Thu 23rd Oct 2014 | Last updated: Wed 22nd Oct 2014 at 18:57pm

Facebook Logo Twitter Logo RSS Logo
Hot Topics

Comment & Blogs

Mr Cameron said that if necessary, he will legislate to make it clear that people can wear religious symbols at work. So: when’s he going to do it?

Three out of four claimants who say their religious rights have been infringed have been rejected by Strasbourg. What about them, Mr Cameron?

By on Wednesday, 16 January 2013

Shirley Chaplin poses with her crucifix necklace (Photo: PA)

Shirley Chaplin poses with her crucifix necklace (Photo: PA)

I see that Mr Cameron has tweeted that he is “delighted that principle of wearing religious symbols at work has been upheld”. The genial Eric Pickles said that he too is delighted. They were referring, of course, to the judgement in which, by a majority of five to two, judges of the European Court of Human Rights have supported the claim of Nadia Eweida, a BA check-in clerk, who was sent home in November 2006 for refusing to remove a small silver crucifix, that this was a violation of her rights.

But what about the three Christians whose claims were rejected by the court? Cameron and Pickles have said nothing about them: nor, in most reports that I heard, did the BBC (later they mentioned them in passing). The court ruled against Shirley Chaplin, a nurse who was told to remove a crucifix necklace at work. The judges said Chaplin’s employer banned necklaces for health and safety grounds, so asking her to remove the symbol was not excessive: though how this argument could be seriously upheld, when after a nursing career of 30 years not a single incident has occurred remotely involving her crucifix in either health or safety, beats me.

The judges also rejected the claims of Lillian Ladele, a local authority registrar who said her Christian faith prevented her from overseeing same-sex civil partnerships, and marriage counsellor Gary McFarlane, who refused to offer sex therapy to gay couples. In both cases, the court argued that employers had been entitled to strike a balance between claimants’ rights to manifest their religious beliefs and the rights of others not to suffer discrimination. Freedom of religion, they piously intoned, is “an essential part of the identity of believers and one of the foundations of pluralistic, democratic societies … However, where an individual’s religious observance impinges on the rights of others, some restrictions can be made.”

But exactly how does refusing to conduct a same-sex civil partnership ceremony, or refusing to give sex therapy to gay couples, impinge on anyone’s rights? There are plenty of registrars prepared to carry out this procedure: and the couples involved would have been quite unaware even of Lilian Ladele’s existence, let alone of her views on civil partnerships. As for giving “sex therapy” to gay couples, how on earth would a heterosexual person know how to do that? And would a gay couple having difficulties in that department really want the advice of someone so totally unqualified to give it? Would a heterosexual couple want the advice of a gay sex therapist? So why did Relate fire Gary McFarlane in the first place?

And why exactly aren’t David Cameron and Eric Pickles supporting them? Even in the case of Nadia Eweida, are we not entitled to doubt their entire sincerity? If Cameron, in particular, is so keen on religious liberty, whatever happened to his promise to legislate to protect them — yet another promise which has not been and probably will not be kept. And more to the point, why were government lawyers sent to Strasbourg to argue against all four claimants, including Nadia Eweida? This is what James Eadie QC, Cameron’s Government’s expensive barrister, told the court (on his behalf): that the refusal to allow an NHS nurse and a British Airways worker to visibly wear a crucifix at work “did not prevent either of them practising religion in private”, which would be protected by human rights law. He argued that a Christian facing problems at work with religious expression needed to consider their position and that they were not discriminated against if they still have the choice of leaving their job and finding new employment (my italics).

“There are,” he went on, “two aspects to this part of the argument. Firstly, resigning and moving to another job and, second, there is clear and consistent jurisprudence that the person who asserts religious rights may on occasion have to take account of their position.”

Isn’t that what Cameron really thinks? Believe what you like: but if your employers don’t like you making it clear that you have beliefs you expect to be respected, forget it? Shirley Chaplin was moved away from nursing to a clerical role by the Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Trust in Devon after refusing to remove a necklace bearing a crucifix and then fired completely, after 30 years of nursing. “It is insulting, humiliating and degrading,” she said when her case was first taken to the European court: she then said, Mr Cameron please note, “My Christian faith isn’t something that you put on and then take off to go to work”.

But isn’t that exactly what Cameron really thinks she ought to do, whatever he tweets? David Davis said at the time that “the idea that British citizens are not free to express their faith in the workplace is an extraordinary and oppressive interpretation of the law”. Cameron claimed to agree. “What we will do,” Cameron told the House of Commons in July, “is that if it turns out that the law has the intention of banning the display of religious symbols in the workplace, as has come out in this case” (and as has now been confirmed, in the case of Shirley Chaplin), “then we will change the law and make clear that people can wear religious symbols at work”. Well, according to the law as it has emerged, that isn’t clear at all now.

So, Mr Cameron: when are you going to do what you said you would do? When are you going to legislate, to make it “clear”?

Me, I’m not holding my breath.

  • JabbaPapa

    Animals “sin” just like we do

    Good grief — define sin.


    Actually no don’t bother, you’re just spewing incoherent rubbish that’s not worth thinking about.

  • JabbaPapa

    No, I do not understand what “souls” and spiritual beings can or cannot be subjected to.

    I see.

    Next time, just say that you do not understand the word “contingency”.

    Are God’s spiritual powers/magic impotent in defeating these spiritual beings?

    This question is meaningless and irrational.

    As humans and other apes have been shown to possess consciousness, I’d
    consider these facts alone to demonstrate consciousness is caused by

    Believe whatever you like, but you’ve demonstrated nothing.

    Obviously, you do not understand the question.

    Can you demonstrate that consciousness is caused by evolution ?

    It’s OK to answer “no” BTW.

    The Church teaches that envy, for example, is a “sin”, whereas (thanks
    to science) we now understand it as an evolved behavioural trait, and
    not the influence of devils and demons.
    Until the 19th century the
    Church was completely ignorant of the fact that human behavioural traits
    were the product of evolution, and to this day continues to use ancient
    Middle Eastern folklore to explain negative aspects of our nature.

    This is just complete and utter gibberish.

    You very simply do not know what you’re talking about.

    Your opinions about Catholicism are extremely ignorant.

  • karlf

    Schizophrenia or psychosis perhaps?
    Supernatural creatures? – perhaps not

  • karlf

    “This is just complete and utter gibberish”
    Is that really the best you can do?

  • whytheworldisending

    This is much wider than religion versus homosexuals and atheists. Christians do not need legislation from Cameron or anyone else to give them permission to witness to Christ, but legislation uninformed by Christian values is detrimental to the health of the nation. When Christians stand up for Christian values, they act in the best interests of the nation. Christianity does not need Britain, but Britain needs Christianity. Promotion of so-called “Gay rights” discriminates against ALL ordinary people and leads to incoherent and ultimately nonsensical laws, which weakens respect for the political processes which lead to such laws and undermines respect for authority and the rule of law.

    Consider public conveniences. For obvious reasons, men are barred from women’s toilets and women from mens. Why then are homosexual men not barred from mens toilets, and homosexual women not barred from womens toilets? The vast majority of the British public are heterosexual and do not have to tolerate a situation in which they are forced to share a toilet with a heterosexual person of the opposite sex, who may be sexually attracted to them.  

    Why do they have to tolerate a situation in which they are forced to share a toilet with a homosexual person of the same sex, who may be sexually attracted to them? Is David Cameron going to respect the Privacy rights of the 98.5% of the British Public by legislating to ban male homosexuals from male public conveniences and lesbians from female public conveniences?

    Or don’t the rights of the majority matter anymore?

  • JabbaPapa

    Testamur quod vidimus.

  • Tridentinus

     I read through the link you provided which was heavy going but before I comment on that I have an opinion on David Cameron’s promise, that if necessary, he will legislate to make it clear that people can wear religious symbols at work. As Miss/Mrs (why were the women in the case referred to as Ms, a meaningless style or title) Eweid won her case he( Cameron) will regard it as job done and move on.
    The first 2 cases were relatively unimportant, both could have been resolved had the cases not been handled by ‘jobsworths’ (by this I mean levels of management terrified of falling foul of the PC brigade and with good reason).
    The third case of Lilian Ladele was more serious as she lost her job through the job description being changed. The local authority was asking this lady to place her immortal soul in jeopardy of eternal damnation if she didn’t accept the changes that had been forced upon them through national legislation and their ‘mission statement’ again forced upon them directly or indirectly by legislation. A minority judgement acknowledged this.
    The majority of judges, whether in this country or in the ECtHR seem to sit as a disembodied panel immune to the beliefs, feelings, aspirations and the reality of the human situation pretty much like the gods of yore on Mount Olympus. Their self-importance is being been inflated year upon year. Supreme Court is a much more macho monniker than Judicial Committee of the House of Lords. Every public grievance now seems to warrant a Public Enquiry presided over by, you’ve guessed it, a High Court Judge from Scarman, to Saville to Leveson and all those in between.
    The ECtHR was set up to police the European Convention on Human Rights.
    The Convention was set up to make sure that the Convention was a response to the growth of Communism in Eastern Europe and designed to protect the member states of the Council of Europe
    from communist subversion.
    Never was it conceived at the time that the Convention would or could ever be contrary to the laws of France or the UK

  • majorcalamity

    You certainly don’t need anyone’s permission to witness to Christ, or whatever religious conviction you hold. It is only when your actions conflict with other people’s rights that there is a problem. Whether standing up for Christian values is in Britain’s interest is a matter of opinion. Mine is that it depends on what you mean by that, and how it is done. If you mean showing charity and tolerance, I agree. If you mean aggressive evangelisation and a determination to impose your values upon everyone else, I disagree.

    You reveal the homophobia hiding behind much of the reasoning from the religious lobby over these type of issues, when you effectively describe gay people as not “normal”.

    Your reasoning over the use of toilets is a trifle petty and not really at the core of this issue is it? If it becomes a genuine problem in the future I guess we will see the provision of many more  unisex toilets.     

  • karlf

    Quid vidimus?

  • karlf

    Two wild stallions live near a river gorge. One horse is more wary of going too close to the edge, while the other is more cocky and falls to it’s death. The surviving horse sires a new generation, which inherit his sense of caution.

  • karlf

    Then why does the Church attribute evolved, animal behaviours as being the influence of demons and devils?

  • majorcalamity

    There obviously are some places where Christians, and others, face persecution. We all condemn this.

    In this country NO Christian faces any kind of persecution. It’s a myth being circulated by the religious lobby. All it reveals is a persecution complex. Christians are free to worship here. The only restrictions they face are when their actions cross the line and threaten the rights of others. We all face such restrictions. It’s called the law.

    The recent cases had nothing whatsoever to do with any restrictions upon religious freedom. It is only the religious lobby who seek to present it that way. Read the judgements, and the reasoning in full, for confirmation rather than the press releases issued by the religious lobby. The faithful are being misled and wound up by some dodgy people with a particular agenda. The real question is who they are and who is funding them.

  • Polly the Parrot

    Not you again.

  • Polly the Parrot

    If more of these air-headed, bored, bullying, too-much-time-on-their-hands militant secular people concentrated on putting in a decent day’s whack at their own workstations instead of picking on hard-working people for what is round their necks, then we’d be all better off.

    The case of the nurse being given a desk job – then dismissed – for wearing her crucifix is the most disturbing, disgusting, pathetic waste of what-is-supposed-to-be strapped public money. The crucifix was silver. Nurses wore silver buckles as part of their uniform because of their preventing infection and bacteria years ago – I mean ‘duh!’, don’t we see packets of silver plasters in the chemists now? Aren’t we recommended to wear something with metallic thread in our nightwear when we are in hospital?

    The nurse in question would still be getting on with her vocation, quietly and professionally tending to the sick and infirm if the f-wit who pointed out her crucifix in the first place didn’t think they were being superior and smart for doing so. No public money would need to have been spent. Common sense!

    Would you force an Orthodox Jew or Muslim to enter a pork processing factory if they were qualified environmental health inspectors?

    William Oddie is spot on again. Expecting a ‘straight’ guy to counsel a gay couple on sex matters! Rather like asking the Venus de Milo to work an iPad!

    Leave the practise of faith alone!

    RIP logic and common sense.

  • karlf

    As I do not believe in the whimsical notions of a “soul” I am referring to the acts themselves as the “sins” in order to point out their evolved, animal origins.

  • Polly

    …and you point is?

    And there’s no comma in your ‘its’, by the way.

    Enjoy your horseburger!

  • karlf

    Sorry – now corrected.
    “and you point is?” (your point?) – see the question above it.

  • karlf

    I raised the point about devils and demons to show ‘la catholic state’s comment, “Catholicism is logic reason and sense itself”, to be false.

  • TreenonPoet

    Firstly, I take it that you accept that the quality of the official judgement does not demonstrate that the judges, as a body, were overly incompetent from a legal point of view, given the context (the law as it stands at the moment) within which their judgement was constrained.

    Although I would agree, I would have some serious misgivings about the quality of reasoning if the constraints of existing law were relaxed, and I also accept that the quality of judges is an issue. I don’t care how superior the judges might feel as long as they deliver rational judgement. This can demand a lack of emotional involvement. It may seem cold, but it is necessary for society to function. But I thought it was completely unacceptable, for example, for judges Vucinic and De Gaetano to distinguish between “gay rights” and “human rights”.

    I fully support the principle of a European Convention on Human Rights (at least while there is not an adequate means of enforcing a global convention), but the principle relies on sufficient effort being put into its wording. If that was the case, then no amendments should be lightly made, and any national laws that deviated from it should received particular scrutiny. I do not think that the convention is perfect, but I am usually glad that it is there, given the state of lawmaking in the UK (and some other European countries).

    I wrote to David Cameron about the Ladele case in 2008. His office replied that there was a balance to be struck between sexual orientation rights and religious rights. To me this made no sense because people cannot choose their sexual orientation and they should not suffer simply because of the difficulty in persuading somebody else that the Bible cannot be trusted. In my view, the Church that indoctrinated Ladele  (or did not disabuse her of what her parents may have told her) is the guilty party. (Having said that, I am in favour of schemes that help those who change their occupation because their old one could not be pursued through no fault of their own.)

    There is no need for new legislation to allow employees to wear religious symbols at work. As Cameron should have known, such legislation already exists (though you would not think it existed by reading some newspapers), but it does not allow the rights of others to be infringed. Cameron would get nowhere if he tried to force so-called “religious rights” to trump the rights of others.

  • JabbaPapa

    aggressive evangelisation and a determination to impose your values upon everyone else

    A neater description of the actions of the homosexualist lobby would be hard to find …

  • JabbaPapa

    In this country NO Christian faces any kind of persecution

    Right, so people getting the sack for practicing their faith against the wishes of atheists isn’t a persecution ….

  • JabbaPapa

    No, you’re just pointing out, uselessly, pointlessly, and ad nauseam that you are not a Christian.

    The entirety of your contributions in here can be summed up by those five words.


  • JabbaPapa

    Reading skills a bit rusty too, apparently.

  • JabbaPapa

    Lamarck, huh ?


  • JabbaPapa

    It doesn’t.

    It attributes the behaviour of demons and devils to demons and devils.

  • JabbaPapa

    Please don’t pretend to understand Latin — it’s embarrassing.

  • JabbaPapa

    By picking on a topic that is described by deductive reasoning ?

    How many times was it written on your school report card to your parents “Could do better. Must try harder.” ?

  • Peter

    “new age materialistic secularists”

    This is closer to the truth than one can imagine.

    Atheists believe in an eternal quantum state which is unstable and from which countless universes with different laws must spontaneously appear.

    This is a form of deism since such a natural potential for universes to exist represents an impersonal creative force.   It is also a form of pantheism because this creative force, this natural potential for existence, is of the same substance as the universes it creates.

    What atheists believe in, therefore, is a form of deistic pantheism which is about as close to new-age thinking as one can get.  

    New-age thinking is present-day gnosticism, which in its many different forms has harassed Christianity for 2000 years.  Atheists, with their new-age beliefs and psuedoscientific methods, are modern-day gnostics.

  • Peter

    A Christian cannot walk into any situation, any job, with a large and visible crucifix around their neck without potentially being censured by political correctness.

    On the other hand, non-Christian religious headwear is allowed in most situations and most jobs.

    These are double standards which reveal a fundamental hypocrisy within the British establishment.

  • majorcalamity

    Complete nonsense! Since when do homosexuals evangelise? They don’t seek to convert anyone to their lifestyle, not least because they know they could not, as their sexuality is not a matter of choice. If there is a “homosexual lobby” then it’s agenda is to establish equal rights and has nothing at all to do with forcing values upon others.

  • majorcalamity

    If that were true every right minded person would protest. It isn’t true. What we have is a right wing political group exploiting some stooges and trying to wind up the faithful. Looks like in your case they are succeeding. No Christian is getting the sack for practicing their faith. They can practice their faith in many ways. What they cannot do is ignore employment and equality laws which apply to all, just because of their faith. These people are excluding themselves, which is entirely their choice. There is NO persecution. 

  • majorcalamity

    I think you need to read the judgement rather than the reports of it, and especially the one above. The nurse went out of her way to achieve a confrontation. The NHS trust changed their policy and were following new uniform and health and safety guidelines. They offered her many compromises so she could feel comfortable, but all were refused. It is not for you or I to determine NHS policy and we all need to respect it, whether or not we either understand it or agree with it. It is their job. Their decision. Their right to impose it.
    If an Orthodox Jew, or Muslim, were silly enough to accept work which might require them to enter a pork processing factory then they would be expected to do it. I doubt though they would get past the interview! Of course we expect a counsellor to do his job. He is trained to do it, and not let his personal feelings become involved. There has to be a boundary between your professional life and your private life. 

    There is the logic and common sense.

  • whytheworldisending

    You can show charity to evil-doers without tolerating the
    evil that they do. If you tolerate their evil deeds, you do so at the expense
    of their victims, and that is not charitable. Promoting evil and encouraging
    evil- doers is itself evil because it ignores the plight of the victims.
    Homophobia is a misnomer. You wouldn’t espouse showing tolerance to
    paedophiles, but you don’t refer to yourself as a paedophobe. It is not about phobia.
    It is about people being free to live normal lives free from interference by
    those who insist on disregarding norms of conduct. Promiscuity is not normal.
    It is an aberration, and decent people should be free to shun and avoid those
    who do not share their values. Homosexuals in toilets are already a massive
    problem as evidenced by covert police actions leading to mass prosecutions and closure
    of public conveniences up and down the country. Ironically – and farcically – when
    apprehended, offenders have even tried to argue that THEIR privacy rights have
    been interfered with. They are a public nuisance and we want less, not more, so
    you know what you can do with your unisex toilets.

  • whytheworldisending

    It is a matter of choice. Just as a man can choose to commit adultery or not, and a smoker can choose to give up or not. One may not want to remain faithful to one’s wife, and one may convice oneself that one will not get cancer or AIDS, but the choice is whether to do what you want, or to do what is right. Of course it helps if you think there is no such thing as right and wrong, which is why people who wish to do wrong are so hostile to religion. 

  • majorcalamity

    It all depends upon the circumstances. If health and safety issue, or a uniform or corporate image policy, is involved, then some religious symbols may not be permitted. Exceptions have sometimes been made for religious headgear, but not always. Exceptions have also been made for crucifixes, but not always. It depends upon each case and the judgement of the employer. There must not be double standards, and if any are seen they need to be rectified. There do though need to be standards and these judgements are very useful in clarifying them.

  • whytheworldisending

    By the way, legislation is how the state “imposes its values on everyone else.” That’s why there is something seriously wrong with Cameron’s gay crusade. You cannot make the majority obey a law that they hate. When Mrs Thatcher tried imposing her hated poll tax she committed political suicide.

  • majorcalamity

    To seemingly make an association between homosexuality and paedophiles is another sign of latent homophobia. 
    You refer to “normal” lives and to promiscuity not being “normal”. Who are you to decide such things? Provided things are lawful they are “normal”. You might not like them and don’t have to participate, but they are normal.

    You muddy the water by referring to activities (in toilets} which are illegal and condemned by all law abiding people, whatever their sexual orientation. To suggest that this is the attitude of all homosexuals is akin to suggesting that all Christians believe the same things as the Westboro’ Church does. 

    I don’t detect much charity, or tolerance, in your attitude and suggest that you reflect awhile so you can start to practice what you preach.

  • majorcalamity

    You can decide your own rights and wrongs to your heart’s content. So will I. I won’t interfere with you and don’t expect that you will with me. We must both abide by the law, which is determined by all of us together and is our collective judgement of what is right or wrong. There is no hostility to religion involved. There is just respect for all.

  • JabbaPapa

    Oh **please** treeny, don’t tell me that you’re in agreement with karlf’s claim about evolution being provided through the means of acquired characteristics ….

    The horse’s “sense of caution” being an inheritable evolutionary trait indeed !!!!

  • JabbaPapa

    There has to be a boundary between your professional life and your private life

    Typical indoctrination — one’s religious life is NOT in fact “private”.

    It is public by its very nature.

    Religious freedom is a public freedom ; and wherever it is assaulted and denied, a situation of religious persecution is created.

  • JabbaPapa

    If there is a “homosexual lobby”

    I said “homosexualist“.

    Since when do homosexuals evangelise?

    I’ve no idea when the homosexualists started so aggressively promoting their political agenda, but if you can’t see these activities then you must be pretty blind…

    They don’t seek to convert anyone to their lifestyle

    I quoted “values”, you respond “lifestyle”. And I did not mention “homosexuals” at all, so that your “they” is also inaccurate.

    as their sexuality is not a matter of choice

    That seems to depend on which particular political agenda they happen to be pushing this week.

    Though I don’t suppose you’ll be demonstrating your statement scientifically, will you, if it’s genetically determined that means that it’s probably treatable in theory as a pathology …

    nothing at all to do with forcing values upon others

    Unbelievable !!!

    So no B&B owners have had any values forced upon them have they ?

  • Gavin Wheeler

     “Cameron should not be legislating to determine what religions can do, he
    should remove unreasonable restrictions, those based simply on other
    people’s beliefs.”

    He is – he’s removing the unreasonable ban on gay marriages! ;D

  • majorcalamity

    Who has declared it a public freedom, or have you just decided that for yourself? What any group, of any interest, religious or not, can do in public is determined not by them, but by us. By us, I mean all of us, via the law.

    There is a great deal of tolerance in our society for those who hold religious views. In my own opinion it is far too much, but I acknowledge I hold a minority view in that regard. At least at the moment. That tolerance is not without limit though. No-one wishes to interfere with anyone’s sincerely held beliefs. The only issue arises when those beliefs affect other people, who also have rights. 

    Worship in private, or with those of like minds. Behave according to the law. It’s simple. Offer information about your faith to those who seek it. Don’t force it upon the unwilling. Argue, if you wish, for the re-establishment of a theocracy and vote as you choose. However unless you succeed you have no choice other than to accept that the majority view is not with you. 

    There is NO problem, other than that which exists in your mind and of the others who share this persecution complex. 

    If you, or anyone else, cannot understand the need to separate private belief from public behaviour on occasions, then you are bound to find yourself in difficulties. This leads to the frustration and anger you are demonstrating and it is not healthy for anyone. 

    We all need to get along and respect one another. I find it very strange that the very people who espouse tolerance and charity are not showing any, whilst the “other side” are actually practising great restraint and understanding. The “opposition” are showing much more Christian spirit than many who claim to profess the faith.

  • JabbaPapa

    I won’t interfere with you

    You are very clearly attempting to interfere with the member’s moral and religious rights by attempting to justify the imposition on him of your own ideology.

  • JabbaPapa


    … whilst you simultaneously claim not to be “interfering” with others.

    No, you just want to dictate what others can or cannot do.

  • majorcalamity

    Oh my goodness! The “homosexual lobby”, such as it is, does not promote homosexuality and seek to convert anyone. All that is sought is to establish equality and to be treated fairly by society. 

    The concept that homosexuality can be “treated”, a theory proposed by some pretty scary religious types has been totally discredited as complete nonsense. It is shameful that anyone in the UK would seriously still believe that this is possible, when all the main churches know it is not true. People are born with same sex attraction and don’t acquire it. They need to be accepted as part of the human family and loved as such. Past generations have shown the intolerance you do, but most of us have learned better. Maybe one day you will too.

    The B & B owners did NOT have any values forced upon them. This is another myth promoted by the religious lobby for their own purpose. They ran a business, open to the public which was advertised. They did not just invite guests into their home, without payment. They invited business and were paid for it. As such they are subject to all the regulations which apply to that type of business. One of these is not to discriminate on the grounds of religion, sex or sexual orientation. They chose to be in that business. They have a duty to be aware of the regulations. They broke them and faced the consequences. This is another case of separating private beliefs from public actions. 

    You simply cannot cherry pick which laws you obey. 

  • JabbaPapa

    They can practice their faith in many ways

    ooooh, can you please provide the list of “approved” ways of “practicing” faith ?

    Who gets to dictate which religious practices are approved ?

    Dawkins ?

    Is this some sort of atheist version of sharia ?

  • karlf

    LOL! Trounced by your own pretentiousness Jabba!

  • karlf

    Ho ho!
    As parasum put it “Church teaches that their existence cannot be known by reason, but only by faith”

  • Tridentinus

     Hear, hear.