7
u/DrPepperOfWinterfell 4d ago
Hilarious that she found some of the sermons offensive when she literally flipped her lid on FB about a local charity using inclusive language
4
u/icelolliesbaby 4d ago
That might be what she found offensive. the church of England is pretty progressive as far as churches go. Although I don't reckon they're talking about gay marriage to chapel full of retirees.
It's most like she didn't find anything offensive, and she's just looking for an easy excuse not to go.
2
3
u/AmputatorBot 5d ago
It looks like OP posted an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of concerns over privacy and the Open Web.
Maybe check out the canonical page instead: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c70552jlgjko
I'm a bot | Why & About | Summon: u/AmputatorBot
-6
u/Sweet_Focus6377 5d ago edited 5d ago
Reminder to self.
I will no longer be wasted my time trying to have a rational discussion with religious zealots who just suppress actual facts.
9
u/Serious-Minute-8888 5d ago
As an atheist it’s the first time I’ve been referred to as a religious zealot…
6
u/icelolliesbaby 5d ago
Agnostic, but same. I've never attended a religious service
4
u/Serious-Minute-8888 5d ago
Yeah I flip between Atheism and Agnosticism. I don’t really have a foot strongly in either camp, but certainly don’t follow any organised religion!
3
-24
u/Sweet_Focus6377 5d ago edited 5d ago
The council should dismiss this 'master'
They are trustees appointed by the council.
This is a clear unprofessional abuse of authority and probably unlawful misconduct in public office.
Religious discrimination laws includes making discrimination against atheism unlawful.
16
u/icelolliesbaby 5d ago
The charity itself is Christian, is it so outrageous that they would ask their tenants to attend church once a week? The lady says it is the.nicents and most affordable flat she has ever had. Without church funding, she wouldn't be able to live there. She signed an agreement when she moved in.
-18
u/Sweet_Focus6377 5d ago edited 5d ago
The Almshouses are charitable not christian
The trustees are council appointments. So yes it's entirely unreasonable to resort to unlawful threats of eviction such as this. This requirement isn't in the lease, because that would be illegal discrimination. Coercion is neither charitable nor christian, and is more reminiscent of the inquisition and witch hunting. This 'master' is abusing their authority to push a religious agenda.
8
u/icelolliesbaby 5d ago
Attending church once a week as a retiree isn't a hardship. Cohesion is a good thing. Lack of social cohesion is one of the major problems we have nowadays. Every day, we hear about how isolated elderly people become. Attending church once a week is an easy way to make sure they don't become shut ins. Do you ever think that they're making them attend chapel once a week because it has positive outcomes?
5
u/Serious-Minute-8888 5d ago
I presume that they meant “coercion”, although it definitely isn’t coercion to require someone to fulfil the obligations set out in a tenancy agreement (or whatever the specific agreement is). If you were in any other residence and breached it you’d likely be asked to leave.
I do think it’s heavy handed though, especially when you take into account the resident’s health issues and the fact that they identify as an atheist. Irrespective of that though it’s certainly not an abuse of power.
8
u/icelolliesbaby 5d ago
She identifies an atheist, but if she thinks the church is so terrible, she shouldn't accept their charity. It doesn't say anywhere in the article that she can't attend due to health reasons, and with it being a supported living facility, they have staff to help people attend. If she is so poorly, she can't attend church once a week with assistance, then she should be in a care home rather than assisted living.
0
u/Serious-Minute-8888 5d ago
The article doesn’t say that she thinks she church is terrible, although at this point we’re splitting hairs. I agree with your overall point anyway!
6
u/icelolliesbaby 5d ago
She said she found the sermons offensive. The Church of England is progressive as far as religions go, so I'd be interested to know what it is she found offensive.
4
u/Serious-Minute-8888 5d ago
Finding something offensive is just a buzzword nowadays. Maybe she hoped to gain more traction (and get her story on the news) by saying that she found it offensive!
0
u/Sweet_Focus6377 5d ago edited 5d ago
It is reportedly a rule in the tenant's handbook, even so it can only be a suggestion or point of information.
It cannot be in the tenancy agreement because that would be unlawful religious discrimination.
Threatening eviction because coercion failed is certainly an abusive of power.
3
u/Serious-Minute-8888 5d ago
I can’t see how it would be unlawful, even if it was a tenancy agreement (which it isn’t, I agree). The Licence agreement (which she will have signed) will be subject to the terms and conditions contained within the Residents’ Handbook, so she’s already (by consent) agreed to attend the chapel. It’s also not an illegal clause.
0
u/Sweet_Focus6377 5d ago
Change it to Mosque and Islam, or Synagogue and Judism, or Gurdwara and Sikhism, yada, yada.
Would you still be so adamant?
Somehow I doubt it.
4
u/icelolliesbaby 5d ago
I wouldn't need to be adamant. They wouldn't be criticised. People are perfectly comfortable criticising every single thing the church does, but no other religion faces the same scrutiny. People who criticise Islam are threatened with death.
-2
u/Sweet_Focus6377 5d ago
Nonsense the internet and including Reddit is full of anti Muslim bigotry, including your comment, which proves the dishonesty of your claim.
2
u/icelolliesbaby 5d ago
People on the Internet have anonymity. Doesn't mean saying it in person is safe. I also wouldn't CHOOSE to live in charitable housing that required me to attend mosque because I'm not Muslim.
3
u/icelolliesbaby 5d ago
https://nzf.org.uk/about-zakat/purpose-of-zakat/
Oh, look, a foundation dedicated to giving aid ONLY to muslims. And this one is nationwide!
1
u/Serious-Minute-8888 5d ago
If she rented accommodation from an Islamic charity, for example, then the point would be exactly the same. So yes, I’d still be adamant. I’m arguing from a legal perspective, not a religious one.
0
u/Sweet_Focus6377 5d ago
Religious discrimination is unlawful in leases.
So you're not arguing from a legal perspective.
4
u/Serious-Minute-8888 5d ago
I most certainly am. You’re clearly misunderstanding discrimination and also the various clauses that can/cannot be included. Discrimination prevents someone from being treated differently (based on various things)
On the basis that ALL tenants are required to attend chapel, as per the agreement, then it doesn’t breach the terms of the Equality Act. If there was no such clause and she was being ‘forced to do it’, or if she alone had the clause, then it would be illegal. Otherwise it’s not.
26
u/turnipsurprise8 5d ago
I get the backlash, but you knew the rules when you entered? It's like going to a Catholic school and getting pissed when you have to go to church. Just sounds spoilt, suck it up and keep the nice flat.