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

Let me add a bit of background to the original OP. (as a Brit.)The Co-Operative bank is a little bit different to the standard, as banks go. They originate from the co-operative movement from the 1800's in Rochdale, Lancashire (My home county). These were based on the commune ideal (think Kibbutz) where barter and trade were the way forward. The company shops paid DIVIDENDS to its best customers based on the profits that year, and nobody owned the company.This ideal was carried forward into the 20th century with many local (Co-Op) shops offering stamps in proportion to moneys spent which could be exchanged for future purchases (proportioned out as determined by profits).Their ideology currently is based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and so will not invest in any government or business which fails to uphold basic human rights within its sphere of influence and any business whose links to an oppressive regime are a continuing cause for concern, (both lifted from their own website).To my mind these classifications include an organistaion that states that "The only hope for our dysfunctional nation lies in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ."and "Acts of Parliament are regarded in this paper(Christian Voice tract) as "unrighteous legislation"". Sounds like an organisation that has problems with Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Shintoists, Taoists, paganists and atheists. Not just problems but would deny them any say in the governing of their own country. Sounds pretty repressive to me.So Faith et al, sorry to be so dismissive of your protests but if you want to be prejudiced do not bank with the Co-Op. At least if you read the website you will know in advance. Which I am sure you do.I read these forums regularly and have only just stuck my oar in, but I would like to know if any Christian reading the original story and believing themselves to be prejudiced against have done any background on this? If so you may know that the Co-op bank does not invest in tobacco, arms, oil exploration or any government independently classified as having an oppressive regime. These principles have not stopped them from turning a profit. Actually these principles have increased their client base and the action in suspending the account of Christian Voice will only reinforce this.Last point. In the first 30-odd posts not one person seemed to grasp that the principle to suspend the account was a long established one, ie the Co-op did not invent this to stop this one group. Christian Voice would have been aware of this at the time they opened the account.Good Night

---

Apophenia:seeing patterns or connections in random or meaningless data.
Pareidolia:vague or random stimulus being perceived (mistakenly) as recognisable.Ramsey Theoryatterns may exist.Whoops!

Well that would be the first time that a mission statement formed part of opening a current account. What is the source for stating that the Co-op was aware of their stance at the opening of the account? My local paper (Manchester Evening News - local to the story as well) and the CV spokesman Stephen Green make no mention of this and Green even ends with the slanderous quote "Now we have found how pro-homosexual the Co-op bank is , we would not want to do business with them, we would have jumped before being pushed."

---

Apophenia:seeing patterns or connections in random or meaningless data.
Pareidolia:vague or random stimulus being perceived (mistakenly) as recognisable.Ramsey Theoryatterns may exist.Whoops!

sorry, I butted in without listening to the BBC interview. The representatives of both sides seem to say things of which I was not aware. However I am dubious as to the claim of aggressive pro-homosexuality on the side of the Co-op for 2 reasons. The first is that the headquarters of Co-op are in Manchester, a city with the largest gay community in the UK outside of London and proportionally the largest in Europe. It would be commercial suicide to not assist/participate in the Mardi-Gras festival organized by the Gay village in Manchester. This charge of aggressive pro-homosexuality would then be aimed at the police, Coca-Cola, Carling, Stella Artois, Manchester City council, the Fire Brigade, many radio stations , BBC television, Manchester Evening News, Reebok, Vodaphone and many others as co-sponsers of the said event. Sponsorship of this event means, I would expect, a certain amount of sponsorship for similar events around the country.The second point is that the UK is still quite a traditional country. Whilst the law and Government is supporting sexual diversity and equality, the general population is not. Many friends of mine (the majority) will not go drinking in the area of Manchester known as the village, despite the fact that some of the best clubs and bars are there, along with lower levels of threatening, drunken behaviour and violence. To be aggressively pro-homosexuality would certainly not be commercially viable nor ethically justifiable. Their stance is non-judgemental.Further to the point that the Co-op was made aware of the aims/stance of the Christian Voice organisation. Did Stephen Green make this plain? I am not sure. There seemed to be a lot of inference needed and the interviewer was not sure that it's traditional family life message necessarily precluded tolerance of homosexuality. Certainly the name Christian Voice does not exude intolerance.This message has been edited by bobbins, 06-26-2005 09:59 PM

---

Apophenia:seeing patterns or connections in random or meaningless data.
Pareidolia:vague or random stimulus being perceived (mistakenly) as recognisable.Ramsey Theoryatterns may exist.Whoops!

Personally I am glad that the Government and the law does not operate on the whims, prejudices and biggotry of the people. The principle of a just law is that all are equal in the sight of the law. Not the one with the loudest voice or the biggest bank balance or the best looking or who owns the media or is friends with the friend of the local Big Cheese. The law is blind, meaning blind to money, influence, colour, sexual preference and social standing.As to your accusation that profits cannot be jeopardized by principles, how about profits generated by principles? Co-op investors seem to agree.Since when did God (your capital letters) mean the God of Christian Voice over and above the God of the majority of people that bank with the co-op or live in the UK? Since when did the morality of Christian Voice mean more than the morality of a long established (150+ years) bank and the majority of it's customers?Do not mention blindly God and morality without stating specifically YOUR God and YOUR morality, otherwise you are the one being prejudiced and biased.

---

Apophenia:seeing patterns or connections in random or meaningless data.
Pareidolia:vague or random stimulus being perceived (mistakenly) as recognisable.Ramsey Theoryatterns may exist.Whoops!

The legalisation of homosexuality happened in 1967 when a majority of the British people thought homosexuality was wrong. The public support was not for homosexuality to be legalised but that the current government suppression was unjustified and an expensive waste of time. The survey you refer to is not one I was aware of but if you consider that at least half those questioned are done so face to face it is easy to see how most people would like to be seen as open-minded. I would also like to see the figures for the other 53%, did they all say homosexuality was right? My experience whilst not as scientific and widespread would lead me to believe that many people protest their open-mindedness in public yet privately cling to older beliefs about homosexuality. I would equate this with the attitude towards ethnic minorities and immigrants. The public vote for nationalistic parties is minor yet privately people express beliefs not dissimilar and many national newspapers reflect this belief.As to policies being driven by the people, capital punishment has consistently been approved by the majority of people in the UK since it's abolition yet successive Parliaments have voted any reintroduction out.(76% pro death penalty in 1995 when the last reintroduction bill was voted down).I am aware that this is a vague and probably not very constructive reply but I can only call as I see from day to day in Manchester.

---

Apophenia:seeing patterns or connections in random or meaningless data.
Pareidolia:vague or random stimulus being perceived (mistakenly) as recognisable.Ramsey Theoryatterns may exist.Whoops!

Well as a person who has lived in the UK for nearly 35 years, who has lived in Bradford, Manchester, Plymouth, Wolverhampton and London and someone who has campaigned door-to-door for 3 labour candidates in two of these areas I would consider my experience to be reasonably worthwile as a point of reference, compared with an incomplete, bare statistic. I apologise for getting snotty but my original point may be missed here in suggesting that whilst tolerance is seen in public as acceptable even admirable this is not reflected in their privately held views.