England attempting to ban the wearing of crucifix

Originally posted by lausey
[b]Christians do not have a right to wear a cross or crucifix openly at work

is not the same as

Christians are being banned from wearing the cross or crucifix openly at work

i.e. Anyone can still wear a cross or crucifix at work if the employer allows them to, but if not, then the person does not have the right to fight against it.[/b]

yes but why should it matter? i do not think that its a sign of respect to wear the article
that Christ was put to death upon, but clearly its an attempt to introduce legislation
which not only could possibly be used as a tool of religious discrimination but could
potentially erodes a persons freedom of expression, in this instance religious, the fact
that some employers may or may not endorse the legislation is neither here nor there,
how much actual harm is being done at present by a Christian deciding to wear a
crucifix?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I think it is a misleading header and I am also willing to believe that RJH was misled by this. He's a Republican, he'll believe almost anything.

Believe what you want, robbie. I'm beginning to think divegeester may be right. He reckons RJHinds is a spoof trying to bring the religion he pretends to espouse into disrepute. This blatantly obvious false and deceitful OP came at almost exactly the same moment as RJHinds - tongue firmly in cheek, I'm starting to think - was denying that he was a liar on another thread.

Originally posted by FMF
Believe what you want, robbie. I'm beginning to think divegeester may be right. He reckons RJHinds is a spoof trying to bring the religion he pretends to espouse into disrepute. This blatantly obvious false and deceitful OP came at almost exactly the same moment as RJHinds - tongue firmly in cheek, I'm starting to think - was denying that he was a liar on another thread.

It could be true but then again i am not very cynical, i like to try to impute pure
motives to others whenever possible.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
clearly its an attempt to introduce legislation which not only could possible be used as a tool of discrimination but could potentially erodes a persons freedom of expression, in this instance religious.

Any and all workplace dress codes could be described as slippery slopes. But you certainly have the right to rack up the hyperbole. 🙂

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
It could be true but then again i am not very cynical, i like to try to impute pure
motives to others whenever possible.

RJHinds' motives in this community do not seem particularly hard to discern. I don't think addressing them head on and being honest is "cynical". Fair enough, if you do.

Originally posted by FMF
Any and all workplace dress codes could be described as slippery slopes. But you certainly have the right to rack up the hyperbole. 🙂

Haha, but really FMF, how much harm is it really doing? some little old Catholic lady in
a tea room selling fairy cakes and who needs the comfort of the crucifix upon her
person? hmmm, deadly offensive?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I think it is a misleading header and I am also willing to believe that RJH was misled by
this. He's a Republican, he'll believe almost anything.

And you seem willing to believe anything that fellow Christians says as long as its stupid enough. RJ was not mislead, he deliberately tried to misinterpret it. On top of that his comment regarding Muslims is entirely made up. Search the article for "Muslim" yourself if you like.
I can understand you seeing the headline, seeing red, then saying something stupid, but if, after a number of posts on the topic, you still don't get the difference between the headline and what RJ wrote, then you are being dishonest.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I think it is a misleading header and I am also willing to believe that RJH was misled by
this. He's a Republican, he'll believe almost anything.

The Democrats want to allow the government to control all our freedoms here
too, just like there in the Uk. That is one of the reasons I vote Ruplican even
though they haven't been too quick on keeping their promise of reducing the
Federal Governments control over our lives. At least they don't try to increase
it like the Democrats do, except right after the 9/11 attack in their attempt
to guard against future attacks.

Originally posted by FMF
RJHinds' motives in this community do not seem particularly hard to discern. I don't think addressing them head on and being honest is "cynical". Fair enough, if you do.

well ok, perhaps cynical is a rather strong word, concerned may be better. Yes RJH has
stated that he wants to antagonise people, but even then he may be doing it out of a
kind of sincerity, after all, people have done all sorts of silly things for reasons they
believed were sound.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The Democrats want to allow the government to control all our freedoms here
too, just like there in the Uk. That is one of the reasons I vote Ruplican even
though they haven't been too quick on keeping their promise of reducing the
Federal Governments control over our lives. At least they don't try to increase
it like the Democrats do, except right after the 9/11 attack in their attempt
to guard against future attacks.

The British Government endorsing employers' rights in this way, which is what the article you quoted in the OP is about, is - if anything - a far right or libertarian policy.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The Democrats want to allow the government to control all our freedoms here
too, just like there in the Uk. That is one of the reasons I vote Ruplican even
though they haven't been too quick on keeping their promise of reducing the
Federal Governments control over our lives. At least they don't try to increase
it like the Democrats do, except right after the 9/11 attack in their attempt
to guard against future attacks.

ahh you want all your freedoms but not anarchy, everyone needs a referee RJH,
unpopular as they may be.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
well ok, perhaps cynical is a rather strong word, concerned may be better. Yes RJH has stated that he wants to antagonise people, but even then he may be doing it out of a kind of sincerity, after all, people have done all sorts of silly things for reasons they believed were sound.

You are welcome to be impressed by his "sincerity", robbie.

Originally posted by FMF
You are welcome to be impressed by his "sincerity", robbie.

I did not state i was impressed by it FMF.

Originally posted by FMF
The British Government endorsing employers' rights in this way, which is what the article you quoted in the OP is about, is - if anything - a far right or libertarian policy.

That is a different kind of Libertarian than we have here.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
ahh you want all your freedoms but not anarchy, everyone needs a referee RJH,
unpopular as they may be.

Yes, a referee but not a bully.