13 Mar 12
Originally posted by RJHindsDid you actually read the article at the link? The government is arguing that employers should have the right to ban the wearing of the cross in their workplace. The U.K. government is not attempting to ban the wearing of a cross or a crucifix openly at work. I wonder if you misrepresented the content of the news article in the hope that no one would be bothered to check?
The government in England is attempting to ban the wearing of a cross or a
crucifix openly at work because it is reported to be an insult to Moslems.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9136191/Christians-have-no-right-to-wear-cross-at-work-says-Government.html
13 Mar 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadThis is some of what I read. What part of it do you read differently?
You are either lying, or you cant read.
Christians do not have a right to wear a cross or crucifix openly at work, the Government is to argue in a landmark court case.
The Government’s refusal to say that Christians have a right to display the symbol of their faith at work emerged after its plans to legalise same-sex marriages were attacked by the leaders of the Roman Catholic Church in Britain.
The Christian women bringing the case, Nadia Eweida and Shirley Chaplin, claim that they were discriminated against when their employers barred them from wearing the symbols.
They want the European Court to rule that this breached their human right to manifest their religion.
The Government’s official response states that wearing the cross is not a “requirement of the faith” and therefore does not fall under the remit of Article 9.
Lawyers for the two women claim that the Government is setting the bar too high and that “manifesting” religion includes doing things that are not a “requirement of the faith”, and that they are therefore protected by human rights.
They say that Christians are given less protection than members of other religions who have been granted special status for garments or symbols such as the Sikh turban and kara bracelet, or the Muslim hijab.
Andrea Williams, the director of the Christian Legal Centre, said: “It is extraordinary that a Conservative government should argue that the wearing of a cross is not a generally recognised practice of the Christian faith.
“In recent months the courts have refused to recognise the wearing of a cross, belief in marriage between a man and a woman and Sundays as a day of worship as ‘core’ expressions of the Christian faith.
"What next? Will our courts overrule the Ten Commandments?”
13 Mar 12
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsThe U.K. government is not attempting to ban the wearing of a cross or a crucifix openly at work as you falsely claim. The government is arguing that employers should have the right to ban the wearing of the cross in their workplace, which is - as far as I know - arguably a Libertarian stance.
What part of it do you read differently?
13 Mar 12
Originally posted by RJHindsYes. I noticed that you omitted the part of the article that leaves you open to accusations of deceit.
This is some of what I read.
"A document seen by The Sunday Telegraph discloses that 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."
Or is it just an accident that you copy pasted the other paragraphs, but left this one out?
13 Mar 12
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsI see that it wasn't a comprehension issue at all, you are outright lying. If it was a comprehension problem you would have re-read the article and seen your error.
This is some of what I read. What part of it do you read differently?
You said:
The government in England is attempting to ban the wearing of a cross or a
crucifix openly at work...
Nowhere does the article say this (or anything to this effect).
... because it is reported to be an insult to Moslems.
Again, nowhere does the article say this (or anything to this effect).
Originally posted by FMFAnd is it an accident that you also left the following out that was immediately
Yes. I noticed that you omitted the part of the article that leaves you open to accusations of deceit.
[b]"A document seen by The Sunday Telegraph discloses that 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."
Or is it just an accident that you copy pasted the other paragraphs, but left this one out?[/b]
after your copy and paste?
The Government’s position received an angry response last night from prominent figures including Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury.
He accused ministers and the courts of “dictating” to Christians and said it was another example of Christianity becoming sidelined in official life.
A couple of ministers views does not mean they speak for all Christians.
P.S. Who says these ministers are Christian anyway.
13 Mar 12
Originally posted by RJHindsThat someone who opposes the policy has angrily accused ministers and the courts of doing something or other, does not alter the facts about what the U.K. government's stance is, and does not alter the fact that your OP was deceitful, and that you have been caught red handed.
And is it an accident that you also left the following out that was immediately
after your copy and paste?
The Government’s position received an angry response last night from prominent figures including Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury.
He accused ministers and the courts of “dictating” to Christians and said it was another example of ...[text shortened]... not mean they speak for all Christians.
P.S. Who says these ministers are Christian anyway.
13 Mar 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhy are you being so nit-picky on this article. It is obvious that if the case
I see that it wasn't a comprehension issue at all, you are outright lying. If it was a comprehension problem you would have re-read the article and seen your error.
You said:
[b]The government in England is attempting to ban the wearing of a cross or a
crucifix openly at work...
Nowhere does the article say this (or anything to this effect).
...[text shortened]... insult to Moslems. [/b]
Again, nowhere does the article say this (or anything to this effect).[/b]
is being argued by the government that the result will be a ban on the wearing
of a Cross and Crucifix if the government wins the case.
I was explaining the reason for the proposed ban. Why else?
13 Mar 12
Originally posted by FMFactually in RJH's defence the rather tabloid style header did read, Christians have no
That someone who opposes the policy has angrily accused ministers and the courts of doing something or other, does not alter the facts about what the U.K. government's stance is, and does not alter the fact that your OP was deceitful, and that you have been caught red handed.
right to wear cross at work, says Government.
13 Mar 12
Originally posted by RJHindsActually the government stance is based on this,
Why are you being so nit-picky on this article. It is obvious that if the case
is being argued by the government that the result will be a ban on the wearing
of a Cross and Crucifix if the government wins the case.
I was explaining the reason for the proposed ban. Why else?
wearing the cross is not a “requirement of the faith” and therefore does not fall under
the remit of Article 9
13 Mar 12
1 edit
I am an employer and I do not stop my employees from wearing crosses around there necks. I find it no less silly than wearing rotating bow ties.
or,
But think this through: what are we going to ban next? Cleavage? IT's nor a
requirement to show your mammarial glands as part of your sexual identity. This goes to show how nonsensical this argument it.
LOL
13 Mar 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe article doesn't say "England attempting to ban the wearing of crucifix". This is a falsification.
actually in RJH's defence the rather tabloid style header did read, Christians have no right to wear cross at work, says Government.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
13 Mar 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhich is no defence at all because everyone over the age of 5 knows (or should know) that
actually in RJH's defence the rather tabloid style header did read, Christians have no
right to wear cross at work, says Government.
newspaper headlines lie and distort and exaggerate so much and so badly that nothing they
say can be trusted or relied upon.
And it is certainly not true that the 'reason' for the governments stance is worrying about offending
Muslims.