mercalia wrote: who is the "they"? the parishoners? then the exclusion clause mentioned above comes into play? Now had they not enquired of the vicar etc that would be another matter. if the parishoners say "we dont want a black guy burying our dead/doing baptisms ..." what then? Being racist isnt yet a crime - it is if you do so as an employer - the parishoners are not the employers?
only if they do some thing racist? telling your vicar you dont want a black person dont count?
except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the written material is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and are not heard or seen except by other persons in that or another dwelling.
Making something public would constitute an offence, of course, so a declaration such as your example would fall within the Statute's provisions.
only if they do some thing racist? telling your vicar you dont want a black person dont count?
except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the written material is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and are not heard or seen except by other persons in that or another dwelling.
Making something public would constitute an offence, of course, so a declaration such as your example would fall within the Statute's provisions.
so parishoners one by one express their misgivings in the rectoryor their own home when he visits on his rounds? or maybe they dont need to tell him anything he just knows his flock? hows that public? how does that fall within the provisions?
Last edited by mercalia on 17 Jun 2020, 5:06pm, edited 1 time in total.
mercalia wrote: only if they do some thing racist? telling your vicar you dont want a black person dont count?
except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the written material is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and are not heard or seen except by other persons in that or another dwelling.
Making something public would constitute an offence, of course, so a declaration such as your example would fall within the Statute's provisions.
so parishoners one by one express their misgivings in the rectory? eh? hows that public? how does that fall within the provisions?
The Rectory's a public place under the definition, I suggest.
jgurney wrote:Then they cannot be genuine Christians anyway.
Yes. Exactly. If churchgoers can't deal with a different skin colour, what hope is there? They need to be told, this is your new vicar, he's black as it happens but that is irrelevant, now make him welcome.
then they go some where else or not there at all and the church closes
Yes, if that is how they feel. If they can't handle the simple Christian teaching that all humans are the children of God they had better go elsewhere. But my experience of working class people is that they are often more enlightened than some middle class folk give them credit for. I bet they would be mostly okay about a black person in the pulpit. The people of York had a black Archbishop without major problems. We are not in the 1960s now so people must catch up.
jgurney wrote:Then they cannot be genuine Christians anyway.
Yes. Exactly. If churchgoers can't deal with a different skin colour, what hope is there? They need to be told, this is your new vicar, he's black as it happens but that is irrelevant, now make him welcome.
then they go some where else or not there at all and the church closes
As I posted above,such a church has a serious fundamental problem if they can't accept a person of colour whether they be minister/vicar/rector or curate or fellow parishioner. This case AFAICS hilights society's failure,if a Christian chuch can't accept all people as equals what chancenthe rest of society. Bizarrely racist doesn't begin to describe the decision by the(so called)spiritual leaders of a Christian church.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
Bonefishblues wrote:Making something public would constitute an offence, of course, so a declaration such as your example would fall within the Statute's provisions.
so parishoners one by one express their misgivings in the rectory? eh? hows that public? how does that fall within the provisions?
The Rectory's a public place under the definition, I suggest.
it is also the vicars home or dwelling. I doubt it is public as it is invite only.
Last edited by mercalia on 17 Jun 2020, 5:12pm, edited 1 time in total.
pwa wrote:Yes. Exactly. If churchgoers can't deal with a different skin colour, what hope is there? They need to be told, this is your new vicar, he's black as it happens but that is irrelevant, now make him welcome.
then they go some where else or not there at all and the church closes
Yes, if that is how they feel. If they can't handle the simple Christian teaching that all humans are the children of God they had better go elsewhere. But my experience of working class people is that they are often more enlightened than some middle class folk give them credit for. I bet they would be mostly okay about a black person in the pulpit. The people of York had a black Archbishop without major problems. We are not in the 1960s now so people must catch up.
but in this case we are led to believe it isnt the case? and any way it seems there were issues with the vicar taking on this particular trainee in those circumstances maybe dont have the experience to deal with some hostile members of the congregation? one problem too many. That was intimated? why the guy should get a post with a more experienced vicar. The black guy is clearly some one who is willing to make trouble if he thinks he is in the right, maybe not a good match for that particular ( new ) vicar who is establishing him/her self.
Putting aside the guys colour, I wouldnt want him as a curate as he is too self righteous, needs to learn a bit of humility and grasp perhaps the holy spirit dont want him there ( thats a common way of thinking with some christians? I have known quite a few like that)
Last edited by mercalia on 17 Jun 2020, 5:22pm, edited 3 times in total.
Merc In the first and primary instance the reason for his rejection as curate was because the applicant was black,indicating there was a problem with the "monochrome white working class" congregation.
Last edited by reohn2 on 17 Jun 2020, 5:26pm, edited 1 time in total.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
mercalia wrote: so parishoners one by one express their misgivings in the rectory? eh? hows that public? how does that fall within the provisions?
The Rectory's a public place under the definition, I suggest.
it is also the vicars home or dwelling. I doubt it is public as it is invite only.
The intent of that clause is not to criminalise the members of, say a family having a conversation in private where views shared are perhaps shared.
Phoning up a Vicar, or visiting a Vicar and saying, in terms, we don't want a black clergyman is a clearly distinct from that. The rectory's a tied cottage, which goes with the job, not the Vicar's own property, of course.
mercalia wrote: then they go some where else or not there at all and the church closes
Yes, if that is how they feel. If they can't handle the simple Christian teaching that all humans are the children of God they had better go elsewhere. But my experience of working class people is that they are often more enlightened than some middle class folk give them credit for. I bet they would be mostly okay about a black person in the pulpit. The people of York had a black Archbishop without major problems. We are not in the 1960s now so people must catch up.
but in this case we are led to believe it isnt the case? and any way it seems there were issues with the vicar taking on this particular trainee in those circumstances maybe dont have the experience to deal with some hostile members of the congregation? one problem too many. That was intimated?
This isn't Apartheid South Africa and so-called Christians are meant to see beyond race. The Church of England is supposed to set a moral example on this and other issues. If I were a church-goer and I knew a black person had been vetoed by my parish due to their race, I would leave immediately. In utter disgust.
mercalia wrote: then they go some where else or not there at all and the church closes
Yes, if that is how they feel. If they can't handle the simple Christian teaching that all humans are the children of God they had better go elsewhere. But my experience of working class people is that they are often more enlightened than some middle class folk give them credit for. I bet they would be mostly okay about a black person in the pulpit. The people of York had a black Archbishop without major problems. We are not in the 1960s now so people must catch up.
but in this case we are led to believe it isnt the case? and any way it seems there were issues with the vicar taking on this particular trainee in those circumstances maybe dont have the experience to deal with some hostile members of the congregation? one problem too many. That was intimated? why the guy should get a post with a more experienced vicar. The black guy is clearly some one who is willing to make trouble if he thinks he is in the right, maybe not a good match for that particular ( new ) vicar who is establishing him/her self
Woah, hold on right there. The guy's a clear victim of direct racial discrimination, despite my having a little enjoyment with the legislation.
Have you at all been understanding the BLM events of recent weeks? If you can write that about someone who is calling out discrimination, then perhaps not.
Bonefishblues wrote:The Rectory's a public place under the definition, I suggest.
it is also the vicars home or dwelling. I doubt it is public as it is invite only.
The intent of that clause is not to criminalise the members of, say a family having a conversation in private where views shared are perhaps shared.
Phoning up a Vicar, or visiting a Vicar and saying, in terms, we don't want a black clergyman is a clearly distinct from that. The rectory's a tied cottage, which goes with the job, not the Vicar's own property, of course.
no mention of families in the quote. just dwellings.
pwa wrote:Yes, if that is how they feel. If they can't handle the simple Christian teaching that all humans are the children of God they had better go elsewhere. But my experience of working class people is that they are often more enlightened than some middle class folk give them credit for. I bet they would be mostly okay about a black person in the pulpit. The people of York had a black Archbishop without major problems. We are not in the 1960s now so people must catch up.
but in this case we are led to believe it isnt the case? and any way it seems there were issues with the vicar taking on this particular trainee in those circumstances maybe dont have the experience to deal with some hostile members of the congregation? one problem too many. That was intimated? why the guy should get a post with a more experienced vicar. The black guy is clearly some one who is willing to make trouble if he thinks he is in the right, maybe not a good match for that particular ( new ) vicar who is establishing him/her self
Woah, hold on right there. The guy's a clear victim of direct racial discrimination, despite my having a little enjoyment with the legislation.
Have you at all been understanding the BLM events of recent weeks? If you can write that about someone who is calling out discrimination, then perhaps not.
if it is descrimination. we dont agree on that. Yes I have seen some of the hysterical nonsense under the BLM banner. I dont intend to go there. The guy has a suprizingly secular attitude more appropriate to jobs elsewhere. What does he now want? demand the post in a diocese that dont want him? financial compensation? his pound of flesh? he seems to lack any understanding of human nature, just his rights, possibly unfit to be a curate in some back of beyond place.
Last edited by mercalia on 17 Jun 2020, 5:47pm, edited 2 times in total.
mercalia wrote: but in this case we are led to believe it isnt the case? and any way it seems there were issues with the vicar taking on this particular trainee in those circumstances maybe dont have the experience to deal with some hostile members of the congregation? one problem too many. That was intimated? why the guy should get a post with a more experienced vicar. The black guy is clearly some one who is willing to make trouble if he thinks he is in the right, maybe not a good match for that particular ( new ) vicar who is establishing him/her self
Woah, hold on right there. The guy's a clear victim of direct racial discrimination, despite my having a little enjoyment with the legislation.
Have you at all been understanding the BLM events of recent weeks? If you can write that about someone who is calling out discrimination, then perhaps not.
if it is descrimination. we dont agree on that. Yes I have seen some of the hysterical nonsense under the BLM banner. I dont intend to go there. The guy has a suprizingly secular attitude more appropriate to jobs elsewhere. What does he now want? demand the post in a diocese that dont want him? financial compensation? his pound of flesh?
He is calling out an example of direct racial discrimination. Should people so affected sit on their hands for fear of being thought hysterical?