Christians Have No Right To Wear Cross At Work, Says Government

[Myles Domini]

[url="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9136191/Christians-have-no-right-to-wear-cross-at-work-says-Government.html"]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9136191/Christians-have-no-right-to-wear-cross-at-work-says-Government.html[/url]

[Archaeology cat]

Praying they win their case

[eagle_eye222001]

There does not seem to be a legitimate reason to forbid people from wearing crosses to work. By "legitimate," I mean anything that could reasonably hinder their ability to work.

[Winchester]

Property rights. Legitimate reason.

[BG45]

Hoping they win their case. Also, I love how the Telegraph keeps saying Cross, but use an image of a Crucifix. Jesus on it makes a difference in terminology my dear media...

[Jesus_lol]

have to start wearing my Mjolnir necklace to work.

[Myles Domini]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1331445401' post='2399006']
have to start wearing my [b]Mjolnir[/b] necklace to work.
[/quote]

Just an aside...

[img]http://www.brokenfrontier.com/userfiles/images/headlines/2010/jan/thor_1.jpg[/img]

...The Avengers movie is going to be so full of win

PS) On the matter at hand its incredible for the government to attempt to determine what is or isn't a 'requirement' of Christianity. If we are a free society surely people should be able to express what they think, feel and believe unless its literally killing people...?

[Ice_nine]

this is dumb.

[Hubertus]

How is it offensive for someone to wear a religious article?

[ApologeticMom]

For the first time, I understand the comment that a friend made. Christianity is under attack. It is OK to be anything else except Christian.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Hubertus' timestamp='1331495394' post='2399125']
How is it offensive for someone to wear a religious article?
[/quote]
Objectively, it's not.

What if someone worshipped people having sex? What if that was their religion, and their images were naked people doing hte wild monkey dance? Many people would find that offensive. Some people would not doubt find the catalogue of sex positions painted on some temples to be offensive. It's relative. That's how.

Keep government the hell out of it. I don't see how we're not learning this lesson after the HHS mandate. Duh. The USCCB just called out recently for more interventionism (in favor of the poor) in our budgets. It's almost like they don't learn anything from the behavior of government.

Edited March 12, 2012 by Winchester

[Ed Normile]

This President has over 300 incidents so far of his trying to limit or diminish religion, namely christianity and judaism. Not a week ago the Supreme Court struck down a motion brought before them by this regime asking for the government to be able to choose who the christian churches and jewish temples could appoint as their rabbis or bishops and cardinals. This was struck down in a rare 9-0 decision with even the most liberal judge in the court voting against it

Its a shame the catholic institutions such as Notre Dame, which gave Obama an honorary degree, and Georgetown, both places covered religious icons at his representatives request, did not have the conviction to just say no.

ed

[4588686]

[quote name='Ed Normile' timestamp='1331521838' post='2399359']
This President has over 300 incidents so far of his trying to limit or diminish religion, namely christianity and judaism. Not a week ago the Supreme Court struck down a motion brought before them by this regime asking for the government to be able to choose who the christian churches and jewish temples could appoint as their rabbis or bishops and cardinals. This was struck down in a rare 9-0 decision with even the most liberal judge in the court voting against it

Its a shame the catholic institutions such as Notre Dame, which gave Obama an honorary degree, and Georgetown, both places covered religious icons at his representatives request, did not have the conviction to just say no.

ed
[/quote]

This case occurred in the UK. I don't think it is too much to ask that you actually read the article before becoming incensed about another instance of Obama attacking religion. Maybe this should lead you to question how reliable the other 300 other supposed instances were.

Please cite the Supreme Court decision that you are referring to.

Edited March 12, 2012 by Hasan

[Jesus_lol]

man, i can practically see the smoke coming off him now...

[Basilisa Marie]

There is a difference, though, between wearing a crucifix and wearing a hijab. I can't wear any overt jewelry at work. If I wanted to wear a necklace, I'd have to wear it under my shirt, crucifix or whatever. But it does set a dangerous precedent. As the article says,
[quote][color=#282828][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]In recent months the courts have refused to recognise the wearing of a cross, belief in marriage between a man and a woman and Sundays as a day of worship as ‘core’ expressions of the Christian faith.[/font][/color][/quote]
This could be a symptom of a greater issue at work here.