It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

British Government Says Christians Don't Have Right To Wear Cross Or Crucifix At Work

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 05:39 PM
link   


Two British women are headed to court to argue for the right to wear Christian crosses at their workplaces, but a group of Christian ministers is reportedly set to back employers' rights to ban the regalia.


source

I support this action against the religious self expression being displayed in the work place because tattoos and piercings (another decorative form of self expression) have long been frowned upon in the proffesional workplace. I think it will be interesting to see how the christians fare in this debate. Is it really a pc and equal world to ban one but not the other? How many cross wearing christians are against tattoos and piercings, but will support the cross? Hypocrites COME FOURTH!




posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Evolutionsend
 



British Government: Christians Have No Right to Wear Visible Cross or Crucifix
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Christians have no right to wear crosses, British government says
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 06:07 PM
link   
I have no problem with self-expression in any form. Piercings, ear gauges, crucifixes, star of Davids, it doesn't offend me, and I'm just a middle-aged housewife. I don't equate body jewelry or tattoos as offensive or indicative of a person's ability to do a job in the workplace. My mother's generation does, however. I don't even care if an employee cusses. But, I'm very easy-going.

Now, if somebody MADE me do or wear those things myself, that is another issue.

I think that the individual employer should decide if certain jewelry or clothing is offensive, not the government.



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 04:26 AM
link   
People might object to psychological/social profiling on the basis of having tattoos; but let's be honest, here. For every one normal individual who simply wants a tattoo as a form of artistic expression, there's anywhere between ten and fifty who, putting it simply, are Orcs trapped in human bodies. I actually have nothing whatsoever against Orcs; I played one in World of Warcraft for nearly three years.

I do, however, think that it is inappropriate for tattoo wearers to attempt to deny their usual degree of barbarism. If you are in reality a refugee from Qo'nos who somehow ended up in a human body by mistake, you have my sympathy; but dishonesty is not honourable.


Again, I know that tattoo wearers are likely going to think I'm a bigot for the above; I'm not. The bottom line, though, is that mainstream society and tattoos simply don't mix, as far as I'm concerned. You wouldn't wear a three piece suit while you were out camping in the woods, somewhere; a tattoo is basically the same situation, in reverse. Tattoos are nearly always worn by feral (euphemistically "free spirited,") personalities; and given that to a certain extent, I am such myself, I would be a hypocrite if I had a problem with that. I don't have a problem with it; what I have a problem with is trying to gain mainstream acceptance for tattoos, especially given that being mainstream most likely means being in a lot of places that the archetypical tattoo wearer is not going to want to be anyway.

In trying to advocate that tattoos are (or can be) "normal," you're likely trying to please a group of people who are not going to like you anyway, and you most likely won't like them. I've been accused of being a freak for most of my life, in one way or another; I've actually come to value it and view it as an advantage, now. For me, normalcy means dysfunction. So if people think you're a freak because you wear tattoos, let them.

As for Christians not being able to wear crosses in public, cry me a river, guys; as you very predictably will. As I've mentioned before, I carry medallions of both Kali and Durga Ma in my wallet, but they stay in there; they don't get shown to anybody unless the person in question is someone I feel a strong degree of trust for. Apart from anything else, this is because I am aware that having them on display all the time would make me a hypocrite. Jesus also talked about the left hand not knowing what the right is doing; he wouldn't want you flaunting your colours at every possible opportunity.

So don't do it. Keep it to yourselves. Jesus knows his own, and that should be enough for you.
edit on 14-3-2012 by petrus4 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 04:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Evolutionsend
 


Already covered here



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 04:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Evolutionsend
 



I support this action against the religious self expression

this, combined with your user name, tells me all i need to know.

necklaces and ear piercings have been socially acceptable and quite fashionable for a very long time in our culture, tattoos, gauged ear piercings, and other body modifications haven't. it says a lot that you support banning religious self expression specifically, why not just ban all expression?

you may rant and rave against what most people as a whole have decided is appropriate for business, but you haven't thought out the consequences of such a position very well.

widespread persecution will happen much sooner than people think.



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 


Do most people really feel that way though? I say no, and I think it will be changed shortly after the massive, now conservative, baby boomers, die. The forward thinking liberals of the next big baby boom, the 90s, will be running # very soon. Why do you think politicians are appealing to the younger generation? Based on that I routinely challenge the old folks every chance I get.

Tattooing is an old practice, probably older than the cross itself.


Again, if you restrict one form of self expression, such as tattooing, you must restrict any possibly offensive forms of self expression. A cross has the potential to offend someone much more so than a tattoo. Unless it's a tattoo of a cross


p.s. Orcs are the best! Have you seen the dance? The abs? We should all try to be a little more orcish! If anyone ever hired an orc people would come from many places to see the green person with ripped muscles.
I don't recall seeing orcs with tattoos though.... is it a new thing? I haven't turned that game on forever.
edit on 14-3-2012 by Evolutionsend because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 02:05 PM
link   
Absolutely fine by me, as long as it is applied to all religions. If an employer says no to wearing a cross, they should also have to say no to ANY type of religious expression through clothing/jewellery.

As long as it's fair, then you can use the excuse of not 'stepping on anyones toes' and being 'politically correct' . If you single out a religion, your sole excuse for asking someone to remove the cross falls apart.



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join