Yoga ban row goes international (From Daily Echo)

Perhaps Father John Chandler should consider to follow the likes of Salman Rushdie , for his own good now.
Bye John.

Three things -
1.I wonder if Father John would be allowed to hold confirmation classes in a Hindu Temple. If so, let the yoga resume.

2. the verb (that's a "doing" word) - practise, the noun - practice

3. "There is me trying to make a living", why does the Echo not correct this to save the blushes of the interviewee? Definitey need more rigour......

All this over some yoga. Jeebus!

I'm already sick of this story..... there are more important things.

We should be concentrating on inter-faith co-operation and friendliness. Not creating a negative group because ONE church decides not to have ONE exercise performed at its premises. If they lose out on money then its their problem isn't it?

It is up to each Church leader and their congregation who hires that halls and for what and no one else's business.

The Echo just loves to run these stories so religious hatred can run riot in the comments .. they love it

If the Catholic gentleman Chandler doesnt like it and wont hire the hall for it then surely its up to him.
.
Now we have Hindu's getting involved and before long some other religious sect will start having a pop!!.
.
Drop it Echo before you make it more unsavoury that it really is

I wonder who's going to "kindly" step forward and offer her use of their premises for free (advertising)?

I fail to understand why this has created such massive feelings. I wanted to hire a local social club for a child's birthday party once but they said they could not supply their hall to me for use as a children's party venue. I simply found somewhere else that would accommodate us, without the need to get the papers involved. At the end of the day whatever anyone's feelings on this, the priest will be acting on what he personally feels is right. I am a Christian and have no issues with yoga whatsoever. The priest concerned obviously feels that it compromises what he believes is right. Christianity is not a set of rules, but each persons personal faith and belief. If I was asked to do something that went against what I felt was right, I would not do it so why should this priest be any different. What one Christian feels is wrong may not be the same for another so to cause such anger against one religion is ridiculous.

And therein lies the problem with religion. The loadstone of mankind.That a simple exercise can result in a war of words is truely shameful and still not surprising !!

Logic and Religion. Never the twain shall meet !!

ajw....inter-faith co-operation and friendliness??? That'll be the day !!

st1halo wrote:
And therein lies the problem with religion. The loadstone of mankind.That a simple exercise can result in a war of words is truely shameful and still not surprising !!

Logic and Religion. Never the twain shall meet !!

ajw....inter-faith co-operation and friendliness??? That'll be the day !!

There is no problem with religion. It is about respecting each others beliefs. I have friends who are of different faith to myself and as such respect what they believe in. That does not mean though that I will participate in their activities or allow my home to be used for them. This is not about inter faith co-operation, but about the priest saying No to something he is not comfortable in playing party to.

solomum wrote:

st1halo wrote:
And therein lies the problem with religion. The loadstone of mankind.That a simple exercise can result in a war of words is truely shameful and still not surprising !!

Logic and Religion. Never the twain shall meet !!

ajw....inter-faith co-operation and friendliness??? That'll be the day !!

There is no problem with religion. It is about respecting each others beliefs. I have friends who are of different faith to myself and as such respect what they believe in. That does not mean though that I will participate in their activities or allow my home to be used for them. This is not about inter faith co-operation, but about the priest saying No to something he is not comfortable in playing party to.

It's possible to respect religion, and others, and even to have faith oneself, and still recognise that there are problems with religion.

BenjiWinsor wrote:
It is up to each Church leader and their congregation who hires that halls and for what and no one else's business.

The Echo just loves to run these stories so religious hatred can run riot in the comments .. they love it

you have missed one of fundamental points of this saga.... the idiot priest cancelled her booking WEEKS after it was made and did not have the basic politeness to tell her why. That is why its a story. If he had had the manners to inform her as to why his bigotry was leading to her cancelled classes I doubt that this would have ever got to the echo.... But I am genuinely surprised why some people think bigotry should be tolerated without desent.

solomum wrote:

st1halo wrote:
And therein lies the problem with religion. The loadstone of mankind.That a simple exercise can result in a war of words is truely shameful and still not surprising !!

Logic and Religion. Never the twain shall meet !!

ajw....inter-faith co-operation and friendliness??? That'll be the day !!

There is no problem with religion. It is about respecting each others beliefs. I have friends who are of different faith to myself and as such respect what they believe in. That does not mean though that I will participate in their activities or allow my home to be used for them. This is not about inter faith co-operation, but about the priest saying No to something he is not comfortable in playing party to.

As I say. Logic and Religion. If the lady was preaching Hinduism or another Religion I would perhaps understand but still not support the priest's stance but..... this is an exercise for people, it may have its roots in religion but seems to have been accepted worldwide as a useful tool for health.
Im not aware of any one , religious or otherwise filing a patent for actions performed by the human body so in my mind his opposition is totally ridiculous. The fact that other people of different religions want to argue about it too shows that, no matter how small and irrelevant the issue a fight can still be made, just as its always been since the birth of mankind
The inter-faith comment was a retort to a post made earlier by ajw 1986

st1halo wrote:

solomum wrote:

st1halo wrote:
And therein lies the problem with religion. The loadstone of mankind.That a simple exercise can result in a war of words is truely shameful and still not surprising !!

Logic and Religion. Never the twain shall meet !!

ajw....inter-faith co-operation and friendliness??? That'll be the day !!

There is no problem with religion. It is about respecting each others beliefs. I have friends who are of different faith to myself and as such respect what they believe in. That does not mean though that I will participate in their activities or allow my home to be used for them. This is not about inter faith co-operation, but about the priest saying No to something he is not comfortable in playing party to.

As I say. Logic and Religion. If the lady was preaching Hinduism or another Religion I would perhaps understand but still not support the priest's stance but..... this is an exercise for people, it may have its roots in religion but seems to have been accepted worldwide as a useful tool for health.
Im not aware of any one , religious or otherwise filing a patent for actions performed by the human body so in my mind his opposition is totally ridiculous. The fact that other people of different religions want to argue about it too shows that, no matter how small and irrelevant the issue a fight can still be made, just as its always been since the birth of mankind
The inter-faith comment was a retort to a post made earlier by ajw 1986

http://io9.com/58086
04/10-physical-gestu
res-that-have-been-p
atented :)

Why doesn't the lady concerned hold the classes at the local Hindu temple? That would seem to be the logical thing to do.

Georgem wrote:

st1halo wrote:

solomum wrote:

st1halo wrote:
And therein lies the problem with religion. The loadstone of mankind.That a simple exercise can result in a war of words is truely shameful and still not surprising !!

Logic and Religion. Never the twain shall meet !!

ajw....inter-faith co-operation and friendliness??? That'll be the day !!

There is no problem with religion. It is about respecting each others beliefs. I have friends who are of different faith to myself and as such respect what they believe in. That does not mean though that I will participate in their activities or allow my home to be used for them. This is not about inter faith co-operation, but about the priest saying No to something he is not comfortable in playing party to.

As I say. Logic and Religion. If the lady was preaching Hinduism or another Religion I would perhaps understand but still not support the priest's stance but..... this is an exercise for people, it may have its roots in religion but seems to have been accepted worldwide as a useful tool for health.
Im not aware of any one , religious or otherwise filing a patent for actions performed by the human body so in my mind his opposition is totally ridiculous. The fact that other people of different religions want to argue about it too shows that, no matter how small and irrelevant the issue a fight can still be made, just as its always been since the birth of mankind
The inter-faith comment was a retort to a post made earlier by ajw 1986

http://io9.com/58086

04/10-physical-gestu

res-that-have-been-p

atented :)

And now I am aware !!
Hardly the same thing but very interesting, thanks Georgem
Ill be careful how i go to toilet from now on, dont want to perform any copywritten actions !!

If the priest believes this to be an inappropriate activity to be conducted in the church he administers and he is the one that will have to answer to God when he is judged, then he is within his rights to refuse.

I personally do not see an issue with non religious yoga being performed in a church, but I am not the one that will ultimately judge and that is what the priest needs to be content with.

ho-hum wrote:
Why doesn't the lady concerned hold the classes at the local Hindu temple? That would seem to be the logical thing to do.

I think she has been offered classes there, which would make the subject stale. Not something the Daily Echo wants really.

MGRA wrote:

BenjiWinsor wrote: It is up to each Church leader and their congregation who hires that halls and for what and no one else's business. The Echo just loves to run these stories so religious hatred can run riot in the comments .. they love it

you have missed one of fundamental points of this saga.... the idiot priest cancelled her booking WEEKS after it was made and did not have the basic politeness to tell her why. That is why its a story. If he had had the manners to inform her as to why his bigotry was leading to her cancelled classes I doubt that this would have ever got to the echo.... But I am genuinely surprised why some people think bigotry should be tolerated without desent.

Do you mean DISSENT? Also, you clearly know the priest very well if he has shared with you his IQ score for you to be able to call him an idiot. Don't use words if you don't know what they mean! I doubt he would be capable of doing his job if he is truly an idiot.

Mr_Forest wrote:
If the priest believes this to be an inappropriate activity to be conducted in the church he administers and he is the one that will have to answer to God when he is judged, then he is within his rights to refuse.

I personally do not see an issue with non religious yoga being performed in a church, but I am not the one that will ultimately judge and that is what the priest needs to be content with.

If the priest is concerned about eternal damnation for allowing some yoga classes I'd suggest he's not involved in a religion at all but rather a cult which likes to indoctrinate and rule by fear and manipulation (although I perceive all religions this way)
I'd also say he's more concerned about himself than his own''flock' (what a great description that is!)
What sort of 'God' is it that behaves that way.....sounds more and more human to me!!

MGRA wrote:

BenjiWinsor wrote:
It is up to each Church leader and their congregation who hires that halls and for what and no one else's business.

The Echo just loves to run these stories so religious hatred can run riot in the comments .. they love it

you have missed one of fundamental points of this saga.... the idiot priest cancelled her booking WEEKS after it was made and did not have the basic politeness to tell her why. That is why its a story. If he had had the manners to inform her as to why his bigotry was leading to her cancelled classes I doubt that this would have ever got to the echo.... But I am genuinely surprised why some people think bigotry should be tolerated without desent.

and you missed the part in the first story where it said it wasn't booked as a yoga class but under another name and it was only later that the Church leader found out it was yoga and therefore objected.

The more this goes on the more I believe it has less to with Father Chandler's bigotry or intolerance and more to do with his naivety and recklessness. This is not the first time that the issue of yoga on church premises has come up; each time it has blown up in the Church's face. Anyone who follows Church affairs knows this. Given his views on the matter Father Chandler should have seen this coming from afar and therefore carefully and quietly worked towards a settlement at the earliest opportunity, in a spirit of mutual understanding and negotiation. But he didn't. Perhaps he sees his confrontational, "lines must be drawn" stance as a necessary part of his public Christian witness. However, given their at best lukewarm response it doesn't appear that the Diocese or some of Father Chandler's fellow priests see this enormous PR mess in quite that way. Nor do many ordinary Southampton Catholics who feel deeply embarrassed.

st1halo wrote:

Mr_Forest wrote: If the priest believes this to be an inappropriate activity to be conducted in the church he administers and he is the one that will have to answer to God when he is judged, then he is within his rights to refuse. I personally do not see an issue with non religious yoga being performed in a church, but I am not the one that will ultimately judge and that is what the priest needs to be content with.

If the priest is concerned about eternal damnation for allowing some yoga classes I'd suggest he's not involved in a religion at all but rather a cult which likes to indoctrinate and rule by fear and manipulation (although I perceive all religions this way) I'd also say he's more concerned about himself than his own''flock' (what a great description that is!) What sort of 'God' is it that behaves that way.....sounds more and more human to me!!

Why are questioning his beliefs?

I would suggest that the priest believes he is guided by the holy spirit. Yes Christianity teaches to love others but not if it is not true to the teachings of Christianity, Jesus took acception to temples being used for inappropriate activities and if that is what the priest believes and wants to hold true to then he should.

And if this is the case then he is concerned with his flock as he will want what is best for them.

Another point is that Christianity is not about indoctrination and rule, it is about a personal relationship with God where everyone has the free will to accept or reject. What you do with that choice is up to you.

ameliaS wrote:
Three things -
1.I wonder if Father John would be allowed to hold confirmation classes in a Hindu Temple. If so, let the yoga resume.

2. the verb (that's a "doing" word) - practise, the noun - practice

3. "There is me trying to make a living", why does the Echo not correct this to save the blushes of the interviewee? Definitey need more rigour......

If Father John requested the use of Hindu premises for confirmation classes, after initial bemusement, and because not all faiths are as black and white as Father Chandler's particular brand of Christianity, he may well find himself welcomed. Nor would it surprise me if members of the Hindu community themselves turned up to find out more. Some are more interested in spritual breadth and understanding than in fiercely proclaiming and defending their "truth". That's clearly not Father Chandler's style though.

Mr_Forest wrote:

st1halo wrote:

Mr_Forest wrote: If the priest believes this to be an inappropriate activity to be conducted in the church he administers and he is the one that will have to answer to God when he is judged, then he is within his rights to refuse. I personally do not see an issue with non religious yoga being performed in a church, but I am not the one that will ultimately judge and that is what the priest needs to be content with.

If the priest is concerned about eternal damnation for allowing some yoga classes I'd suggest he's not involved in a religion at all but rather a cult which likes to indoctrinate and rule by fear and manipulation (although I perceive all religions this way) I'd also say he's more concerned about himself than his own''flock' (what a great description that is!) What sort of 'God' is it that behaves that way.....sounds more and more human to me!!

Why are questioning his beliefs?

I would suggest that the priest believes he is guided by the holy spirit. Yes Christianity teaches to love others but not if it is not true to the teachings of Christianity, Jesus took acception to temples being used for inappropriate activities and if that is what the priest believes and wants to hold true to then he should.

And if this is the case then he is concerned with his flock as he will want what is best for them.

Another point is that Christianity is not about indoctrination and rule, it is about a personal relationship with God where everyone has the free will to accept or reject. What you do with that choice is up to you.

There's no doubt that Father Chandler was guided by faith in taking his decision. But does wanting the best for his "flock" (what a quaint term!) include creating an almighty PR catastrophe for the Church in Southampton? Probably not, but that's what he's done.

ameliaS wrote:
Three things -
1.I wonder if Father John would be allowed to hold confirmation classes in a Hindu Temple. If so, let the yoga resume.

2. the verb (that's a "doing" word) - practise, the noun - practice

3. "There is me trying to make a living", why does the Echo not correct this to save the blushes of the interviewee? Definitey need more rigour......

'Definitey' need more rigour in checking your spelling...

Mr_Forest wrote:

st1halo wrote:

Mr_Forest wrote: If the priest believes this to be an inappropriate activity to be conducted in the church he administers and he is the one that will have to answer to God when he is judged, then he is within his rights to refuse. I personally do not see an issue with non religious yoga being performed in a church, but I am not the one that will ultimately judge and that is what the priest needs to be content with.

If the priest is concerned about eternal damnation for allowing some yoga classes I'd suggest he's not involved in a religion at all but rather a cult which likes to indoctrinate and rule by fear and manipulation (although I perceive all religions this way) I'd also say he's more concerned about himself than his own''flock' (what a great description that is!) What sort of 'God' is it that behaves that way.....sounds more and more human to me!!

Why are questioning his beliefs?

I would suggest that the priest believes he is guided by the holy spirit. Yes Christianity teaches to love others but not if it is not true to the teachings of Christianity, Jesus took acception to temples being used for inappropriate activities and if that is what the priest believes and wants to hold true to then he should.

And if this is the case then he is concerned with his flock as he will want what is best for them.

Another point is that Christianity is not about indoctrination and rule, it is about a personal relationship with God where everyone has the free will to accept or reject. What you do with that choice is up to you.

There's no doubt that Father Chandler was guided by faith in taking his decision. But does wanting the best for his "flock" (what a quaint term!) include creating an almighty PR catastrophe for the Church in Southampton? Probably not, but that's what he's done.

ameliaS wrote:

MGRA wrote:

BenjiWinsor wrote: It is up to each Church leader and their congregation who hires that halls and for what and no one else's business. The Echo just loves to run these stories so religious hatred can run riot in the comments .. they love it

you have missed one of fundamental points of this saga.... the idiot priest cancelled her booking WEEKS after it was made and did not have the basic politeness to tell her why. That is why its a story. If he had had the manners to inform her as to why his bigotry was leading to her cancelled classes I doubt that this would have ever got to the echo.... But I am genuinely surprised why some people think bigotry should be tolerated without desent.

Do you mean DISSENT? Also, you clearly know the priest very well if he has shared with you his IQ score for you to be able to call him an idiot. Don't use words if you don't know what they mean! I doubt he would be capable of doing his job if he is truly an idiot.

No, i mean't desent.... and don't use Caps , its f***ing rude....

BenjiWinsor wrote:

MGRA wrote:

BenjiWinsor wrote:
It is up to each Church leader and their congregation who hires that halls and for what and no one else's business.

The Echo just loves to run these stories so religious hatred can run riot in the comments .. they love it

you have missed one of fundamental points of this saga.... the idiot priest cancelled her booking WEEKS after it was made and did not have the basic politeness to tell her why. That is why its a story. If he had had the manners to inform her as to why his bigotry was leading to her cancelled classes I doubt that this would have ever got to the echo.... But I am genuinely surprised why some people think bigotry should be tolerated without desent.

and you missed the part in the first story where it said it wasn't booked as a yoga class but under another name and it was only later that the Church leader found out it was yoga and therefore objected.

no you missed the bit where it clearly stated what the classes were about, he was just too stupid to realise.

ameliaS wrote:
Three things -
1.I wonder if Father John would be allowed to hold confirmation classes in a Hindu Temple. If so, let the yoga resume.

2. the verb (that's a "doing" word) - practise, the noun - practice

3. "There is me trying to make a living", why does the Echo not correct this to save the blushes of the interviewee? Definitey need more rigour......

is English your first language ? I just looked up the word "definitey" and it does not exist !?!? Its just that you seemed so confident about other peoples use of English, I assumed it was your first language !?

http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=LqA6fFSIs
AI

About the root of Yoga.

Personally, I as a former Yoga and Karate master, can tell the difference.

Mr_Forest wrote:

st1halo wrote:

Mr_Forest wrote: If the priest believes this to be an inappropriate activity to be conducted in the church he administers and he is the one that will have to answer to God when he is judged, then he is within his rights to refuse. I personally do not see an issue with non religious yoga being performed in a church, but I am not the one that will ultimately judge and that is what the priest needs to be content with.

If the priest is concerned about eternal damnation for allowing some yoga classes I'd suggest he's not involved in a religion at all but rather a cult which likes to indoctrinate and rule by fear and manipulation (although I perceive all religions this way) I'd also say he's more concerned about himself than his own''flock' (what a great description that is!) What sort of 'God' is it that behaves that way.....sounds more and more human to me!!

Why are questioning his beliefs?

I would suggest that the priest believes he is guided by the holy spirit. Yes Christianity teaches to love others but not if it is not true to the teachings of Christianity, Jesus took acception to temples being used for inappropriate activities and if that is what the priest believes and wants to hold true to then he should.

And if this is the case then he is concerned with his flock as he will want what is best for them.

Another point is that Christianity is not about indoctrination and rule, it is about a personal relationship with God where everyone has the free will to accept or reject. What you do with that choice is up to you.

I wasn't questioning his beliefs, although I reserve my right to do so. I was simply replying to your assertion that he acted in fear of being adversely judged....come the big day! He can believe what he likes, I don't respect his beliefs but I respect his right to believe.
If he believes he is guided by a spirit, fine but Ill refer you to my earlier post of religion and logic.
As for your point about Christianity, in my opinion, all religions are about indoctrination and rule. Free will to accept or reject is tempered with threats of damnation etc. It starts when you are a child, not when you are old enough to decide and this priests particular religion got ruling down to a fine art through large parts of European history. You do not have a personal relationship with 'God', you either worship him or you're 'out'.
Personally I find all religions damaging and divisive. The very fact that this row has broken out over some harmless exercises proves my point. If I started all my posts with the words 'Im better than you are' that would pretty much sum up what religions are all about (for me)

solomum wrote:
I fail to understand why this has created such massive feelings. I wanted to hire a local social club for a child's birthday party once but they said they could not supply their hall to me for use as a children's party venue. I simply found somewhere else that would accommodate us, without the need to get the papers involved. At the end of the day whatever anyone's feelings on this, the priest will be acting on what he personally feels is right. I am a Christian and have no issues with yoga whatsoever. The priest concerned obviously feels that it compromises what he believes is right. Christianity is not a set of rules, but each persons personal faith and belief. If I was asked to do something that went against what I felt was right, I would not do it so why should this priest be any different. What one Christian feels is wrong may not be the same for another so to cause such anger against one religion is ridiculous.

Personally I feel this has become a big issue, and a newsworthy story because of the Priest's truly shocking display of intolerance.

He really does seem to have a set of blinkers on and is doing the reputation of his church no favors at all. In the original story it wasn't as if his own organisation was defending him - in fact almost the opposite.

st1halo wrote:

Mr_Forest wrote:

st1halo wrote:

Mr_Forest wrote: If the priest believes this to be an inappropriate activity to be conducted in the church he administers and he is the one that will have to answer to God when he is judged, then he is within his rights to refuse. I personally do not see an issue with non religious yoga being performed in a church, but I am not the one that will ultimately judge and that is what the priest needs to be content with.

If the priest is concerned about eternal damnation for allowing some yoga classes I'd suggest he's not involved in a religion at all but rather a cult which likes to indoctrinate and rule by fear and manipulation (although I perceive all religions this way) I'd also say he's more concerned about himself than his own''flock' (what a great description that is!) What sort of 'God' is it that behaves that way.....sounds more and more human to me!!

Why are questioning his beliefs?

I would suggest that the priest believes he is guided by the holy spirit. Yes Christianity teaches to love others but not if it is not true to the teachings of Christianity, Jesus took acception to temples being used for inappropriate activities and if that is what the priest believes and wants to hold true to then he should.

And if this is the case then he is concerned with his flock as he will want what is best for them.

Another point is that Christianity is not about indoctrination and rule, it is about a personal relationship with God where everyone has the free will to accept or reject. What you do with that choice is up to you.

I wasn't questioning his beliefs, although I reserve my right to do so. I was simply replying to your assertion that he acted in fear of being adversely judged....come the big day! He can believe what he likes, I don't respect his beliefs but I respect his right to believe.
If he believes he is guided by a spirit, fine but Ill refer you to my earlier post of religion and logic.
As for your point about Christianity, in my opinion, all religions are about indoctrination and rule. Free will to accept or reject is tempered with threats of damnation etc. It starts when you are a child, not when you are old enough to decide and this priests particular religion got ruling down to a fine art through large parts of European history. You do not have a personal relationship with 'God', you either worship him or you're 'out'.
Personally I find all religions damaging and divisive. The very fact that this row has broken out over some harmless exercises proves my point. If I started all my posts with the words 'Im better than you are' that would pretty much sum up what religions are all about (for me)

It is fair to say that plenty of mistakes have been made but as a Christian I know I am not perfect and I do mess up all the time and to me that is the case with historical Christian failings.

I am no better than you, I sin, you sin, god loves me, god loves you. The only difference at present is what we do with our free will.

As for indoctrination and rule I will beg to differ. I was not brought up a Christian and made a choice to follow only recently. Yes some teachings highlight pitfalls but in my opinion that forms guardrails to keep us from getting hurt.

Institutions such as churches should not rule people's hearts, yes they are there for guidance but they can never say you're damned because it is not their place to judge and they do not know an individuals heart and conversations with God.

Yes I worship god but there is never a case of being 'out' because everything is God's and you and anyone else are known to him.

Apologies if this seems antagonistic, that is not my intention, I simply want to convey that if the priest's decision was made for the correct reasons and he is at peace with God with that choice then he has done the best for his flock in his opinion.

MGRA wrote:

ameliaS wrote:
Three things -
1.I wonder if Father John would be allowed to hold confirmation classes in a Hindu Temple. If so, let the yoga resume.

2. the verb (that's a "doing" word) - practise, the noun - practice

3. "There is me trying to make a living", why does the Echo not correct this to save the blushes of the interviewee? Definitey need more rigour......

is English your first language ? I just looked up the word "definitey" and it does not exist !?!? Its just that you seemed so confident about other peoples use of English, I assumed it was your first language !?

Can you not tell the difference between a spelling mistake and a typo? Dear o dear.

MGRA wrote:

ameliaS wrote:
Three things -
1.I wonder if Father John would be allowed to hold confirmation classes in a Hindu Temple. If so, let the yoga resume.

2. the verb (that's a "doing" word) - practise, the noun - practice

3. "There is me trying to make a living", why does the Echo not correct this to save the blushes of the interviewee? Definitey need more rigour......

is English your first language ? I just looked up the word "definitey" and it does not exist !?!? Its just that you seemed so confident about other peoples use of English, I assumed it was your first language !?

Is English your first language? You've missed out two important apostrophes, are over-punctuating your sentences, and all three of your sentences have question marks after them, even though only one of them is a question. It's just that you seemed so confident about other peoples' use of English, I assumed it was your first language.

Protip: picking up other people on spelling and grammatical errors is an open admission you don't have any way to address their actual point.

Mr_Forest wrote:

st1halo wrote:

Mr_Forest wrote:

st1halo wrote:

Mr_Forest wrote: If the priest believes this to be an inappropriate activity to be conducted in the church he administers and he is the one that will have to answer to God when he is judged, then he is within his rights to refuse. I personally do not see an issue with non religious yoga being performed in a church, but I am not the one that will ultimately judge and that is what the priest needs to be content with.

If the priest is concerned about eternal damnation for allowing some yoga classes I'd suggest he's not involved in a religion at all but rather a cult which likes to indoctrinate and rule by fear and manipulation (although I perceive all religions this way) I'd also say he's more concerned about himself than his own''flock' (what a great description that is!) What sort of 'God' is it that behaves that way.....sounds more and more human to me!!

Why are questioning his beliefs?

I would suggest that the priest believes he is guided by the holy spirit. Yes Christianity teaches to love others but not if it is not true to the teachings of Christianity, Jesus took acception to temples being used for inappropriate activities and if that is what the priest believes and wants to hold true to then he should.

And if this is the case then he is concerned with his flock as he will want what is best for them.

Another point is that Christianity is not about indoctrination and rule, it is about a personal relationship with God where everyone has the free will to accept or reject. What you do with that choice is up to you.

I wasn't questioning his beliefs, although I reserve my right to do so. I was simply replying to your assertion that he acted in fear of being adversely judged....come the big day! He can believe what he likes, I don't respect his beliefs but I respect his right to believe.
If he believes he is guided by a spirit, fine but Ill refer you to my earlier post of religion and logic.
As for your point about Christianity, in my opinion, all religions are about indoctrination and rule. Free will to accept or reject is tempered with threats of damnation etc. It starts when you are a child, not when you are old enough to decide and this priests particular religion got ruling down to a fine art through large parts of European history. You do not have a personal relationship with 'God', you either worship him or you're 'out'.
Personally I find all religions damaging and divisive. The very fact that this row has broken out over some harmless exercises proves my point. If I started all my posts with the words 'Im better than you are' that would pretty much sum up what religions are all about (for me)

It is fair to say that plenty of mistakes have been made but as a Christian I know I am not perfect and I do mess up all the time and to me that is the case with historical Christian failings.

I am no better than you, I sin, you sin, god loves me, god loves you. The only difference at present is what we do with our free will.

As for indoctrination and rule I will beg to differ. I was not brought up a Christian and made a choice to follow only recently. Yes some teachings highlight pitfalls but in my opinion that forms guardrails to keep us from getting hurt.

Institutions such as churches should not rule people's hearts, yes they are there for guidance but they can never say you're damned because it is not their place to judge and they do not know an individuals heart and conversations with God.

Yes I worship god but there is never a case of being 'out' because everything is God's and you and anyone else are known to him.

Apologies if this seems antagonistic, that is not my intention, I simply want to convey that if the priest's decision was made for the correct reasons and he is at peace with God with that choice then he has done the best for his flock in his opinion.

No apologies necessary Mr-F, I don't find your comments antagonistic. I respect your point of view and your right to state it.
You are probably correct in assuming that the preists' actions are with the best intentions from his point of belief.
Your beliefs... Whilst I enjoy and am interested in hearing your reasoning and I respect the fact that you have your faith in your 'God', it's not something I will ever contemplate. I dont judge people adversely for it. Sadly, the weight of history, and indeed this story endorses the point that religion only leads to squabbling and fighting.

Father John is 'Assistant Priest' in Southampton & has created this storm while his boss was away on holiday. I wouldn't like to be in his shoes when his boss gets back! Hopefully this episode will teach him that life is not as black & white as he apparently believes it to be. Jesus taught tolerance, compassion and understanding. There is little of any of those qualities on display in this stories.