Wearing a cross is a crime in England??

[Sankari]

Same ****, different label.

No, it's an entirely different religion.

It's from the Old Testament

Correct. It's from a subsection of the Old Testament called the Law of Moses, which was only relevant to the Jews.

In the New Testament, Jesus teaches that nobody is required to keep the Law of Moses anymore. Christianity was founded upon this premise, which is why Christians do not keep the Law of Moses.

are you telling me Catholics don't read or believe in the Book of Deuteronomy?

No, that is not what I am telling you. What I am telling you is that the Law of Moses is not part of the Christian religion and Christians are not required to observe it. If you had actually taken the time to learn what Christianity teaches, you'd know this already.

P.S. the passage I used came directly from a Catholic website.

Irrelevant. You need to learn more about Christianity. Specifically: learn why it's different from Judaism.


**Disclaimer** I am not a Catholic.

 

[estebanrey]

No, it's an entirely different religion.

Yeah you keep telling yourself that. Christianity is just an off shoot of Judaism given it was created by a Jewish sect. Same as how Islam is just a rip off of Christianity.

A bunch of Jewish goat herders got together (probably the anarchists of their day) and decided they didn't like bits of the current Bible so re-wrote certain bits of it, kept others then just called it Christianity.

Christianity to Judaism is just like what the SDP was to the Labour party.

Most of the Abrahamic religions are just rip off of paganism anyway. As if Christmas was an original idea...

Next you'll be telling me Mormonism has nothing to do with Christianity either

Correct. It's from a subsection of the Old Testament called the Law of Moses, which was only relevant to the Jews.

Can you explain why the Book Of Deuteronomy is on a Catholic website then?

http://www.catholic.org/bible/book.php?id=5

Have they made a mistake?

 

[Sankari]

Atheism is binary isn't it? I don't think you can more atheist than someone else.

There are different shades of atheism. The two most common positions are 'hard atheist' and 'soft atheist.'

 

[estebanrey]

There are different shades of atheism. The two most common positions are 'hard atheist' and 'soft atheist.'

You either believe in god or you don't surely. Are you confusing anti-theism with atheism?

 

[koolpc]

I always were a cross. Under my shirt but always there.

 

[Sin_Chase]

I always were a cross. Under my shirt but always there.

That's nice

 

[SlyReaper]

You either believe in god or you don't surely. Are you confusing anti-theism with atheism?

There's a difference between "I don't believe in any Gods" and "I believe no Gods exist". Me, I'm 99.9% sure no Gods exist. I'm sure enough that I'm willing to bet my immortal soul (if it exists, which I don't think it does) on it. And I have to, since all the major organised religions say you HAVE to believe otherwise you forfeit your immortal soul.

But this is a distraction. I see nothing wrong with people wearing symbols of their religion in the workplace. As long as they keep it personal and don't try to inflict it on anyone else, it's all fine by me.

 

[estebanrey]

There's a difference between "I don't believe in any Gods" and "I believe no Gods exist".

Correct, but that's the difference between atheism and agnosticism. Two different questions

Me, I'm 99.9% sure no Gods exist.

Me too, but as I said and I thought you'd pointed out that is a different answer to a different question.

If you asked me "Does God exist" I'd answer like you have because I cannot prove he doesn't, but if you ask me "Do you believe in God" the answer then becomes 'no' so I am an athiest.

You are an atheist too because I suspect your answer to "Do you believe in God" your answer would be no too.

 

[crinkleshoes]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/rel...ht-to-wear-cross-at-work-says-Government.html

Fellow Englishmen,

is the story above true??

As long as they also ban burkas, sikh hats... etc etc...

the prejudice has to apply to all or none... no middle ground is fair.

 

[Sankari]

You either believe in god or you don't surely.

Correct, but there are nuances within atheism which determine the basis of an individual's rationale.

Are you confusing anti-theism with atheism?

No. Anti-theism is not equivalent to atheism (e.g. a deist could be an anti-theist). I am simply making you aware that there is more than one form of atheism.

Put simply: 'hard atheism' explicitly affirms that there is no god, while 'soft atheism' merely affirms a lack of belief in god.

Correct, but that's the difference between atheism and agnosticism. Two different questions

Incorrect. SlyReaper has correctly described hard atheism and soft atheism.

Both forms of atheism deny a belief in god, whereas agnosticism states 'we cannot know if there is a god or not.' This open-ended position is very different to either form of atheism.

 

[Sankari]

As long as they also ban burkas, sikh hats... etc etc...

 

[koolpc]

I believe in god 100 % and nothing would remove that from my faith. Simples.

 

[SlyReaper]

Correct, but that's the difference between atheism and agnosticism. Two different questions




Me too, but as I said and I thought you'd pointed out that is a different answer to a different question.

If you asked me "Does God exist" I'd answer like you have because I cannot prove he doesn't, but if you ask me "Do you believe in God" the answer then becomes 'no' so I am an athiest.

You are an atheist too because I suspect your answer to "Do you believe in God" your answer would be no too.

I don't think that's a very useful distinction though. Obviously nobody can prove 100% there's no God, just like they can't prove there's no teapot orbiting in the Sun-Mars L2 Lagrangian point. By that logic, atheists can't exist. I can't prove 100% there's no God, but I'm sure enough to identify myself as an atheist rather than as an agnostic.

 

[estebanrey]

I don't think that's a very useful distinction though. Obviously nobody can prove 100% there's no God, just like they can't prove there's no teapot orbiting in the Sun-Mars L2 Lagrangian point. By that logic, atheists can't exist. I can't prove 100% there's no God, but I'm sure enough to identify myself as an atheist rather than as an agnostic.

I didn't explain it very well.

The term "athiest" and the term "agnostic" are not mutally exclusive, they are just two answers to two different questions.

Ask yourself these two questions...

1) Does a god or gods exists?
2) Do you believe in God?

I suspect you will answer both like me....

1) I don't know as I can't prove or disprove it but I'm pretty confident one doesn't

2) No

They are two perfectly compatible answers for one person to give as they are answering different questions.

You don't believe in God, therefore you are an athiest but that isn't saying you think there is no God or you can prove their isn't one. On the subject of whether god exists (which to re-iterate is a different proposition than 'Do you believe in God') you are an agnostic as I am (and even Mr Dawkins is).

Penn Jillette explains what I mean here (1:04 onward)....


Best quote - "The best way to become an Atheist is to read the Bible from beginning to end, and I don't mean in Bible study, I mean front to back"

 

[crinkleshoes]

...

So they're ok and crosses aren't?

I'm against all public displays of faith... it should be private.

You can't ban one and not the other!

 

[semi-pro waster]

So they're ok and crosses aren't?

I'm against all public displays of faith... it should be private.

You can't ban one and not the other!

Wearing a cross is not a tenet of the Christian faith, many Christians may choose to do so but it's a choice and not a requirement. Other faiths do require certain items to be worn/carried as a part of their religious observance so it's a different thing.

If you want to ban all public displays of faith then you are, of course, entirely free to believe that should be the case but that isn't what is in issue here, it's simply stating that there is no legal right for a Christian to wear a cross. It's a different proposition to saying it is banned.

 

[Castiel]

So they're ok and crosses aren't?

I'm against all public displays of faith... it should be private.

You can't ban one and not the other!

You don't believe in Freedom of Expression of the individual?

 

[Danthus]

You don't believe in Freedom of Expression of the individual?

As long as it is with the law, it is fine. It becomes a problem we the individual is pandered too.

 

[Castiel]

As long as it is with the law, it is fine. It becomes a problem we the individual is pandered too.

He said he was against ALL displays of a persons faith in public. I do not see how that relates to pandering to the individual, in any case the State is not there to tell the individual what they wear and how they express themselves only protecting the individuals right to do so.

As has been pointed out numerous times, wearing a cross is not illegal nor required by the Christian Faith so it is entirely the purview of the individual whether they wear one or not. That some companies have taken it upon themselves to ban such items is a matter between them and their employees, not really one for the State.

 

[KNiVES]

Should be a crime. Those who wear religious articles in public should be hanged, drawn and quartered, and their immediate families sent off to 'correctional facilities' for allowing the person in question to be raised in such an environment.
Exceptions are to be made for Islamic clothing, as everybody should be wearing fully covering burqas.