E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThe British government will argue in court that Christians don't have a right to wear a cross or crucifix openly at work, the Sunday Telegraph reported.
The newspaper said the landmark case before the European Court of Human Rights involves two British women who are trying to establish their right to display the cross. The Telegraph said it's the first time the government has had to openly address whether Christians have a right to wear the symbol at work.
The Sunday Telegraph said it had seen a document that says the government will argue that because it is not a “requirement” of the Christian faith, employers can ban the wearing of the cross.
In the case before the human rights court, Nadia Eweida and Shirley Chaplin claim that their employers discriminated against them by barring them from wearing the symbols.
The Telegraph said Lord Carey, the former archbishop of Canterbury, criticized the government's stance and called it another example of Christianity becoming sidelined in official life.
More from msnbc.com and NBC News:
- Iraqi teens stoned to death for wearing 'emo' clothes
- Worst Gaza flare-up in months kills 14, Palestinians say
- Slimy but tasty seaweed returns to Japan
Dominique Strauss-Kahn flees student protesters - As quick as a tsunami: Chinese pre-fab homes
Follow us on Twitter: @msnbc_world
Leave a Comment:
Good...keep it in church
Or wear it under your clothes if you feel you must remind yourself what religion you are. Why does someone need to advertise their religion? And doesn't their all-knowing God know what they believe? So why the bother?
Its bothersome either way. Right to religion vs service to state. Limiting the right for her to wear a cross shows that the state does not take kindly to a specific religion, however, allowing her to display it shows that her priority is with her religion over her state. Reminds me of the whole gays being not being registered by some civil employees here in NY after the gay marriage bill was passed. Either way, I think she should be allowed to wear her cross, but she must still put state above religion when in service or else find a different career.
With hardly three percent of Muslim population, all these one-sided crap are coming up.
Let the Saudis and other ME Muslim nations permit, non-Muslim religious symbols, scriptures and worship places, before we permit our human rights to be abused by Muslims!
Those who don't wear non-Muslim religious symbols should start wearing them to defy our violations of human rights and democratic rights!
This is nonsense.
Seems to me that a person should be allowed to wear a tasteful piece of jewelry if they choose to do so, whether it be a cross, a star of David, a crescent-moon, or something else.
However, in order to prevent some wag from sporting outlandishly huge, gross, or garish jewelry, employers should be allowed to limit the size and/or nature of the jewelry their employees display to the public.
However #2, the best thing would be for people to keep their religion to themselves, and not feel the need to wear their religious symbols.
However #3, the VERY best thing would be for people to use their god-given intelligence, to think for themselves, and to dump these religious symbols in the trash, where they belong.
Bmette.... As I have stated before, I will wear my Cross where ever and whenever I want, no one will tell me that I cannot wear my Cross.
However #4 why don't you dump your wedding ring or anything else you wear in the trash because I don't want to see any jewelry on your person because I find it offensive.
Running scared from the muslim population- chickensheets. Wear the cross if you want, display it proudly. Screw anybody who doesn't like it, they aren't being asked to wear one.
I have a watch that has a cross on it, better dump it
Keep your purple hair and that ugly nose ring at home also
Wear your cross, but don't bitch about other's display of religion. This get's unworkable quickly with ear-ring styles, tattoos, hair styles, head garments, rings, etc.
They should stick with restricting only items deemed unsafe or otherwise offensive.
You do know they got here by starting with the restriction of head coverings, right?
Amen!
You can wear it, just don't show it; keep it under your collar, and that goes for all religous items.
It's just a piece of jewelry. Can workers wear other necklaces? What's the difference?
The atheists of the UK have a thing against Christians.
All it seems that they're saying is that 'private' employers can require people to wear or not wear certain items of clothing. If you don't like it, don't work there! Odds are you won't like working there anyway!
Now if they had said that government employees couldn't wear it, I'd have a problem with the ruling.
Private employers have the right to be a$$holes. Same as wearing the Burkha in a teen clothing store in my book. Perhaps the employer doesn't want to offend or alienate any potential customers? Nothing wrong with that? Perhaps the employer hates Christian symbols, ok, that is his/her right.
If this is then case then it should be applied equally for all. If no cross then no Star of David, no burka, no head dress, no prayer mats no yamaka, no facial hair...
Really? How about keeping that tie, ugly shirt/blouse, hat in the closet? How about keeping your off-colored hair, long fake nails, and stinking perfume/cologne at home? How about keeping your tongue, nose, lip, and other unusual piercings in your jewelry box?
What's next? You can only wear black and white clothes to work? Maybe throw in a red arm band with another symbol on it?
Shss! It's a cross. Don't like, don't look. It's not as if anyone would take it as representing the company that person works for.
Are they also going to rule that muslims can't wear their traditional islamic clothing? I suppose any jewelry that looks suspiciously like it's associated with some religion, however obscure, will generate a police visit. I wonder how they would rule about Athiestic symbols?
Will they also outlaw Muslims wearing a head scarf at wok since it's not 'required' in their faith?
This is why most Americans are at odds with what the radical atheists portray. It hasn't gotten that bad yet here, but you will see it coming to past very soon. The govt. in its attempt to remove every aspect of religion from our rights in its "separation of church and state" will no doubt bring this to past and even I will be ashamed that they would have denied us christians our first amendment rights.
Better look closely at how the Brits handle this. This could be our future too, if we don't stop it.
Unhappy: Where in the article does it say you can't wear a cross to church or under your clothing? The issue concerns people going into GOVERNMENT OFFICES and seeing religous symbols which can be intimidating , not the practice of your personal beliefs.
And your problem with that is...?
Norm, there is nothing intimidating about a person wearing a religious symbol. Most of the time I don't even notice them when I talk to someone, let alone when I enter the room with them. What I want to know is who complained about this. I find the idea that anyone actually finds things like this offensive to be rediculous. Religion is only offensive when someone tries to force it on you, and this right here sounds like someone trying to do that than a person wearing a cross.
I agree that if they do this, they better make it cover all religious jewlery, then we'll see how many people support it.
Diolki: what you are saying is that there is nothing intimidating about a person wearing a religous symbol to you. What if it was a judge hearing a case regarding displaying a christmas tree on public grounds be it a cross or a jewish star? Or a muslim suing to wear a head rag?
Point is intimidation is in the eye of the intimidated, not you. Best to keep your faith in your heart and church, not on public display; that is for the insecure or the proselytizer.
Covering of the head by a woman is REQUIRED by Muslim teachings. It is not OPTIONAL like wearing the cross is. Wearing Yarmulkas is REQUIRED in Judaism. It is not OPTIONAL. The court is saying that if it is not REQUIRED then an employer or the Government (in Great Britain) can bar its use. Wearing of a Star of David is NOT required, nor is wearing of any other JEWELRY in a religion. But the head coverings are a requisite part of their worship, they are not blandishments meant to draw attention the way jewelry is (regardless of how big, small or jewel encrusted it is or isn't). I agree that if it means that much to someone they can wear it UNDERNEATH their clothing. But it can't be visible since it is NOT required of a Christian that they wear JEWELRY.
Please show me where the requirement is. Thank you.
Cat - YOU ARE WRONG!! There is nothing in the Koran (terrorist bible) of the Jewish Torah that requires any specific clothing be worn in Public!! The requirements are only for Temple and Mosque, not in Public. Jews can wear their caps, Muslims can wear their veils & head coverings, but Christan's can not wear a Cross - Discrimination at its worst in the U.K.. A Cross is not just jewelry, it is a symbol of faith like the Jewish Beanie's and the Muslim coverings (which terrorist use to hide their identity). The U.K. is being invaded by Islamic Extremest with the full support of U.K. Politicians. Similarly, the U.S. President is allowing Illegals to invade America through Mexico, but the difference being Americans are arming themselves and protecting their own borders where the U.S. President has failed.
BRAVO UNITED KINGDOM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Be careful what you cheer for.... the UK does not have a Bill of right as we do in the United States. The Press there can get, and does get, shut down. The government there can (and does) enforce the official Secrets Act. Imagine Bush with such a tool.... (Yikes)
Better to have someone with a Crucifix around their neck then to be harassed by a government with no limits; blackshirts who do not like you; NKVD's (or Nazi SS) who come to you house at night to evict, imprison, or kill you;
Outlawing religious symbols do not solve anything.
DOWN, DOWN UNITED KINGDOM and European Union for violating our democratic and human rights.
Every sensible non-Muslim should oppose the violation of our human rights and democratic rights in their appeasement of Muslim fanatics.
Defy them!
Let those people get wokers from Muslim nations, who can wear their niqabs and pray five times a day!
I was waiting for someone to sneak Islam in. There are some downright ugly crosses that are anti religious, yet everyone is quick to judge. Could it be that some of these gang style art forms are what the intention of this law could be about. The military required such items to be worn under your uniform T-Shirt, it makes sense, if you want to wear your religious symbols wear them where they don't show. I am all for keeping Religion out of the government or the workplace. If everyone kept their religion in their Home, Church, Temple, Mosque or whatever the workplace might be a better place. The workplace is for work not for advertising.
TR __— The UK does have a Bill of Rights, ever since 1689!
It's because of their Bill of Rights that we have a Bill of Rights. Colonial subjects were living under the UK's Bill of Rights ever since the Charters were issued. During and after the Revolutionary war the States and Federal Government created a Bill of Rights based on England's. Irony is that our Second Amendment, right to bear arms, came from and was in England's Bill of Rights along with some of the other things. We copied parts of theirs when writing our Bill of Rights.
A whole lot of "Christians" may be very annoying, follow doctrine that only vaguely resembles anything Jesus taught, and can often be hate filled of anyone that is not their specific brand of "Christianity", but this is just a cross. If just seeing a cross offends you then you seriously have a problem. If you outlaw the cross, they will just come up with something else that means the same thing.
LOL Remember the fish they adopted when the Romans outlawed the cross?
Am I missing the point here? What I see is... if the Brit's want to ban religious things like "burkas" then they better ban all types of religious apparel.
The French banned burkas, not the English, you do need to get out more.
I'm an Atheist. And even I believe this goes a bit too far. What people have on their necklaces and what not is their own business and it's really not harming anyone. Like the poster above said, if seeing a cross offends you, then you probably have a serious problem. A large number of people on earth claim to be Christians. You might want to get use to seeing a religious symbol here and there.
If you base your political agenda on religion, that's your business. You don't look very smart in doing so in my opinion. But again, it's your business.
I guess I shouldn't say "you don't look very smart." Selfish might be a better word.
While most wold agree that a small cross around your neck is no big deal, what if someone wanted to shave their head into a cross? Or wear a T-shirt with a giant cross on it to work? As with all laws and rights, you need to consider the extremists among us before making policy.
a shirt with a cross? you're an idiot, ERMD. and i'm not saying that as an insult either. i'm just calling it as it is. you are truly an idiot.
Calling you an idot might have gone too far, but shaving your head into a cross and cross shirts really does not make a difference. It all depends on how you act, many muslim women work wearing the Hijab, thats fine as it their right to do so, as it should be for that woman with the cross. But, the employee must keep in mind that as a civil employee them must not discriminate under the premise of religion when doing their duties in public service.
This appeasement of muslims has to stop if that is the case. If they ban Christian symbol, then they need to be consistent with all religious symboles, including Muslim. This is what happens when you let in immigrants unchecked and uncontrolled. They lack a bill of rights, no 1st Amendment to protect their views, and definitely no 2nd Amendment for right to bear arms, if Brits had that right in the first place, the people of England would rise up and overthrow their govt for appeasing Muslims over their own citizens' rights. This scenario is familiar here as well, except our civil rights are violated by big business, who would rather do business with scofflaws and criminals, than protect their workers from being assaulted by the former, and fire their workers for using their legally guaranteed right to self defense when assaulted. Corporate violations of human rights are as bad as state violations of human rights, worse when corporate violators, puppeteer the state to look away or make their actions legal.
What people here don't seem to understand that this had nothing to do with "rights" or anything else. It was a PRIVATE employer who deemed it offensive or unnecessary for his employees to be wearing a symbol that some of his customer or clients might find offensive. I see nothing wrong with a PRIVATE employer telling his employees what they can and cannot wear, that's HIS RIGHT as a PRIVATE employer. If you do not like it or disagree with it then find another job.
Snappa: Do you also take the same approach with birth control and Catholics? This is why most Americans are at odds with what the radical atheists portray. It hasn't gotten that bad yet here, but you will see it coming to past very soon. The govt. in its attempt to remove every aspect of religion from our rights in its "separation of church and state" will no doubt bring this to past and even I will be ashamed that they would have denied us christians our first amendment rights.
If everybody minded their own business and didn't run around worrying about what evryone else is doing issues like this probrably wouldn't arise, and if people stopped crying about every little thing being offensive decisions like this wouldn't have to be made. Seriously when did this become a world full of children? Besides that it was one company's policy, not a newly formed national policy. That makes it a company policy not an attack against christions. I can not wear jewelry of any kind at work including wedding rings. Most jobs will not let you work with facial piercings because it might offend customers, so what's the difference? I agree with Snappa don't want to deal with it work somewhere else. Stop whining and grow up.
ERMD
I have no problem with someone having a cross on their shirt. That's nodifferent to me than someone having "ACDC" on their shirt. As for shaving their head into a cross, that would probably violate some sort of dress code for people employed by the UK government looking "neat" and "professional." You probably wouldn't get fired for it. But your boss might have a long chat with you.
I agree. A cross on a shirt is no more offensive than a TARDIS or PAC-man print. However, I have to say that it is interesting how much Britain has changed from the 1600s.
I agree with you!
As an ex-commie, I am against all religious opiums.
But this religious restriction has gone too far and is meant for appeasing Islamic religious Nazis.
If they outlaw the cross, then they have to outlaw anything to do with Allah or Islam, Judiasm, Buddhism, Satanisim, Druidism, Shiksim, Shintoism, Taoism, Hinduism, Wiccanism, Mormonism, or any other recognized religion of the world. You can't just single out one religion and say it offends the others. Which means that you can wear any of them or you have to recognize Athieism and ban them all!
really? have you ever been to the uk?
Not too keen on the freedom of religion are they.
Man I hate religion in all of its forms, as it is the single worst blight on mankind ever to exist. Still I find it appalling that a 'western' government is making these kinds of decisions and forcing them on its people.
I have never before in my life been more happy that I am not British.
Well the way this country keeps talking about "Separation of Church and State" I wouldn't be surprised that it could happen here as well. Pay close attention to what radical atheists are doing under the disguise of "separation of church and state". You could be looking at your future.
Unhappy
An example would be nice. And not something "purposed" I mean something that has actually happened.
Unhappy:
I think the point of "Separation of Church and State" implies that the U.S. could not pass a law like that, as it involves religion.
Easy fix, Pope issues an edict, problem solved and the Christian haters can go look for something else to whine about. It always makes me wonder when I hear people bad mouthing people, most of whom they have never even met, who follow a religion that they likely know little to nothing about, what they have done in their lives that makes them so scared that there actually is a God. Sleep good tonight, you can talk yourself into anything. Good luck.
I'm a Christian and I do not wear a cross but this is just plain wrong. For those of you who don't think so, think again because it will not stop there. There will be other issues to come along that will affect you some how some way and it does not necessarily have to involve religious beliefs.
Ok, so what if you are also an employer and an employee starts wearing an item which he/she claims represents her new religion of emo worship? Are you justified telling the employee they're wrong? Are you justified in telling your employee that this is your workplace and you get to make the rules? If not, you better not ever be an employer, because your way of thinking will really begin to tick you off.
Do they also restrict the use of jewelry as well? What is the difference about wearing a cross around your neck and another piece of jewelry? Could they not be counted as the same? Your logic doesn't make sense, because unlike a hijab, a cross does not conceal anything. Why are they only focusing on christians? That is really the question here.
Yes, Unhappy...why are they??? I asked this at 11.2 but no answers from anyone.
They also will ban the symbols of other religions as well, they just want to foster a neutral enviornment for people to work. Plus if there are no religous symbols then no one can say they were discrimanated against for their religious beliefs. But I think culture awareness classes would have a better effect.
haha so fostering a neutral environment means banning difference? are black people allowed in the buildings too? or will they upset the neutrality? moron.
OH NO!!! Black people???
(sarcasm!!! ☺)
They are not saying you can't wear one just wear it under your shirt if you must.
Really??? Are they putting a ban on the hijab, the pentacle, the shamrock or the tika, as well???
How about yarmulkes or nose rings or tattoos??? Any problems with those???
Since this is the government we are talking about tattoos would be fine if they are hidden under clothing nose rings would have to be taken out to give off the appearance of proffessionalism. If the other thing you mentioned goes on the head customs of the west usually would need they take that out when they enter a building.
Where'd ya go???
Just a thought if this would go through in court...how far could things go in it's revolution and evolution and where does it end??? "Cookie cutter" people, maybe??? Everyone the same. Wouldn't it be a cruel joke on you if the powers that be decided that the "right" people were to be everything that you aren't. If you haven't seen my post at #8, scroll up. A ruling like this could set the wheels in motion for a lot of things in the future. Things that have nothing to do with religion. Think I'm wrong??? Maybe...maybe not.
I'm sure they wil,l if the need comes up, again this measure is just to foster a neutral environment they are not saying one can't wear the cross just not openly the same would be said of other religious jewelry.
no it wouldnt.
I understood it when you said one could wear it under a shirt but some things cannot be hidden and why should they anyway??? The hijab, the tika, the nose ring and a tattoo, depending on the location cannot be hidden. I witnessed a woman just this week with small bats tattooed across her forehead. No, I'm not kidding. So what does she do??? Wear a hockey mask???
Bottom line, these items are a part of who someone is and for some, these objects are very important. What happened to tolerance and diversity all of a sudden??? There's not enough information on this article and I'd really like to know why and where this is coming from and why just Christians. The more I think about this, the angrier I'm becoming and if you saw my post at #8, then you already know that I do not wear any religious artifacts ever.
The woman with the bats on her forehead would have to fine a job that take will hire her if she can't then she would have to find another means of employment or get them removed. A person of faith should not need items to show their faith, why is it so important that their cross be visible? And since it is the UK a good number of people are christian so that could be why just christians are mentioned.
No right to work if someone doesn't like her tattoo???
You'll have to ask them but I ask you why shouldn't they???
Please re-read the article. The opening line is
"don't have a right" might be a key item there...
Tattoos are not accepted in some walks of life and depending on what type of job they want to work at yes they will have to either cover up their tattoos or get them removed to work at that certain job. Openly at work means they can still wear it just not visible,but why should someone whom may not be of that faith be forced to feel like an outsider? It just leads to bad impressions of good people, you make your own opinions of that person based on that one item and that is what they are trying to avoid.
Again, what happened to tolerance and diversity??? See my response to you at #15. You're speaking out of both sides of your mouth simply because you don't care for religious beliefs. Not all of the symbols that I've mentioned necessarily carry a religious connotation and this happens to be a personal direct attack on Christians. Ever hear this???
"In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up."
As far as making your own opinions of people, you can dislike anyone because they are short, tall, fat, thin, the possibilities are endless and as far as someone feeling like an outsider??? Come on...body language, facial expressions or an off handed comment can do that very well.
Hunter: Typical stupid liberal response, so when I wear my cross to work, someone is forced to feel like an outsider? you don't make any sense.
What's the big deal ? If any of you "christians" ever really READ the bible you would know that "symbols" and icons fall under the same category as Idolatry... which is FORBIDDEN. I find it sad and extremely disturbing that people rely on fables and fairytales to "identify" themselves. People should "identify" them selves as #1 human beings #2 members of their race/ethnicity and #3 members of their communities. There is absolutely NO NEED for further "identification". Here we are in the 21st century and the ignorant masses are still brainwashed into living their lives according to a bunch of Bronze Aged sheepherders fairytales and using them as excuses for everything they do instead of living in REALITY and using their common sense and logic to do the right thing and help out their fellow citizens. I hope to hell they BAN ALL RELIGION. It's WAY past it's due and should have been exterminated long ago.
Beware the Religious Zealot: Obviously you don't know the bible too well. The bible you speak of doesn't say no symbols at all, but rather no symbols that do not worship any other thing than God. Observe below:
Want to hear about the Ten Commandments? Ark of the Covenant?
I am often amazed at the numbers of truly ignorant people in this world and more so on these threads. My religious belief is irrelevant in this forum as the idea of banning any ones iconic symbols worn on their person is just another instance of government intruding into the lives of citizens when it is not necessary, wanted nor productive. The intrusive actions of governments in Western cultures has become so out of line with the wants and needs of the people that we really need to question the motives behind this attempt at controlling such personal aspects of our lives. We really need to question how so many people have become so insensitive and uncaring about the feelings and personal needs of the people around them. Could it, in part, be due to the actions of these governments that people have become so desensitized to anyone's needs but their own narrow point of view.
Bible prophecy coming true people. hope you're on the right side.
There is no need for name calling again the article only states they can't wear it openly on their person. They can still wear the it under their clothes.
I don't want to wear it under my clothes, I have been wearing my cross for over 40 years and you nor anyone else is going to tell me I can not wear my cross, where and when I want to.
zman...unless you work for the government in England, it doesn't apply to you, so your comment is completely irrelevant. No one is the USA is telling you that you can't wear your cross if that's what you want to do. Blather on somewhere else, will you?
mark.... I will blather any place I please, my first post said I know this is in the UK, but if a law was passed in the USA, I would stand my ground and wear my cross.
btw, which bible prophesy? there's a whole lot of them.
Clebro2, I agree.
Beloved, we knew these times were coming. We didn't think it would start in this generation. The goal of the New World Order is to outlaw all religion.
This is bad precedence for the UK courts to take.
Organized religions have cause so much harm to the human species, people should keep their religous beliefs private so things like this would never occur.
Yeah??? So what happened to this???
So you believe in censorship, I don't agree with most liberals, so please keep your liberal views private, that means that you can no longer post on this site.
"So Please keep your liberal views private, That means that you can no longer post on this site"
Ask yourself Why are you so strongly in favor of censorship, while arguing agains censorship?
What cracks me up is that THIS IS A LIBERAL SITE. Z-man... why don't you head on back over to FAUX NOISE where you belong w/all the other RRWNJs ?
A typical Liberal response, always has to have a wise azz comment. What is Faux Noise, oh you mean Fox News, well why don't you go Huff yourself over to their site. And I would rather be a RRWJNJs, than a liberal COWARD.
Dude, liberals aren't necessarily cowards. That's pretty much a prejudice. I personally try to stay quiet and listen to other people's opinions because that's the mature thing to do. as you can see between Beware_the_Religious_Zealot and me, the views on the liberal side can vary as much as in the conservative camp. To both of you, isn't name calling for people on the five-year-old level. Ad hominems are incredibly ineffective and usually alienate more people than they recruit.
Has the world gone mad? The Western World has been based predominantly of Judeo/Christian Law, and principals of Freedom and Human Rights.
I don't believe that when the Godless Nazis were bombing Great Britain, that they would have passed such a stupid law as this. No, they were on their knees praying for God's Help.
The Western World, Europe and the United States now, are trying to eradicate God from everyday life. They want to become an Atheistic Society. Beware, and for many reason, the world and Europe in particular are heading in the direction that will bring the "Man of Perdition" into power, or the Anti-Christ.
Man in his infinite wisdom says, "There is NO GOD." But the Bible or GOD's WORD says, "The Fool in his heart says there is no GOD." The Bible speaks of a day close to Christs return, and the rise of the Anti-Christ, will be a day when, "Good is called evil, and evil is called good."
There is a GOD, and he will NOT BEMOCKED. The Creator of the Universe, and everything in it, has his laws. We as a society are trying to deny GOD's Existence.
It's not the outlawing of the cross on a chain, at work, that this is all about. It's about the "Outlawing of GOD from society." That ignorant law has a sinister force behind it. Beware..
Religion is tobe seperate from government if people kept their religion to themselves the world would be so much better place to live.
If liberals would keep their thoughts to themselves, the USA would be a much better place to live.
Take your own advice zman...you have yet to post anything of substance...just irrelevant blather.
What if they wish to wear a cresent moon? Or, what if they wish to display symbols of being a witch or warlock? What about the star of david? Oh come on, what difference does it make!!!!!!
Thank god I live in a country that has those things the far left dislikes so much called "THE BILL OF RIGHTS". I guess the Magna Carta missed a few things.
Seems like every day we see the U.K. becoming more and more like France. Good thing WWII was fought 67 years ago or the UK would have ended up helping Germany.
What is wrong with France? Just because they don't want public displays of religion does not make them like Nazi Germany. The nazis were christian not atheist or anything else.
The nazis were sure as hell not Christians, cut your liberal lies.
Actually, The Nazi party was full of "believers", This passage from Mein Kampf,
"Hence today I believe I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for work of the Lord"
Sniderman...EXACTLY right. The Nazis were mostly DEVOUT Christians.... Catholics and Lutherans. There was nothing "godless" about them. In fact the VATICAN was behind Hitler and one of the Nazi Party's main supporters and accomplices.
Bunch of lies, but libs so like to rewrite history to their liking
The Bill of Rights in the UK only limits the power of the royals, parliement is free to do anything they want so they have outlawed private ownership of arms and can freely take away free press and all the other rights to which we in the US are used to. Private businesses in the US have ALWAYS been free to restrict the clothing and accessories worn while working in them and indeed I have worked in places that forbid the wear of religious icons and jewelry. In those few cases where such an argument has got into court the right of the business owner has been upheld. As for NAZI Germany, Z-man, the fact that the NAZIs were christian and that the RC church supported Hitler is well documented historical fact and is definately NOT a liberal stand-point as I am a life-long Republican who actually studied history and know these facts. From reading the article I am not sure what brought Islam into it. There is not much iconography in Islam as a general rule beyond the burkas and things. I believe that a business owner has the right to forbid the wear of these items of clothing to the same extent that they can restrict open display of any other religious identifier. The believers have never scared me and I have no fear of them in my schools teaching my children. I want them to have access to all available information and to develop the critical thinking skills to make a logical choice on their own without undue influence from anyone, including myself. Honestly the dumbest thing I have ever heard was that the court allowed a woman to get a driver's license in the State of Florida while wearing a burka to hide her face from the world, driving is a privelege and hiding your face from the law (state) should automatically prevent you from exercise of the priveledge. The specifics of this case are making people see the wrong problem. This is not about the UK preventing the display of religious symbols, it is about the right of private business to have rules about what people wear to work. We in the US have never had this problem because we have never had the right to dictate what we wear to our employers, we have the freedom to choose not to work for a company that restricts our right to wear something, or forces us to wear something (outside the draft obviously). Ask around and you will find that many work in places that forbid the wear of symbols that identify specific cultures, groups, religions and so on. Airlines can refuse service to idividuals that wear objectionable symbols on their t-shirts. It has been in the news for years.
Z-man:
Wasn't it just recently that some conservatives tried to get rid of the negative aspects of the founding fathers, etc?
gnmcd....I don't know about that, but i will look it up and see what you are talking about.
Being a US citizen and firmly opposed to my own government making any law that directly or indirectly opposes religion I see this move by the British Government to be somewhat totalitarian in nature. What business does a government have making laws concerning religious belief either for or against any religion? I think the politicians need to be told to stick it where the sun don't shine on this one. Least you want to be a subject rather than a free man or woman. Just food for thought.
Are you serious ?? The UK is a Constitutional MONARCHY which has an OFFICIAL RELIGION and the QUEEN is the head of it and has as much power over the CoE as the POPE does over the RCC. There IS no "separation of church and state" there. Church and state are one and gov't can dictate whatever they want over it. Only Gov't controls religion in the UK unlike a Theocracy where Religion controls gov't.
Again, I agree with BRZ, but not to his degree. first of all, the UK stopped being a constitutional monarchy with the bloodless revolution. It is now a parliamentary democracy, which can actually be less totalitarian than a representative democracy, which is what the US has. The queen is only the cultural leader of the UK, not the political.
However, there is technically no separation of Church and State in England (I'm not sure about the other kingdoms). Whatever the British courts rule will probably be completely in compliance with British laws.
The Fashion Police are real, but they don't have a government agency yet, because they don't, as yet, have a government, let alone a nation. :)
The Mao Chinese used to be forced to wear unisex black trousers and blue tops. The Taliban got rid of the Buddhas of Bamiyan--and regretted it later, when tourism dropped off. IBM blue uniforms disappeared with the advent of the Internet. Today, you can't wear "emo" in Iraq (and survive).
As the Spanish saying goes, "De gustos no hay nada escrito" (There's no accounting for Taste).
huntercd76,
The Nazis were christian not atheist or anything else.
I disagree with that statement. The Nazis, may have said, "They were Christian", but at the same time they executed many Priests & Pastors that spoke out against Hitler, or his treatment of the Jews. Exterminating millions, and the slaughter of the innocent is NOT what JESUS taught, or died for.
The Nazis were no Christians. And as for has there ever been things done in the "Name of Religion" such as the Spanish Inquisition, YES. But again, that does NOT go along what JESUS taught or died for, or what GOD teaches.
But then again now, many don't believe there is a GOD, and if current trend keeps heading it that direction, Our Governments will try to OUTLAW GOD, like this seemingly innocent UK law is trying to do.
It's funny you can say, "Allah, Buddha, Mohammad, Rumpelstiltskin" all you want. But please don't say JESUS, etc. I wonder why? The BIBLE says it's because the "Name of JESUS is above ALL Names", and at the time of Judgement Day, "Every knee will bow, and every tongue confess that JESUS is LORD."
The Angels in Heaven know GOD is real, and JESUS is LORD. So does SATAN, and his DEMONS.
But MAN in his ARROGANT IGNORANCE, thinks he is KING, and in control of his destiny. He is in control of the choices he makes, YES, but ultimately GOD will have the LAST WORD.
If "Man in his arrogant ignorance" thinks anything... Maybe the Ultimate is innate? (i.e.) We're self-destructive by nature. As Dr. Spock once noted, "If neonates could get out of their cradles, they would rise up and kill their parents." Such is the ignorance of blind emotion.
AJC-not disagreeing with you at all about how those people didn`t act like christians:(Nazi`s, Spanish Inquisition), but do you think these preachers that are living like kings, robbing parishioners for all they`re worth, are acting like christians? Or at least as Christ acted?
Hi Breel,
but do you think these preachers that are living like kings, robbing parishioners for all they`re worth, are acting like christians? Or at least as Christ acted?
I do agree that I am sure there are some, who are taking advantage, and doing things just for their own benefit. GOD looks at a "Person's Heart", and knows the truth of Our Intentions, etc. So if they are taking advantage, GOD will hold them accountable for that.
But there are others who are not taking advantage. The Bible says, "The LOVE of Money, is the root of all Evil." It's didn't say MONEY was EVIL, but the love of it. GOD blessed Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, etc., all were wealthy. But they didn't just use that wealth for themselves, but were a BLESSING to OTHERS, etc.
That's the difference. GOD blesses you to be a BLESSING to others. Everything that comes from GOD "Gives." So if GOD Blesses you, you are to bless othere, etc.
So in relation to your question, Billy Graham Ministry for example took in millions of dollars. But that same ministry feed the hungry, clothed the poor, etc., and obviously has operation expenses.
Rest assured, GOD knows all, including the intentions of the heart. Those who steal from GOD, or deceive HIS People, shall not go unpunished for that, or not be held to account.
Isn't declaring Jesus Lord above God a violation of the rules of the Trinity as taught to all devout Christians? I always thought it was three separate but equal and the same. It makes no difference in the end as there is no real difference between Islam, Judeaism and Christianity - They all hold God, Allah, Jehovah as the One True God (it was Shakespeare that taught a "Rose by any other name") and we are all the Sons of Adam. Since we are all the same stop the fighting amongst yourselves and worry about living your lives in peace and harmony with your fellow man as you have ALL been commanded by the various and sundry prophets . . . including Jesus.
David-1929375.
Isn't declaring Jesus Lord above God a violation of the rules of the Trinity as taught to all devout Christians? I always thought it was three separate but equal and the same.
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are ALL God, but different aspects of GOD. JESUS is called LORD because of his special relationship to man, being GOD in the flesh as a man.
As for who is in charge. JESUS did the will of the FATHER, and the HOLY SPIRIT seems to do the will of the FATHER and JESUS. So I personally think the FATHER is the HEAD, but that's my personal feeling on the matter.
The question reminds me of asking, "Who runs the United States, the Executive Branch (President), Congress (Senate & House of Representatives), or the Judicial Branch (Courts)?"
They all working together make up the Government of the United States, and have there own role to play. I believe that is how the "Trinity" is. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are ALL GOD, but have different roles to play.
Gosh! I didnt know that Jewish/Muslim influence was now soo strong in the EU.
Better look around yourself folks before you become totally negated, and pay attention to what's going on....
Hitler/Stalin were highly visible symbols of totalitarianism....be careful of the subtle ones....
Curious Bob: I do not think that Jewish/Muslim influence is "...strong in the EU". I think that fear of loss of power in government is strong in the EU.
The NWO Golden Rule: He who has the gold, rules.
Bob, This is just what happens when Socialism takes over, It too is a jealous god.
There's nothing subtle about imminence, whether it is financial melt-down, socio-political madness, or a natural disaster.