Forum Topic

Christian denied?

If I am a christian, should I have the right to wear a christian symbol like a cross should I choose so to do? And should I be able to do this anywhere in the world? And at any time? I'm confused.

Gerry Tan ● 4855d48 Comments

  Re  -Is this kind of Vigilantism                      xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    It now transpires Os that Ealing no less  has been involved in the Tower Hamlets disgusting behaviour :-        http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/01/25/fifth-muslim-patrol-arrest_n_2549026.html

Tony Price ● 4844d

Re for many others the nightmare continues                xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    such as , in today's papers      " "Saudi Arabia knew Rizana Nafeek was a child [but] they beheaded her anyway," said Joanne Michele, a researcher with the group. "Rizana Nafeek had no access to lawyers either during her pre-trial interrogation or during her first trial."

Tony Price ● 4847d

Re  for many others the nightmare continues          xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx      oh how very true. What the Jihadists impose in areas they over run has been  clearly shown in Mali. And in parts of Aghanistan and Pakistan where modern civilisation is scarce, much the same occurs. My friends of the latter country who are of the educated  sort or live here are truly in fear of organisations such as the Taliban who impose the most unnatural " laws " imaginable. Supposedly all in the name of their God or Prophet.

Tony Price ● 4847d

TonyI just felt your dissmissive tone earlier in the thread about the horrors of the 20th century shows a total lack of balance on these issues. These horrors are remembered by families of people living today and shape much of our modern world. You were not interested in Balance at that point. disingenuous is a funny word and is a word which changes meaning. I am Sincere about my contributions to the debate as I feel that attacks on Religion are based on usually dodgy research. I was glad that you recognised the contribution of religion to the positive aspects of morality, etc... But the 20th Century shows the truth in that these horrors were committed by people without moral underpinning. It would be interesting to know your evidence and also whether those were truly religious massacres or just power related. It was always easy to dress up war as some king of "crusade" but the reality tended to be a struggle for power and influence.

Peter Chadburn ● 4847d

http://frontpagemag.com/2013/frontpagemag-com/video-muslims-enforcing-sharia-law-on-the-streets-of-london/----------------------------------------------------------Is this kind of Vigilantism  going to be carried out by Vigilante groups all around The Mosques ?I will not be surprised if it is. Tony is right . Religious thinking is taking on an ugly selfish character.

Os A Whittle ● 4847d

Peter - I feel I have been very clear so that I am now concerned that you are being deliberately disingenuous.Of course the slaughter of the 20th century matters and, within the confines of the 20th century, it beats the evil done by religion into a cocked hat.But I am not just talking about the 20th century - I am talking about the evil done over millenia.Anyway - another thought has just occurred to me, and that is the utter absurdity of trading one set of evil deeds off against another.I am not trying to "hide" the evil done by non-believers but I am trying to highlight the evil done by religions because this is something that is very frequently overlooked when it comes to sweeping debates about man's inhumanity to his fellows down through the ages.  It is an evil which, for the most part, is extremely suffuse thus it used to permeate everywhere in the form of oppression of thought (forced conversion - with dire consequences for those who disobeyed) and forced taxation to pay for the privileges of the ruling religeous elites.I regard the all-encompassing nature of this oppression combined with the many many centuries over which it operated to be a major evil in the history of the world.Something from which some peoples of the world have only comparatively recently been liberated from.But for many others the nightmare continues even to this day.

Tony Colliver ● 4847d

TonyBasis of scale? To say that the Holocaust did not matter in the bigger picture of things is an appaling thing to say. The 20th Century involved mass killings into the millions. In fact Russia lost over 40 million through mass slaughter, war and starvation. For some obscure reason you do not want mass slaughter by atheists included in the discussion!! Slaughter is evil no matter who does it.

Peter Chadburn ● 4848d

"As soon as a prominent person says " God walks with me ""Me too.OTOH, I pity** our political class as it has to operate in such a hypocritical environment - especially in the USA - where a politician that does not declare for "god" is a politician that is not going to win - regardless that his or her's personal qualities may otherwise make them exemplary candidates for the job.[** Note that this is the *ONLY* time you will ever find me expressing such a sentiment on behalf of politicians!]

Tony Colliver ● 4848d

Re  we risk straying from the point...          xxxxxxxxxxxxxx maybe, but  I M O you write excellent and intelligent  posts. Also, reference has been made re Presidents walking with God ( in fact I think it was the other way round, ie God walking  with the President )  Carter in other words, and what a disaster he turned out to be?. As soon as a prominent person says " God walks with me "  I get turned off and know we are onto a loser, presumptious one at that.

Tony Price ● 4848d

"These twisted people with their own agendas of hate have nothing to do with faith."I agree completely.I would however feel a lot happier if those whose beliefs are taken in vain by these murderous b*****ds did a lot more standing up and proclaiming that these acts were not done in the name of their god regardless of what they say.Because the longer they fail to do this the more likely it is that the unthinking majority will tend to tar everybody (in the same religion) with the same brush and then we really will have a problem.The Crusades II anyone?  (Available on beta release in a troubled region near you from saturday...)An analogy can be drawn here with football hooliganism in this country - it was only when the good majority of football supporters stood up and made it clear that they would not put up with it any longer that it was finally quelled.But here we veer towards the contempary, whereas my perspective in this debate is a primarily historical one.I do not agree that the atheistic ideology helps justify such things nor do I accept that it is devoid of morality.On the contrary, I believe that morality is almost hardwired into all human beings.Ironically, it is this very morality and the codes of behaviour that flow from it that is implicit in the rules of conduct laid down by the world's religions.I have always been very comfortable with the moral framework proffered as a model for behaviour by the devout.  Though I do find many of the specific strictures just a tad puritanical these days.  Nevertheless the basic framework remains sound.But let us be sure that we have our chicken and our egg in the correct order. Just to be clear then - morality was not beaten into the pagan unbelievers by religion - rather the contrary - religion took mankind's inbuilt morality, codified it, wrote it down, and then used it to control.But we risk straying from the point...

Tony Colliver ● 4848d

I agree with you 100% that it is power and not faith.I dismissed the deeds of the 20th century only on the basis of scale.  Horrific though they were they remain, almost unbelievably, small beer on the grand scale of things overall.

Tony Colliver ● 4848d

Don't worry Tony P, The world as we know it is far more complex than others would like it to be. Simplistic thinking and labelling is the enemy of us all.

Peter Chadburn ● 4848d

Re  you see the reality that others don't.            xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx        thanks Peter, I think I see many realities that others don't, but that is another matter.

Tony Price ● 4848d

Tony PriceThis is where you see the reality that others don't. These twisted people with their own agendas of hate have nothing to do with faith. They see religion as a vehicle to bring their misery to the world. their outlook like Dawkins is one of total bleakness. Beware a US president quoting God before going to war. They are only interested in Oil!! Also do not blame religious people for what is going wrong. Hitler did that for the Jews in the 1930's. The Atheistic ideology is incredibly dangerous as it helps Justify such things whilst in itself has no morality to underpin it. Within Religions at least there is the morality component to underpin it. so whilst some people may exploit religion, many like Archbishop Romero, Bonhoeffer and others worked for Justice and were killed for doing so. cheers Peter

Peter Chadburn ● 4848d

Re  It is about power and not faith.             xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx which is what the priests and mullahs had and many still have , and used to their advantage and against the people. The administators of orthodox relgions can hardly  be regarded as lifting man up but more for putting him down, and very often, out, completely. They rule(d) by fear, fire and brimstone and the incitement thereto.

Tony Price ● 4848d

TonyIt was your earlier inference in dismissing the deeds of the 20th century that was totally missleading as always to make a point about religion. It was Kings and Emperors that order the killing and religion had very little to do with it. The Catholic Church as a powerful institution in political alliances with various rulers did a lot of harm (and still has questions about abuse to answer). however you need to seperate off religion and rulers. Your implication is King quotes religion and slaughters masses therefore religion is bad. Many of the people killed were good religious folk caught up in centuries or turmoil and war. It is about power and not faith. Hitler and the Nazis were evil but the German nation is not evil. Dawkins propogates this sort of simplistic nonsense and it needs to be answered.

Peter Chadburn ● 4848d

Precisely.

Tony Colliver ● 4848d

Re    whether the poor old peasant could afford it or not.            xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx  and what used to about the best house in any area ?, the Rectory or Vicarage, which now on the open market fetch an absolute fortune due to their magnifcence.

Tony Price ● 4848d

Re  trumps it hands down for the number of dead             xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx  and what is also relevant are the numbers " available/ at risk " at any point in time. Judaism is the only religion that has not done millions to death in it's history. Sadly the same cannot be said for Christianity and certainly not for Islam, where the stated aim is to do away with all non-believers, even today! ( especially  adherents who have a change of heart and leave Islam )

Tony Price ● 4848d

No, I don't think so.I was not setting out to offer up a full and balanced critique of all tyrants down through the ages in this thread - merely to champion the often overlooked extent of suffering visited upon the masses by religions.I do not deny the existence of secular tyrants and visit upon them the same level of contempt for causing the suffering they did as I do for the suffering caused by the religions.  But it is a fact that their influence, although horrific, was mercifully short compared to the millenia long ascendency afforded to the religions.There were few great conflagrations (stuff like the crusades aside and the occassional nasty massacre and / or exiling of whole peoples) but the religions of the world had time on their side - they did their oppressing over a much much longer timescale (and some of them are still at it).  Like compound interest - the numbers accumulate.  over a long enough period the numbers become staggering.Many people, when discussing such matters, have a tendency to introduce a kind of statute of limitations with regard to passed "misdeeds".  Often using such phrases as "they were different times then", or "yes, but that was so long ago".I do not accord the religions that privilege, and the reason why I do not is because many of the same organisations are still in existence today - and some of them are still at it - subjegating the people almost as vigorously as in times gone by.We are not talking violent death here.  There was plenty of that to be sure, but the oppression that I am referring to is primarily economic - taxation, leading to poverty and starvation and thus untold suffering as a result of religous powers (often with the support and assistance of the state - sometimes even continuing to this day) demanding a percentage of all income - whether the poor old peasant could afford it or not.Do not imagine that the emnity that I harbour for religous oppression and persecution down through the ages carries over to the many good people working within religous organisations today.For those of a religeous persuasion engaged in good works now and in the past, whilst I regret the fact that they believe in something that does not exist, I have only praise and admiration for their efforts to bring betterment to the world and to help others.Of course, I do not expect Peter and I do ever see eye-to-eye on this matter, but I will nevertheless continue to stand up for the point of view.

Tony Colliver ● 4848d

Of course it doesn't barely register.  It was a very serious matter.Religion however, trumps it hands down for the number of dead and the period over which the subjucation and exploitation took place.I find your analyses to be totally bizarre and quite typical of the Believers!! quite ridiculous!!

Tony Colliver ● 4848d

You seem to be shooting yourself in the foot a bit Tony.You seem to be able to highlight the despotic activities of the world's greatest tyrants,an irreligious a bunch as you can get, who were collectively responsible for the greatest amount of deaths in the conflicts of human history but you can seem to name a single instance of a religious leader being responsible for slaughtering millions.Both our world wars were not fought on religious grounds and neither were the Napoleonic wars in the name of God.Unless of course that God is commerce and trade.

Keith Iddon ● 4850d

Re  less than 50% failure to think and more than 50% being bullied into it.            xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx it is probably an inability to think, due to lack of education. Most of the dreadful acts carried out now in the name of religion are done by those who are from uneducated backgrounds, not as though they can be necessarily blamed for that, more a matter of location. The hope lies in the education of the " masses " in certain countries, and even some from such places who settle in  more advanced societies but bring their  ways and wants with them, which must be stamped out by us vigorously, not as though our " leaders " can be relied upon to do that?. Harking back to the  beds in sheds scandal, what effective action has been taken there, precious little as far as I am aware. How many bulldozed, how many prosecutions. Plus for example :-        http://frontpagemag.com/2013/frontpagemag-com/video-muslims-enforcing-sharia-law-on-the-streets-of-london/?

Tony Price ● 4850d

So the Holocaust barely registers or the 20 million killed by stalin or the many others (many religious people included) killed in concentration camps or year zero in cambodia. I find your analyses to be totally bizarre and quite typical of the Dawkinsites!! quite ridiculous!!

Peter Chadburn ● 4851d

I don't gloss over them at all.Quite the contrary in fact.But it is also a fact that *FAR* more people have been killed, murdered, suppressed, subjugated, brutalised, tortured, the list of adjectives for unpleasant things done unto other by religions goes on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on...I don't explicitly mention them - the secular crimes of the 20th century - simply because they barely register on the scale compared to the evil done by religion down through the ages and besides this is not a debate about the evil done by man but the evil done by religeous men.Of course, if you want to limit your perspectives just to the 20th century then I would have to agree with you.  But I am not in the mood to let religion off so lightly.  Their crimes stretch back thousands of years and I despise them for it.Note that this does not mean that I despise modern day believers who do not engage in evil.  Those I merely pity.You are 100% right - evil is done by people and they justify it by any means they can.I just happen to find the evil done by those claiming that god is on their side to be more offensively hypocritical than the rest - especially given the timescale (thousands of years) over which they have practiced it with virtual impunity.It is going to take one hell of a lot longer than the time elapsed since they stopped being quite so offensive to wipe the stain away.  (And of course some factions are still at it even today.)

Tony Colliver ● 4851d

"...except in the rarest of cases, not the result of any thought or investigation on their part but are held solely because of where they live, hardly I would have thought, a very sound basis  for one's belief in such an important  matter?."Quite.Actually, I think it is less than 50% failure to think and more than 50% being bullied into it.

Tony Colliver ● 4851d

TonyI love how you gloss over the Holocaust and the mass murders of the 20th Century. So these lot don't give atheists a bad name eh!! It shows the atheistic view is very narrow when it comes to the all religion is bad argument. Dawkinsite nonsense of the highest order. Get real, evil is done by people and they justify it from any point of view.

Peter Chadburn ● 4851d

Re  and certain other areas of the world or Islam          xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    Judaism and Islam come from the same source, hence the rules and regulations being the same, the difference now being Jews having been living  in the diaspora and among persons not practicing Judaism and hence exposed to different behaviours, found their own not so nice in many aspects. So for example,they no longer  stone persons to death for sex outside marriage as some Islamists still do, and would do more if it were not for constraints  brought about by other more advanced human beings. One other point of a person's religious beliefs that gets overlooked, is, except in the rarest of cases, not the result of any thought or investigation on their part but are held solely because of where they live, hardly I would have thought, a very sound basis  for one's belief in such an important  matter?.

Tony Price ● 4851d

Hey - just because I didn't give Hitler or Stalin or Genghis, Mao, or Pol Pot a personal name-check each doesn't mean that I don't hold them in exactly the same light......well, in almost the same light... for the most part, their individual murderous regimes were blessedly short-lived compared to the tyranny brought by religion.So - Hitler, Stalin, Genghis, Mao, Pol Pot - a few decades of tyranny between them; organised religion many many centuries between them.No contest!As to overt symbols of faith - no problem provided there is no oppression going on - either of the individual concerned (Christians & crosses - probably fine; muslim woman & burkas - I'm not so sure) or of wider society (far from clear with the christian nutters in the good 'ol US of A and certain other areas of the world or Islam just about anywhere despite what it says in their good book about being nice to other people).Discrimination?Just say "NO!"And let's start with the world religions practicing what it actually says in their respective good books and being nice to others.(Yes, I know there are millions of perfectly good christians and muslims in the world.  trouble is that there are significant percentages of people claiming to be from your religions that are continuing to give you a very bad name.)

Tony Colliver ● 4851d

For me I do not need anything material to signify my faith. however i feel that people should not be discriminated against for showing their faith as long it is safe to do so. However I am amused by the centuries of misery comment as when we look at the 20th century we see the multiple millions murdered by Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot and other atheist regimes. Organised religion as an institution does have issues of abuse and mind control but to make out that religion is the "sole" cause of misery is the big lie. The abuse of power in using religious influence is what is the key. I see institutions such as the Catholic Church to be corrupt, however for the many decent priests and Catholics I see so much good. People can think for themselves these days and freely choose their faith and so their personal manifestation of that faith is very important. However i do feel that we must understand that Jesus was against Hypocracy and also tolerance in treating others as we would want to be treated and therefore if we are in a Job such as registrar we should treat people with tolerance. So discriminating against Gay folk is something I would not want. So am also comfortable with the other ruling.

Peter Chadburn ● 4851d

Re  " centuries of misery, torment, and exploitation visited upon the rest "    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx  all orthodox religions are man made, one has only to read the Old Testamount and Koran to realise that, made by man especially for the benefit of the male of the species. Mankind has moved on, " God's " word has not, hence the  people now educated and able to think more for themselves leaving the Churches, half of Jews assimilate and hopefully  Muslims will do the same. And the growth of the internet will speed the process. That is not to say some Church people have not done good works and helped many, but also denigrated  despised and persecuted many. In one Religious Knowledge  lesson I asked the Master, who said the souls of  those who don't believe in Jesus would not " be saved ",  what about those who have not  had the chance of hearing about Jesus or lived before Him. That's their hard luck he said,  rather off-putting I found, so it set me off on a quest for alternative religious beliefs.

Tony Price ● 4852d

Sadly after a lifetime of trying to fight against it (starting with an essay in 'Divinity' lessons as a third former in school explaining why there was no god - boy, was that one angry divinity teacher afterwards) I fear that we will never be rid of it.Irrational beliefs abound all around us.As a good (mostly Christian) friend of mine said recently "if you uninvent it [religion] today somebody somewhere in the world will simply just turn around and reinvent it again tomorrow".Inside that apparently trite and superficially nieve statement is contained considerable wisdom.Man's capacity to delude himself never ceases to amaze and sadden me.And I agree with Nigel - it is not (by and large at least anyway) people of faith that are the problem but religions.Maddening though it is to observe so many with false beliefs they are, by and large, and to quote the prophet "Mostly Harmless".No, it is organised religions, their power structures, and all the untold centuries of misery, torment, and exploitation visited upon the rest of humanity that really gets my goat.

Tony Colliver ● 4854d

It isn't faiths that are "organised and manipulating" but religions. There is a world of difference.I have no problem with people of any faith or no faith at all. It is a number of manipulating religions that leave me dumbfounded and, frankly, appalled.

Nigel Brooks ● 4854d

With those describing themselves as having no religion going from 15% to 25% in the past ten years (see 2011 Census), lets hope we can be done with organised religion within a generation and get on with living socially moral and responsible lives without all the negative aspects of organised and manipulating faiths.

Paul Scullion ● 4854d

Thw worst of all.A new one on me - I hadn't heard of this before.Still, I have less than zero desire to go to such a place, so I should be safe.

Tony Colliver ● 4854d

Don't worry - we enjoy it too Gerry.  :-)

Tony Colliver ● 4854d

Amen to that, brother!

Tony Colliver ● 4854d

I went to work in Saudi Arabia in 1980 and I had to be 'christened' before they would grant me a visa. It seems that to have no religion wasn't tolerated there but Christianity was accepted and welcomed.

Penny Crocker ● 4854d

We are a pretty tolerant lot here too Gerry,compared to many other countries not so far away.I would like to see religion once again becoming a private matter between you and your God and not something people feel they have to proclaim and then vilify others for not seeing their particular way to be the true one.Wearing a cross or a star of David is not proclaiming,don't get me wrong but it is often the case that extremists have the loudest voices and the biggest axe to grind.Live and let live indeed but don't preach is my credo.

Keith Iddon ● 4854d

You're correct Keith, there is too much religious intolerence in some countries - more's the pity. Live and let live is my credo - I like and admire the attitude in Singapore, where Bhuddists sit with Christians, the Muslims accept the Jews, Armenians rejoice with whoever and all get on with everyone else. The wise government there insists in complete tolerence of all religions.

Gerry Tan ● 4854d

Gerry,I wasn't referring to the Pope and the people you mention but to the humble, average person.That the Pope and other big cheeses in the world's religions don't get intimidated and persecuted is a given surely. If you research a little about the amount of violence and intimidation that Christians face in certain countries you may be surprised.The op asks if it is ok to wear religious symbols.If you are not the Pope etc. and want to have a safe and quiet life,the answer is it depends where you are imo.

Keith Iddon ● 4854d

Exaggeration is one of my weaknesses, which I enjoy.Btw, who's exaggerating?

Gerry Tan ● 4854d

I've told you a million times Gerry, don't exagerrate! :-)

Nigel Brooks ● 4854d

Every morning Asha?

Gerry Tan ● 4854d

Keith, the Pope, leaders and clerics of other Christian faiths, elders and honchos of various world religions seem to wear attire and have their religious accoutrements with and about them, even when they visit remote parts of the world. Its a free world(I hope).

Gerry Tan ● 4854d

Everyone should be proud of their religion whatever that  may be and no one should tell another what they can and cannot wear as part of their religion ie cross, turban, talisman etc. What really bugs me is when I get other religons trying to convert people. Every morning, I get the church or Jehovas Witness knocking on our door talking about God etc. I don't open the door any more.

Asha Smith ● 4854d

You may have to be careful in certain parts of the world not known for reeligious or cultural tolerance( outside Europe),if you wear anything at all that identifies you as a Christian.The amount of Christianophobia in this world is significant.

Keith Iddon ● 4854d

I feel that there has to be a very good reason (better than that someone somewhere may just possibly be offended by it) to tell people that they can't wear something. I hope the European Court rules in their favour.That said, when it comes to dress codes, there's a world of difference between a discreet little cross tucked in at the collar and some full-scale crucifix, complete with bleeding Christ, which is a bit tacky anyway.

Susan Kelly ● 4855d