Brits seek to force Christians to live hyphenated lives

Discussion in 'Spiritual Warfare' started by mvdm, Sep 7, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. mvdm

    mvdm Puritan Board Junior

  2. sevenzedek

    sevenzedek Puritan Board Junior

    Here comes the persecution. All the more reason to pray Psalms 67:1-2.

    1 God be merciful unto us, and bless us;
    and cause his face to shine upon us; Selah.
    2 That thy way may be known upon earth,
    thy saving health among all nations.
     
  3. SolaScriptura

    SolaScriptura Puritan Board Doctor

    Remember, if the R2K folks are right, we just need to keep quiet and let the godless run the government however they see fit.
     
  4. Sola Gratia

    Sola Gratia Puritan Board Freshman

    I find this to be quite sad and fear that it may cross the Atlantic as well. Whether you are a Democrat or not (as in this is not politically based) while watching the convention i heard some scary things including evangelicals being called idiots as well as people asserting that "evangelicals" don't actually read the Bible (the last comment I found to be quite funny).
     
  5. OPC'n

    OPC'n Puritan Board Doctor

    China allows Christians to worship but they are not allowed to witness to anyone and they are not allowed to bring young ppl into the church in hopes that the worshipping dies with the age of the older congregation. It sounds like Britain is trying to do the same thing by making them keep their faith "at home"....no witnessing. Our own government is striping our rights by throwing out portions of our Constitution. Our forefathers gave us a Constitution that allowed personal freedom and limited government interference and now we see big government invading every aspect of our lives not just in the area of religion.
     
  6. PhilA

    PhilA Puritan Board Sophomore

    I cannot get very worked up about this (and other similar cases). In my opinion this has very little (if anything) to do with faith and is more to do with the wearing of jewellery. The British press loves to whip up a frenzy about these things.

    This is not persecution.
     
  7. JennyG

    JennyG Puritan Board Graduate

    there's a lot in that, but I still think there's an important principle in there that needs upholding.
    Apart from anything else, if the forces of militant humanism and secularism see this pass without a fight, we'll find it was just one more inch, and soon they'll go all out for the ell.
     
  8. PhilA

    PhilA Puritan Board Sophomore

    But what is the point? In the BA case the company did a full u-turn, allowed the wearing of jewellery. This issue is about money. It has been rejected by the highest court in the land. This person appears to want to be "persecuted" and to be paid for her "persecution" as well. This form of militant "Christianity" leaves me very uncomfortable.
     
  9. sevenzedek

    sevenzedek Puritan Board Junior

    Perhaps I should read the article for myself. I would have much to say about Christian persecution. I would also have much to say about "this form of militant 'Christianity.'"
     
  10. OPC'n

    OPC'n Puritan Board Doctor

    This may not be the highest or the most cruel form of persecution, but it is a form of persecution. If the company had a rule against wearing any type of jewelry to work, then I would agree that it isn't persecution. However, the company obviously doesn't like Christianity, and therefore, doesn't allow its employees to wear anything that signifies Christianity. I would take it to court too if it were happening to me. I don't like when ppl try and take away my rights especially the government, so it has nothing to do with money and everything to do with upholding personal rights.
     
  11. mvdm

    mvdm Puritan Board Junior

    Phil, perhaps you are correct about the nefarious motive you ascribe to the employees who brought suit. But the point is we do not have to guess as to what the government lawyer is intending, where he makes it plain:

    “There is a difference between the professional sphere where your religious freedoms necessarily abut onto and confront other interests and the private sphere. The employees concerned could indeed pursue all the generally recognised manifestations of their religion outside the work sphere.”

    If wearing a cross is considered "militant Christianity" worthy of government telling us to keep faith privatized, then we are in deeper trouble than I imagined.
     
  12. PhilA

    PhilA Puritan Board Sophomore

    My understanding is that the company did have a policy against wearing jewellery. They private company compromised under pressure to allow a cross as a lapel badge and finally capitulated to accept the wearing of the chain after the state church and government intervened. The individual refused any compromise. I also understand an out of court settlement was refused. The action is to pursue lost earnings while the individual was suspended without pay.
     
  13. PhilA

    PhilA Puritan Board Sophomore

    Mark

    The statement from the "Government lawyer" is what you would expect from a lawyer in any similar case. The Government is defending the rule of law not the specific position. This case has been through the full British legal system and it failed as it had no merit. The individual has appealed to a "higher court" in Europe. It was the Government intervention and that of the state church (quite ironic really) that forced the private company it a full reversal and permitting the wearing of the jewellery. The Government and the state church supported the individual wearing the jewellery.
     
  14. ProtestantBankie

    ProtestantBankie Puritan Board Freshman

    I think the Government has a right to outlaw the wearing of crosses if it wishes. I also think private companies and government agencies have a right to restrict it being worn.
    Graven images form no part of my faith as a Christian, and I will "Honour all men" and "Honour the king" on this issue.

    BUT, there are different cases where genuine discrimination takes place. viz. Christian foster parents being removed due to their views on homosexuality.
     
  15. SRoper

    SRoper Puritan Board Graduate

    Aren't employers are allowed to establish dress codes for their employees? I'm pretty sure the US military has long forbidden the wearing of necklaces.

    In any case, wouldn't a truly Christian nation forbid the wearing of crucifixes? Isn't that part of enforcing both tables of the law?
     
  16. Peairtach

    Peairtach Puritan Board Doctor

    In my humble opinion, I think this would be a very heavy-handed civil enforcement of the Second Commandment even in a fully constituted Christian state.

    De minimis non regat lex (the law - civil and criminal - does not take an interest in small matters) is an important legal principle to remind civil government not to become a pedantic but heavy-handed nitpicker.

    The fuss over this woman's cross isn't motivated by British Airways zeal for the Second Commandment, but by company policy against jewellery in general, and by secularist anti-Christian zeal towards all varieties of Christianity, getting on the bandwagon.

    The secularists would like to put all forms of Christian expression "into the closet" , just as the homosexuals are coming out of the closet.
     
  17. sevenzedek

    sevenzedek Puritan Board Junior

    It scares me when the government outlaws crosses. However, I concede the right of a private institution to govern the fashion choices of it's employees. After all, the employees are there on the company's terms and not the other way around.
     
  18. PhilA

    PhilA Puritan Board Sophomore

    I agree wholeheartedly with you.

    My frustration is that cases such as the one highlighted in the OP (and other similar cases) distract our attention from the real issues such as the one you highlight.
     
  19. PhilA

    PhilA Puritan Board Sophomore

    Why should there be one rule for private institutions and another for public (Government)? After all Public employers are usually some of the largest employers. Isn't that discrimination?:D
     
  20. sevenzedek

    sevenzedek Puritan Board Junior

    Discrimination? Yes. I am discriminating between the right of the government and the right of the people. I would include corporations under the heading of "people." I admit that I haven't thought through the implications of my statement as much as others probably have, but I just think there is a big problem when the government tells me how what I can...

    I was born and raised in America. I guess I am culturally conditioned to have certain expectations of my government. Nevertheless, limiting free speech seems to put us all on a slippery slope.

    This issue gets more complicated the more I think about it. Heaven will be much more simple. Anyone got an aspirin?
     
  21. crimsonleaf

    crimsonleaf Puritan Board Freshman

    The issue was and is one of the wearing of jewellery. The woman pleaded a special case as a Christian but it was ruled that the cross isn't a necessary accessory for Christian worship. Which of course it isn't. All jewellery is subject to the same rules regardless of faith, unless the wearing of it is essential. It's not religious freedom that's being curtailed, it's the freedom to wear whatever jewellery you want at work.

    A Muslim headscarf however, is recognised as part of Islamic worship and is therefore OK. I can see both sides of the argument to be honest.
     
  22. PhilA

    PhilA Puritan Board Sophomore

    We all have high expectations from our respective Governments and I suspect that we will all be disappointed to some extent or another. I used to work for Government for over 30 years until we fell out big style.

    In this case the government created the law to stop discrimination on religious grounds. The private company (British Airways) enforced a strict dress code on jewellery and the employee objected. She tried to argue that she was being discriminated against on religious grounds by her employer. Unable to reach compromise (again, the company made a complete reversal under pressure from the Government and the Church of England) she must have been dismissed and fought her case as an unfair dismissal case at tribunal which she lost. On the grounds that it wasn't a case of religious discrimination.

    She is now taking the Government to court in Europe on the grounds that the various tribunals reached the wrong conclusion. The Government is defending the process and that the correct conclusion was reached in law.

    Pass the Asprin when your done.
     
  23. sevenzedek

    sevenzedek Puritan Board Junior

    I still haven't made it a priority to read that bless-ed article. But I don't see how the government is wrong—given that your summary of the case is accurate.
     
  24. KevinInReno

    KevinInReno Puritan Board Freshman

    Really not an accurate summation of the R2K perspective, but it got you 5 helpful votes.... so what do I know? R2K doesn't argue for being idle within the public sphere. However to yoke a Donkey to live like an Ox is something that isn't profitable to a R2Ker, but to not allow an Ox to be an Ox is something different all together. This will be my only response on R2K in this thread.
     
    Last edited: Sep 7, 2012
  25. PhilA

    PhilA Puritan Board Sophomore

    I presume that she is pursuing the British Government on the basis that she feels that they failed to protect her human rights.
     
  26. Edward

    Edward Puritan Board Doctor

    That's not accurate, based upon first hand accounts that I have heard.
     
  27. ProtestantBankie

    ProtestantBankie Puritan Board Freshman

    China is a massive country of course, and some places are more strict than others. It may well be that it is accurate in places but not accurate in other places.
    The best treatment of the Chinese Church I have seen is the work of Tony Lambert "China's Christian Millions". Which points out the difficulties of persecution range from mild to extreme.
     
  28. JoannaV

    JoannaV Puritan Board Sophomore

    There was more than one case mentioned in the article. They focused on the jewellery one, but further down they mentioned a counsellor who lost his job because he wouldn't give homosexual couples sex advice and a registrar who lost her job because she wouldn't conduct civil partnerships.
     
  29. PhilA

    PhilA Puritan Board Sophomore

    There are several as you say. If you dig a little deeper then you will find that they are not as straight forward as the press would have you believe.
     
  30. OPC'n

    OPC'n Puritan Board Doctor

    It isn't the government's right to stick their nose into ppl's personal life. That's called communism. If wearing crosses goes against your conscious, then you shouldn't wear one. However, ppl who want to wear one should be allowed to do so in a free country. I personally wouldn't wear one but that's my right not to wear one. BTW, The use of a cross in church architecture is not explicitly mentioned in the Westminster Standards (Confession of Faith and Catechisms) and some reformed churches have them and some do not. So I doubt that wearing a crucifix would be completely out of line. A government that can take away the rights of other ppl you think should have their rights taken away can turn around and take away your rights also. Is that the type of country in which you want to live? It's not the type of country in which I want to live.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page