Co-op bank bars Christian group

[emad]

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.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4617849.stm

[gratuitous]

1. The bank "was discriminating against it on religious grounds"

Got it in one. Who says fundies are stupid?

[mike_c]

3. I agree-- the bank should reply "Yep..."

"...As long as you elevate hatred and bigotry to a religious tenent, we're not interested in your business."

[mom cat]

24. Amen brother! Hatred is not a religious tenant. It's just meanness.

[PATRICK]

48. "As ye judge

so shall ye be judged." Good KJV quote.

[justinsb]

4. I don't know about the UK

but here in Canada hate speech is illegal. So it's fine for a church to not endorse same sex marriage, even to not allow openly gay members of the congregation but if the leaders of that church came out publicly and attacked homosexuals, made derogatory remarks about them etc. they could be arrested and jailed.

[bowens43]

2. Only an 'evangelical Christan' would consider

being intolerant of bigots discrimination.

[jokerman93]

12. "Only an 'evangelical Christan' would consider"

Though the much-maligned term "evangelical" doesn't necessarily always apply, I'd say bigotry and hatred certainly stand as articles of high faith for the new "sytha-christ" fascist cultists that are sprouting up like poison mushrooms everywhere these days.

[purduejake]

5. Wow...

How can I open up an account?!?

[whatever4]

6. that's what I thought! :)

[davsand]

7. Payback is a real Mo-fo when you discriminate--eh?

Gee, The fundies can discriminate against g/l/b/t people, but that co-op can't discriminate against fundies... There is a bit of an inequity there, IMO.

I'd probably say to them: "Payback is a b*tch, and now you fundy wingnuts are finally seeing the wisdom in "judge not lest ye be judged."


Laura

[bennywhale]

16. Payback. Thats a bit childish. And dangerous.

Payback for 9/11 ended in 10s of thousands dead and people tortured. Just cos fundies ban peoples freedoms doesn't mean its right when their freedoms are banned

[american_mutt]

18. you mis-understand the situation

no matter what the fundie' crister-cult thinks, it is their ACTIONS that is generating this development. If they were to stop advocating hated and violence i doubt the bank would have any issue with them.

[bennywhale]

30. Don't patronise me. I understand fully the situation. I am

from Britain and the Co-op is a British organisation (a very noble one too). A spokesman from co-op and from this group were on BBC radio 2 Jeremy Vines show this morning and discussed it in detail.

Due to this groups VIEWS on homosexuality they were prevented from being customers of the Co-op.

I think their view on homosexuality is wrong but they are entitled to it, and once you start discriminating against people because of their views it is very dangerous.

If a group discriminated against me because i believed that God would be more concerned with mass murder and war than with love between people of the same sex, that would also be wrong.

[BobbyinPortland]

58. they can believe and preach whatever they like

But that doesn't mean we have to agree with it or that a company has to allow it.

You don't hear about the xtian fanatics inviting gays into the church with open arms and the motto "it's your life and we won't judge you".

Turn about is fuckin' fair play and if you don't play by the rules, you don't get the benefit of the rules.

The higher ground is the path less taken and the lower is being paved and widened, we have to ride that paved rode and deal with the litter there. No longer can we be the better men and women. Fight fire with water and you put it out, fight fire with fire and it only gets worse.

Fuck the Xtians, fuck being politically correct and fuck anyone who believes they are better than anyone else.

I hope more banks and organizations follow suit and the Xtians get the message loud and clear.

Only when you stand up and speak will you be heard! To remain silent is to agree with whatever happens around you.

[bennywhale]

62. Don't be so naive. its got nothing to do with being politically correct

its to do with maintaining the values that one fights for. If you KNOW you are right and you began to discriminate against people you KNOW are wrong you become very dangerous. Maintaining the moral high ground is whats important. Pol Pot KNEW he was right and eventually justified genocide on that basis.

You may think you sound tough spouting ill thought through threats. you don't. you sound stupid.

[BobbyinPortland]

66. I sound stupid

You sound afraid to do anything about what you believe. "Live and let live" right?

Get off your ass and do something and stop complaining and stop trying to pick fights.

It's the banks choice to serve whom ever they wish and they happen to think that bigots are wrong and should not have the same privileges as people who don't condemn based on race, creed, sexuality or whatever it is that makes one hate another.

I happen to agree.

Bigots suck and should not be allowed to spew their hatred.

[bennywhale]

70. "You sound afraid to anything about what you belive" I happen to

believe in freedom of expression. Which is why i don't agree with this move.

If not being a sheep and just saying what everyone else says is picking a fight. Then so be it.

I may hate what you say but i will defend to the death your right to say it

[DuaneBidoux]

69. I agree with you completely.

We must always remember that once it goes one way it can easily go both.

[davsand]

21. Invading Iraq had jack s*$t to do with 9/11.

It had even less to do with revenge or "payback." It had evrything to do with lies and profits.

Having said that, maybe "karma" would be an easier pll for you to swallow than the title "payback"? How calling it about not so divine retribution for humans who have forgotten they, themselves, are able to fall short of divinity?

I revere Dr. King and Ghandi, but sometimes I think Malcom X had some pretty good points about dealing with bigots and cretins. I fall short of Ghandi and Dr. King, I guess, because sometimes I really WANT to kick some ass.

Willful stupidity falls in that category, and that is how I view fundies (you'll note I did not say Christians!) I'm tired of being told that we have got to turn the other cheek if we are gonna be good little liberal soldiers.

Telling a fundy group to find a new bank is nowhere near what I think any asshole who preaches hate deserves to experience.


Laura

[0rganism]

26. How many died in Afghanistan? Do we even know?

Last I heard it was at least three times more than died in the WTC, but no one seems to give much of a shit.

I'm not entirely convinced that we were within our rights to invade Afghanistan, but I sure as hell know we were wrong to bomb 'em, unseat their central gov't -- shitty as it was -- and then run off to Iraq. We have an obligation to those people to rebuild their transportation infrastructure at the very least, and we're letting them down.

[bennywhale]

31. They should be allowed to preach what they like.

It is that way that their arguments and views can be analysed and dismantled.

Thats one of the reasons neo-Nazi groups are allowed to form, March, and produce literature in Europe. The BNP even got BBC air time (which it was entitled to) during the British election. They then leave themselves open to everyone to point and laugh and realise how fucking ridiculous their ideas are.

By banning them and discriminating againstybthem they gain kudos and can then claim they are discriminated against. Sympathy and support may follow. Underground movements and discontent can also follow.

I just don't think that anyone should be discriminated against whatever they believe.

(btw of course i know that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, but it was sold that way to plenty of Americans who supported it. Also the soldiers were (easily) led into believing this. A BBC documentary was on an aircraft carrier during the invasion, and every person on that ship was justifying it in terms of 9/11. Writing on their bombs on their planes "this is for 9/11 etc. And i remember to this day what on pilot said (because i was show shocked, as the whole world knew fine well Saddam had fuck all to do with 9/11) when asked if he felt any guilt for the innocent people going about their business his bombs were, with certainty, killing. He replied (and this is an educated man) "Well the folks in New York on 9/11 were only going about their business"

So not only was his justification fucking fantasy, it was also murderous. Even if Saddam did do it, this prick was justifying the death of more innocents. They kill a banker, i'm going to kill a fucking taxi driver in their contry. Its like saying, if you kill my child, i have every right, and indeed should, kill your child. What a fucking scary bastard he was. If thats the mindset of the American armed forces "they kill our innocents so we kill theirs" then fuck em all.

What were we talking about again?

Oh yeah. Anyway, hidden in this rant is some inference to moral high ground.

[mondo joe]

22. What freedom of their is being banned?

[Seabiscuit]

25. Their "freedoms" haven't been "banned".

The bank just decided it had had enough of this group's bigotry and hate speech and decided not to do business with them any more. They were giving the bank a bad name.

It's only unconstitutional if a government entity kicks them out. A private business can do what it wants in that regard. There's no issue of "freedom" here.

[BooScout]

41. Freedoms banned?

Bullshit. Since when is who your banker is a considerd to be a freedom? If the Co-op wants to kick their sorry butts to the curb for their vile views regarding a certian segment of the human race then I say go for it.

[bennywhale]

46. "Since when is who your banker is considered to be a freedom"

Would you say the same people were refused banking due to the colour iof their skin?

Or due to them believing in racial equality, or their views on homosexuality?

[BooScout]

49. Denying business based on your skin color..........

.............is racism and that's illegal in most places these days. Your comparison is apples to oranges and doesn't fly.

Businesses here in the states are already denying their services to homesoxuals or others who aren't good "christians" and have been for sometime.

Liberals are boycotting businesses that gave to money to Conservative Candidates & causes and visa versa. The Southern Baptists boycotted Disney for 8 years because Disney wouldn't kick gays out of their parks. No it ain't always right or pretty............but it's not illegal. It's also poetic justice to see hate groups have the tables turned on them for a change.

[bennywhale]

52. So you agree with anyone being denied full access to society based on

their views. Whatever aspect of society it is and whatever views they hold?

They do it to us so lets do it to them?

Pathetic.

[BooScout]

54. Nope....

But I do think it's pathetic that you are trying to put words in people's mouths that just aren't there just to try and get something going.:eyes:

See ya.

[bennywhale]

55. Good answer. Avoiding the question. You obviously haven't thought

through the implications of your opinion (or just copied it from someone on this board) so i'll give you time to think it through and get back to me. Look forward to your revised thoughts.

[BooScout]

59. Actually........

I think I'll give you the distinction of being the first to be on my ignore list. :boring:

[bennywhale]

61. That is brilliant. The first time you've been challenged to explain your

assertions you block posts from the one who does it. hilarious. You've made my night in a way cos I'm laughing so much, however your lack of debating skills and the outrageously apparent lack of a thought through argument depresses me somewhat. Considering we're supposed to be on the same same side, God help you if you ever have to debate your point with someone who REALLY disagrees with you. I think you should remain quiet until you've established what you think and can back it up with words.

[donco6]

8. Isn't this like pharmacists refusing to fill prescriptions?

So we could say, "What's good for the goose . . . ", or should we be condemning it?

[bunkerbuster1]

10. Nah, we Americans should just eat our popcorn and enjoy the show.

Different rules in the UK, old chap.

[PaulaFarrell]

11. The Cooperative Bank has a widely publicised ethical policy

They don't do business with lots of people on the basis of it - arms manufacturers, tobacco companies, etc., but it's nothing to do with scoring political points. This is not the first time something like this has happened - I think the Royal Bank of Scotland was doing a deal with Pat Ribertson and had to pull out because so many customers complained. Comparing it to pharmacists refusing to fill prescriptions is not quite accurate - if a branch manager had decided not to do business with the religion based on his own views, I could see your point but it's a company wide policy, and the Coop probably gets most of its business because it does have an ethical policy. (I bank there by the way)

[bennywhale]

17. "I may hate what you say but defend to the death your right to say it"

and all that. This is a dangerous precedent.

I hate neo-nazi's and all they stand for, but they are still entitled to their views.

[muriel_volestrangler]

20. Their views aren't being banned

It's an organisation deciding not to do business with them. And I think there's a difference between this and pharmacists refusing to fill prescriptions they don't support - pharmacists are licensed, and their actions affects people's health.

[bennywhale]

28. I wasn't talking about pharmicists. I was talking in general that people

should be allowed to express whatever views they like no matter how vile anyone thinks it is.

Once you start justifying discrimination (by any organisation) against any group on the grounds of their beliefs, you are impinging on freedom of thought. If it can be justified for one group then it will be justified for other groups and so on and so on. It sets precedents on restricting expression that shouldn't be set.

[muriel_volestrangler]

33. The pharmacist talk was further upstream

(post #8). Would you then say that banks have no right to decide not to deal with arms manufacturers? What about boycotting countries, like apartheid South Africa - are you saying that morally, Barclays had to do business with them, and so everyone who boycotted Barclays as a result was wrong?

To push the analogy to its limits, was Bush's grandfather right to do business with the Nazis right up to the point that Germany and the USA went to war? Would refusing to do so have been a restriction of Hitler's freedom of thought?

[bennywhale]

36. Now your just being deliberately fatuous. Arms dealers

and Hitler are directly killing people. You could have taken your analoggy to include slave merchants but you know thats not what i'm saying. I mention in a post above, the reasoning behind allowing groups such as neo-nazis to run for parliament. Please read it.

As for dealing with Hitler. Hitler was burning government buildings, wasn't operating in a democracy, was oppressing, murdering and invading./ There is a difference between that and a Christian bigot who is entitled to his views and i know you can see the difference.

[muriel_volestrangler]

39. Yet again, you're not addressing my point

You keep on saying "they're entitled to their views" - I'm not disputing that, or someone's right to run for Parliament, and neither is the Co-op bank. This is a question of whether one group can choose not to do business with another. Just as you have the right to boycott an anti-gay group, so do the Co-op.

And I'm not being deliberately fatuous (and arms dealers don't directly kill people, by the way - they sell arms to people who do). Until Hitler was actually at war with a country, it was an ethical choice for people whether they did business with his regime. Hitler did, of course, come to power in a democracy, and had not been proved to be burning buildings, or murdering. He was oppressing - just as Christian Voice advocates the oppression of homosexuals. There is a real analogy of whether people would have been ethically right to refuse to do business with Hitler before the war, and whether they can refuse to do business with Christian Voice, apartheid South Africa, the KKK, the BNP and other groups who have objectionable ethical stances. If a Christian bank refused to hold accounts for pro-abortion groups, I'd say they had a right to.

[bennywhale]

40. I agree that it is a groups personal choice as to who they do business

with, however what i'm saying is i don't believe they should be discriminated against for their views. Paradoxically i support both camps actually. Co-op are quuite within their rights to refuse them (management reserves the right bla bla), but as i have said, i think in a democracy it is wrong to do so based on a persons views. The precedent is bad.

Also if you look at your examples, actual oppression, violence, and serious crimes against humanity were being enacted by those groups, and those groups you mention all had official and practical power, in terms of government structure, armed forces etc. They were enacting policies of hate. That is a line to cross, and i supported sanctions against SA. But i'll repeat my view that i wouldn't discriminate against someone due to their personal views. (My Grandad bless him had very dubious views about homosexuality but was a thoroughly decent man, i would be horrified if the Co-op, which he used all his life, refused his custom based on this specific view of his)

btw Germany was NOT a democracy when Hitler came to power, elections don't make a democracy ask Zimbabweans or the Burmese.

[muriel_volestrangler]

43. So it's the actions rather than the views that should be the trigger?

Well, it's one point of view, but I think that the Co-op's stance of making their opposition clear now, rather than waiting for Christian Voice to get their bigotry to have an effectm is a better one.

Are you saying the Weimar Republic was undemocratic? I can find hundreds of papers on the net that say it was. What was undemocratic about it?

[bennywhale]

45. Like i said in another post. Their bigotry should be open and in public

and they should not be discriminated against, as this gives them a "cause". It also enables the public at large to see how absurd their arguments are and dismantle them in the public arena. Banning things and restricting things is a sign of a lack of confidence. A confident and strong democracy allows these views. Furthermore it sets bad precedent. We don't agree with your views therefore we ban you. It could work the other way. What if groups with liberal views began to be refused entry into areas of society. And yes, if they act on their views or compell others to then that is the line crossed. Other than that, they should be free to hold their views. Society is a plurality of opinion. If you don't like someones thats tough.

The Weimar republic was a democracy in name but nothing else. It was about as democratic as the many African "Democracies".

[BooScout]

42. They are also entitled ....

...to bank somewhere else and the co-op is entitled to tell them to. It's bizness.

[bennywhale]

47. But its also discriminating someone on their views. Would you be so

supportive if they banned Muslim groups due to their views on homosexuality? What about their views on women?

[BooScout]

50. Yep..........

I don't support the GOP, the KKK or any group that preaches hate and bigotry. I have also never been comfortable with the aspects of some (not all) Muslims holding women in virtual slavery. I don't support the Catholic Church's view on homosexuals either.

I also support the right of any private business to do business with who so ever they please. I'm a capitalist. If they make a decision to deny business to someone based on their views then that's their right. Doesn't always make it a sound business decision but it's their right to do so.

These days money talks and hot air walks.

[bennywhale]

51. So if i had a business and i denied someone to use it because they were

black would you support me? considering your such a good capitalist and all.

[BooScout]

53. No I wouldn't........

........mostly because you seem hellbent on throwing the race card into this mix when it just isn't there. :eyes:

If it helps, I also believe in Capitalism with a rather large dash of Socialism..........but you don't seem much conerned about anything other than insinuating that anyone who disagrees with your POV is a racist.

[bennywhale]

56. What crap. I am just using another example of discrimination to try

and highlight to you the implications of this decision. I used race assuming most on this board would agree that type of discrimination to be wrong. If you don't wish to address the consequences of your support of prejudice against this Christian group thats fine.

[muriel_volestrangler]

57. There's a fundamental difference between 'race' and opinions

'Race' is a concept that is highly dubious anyway, and basing your behaviour on someone else's genetic makeup is illogical - it consists purely of taking stereotypes, almost always derogatory, and applying them to people - often because of their appearance alone.

On the other hand, judging someone, or an organisation, because of the opinions is not prejudice - the judging doesn't happen before you know them, it happens when you know them. The Co-op, by pointing out that 'Christian Voice' are bigoted against homosexuals, have actually exposed an unsavoury opinion that might otherwise have been hidden. If the Co-op now decided to stop all business with all Christian groups, then that would be prejudice. Stop and think about the words you're using.

Your introduction of race into this argument is not relevant.

[bennywhale]

60. The Co-op has taken an ethical stance which is:

We will not do business with people who hold views with which we do not agree with.

An equally ethical stance in my opinion would be: we will not discriminate against anyone based on their lifestyle and views.

To me, the first proposition is arbitrary as it is based on personal preference and opinion. In my opinion it is discriminatory and wrong.

If i owned a bank in your town and refused you business because of your liberal views you would be quite rightly outraged. Just because you think your views are the correct views does not mean you can discriminate against those people that don't agree.

You should think about the consequences of your assertions more carefully

[muriel_volestrangler]

64. I have already thought about the consequences

that's why I said, in reply to you, "If a Christian bank refused to hold accounts for pro-abortion groups, I'd say they had a right to."

[onager]

27. Paula, thank you for giving us...

The background to the story. Always helpful!

:toast:

The group strikes me as typical over-entitled Christers. We have millions of them here in Jesusland USA. They want the right to discriminate against any group they hate, but don't much like it when the shoe is on the other foot. Or the nail is in the other foot, as the case may be.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kingshakabobo]

15. That was a little rough. Don't ya think?

[donco6]

35. I have to laugh!

Wow, that's probably the first time I've ever been accused of being a freeper!

You really, really need to read some of my posts before you go around with loopy accusations.

Pigboy, indeed.

[dansolo]

68. Not even close

Evangelical Christains are free to take their business to any other bank. In the case of pharmacists, there were two significant issues. The first was that the pharmacists were effectively overriding the medical decisions that were made by doctors, which they are not qualified to do. In addition, they would refuse to refer the prescriptions to another pharmacy, thereby preventing the custmer from possibly getting their prescriptions filled. The two situations are dramatically different.

[Behind the Aegis]

9. Lesson learned:

Discrimination sucks! Especially when it is aimed at you for bing who you are. I wonder if this group will learn that very valuable lesson?

[arwalden]

13. When Can We Start TAXING Them?????

[Daphne08]

37. That has been my question, too.

If their desire is to influence the governance of this country, then they should be TAXED!

:mad:

[shadowknows69]

19. Bravo

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

[truthpusher]

23. All religion is inherently discreminate....

...does not mean that I am anti-religion. It's just that religion is a framework, a set of rules. These rules almost always include some form of discrimination. The bank in question is obviously doing this on grounds of being pro-gay (of which there is absolutely every good reason to be pro-gay). This is not an anti-discrimination act on their part, if it were, than they would be disallowing all religious groups....period.

[Miss Chybil]

29. God, persecuting Christians, again.

These poor people can't get a break. How are they supposed to have time to run around and protest gay weddings and funerals, if they have to spend it looking for a new bank? I just don't get why people can't be more tolerant of the intolerant. It is the Christian thing to do, no? Wait. I'm getting dizzy...

[Outrider]

32. Statement they should make

The co-op should come out and say that they are not discriminating against them based upon their religion. They should make it clear that they do not recognize homophobic hatred as a Christian belief and since the evangelicals have elevated this false belief to a religious belief then they are no longer true Christians. Then they need to remind these bigots that they are a private organization and can associate with anyone they so choose to associate themselves with and that includes Christians.

[Initech]

34. Gays 1, Evangelicas, 0

Ahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!

[non sociopath skin]

38. Posters outside the UK might find these relevant websites helpful...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=191x5487

The Skin

[SemperEadem]

44. a private bank has the right to determine who it'll do business with

tough shit if they get their account cancelled. Should have thought more thoroughly about their views and taken the time to understand the position of the bank before opening up an account with them. It sounds as if it's no secret that the bank is very conscious about the groups with which they do business. I'm sure that those complaining could find another bank that will go skipping hand in hand with them down the intolerance path. Hell, a quick phone call to Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell could hook them up.

They walked into the situation thinking that they, in their righteous indignation, could determine that the rules of the bank do not apply to them JUST because they call themselves "evangelical christians" and they got the slap down they deserved over it.

They are entitled to their views, yes, but that doesn't mean that they have carte blanche to force those views down the throats of everyone or every business that crosses their path. They have no power to dictate how a company does its business--their onus is to do better research and find a bank that will let them continue down their intolerant path. They are in this situation due to their own laziness.

And there is no such thing as Christian persecution in the western hemisphere, just a bunch of cacophonous whining because they can't get their own way. You want persecution? Then being dipped in wax and burned for city lighting is something to complain about. Being turned out in the coliseum to fight off hungry lions and tigers without the use of weapons is something to complain about. To hear present day 'evangelical xtians' whine because they feel they are being treated as if they're under Roman occupation is disgusting and disingenuous when we have true examples of persecution and oppression faced by the earliest Christians who lived in daily fear for their lives due to their beliefs. Present day xtians are no where near being that---especially since in the US, 43 consecutive Christians have sat as president and in the UK, since the time of King Egbert, not only has every king/queen has been a Christian, but since 1521, the style of the monarch includes the line "Fidei Defensor"-defender of the faith.

In 2005, there is no such thing as Christian persecution in the western hemisphere, unless not getting your way like a spoiled child constitutes being 'persecuted'.

[realms]

63. Just Hi

Hi Friends,
New to posting, been here for 5+ years. I can't belive repulican hate
motived people. When do you say it seperates from the rest of humanity.
If I could give my Heart to someone, it would never be to such hateful, arrigant, mean spirted as these people present themselves.

[Judi Lynn]

65. It's a real spectacle, isn't it, realms?

Years and years of negative imprinting.

Welcome to DU. Glad you're here. :hi: :hi: :hi: :woohoo:

[not fooled]

67. Whaddya wanna bet...

..."xtian" business run by fundies in the UK (and US) don't hesitate to ban anyone and everyone whose views they disagreed with.

But, it's only when it happens to the poor widdle "christians" that it's unfair. :eyes: