Christians have no right to wear crosses at work

Discussion in 'Off-Topic Discussions' started by Kizmet, Mar 12, 2012.

  1. okydd

    okydd New Member

    "What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not." *James Madison.
  2. emmzee

    emmzee New Member

    I would say that Mr Madison is describing a human problem of corruption and iniquity, not a "religious" problem per se.
  3. emmzee

    emmzee New Member

    Personally, I wear a small, inconspicuous cross, but if my employer requested that I not wear it at work, my first response wouldn't be to sue anyone. At most I would try to start a discussion with him/her regarding the reasoning behind it, explain why I wear it, and try to insure that such a policy would be enforced uniformly (ie, a "no religious jewelry" policy, not a "no Christian jewelry" policy) but I don't think I would fight it.

    At the same time, it seems ridiculous to single out religious jewelry/symbols.
  4. okydd

    okydd New Member

    Just curios how you explain the below from Thomas Jefferson? I think MC was on to something with his first post.

    * "The Christian god can easily be pictured as virtually the same god as the many ancient gods of past civilizations.* The Christian god is a three headed monster; cruel, vengeful and capricious.* If one wishes to know more of this raging, three headed beast-like god, one only needs to look at the caliber of people who say they serve him.* They are always of two classes; fools and hypocrites.* To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical."
    Thomas Jefferson
  5. Maniac Craniac

    Maniac Craniac Moderator Staff Member

    That quote and my quote are not even remotely similar. My explanation of Mr.Jefferson's quote is that he, like most people who have claimed to, clearly never actually read the Bible, rather, simply projected whatever notions convenient to him upon it. People suck, and the Bible's honesty in that matter doesn't in any way reflect poorly on the One who gives everyone many times more chances than we could ever deserve to just get over ourselves and stop sucking.
  6. friendorfoe

    friendorfoe Active Member

    I didn’t read the jewelry article but without even looking at it I’m betting I can safely assume we’ve had a few cases of similar nonsense here in the U.S. The first of which (just off the top of my head) was a Dallas police officer who was fired for wearing a cross pinned to the front of his uniform shirt. This was a violation of the uniform policy and he was given an ultimatum, he chose the “hard” road in the name of his faith. I don’t blame him nor do I blame the department. I do believe that once a person puts on that uniform that they do represent the government and they must set their individuality aside…thus the department is in the moral right on that issue.

    The second instance was a retail store worker who was dismissed for wearing a cross necklace. As I recall the store was like a J.C. Pennys or some other generic mall type style peddler. Anyhow she had a supervisor who told her she was being discriminatory by wearing the necklace and that it made her co-workers uncomfortable. She was also given an ultimatum and dismissed but in this case, being that she did not represent the government in any official capacity nor was she violating the articulated dress code, the company was in the wrong.

    Funny little thing about a multicultural society (any multicultural society actually) you’ll have people who look and act in all different manners. Some of these will contrast with one another yet mutual respect should allow for each person to be the individual they are without affronting the over delicate sensibilities of another. Recently I sat in a software executive meeting with a Sikh from India, a Muslim from Jordan, a Jew from New York, a couple of Christians from the mid-west and a couple of Hindus. Would you believe that nobody was overly distracted by the Jewish gentleman wearing his Yamaka? I doubt anyone noticed a cross ring on the finger of another gentleman and pretty much everyone got along. Why? Mutual respect, without it multicultural societies cannot exist. And mutual respect does not equate not being “offended”. Anyone with who believes they have the right to not be offended probably does not belong in a multicultural society.
  7. okydd

    okydd New Member

    MC, you have just blasphemed, how dare you question the words of our founding fathers. There is no forgiveness for blaspheming. *Are you not patriotic? This is a christian nation. In god we trust is on the money. You are condemn to a lake of fire to *burn for ever and ever because god loves you.

    OKydd Dmin. That is correct doctor of ministry
  8. emmzee

    emmzee New Member

    We can pull out quotes from people who hate Christianity and those who profess it (ex, Isaac Newton, who said that "Atheism is so senseless & odious to mankind") all day, but it really proves nothing about the truthfulness or falseness of it. How do I "explain" it? It sounds like Jefferson was quite angry about something and has a skewed perspective on the "compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness."
  9. okydd

    okydd New Member

    Is not this the problem with religion? You think you are better because you have faith in words from some guys who lived in caves in the deserts. *Everyone thinks his/ her religion is better. I was born a Christian because my parents were. So is almost everyone who is christian or any other religious groups. Why should religions received any special privileges? *Religion should be out of all activities except religious activities.*

    I will have still been a slave if it were not for people like the founding fathers *who questioned *Christianity/religion. I would have like to have met the person who wrote that garbage below. I must hate Christianity for not wanting to be a slave. Ridiculous.

    "You who are slaves must accept the authority of your masters with all respect. Do what they tell you--not only if they are kind and reasonable, but even if they are cruel'. 1 Peter 2:18. Not.

    OKydd, Dmin
  10. emmzee

    emmzee New Member

    Well, we're starting to pretty far afield from the original topic, so we may want to curb this discussion or take it into another forum / private messaging before this topic gets locked.

    However, just want to add some thoughts and correct some misstatements in your comment. I was not "born a Christian because my parents were." I chose to identify myself with Christ because after a process of thoughtful investigation came to the conclusion that it is true. I don't think my "religion is better," I believe that it is true. Also, I'm not sure who these "guys who lived in caves in the deserts" are that you mention, and why that's relevant?

    I don't think religions should receive any "special privileges", but I also don't think there should be special rules that unnecessarily and unfairly target religions (ex, "no crosses allowed but other symbols are okay").

    Re slavery, if you really earned a DMin degree, you didn't study much history. First, the kind of slavery that Peter was speaking about in that verse is the kind of ancient Roman "slavery" (more like indentured servanthood) not the same kind of abhorrent racial slavery that occurred well over 1,000 years later and that we're more familiar with. It was quantitatively different, so condemning Christianity for what it in fact does not say is, in fact, ridiculous. This isn't to say that the ancient practice was always wonderful but it was not the same as what we think of today.

    Furthermore, it was actually Christians who primarily worked to abolish the slave trade. See for example the book by celebrated African-American economist Thomas Sowell (not a Christian) called "Race and Culture" which explains how Christians worked to end slavery of the modern racist kind, or sociologist Rodney Stark (not a Christian) "For the Glory of God" which describes the same.
  11. okydd

    okydd New Member

    I think religious activities should not be encourage in the workplace. But one has always to be careful in supporting this view, because god is a jealously god.Thus says the Lord of hosts…“go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, infant and baby at the breast, ox and sheep, camel and ass”’? (1 Samuel 15)

    OKydd Dmin
  12. emmzee

    emmzee New Member

    So you didn't comment at all on my post above, does that imply you agree with it and are retracting your past statements? I just want to be clear before moving on.

    Also, for the sake of my own curiosity, do you actually have an earned DMin from an accredited seminary?

    (BTW, unless your name is Amalek and live a few thousand years ago, that verse really isn't too applicable to you, so I wouldn't worry too much about it.)
  13. okydd

    okydd New Member

    I am in agreement with you. I did not want to drift too off topic by disagreeing. I have an earned Dmin, but unaccredited. Not relevant, but I have two bothers who are ordained. The Dmin was a peace offering. By the way, the Amalek were a people not a person. Thousand of years?
  14. ITJD

    ITJD Active Member

    I find that trying a hotter brand of tabasco sauce sometimes re-aligns my inner chi. Your mileage may vary..
  15. Ted Heiks

    Ted Heiks Moderator and Distinguished Senior Member

    The destruction of the Amelekites occurred in King Saul's reign, circa 1000 BC.
  16. emmzee

    emmzee New Member

    Sorry, I had a brain cramp there re Amalek. There WAS technically a guy named Amalek, but yes that verse is referring to the people.

    Of note re those kinds of passages is the ever-present clause that if a person (or group of people) repented & gave up their evil ways, they would not be destroyed. That's part of the message of the book of Jonah; the hard-hearted Jonah complains that he knew God would be merciful and not destroy Ninevah (like Jonah wanted Him to) when they repented. (Jonah 4)
  17. Maniac Craniac

    Maniac Craniac Moderator Staff Member

    This troll tactic totally worked on me and now I want to fight some stranger on the internet who has caused my entire world to crumble upon itself by playing dumb just to elicit a response. I probably won't even sleep tonight, brooding angrily over the random internet person's dishonest representation of the facts, refusal to have an honest, logical discussion and unpointed sarcasm.
  18. Abner

    Abner Well-Known Member

    Damn. It just makes me sweat!

    Abner :smile:
  19. Kizmet

    Kizmet Moderator

    friendorfoe - Thanks for this post. Multiculturalism/pluralism is the future.
  20. okydd

    okydd New Member

    Hey MC, I was just kidding with you. I was just of course sarcastically using some of the spurious and ridiculous arguments that have been used against me on degreeinfo. Anyway, I hope you are kidding.*Anyway just to rub some salts in your wounds incase you are kidding; there is no logic in faith, that's it why it is faith-logic is about science.

Share This Page