I doubt that Christians are being persecuted any more than the Ku Klux Klan was being persecuted during the Civil Rights Era but even if they are, when did Christians start believing that their convictions should not cost them something. Why this whining?

Ludicrous, coming from someone whose Church position gave him a seat in the legislature.

I do so hope that the monarch, as head of the CoE, does not find it necessary to go into hiding.

Eric Bonetti

This is EXACTLY the framing that is being used in the USA to oppose women's rights and LGBT rights. The Roman Catholic Bishops just released a manifesto on Religious Freedom (read more here) which will be used to claim "Christian persecution" . They refuse to acknowledge that their freedom does not, and indeed CANNOT require impinging upon yours, or mine.

Already, in Arizona, a law has been proposed that would allow a secular employer to ask their employee about contraceptive usage in order to deny coverage based on the employer's beliefs. While this did not move further, it is part of the ongoing battle.

Let's face it, those opposed to LGBT rights have no compunction about denying The Episcopal Church the right to celebrate marriages between same sex partners. Whose freedom, again?

This is why it is SO ESSENTIAL, now more than ever, that the "missing voices" of liberal Christianity speak out aggressively against this nonsense, on both sides of the Atlantic.

--Susan Forsburg

Susan -- see the story that will follow this one for the RC bishops and comments by Religion Dispatches.

Before more dispersions are cast on Lord Carey, may I say that not being able to wear a cross (or any mainstream religious symbol, for that matter) or getting in trouble for choosing not to counsel gay couples seems like the left doing precisely what they accuse the right of doing: imposing their religious and/or social values on others. Why shouldn't a Christian be able to openly proclaim his or her faith in a pluralistic society by wearing a cross? Why shouldn't someone who has neither the background nor the interest in doing marriage counseling for gay couples not be able to refuse to do so?

It seems like both sides are in danger of saying "You can believe whatever you want to believe, as long as you either don't act on it, or don't say anything about it." A sort of religious Don't Ask, Don't Tell? Next, clergy won't be able to wear collars in public for fear of offending people's sensibilities...

Tom, the examples sited, even if you think that they are problems (I think the cross prohibitions are ludicrous, personally), they clearly do not rise to the level of "persecution." There *are* Christians who are really being persecuted in the world today, who are faced with personal danger and physical and economic hardship for professing Christ. To have the privileged,, former head of a state Church, who sits in his nation's legislature and whose opinions get considerable press, whine that his community is being persecuted is a scandal.

In South Carolina a pharmacist already has the right to refuse to dispense contraceptives to an unmarried woman if this "violates his conscience". http://www.free-times.com/index.php?cat=1992912064017974&ShowArticle_ID=11011502123146633

It would be helpful if people understood the case in question. The company had a policy that no jewelry (necklace) was to be worn on the outside of the uniform. The employee insisted on wearing her cross outside her uniform.

It wasn't because it was a cross per se that there was a problem, it was that there was exposed jewelry. It's the employee that made this about religion. She wanted a dispensation to wear a cross.

--SUsan Forsburg

Susan, BA allowed Sikhs and Muslims to stray from uniform guidelines in the interest of personal belief, but forbade a small cross (it's since changed its policy, wisely). I'm with Britain’s Equality and Human Rights Commission, which said, "[I]t was wrong to conclude that because it was not a religious requirement for Christians to wear a cross all the time individual Christians need not feel a personal obligation to do so.” It was stupid of the company to insist on the strict adherence of its uniform policy. However, it's even stupider to insist that this represents persecution of Christians in any way.