-255x255.jpg "EWTN Religious Catalogue")
LONDON — The British government’s efforts to allow employers to ban the wearing of the cross at work have been described as “discriminatory” and “theologically illiterate.”
The government is fighting a case at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France, following the efforts of two British women to establish their right to wear a small crucifix around their necks.
In 2006 Coptic Christian Nadia Eweida was suspended by British Airways for refusing to remove the cross, which the airline claimed breached the company’s uniform code. Shirley Chaplin was barred from working on hospital wards by Royal Devon and Exeter National Health Service Trust after she refused to hide the cross she wore around her neck.
It is the first time the government has been forced to say whether or not it recognizes the right of Christians to wear a cross as a sign of their faith.
Reports suggest that they will argue that it is not a requirement of the Christian faith so Christians do not have the right to wear one. As such, they will argue that employees can dictate whether it is allowed and reprimand those who refuse to comply.
Cardinal Keith O’Brien has called on Catholics to wear their crosses and crucifixes with pride.
The leader of Scotland’s Catholics used his Easter Sunday homily at St. Mary’s Cathedral, Edinburgh, to assert that secular authorities should not fear the symbol of Christ’s triumph.
He said, “Displaying the sign of the cross, the cross of Christ should not be a problem for others — but rather they should see in that sign an indication of our own desire to love and to serve all peoples in imitation of that love and service of Jesus Christ.”
Drawing on Pope Benedict’s 2010 address at Westminster Hall that religion is not a problem for legislators to solve, Cardinal O’Brien said those “words were a great clarion call for Christians at this present time to emphasize that no governments or public bodies should be frightened of Christians and their influence.”
The cardinal continued, “Marginalization of religion should not be taking place at this present time — rather the opposite. Here in our own country where we do place a great emphasis on tolerance, surely our Christianity should be an indication to others of our desire, while living our Catholic Christian lives, to tolerate others who do not have our same values.”
As such, he asked, “Why shouldn’t each and every Christian similarly wear proudly a symbol of the cross of Christ on their garments each and every day of their lives?”
Commenting that he knew many wore a crucifix or a cross, he said, “Whether on a simple chain or pinned to a lapel, the cross identifies us as disciples of Christ and we should wear it with pride.”
Neil Addison, a lawyer and national director of the Thomas More Legal Center in Warrington, England, said the government is arguing that it is permissible to ban the wearing of the Christian cross because it is not compulsory, unlike the Sikh turban or the Muslim hijab.
“My big worry with this approach is the idea that a secular government and secular courts are allowed to discriminate between religions based on theological points within the religions themselves,” he said. “There seems no awareness that this distinction is itself discriminatory because it gives a privileged legal position to those religions with specific and detailed rules as [it goes] against those with more flexible rules.”
Addison said that “the distinction misunderstands the nature of religious practice, which is often a complex mixture of rules, beliefs, customs and rituals that often may not be formally prescribed but which are, nevertheless, regarded by religious believers as integral parts of their faith.”
For centuries, he added, “the wearing of a cross by Christians has been regarded as a fundamental custom and practice of most Christians, even though it has not been formally required as an obligation of faith.”
“Therefore, to attempt to distinguish between the wearing of a cross and the wearing of a Sikh turban or Islamic hijab on the basis that one is required but the other is not is to create a completely theologically illiterate, artificial and unrealistic distinction. It is an approach that goes against the fundamental principle of a secular society with secular courts because it involves secular courts making religious decisions as to what is or is not compulsory in a religion,” he concluded.
In a speech at Liverpool Hope University, Catholic peer Lord David Alton said we should all “wonder aloud whether religious freedom and the gains made in 1829, with the emancipation of Catholics and Jews, remain safe in a country whose courts say … that a young woman working for British Airways may no longer wear a small cross around her neck lest it causes offense.”
“It would be a great loss to this nation if the foolish notion gained a foothold that faith has no place in the public square,” he added.
The case has also attracted attention from outside the United Kingdom. Russian Orthodox Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk, head of the Department for External Church Relations, told Russian television he regretted such developments.
“These people have not experienced persecution against the Church; they do not know what it is when your crosses are torn away from you,” he said.
Claiming that “a grave mistake is made by today’s Western liberals, who actually impose on free people the standards of a totalitarian regime,” Metropolitan Hilarion said, “it is a sign of some madness and extreme moral decay when such norms are not only introduced but even discussed. What is wrong with a cross worn on one’s neck? Who and how can it harm? Why can one wear beads, an amulet, an image, but a believer cannot put on a cross under his or her clothes? We will never agree with it and will fight against it.”
Register correspondent James Kelly is a columnist for The Universe, the highest-circulation Catholic weekly in Britain and Ireland, and a researcher at the University of London.
Comments
Post a Comment
I would hate to have any nurse wearing anything around her neck which would be an infection risk. You do realise all jewellery is banned for these grounds, why should the cross be an exception?
Similarly the health and safety rules disallow the wearing of necklaces where they might be grabbed. This again was not just because their was a cross at the end of it. I wonder why Christian’s feel the need to flout common sense rules just to advertise their faith.
THe only way to make this justifiable would be to ban ALL JEWELRY: earrings, wedding rings, hair ornaments, necklaces OF ANY KIND. Of course this should also extend to all visible tattoos in order to be seen as a fair and non-discriminatory act.
Wow! We are re-living the Acts of Apostles. I agree with Metropolitan Hilarion. My father (natural born citizen of the US) was deported as a child with his parents under the Repatriation Act (1929 - 1939), under the pretext that Mexico wanted it’s hard working people to help rebuild Mexico, which was persecuting the Catholic church and committing heinous crimes against priests, religious, and the lay, and publicizing it, at that time. Many thought that this (out right persecution of any religion, race, ect.), could happen in the U.S.A. but many are wrong, again. Many people need to study and revisit the crimes during WWI and WWII, instead of trying to ‘forget’ them because it’s not ‘politically correct’. My grandparents were denied property and couldn’t hold any kind of job because they would NOT renounce their Catholic faith. WE NEED TO WALK WITH OUR BROTHER AND SISTERS WHO ARE BEING PERSECUTED. Viva Cristo Rey!
And so on this, the day of our Lord’s crucfiction, we see that He is still being crucified everyday, this time by shortsighted, ignorant secular bureaucrats.
the mmore we eradicate christian symbols, the faster we ruining our mind and our society. It seems we love misconduct mpre than things tosave us. What happens to all those who start travelling down The Niagara Falls?
God help us undertsand ourselves!
These antiChrists sound as bad as Obama. The Liberal/Marxist political world hates Christ with a passion.
How thoroughly intolerant of the British government! I guess some religions are more equal than others. Since each person can choose which religion to embrace, it would seem that the “requirement” argument is vacuous. If this ninny-state (yes, I meant ninny) law isn’t an affront to human rights (defined in natural law) then none is.
We need to stand up for our Christian rights.
We give in here, what next?
Read my articles on What Will the Verdict Be?
at faithchristianmin.org
God bless. Thanks for the article.
this statement sums it up perfectly:
Claiming that “a grave mistake is made by today’s Western liberals, who actually impose on free people the standards of a totalitarian regime,” Metropolitan Hilarion said, “it is a sign of some madness and extreme moral decay when such norms are not only introduced but even discussed. What is wrong with a cross worn on one’s neck? Who and how can it harm? Why can one wear beads, an amulet, an image, but a believer cannot put on a cross under his or her clothes? We will never agree with it and will fight against it.” HOORAY!
I hate to say this but one would dare not do this type of thing in, say, a Muslim country and got away with it! Then why should we Christians begin to tear down Christianity and every other thing that has made it uniquely Christian? The crucifix is the symbol, the apogee, the summa of man’s salvation. We say today, Good Friday, ‘By Thy Holy Cross, Thou Hast Redeemed the world’. Then why should a human being come to tear down this non-negotiable Christian belief by saying that a Christian must never wear a cross because such action offends people of other religions? Come on, this is the height of ignorance and sacrilege to the Christian belief. And this is even more galling when such a ban comes from someone who is either a Christian (nominal or practising) living and working in a Christian country! I think it is high time the British society sat up to bring back their Christian heritage before Britain became a Muslim, a Sikh or buddhist country! If such should happen, God would never, never be happy with Britain and you know what that would mean. No amount of human rights principles or enforcement of such from any extant court would remove Christianity from the UK. The European Convention on Human Rights grants freedom of religion to everyone; there is no reason such would be denied Christians; it would be abominable and an attempt to return Britain to the Dark Ages ruled by savages.
We need to be consistent. If a Catholic employer can prevent a non - Catholic employee from getting the health insurance they want, then a non Christian employer can ban employees from wearing crosses. You cannot be on both sides of this issue.
Is the British government also prepared to ban Kate Middleton from wearing her cross in public???
What is the problem in wearing a cross? Nowadays, it’s just like wearing a wrist watch or a ring. It is just a simple freedom of what accessories that a man or a woman should wear. Which is better to wear, a dirty finger pendant or a cross?
This may well be a preview of what will happen in the United States very soon. It is time for all to take a stand for religious freedom.
Are British employers afraid of Jesus Christ symbolized by a cross.
This headline is grossly misleading. At no time does this article indicate that the the UK government or UK business have been told that they can do this, but rather that the the government will argue for that at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. It only says what they will argue in favour of. No such mandate has been given based on the statements in the article.
The episode clearly shows that the British airways and the British Govt. are silly, mad , ignorant about humanity, human rights . They can be stamped uncivilized. The people may be more civilized and they can fight it out. Will they verify the colour of underwear and brassier and prescribe their favourite colours ?
I strongly feel that the British airways has overstepped and try to crush a human right. How can a so called democratic and secular govt. tolerate such barbarianism and intoleration ?
I am sure your modeator is afraid of the British Airways. What democracy Britain has ?
I strongly urge employees to start wearing the brown scapular and/or miraculous medal immediately, then start fasting and praying for religious freedom. These are not yet forbidden, and there are miracles associated with them. Unlike unblessed crucifixes, these are actual sacramentals. If questioned, you can say you are obligated to wear them as a member of the Militia Immaculata, just as Muslim women must wear hijabs.
The more you push Christ aside, the more confusion you will have.
Years ago UK was more religious minded. There was prosperity. Look now.If we want to please others, others are supposed to please us too. Thera are tw sides to every story.
It is becoming very clear that the so called civilized worlds are ready to return to permittivity and autocratic rule. If at the end of the day, it is ruled that these believers would be punished for wearing a cross around their neck, British airways must be prepared to loose all passengers who wear crosses or pin them on their cloths. It will also be necessary that all believers begin to assert themselves before Europe and America make a fool of all civilized people in the name false freedom.
In Moslems world believers are not allowed to wear crosses or carry the Bible with them. In Christian land, Christians and are punished for wearing crosses. Where then can we practice our faith? It is becoming very clear that the so called civilized worlds are ready to return to primitivity and autocratic rule. People of good will all over the world should stand up and challenge these atrocities.
I have to confess to being somewhat torn on this. If I were a business owner, I wouldn’t have problem with a cross—I’d wear one myself on occasion. And no problems with a scapular either. But if I allow a cross, would I then have to allow a Burka?
@Alan
IF, indeed all jewelry is banned at the hospitals for infection risk, then, of course, it is understandable that the nurses be required to remove their crosses and other jewelry while at work. If other jewelry is not banned, then it is a violation of religious freedom to require them to remove them. We don’t know the details. However, I sincerely doubt that airline flight attendants are required to remove all jewelry.
Their motto used to be an oh-so-proud, “There will always be an England!” if memory serves. Pride goes before a fall.
Whomever wrote that we need to remember history, so as to not repeat it, is correct. So much of Europe now has legislation that dishonors God, with same-sex marriage in the {formerly Roman Catholic} country of Spain, and countries with populations of heavily mainline Protestant people are going that direction too.
I wonder if average citizens of those countries are in support of the loss of religious freedoms like this, OR if their judges are legislating from the bench, like here in the US. Seems like the average citizen, be he/she in Europe, Canada or the USA, is going along for the ride, and then having to fight these left-wing liberal judges. Am I right?
Um, I’m pretty sure that many U.S. airlines do not allow their flight attendants to wear visible religious symbols—grooming and uniform codes are pretty strict, and these sorts of rules apply equally to, say, a Jewish flight attendant who wanted to wear a star of David, or a Buddhist flight attendant who wanted to wear an ohm, or a pagan flight attendant who wanted to wear an ankh, etc.
If you need a piece of jewelry for people to know that you’re a good Christian, maybe you need to quit worrying about what’s around your neck and start worrying about what’s in your heart.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.