Wearing a cross at work

When in Rome?

Members of other faiths, interviewed on this subject, have generally expressed no objection to the wearing of crosses or crucifixes. The objections come largely from those over-sensitive PC fixated do-gooders who are so ridiculously afraid of causing offence.

The issue of "Human Rights" is a mystery to me. A self-confessed killer and rapist (although he said he never did so "deliberately"?) is not deported from this country because of his "human rights" - what about the rights of his victims? What about War Crimes trials? "Our" rights seem to be given much less consideration than those of people who are clearly evil and have no business to be in this country. So this "war criminal" might be prosecuted or worse if he returns to his own country? Well he should have thought about that first.
Wearing crosses is a lot less in your face than hajibs and turbans. I have no problem with these, but think our own "established" church deserves to enjoy the same rights.
I am not ultra right wing/conseravative/certainly not nationalist, just sick to the back teeth of the PC wishy washy jobsworths who actually get a salary for this *p

Should have been a few more asterisks there - I meant cr**.

I'm not sure why Britain is to be considered a Christian country, since only 10% of the population attend any kind of religious service and I suspect it would be much lower if there were less muslims. It doesn't affect me directly but I look foward to the day when there is complete separation of religion and state.

I was listening to The Big Question this morning as I did not know whether to be frightened or amused by the rantings of the fundamental Christians and muslims - the Jew seemed fairly reasonable.

What a lot of fuss about nothing. The question I always ask about these questions is 'who does it hurt?'

Wearing a cross hurts no-one.

Wearing a veil hurts no-one as long as the face can be seen (it is scary and disconcerting being confronted by someone with a covered up face).

Turbans etc hurt no-one.

Gay marriage hurts no-one.

Sometimes I ask myself what is really going on, while we are being distracted by all this nonsense.

In general its not the people of other World Faiths making the fuss about Christian symbols and Festivals , it's mainly the agnostic/atheistic equality and diversity types in HR or on Council committees who are creating an industry out of these issues. My Hindu and Buddhist relations have no problems with people wearing crosses although they do sometimes have problems with over enthusiastic evangelicals or Christians who do not follow the Biblical teachings on loving their neighbours etc.

The Human Rights Act states that a person has a right to, "in public or private, manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.”

The wearing of a cross is none of those things.

If a workplace uniform states "no jewellry" then a cross on a chain should not be allowed. It is a piece of jewellry. It might be a statement as well, but it's not a requirement of the Christian faith.

So, perhaps the government is right.

Perhaps the people involved are making a fuss over nothing.

It should have been made clear in the article that if ALL jewellery is banned, then a cross is included. No-one would argue that in some circumstances any pendant on a chain round the neck is inadvisable.

As they do so often, the journalist made a fight out of it.

The DT has a strong religious ethos. It shows in many areas.

I should just mention that as an atheist i am not in the least offended by religious jewellery etc. Live and let live is my attitude.

I think all reasonable people feel the same,Joan There is no need to feel threatened by someone else's beliefs (or lack of them) unless they actively use them against you.

It is the unreasonable ones who cause trouble, religious or atheist, and somehow religion (and rabid anti-religion) seem to remove the power of thought from those who would rather be a sheep than think about anything.

I am not anti-religion or individual members of any faith -I am anti the crimes and cruelty committed in the name of religion. Does that make me 'rabid'? I so, l plead guilty. I am also anti having other people's religious beliefs foisted on me by the law.

I'm with you nanachuckles, couln't have put it better myself!

Well said nanachuckles . I reserve the right to wear a cross if I want(I don't actually have one), just as I feel respect for people who show or wear other adornments connected to their beliefs. However if it is a no jewellery in the work place that is different.

I agree and do not mind what jewellery people choose to wear. Wearing jewellery at work when you have agreed in your working contract not to wear jewellery at work is a different matter, as others have said. I think further investigation will show that this is in fact the issue and that it is religious people (not always christians) who argue that the rules that apply to other people should be 'bent' to accommodate their wishes — in other words, they want privileges because of their beliefs. What the law is saying is that everyone is equal, whatever their beliefs. When you think about it, that is only fair. I daresay nobody would object to anyone wearing a cross or other religious symbol hidden under their work clothes which, if the wearing of it rather than the showing of it is at stake, one could easily do. I expect some people do that already and why not.

Greatnan You are not at all rabid in not wanting other people's religious views thrust at you - but then I cannot see you attacking them for their preferences either. Some atheists do just that. They defend their atheism before it is attacked - just as some religiosos do.

I was saying that extremists in any direction are not good at tolerating other views.

You are quite right, Elegran - I have absolutely no quarrel with people who sincerely hold religious beliefs - I do loathe people who use religion to control others or fleece them, like the American tele-evangelists who have been proved to be adulterers and fraudsters. Religion has been used historically to justify treating women badly and to keep the masses in their place. I doubt whether most of the leaders using religion in this way had much true faith themselves - if so, they could not be familiar with the teaching of the founders of their own faiths.

"Who cares if someone wants to wear a symbol of their beliefs, as long as it is not contravening health and safety or uniform rules."

Which is pretty much the case isn't it?