Phanerothyme Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 10 points and a cigar to the first person who uses "antidisestablishmentarian" in its proper context. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 So if Christian values are the same as non-Christian values whats your problem?? The problem would be yours, in that you're deluded into thinking we have those values because of Christianity. We would have those same values if Charles Martel had lost and we'd been Muslim for twelve hundred years. We certainly don't need to be a "Christian country" in order to retain them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 10 points and a cigar to the first person who uses "antidisestablishmentarian" in its proper context. That prize remains unclaimed since 1849. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 And it's now 1943. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anywebsite Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 10 points and a cigar to the first person who uses "antidisestablishmentarian" in its proper context. He looks like a nice antidisestablishmentarian! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 So if Christian values are the same as non-Christian values whats your problem?? Why do that? Why answer a question with another question? It's so transparent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Minority religions thrive very well indeed in Christian countries, they certernly have in Britain; tell me, how do religion's fair in China?? My Christian neighbours keep telling me how well Christianity is doing in China these days, besides I wouldn't really call China a secular country and the subject is secularism. I can only think of one Christian state, and that's The Vatican. I don't think there's many mosques there. If minority religions thrive well in states that are majority Christian it is because that state has adopted some secular values, ditto for an Islamic state, or any other state with a majority religion. Arguing against secularism is equivalent to arguing for a theocracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
six45ive Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 So if Christian values are the same as non-Christian values whats your problem?? My problem is that if xtian values are the same as non xtian values then why bother with xtianity at all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaliRichard Posted February 22, 2012 Author Share Posted February 22, 2012 So does anyone actually have any views? With the exception of Heading North who didn't so much answer as just added to my original post no one actually seems to have attempted to reply. As a secularist (or even someone who thinks state and religion (not just Christianity) should be joined, where do you think, as an individual, that the line should be drawn between freedom of worship and religious privelage? I'll go back to my original examples and offer my opinion on those to try and kick start a conversation. As far as the Islamic salat goes I have heard of examples of some Muslims who try and use it to get five twenty minute breaks during work time. This is not necessary and such people, imo, should be ashamed of themselves and dealt with under the conduct code. The fact that only two, at most, prayers need impact on work should be down to the individual and their manager to work out, it's not too much of an ask for a couple of five minute breaks which is probably less than most smokers have. I have a similar situation, albeit only once a week where I shouldn't eat after noon, fortunately this doesn't impact on my work, but if it did I know my boss would accomodate me, and I would be more than willing just to shift my lunch break so I wasn't working any less time. Regarding uniform I think it depends on the policy, the only way I can see religious dress impacting on work wear is if a Muslim woman wears the full niqab in a job that requires them to be face to face with people, and I would argue that the niqab isn't even a religious requirement. As far as jewellary is concerned, I think if your job has a no jewellary policy then you shouldn't be allowed to wear it, simple as that. If there is no ruling either way then I can't see any problem whatsoever in people wearing the crucifix or any other religious symbol. Just a short afterword. Certainly in my religion (and as far as I know most others) would be quite happy that if a requirement couldn't be fulfilled due to work policy then it is quite acceptable to forego that requirement. I don't understand these religious people who say we have to do such and such, it's part of our religion, because unless someone can show me where there religion differs, exceptions are allowed. I think a bigger problem (again from my perspective) is the type of job you choose to do, that is a far bigger issue than not being able to observe certain rules while you're at work. My word, that turned into a rather longer post than I thought it would, and I haven't even touched on political privelages! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 So does anyone actually have any views? Okay, in an attempt to answer your OP question, "how far should secularism go?", I will say the following: Secularism doesn't go anywhere, it is simply a position of fair neutrality in which religion is not given special privilege over any other beliefs or pastimes. My wife works in a medical environment in which jewellery is not permitted, or must be taped up, and hair must be tied back. A person who claimed that their religion insists that he/she must let their hair run wild, or display a crucifix, should seek alternative employment or set aside their beliefs aside at work. This is a secular position of neutrality, in which everybody is treated equally irrespective of religion. In the case of the Christian woman who was told not to wear a cross, this was not secularism going anywhere, it was a fair response to a women trying to claim religious privilege. The person who wants to pray during work hours should be granted no more privilege than the person who wants to smoke during work hours, or the person who wants to go fishing during work hours. An employer has a duty to provide breaks to all employees, and this should suffice. Granting special privilege to one set of employees ahead of others is unfair. The irony for me is that many religious requirements, prayers, diet, dress, etc are specifically done to show a person's dedication to their brand of deity, to show a small sign of self-sacrifice. If this means that their lives are inconvenienced in some ways then that is by design, they should welcome that situation. In their attempts to enforce religious privilege they are making it easier for themselves to comply with their rules. In a way, they are cheating, which must make their deity quite irate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.