Your inventions, not mine.
Christianity facing elimination
- Thread starter handyjack
- Start date
Your inventions, not mine.
Sponsored Links
As John said, you used selective quoting.
What I actually said was:
You see the qualification that I made after the "Islam is a religion of peace" that you so selectively omitted.
ChristianVoice, by making people scared of the potential of islamisation of UK, frightens those easily frightened into its own church. Pretty much what all religions have been doing for millennium
You're confusing Islam with extremism.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 63160
Outrageous!! Who would think that!!
In recent years, there have been a few cases where Christians have either been sacked, or suspended for wearing crosses and other religious items whilst at work.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eweida_v_British_Airways_plc (note that in this case, whilst the tribunal did not find in her favour, the ECHR did in fact rule in her favour)
Sponsored Links
You're probably a bigger source of great discomfort to most on GD.....
Are you sure that your summation of the situation is correct? Or are you selectively quoting an example out of context?
Condemnation - express complete disapproval of; censure.
She wasn't condemned for her beliefs. The wearing of a cross per se was not completely disapproved of, only the wearing of a visible symbol at work.
She was sacked for wearing a visible religious symbol that is not required by her religion, which was also in contravention to the uniform policy. Some religious symbols have a protected status, such as turbans, etc. The cross is not one of those.
If it had been a star and crescent symbol, a wheel of Dharma, an Om, etc (which do not have religious protected status) she would still have been sacked.
Later BA amended their policy to allow lapel badges of religious symbolism, however this was dismissed by the complainant. BA have now amended their uniform policy to allow loose interpretation of the lapel badge ruling.
Unfortunately, had she been wearing a wheel of Dharma, or similar, probably no-one would have realised that it is a symbol of religion.
Incidentally, she also refused a position within the company that meant that the uniform policy would not apply. So she wasn't exactly being cooperative either. There were other issues also with this particular employee, such as evangelising at work, refusing to work on religious holidays.
Other organisation argued that it is sensible policy not to wear jewellery in some instance, and as tradespeople, those instances are obvious.
Finally, the ECHR ruling was against the UK government for failing to provide domestic law to protect the claimed rights, not against BA.
She had rejected an out-of-court settlement for £8500, and was awarded £2000 by ECHR. (with £30,000 costs)
I think you were quoting an example out-of-context.
Perhaps you ought to read this article: http://www.newstatesman.com/world-a...-arabia-exported-main-source-global-terrorism
I found it illuminating and it conforms with my previous view of Islam, especially wahhabism and its history and terrorism.
One small passage from the article:
"Islam for dummies".
I'm trying to think of something humourous that won't be taken the wrong way -
but I can't.
I'm trying to think of something humourous that won't be taken the wrong way -
but I can't.
I suspect that with your sense of humour, you might enjoy the following piece in that link. Enlightening in places but highly humorous in others."Islam for dummies".
I'm trying to think of something humourous that won't be taken the wrong way -
but I can't.
D
Doggit
Where did I mention "Blighty"
Going back to the lady at BA being sacked for wearing a cross at work, this can be taken as Christians getting condemned, because although the other religious symbols are also not protected, I can guarantee that BA wouldn't dare sack someone for wearing the star and crescent. So many organisations bend over backwards to make sure other faiths aren't offended by Christian ceremonies etc, even when other faiths stand up say say hey no problem; there's too many Christian apologists out there trying to show how pious and politically correct they are, and it is an insidious form of condemnation that slowly getting out of hand.
Islam and he Jehovas witnesses's are about the only two religions that try and convert others. The Koran states that Jihad is the conversion of others to the faith, whereas the Catholic faith just banned contraception to make it's congregation grow. Unfortunately, there are a lot of Muslims that take Jihad to be an actual war, rather than a verbal conversion. And whilst the teachings of the Koran are peaceful, I think it's all to often (like most religions) interpreted in the manner required by the reader. In most religions, you have a pretty standard definition of what it represents, or teaches, and you invariably have to attend a seminary/religious school before you get ordained; not so with Islam, where anybody can set themselves up as an imam, even if they can't read - hence the teachings of the Koran get corrupted.
No religion should be dogmatic, but too many of them are, and any religion that looks down on others for being a non believer isn't that good. And the allowance of Sharia courts in this country was one of the worst things that has ever happened.
Islam IS a slow relentless tide, and there are too many Muslims that think this country should be under Sharia law. Whilst it won't happen in our lifetimes, I think it will eventually happen. I'm not a Christian, and not afraid, but I am concerned because we used to have an open welcoming attitude, now you have to be careful whom you offend, and it's going to get worse. It's not religion that's the problem, it's religious people - whatever their faith.
Going back to the lady at BA being sacked for wearing a cross at work, this can be taken as Christians getting condemned, because although the other religious symbols are also not protected, I can guarantee that BA wouldn't dare sack someone for wearing the star and crescent. So many organisations bend over backwards to make sure other faiths aren't offended by Christian ceremonies etc, even when other faiths stand up say say hey no problem; there's too many Christian apologists out there trying to show how pious and politically correct they are, and it is an insidious form of condemnation that slowly getting out of hand.
Islam and he Jehovas witnesses's are about the only two religions that try and convert others. The Koran states that Jihad is the conversion of others to the faith, whereas the Catholic faith just banned contraception to make it's congregation grow. Unfortunately, there are a lot of Muslims that take Jihad to be an actual war, rather than a verbal conversion. And whilst the teachings of the Koran are peaceful, I think it's all to often (like most religions) interpreted in the manner required by the reader. In most religions, you have a pretty standard definition of what it represents, or teaches, and you invariably have to attend a seminary/religious school before you get ordained; not so with Islam, where anybody can set themselves up as an imam, even if they can't read - hence the teachings of the Koran get corrupted.
No religion should be dogmatic, but too many of them are, and any religion that looks down on others for being a non believer isn't that good. And the allowance of Sharia courts in this country was one of the worst things that has ever happened.
Islam IS a slow relentless tide, and there are too many Muslims that think this country should be under Sharia law. Whilst it won't happen in our lifetimes, I think it will eventually happen. I'm not a Christian, and not afraid, but I am concerned because we used to have an open welcoming attitude, now you have to be careful whom you offend, and it's going to get worse. It's not religion that's the problem, it's religious people - whatever their faith.
Thank goodness she was able to obtain justice from the European Court of Human Rights, eh?
Good old foreigners, upholding the rights of British Citizens when the UK system fails.
I bet you're pleased that we're part of the international community, eh?
Lots of points in your post. Far too many to deal with in one response.
To take just one:
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20091006174837AAFR7mV
Perhaps more research into your assertion may make your comments more credible.
Also, if you're going to comment on many issues, it might be better to concentrate on a few ideas so that your few assertions can be discussed.
Otherwise, any contradiction of one of your points may lead the reader to believe that all of your points have been invalidated.
More is less, many times.
One example of one person being sacked for wearing of a visible religious symbol is hardly cause for claiming the condemnation of Christians!
Sorry, but I doubt that you can guarantee anything of the sort.
Sponsored Links
