Quizzes & Puzzles3 mins ago
Why Shouldn't Christians Be Allowed To Wear Their Crucifixes At Work If They So Wish?
50 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.Yes, the words "Liberal Democrat minister" at the start are a bit of a giveaway.
So what was the upshot? I couldn't really get a lot of sense out of the link: there were 4 cases I think mentioned: two involved wearing things, and two involved discrimination against gays. It wasn't clear to me exactly what was what ...
So what was the upshot? I couldn't really get a lot of sense out of the link: there were 4 cases I think mentioned: two involved wearing things, and two involved discrimination against gays. It wasn't clear to me exactly what was what ...
I am not sure to be honest AOG.
Anglicans would wear a cross, and Catholics would wear a crucifix - but I see no reason why they should not be allowed to wear them.
If there is a blanket ban on jewellery of any kind, for H & S reasons, then that is fine, but otherwise, there seems to be no valid argument for this - not even the 'potential offence' of other religious groups.
I can fully understand the rejection of the court on the basis that Christians are not required to wear a cross / crucifix as part of their religion, but that surely should not bar them from wearing one simply because they choose to?
Unsure where the argument comes from - have I missed something here?
Anglicans would wear a cross, and Catholics would wear a crucifix - but I see no reason why they should not be allowed to wear them.
If there is a blanket ban on jewellery of any kind, for H & S reasons, then that is fine, but otherwise, there seems to be no valid argument for this - not even the 'potential offence' of other religious groups.
I can fully understand the rejection of the court on the basis that Christians are not required to wear a cross / crucifix as part of their religion, but that surely should not bar them from wearing one simply because they choose to?
Unsure where the argument comes from - have I missed something here?
andy-hughes
For once I agree with everything you say Andy, I also cannot understand that the Mail now wishes to republish this story.
http:// www.dai lymail. co.uk/n ews/pic tures/i ndex.ht ml
10th story down under 'today's headlines'.
For once I agree with everything you say Andy, I also cannot understand that the Mail now wishes to republish this story.
http://
10th story down under 'today's headlines'.
Do you go to church TWR?
If so you're one of the few that still do...
http:// www.dai lymail. co.uk/n ews/art icle-25 86596/J ust-800 -000-wo rshiper s-atten d-Churc h-Engla nd-serv ice-ave rage-Su nday.ht ml
If so you're one of the few that still do...
http://
TWR - // Here we go again afraid of upsetting the tribes, what next demolish our churches to suit them? how about complaining about the fecking "ROCKETS" that we see in every city that's destroying the landscapes, is this Britain or Pakistan? I think we have given enough to please this dam lot. //
I can't find anything in the link that mentions Muslims, or any connection with the issue - can you?
I can't find anything in the link that mentions Muslims, or any connection with the issue - can you?
AOG - //andy-hughes
/// I can't find anything in the link that mentions Muslims, or any connection with the issue - can you? ///
It's not rocket science Andy, apart from the few heath and safety reasons, who else would be offended? //
That's probably a reasonable assumption - but I suspect this is the government acting 'in case of offence' which is a ludicrous position.
If any religion is offended by anyone wearing a cross / crucifix, surely it is for them to speak up, and then the issue can be discussed.
Anticipation is no way to formulate government policy.
/// I can't find anything in the link that mentions Muslims, or any connection with the issue - can you? ///
It's not rocket science Andy, apart from the few heath and safety reasons, who else would be offended? //
That's probably a reasonable assumption - but I suspect this is the government acting 'in case of offence' which is a ludicrous position.
If any religion is offended by anyone wearing a cross / crucifix, surely it is for them to speak up, and then the issue can be discussed.
Anticipation is no way to formulate government policy.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.