Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Gwar! wrote:

Da Boss wrote:Plus you know.
Santa has the same letters as Satan. Jus' sayin'.

And he is a Commie trying to brainwash our kids! I mean, think about it, sharing presents to only people who are Obedient and "Good". And he is always in Red!

....you called ?

Gwar! wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:I really don't think you can call it persecution to be asked to remove a crucifix necklace to comply with a dress code of your job.

But it is "acceptable" to call it if they ask you to remove kippot, turbans or Kirpan, which is a bit two faced IMO.

Well, not really, because the situation is different.

As I mentioned earlier, the wearing of a crucifix (for example, as in the BA case) is a choice for a christian, while the kirpan/yarmulke etc are compulsory for the relevant religions.

If christians want to be able to force employers to let them wear a crucifix, they need to get the Pope to make an ex cathedra proclamation on the subject. Even then it would only apply to Roman Catholics.

Let's say a Sikh wanted to become an NMR scanner operator. He would have to either remove his religious jewellery for safety reasons, or accept that the job is not for him.

I agree that if something is against dress code then it should be removed, unless doing so would mean certain death to the wearer.

This case makes it seem that the ONLY reason that the pin was to be removed was because it had "under God" on the pin. This would be wrong, removing it becuase of dress code is okay.

Similar to how we must remove hats, hoods, and sunglasses when entering a bank.

Kilkrazy wrote:[As I mentioned earlier, the wearing of a crucifix (for example, as in the BA case) is a choice for a christian, while the kirpan/yarmulke etc are compulsory for the relevant religions.

I would disagree strongly with that. Ardent catholics, at least here, don't view it as a choice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

halonachos wrote:
Similar to how we must remove hats, hoods, and sunglasses when entering a bank.

How about a burkha? (Actual cases)

How about a burkha for a driver's license pic? (actual case)

Kilkrazy wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:I really don't think you can call it persecution to be asked to remove a crucifix necklace to comply with a dress code of your job.

But it is "acceptable" to call it if they ask you to remove kippot, turbans or Kirpan, which is a bit two faced IMO.

Well, not really, because the situation is different.

As I mentioned earlier, the wearing of a crucifix (for example, as in the BA case) is a choice for a christian, while the kirpan/yarmulke etc are compulsory for the relevant religions.

I would love to see the part of the torah that says that all jewish peoples must wear a yarmulke(going with your spelling) at all times. Not only have I met more than several jews who do not wear a yarmulke at all times, but it has been stated that they are only customary and not obligatory. With the whole kirpan thing, it looks like it can be turned to actually resemble a belt buckle, it says that its mandatory, but it looks more like a piece of jewelry that people who want to be "different" from the social norm would wear (a.k.a scene kids or wanabe gangsters).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Yes, I agree with frazzled. Most catholics will LAWAYS have a crucifix on their persons at all times. Although I personally keep my crucifixes on the wall in my room and hanging from my car's rear-view mirror. This habit is one way to determine whether or not someone is a catholic or another type of christian.

Fateweaver wrote:I'm sorry but if you aren't from around here and get offended by me wearing a button that says "One Nation under God" then by all means get back on the boat and drift back to whatever gak hole you came from. If you are from here and feel the same way then I too encourage you to grab the next ship out of this country and find a new home.

And how many generations back does your family go? The assumption of priority due to how many ancestors you have had living there before you is an absurd one.

Roze wrote:yeah well i guess this is the same things as us not being allowed to have anything Xmas related at work now. No one is allowed to give or recive Xmas cards or wear clothing with Xmas pics, or saying or play Xmas songs or even have a Xmas calander, just incase someone somewhere is offended by it.
I think it sucks big donkey hole....and i'll leave it at that.

Where do you work? I mean, I know the NHS does not automatically rule out Christmas decor because I've been to hospitals that have up Christmas decor. The one where I did my knee re-hab even had a nativity scene, IIRC. Now, some hospitals may make a policy decision to not spend taxpayer money on decorations, or maybe some restrict decorations for hygiene/cleanliness reasons, but that is nothing to do with PC. I also used to work in the Civil Service and we had Christmas decor up their too.

Even if the NHS did ban Christmas decor in hospitals, I could understand it to a small degree. If you find decorations at Sainsbury's offensive, you could choose to not shop there. You can't really choose whether to need hospital treatment or not. I'd disagree with anyone who took offense at a Christmas tree, and think they were being ridiculous, but I would not consider when they need medical treatment the right time to confront them over their own silliness. I'd rather keep them alive and convince them to change their ways than let them die because they hesitated about going into a "Christian" hospital until it was too late.

Gwar! wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:I really don't think you can call it persecution to be asked to remove a crucifix necklace to comply with a dress code of your job.

But it is "acceptable" to call it if they ask you to remove kippot, turbans or Kirpan, which is a bit two faced IMO.

The woman in question was asked to put her crucifix inside her BA uniform, not to remove it, which is very different. Also, there are very few Christian sects that require a cross to be worn at all, let alone for it to be worn visibly.

The notion that Christianity is being persecuted in the mainstream is a ludicrious one, and I say that as someone who works at a Catholic school. I am also pleased to report that my own workplace has zero issues with me being open about my atheism, and although I am reminded that I have a responsibility as part of my job to support a Catholic ethos and to allow the pupils the chance to practise their religion (Catholic or otherwise), I am not asked to deny my atheism or pretend to be Catholic.

Oh my word, a workplace that is (in this respect, at least) tolerant and reasonable... just like all of the other place I have worked.

I'm a part of the "sons of the revolution", does that give me priority?

Yes, I agree with frazzled. Most catholics will LAWAYS have a crucifix on their persons at all times. Although I personally keep my crucifixes on the wall in my room and hanging from my car's rear-view mirror. This habit is one way to determine whether or not someone is a catholic or another type of christian.

Does this mean I need to take off my dangling plate of nachoas and bottle of tequila from my car mirror? Of man!

Are you catholic? If you are, then you can just wear a crucifix or keep a statue of St.Nick on your dashboard. The reason why I have a crucifix on my rear-view is because it has prayer beads made out of olive wood and has some holy water from the holy grotto in jerusalem in it. Luckily I know a palestinian who works in jerusalem and he sent it to us for christmas.

Sorry, double post.

How the hell did this happen?

halonachos wrote:Are you catholic? If you are, then you can just wear a crucifix or keep a statue of St.Nick on your dashboard. The reason why I have a crucifix on my rear-view is because it has prayer beads made out of olive wood and has some holy water from the holy grotto in jerusalem in it. Luckily I know a palestinian who works in jerusalem and he sent it to us for christmas.

Very cool. No not myself but Mom and known quite a few-its Texas after all.

Mostly protestant then I guess. You know Mexico's 99% catholic, I thought it would rub off on you guys by now.

halonachos wrote:Oh and all the atheists and such don't get any more than 3 gifts over the entire holiday season(they can get some gifts, but not as much as many as the number received by those practicing religious holidays over the season).

Wow... Just, wow...

I respect your belief, but I have to disagree. Try to explain to my daughter that she shouldn't get presents like everyone else. She is 3 years old, she doesn't comprehend the concept of a pan-dimensional being.

Winter solstice really has no reason to send or receive presents, sure its the "time of rebirth", but its not the time of presents.

Wiki would like to give you a history lesson.

Wiki wrote:Yule, or Yule-tide, is a winter festival that was initially celebrated by the historical Germanic peoples as a pagan religious festival, though it was later absorbed into, and equated with, the Christian festival of Christmas. The festival was originally celebrated from late December to early January on a date determined by the lunar Germanic calendar. The festival was placed on December 25 when the Christian (Julian) calendar was adopted. Yule is attested early in the history of the Germanic peoples; from the 4th century Gothic language it appears in the month name fuma jiuleis.

About AD 730, the English historian Bede wrote that the Anglo-Saxon calendar included the months geola or giuli corresponding with either modern December or December and January. He gave December 25 as the first day of the heathen year and wrote that the Anglo-Saxons celebrated all night long to honor the Germanic divine "mothers": They began the year with December 25, the day some now celebrate as Christmas; and the very night to which we attach special sanctity they designated by the heathen term Mōdraniht, that is, the mothers' night.

Wiki wrote:Mōdraniht (Old English "Mothers-night") was an event held at New Years Day by the pagan Angles where a sacrifice was made. The event is attested by the medieval English historian Bede in his 8th century Latin work De temporum ratione. Scholars have proposed connections between the Anglo-Saxon Mōdraniht and celebrations involving the dísir, the idisi, and the Matres and Matrones practices by other Germanic peoples

In Norse mythology, a dís ("lady", plural dísir) is a ghost, spirit or deity associated with fate who can be both benevolent and antagonistic towards mortal people. Dísir may act as protective spirits of Norse clans. Their original function was possibly that of fertility goddesses who were the object of both private and official worship called dísablót, and their veneration may derive from the worship of the spirits of the dead. A particular trait of the dísir is the fact that they appear as collective beings. Scholarly theories hold that the North Germanic dísir and West Germanic Idisi are directly related, and that valkyries and norns may be types of dísir, and that the Fylgjur may also be connected to the concept.

Some of the first gifts that were given on that holiday in December were sacrifices to the Dis, in return of the gift of a bountiful harvest.

halonachos wrote:Mostly protestant then I guess. You know Mexico's 99% catholic, I thought it would rub off on you guys by now.

Oh it has, hence my greater knowledge of Catholics.

Let me append that post above by saying it is not my firm belief. I am a student of all religions, disciple of none.

I do fancy Odin (patron deity of Yule), but I don't worship him. Same with Christ and Hubbard's ideas.
I think they have very cool ideas that I keep in my philosophy, but that is all. Duality, the Life Wheel, dianetics and "do unto others" is good stuff.

I just don't like to be tied down by outdated rhetoric that is becoming more unattached from modern day life. Or contradictions in said rhetoric that are dismissed (or gasp! covered up.. *Cough* Oath of Vengeance *Cough*) to compensate for modern day life.
Just an personal opinion. I try to keep an open mind and play devil's advocate for all faiths. Sorry if I offend.

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:[As I mentioned earlier, the wearing of a crucifix (for example, as in the BA case) is a choice for a christian, while the kirpan/yarmulke etc are compulsory for the relevant religions.

I would disagree strongly with that. Ardent catholics, at least here, don't view it as a choice.

It seems to me it would depend on whether there is a piece of RC doctrine which says, "Thou shalt always wear a crucifix." Without a religious injunction, it would seem to be a personal choice, in a different sense to the wearing of the five Ks (Sikh.)

What I mean by an injunction is something which makes it a sin not to perform the required behaviour. There's a difference between a sin of commission or omission on the one hand, and failure to perform a meritorious act on the other hand.

For example, it is a sin (as a Roman Catholic) to use contraception, but it isn't a sin to not have children, though having children is meritorious within the sacrament of marriage.

I'm not aware of any such injunction about the wearing of a crucifix, however I'm not RC so maybe I just don't know.

Back on topic:

In the case in point, one might imagine that the management of Costco (can't remember the actual store's name) are strong supporters of the separation of state and religion on constitutional grounds, and do not wish their employees to blur the boundary.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

halonachos wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:I really don't think you can call it persecution to be asked to remove a crucifix necklace to comply with a dress code of your job.

But it is "acceptable" to call it if they ask you to remove kippot, turbans or Kirpan, which is a bit two faced IMO.

Well, not really, because the situation is different.

As I mentioned earlier, the wearing of a crucifix (for example, as in the BA case) is a choice for a christian, while the kirpan/yarmulke etc are compulsory for the relevant religions.

I would love to see the part of the torah that says that all jewish peoples must wear a yarmulke(going with your spelling) at all times. Not only have I met more than several jews who do not wear a yarmulke at all times, but it has been stated that they are only customary and not obligatory. With the whole kirpan thing, it looks like it can be turned to actually resemble a belt buckle, it says that its mandatory, but it looks more like a piece of jewelry that people who want to be "different" from the social norm would wear (a.k.a scene kids or wanabe gangsters).

Well I'm far from an expert on Judaism. You should consult a rabbi.

The Sikh religious symbols include a sword. In modern life, that has been reduced to essentially a symbolic piece of jewellery. But isn't jewellery exactly what the BA woman and the CostCo guy are complaining about? The difference being that the Sikh symbols are an obligation, and the crucifix and "In God We Trust" badge aren't.

they are not the same. I'm not sure who brought up crucifixes.

at tblock, if you believe in those ghosts, and believe that sacrificing someone will indeed grant better harvests because it appeases some greater being, you aren't exactly an atheist are ya?

If you want to be a student of all religions then your daughter should get gifts for every holiday, christmas, channukah, eid, and she should also fast, unless you don't want to get into islam too much.

Atheism is a belief against a god, gods, or a higher being. Sacrifices being made to appease one of those beings denotes religion. Paganism=/=atheism.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Actually killkrazy, condoms have recently been allowed to be used by catholics in order to combat the spread of HIV/AIDS.

Look at the protestant reformation and look what they did to churches, they took down all of the symbols and such.

Also, the sword thingy is worn on a belt and can be made to look like a belt buckle.

halonachos wrote:Atheism is a belief against a god, gods, or a higher being. Sacrifices being made to appease one of those beings denotes religion. Paganism=/=atheism.

Must... Resist.... Can't.... Failing....


SORRY!

Atheism can be either the rejection of theism, or the position that deities do not exist. In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities.

halonachos wrote:at tblock, if you believe in those ghosts, and believe that sacrificing someone will indeed grant better harvests because it appeases some greater being, you aren't exactly an atheist are ya?

If you want to be a student of all religions then your daughter should get gifts for every holiday, christmas, channukah, eid, and she should also fast, unless you don't want to get into islam too much.

Atheism is a belief against a god, gods, or a higher being. Sacrifices being made to appease one of those beings denotes religion. Paganism=/=atheism.

tblock1984 wrote:Let me append that post above by saying it is not my firm belief. I am a student of all religions, disciple of none.

I do fancy Odin (patron deity of Yule), but I don't worship him. Same with Christ and Hubbard's ideas.
I think they have very cool ideas that I keep in my philosophy, but that is all. Duality, the Life Wheel, dianetics and "do unto others" is good stuff.

I just don't like to be tied down by outdated rhetoric that is becoming more unattached from modern day life. Or contradictions in said rhetoric that are dismissed (or gasp! covered up.. *Cough* Oath of Vengeance *Cough*) to compensate for modern day life.
Just an personal opinion. I try to keep an open mind and play devil's advocate for all faiths. Sorry if I offend.

Wiki wrote:Atheism can be either the rejection of theism,[1] or the position that deities do not exist.[2] In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities.

I don't believe in "God"
I do believe in "Pan"

It is OK to say a fact or definition is wrong (if that is the case), not to make biased opinions on people's beliefs. When in doubt, ask, don't accuse...
Next question in our group learning experience, clearing up religious misunderstandings?

Those who think this guy has grounds for litigation based on the First Amendment need to re-read a little thing called the Bill of Rights...

The First Amendment wrote:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Last time I checked, Congress didn't have a House of Lumber and a House of Appliances tacked onto the original two, nor did it make its members wear doofy orange aprons.

I didn't mean "you" as an atheists, but atheists in general.

If you sacrifice in belief that it appeases some higher being(god, allah, loki, zeus, fairies, etc) just anything you choose to idolize or worship you are practicing a form of theism. If you are truly an atheist, then you wouldn't sacrifice a person because you believe that there is no deity or being to appease.

So no, winter solstice presents are not for atheists, they're for theists.

Although your (Gwar!) wiki quote is, in the broadest sense ( ) correct, even the frame they put it in is odd. Atheism as rejection of theism means rejection of "belief in at least one god", or, as it says itself, the position that deities do not exist. It says pretty damn close to the same thing twice.

"Belief in no god" is not quite the same as "No belief in a god".

Most atheist philosophy (philosophy with a small 'p' rather than a capita 'P') (that I have read, anyway, which is not extensive, but more than most people) will position atheism according to the first statement rather than the second.

Of course, that does not rule out the second as a form of atheism, but I prefer to think of atheism as a positive thing.

However, much atheist thining will also go further, and I like to agree. I would in fact say I believe in a rational, explainable universe that does not have room for the supernatural, including "god".

In other words, I like to define atheism by what is does do, rather than what it doesn't. I like to see atheism as a way of thinking, rather than a set of thoughts.

Of course, just because I like to see it that way, it does not mean other atheists agree, let alone theists!!

halonachos wrote:So no, winter solstice presents are not for atheists, they're for theists.

Why? I don't believe in a Deity, I just happen to celebrate my birth on or close to the Winter Solstice. Does that make me a Theist now?

halonachos wrote:I didn't mean "you" as an atheists, but atheists in general.

If you sacrifice in belief that it appeases some higher being(god, allah, loki, zeus, fairies, etc) just anything you choose to idolize or worship you are practicing a form of theism. If you are truly an atheist, then you wouldn't sacrifice a person because you believe that there is no deity or being to appease.

So no, winter solstice presents are not for atheists, they're for theists.

o.O

WTH? You said:

Winter solstice really has no reason to send or receive presents, sure its the "time of rebirth", but its not the time of presents.

History disagrees with that statement. Atheism is not cited in that statement. It was in the sentence above it...

My daughter is an atheist in every sense. I am teaching her morals and ideas that I hold dear, but she can't comprehend God at three years of age. Therefore, she doesn't believe.
That is a decision I will let her make for herself. If she wants my help, I will gladly tell her what I believe, when the time comes. In our family, Holidays are traditions passed down by our ancestors. Why do we NEED a reason to be nice and give gifts?

wiki wrote:Theism in the broadest sense is the belief in at least one deity.

so the definitions of atheism are:
the rejection of the belief in at least one deity(using the formula theism=the belief in at least one deity).
the position that deities do not exist.

Either way, NO PRESENTS FOR YOU!!! Now tblock, you get presents because you have a theist view and can celebrate the winter solstice holiday of your choice.

Although I am sorry to say to fifty that you can only get 3 presents, unless its your birthday.

At Tblock:

Although 'Theism' as a term in its own right is generally applied specifically to 'God', 'Theism' as applied to 'Atheism' does not really mean "belief in God" with a capital 'G'.

The 'Theism' part of 'Atheism' refers more to a belief in that which is beyond rational explanation. Thus, atheism generally refers not only to belief in there being no God, but also a belief in there being no gods/divine universe.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sorry, why can I only get three presents? I've read back, but can't find your reasons why...

And no tblock, she isn't an atheist. At a certain age, children are unaccountable in religion(for catholics) so if your daughter committed murder it really wouldn't be a sin because she doesn't comprehend it. If you don't know what something is you can't deny its existance or approve of its existance, so shes not an atheist, she just doesn't know yet.

Fifty wrote:Although your (Gwar!) wiki quote is, in the broadest sense ( ) correct, even the frame they put it in is odd. Atheism as rejection of theism means rejection of "belief in at least one god", or, as it says itself, the position that deities do not exist. It says pretty damn close to the same thing twice.

"Belief in no god" is not quite the same as "No belief in a god".

Most atheist philosophy (philosophy with a small 'p' rather than a capita 'P') (that I have read, anyway, which is not extensive, but more than most people) will position atheism according to the first statement rather than the second.

Of course, that does not rule out the second as a form of atheism, but I prefer to think of atheism as a positive thing.

However, much atheist thining will also go further, and I like to agree. I would in fact say I believe in a rational, explainable universe that does not have room for the supernatural, including "god".

In other words, I like to define atheism by what is does do, rather than what it doesn't. I like to see atheism as a way of thinking, rather than a set of thoughts.

Of course, just because I like to see it that way, it does not mean other atheists agree, let alone theists!!

"Let alone Atheists!!" feth, I grow tired of this...

Wiki wrote:A deity is a postulated preternatural or supernatural immortal being, who may be thought of as holy, divine, or sacred, held in high regard, and respected by believers.

The fact that you say the two are the same is an opinion. All I wanted to say was that presents were being given 720 years before the birth of Christ... And that just because my daughter isn't Christian, that doesn't mean she doesn't deserve presents.