Anti-Christian Coalition? Cameron leads an increasingly nasty party ~ Arden Forester

Banned by the Coalition? Could be!

David Cameron is an odd cove indeed. He sees the Conservative Party as something which has little to conserve by way of tradition and received values. Instead he favours bringing in laws that fly in the face of Christian teaching and the established order of England. Virulent voices appear to charm him most, and those voices are distinctly against matrimony and catholic order as we have known it.

Cameron claims to be a member of the Church of England, yet he would be hard pressed to follow the credal beliefs seeing as he is in the camp of those who are quite happy to dismantle the "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church" and replace it with a much lighter version. A pale imitation? Why he can't leave well alone I do not know. All manner of politicians across the spectrum are giving their ten pence worth of opinion, yet they seem either ignorant or abusive of church doctrine.

The legal marriage of homosexuals will have an impact on the church whether they say so or not. Currently Cameron and Co are saying that no religious body will be forced to hold "gay marriages", but they cannot enshrine this in law unless they have several categories of marriage. The sort of law they seem to want to bring in WILL encompass the church. As all within a Church of England parish have a right to a church wedding, no doubt we shall see "test cases" against known traditionalist priests and clergy. Of course, it is not helped by errant clerics, like Dr.David Ison, the new dean of St.Paul's, giving their personal views as if they see the Holy Spirit as a conduit for their wants and desires rather than as the fortitude for maintaining the Faith.

Christians are being attacked from all sides and even from within (as the General Synod proves). Whether it be the likes of Nicholas Soames, Tony Baldry and Frank Field (who seem to want to be nasty to those whose consciences cannot take the novelty doctrine regarding Holy Orders) or the government's approach to Christians wearing crosses and crucifixes, it's not fashionable to be unfashionable when it comes to fashioning new doctrines. These people do not hold with the Vincentian Canon of St. Vincent of Lerins which is that we take the greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all.

I cannot see why it is OK for a Muslim woman to come through an airport veiled top to toe without any facial recognition, yet it is deemed provocative for a Christian worker at an airport to wear a small crucifix around her neck at work. Is a den of thieves running this country? We have a large crucifix outside our church. How long before that gets a visit from one of David Cameron's minions?

Cameron and Co say that wearing crucifixes is not a "requirement" of the Christian Faith. According to them, a turban is for a Sikh, and so on for other religions. Christians are supposed not to be afraid to profess the Faith of Christ Crucified. So why would a prime minister in a supposedly Christian country even want to take such a high handed attitude towards those who outwardly profess their faith? Will he ban clerical collars next? Or Palm Sunday processions? How about that Mr.Cameron? This all smacks of the nonsense of the late Victorian age when they tried to ban candles and incense in churches and locked priests up for standing up to them.

The Foreign Office (obviously no longer having any memories of Lord Halifax) came out with this preposterous message with regard to two British women seeking to establish their right to display the cross - “The Government submit that… the applicants’ wearing of a visible cross or crucifix was not a manifestation of their religion or belief within the meaning of Article 9, and…the restriction on the applicants' wearing of a visible cross or crucifix was not an ‘interference’ with their rights protected by Article 9......In neither case is there any suggestion that the wearing of a visible cross or crucifix was a generally recognised form of practising the Christian faith, still less one that is regarded (including by the applicants themselves) as a requirement of the faith.”

So the Foreign Office is the arbiter of how to practice the Christian Faith? Who gave them that high and mighty right? And why would they want to fight this all the way through the courts? I fear it is even more sinister secularising of society. Down with all manifestations of Christ in public. How the Pharisees would have loved them!

Like many people of belief, I have had no problem with civil partnerships. I have no trouble with veils, turbans, people wearing shamrock hats or whatever. In a society of many views and opinions, all should feel free to express them without sanctions like this. So why has the Coalition decided to pick these fights right now? With the country in the mire surely we can do without trampling on people's religious expression and convictions?

And I wonder this of David Cameron and his Foreign Office minions. If the Pope announced that Christians should display crosses, as a generally recognised form of practising the Christian faith, what would he do then? I'd be very interested to know.