grounds.

​

It is now waiting for other religious groups with similar opinions to be asked to close accounts, it added.

​

Christian Voice has held an account with the Co-operative Bank for about three years.

---

BBC NEWS | UK | Co-op bank bars Christian groupIn response on their website Christian voice state:

quote:

---

Stephen Green retorted: Of course we make ‘discriminatory pronouncements on grounds of sexual orientation’. We have been criticising homosexual rights ever since we started eleven years ago. Standing up for righteousness is what we do. http://www.christianvoice.org,uk In fact you could say there are dozens of such pronouncements in my own book The Sexual Dead-End, which was published in 1992. It is a conviction of our Christian faith that homosexual activity is sinful; in fact that it is an abomination in the eyes of God. It is also a conviction of ours that the Lord Jesus shed His precious blood to forgive the sins of all who put their trust in Him, including sexually-active homosexuals. We told the Co-op bank when we switched to them three years ago that we were a voice for Biblical values and that we promote traditional family life. They raised no problem with that at all, and at no time did they tell us about their militant pro-homosexuality. Even today, on their website, they keep that very quiet. Personal banking | Online banking | The Co-operative Bank Only in the staff recruitment section is there any word about ‘diversity’ and the words ‘in all its forms’ or sexual orientation are nowhere to be seen. All the questions on the ethical questionnaire we had to complete were to do with whether we traded in arms or chemicals or had dealings with oppressive regimes. We quite truthfully said we did not, and we reckon the Co-operative Bank is in breach of contract - not that we would want to continue with such a discriminatory outfit.

---

BBC - Radio 4 - Today Programme Listen Again(Scroll down to 0750 to listen to a radio interview about this situation) Should a bank or other private organization refuse service on the basic of religious viewpoints?My own viewpoint - while I agree with the stance of the Co-Op, I am slightly worried that people's right to free speech should be the basic of discrimination.This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 26-Jun-2005 12:12 PM

I was thinking Coffee shop as well. I'll edit a response in post 1.

Ned (and anyone else) - it's really worth listening to the radio interview.http://www.bbc.co.uk/...nagain/ram/today3_co-op_20050624.ramThis message has been edited by Charles Knight, 26-Jun-2005 12:54 PM

How is the logical conclusion of "we don't agree with your views on homosexuals and therefore we don't want to business with you" people hanging you and burning down your house?I fail to see any "logic" in such an assumption.

quote:

---

Let's see, I've got Chas Knight, crash, you, jar, Ned, and who all else here hating my guts for what, for saying that I think the bank has the right to deny business to whomever, and that being a Bible-believing Christian I agree with Steve Green, who is trying to save his nation from God's wrath.

---

I know you like the cut of your hairshirt but I don't tend to hate random strangers over the internet.. let's stop with the mindreading eh?

I'd have to agree with Bobbins - many of the locals would not go down Canal Street (or anal treat to give it's nickname) because they are fearful that "something" will happen to them.I think this is great.. It means that I can drink with the missus and friends in nice bars without drunk knuckleheads spoiling the fun.

Think about what you are actually saying - That I and others here hate some random stranger that we've never met or interacted with in the real world. I can't think of any people I know (in the real world) that I hate, so it baffles me why you'd think I'd expend energy in such a way.It seems to me that you seem to have a very distorted few of your importance to others here and indeed the general importance of this board in our lifes. I don't know about the others but for me this is a nice distraction from writing papers etc.I really do suggest you take a few days away from the board and re-assess the situation - you seem to have this all out of wack.

From your line this is what the group had to say about homosexuals and the police:

quote:

---

"-Homosexual police are involved in some of the most disgusting perversions imaginable; how can they bring clean hands to any police investigation?
-Homosexual police are corrupted by what they do; how can they investigate cases of corruption?
-Their whole life is lived in denial; how can they be expected to tell the truth in Court?
-Homosexual police are likely to seek sexual encounters in public conveniences and in the open (most homosexual men do); are
they going to take part in exercises against ‘cottaging’ and ‘cruising’?
-Their sexual behaviour is deviant and indecent; how can they uphold public decency and morality?
-The police are supposed to be impartial; does the deliberate recruitment of shamelessly homosexual men and women explain the recent explosion of cases brought against Gospel preachers and pro-life campaigners?
-Many homosexual men will have been interfered with at a young age, and be sexually attracted to boys of around that age as a result; are homosexual police going to be exempted from investigations into paedophile activities?
-The police serve the monarch of a constitutionally Christian country; how does the police force square that fact with the recruitment of officers who commit acts which are an abomination in the eyes of Almighty God?"

---

quote:

---

Moot? A universal custom is MOOT?

---

So you have no argument with Polygamy?

quote:

---

It's something I think should be obvious upon serious reflection.

---

After serious reflection, it's not obvious, you need to outline the elements that are obvious.

quote:

---

Oh right, abstinence-only education causes STDs.

---

That could well be the case.

quote:

---

Sorry, promiscuous sex causes STDs, not abstinence or abstinence education.

---

Sorry Abstinece education have little or no effect in reducing STD infection rates....

quote:

---

Many abstinence programs include "Virginity Pledges," whereby teens sign cards promising to remain virgins until they are married. While data suggests that under limited circumstances, teens who sign a pledge may delay sexual intercourse, 88 percent still have sex before marriage. Recent research also shows that pledgers' rate of STDs does not differ from the rate of nonpledgers because pledgers are less likely to use condoms at first intercourse or to be tested for STDs.

---

H. Brckner and P. Bearman, "After the promise: the STD consequences of adolescent virginity pledges," Journal of Adolescent Health, 36 (2005) 271-278.

quote:

---

A recent review of program evaluations in 11 states (AZ, CA FL, IA, MD, MN, MO, NE, OR, PA, WA) indicates that after participating in abstinence-only programs, teens are less willing to use contraception, including condoms. And in only one state, did any program demonstrate any success in delaying the initiation of sex.

---

D. Hauser, Five Years of Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Education: Assessing the Impact, Advocates for Youth, September 2004.

quote:

---

More than 80 percent of the abstinence-only curricula reviewed contain false, misleading, or distorted information about reproductive health. The curricula reviewed misrepresent the effectiveness of contraceptives in preventing STDs and unintended pregnancy. They also contain false information about the risks of abortion, blur religion and science, promote gender stereotypes, and contain basic scientific errors.

---

"The Content of Federally Funded Abstinence-Only Education Programs," Prepared for Rep. Henry A. Waxman, United States House of Representatives, Committee on Government Reform - Minority Staff, Special Investigations Division, December 2004.More interestingly research shows that abstinence beyond one day leds to a decrease in sperm quality.Eliahu Levitas, Eitan Lunenfeld, Noemi Weiss, Michael Friger, Iris Har-Vardi, Arie Koifman and Gad Potashnik, Relationship between the duration of sexual abstinence and semen quality: analysis of 9,489 semen samples, Fertility and Sterility, Volume 83, Issue 6, June 2005, Pages 1680-1686.This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 04-Jul-2005 08:23 AM

and that answers the published research that abstinence doesn't work in preventing STDs how?

quote:

---

What's needed is a return to the respect for marriage and for abstinence that previous generations had.

---

This sort of respect?

quote:

---

Divorce rates in the 1920s made the highest percentage leap (aside from the postwar surge in 1946) in American history.

​

As for teen pregnancies, 1957 - the height of the "traditional family values" era - was the peak year, when 97 of every 1,000 girls aged 15-19 gave birth (compared to 52 of every 1,000 in 1983).

---

The Social Origins of Private Life: A History of American Families 1600-1900 (Verso, 29 W. 35th Street, New York, NY 10001)Or do you mean a previous generation to those? Can you provide a specific timeperiod and generation you wish to discuss?(you can go further back but watch out..those long grasses contain beartraps)oh..all the fish in the barrel seem to be dead...Besides your fantasy view of the past do you actually have anything of merit or value to present to us?This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 04-Jul-2005 08:40 AMThis message has been edited by Charles Knight, 04-Jul-2005 08:43 AMThis message has been edited by Charles Knight, 04-Jul-2005 08:43 AM

The level of your debate* in this area seems to very poor. Your posts consist of increasingly shrill posts that don't actually contain anything that could resemble material worthy of debate.I would therefore recommend that instead of a series of, frankly worthless, off the cuff remarks - you either withdrawn from the debate or go away and find something worth our consideration.* which is about the level that used to draw the attention of AdminM to me....This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 04-Jul-2005 09:30 AM

Is there anyone here who supports abstinence who would be willing to present a well-reasoned case (ie more than just "it was the good old day woz it") for it's merits?*I think it could be an interesting area to discuss and if nobody is able or willing to do so I will be willing to put forward case for it's inclusion and benefits in regards to sex education and the prevention of STDS.*I am thinking of a spin-off OP

As in most things, you were clear with your assumptions - I think the problem is that the argument that you have presented is so wafer-thin (and that's being polite) that nobody can take it seriously.And if "sexual freedom" is such a big thing where are so many priests exposed as sex offenders? They don't have "sexual freedom".This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 05-Jul-2005 04:37 AM

A very very simple question - you keep talking about a period when respect for marriage and sexual liberation was not out of control.WHEN was this period? Not of your usual dodges, give us a timeframe.