Viewing the religious
| 19:49 UK time, Monday, 20 November 2006
Religious freedom in this country is under threat - that's the view of a coalition of organisations - including Muslims and Christians as well as trade unions and other groups all backed by the Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone. They are planning a rally in central London tonight calling for "an end to Islamaphobia" and "to defend freedoms of religion, thought and conscience".
This comes on the same day that a BA check-in worker lost her appeal against the company's ban on her wearing a cross outside her uniform - BA says wearing the cross contravened its uniform policy; she argued the cross was a symbol of her faith and it was discriminatory to stop her wearing it.
On The World Tonight, we have covered the debate over religion and social integration - especially as it relates to Britain's Muslim population - in depth over the past few years and one of the themes that has come through in many discussions is that many people who have religious faith feel they don't get a fair hearing with government and the media, including the 91热爆. Indeed when we were deciding whether and how to do this story in our editorial meeting, some of the team who are religious said they sometimes feel they are considered a bit odd because of their faith.
The UK - and Europe in general arguably - are different from other parts of the world in this respect. In the US, Latin America, Africa, the Middle East and South Asia for example, religion and the outward expression of religious faith are normal and not as controversial as they seem to be closer to home.
If today's rally on religious freedom; the recent high profile debate over the veil; and now the row over the wearing of the cross at work are anything to go by, Britain's religious population are beginning to reassert themselves. So far on The World Tonight this has been generally been reflected obliquely in discussions we have had on such things as integration and multiculturalism; or the teaching of evolution in school. So we decided we should consider the issue head on. I'm not sure we'll be able to reach a consensus though, as both sides of the debate - the religious and secular - tend to take absolutist positions when they go head-to-head on air.
Comments
So, when the war against Religion hits home you begin to squirm.
So you can't wear crosses in work places. Don't cry. Why didn't you make a fuss when Muslim garb got banned and ostracized.
Okay, maybe a bit too harsh.
Seriously though, all these so called secular moves are intended to covertly allow gory rituals to occur while people focus on superficial details.
Bluntly, how can Europe and soon all the west slowly restrict religious expression, in the guise of not offending other's religion, but at the same time support Zionism?
Today the BA worker has lost her appeal against the Company who have banned her from wearing a cross visibly at work. The spokesman maintained that they banned all jewellery and were non-discriminatory in that they treated religious symbols as any other piece of jewellery. What absolute rubbish!
BA are discriminating against this Christian woman by not allowing her to wear this tiny cross. It is not a piece of jewellery.
To be non-discriminatory they would have to extend this ban to Sikhs wearing their silver bracelets which are outward symbols of their faith and, by BA's definition, pieces of jewellery.
Whoever decided that this politically correct nonsense was a sensible plan of action? I only hope that BA are ready for the resultant backlash which they surely deserve.
All I can say is "May 'god' save us from the religious".
Considering the number of religious people who are speaking out against BA for banning this woman from wearing her cross without actually accepting that it is not the cross that is banned but jewellery as a whole, and the religious "mafia" are speaking out against the Dutch for banning the Burqa when it is actually all face-coverings that the law covers. It is not hard to see how so many religious people can have TOTALLY different views of their religious books.
The last thing this world needs is more vocal religious people - don't we have enough as it is?
Isn't the problem that the 91热爆 style is based on reasoned argument? You cannot put a reasoned argument to someone who is relying on their interpretation of a Holy book. "It says here..." is the only answer you are going to get. Suddenly it becomes Theology. Try pointing out to a Christian who uses Leviticus to justify condemning homosexuality that it also says the blind and the lame shouldn't be allowed in the Temple. They immediately come up with 'but it didn't mean that'.
How many Angels can dance on a pinhead? - let's have a text vote (sorry, I've been listening to too much Radio Five Live recently).
For the first time non-religious people are slowly not being discriminated against.
Not giving someone a privilege is NOT discrimination. Religious people may have had preferential treatment for so long, of course they're desperately grasping for power. Please don't give them the air time.
Where was the religious outcry when Bluewater shopping centre banned the hoodie?
I believe that denying an airline worker the right to wear a cross as a symbol of faith, is absurd. However I also believe denying the right to wear a veil is appropriate. The two are very different things. I object to the veil on the grounds of security and identity, not on the basis of faith. A small lapel cross or a cross hung on a chain as a piece of jewellery cannot be considered either a security issue or an identity issue. Please compare like with like.
You mention at the top of your article that 'religious freedom is under threat', what I find most amusing is that you state that a coalition of different organisations will be involved,however,you then say that it will held under the banner of 'an end to Islamaphobia', as soon as I read that point I am afraid that I became cynical, exactly who are these organisations?,I would guess that they are the typical weak willed left leaning Christian groups and the anti-Christian Islamic groups.
You mention that over the last few years you have concentrated your programme to British Muslims, again, why?, what is wrong with giving some of your programmes to people who are from the Church of England, Roman Catholic, Jewish, Buddhist etc?, it may surprise you to know that the majority of people who live in the United Kingdom are not Muslim, perhaps you should start to mirror this in your reporting?, now that the Islamic world has a English version of al-Jazeera you no longer need to be the mouthpiece for Islamic fundamentalism.
With Christ being banned from christmas, crosses being prohibited at work, and the stepping-on-eggshells approach for fear of offending other religions, it appears to me that Christianity, once the faith of the nation, is now the victim of serious discrimination. It is hardly surprising that churches are finding it so hard to get people in through their doors.
A more balanced approach from the media would certainly help. Let's hear it from the parish vicar, rather than from the archbishop. Let's hear it from the churches rather than from trades unions, the Post Office and the educationalists.
I think the problem is that everyone (ie both the religious communities and those who think of themselves as secular) only considers themselves.
Banning a piece of jewellery is fine if you also ban religious headwear. If you can't ban the headwear, you can't ban the cross, IMO.
On the other hand, the upside is that I have to be prepared to allow others to do/wear things I find offensive.
Anyway, the most depressing thing of this whole episode is that a corporation thinks itself qualified to make moral judgements on which bits of religious garb are acceptable/unacceptable.
Britain seems schizophrenic about religion. Nominally with an official church and the head of the state being also the head of the church, it is not entirely democratic, at least not from an American perspective where the constitution requires an absolute separation between religion and government. The reality is evidently quite different. The head of state is only a figurehead and reportedly only about 1 million Brits are active churchgoers and believers. This really isn't about church and state anyway, it's about Islam. Britain has bent over backwards to avoid offending Moslems living it its country to the point where it has allowed dangerous elements of Islam to preach violence, hatred, and to recruit, brainwash, and train British born Islamic terrorists. Is Islam a religion or a political movement? For some Moslems it is both and in some respects a dangerous one hostile to the values of most Brits, to the policies of the government, and even to democracy itself. Many Moslems who are loathe and fearful of this movement have complained to the authorities in the past but their fears and warinings have fallen on deaf ears until now.
Apparantly it takes a demonstration in your own backyard to convince a population and government that a clear and present danger exists. It took 9-11 to convince America. It took attempted assassinations of the President to convince Pakistan. It took violence to convince the Saudis and the bombing of a tourist resort to convince Indonesia. And it took 7-7 to convince Britain. But there is a tendency to forget and even in America, memories of the horror of 9-11 have faded too far for many to realize that we still are in grave danger. The movement to destroy our civilization is vast, international, has no fixed country of origin which it has a stake in protecting, is well financed and organized, cunning, and patient. It still has at least an even chance of prevailing.
Are Brits right to be alarmed? There is certainly plenty to explain it including a lot of recent bad news. There is a large Islamic community in its midst which is alienated and isolated but not to the same degree as in other European nations like France or Holland. The head of MI6 recently said in a rare public appearance that there are 1600 active Islamic terrorists in Britain, at least 30 terrorist plots being investigated, and likely at least one or more such plots will eventually succeed. This is being realistic. How will Britain deal with it especially in light of the fact that it has already ceded some of its sovereignty to a faceless bureaucracy in Brussels which has a great deal to say about human rights and freedom of religion while it is to a degree insensitive, even indifferent to the security concerns of the British population? It will be interesting to see how Britain's and Europe's confrontation with militant Islam, Moslem culture, and Moslem nations resolves itself. So far it is not going well.
Well... people with religious faith are a bit odd, aren't they? I view people who believe in the Christian God of the Bible in the same way that they view people who believe in Zeus, Thor, Ra or any of the other gods who have been believed in throughout mankind's history.
Nonetheless the feeling abroad, not least in broadcasting and media circles, is that one must respect others' religious beliefs. Well, as Perelman said, only to the extent that one respects a man's view that his wife is beautiful and his children clever.
Broadcasters and others cannot win: whenever facts are pointed out which fly in the face of religious belief, cries of discrimination are made, as we can see by Alison Pemble's comment above. Must we point out yet again, for example (apropos her comment on Christmas), that Christmas was originally the pagan festival of Saturnalia and was in fact co-opted by Christians? To remove the religious belief from Christmas is just to return it to its origins.
I am an atheist (more precisely and technically agnostic but that's too dull a debate to enter) and I too am worried about the way things are.
On the one hand we have creationism being rammed down kids' throats in school in my home town (not hearsay - family friends have described the teaching their children have received) and then on the other this rejection of religion.
I am not, like Richard Dawkins, someone who believes that religion is the root of all of the world's ills, nor is it a panacea. What it is certainly is a very personal take on how the world looks.
It is everyone's right to believe whatever they wish. It is also their responsibility to ensure that they do not force others to share those beliefs. While I may disagree with a creationist world view and may argue that evidence does not support it, it would be wrong of me to brow-beat someone who does into submission.
And this is just one example of the growing problem: we seem to have lost all sense of the personal nature of faith and seem unable to allow people to do this for fear of causing offence to someone, somewhere, sometime.
It seems unreasonable secularise Christmas in the same way that it would be to do so with Eid, or Diwali or any of other festivals.
What we are getting is not multi-cultural, it is a monoculture, and one predicated on the lowest common denominator.
I am not religious. I regard all religions as patriarchal misogynies set up by men for the vested interest of maintaining male hegemony.
However, I think that people should be allowed to practice their IMO strange beliefs as long as they do not contravene human rights.
Now this is where the problem begins, at least for me. This presents a problem for some of the religious practices now prevalent.
The depth of misogyny in the ritualistic practices that come from many religious cultural groups are, and ought to be outlawed, yet they are allowed to continue with impunity.
This kind of cultural systematic gender violence is not being addressed, indeed it is being hidden behind the anti-racist agenda in order to protect the feelings of men from cultures whereby their gender based power is threatened by Western democracy, and we have nervously backed off from defending women and girls for the fear of wrongly being labelled racist, in a situation that is in fact steeped in misogyny. In so doing we have covertly accepted a position of cultural relativism that turns a bind eye to gender violence.
Yes, we must have open commitment to free speech and I hope people will understand that this WILL include exposing the misuse of the anti-racist agenda and bringing to light and to the courts those who practice ritualistic gender violence in the name of one religion or another.
I can't quite get my head around why people with religious views are allowed to get away with the opinion that they are somehow special or beyond criticism.
Surely the debate here is one of modern companies forcing individuals to become part of the corporate identity and forsake all outward expressions of themselves as a human being? The BA member of staff should be allowed to keep her cross; but so should anyone else whether they are wearing personal adornments for religious reasons or not. That way we are all equal.
And if you want to add "in the eyes of the Lord" to that statement, you're more than welcome because we live in a free society. As long as you don't work for a large corporation!
Why do the big organizations have to make things harder for everyone? Live and let live. If she wants to wear a cross, let her. My sister wears a headscarf. It's a 2cm by 2cm cross for God's sake! Who's gonna feel offended?
This NOT a christian country and it never has been, its the very fact we are a secular society that makes us what we are today. Christianity in the UK like across europe has had to sell out all its values (new testment) as a cedible religeon in order to be remotely palletable to the majority.
The trouble with Islam is theres no shortage of followers straight from the stone age filtering across our borders on a daily basis.
When all religeon has disolved and we all have coffee coloured skin Britian will be a better place. Of course thats a very optimistic point of view.
Why is it that "religious" people must have a constant and very public reminder of who they are and what faith they follow? Why do they want everyone else to know what is, or in my opinion, should be a very private arrangement with whatever higher force they believe in.
Let them join together in congregations and celebrate their beliefs with others of a like mind, but outside that, who else cares if they are flat-earthers, tree huggers, Zoroastrans, Buddhists, Jews, Muslims etc?
Like blasphemy, if their belief in their faith is so fragile it needs laws and amulets to protect it-what's the point?
"What absolute rubbish!
BA are discriminating against this Christian woman by not allowing her to wear this tiny cross. It is not a piece of jewellery."
If it is not a piece of jewellery then what is it? It is a small "token" on a chain - sounds like a necklace to me.
And as for comments about bangles, rings and ear-rings being allowed. For all we know they might be allowed under the ruling. It might be that the only items banned our necklaces (and even then IF they are worn over the clothes).
If this is the case then it might be for Health and Safety reasons - necklaces dangle and can be caught in machinery or grabbed at by angry people (I once worked in a supermarket and saw a customer grab another member of staffs necklace when she refused to serve him alcohol because he was under age).
Religion is worthy of no special respect, deserves no right to be heard above other views and should not be granted access to the media that other non-superstitious views cannot obtain.
Nonetheless, the 91热爆 often give religion more than its fair share of coverage. On ethical issues the 91热爆 interview a so called theologian or a member of the religious 鈥渃ommunity鈥, whatever that factious neologism means. Endless programmes are run where people鈥檚 irrational prejudices are accepted without question.
Yet, despite the commonly held belief that theism is subjugated in this country, people who 鈥渂elieve in a god鈥 are in the minority in the UK:
- Page 9
I do tire of the special privileges given to those who choose to reject rationalism. Is the BA employee so weak in her superstitious beliefs that she cannot maintain them without wearing a piece of jewellery? And would someone who wore an equally visible piece of 鈥淢ake Poverty History鈥 or a similar secular campaign鈥檚 jewellery not also be asked to remove it by BA?
The sooner we loose our confused deference to religion the better.
It makes my head spin, all this talk of religion and discrimination.
Whoever it was that pointed out that it was BA's uniform policy to not allow jewellery, made a very valid point: It is not discriminatory if *no one* is allowed to wear jewellery (jewellery defined as "Ornamental adornments worn on the body composed of precious metals set with real or imitation gemstones"; "An article or articles for personal adornment"). And let's not forget that it appears she wasn't banned from wearing the jewellery -she was allowed to conceal it- but decided that being allowed to wear it, concealed wasn't good enough.
If a uniform, or particular dress code, is required for a workplace, it is a "take it or leave it" deal. Anyone wanting to wear religious jewellery can wear it either concealed (if the employer so allows) or outside of work.
Those that are thinking that the crucifix and other jewellery are tools of the faith are neglecting other ways of professing one's faith: by mouth, by attitude and action.
As a committed pagan (and committed wife and mother) I find this whole debate rather amusing. My belief system was hijacked by another two thousand years ago, and since then
has been subjected to discrimination so severe it ranges from at best labeled a loony tree hugger to at worst being accused of devil worship and child abuse. So why can't Christians swallow some of their own medicine for a change?
"religious freedom under threat".From whom exactly? The religious have lots of undeserved privileges, such as exemptions from certain taxes , or compulsory "God slots" on various 91热爆 programmes,irrational Sunday trading restrictions, cruel slaughter for halal meat,...these privileges should be removed, so that the religious and the atheist can be treated equally.Freedom to worship is fine, if you wish to waste your time in that sort of futility, but freedom to impose your ludicrous beliefs and practicises on the rest of us is unacceptable.The biggest threat to one religion are the believers in and adherents of a different one.The most intolerant people are religious people.
"Religious freedom in this country is under threat - that's the view of a coalition of organisations - including Muslims and Christians as well as trade unions and other groups all backed by the Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone."
But the 91热爆 still rams 'Thought for the Day' down our throat. (At least they might charge commercial advertising rates for it.)
And religious ceremonies are still compulsory in state schools.
And there are special rules about shops opening at Christmas (which is really a pagan festival, not a Christian one). Etc. etc.
I see no reason why religious people should be given any special privileges whatsoever.
It seems no-one can win whatever they do. If they want to express which faith they belong to then that is somehow offensive, yet if they keep it secret (eg freemasons) then they have something to hide (which of course freemasons do).
What bugs me most is the number of people who wear crosses who are not practising christians as if it's a lucky charm. Nearly 73% of this country's population is ever so slighty mad anyway as they filled in their religion as Christian on the last census but Christ has no part in their daily lives.
As for Health and Safety, a tie is probably the most dangerous bit of clothing anyone can wear and is part of the uniform of many organisations.
The problem is (and it's a widespread one) that companies think they can impose absolutely any restrictions on their employees and get away with it. In other words, it's bullying.
# 21.# joanne shemmans
# At 12:41 PM on 22 Nov 2006,
My family are, and allways have been Sammi/Germanic Heathen. All my Grandmothers being Shamans in the Sammi lands (North Scandinavia).
If any one has cause to complain about recent terrorist events, it is us European Heathens/pagans. We, as aliens in our own environment. We know the problems that the Australian aborigines and American natives, among many others, have. Like them we have stolen land from no one. On the contrary we have been trampled on and had our land stollen from us, by alien middle Eastern cults. For two thousand years.
LONGER THAN ANY OTHER!
Now we are caught in the middle of two of them who, acting like spoiled children, are trying to divide our land between them. It is like finding two intruders in your house, the police turn up and arrest you, whilst the two burglars argue about which one should get your family silver.
Do NOT destroy the lands and lives of my peoples and family because of your personal hobbies, perversions, or religions, call them what you will.
You are quite welcome to stay. You will remember that you are the guest in my house, you will abide by my law. Laws as written down in the Eddas. The original, natural, and Heathen laws of the lands you have stolen from US!
THAT goes for muslim/Jew/christian alike.
"The most intolerant people are religious people."
Allow me to disagree. I'm a Christian, and I've cringed so many times during the last two or three days reading HYS it's unbelievable! Yes, it's jewellery that's been banned, not the cross. Yes, I think that this woman has gone way too far, as have all the people saying "let's boycott BA!". That just earns Christians the label of being self-righteous loud mouths who get upset if they don't get their own way. It's not clever, or pretty, and it just makes all of us look bad.
A better way would be to calmly address the issues at hand (or rather, the issues that WOULD have been at hand had the cross been banned), rather than a knee-jerk flaming reaction. After all, true Christianity's about helping others, rather than ourselves (a lot of people- Christians and non-Christians- appear to miss that bit).
However, what's disturbed me more is the amount of people saying "Yeah! Good on you, BA! Let's ban all religions! They force their beliefs on to us, and they're annoying and intolerant, and have caused every single war to date!" As a Christian, I believe that a relationship with Jesus is the only way to God. I believe my beliefs are true, and thus by default, that certain other beliefs that other people have are not true. Does that mean I'm intolerant of those beliefs just because I disagree with them? No, of course not! I "tolerate" them. These beliefs are often interesting and thought provoking, and test my own beliefs! It's great to get in a conversation with people who think differently to you! In these chats, I would tell them what I believe (and of course hope that they may come to share by beliefs), but only if that's what the conversation calls for, and if the timing and mood is right. I certainly wouldn't force my beliefs on them or shove it down their throats! And yet that is what I've been constantly reading that "religious" people do!
However, I've found that it's the hostility of (eg) atheists that forces itself upon people. Apparently, believing in a God automatically makes me irrational and stupid, but that's just wrong! I have an intellect, and I enjoy using it - I don't just switch off my IQ and go into "Christian mode!" I have found, as many before me have, that my beliefs and my intelligence can feed each other... it's not an accident that the greatest Western scientists of the early Enlightenment were Christians. They wanted to better understand the world they believed God had made. And before that, in the medieval times, the Muslim Empire was the leading light of science and math! I believe that the Big Bang and evolution are both very likely, I just don't believe they came from random chance, but from a gift of love from God. And I don't think it's arrogance to think that, because I know it's not because I'M good, or extra-special, but becuase God is. Scientists, both Christian and non-Christian, have cited astronomical evidence to suggest that the universe appears to have been made/ positioned for our benefit, and that if the tiniest thing was different, then that would have great impact on our existance. I'm not trying to be preachy here, but just to show that Christianity doesn't automatically mean stupid.
Also, just for the record, yes, all the stupid wars fought "in the name of Jesus" are wrong. Witch burning, and executing heretics (Protestants/ Catholics- whatever's not in vogue in the 16th century) is evil. It's sick! But I think that the people who did those things didn't have a clear understanding of Christianity, which teaches love. Or, they just used it as a good excuse. But think, atheism has also caused wars. The French revolution killed more than the burnings I've mentioned above. The Communist movement was a direct attempt to destroy religion (as some people have advocated). It didn't work, and it just caused misery and oppression for millions.
So, let's live in a "tolerant" society, yeah? We can disagree with each other, and that's ok. It doesn't have to be offensive. If you ever decide to become a Christian, then great, but if not, that's fair enough. It's your choice, and I doubt many people - even many Christians - would want to force it on you. And to my fellow Christians who have gone hyper or judgemental or whatever about this whole affair, let's remember to treat the people with whom we're discussing this with respect and love, rather than getting hysterical. And visa versa.
A. Pemble is correct,the true Christian voice is not being heard from the grassroots,because the modern mass media refuse to publish anything that puts Christianity in a good light.We have Richard Dawkins,the Britsh humanist soc,the secular soc and similar believers fighting something they do not believe exists!!! not religion,but Jesus Christ.A true atheist would not let the name of Jesus come out of their mouth.Christianity IS under assault and is something we knew would be coming and why.The Bible prophesised thousands of years ago that this would happen in the last days along with many other events taking place worldwide at this very moment.The quality media tell what is happening around us,but the Bible gives us an understanding WHY they are taking place. Many people disagree strongly with Christianity but if they are honest they will admit it threatens no one.It is true that we persuade people everywhere to become Christians,but if they decide not to,we leave it there.We are still friends and always be there to help whatever they believe.Can you say this about every belief?
One shall not confuse between religen and politics. They are far apart and mean completely opposite meanings in real life. Religen is for one to practice and not preach to others.Religen is there for one to establish a communication with the god for peace of mind and self control.One must not think any religen is superior to another one and if you respect your religen then you must respect every other religen which is practiced in the society. Religen must not and was not intended to divide people.They must bring people together. The spiritual aspect of all religens mean well and teach you good principles to follow in life. The cultural aspect of the religens may differ and may differ within any one religen in different countries or among the different societies in the same country. So if we believe in ourselves and consider been more intelligent than our predecessors then we must learn to respect each other and our beliefs. The worst diservice one can do to their religen is to fight, condemn or kill someone on behalf of the religen. Lets get rid of the evil in our minds and practice the faith rather than fight for the faith. More and more people are moving away from the religen and the belief in god as they see the damage the religeous divisions have done to man kind in the recent times.
I feel compelled to post a quick correction regarding Darren Stephens statement "I am not, like Richard Dawkins, someone who believes that religion is the root of all of the world's ills"
As Richard Dawkins states clearly at the beginning of his new book he does *not* believe this. I think Darren may be referring to the title of a recent television program presented by Professor Dawkins, "The root of all evil?". Dawkins has stated that he did not choose, nor agree with, this title.
Regards,
Re : 19
Secular atheism is worthy of no special respect deserves no right to be heard above other views and should not be given access to the media just because it bandies around insults like superstition without any evidence for this position.
The 91热爆 usually gives secular atheism far more than its fair share of coverage. Even so called religious programming, minute percentage of the 91热爆 output, is almost invariably given with an agnostic or atheist slant (such as the heaven and earth show). In the one and only case where a religious TV programme is regular (Songs Of Praise) it is the one of the most popular Sunday programmes despite being moved CONSTANTLY in its timing on the schedule.
Mr Page talks about constant religious programming, I have my radio times out and no such programming exists except in his own imagination.
The evidence of believers being in a minority is deeply flawed. In the last census (not a poll based on a sample but all people responding) 72% described themselves as Christian and there were numerous identifying themselves from other religions. This was despite ample chance to indicate atheist agnostic views and the campaign by some to put jedi on the forms! My maths tells me that the believers are very clearly in a majority.
I tire of the special priveleges that atheists like Mr Page seek to obtain, they do not wear religious symbols and they think everone else should be forced to do the same. They love to use words like superstitious and rational because in this context they are used to appeal to the emotional responses of the reader, who would want to be labelled as one or not want to be labelled as the other. But there is no evidence, just labels.
Just because you have no beliefs it seems you cannot accept the importance of the symbol to someone else. How would you feel if you were banned from wearing the colours of theteam you supported, or wearing a poppy, or medal, or cancer awareness ribbon?
The cross concerned is the size of a 5p piece. I have not heard of any BA staff being asked to remove similar sized 'secular' symbols. Rings are jewellery have they been removed religious or otherwise? No.
Make poverty history is NOT a secular campaign. It is a wide inclusive movement of christians, muslims, atheists, agnostics and many others. Christians are amongst its keenist supporters.
The sooner we lose our confused deference to those that misuse terms like rational and science but are without evidence the better.
"Just because you have no beliefs it seems you cannot accept the importance of the symbol to someone else. How would you feel if you were banned from wearing the colours of theteam you supported, or wearing a poppy, or medal, or cancer awareness ribbon?"
That is just the point, if the uniform rules of the company states that you can not wear these then you WOULD be banned from wearing them.
Plus, this woman isn't been BANNED from wearing her cross, she has been told that in a customer-facing position she can not wear her cross over her clothing. She is allowed to wear the cross under her uniform - which she chooses not to. She was also offered a position which didn't require a uniform and would allow her to wear her cross openly - a position she refused.
Peopler who are comparing this case to BA allowing turbans and muslim hair coverings are trying to portray BA as being anti-Christian, something of which there is no evidence. If the necklace was not a cross but a sign of devil-worship I doubt they would be so quick to attack BA and in fact would probably be slapping them on the back.
Until BA makes public the exact wordings of their rule we will not know if rings are covered by the rule or not. This woman would have a case if she was banned from wearing a cross but another was allowed to wear a non-religious necklace - there is NO evidence to suggest that this is happening.
There is a myth that science is not a belife system, when clearly it is!Scientists are every day trusting their instruments, trusting the theory of evolution, all this trust is another form of faith. There are great high priests and woe betide the folk who get in their way!Amongsrt them those with the greatest axe to grind display psycological pathology which is not discussed or put to the test as folk in "conventional" religions are.There exists in science a new Calvinism which sits badly with the assumption that it is all up for grabs any way, our imaginations are being sat on, all this certainty and absoluteness is very bad for science.
Well done Ben! (26).
The trouble is you reasoned defence of our faith is too long for the media so we will continue to be represented by headline-grabbing extremists.
At the end of December we will celebrate a God who comes to us in a small baby. He was born to poor parents who lived in an occupied country. They were so poor that his first bed was an animal trough. They were forced to become asylum seekers in Egypt. His birth did not grab the headlines of the day, he did not dominate the debate nor was his birth recognised by religious people (like Ben and I!)
Instead he was visited by poor shepherds and pagan astrologers probably from what is now Iraq.
Not the best foundation for a western-invented control system!
We need to say "sorry" for the wrongs of some of our religious practice, expect to be challenged in our prejudices as Christians and challenge the narrow-mindedness of those who trust only in what they can prove.
Perhaps we can all learn something from the humility of God and deal with each other likewise.
'The Bible prophesised thousands of years ago that this would happen in the last days along with many other events taking place worldwide at this very moment.'
I can't imagine why people have a tendency to talk about Christians as irrational!
On a more serious point, the notion that science represents a belief system shows up the failure of religion and religious people to be willing to look at the world and temper their beliefs based on what they see, the contents of the odd book excepted of course.
'Scientists are every day trusting their instruments, trusting the theory of evolution, all this trust is another form of faith.'
There seems to be an implication that God is routinely using his agency in the world to fox scientific enquiry, in order that logical, rational thought should lead people to disbelief. Either the world really evolved, or God took a hell of a lot of trouble making it look as if it did. But rather than accepting that scientists act in good faith on the data they have, there is a subset of Christianity and the rest who prefer to assume that evolution is some sort of massive scientific conspiracy to discredit Christianity.
Scientists act on their belief that the world around us is essentially predictable and governed by rules, and they are constantly rewarded with evidence of this, from the fact that objects always fall to the ground, to matches lighting when you strike them, to computer chips which obey precise quantum mechanical predictions and planetary orbits which obey General Relativity to the tiniest measurable distinction.
No religion is based solely on reason in such a methodical way, they are all based on belief in what some guy wrote down once, and an inner 'feeling' of correctness. Maybe one of them really is right, but if any of the assumptions the scientific method makes about the world being predictable and causal are wrong, then the decision to trust a book or a feeling is just as flawed as the decision to trust an experiment.
I have a great respect for religious people in whom I see a genuine conviction in a belief which is morally good, as all the major religions can be. But while the more annoying religious groups all over the world are constantly trying to impose their will on the rest of us (can you imagine America electing a non-Christian as President, and immediate end to Islamic extremism or a secular pro-life lobby?) the constant carping about discrimination of those Christians who indulge in it seems to be at best self-indulgent and at worst the reactionary sign of a group attempting to reclaim lost privilege.
PS. I agree that the real issue should be the way the decrees of capital are allowed to stifle personal expression, well said!
I am not a religious person, but I belive like sex, it should be very private matter. One shouldn't impose his/her belive on other and at the same token tolarent to other faith. A faith should not devalue other faith or instigate hatred and violance. A faith should respect the other culture and not isolate themselve from the culture they live in.
BA decision to ban wearing cross may have some political correctness to avoid the business liability. When they fly to hostile west environment like middle east, such employee will be their liability. Some hot head may attack her having such jwellary or may refuse to ride in such plane.
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM? EVEN THIS MUST HAVE SOME LIMITS. WHEN ANY RELIGIOUS PRACTICE DISTURBS OR THREATENS CIVIL ORDER, THEN IT MUST BE CURTAILED FOR THE GOOD OF ALL. ONE CANNOT WALK INTO A THEATRE AND YELL FIRE. IT IS THE SAME WITH RELIGION.