I thought the Queen was supposed to keep her political views to herself?

I rather think the Queen is over-appreciated: http://andreasmoser.wordpress.com/2012/02/07/diamond-jubilee-elizabeth-ii/

@1 I don’t think there’s any requirement to do so, given that Charles intends to use his kingship in a presidential manner. Which might explain why the Queen remains firmly seated on the throne.

I’m not about to defend the Daily Mail, but this comment I take issue with:

“The article is an illustration of the desperate lengths to which Dacre and his hacks will go in order to push their “Christianity under attack” agenda.”

To try and pretend that Christians that try and live according to their faith are not under attack when they can’t run bed and breakfasts according to their beliefs, when they can’t offer to pray for clients, when they can’t offer services demanded by homosexuals that gay activists disagree with, is flying in the face of reality.

I’d say this article, and the one the other day about Ann Widdecombe shows the extent to which Lib Con and its hacks will to in order to push their intolerant “tolerance” agenda.

@ 4 James Reade

“To try and pretend that Christians that try and live according to their faith are not under attack when they can’t run bed and breakfasts according to their beliefs”

So it’s attacking people to demand that they live within the law like the rest of us? Not permitting special pleading for Christians is an attack?

“when they can’t offer to pray for clients”

What specifically are you talking about here? Stories like this tend to be a lot less clear-cut than first presented in the media.

“when they can’t offer services demanded by homosexuals that gay activists disagree with”

Fair comment.

“is flying in the face of reality.”

Not really. To claim that Christians are never, ever attacked on the basis of their faith would be folly. And there are anti-Christian moves underway in society (although many of these are trying to create a level playing-field, so calling them “attacks” is kind of histrionic). However, what Dacre with his selective and dishonest reporting, and Warsi with her “arrgh militant secularism!”, are doing is trying to present Christians as this especially persecuted group, which is horseshit.

As someone who doesn’t believe in a monarchy, I actually think this queen could be an awful lot worse and that, considering her privileged upbringing, the things she says are usually pretty sensible. This is a case in point.

James – if I or a family member was very ill I would most surprised and upset if a health professional offered to pray for or with me. Equally, I don’t think health professionals should unnecessarly articulate their own atheist views if their patients are obviously religious.

As a Christian I believe the Queen to mistaken if in fact she said that the COE is here to protect the practice of “all faiths”.

The role of any Christian church should be, apart from good charitable works, be about the salvation of lost souls, and as the Christian Bible clearly states there is only one way to God through Christ. For the Queen to assert the COE is here in part “To protect all faiths”, faiths whom obviously teach their way to God in contradiction of scripture this is hardly the role of any Christian church let alone the COE .

In saying the above, I in no way mean that anything should be done to harm any other faith, or individual practicing said faiths. The Christian church should do all in its powers to help those in danger of harm and/or persecution, remembering that their first responsability is to God and His word to show love to their neighbour.