MPs want Christianity removed from OT constitutions
(Daily Mail): The Government is being urged by a group of powerful MPs to axe references to Christianity from the constitutions of Britain’s far-flung outposts. To the dismay of Church leaders, the Foreign Affairs Committee is pressing for the change amid claims that references to traditional Christian morality could undermine gay rights in the overseas territories. The committee, chaired by Labour MP Mike Gapes (left), also objects to Christianity being singled out above other faiths. But the recommendation, which the Foreign Office says is being ‘carefully considered’, has provoked anger among Church leaders and politicians, with the Bishop of Winchester, the Rt Rev Michael Scott-Joynt, condemning the move as ‘spurious political correctness’.
Category: World News
In my opinion both science and a belief in God (or any spiritual belief for that matter) require faith in the veracity of supporting evidence. Christians place faith in evidence of the invisible, the "substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen". Science places faith in evidence such as the results of experimentation and the fruits of objective research.
As far as evidence is concerned, prophesy is one form of evidence. So is the fossil record. The absolute reliability of either is subject to question. However, historically where fundamentalist, dogmatic Christianity has clashed with science it is the fundamentalists who end up looking like fools. For example: Newton was castigated by the bible-believing and politically powerful Chruch for his views on physics, Galleleo was labelled a heretic and sorely oppressed for suggesting that the sun rather than Earth was the centre of the universe. To this day there are Christian fundamentalists who would rather let their children suffer and die rather thanallow certain religiously disallowed medical therapies.
It is very illuminating that the most rabid, impolite, hostile and illogical postings here appear to be from fundamentalist Christians. This makes the case against giving such a group political influence even more valid and urgent.
History teaches that lending religious fundamentalism influence by enshrining it in law and giving it political power is a dangerous and very slippery slope with disasterous potential. As a non-fundamentalist beliver such references are repugnant to me and I will continue to voice my opposition until the offending references are removed.
Wow!!! Do you speak like this or simply use a thesaurus when writing a response? Too funny!!!!
I’m not a fundamentalist… only a Christian. One who believes that Jesus is the only way to heaven. Not a perfect person, merely forgiven.
These responses are all expected as the bible clearly teaches that the world will be against Christianity. We will continue to believe.
Since the bible prophesies which I presented are so flawed… tell me what is going to happen next year? or the year after? How about 10 years from now… who is going to form a country and where will it be? No clue because only God could have known.
All your statements are therefore completely flawed because of the simple fact you or I cannot prophesy the future.
I could go into the whole prophesy of the the virgin Mary and the birth of Christ but that may be too deep.
On to the next person…
You’re telling me that evolution then chooses when and where to appear and there will never be evidence of current evolutionary processes happening? Your argument is therefore null and void.
As for the apes….
My apologies for not rechecking my post. However… tell your ape friends who have not been trained to even turn on a computer much less type a response or read to do so and prove their evolution. Does anyone else see how stupid that sounds? Come on people give us more credit than saying we came from a bunch of apes.
I guess the bottom line is this… belief in God takes faith and science wants evidence. Your mind has to certainly be open to believe.
I’ll leave it at that.
The main idea though is this… Caymanians throughout the years have been brought up on Christian Values… I can’t help if you don’t like it… (as in science) it is a fact. No one can change that.
If you choose not to do the same that’s ok… it’s your choice.
Let me caution you though, it is our choice as the future of these islands, to determine what we want in our constitution. Many other countries are less religious than we, while many are more but we crafted the constitution to ensure that our religion would not go unnoticed.
Let’s all live in peace here in the islands and realise that we can agree to disagree but our heritage is what made us who we are today.
Some Christians need to wake up out of slumber and get true enlightenment.
The writer used some of the absolute worst examples of "fulfillment" of so-called prophesy, which is what happens when you study the Bible in isolation of its historical, political, sociological and scientific context.
Ok, now for the truth:
1. Israel would become a nation again after a long time and at a time the Bible calls the "latter days":
This is more accurately described as a self-fulfilling prophesy. The Jews and their allies pressed for the creation of this new country to call their own because of the belief that their God promised it to them. It was a political agenda spurred by religious belief. It could be said that if the prophesy had not been made into a political movement the formation of the new Israel would not have taken place. I score it 0 for 1.
2. Israel shall be brought forth in one day, at once:
The Zionist movement, as a political thrust to return the Jews to their "homeland", began in the 19th century! The "nation" now called Israel was only gradually and incrementally recognised by the important countries of the world after May 14 1948, on which day Israel "declared" to the world that they were a country. Not all the world was listening folks. However, the USA was first to recognise Israel after a few days, followed by the USSR. (So much for it happening in a day, at once.) The whole world is still not on board with this claim and some of the borders of this country remain a matter of international contention and not really satisfactorily defined. I score it 0 for 2.
3. Israel would be brought forth (or reborn) "out of the nations":
Uhhh… Earth to bible scholar… Where else would they have come from? Mars? That’s 0 for 3.
4. Israel must regain the city of Jerusalem:
This one is a no brainer for if they took over the "promised" area of Palestine they targeted for many years, that piece of real estate called Jerusalem would be included anyway. I chalk this up to the same political agenda as #1. If prophesy had added other, say a dozen other geographical features included in the "promised land" would we consider this to be 12 prophesies "fulfilled"? It is amusing to note that what is arguably the location of second most holy Muslim shrine after that in Mecca – the Dome of the Rock – is located in Jerusalem and, to the best of my knowledge, is owned and maintained by the (Muslim) Ministry of Awaqaf and Islamic Affairsin Jordan. Apparently, in "deeding: Jerusalem to the Jews, Jehovah forgot to include an eviction notice to the Muslims in prophesy. (I frankly do not know how to score this, so I left it out of the tally.)
5. There would be weapons that could destroy the world:
Wow! This is news to me! Did you ever bother to consider this prophesy with an open mind and critical thought process? Maybe the bible prophets who predicted this were tuned in to a present-day futuristic doomsday science fiction movie because, as of now there still is no weapon or weapons that can "destroy the world". A large-scale nuclear exchange might make the Earth uninhabitable for humans, but the world will still be around and probably would be a quite habitable place for roaches and politicians. If you are talking about weapons of mass destruction, ancient – and not so ancient "prophets" (Nostradamus) – can be said to have predicted WMD’s. Perhaps this prophesy can be chalked up as "As yet unfulfilled"? But that still, for now now, makes it 0 for 4.
I certainly hope your cache of "many more" are better than this because even if we give you #4, I do not think 20% is a score befitting divine inspiration.
As a believer I am not discounting the Bible and Christianity as invalid or utterly without merit, but I am saying that the modern day fundamentalist, verbal-plenary, we-know-it-all-and-you-don’t version of Christianity is simply brain-dead. The posting to which I am replying is an entertaining illustration of my opinion and lends even more urgency to the need to remove references to traditional Christian values from our constitution.
No, that’s not what you call a self-fulfilling prophecy. This was not within the power of Jewish leaders. The important date is that of the UN declaration recognizing Israel as a state. It really doesn’t matter that some neighbouring countries would like to wipe them of the face of the map. Try as they will, it simply won’t happen.
"Out of the nations". This is referencing a return from the Jewish Diaspora centuries before it became a reality. This was very unlikely to happen. Many nations are formed simply by neighbouring tribes deciding they would like to be a nation, e.g. Switzerland.
This is actually quite a remarkable prophecy that was fulfilled.
You make an interesting point re the Muslims and Jerusalem. It ain’t over yet. It simply makes the point that the conflict between Jews and Arab Muslims is spiritual. Note I did not say "religious". Guess who wins?
But back to those which are already fulfilled some of the most remarkable are contained in Daniel 2:
o Babylon, the head of gold, would fall to Medo-Persia. Fulfilled, 538 B.C.
o Medo-Persia would fall to Greece. Fulfilled, 333 B.C.
o Greece would be divided into four empires: Egypt, Syria, Mesopotamia, and Asia. Fulfilled, 320 B.C.
o The four-part division of Greece would be absorbed by Rome, the iron empire, and the last world empire. Fulfilled, approximately 165 B.C.
oThe Roman Empire would split and break into chunks. Fulfilled, A.D. 500.
Even more remarkable is the prophecy of Alexander the Great (the shaggy goat, the King of Greece) in Daniel 8 and how he would overthrow the Medo-Persian empire.
Absoutely stunning is the prophecy in Daniel 11 that tells of the fate of Alexander:
Daniel 11:1-2: "In the first year of Darius the Mede, I arose to be an encouragement and a protection for him. And now I will tell you the truth. Behold, three more kings are going to arise in Persia. Then a fourth will gain far more riches than all of them; as soon as he becomes strong through his riches, he will arouse the whole empire against the realm of Greece."
*[Darius the Mede was viceroy in Babylon during the reign of Cyrus II (a.k.a. Cyrus the Great, who ruled from c.550-530 BC; Note: the dates provided here and following represent a period of monarchial reign, not the ruler’s actual life-span). The three kings which succeed Cyrus were Cambyses II (530-521 BC), Smerdis (521 BC) and Darius I (521-485 BC), son of Hystaspes. The fourth king, Xerxes (486-465 BC), excelling in wealth and power, launched an elaborate campaign against Greece.]
Daniel 11:3-4: "And a mighty king will arise, and he will rule with great authority and do as he pleases. But as soon as he has arisen, his kingdom will be broken up and parceled out toward the four points of the compass, though not to his own descendants, nor according to his authority which he wielded, for his sovereignty will be uprooted and given to others besides them."
*[The "mighty king" was Alexander the Great (336-323 BC) who, shortly after conquering the Persian Empire, died abruptly at the age of 32. His empire was not bequeathed to his children (who were murdered) but instead was divided up amongst his generals (the Diadochi). Four lesser kingdoms emerged from the rubble of Alexander’s empire: Greece, Asia Minor, Syria, and Egypt.]
This is serious stuff, dude. You had better study it.
*I have borrowed the historical information from a Christian websitehttp://www.allabouttruth.org/bible-prophecy.htm
Tell your monkey people "hi"… I didn’t come from one.
Tell me something else… where are the ape’s that are still changing?
Your argument is pure stupidity… not quite super human.
As for the prophesy’s, here are a few;
1. The Jewish people would be scattered worldwide; yet Israel would become a nation again after a long time and at a time the Bible calls the "latter days"-ref Isa 66:8; Mic 5:3; Ezek 38:8. Against what appeared to be impossible odds, this prophecy has been fulfilled. It happened as predicted on May 14, 1948 after about 2500 years. That’s 1 out of 1.
2. Israel shall be brought forth in one day, at once-ref Isa 66:8. Prophecy fulfilled-May 14, 1948. That’s 2 out of 2.
3. Israel would be brought forth (or reborn) "out of the nations"-Ezek 38:8. Prophecy fulfilled-May 14, 1948. That’s 3 out of 3.
4. Israel must regain the city of Jerusalem-Joel 2:32; Isa 28:14; Ezek 22:19. This happened just as predicted in 1967. That’s 4 out of 4.
5. There would be weapons that could destroy the world-Mk 13:20; Rev 6:8; Rev 9:18; Zech 14:8,12. Incredibly, this prophecy was written in the days of spears and arrows, yet today it is true. That’s 5 out of 5.
There yah go… that’s only a couple… many more available.
I asked for any kind of proof towards the theory. Since he can’t then why would someone believe it? Listen, because an english man says something doesn’t mean I need to believe it. Dawkins, Darwin and any others who claim otherwise are/were simply confused and didn’t/don’t want to believe that God could do all of this… I’ll say it again… If I’m wrong, hey I’m in the ground… if you’re wrong… Hell isn’t nice!
Tempted to respond, but exercising restraint (something most of the posters on here should do!)
If you don’t beleive in evolution you won’t be taking any swine ‘flu vaccines then.
Silly person…
Evolution happens over thousands of years. Not in a generation. Believe me, the apes have changed – as has Homo Sapiens, who more closely resembled the apes a few hundred thousand years ago.
And it is still happening, but the rate varies from being to being. You only have to look at these posts to see the massive variance in mental evolution!
So, believe what you want and what makes you happy, but the actual physical evidence points more towards a Darwinian evolution…
~~~ ZAP ~~~ Aw cr@p – something just zapped my compu…
Nostrodamus did a considerably most convincing job then that, lets start a religion around him! Are you kidding me, is that the best your magical god can come up with, the a group of non Christians would be able to establish a country at some point in the next 10,000 years? is that it? oh wait, he also said that weapons would imporve with time! wow! amazing! weapon developments evolve with time? who would have thought. between the period that those proficies were written and your carpenter fellow was born weapons had gone from spears and arrows to Catapults that could hurl a rock 1/2 a mile, Ballista that could shoot a missile 2000 yards and the battering ram that could smash a hold in 2ft wide walls of stone. How did they guess that weapons would continue to get better?????
As for evolution, you cannot be serious? At this point i have to check weather you are a little be nieve and ignorant and believe in ‘intelligent design’ like some half educated christians do or whether you are a complete nut job and actually believe that Genesis was true and the world is only 4,000 years old? If that is the case then i have two things to say to you 1) how do you explain tree rings going back over 10,000 years 2) what the hell are dinosaurs?
The finches of Galapagos? care to explain that? evolution in motion?
As for whether we are from monkeys or not perhaps you can explain how it is that we have over 32 different species of human represented in the fossil record. These range from very monkey like humanoids to very human like humanoids. Neatherthals for instance died out 35,000 years ago, we see their paintings on caves in France (31,000 years before the universe existed), we have thousands of complete skeletons with almost all the human features you would associate with us. we happen to be the only species of human left on the earth.
If you honestly believe in Genesis then it will be impossible to argue with you since that basically means that you do not believe in any of the basic scientific principles that we live our lives around – the invention of the car was based on principles of science – surely it is blasphemy to ride in a car since a car only works because of the general law of thermodynamics governing the entire universe and goes against all the magic and wizardry of the bible!
Scientists bring facts to a discussion, religous people bring the bible. Facts don’t lie.
Only very foolish people resort to the "monkey complaint". It shows that either you don’t know a thing about human evolution, or you are too intellectually dishonest to treat the topic fairly. Humans did not evolve from monkeys, which anyone beyond grade 2 will know (except where the schools are still failing the students by withholding the truth and peddling superstition instead).
"Tell your monkey people "hi"… I didn’t come from one."
No, your predecessors evolved (you personally did not, which is apparent) from the genus Australopithecus, into the Homo genus (bet that phrase scares the hell out of you, pardon the term) thorough various stages to Homo sapiens. All of the other species of the Homo genus are extinct. There used to be Homo neanderthalensis living at the same time as man, but they died (I’d bet the West Bay gangs killed them all) and are now extinct.
"Tell me something else… where are the ape’s that are still changing?"
They are still around you, learning how to use apostrophes properly, and out-evolving you.
Monkey read, monkey post.
Some people obviously don’t know their Bible because many of the quotes I see on here are simply metaphorical.
Child sacrifice, now that is a great example to set.
No child was ever sacrificed to Yahweh. You might be confusing Him with Molech, or you might be misunderstanding the story of Abraham where no child sacrifice was actually required. Instead, it was a test of faith and Yahweh provided a goat instead for the sacifice (that is where the term scapegoat comes from).
How small your mind is.
I went outside looked up in
I read Genesis. Thanks for the tip. It was hilarious. Bad sci-fi meets Tolkein is a good summary. Who beleives this stuff?
I’m not sure who the replying person is but thanks for the support.
I have in fact read one of Dawkin’s books during my years at university and graduate school.
As someone previously stated… anyone can be a philosopher or scientist and say many things; Proving what they theorize or hypothesize is the difference.
Over 900 prophesies in the Bible… ALL fulfilled. Why should I believe someone who can’t even prove one of his theories?
Why haven’t we changed into a super human if Dawkins is correct?
By the way… I don’t bet so, keep your $100 but you would have lost it.
please do me the simple favour and name 5 out of the 900 prophesies that you say have come true in bible, actually why don’t you name just one?? There is not one tangible bit of evidence that has been put forward over the last 2,000 years to support a single prophicy made in the bible. So i look forward to being enlightened by you on this matter. You seem to think there are 900???? We as humans do not know of a single psychic predition of a prohet that has actually come true?
And what are you talking about when you say super human? As all intelligent learned people know, we evolved from a primate with a relatively small brain around 5 million years ago. Over those last 5 million years our brain capacity has inceased exponetially to the point at which we are able to fly to the moon and investigate the inner workings of the atom – i would say that in comparason to Australopithecus, the first recognisable human species (the skeleton designated Lucy for instance) we would be considered super human. and don’t give me the ridiculously ignorant argument that you don’t believe in evolution because the bible says so, the bible didn’t mention cars so i guess that doesn’t exist either?
See post at Fri, 10/23/2009 – 17:13. There more than five fulfilled prophecies there.
You seem to be confused over the nature of scientific theory. Any scientist will tell you that it is impossible to prove a theory. It is possible to accumulate a body of evidence which supports, with increasing confidence, the basis of the theory. Or it is possible to discover evidence which refutes the theory. But absolute proof is impossible.
It follows that the failure to prove a theory does not indicate that the theory is wrong and you are wrong, therefore, to dismiss Dawkins because he can’t prove his theory. I don’t expect to change your mind, but I would like to address the fallacy in your argument.
You are right, but this is why when Dawkins makes statements about God almost certainly not existing he has strayed from science into philosophy. There are a great many matters for which science offers no explanation and it is merely his hope (or faith) that one day scientific reasons can be advanced for them. "Almost certainly" suggests that all but one or two matters have been fully explained by science.
He is a crusading champion for an atheistic worldview, its not just about the conclusions of science. The existence of God can neither be proved nor disproved by science. Indeed it seems from a strictly scientific perspective a scientist should be agnostic, not atheist. Re Occam’s Razor even if a simpler explanation exists this can not rule out the possibility that the more complex explanation is not in fact true.
I’m inclined to agree with you about Dawkins. HIs brand of crusader atheism is as hard to take as the ultra-evangelical religious right.
I am not religious and I’m fine with it. I assume you are religious and I’m fine with that as well. It’s only when one of us tries to shove their belief or lack thereof down the others throat that problems ensue.
Not sure i am following what you are say in your statement about the 1122 comment? He has given a number of excellent examples of how Christians have killed in the name of the Christian god. Something that is not often talked about was the fact that Hitler was a devout Christian and he did more than his fair share of killing as well.
Since you are so enlightened and not small minded at all, may i suggest that i will read the bible, starting at Genesis, but you should also please read one of Richard Dawkin’s books. I am willing to open my mind, are you willing to open your mind? I will place $100 on the fact that you never even look up Richard Dawkins, please i beg of you, prove me wrong. don’t be the small minded individual that you accuse ofther people of being. i will start to read the bible, please start to read any one of Richard Dawkins books, God will not send you to hell for reading a book.
ps. i believe the previous poster was refering to Banksy the world famous artist, why would he be eating crab meat?
That is false. It is obvious from his actions that Hitler was not a devout Christian. Nazism is incompatible withChristianity. Hitler believed in the occult. But lest there still be room for doubt let Hitler speak for himself:
"Christianity is an invention of sick brains," Adolf Hitler, 13 December 1941.
So Richard Dawkins is your god?
So Richard Dawkins is your god?
Not sure what you are saying, he is a scientist, an evolutionary biologist to be precise. why would you ask if he was a god? personally i do not believe in any gods or any type.
what i said was that if i was to read your book that you suggested, perhaps you could read a book that i suggested? however from your response i am guess that i have won my personal bet with myself, there is no chance of you ever reading the book i suggested. once again i ask you to prove me wrong, i will read your book with an open mind, please read my book suggestion with an open mind. it does not make you a bad person to want to broaden your mind. it may even help consolidate your views on Christianity, but please read the book.
I am already acquainted with Dawkins. Many of his positions are philosophic rather than scientific, e.g. a bland statement that God almost certainly does not exist. Science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God.
My point was that you obviously exalt his word over the Word of God. The existence of God is already for me a settled question borne out of my own experiences and revelation of the truth of His Word. Nothing Richard Dawkins or anyone else can have to say can make any difference. This is mere noise reflecting the arrogance and vanity of man.
oh well – i guess it was a complete waste of time to ask you to read the book then? Once again i ask, why do you say that i exalt his word as if he was a god? if i recommend to you that you should read a good Clive Cussler fictional novel, does that mean that i exalt the word of Clive Cussler? You are absolutely ridiculous. It is exactly for this reason that most people think that Science is believed by intellecutals and religion is believed by ignoramouses like yourself.
Please next time CNS writes a contentious religious story can some vagulely intelligent Christians please come on and argue their point of view rather than the closed minded morons that seem to stand up for the church. It gets very boring having discussions with the ignorant Christian who sticks his fingers in his ears and shouts la la la like a little child.
Wow! Such language. That clearly touched a nerve.
I don’t think anyone would confuse you with an intellectual. You clearly have difficulty with logical thinking. You are making a direct comparison with the worldview of Richard Dawkins and that of the bible and suggesting that the former is superior. Recommending a novel is obviously not the same thing since it does not purport to represent truth and no comparison is being made with the Word of God.
Hint: a novel is by definition fiction. It is redundant to say "fictional novel". But then again you intellectuals already know that, right?
Never asked anyone to consider me an intellectual, though at this point perhaps you could google
‘education and religion correlation’
and
‘IQ and religion correlation’
its not me saying it, its an accepted truth proven by hundreds of studies across the globe. In Amercia for instance, there is a very strong correlation between education and a lack of belief in a god. The higher the level of education the lower the percentage of people who believe in god. I will leave you to ascertian the conclsions of all the surverys comparing religion and IQ……
I was merely going on what the facts state quite clearly. As always, scientists use facts while christians use the bible. oh and you are right – the bible is a nice novel with too many inaccuracies to support its position as a historical text. 900 year old men, the world less than 4,000 years old, some evil wizard sat on high who starts wars because of peoples beliefs, a virgin birth!!!! i love that one! Honestly Joseph, i didn’t do anything with Ryan, we were just chatting.
LOL! So you thought that beingan atheist would make people think you are very intelligent? It reminds me how when I was kid some kids wanted to wear glasses, not because they needed them, but because they thought it made them look more intelligent. Funny guy.
You just don’t get it. Often high IQ inflates with people pride, vanity and arrogance. Unless you come a like a little child in humility you will not find Him. Lack of belief is not because of the vast knowledge you have obtained since many great intellects have believed God exists (Albert Einstein) and see nothing incompatible with their intellect.
What you don’t seem to understand about the virgin birth is that in the culture at that time no one would make that up!
What I love about this poster is having had his "Hitler was a devout christian" falsehood exposed he then goes off on a tangent about Richard Dawkins never addressing the principal point. He clearly has an exceedingly high opinion of himself though.
As a believer who can admit to the truth and has a brain and who can and will reject folly and fairytales, I agree with a previous writer. For a great part of my (unquestioning and unenlightened) Christian life, I accepted the lies proffered by my pastors from their pulpits: I was taught that Christianity prevailed and was propagated and took hold as a major religion through the favour of God, by the power of the Holy Spirit and the love and perserverence of the saints. Then I decided to spread my intellectual scope beyond the myopic and dogmatic fantasies usually promoted in Sunday School as "fact" (and believed absolutely by a lot of Christians as illustrated by the postings here).
I now know that I was taught a lie. If it had not been for the sword, and horrific torture and unimaginable mutilations and unspeakable coercions, Christianity would probably never have "caught on" and would likely have died out a long time ago. I am not necessarily blaming those who deemed that they had best start torturing and killing lest they be the prey. I am just saying, "Let’s get real folks". They were practical enough to know that prayer without a sword to back it up was not gonna cut it. (Pun intended!)
Here is the truth. A lot of (so-called) Christians know for an absolute fact, way deep down inside them in a dark place they will not even admit to themselves exists, this one thing: Without some form of coercion and enforcement by legal decree and even constitutional inclusion, their religion is essentially powerless and irrelevant and worthy of being ignored. (Notice I say "their religion" and not "Christianity"?)They can pray and praise all they they want but their form of Christianity will simply become a forgotten historical relic if coercion cannot be used to bring its opponents in line. Which is why they insist on propagating it in a way that is the absolute opposite of the example Jesus gave.
Lest the message become an impersonal one to readers here, I am also writing to all those who say things like "if you don’t like de weh we do Christianity in dis yah country, unnah can juss go back where unnah come from". Hey, I nah gonna go no weh! I am Caymanian. Ok? (I will however, press for change.) If you do not like what I say, den you muss juss tek it!
In my mind little has changed with the Church since the Inquisition, except now we have abandoned the power ofthe rack and the stake and the cutting out of tongues for the power of law.
I think God intended a lot more from His children than the mockery of God embodied in most pew-dwellers in churches in this country today. But most of them are just too damn lazy to spread the Gospel and draw people to Christ by the way they live. (As Christ intended and taught) Heck, it is much easier to further their agenda by legal decree than love. What a joke!
I didn’t know the statement traditonal christian values was contained in the Constitution, but now that I do it seems a little strange. Because it’s open to so much interpretation. There are basic Human Rights that should be enshrined in any constitution and we all have an understanding of them on a personal level. Freedom of belief is one of them. You can’t have both with that statement. I don’t think anyone is putting down Christianity. Only that the statement shouldn’t form a part of a consititution designed to encompass all people.
That’s not correct, Joe. The full text is as follows. It in no way impinges upon freedom of belief. God-fearing country based on traditional Christian values, tolerant of other religions and beliefs…"
"The people of the Cayman Islands, recalling the events that have shaped their history and made them what they are, and acknowledging their distinct history, culture and Christian heritage….affirm their intention to be…a
First they want Cayman to introduce taxes and now they want Cayman to give up Christianity. Basically they want Cayman to be run exactly as they run their little rock and look at the mess that the UK is in. Cayman, don’t fall for this. If anyone has anyobjection to Christian values then simple, go find another place to live but do not come here and scream injustice and infringement of human rights. Why must Christians always compromise for other religions?
I take it you would also like Caymanians who ‘scream injustice and infringement of human rights’ to go find another place to live? There is a reason for separation of the state and church.
In 1122 Christian crusaders swept over Jerusalem and slaughtered men, women and children, ‘until their horses were knee deep in blood. We then went to the church to thank the Lord for his mercy.’
Spanish Inquisition – Queen Isabella, famous for sending Columbus to the New World in 1492, was well known also for her ‘Spanish Inquisition’, the gruesome torture and murder of tens of thousands of Spanish Jews, Muslims, homosexuals, people who read or wrote, uppity women, and anyone else not up to the Queen’s strict standards. Isabella was a champion of the faith, piously congratulating herself as her victims writhed to their deaths in the flames and the many other ingenious methods of torture invented by her inquisitors.
In 777 , Charlemagne, a devout Christian, after conquering the Saxon rebels, gave them a choice between baptism and execution. When they refused to convert, he had 4500 of them beheaded in one morning
In the fourth century, Emporor Constantine, the first Roman Emperor to become a Christian, had over 3000 Christians executed because their interpretation of the Bible did not agree with his.
In the 12th and 13th centuries, the Inquisition was born, with Christians killing Christians, during what was known as the Albigensian heresies. Hundreds of thousands of people died because their Christianity did not agree with official dogma. This adds to the irony of murder in the name of Christ, when the majority of victims of the early inquisitions were themselves Christians.
Yeah — I can see how Christians are always compromising.
Yawn. Same tired old arguments. Anyone can claim to be a Christian. Saying so doesn’t make it so. The simple question is are you a disciple of Christ. Can he be seen in you. Forget about Charlemagne and Isabella and whoever else.
gross interference
Amen.
Because there is no absolute of morality, and since Christians should eblieve in free will, forcing people to behaving in Christian manner in a very un-Christian thing to do.
Despite the UK’s MP’s statements and those of certain individuals here, these Cayman Islands were built on Christian values. I am sick and tired of the imported ideas and calls to appease those who have CHOSEN to come here. Anyone uncomfortable with our Christian beliefs or us having it in our constitution can choose to go to another society, somewhere. This is a Christian country and no doubt it will be outright war if anyone dares to oppose it.
imported ideas? you do understand that we are only a Christian nation becuase Christian Europeans took over the New World, Christian slave masters imported non Christian Africans, against their will, to the new world to work on Christian farms and in Christian houses. The Africans were then brought up as Christians.
Had Muslims taken over the New World, Muslim slave masters would have imported non Muslim Africans, against their will, to work on muslim farms and Muslim houses. All those slaves would be brought up in a muslim society and we would be a good Muslim nation now.
You didn’t decide to be Christian, chance and fate made you Christian.
How funny life can be.
such an excellent response!
"these Cayman Islands were built on Christian values"
in a way you are correct – ie these islands were built on the blood & sweat of SLAVES – slavery & beating of slaves was ok with Jesus – read your bible
Do you think our slave ancestors were given the word of God peacefully? they were forced
War?! How very Christ Like!
Typical – Learm your history & free your mind of such MUMBO JUMBO
Christian = to be Christ like.
Tell me, how many of us are not willing to be like Christ? Remember… to the law abiding and all others who want peace and everything else… Jesus was the only one who was ever perfect… so before you say you are not being like Christ… tell me who are you being like?
For those Caymanians who say they are not Christians… how real of a Caymanian are you. From what I remember, growing up here, we all went to church and that isn’t to say we were all Christians it was simply to say we were taught from the Bible what was right and what was wrong. No you tell me one good reason why we shouldn’t be classified as traditional christians value holders?
The Bible is the truth… like it or not. God has proved himself over and over… if you don’t believe it… go outside… look high in the sky and tell me… who put all of that together so that we might enjoy it.
God Bless.
I am!!!! I cannot afford to walk around in my flip-flops the whole day long and tell nice stories.
Have you noticed that the churches in the most thriving countries in the world have been empty for decades. Are hundreds of millions of people wrong or have we finally adopted to think critically and have our own opinion without being decapitated or tortured by church.
The only thing constant in live is change and you have to wrap your mind around that. And that not only referes to church. Change is and will happen to the islands whether you like it or not.
I went outside looked up in the sky and as I didn’t see a signature, it might as well be Mr. Bodden next door who created it or maybe it is Banksy…. or maybe you should expand your knowledge and read more than one book on the subject, I recommend Richard Dawkins
This "New" Constitution was a "loser" from the get go. I proudly voted against it and with every passing week/event, have been affirmed in my belief.
GOVERNOR, FCO, PPM, UDP, CMA, SDA… hang your heads in shame, you let our country down.
We should suggest to them to add "a tradition of divide and conquer" to their constitution, but then again they don’t have one.
Of course they do. It just is not contained in one written document.
"The bedrock of the British constitution has traditionally been the doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty, according to which the statutes passed by Parliament are the UK’s supreme and final source of law.[2] It follows that Parliament can change the constitution simply by passing new Acts of Parliament. There is some debate about whether this principle remains entirely valid today."
It certainly seems that they need some constitutional modernization if you can call it one.
We are a Christian country & must remain so. Do not let the left wingers, & the liberals ruin our country like they have done in the US. Do not let the radical Muslims get their way here either. The left wingers, the liberals, the radical muslims & others of similar warped mind wish to remove Christianity from our lives & our country, but feel it is ok for devil worshipers, non-believers, terrorists & believers of other gods to have everything their way & as they want. I say we must stand up to them, & if the left wingers, the liberals, the non-believers or the muslims do not like our country, or our way of life & our laws, then they can leave. We are not keeping them here. If they do not like that we are a Christian country then I say good riddance to them, & that goes to those British MP’s that want to change things. We must not give in to them, we must not give in to evil. If they want to force their way of life on us I say GOOD RIDDANCE, they cannot leave quick enough!
As a liberal, left-winger, from the U.S. I must let you know, I was a christian. In fact, I grew up in the church. My grandmother was an usher, and my uncle was a minister. I went to church from sun up to sun down. I went to vacation bible school…..
It was the right-wing, conservatives thatmade me realize that something is terribly wrong with most of today’s churches. As a liberal, I tend to be more understanding and sympathetic to others. I believe in letting people worship whatever religion they want, be it Catholicism, Judaism, Taoism, Buddism….Yes, I am tolerant!
I am a heterosexual female, yet, I have a couple of gay male cousins. Again, I am tolerant. I don’t drink, nor do I use drugs. Okay, this is where I am intolerant. However, I have relatives that drink, but I still do not allow alcohol in my home. But wait, here’s the catch, I smoke cigarettes. Uh oh, most people will not under any circumstances tolerate cigarettes or cigarette smoke. I don’t use drugs, so, I tend to shy away from people who consume.
When I used to be a dedicated, church-goer, I never tried to mistreat anyone. I never intentionally held a grudge. I always did everything in my power to forgive the people whom I thought "did me wrong."
Again, this is what made me take a step back. I could not understand how someone could resort to name-calling, people being so judgemental of others, and as you can see what’s happening in the U.S., some ‘Christians’ are actually threatening violence against others. To name a few instances, the anti-abortionists, anti-Obama, anti-immigration, anti-tax, anti-same sex marriage, anti-government, anti-healthcare reform, anti-minority.
Here’s a question, where is the love? Well, let’s make that two, why do people like you make it hard, or, otherwise turn people away from wanting to be Christians?
What they say is not my concern, and I frankly consider it a distraction. They should not be interfering on this matter. It will just cause tension. Any push to make changes like this to the constitution should start domestically.
I too hope (and pray) that the UK will remove such language "traditional christian values" from Cayman’s, and all OTs Contitutions. It is only another blatant example of the intolerance and attitude of superiority.
Many GOOD people are NOT christian….and many not so good "claim" to be christian.
It’s almost 2010….way past time for any such archiac wording, promoting religious dogma, to be in any "modern" constitution.
PLEASE UK….correct this wrong!
A Caymanian….and a spritualist!
i agree. there should also be a seperation of church and state.
Amen to that too! Bring it on!
Amen! Let’s make that a big Amen!
Sounds absolutely right. The UK should just amend them all unilaterally and be done with it.
"Traditional Christian Values"? Hmmm…? I am far from being anti-christian, however I could not agree more that references to any religion in the preamble of our constitution are highly inappropriate and should be removed; such reference never should have been included in the first place. As a believer they are offensive and chilling to me personally as they smack of the seeds Christocentric fanaticism and religious arrogance.
Moreover, the mention of "traditional Christian values" in the preamble is an insult to the intelligence of any thinking Christian because the reference lacks any real meaning. (I do realise that the term "thinking Christian" could be considered an oxymoron in these islands but I had no better term). The reference to Christianity as included in the preamble to our Constitution makes us sound archaic and ignorant rather than righteous.
Could some Christian reader please define what is meant by "traditional Christian values"? Does this mean we are ok with demeaning women and treating them as second class citizens because that concept is entrenched in "traditional" Christianity" and the Bible. Does this mean we consider Sunday as the (so called) "Sabbath"? (But wait…are the Adventists not also Christians?) Can we now burn "witches"?
With well over two dozen so-called "Christian" denominations represented by congregations in the Cayman Islands it is plain to see that Christians are sorely divided on the matter of values.
What happens when a congregation affiliated with the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches (UFMCC) starts in these islands, as one day I understand it might. Will the "tolerance" mentioned in the Constitution be shown to those Christians and will their values be considered worthy? (For those not familiar with the UFMCC, Google it and learn. You will find that the UFMCC is considered a mainstream denomination that is fully accepted by the World Council of Churches.)
Here is my take on "Christian values", and I do believe that all Christians here in the islands can agree that Christians should: honour life; be honest and industrious; be tolerant and forgiving; have a positive attitude; help people in need and try to edify our brothers and sisters; be peaceful, gentle and forebearing; be lovers of truth; respect our environment and be good stewards of the Earth and its resources; be conserving and not wasteful; be law-abiding and promote good governance.
Would but all who invoke the name of Jesus in this land truly believe and live by just those simple "traditional Christian values". What a lovely wonderful country this would be! Far too many "Christians" would rather base their so-called righteousness on their church attendance and mutual bigotry against those who believe differently.
But guess what? The values I wrote of above are not exclusive to Christianity nor was the Bible the first "scripture" to promote them. They are as old as humanity itself and are traits that even most atheists (and gee, yes, even most gays and Muslims) would hold as being worthy values. I think it would have been more beneficial to spell out clearly what virtues we intend on promoting rather than alluding to some ill-defined set of "values" that have no relevance, no real meaning, and instead seem intended on preserving the ability of a minority to oppress those with whom they disagree.
To me the term "traditional Christian values" – as framed by the way the Christian faith is lived by a vast number of "Christians" I know here in these islands – is simply a righteous sounding synonym for bigotry and intolerance. I do know many Christians who are compassionate lovers of God and their fellow man. However, such individuals did not receive much heed when the Constitution and the Bill of Rights was being pondered.
I really shudder to think of what life would be like if some of the so-called "Christians" here could impose their narrow-minded dogma as the Law of the Land. (Move over Taliban!) And that my friend is why the founding fathers and mothers of the U.S. left the tyranny of the State Religion of the mother country (Christianity) to establish a country free of religious intolerance and vile oppression. Religious oppression is why soldiers are spilling their blood in Afghanistan. I find it very dismaying to know that many of my fellow Caymanians have utterly failed to learn a lesson from history. I can only hope that the UK will sort this out for the good of the (whole) populace of the Cayman Islands.
But isn’t this the UK where the Head of State is the Head of the Church of England, and the Upper House of Parliament includes the Bishops of the Church of England by virtue of their office but no other clergy of any other other religion?
The Bishop of Winchester is entirely correct. It is a sign of the times.
What is it that the UK do not understand, can our people not be heard over there, we are a christian country God fearing which they evidently arent., like it or not, Cayman start prepping for internal self governance or go independant, i have had enough of the wicked step mother attitude
WE ARE A CHRISTIAN COUNTRY?
SO… that means that all Caymanians must believe like you???
This term, "CHRISTIAN COUNTRY"
One thing that interests me, we havn’t done a poll on yet on "who" in the Cayman Islands believe in the Bible to be the Truth. you would be surprise with the results
PLEASE STOP ASSUMING THAT CAYMANIAN ARE ALL CHRISTIANS, BECAUSE I AM A MORAL AND LAW-ABIDING CAYMANIAN, AND I CERTAINLY DON’T CONSIDER MYSELF A CHRISTIAN or SOME BLIND FAITH FOLLOWER OF A RELIGION
Peace
Preparing for internal self governance and independence is good idea, as is preparing for any other possibilities, including tyrannical rule. However I can’t help but feel a bit apprehensive when those who call for independence can’t even spell the word.
It’s a bit scary when people think that independence is a possession rather than a state of being, as in independent from someone or something.
Long before it is time to go independent we the people should be discussing it because enough people are starting to feel like they are approaching that state. Your reaction is akin to some kid thinking that he can leave home at age six and live on his own because his mother said that he couldn’t have cookies for breakfast.
What a sorry nit-picking attitude. We are truly our own worst enemies.
We should be sticking together, on this issue and yet we have the detractors making mischief.
Independence is not just letting the UK go – it is achieving a mental state of confidence in our own people to properly direct our affairs. This will not happen unless we have a positive expectation that it will indeed occur, and visualise the benefits.
Which would you rather independence or the UK continually ramming their agenda down our throats whenever they want and whatever they wish!
We need to let go and support our leaders! Clearly the UK does not mean us well – Actions speak louder than words.
christian god fearing country?????? you’ve neve listened to the radio talk in shows then…
intolerant, ignorant, backward, racist… more appropriate terms i think….