Page 7 of 8

Re: Christianity, Religion and Philosophy, Episode VII!

PostPosted: Jul 30, 2014 11:18 am
by aileth
Rosie wrote:I was able to find, via Google, a mention about a man who had allegedly been swallowed by a whale, but the details don't match up with what you described.

No, you may be right: that may be the one, and if it has been disproved, well, it is better to know that, than to continue quoting something inaccurate. The wonders of the Internet, which we didn't have back then :)

Re: Christianity, Religion and Philosophy, Episode VII!

PostPosted: Sep 19, 2014 4:34 am
by IloveFauns
why does religion and non-religion for that matter cause so many problems? ... 0ji7y.html

Though it is just the extremists, and atheist-extremists have also bulldozed churches in china.

Re: Christianity, Religion and Philosophy, Episode VII!

PostPosted: Sep 20, 2014 2:42 am
by waggawerewolf27
The trouble is the love of power to dominate other people, whether it is religion, non-religion, or any "ism" you care to mention, especially racism and nationalism. All too often, it seems, that some men, in particular, like to think that their way is the only way, and for the rest it is the highway. As George Orwell once said: All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

The 19th century was a time of devout and even enlightened religion in some quarters. Social reform went apace in UK, in particular, and from there the anti-slavery campaigning reached USA as well. Queen Victoria's husband found something useful to do in helping such reforms along a bit, especially due to his untimely death with typhus. And many people like Florence Nightingale, Lord Lister, Edward Jenner, Ignace Semmelweisz and Louis Pasteur also made a big difference to the world at that time. Charles Darwin caused controversy as did his predecessors and contemporaries, Hugh Miller and Alfred Russel Wallace, who found the Wallace Line.

Unfortunately there were proud and corrupt scientists, even in the medical profession who wanted to prove that some people were better than others, using this belief to justify the oppression they were inflicting on others, and also in denying their common humanity with their victims. Nietzsche was not the only prominent late 19th century figure to think that God was dead. But the tempest of the 1800's broke finally with the Great War of 1914-1918, the War to end all Wars. I'm still trying to come to grips with this four year war, as in many respects this war is still being fought to this day, a hundred years later. I hope to attend the ANZAC centenary moored off Gallipoli next April.

WW1 led to the horrors of WW2, the evils of Stalinism and the Cold War, then, finally the resurgence of nationalism as Eastern Europe broke free from the USSR. World War II also led to the present day troubles with IS, including the collaboration of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem with Hitler during WW2, the ultimate reason for the recent Gaza conflict.

IlF, if you can possibly get a hold of Saturday's (today's) Weekend Australian, you might get an explanation for IS, the latest fanatical "ism" which espouses a belief in Salafism and Wahhabism, two extremely narrow and violent forms of Islam, started in Saudi Arabia and in Egypt at the end of the 19th century, which gained impetus after T.S. Lawrence, a British officer, gained Saudi support to overthrow the Ottoman Empire, and thanks to the Muslim Brotherhood gained ground at the end of the last century.

Do remember though, that not all journalists know much more about Sunni Islam, Shia Islam or any of the splinter groups than do the people currently thinking that IS's murderous rampage against Shia, Sunni, Yazidi, Christian or anyone else they regard as Kaffir (their word for Infidel), are at all holy or religious. Maybe we should all agree with Gerard Henderson's article today, Commentators need terror guides, who suggests journalists should also read Islam for dummies, to get an idea of what Islam really is, and what this group of mainly disaffected, big-noting, and self-righteous murderers really do believe.

Edit. IlF, try your University library or your local library. Internet is useful, but the online version of The Australian likes people to pay up after 20 hours, and I'd already bought the newspaper because of Thursday's Scottish referendum.

Re: Christianity, Religion and Philosophy, Episode VII!

PostPosted: Sep 20, 2014 6:44 am
by IloveFauns
I have missed the paper by the time I read your post (It is around 9:30pm). I was out most of the day, (actually being some what harassed by a group of people who believed they had been "blessed" from there anxiety by god, or lung disease one of them said).

I can never keep up with all the different branches of different religions to be honest, if I try I would never be able to remember what goes with what.

Re: Christianity, Religion and Philosophy, Episode VII!

PostPosted: Sep 24, 2014 6:37 pm
by waggawerewolf27
@Ilf, I have been somewhat remiss in answering your post, but really I think you do have a point. There are so many variations of Christianity, though many adherents do not routinely go cold canvassing or doorknocking, unlike the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, which is the Australian name for the Mormon Church, and the Jehovah's Witnesses, for example. These particular churches are sometimes considered somewhat syncretic, often because they have been started in the USA during the 19th century, and their founders have been associated with religious texts which are only loosely based on the Bible, rather than the Bible, itself. Also, there are other, more discrete ways, of "spreading the word", such as letter box drops.

I think it is important to be able to identify which group is which, and to understand what distinguishes one group from another. You need to understand what they believe, and why you agree or disagree with them. Sometimes this is a matter of public record, such as the aversion to blood transfusions and some medical procedures famously held by Jehovah's Witness practitioners. However, the Christian Scientists, who have a much lower profile, and who, as far as I know, are considered more mainstream, also have a reputation for believing in what has been referred to as faith healing.

Whilst this may sound alarming, there is no doubt that meeting Jehovah's Witness objections has led to appropriate and less intrusive medical technology. And there is also no doubt that during WW2, the Jehovah's Witnesses were respected for their moral leadership in the German concentration camps to where they were sent. But if you feel you are being harassed by any group on religious grounds, whatever it is, the best solution is to tell them, politely and firmly, that you aren't interested today. There was a memorable incident I remember from years ago when a couple of Mormons on such a doorknock were intercepted at our front door by my anti-religious and irate Scottish-born husband, who ordered them to leave, telling them to go and get a proper job.

Last Friday (20th Sept 2014), we went to Joadja, now a ghost town and tourist attraction in our Southern Highlands, which once had a larger population in 1911 than the combined Southern Highlands townships of Mittagong, Bowral and Berrima at the time. Joadja was a company town, a rarity in Australia, where a group of Scottish immigrants ran a very profitable oil-shale mining venture, the largest of its kind in the world, at the time. They produced kerosene, or paraffin, before the discovery and processing of petroleum in USA made the process of getting kerosene so much more economical. The Joadja valley had everything they needed for their processes, including adjacent coal seams and lovely fresh water streams, orchards and plenty of trees. As well, they invented some marvellously constructed equipment to mine and process the keragen they used instead of petroleum. You'd think it was a heavenly spot, but the miners called it hell.

These hard-working and devout Presbyterians attended church in their all- purpose community hall, every day, and twice on Sunday. They did not believe in music and dancing, much like Oliver Cromwell's Puritans, though they weren't averse to attempts to distil whisky. And then we wondered how Scottish could they have still been without the associated bagpipes, highland dancing, caber-tossing and a related ethos of hospitality? The tour guide on the site said that over the years the police made several "raids" on this group, often departing with a flagon apiece of sly grog (moonshine). 8-| He also said that these Presbyterians' very strict devoutness might also explain their eventual atheism, something they shared with many among miners and the labour movement.

However, the day afterwards, we were in Liverpool (NSW), where the local Presbyterian church had a little stand outside its church hall, where they advertised free coffee, tea and a place to sit down. They called this little venture the God's Breath Cafe, a gentle dig at our Hog's Breath Cafes. By that time, being weary and footsore, we certainly appreciated this refreshing pause far more than any front-door proselytising.

Last night we watched a TV program in which a Muslim couple hosted a man in their house in an attempt to explain their culture and religion. The couple considered themselves moderate and peaceloving followers of Islam. The wife, Lydia, who had been reared as a Catholic before converting to Islam, wanted to explain her own journey to Islam. But she did not get any chance to do so, she complained. The young man did not ask questions about her beliefs, only about the customs he found so confronting.

But what wasn't made absolutely clear was what religion, if any, the young man (didn't find out his name but I'll call him Fred) had adopted. Fred said he had been antagonised by the behaviour of obviously Muslim people in his home suburb. He pointed to a particular bookstore, selling all things Islamic, which had a prayer hall in its backyard. He felt hostile to the prayer hall's Internet activities, to the wearing of burqas, the emphasis on Halal food, which he thought was unnecessary, and other facets of Islam, such as the tax they place on Christians and Jews, not to mention Hindus, Buddhists and atheists. The result ended up as a stalemate.

I wonder what would have happened if a similar program featured a couple with a Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish, Christian or other faith rather than that of Islam.

Ilf wrote:Though it is just the extremists, and atheist-extremists have also bulldozed churches in china.

China is a more open society than it used to be, but it is basically an atheistic State where religious practitioners can be seen as socially disruptive. It is against Chinese law to do doorknocking to drum up religious adherents, or distribute religious material, including bibles, and mosques and churches alike can be regarded with equal disfavour.

On Sundays we are urged in services to pray for those persecuted Christians in other countries. These include famous people like Pastor Saeed Abedini or Asia Bibi. Even when less famous Christians are prayed for, we aren't told where they are. In many predominately Islamic countries like Pakistan, Iran or Saudi Arabia it would be difficult to downright impossible to even build churches, even in quarters assigned to Europeans, and again, it is illegal to even own, let alone distribute bibles. In Iran, the state religion is Islam (Shiite) and the Pastor I mentioned has been imprisoned for forsaking Islam for Christianity, even though he avers he was never Muslim in the first place. In prison he is beaten and is facing execution for apostasy.

I've heard that Saudi Arabia devotes funds to enable the building of mosques and madrassas elsewhere in the world, including Australia. But they do not welcome people of other faiths who want to practice their own religion.

Re: Christianity, Religion and Philosophy, Episode VII!

PostPosted: Oct 10, 2014 11:32 am
by The Old Maid
Here's an article on what being poor is ... and how little it matches the perceptions of others, such as "Being poor is people who have never been poor wondering why you choose to be so."

Jesus and His earthly family probably were poor or almost-poor, yet I've heard Prosperity-Gospel proponents insist that if Jesus boarded a boat to give a sermon, or stayed in a house, He must have owned that that house or boat. Seriously.

Re: Christianity, Religion and Philosophy, Episode VII!

PostPosted: Oct 11, 2014 12:05 am
by waggawerewolf27
Good article, TOM. I did look at it. But sometimes poverty is the condition of your country, not just your personal circumstances. Even in relatively richer countries there are downtimes and recessions, caused by events beyond anyone's control. Could Chile, Japan or New Zealand stop their countries from enduring very strong earthquakes? What about the 2004 Boxing Day tsunami's effect on South Asia and even Africa? We regularly hear of disasters in USA and we aren't immune from them here, either. I don't know about this prosperity gospel, and I think it is high time that the people who would think being poor is really a choice need to take another look at themselves, whatever their system of belief. That bit about people judging the poor in that list made me feel angry.

What you say about Jesus' family is probably correct. The Romans kept the Jews poor through their taxation system where the tax collectors got rich at ordinary people's expense. But Jesus' earthly father had a good trade, and the Jews made a point of educating their children, especially the boys. And whilst he was homeless, Jesus as an itinerant preacher did live simply, valuing whatever kindnesses he received.

My comments about some of the points on your list:

Being poor is having to keep buying $800 cars because they’re what you can afford, and then having the cars break down on you, because there’s not an $800 car in America that’s worth "an iota" (Aussie translation).

This one grabbed me. To my way of thinking, poverty is not being able to repair one's old car, even if it is only worth $800 on the current market, to get it to registration standard. Or maybe the car is the one you paid off long ago, but now find you need a loan to pay for the cost of petrol. Or you can't afford comprehensive insurance on your jalopy and therefore find yourself up the creek without a paddle, when you collide with someone else who expects you to pay for their repairs, whilst your own is unroadworthy.

But that is still not really defining poverty. Even a $800 heap of junk that actually works, that is still in good repair, and can be driven legally on the smell of an oily rag is still an asset. Being able to repair one's car oneself is a whole heap of knowledge which transforms someone from being destitute to someone who still has the means to get from point A to point B when necessary. And being able to drive a car, read street signs, or owning a clock and a free bus or train timetable are also assets worth considering.

Being poor is getting angry at your kids for asking for all the crap they see on TV.

Do you know TOM? We never had TV at all until after 1956. Nobody in Australia, because before you have TV you have to have big companies or government departments who are in a position to transmit TV information over long distances. In 1956 when we first got TV down here, it was one of those memorable national events, almost as notable as Neil Armstrong on the Moon. As it was to a lesser extent in 1974, when coloured TV was first made available.

There was a time when if you wanted to watch TV you went to the window of an electrical store, and jostled for a place among everyone else admiring those black and white flickering images on the flash new gadgets, sitting in the shop window. When finally parents acquired them, they were the only ones who watched TV, whilst children were expected to get on with their homework, help Mum with housework, or if the children could get away with it (the boys :-$ ), nick off with their mates.

Poverty is telling the kids no, they not only can't have TV, they can't use any electrical gadget in the house at all, because the electricity has been cut off. But hey! One can still go to bed early, cuddle up with the cat for warmth, live on sandwiches, use torches & candles, cook on a backyard barbecue and read a book in daylight hours. And even get one's homework done as far as possible.

Being poor is your kid’s teacher assuming you don’t have any books in your home.

Yes, teachers do tend to think that way. Books that you do have may be well out of date, however. And the teacher may have a point if your measly job putting out leaflets means you can't afford to pay the fee at school for a few weeks for the teaching resources he/she insists your child have on hand. But surely help is at hand regardless of how poor or rich children may be. It is called joining a free lending library, which ought to be run by your local council. Some areas have mobile libraries that can visit a nearby location. And most libraries, including the ones at your college or school, have computers and Internet in the library for patrons' use.

There is a lot of misery in that list, I'll agree. But at least some of it says more about the community's attitudes to poor people than it does about the poor people themselves. This point below I'd query.

Being poor is four years of night classes for an Associates of Art degree.

Character building, really. Real poverty is not being able to go to school at all, let alone finish high school, because one's parents say they can only send your far more important big brother. Happens, even in reasonably well-off countries, and it marks people all their lives. I can't think of anyone more deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize than Malala Yousafzai, the young Pakistani girl who was shot by the Taliban for going to school.

I know I sound unsympathetic. There is a verse from the Bible which sums it all up beautifully. Isaiah 48:10 which suggests that people in adversity are being tempered like silver rather than as steel. It is how you handle the poverty that matters more than the poverty, itself. And maybe poverty, itself, is relative.

Being poor is being unemployed, without a roof over one's head, and without access to help of any sort. Being poor is when there is no food to buy, when the Salvation Army hostels can't find a bed for you, when you need charity yourself, rather than giving to charity even the $1 coin you found on the pavement outside the shopping centre. Poverty is most telling, when the soup kitchens are unlocatable, when the supermarket shelves are empty and when people have to queue up for rationed petrol and bread. When shelter is a UNHCR tent in the middle of a war, and when, thanks to that war, there isn't a hospital emergency room to wait for six hours in, however sick one's child is.

Re: Christianity, Religion and Philosophy, Episode VII!

PostPosted: Feb 27, 2015 2:24 pm
by The Old Maid
Topic: An Australian family is repurposing Bratz™ dolls by removing their factory paint and re-decorating them.

These dolls have been rescued and rehabilitated from op-shops and tip shops around Tasmania. These lil fashion dolls have opted for a “tree change”, swapping high-maintenance glitz ‘n’ glamour for down-to-earth style. I hand repaint the dolls faces, mold new shoes, and my Mum sews and knits their clothing,” Sonia.

I prefer the rehabilitated versions, which makes sense as I'm not a fan of beauty contests either.


Re: Christianity, Religion and Philosophy, Episode VII!

PostPosted: Feb 28, 2015 9:49 am
by IloveFauns
I have good memories of my sister and I just using dolls(Barbie however since I was around 8 when bratz became popular and had little intrest in dolls/fashion at that age) to make up strange stories(lets just say one involved a baby getting locked in the bathroom of a doll house, the father runs around to the bathroom window and gets his foot stuck in the window frame, the mother than leaves him hanging out of this window and chainsaws the door to the bathroom- I was clearly a sane child).

Though I do agree the new versions do look better. I find the original bratz to be strange looking rather than "pretty".

@Wagga I know this is a late reply, but I honestly can't stand it when I hear someone at uni say "My life is so hard my parents are only paying rent this semester, they are making me get a job" or something along those lines. Life could be much worse. Though my family would be considered working class(though on the upper end) we were never in poverty. Yes, mum couldn't buy us everything we wanted but we got everything we needed.

Re: Christianity, Religion and Philosophy, Episode VII!

PostPosted: Mar 22, 2015 4:23 pm
by Shadowlander
This is a question/observation I've had for many years now. It's almost Back to the Future-esque in its own way, and I'm rather curious what everyone else may think about it.

In the book of Revelation, John visits Heaven and personally witnesses the events of the apocalypse play out, as well as its aftermath. It is clear that he has conversations with at least one angel and is physically present for this occasion. So the question is, will any of us who may be present there for the events written about see John there? And to further the question, would John (after death) see himself (the live version) recording the events?

Re: Christianity, Religion and Philosophy, Episode VII!

PostPosted: Mar 23, 2015 9:04 am
by Puddleglum
I do not believe that John would be able to see himself, as you state. His observations were just that, at least to my admitted limited understanding.
Nor do I think that those who endure the tribulation will be able to see john standing around as an observer. If I have it right, he was what could be called on the outside looking in. Seeing things from the perspective of the angels he was with.

Re: Christianity, Religion and Philosophy, Episode VII!

PostPosted: Mar 23, 2015 11:12 am
by Firecycle
A large portion of the "Being poor" article is the writer complaining that his luxuries aren't as luxurious as he would like. It's rather pathetic.

Re: Christianity, Religion and Philosophy, Episode VII!

PostPosted: May 18, 2015 2:51 pm
by The Old Maid
A shirt from the net: ... 6_bgnp.jpg

It isn't really about the shirt. Rather, how do you advertise what you believe?

Re: Christianity, Religion and Philosophy, Episode VII!

PostPosted: May 18, 2015 4:59 pm
by waggawerewolf27
Good question! How do you advertise what you believe, indeed? Mainly by the way you live your life, should be the most cogent advertisement of what you believe. And that could go well beyond wearing a particular message on a t-shirt, in the case of a Christian. Question is that it might take some courage to wear such a t-shirt at all. The way you live your life is also what the Muslims believe is a good advertisement for your religion, Islam being as proselytising, or even more so, as any Christian sect or denomination. The same might be said of a lot of religions. But even that doesn't always work.

Because in UK, for generations one of the more tolerant of nations where religion is concerned, even parishioners of the Church of England, founded by the children of Henry VIII, to reconcile their nation's Christian beliefs at the time, can now find themselves in hot water in the secular administration of today's UK, so aggressive have some proponents of political and atheistic agendas have become. Although UK, unlike France, hasn't passed laws against the wearing in public of burqas, large crucifixes or other conspicuously religious clothing, such as Jewish yarmulke (or maybe Sikh turbans?), I've heard of women being dismissed from their jobs for wearing discrete cruciform pendants. I expect you have also heard about how a baker was fined or put out of business, for being discriminatory, because he refused to decorate a wedding cake to the specifications of a client because it was against his beliefs.

You do realise that in the rest of the world, even in Australia, there is a push to discredit Christianity as a whole, whatever denomination, and remove it altogether from public cognisance, and from any influence in government, politics and law. There is much in the way Christian schools have been depicted in the press that supports this push. The trouble is, the sins of nominally Christian practitioners, or those working for Christian establishments are not confined there, but are endemic throughout the rest of the community, religious or not. That is not to say that Christians and those Christian establishments affected should not have cleaned up their act, and that they should not in the future practise what they preach in God's name.

And there is much in what Michael Gove said in defence of Christianity. Of simple kindnesses, of the establishment of charities to help the less fortunate, of ensuring that there are schools at all, that actually teach more than prayers. Of the founding and endowment of hospitals in the past to tend to the sick and dying. Remember it was the monks of old who tended to the sick, administered to the poor, and taught the children how to read and write, however they may now be seen. Of willingness to help others, and for a sense of community in which all should be welcomed.

The trouble is that removing religion from daily life won't work either. It merely displaces one religion for another set of beliefs, whose tenets may be a good deal more sinister than what went beforehand. In today's paper I read about a conservative (Hisb-ut Tahrir) public Islamic meeting, held in university facilities, which was under criticism by a journalist. The picture accompanying the article showed how the congregation was redistributed from families sitting together, to men at the front and women at the back, which as this journalist remembered, resembled seating in a bus from segregationalist times in USA. I was tempted to write in and say that traditionally Judaism also separated women from men and still does. But, unlike this particularly anti-Semitic and anti-Christian version of Islam, Judaism does not demand the non-Judaic community should do as they do in the relative privacy of their synagogues. And even in synagogues, liberal Jews are more tolerant of their wives praying besides their husbands even there.

So isn't it a good idea to choose carefully what you want to advertise about your faith?

Remember those seven deadly sins and their accompanying virtues? What do you think of this old song from the musical, Camelot? Otherwise, apologies for the long post.

Seven Deadly Virtues lyrics


″The seven deadly virtues, those ghastly little traps
Oh no, my liege, they were not meant for me
Those seven deadly virtues were made for other chaps
Who love a life of failure and ennui
Take courage-now there's a sport
An invitation to the state of rigor mort
And purity-a noble yen
And very restful every now and then
I find humility means to be hurt
It's not the earth the meek inherit, it's the dirt
Honesty is fatal, it should be taboo
Diligence-a fate I would hate
If charity means giving, I give it to you
And fidelity is only for your mate
You'll never find a virtue unstatusing my quo or making my Beelzebubble burst
Let others take the high road, I will take the low
I cannot wait to rush in where angels fear to go
With all those seven deadly virtues free and happy little me has not been cursed"

Re: Christianity, Religion and Philosophy, Episode VII!

PostPosted: May 19, 2015 2:58 pm
by The Old Maid
Originally posted by waggawerewolf27:

How do you advertise what you believe, indeed? Mainly by the way you live your life, should be the most cogent advertisement of what you believe.

I agree. I like the St. Francis quote to "Preach always; and if necessary, use words."

I'm not especially familiar with the U.K.'s political/royal situation, although I have heard that the Queen allegedly is moving away from the designation of Head of the Church of England. It's unclear whether that is with the idea of nudging her heirs not to take that vow in the first place.

As regarding the cake controversies, that's a tough choice. Without going into any details, on the one hand, two groups have opposing beliefs, and the law chose which one it will support today. No doubt fifty years ago it would have made a different choice which one to support. But then on the other hand, the reason we even have this dilemma is that Christians live in a different country now.

Having said that, it seems that Certain Cake Crises are late to the party, having been upstaged by other difficult customers who can't quit the game. (I'm guessing their bakers made two cakes for a few of them, too.)

The trouble is that removing religion from daily life won't work either.

Verily. After all, our Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. Sorry I don't have time for more.

Re: Christianity, Religion and Philosophy, Episode VII!

PostPosted: May 19, 2015 5:19 pm
by waggawerewolf27
TOM wrote:I'm not especially familiar with the U.K.'s political/royal situation, although I have heard that the Queen allegedly is moving away from the designation of Head of the Church of England. It's unclear whether that is with the idea of nudging her heirs not to take that vow in the first place.

Not the Queen, whose coronation in 1953 ordained her not only as the Queen Regnant of UK, but also as Defender of the Faith (continuing on Henry VIII's title) and Secular Governor of the Church of England. The Queen as non-political head of state has done her duty meticulously, but is now aged 89. In September, her reign will have exceeded that of Queen Victoria, who for a long time after her husband's death refused to open Parliament or let herself be seen in public. Prince Charles, her heir, commented once that he would prefer to be Defender of Faiths rather than as Defender of The Faith, because of the multiplicity of faiths represented in UK that need defending. For instance, he has spoken up about the persecution of Christians, such as in the Middle East and elsewhere. And he has visited synagogues, mosques, etc , as well as Catholic and Orthodox churches, as part of his royal duties.

TOM wrote:As regarding the cake controversies, that's a tough choice. Without going into any details, on the one hand, two groups have opposing beliefs, and the law chose which one it will support today. No doubt fifty years ago it would have made a different choice which one to support. But then on the other hand, the reason we even have this dilemma is that Christians live in a different country now.

Yes, this is a complication of changing the law, and in the case of states of nations like Australia, the national constitution as well. In UK, their Parliament appears to have done just that. As you say, an lot depends on how you define marriage as it is still defined in Australia's constitution, as a union between a man and a woman.

This can be fine if the people affected who want a different definition can keep their unions secularly lawful, such as by going to a marriage registry. But it gets sticky when the change is against the values of a particular church, and its marriage celebrants, usually the ministers. It might be a bit precious of the baker to refuse to decorate a cake according to the views of this particular customer, so long as they didn't demand a stained glass window and cross as part of the cake decoration.

But isn't it also a bit precious of the couple in question if they wanted a religious ceremony before a minister, or similar "cleric", whose religious beliefs and preached values are at odds with what the couple wants?