Christians have no right to wear cross at work, says Government

[MHz]

Good thinking! I'm a nervous flier anyway, seems win/win to me.

Airports have shuttle buses, just ferry everybody to the prepaid lounge with snooze service as part of the original ticket price.

You could always use a quart of Whiskey as the enema solution, and wear your belt extra low for the duration.

 

[gopher]

ministers will argue that because it is not a “requirement” of the Christian faith, employers can ban the wearing of the cross and sack workers who insist on doing so.

Matt 10:38; 16:24

"he who doth not take up his cross is not worthy of me ... Jesus said to his disciples, take up thy cross and follow me''


The operative word used that means cross or crucifixion is stauros # G4716 from Strong's Concordance. Evidently, Jesus's apostles used these icons when he preached to them and it is for this reason that churches used to require carrying them years ago. In all honesty, I was not aware that this had been changed by any church. Thus, all these petitioners need do is to show these passages from the Bible and they will win their case.

 

[Vanni Fucci]

More cross words over a silly symbol

 

[Colpy]

More cross words over a silly symbol

Dr. Rowan Williams is a moron.

Simple as that.

 

[karrie]

I have one cross. And I wear it only on rare occasion when I really want something special. It's a gorgeous silver piece (roughly 2.5" by 2") with engraved scroll work all over it. It has a jade centre stone, and three tiny jades adorn the end of each arm. I love it. I don't wear it as a sign of my faith, my faith needs no flash to announce itself, I wear it because it was given to my mom by her aunt, and is a symbol of familial connection despite the generational, geographical, and sometimes even cultural, distances between matante Sister Marie Claire and I.

You could make me leave the cross at home, I"d raise no fuss, because it wouldn't change the way I present myself, the way I talk to people, or what I believe, so what exactly is the point?

 

[Niflmir]

So religion over rides safety? Now that is PC gone mad. But hey what do I know as a lowly first aid attendant and safety committee member both at work and our volunteer fire department.

Turbans/daggers are a fire hazard? Joking aside, they have special turban helmets/hard hats. It is quite hilarious to see actually.

Obviously the solution is to allow them to ride for free if they will agree to protect the aircraft from being hi-jacked.

The daggers are dull. A Bic pen is a better weapon.

 

[karrie]

Turbans/daggers are a fire hazard? Joking aside, they have special turban helmets/hard hats. It is quite hilarious to see actually.

Not as laughable as the cowboy hardhats the Texans seem so fond of.

 

[Niflmir]

Not as laughable as the cowboy hardhats the Texans seem so fond of.

Really? I have to see this.

Jeez, those are ridiculous.

 

[wulfie68]

Really? I have to see this.

Jeez, those are ridiculous.

You see them in southern Alberta too. It was tough being a consultant and not laughing at some of the employees of the companies I was working for when they walk over with a plastic stetson perched on their head...

 

[Niflmir]

You see them in southern Alberta too. It was tough being a consultant and not laughing at some of the employees of the company I was working for when they walk over with a plastic stetson perched on their head...

So it's not just freedom of religion, it's freedom to be a complete fool. But safety first!

 

[damngrumpy]

First of all I think there are a lot more important things government should be concerned about.
As a society however there are some decisions that have to be made seeing as the world has
made life more complicated.
If we abandoned the rights in a constitution the very laws that protect us could be used against
us.
If we make a decision that is applicable to one group it must become the standard for all groups.
Therefore is should be that society must come to an agreement on why they made the original
decisions in the first place, and what the significance is. After that we can start to talk about who
has the freedom to do what.
For example the Burqa is a traditional and societal encumbrance, that is not always seen as one
in the Muslim World, it pushes the button of people in the west though as we have an open society,
but not open enough to allow some to wear the Burqa.
On the other hand the cross is a symbol of faith, it is not a mandatory part of the religion or all
devout followers would wear one. as is the case with some sectors of the Sikh faith the men wear
a bracelet.
Now the decision has to be made, do we as westerners accept the wearing of the Burqa in our midst
as a trade off to Christians wearing the cross as is their societal custom?
Remember we opened the door to other cultures and where does society draw the line in accommodating
everyone.
My personal view is we must first of all respect the constitution protects individual rights and freedoms.
From there we have to ensure that all citizens understand that concept. Then the next step would be to
ensure that all citizens knew the difference between religious protocols and customs. It should be an
individual choice to wear the cross or even a burqa, but no one should be allowed to impose the custom
on the individual in our western society. If there is pressure being put on people they should have the
government support at the local level to protect their rights. And there should be penalties for such
offences. Honour Killings, the wearing of certain clothing or objects, and so on regardless of what group
you were born into.
Yes at first there would be upheaval and anger, and a cost but the price of freedom and maintaining it is
required here. The Ole South in America learned that lesson fifty years ago with integration and the
fundamental principles of how it worked. We have to go through the exercise because we didn't deal with
it at the beginning and life and justice has no short cuts.