Posted on 03/13/2012 6:31:52 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Well, sure. Why not? After all, unlike the Muslim hijab, there is no "requirement" that Christians wear a cross, says the British government.
______________________
In what is bound to be a controversial move, the British government is set to argue at the European Court of Human Rights that Christians do not have the right to wear a cross or crucifix openly at work.
Critics are already calling it another blow to Christianity for restricting its symbols of faith while granting special status to symbols of other religions such as the Sikh turban and kara (bracelet), or the Muslim hijab.
The London Telegraph has revealed 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.
Judges in Strasbourg will hear the test case on religious freedom in Britain later this year. It will bring together four separate cases, including that of Nadia Eweida, who works for British Airways. Her case dates from 2006 when she was suspended for refusing to take off the cross which her employers claimed breached BA's uniform code.
In a surprise move Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, added fuel to the fire when he said the cross for many Christians is little more than jewellery, "which religious people make and hang on to" as a substitute for true faith.
_____________________
Williams also wants to see sharia law in Great Britain so anything he says about his own faith can be dismissed as the rantings of a lunatic.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Many Leftists--perhaps most of them--and even some of their leaders--are merely stupid, too stupid to comprehend the evil that results from their stupidity.
Some of these people know that they are stupid and are following the examples of those they deem more intelligent.
Some of them however do not know how stupid they are, especially those who, like idiots savants, find within themselves channels of intelligence that reassure them that they are not stupid, but who lack the wit (or the desire) to understand how limited these channels actually are.
I'm thinking of a theoretical physicist whom I saw on television and who is obviously quite intelligent in the field of theoretical physics but whose thinking outside this limited field are astonishingly stupid--and he has no comprehension of this because his intelligence in this narrow field convinces him that he is intelligent in all ways, though he is woefully not.
People like this declare themselves--in spite of themselves--constantly: in acedemia, on television, celebrities, self-appointed experts and spokespersons--everywhere.
The world is full of such un-self-aware idiots savants, and because of their lack of self-awareness they are dangerous.
The point I am trying to make is that if a crucifix is asked to be removed and it is a necklace then ALL necklaces need to be removed otherwise it is strictly religiuos persecution. Perhaps I didn’t make my point clear (I am on your side.)
The point I am trying to make is that if a crucifix is asked to be removed and it is a necklace then ALL necklaces need to be removed otherwise it is strictly religiuos persecution. Perhaps I didn’t make my point clear (I am on your side.)
All the enmity against Biblical Christianity taking place nowadays is evidence to me that Christianity actually is the true religion.
What other belief system has done so much good and had so much hatered and contempt poured upon it lately.
Of course the Jews have historically had a lot, so I don’t mean to dowgrade their experiences. But, I may be wrong, still it seems to me that Jew-hatred was far more ethnically based than based on their particular belief system.
JESUS SAID : “You will be hated by all because of My name, but it is the one who has endured to the end who will be saved.” ( Matthew 10:22)
Bingo!!!
Seems to me that fulfilled prophecy is evidence of Truth.
I think the technical term for the people you describe is neither “stupid”, “idiot”, nor even “ignorant”. I believe the proper term is “fool”.
Yes. Thank you. They are fools.
I’ve been seeing these ‘anti-crucifixion” articles recently and wondering exactly where does Jesus or G-d command that I must keep & “venerate” any symbols to prove my faith to G-d? I have no symbols in my home nor as bumper stickers on my car and I don’t feel any less faithful to G-d. I’m pretty keen on Jesus’ words as well as intertestamental history and nowhere am I commanded to worship symbols. In fact, the last time I checked it was the “worshipping & keeping” of symbols that initiates evil.
But then again perhaps I’m less of a faithful follower because I don’t walk around boasting to everyone through the jewelry I should be wearing or boastful symbols I should be plastering all over my house.
For me this whole issue isn’t an issue because is doesn’t need to be. It shouldn’t matter what trinkets and idols are taken from someone, if their faith is true then it’s an internal thing that can never be taken from them. Otherwise it’s just a weakness to be exploited by evil.
One doesn’t have to wear religious jewelry to be Christian or live a Christian life. However, I do and I will tell you why. Historically, many Christians had to hide their faith. They had to practice their religion secretly. I like to wear a crucifix simply because I feel I keep Christ close to me. I also have a rosary in my car for the same reason. Wearing a cross, crucifix or a star of David in today’s climate takes courage. You are openly expressing to others that you are a Catholic/Christian or Jew AND your faith means something to you. You can be open to any sort of liberal hostility. As a Christian, I am willing to tolerate such hostility for my faith.
I find it odd that you said that “it shouldn’t matter what trinkets are taken from someone, if their faith is true then it’s an internal thing...” Do you feel the same way about Churches? Would you mind if all of them were demolished? Wouldn’t a persons faith still be intact if our landscape was void of them?
You see a cross as a symbol that “initiates evil”. I see it as a reminder of Christ and His love and salvation for us.
You’re missing the point entirely.
Seriously.
The petty, pathetic ranting of self-righteous "traditionalists" can be amusing at times ...
but never more so when the ranter thinks that the Archbishop of Canterbury has anything to do with the "Roman" Catholic Church.
I think you are looking at it all wrong. I think for some (like myself) wearing a cross is a reminder to myself of what I believe. It is not a crutch but it does help people remember that God is with us all the time. It is not boastful, it is mindful. If something like an icon or a crucifix helps you be a better person then by all means wear one and if you don’t need it, don’t wear one. Not everyone is as strong as you are and need something to remind them and help them feel safe and protected. It is a personal choice and an exercise in religious freedom and should remain as such.
What you say is true. I wear no religious symbols. On the other hand, the cross itself is a symbol. And, furthermore, the Archbishop of Canturbury demeans himself when he demeans those who do want and value visible symbols.
I am an Anglican. I have good reason to make this observation.
That would be "their crappy country", not "there crappy country", you illiterate yankee shitbag.
Read what he is actually saying. Ignore "surprise move" and "fuel to the fire". That is just media editing to highlight difference, trivialise the issue, and incite controversy. Now, to the actual statement. He is saying that many (not all) Christians think that wearing a piece of jewellery, a hunk of metal in a cross shape, means that they are 'Christian'. Instead of having true faith, they use a symbol as a substitute for it. They are fixated on external appearance, and not inner transformation. Its a bit like owning a bible but never reading it. Now, is that a true statement or not? Answer, honestly, yes. There are altogether too many 'Christians' who think, or more importantly act, like that.
That’s a fair enough argument, but I dont think that is what Rowan Williams is getting at. There are people who think that a cross is just a nice bit of jewellery. There are people who think that “going through the motions” of Christian ritual, including wearing a cross, somehow make you a Christian. There are people who, even subconsciously, make the symbol more important than what it represents. And that nominalism is what he is criticising. And rightly so too.
There are people who think that “going through the motions” of Christian ritual, including wearing a cross, somehow make you a Christian.
I see your point too. I had the misfortune of living with a very abousive and very religious couple for several years. When they wear religious articles they are only fooling themselves and everyone else for that matter. They will be dealt with....by a higher power than Rowan Williams. It is not up to him to decide who believes enough, it is Gods.
No it is not up to Rowan Williams to decide who believes enough. But it is up to him, as a minister of the faith, to point out where he thinks people are going wrong. If someone wears a cross and it supports and upholds them in their faith, then his words are not for them. If they are using symbols as a substitute for faith, then his words are a challenge.
Incidentally, he has just announced he is stepping down as Archbishop of Canterbury in December.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.