Posted on 09/04/2012 7:08:29 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
Landmark cases, brought by four British Christians, including two workers forced out of their jobs after visibly wearing crosses, have been heard today at the European Court of Human Rights
David Cameron, the Prime Minister, has previously pledged to change the law to protect religious expression at work but official legal submissions on Tuesday to Strasbourg human rights judges made a clear “difference between the professional and private sphere”.
James Eadie QC, acting for the government, told the European court that the refusal to allow an NHS nurse and a British Airways worker to visibly wear a crucifix at work “did not prevent either of them practicing religion in private”, which would be protected by human rights law.
He argued that that a Christian, or any other religious believer, “under difficulty” is not discriminated against if the choice of “resigning and moving to a different job” is not blocked.
“The option remains open to them,” he said.
Government lawyers also told the Strasbourg court that wearing a cross is not a “generally recognised” act of Christian worship and is not required by scripture.....
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
Unless, of course, you were an autocratic, unelected federal judge, or a progressive who sees no limit on the power of the state.
“Government lawyers also told the Strasbourg court that wearing a cross is not a “generally recognised” act of Christian worship and is not required by scripture.”
I hate to tell you idiots this but the Koran requires Muslims to convert non-Muslims or put them to death.
Not at all, a reminder that we will be walking on streets of gold!
Unless, of course, you were an autocratic, unelected federal judge, or a progressive who sees no limit on the power of the state.
the same country that treats it as a crime to offend a Muslim
Some people consider it just a piece of jewelry. I have seen Madonna wearing a cross.
Although I think some anti religious wear it more to try to dilute it's meaning.
This is what the meaning of freedom of worship vs freedom of religion can bring. Even the USSR had freedom of worship. The truly worrisome thing is that since Obama became POTUS and Hillary SecSt the term freedom of worship has been replacing freedom of religion in official State dept documents and Obamacare has codified that we enjoy freedom of worship not religion in the Dems America.
So far they haven't done all that good a job of melding all cultural and religious traditions so that conflict is minimized and this sort of nonsense doesn't end up in court.
To the religious minded person it doesn't matter if the source of the opposition to his behavior or dress comes from non-Catholic, or Catholic, or self-described secular sources.
And that touches on a really big difference between European and American standards of law. There the focus is first on what happens nationally vis a vis the national legal system, and only secondly on what happens to the individual.
You see that so clearly in the legal submissions made in this case ~ in Europe the individual is still a piece of dirt who can be kicked around.
Obamugabe would like that in America which is why he should have been removed long ago. The Democrats had the majorities they needed in Congress to do it, but they didn't.
We must now remove the rest of the Democrats so we can return to our own values and expel the European-minded traitors in our midst ~ whether they come from Indonesia or Mexico ~ it's time for them to go!
The same thing is happening to an ever weakening Christianity here...
John 15:18-19
Seems to have been expected.
Time for me to buy a cross and wear it every day. The global war on Christians (and Jews) continues.
Ironically my Mennonite ancestors first gathered around Strasbourg Entzheim in the Alsace because of a lack of religious enforcement there that overlooked their reformed Anabaptist beliefs and practice. But the forces of religious dogma eventually returned and determined that not only were they free to work elsewhere, but since most were self employed farmers, eventually they were “freed” to live elsewhere too. So they fled to the Dutch low country while freedom of religion flourished there, then to the Vistula delta while freedom of religion flourished there, then to the USA... tick-tock.
well, yes, perhaps I would have been better served to say “should” instead of “would” —
And IF, I as a business owner could opt to hire only professing, born-again Christians.
The option of leaving for another job is ONLY viable IF there are jobs that this lunacy isn’t present in.
Mine is silver, is that okay? (sarc)
That’s pretty much what I said, business owners should be free to discriminate on whatever basis they choose. The ones that work on merit only will beat out the bigots.
(Certainly, not recognized as such by the craven, atheists that permeate today's British government)
" ... you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold, ..."
A little historical context albeit totally off topic! [grin!]
Given that in the time the Scripture was being written, wearing a cross was asking for martyrdom, this is factually STUPID logic! Thus do we demonstrate once again that lawyers are trained to choke on gnats but to swallow camels, like the Pharisees Jesus was scolding in Matthew 23:24!
Once again we see a society being forced into transition by an intrusive and intransigent culture. Nobody would have raised an eyebrow if someone was wearing a cross in Britain before the Islamic Influx. Now, civil custom and laws derived from a common culture are used against that culture to assure active avoidance of offense to the hyper sensitive, both of the left and Islam.
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.