Tuesday, March 27, 2012


HJS Comments: The British Government is known for its weak-kneed obsequiousness to Muslim demands. It does not seem to suffer from the same malady when considering the well-being or protecting the harmless, but holy traditions of its own citizens, especially British Christians.

Christians, unfortunately, are known for turning the other cheek; which some folks meet with undisguised contempt. But not all Christians successfully fight off the temptation to fight back when you least expect it—even if it is only in the ballot box. These tit-for-tat fighters are Friar Tuck Christians, who believe firmly that each Christian has the duty to mitigate the damages wrought by unruly government agents as best he can and as quickly and effectively as he can with whatever tools God has placed at his disposal to help punish transgressors and retain God’s peace and justice. Not every Christian is a martial fighter or martyr, but most Christians are voters, and also know a thing or two about prayers. Some Christians are good with a pen.

Below is just another instance in which the loyal and hard-working community of Christians in the UK is marked for possible suppression and marginalizing.

What comes next, eliminating their right to vote? One UK judge recently announced that everyone has the right not to be harassed. The last I knew, suppressing one’s right to wear the little gold cross around the neck is gross harassment!

Friar Tuck Christians, vote the would-be Machiavellis out of office! Do you have access to people who can write? It may be time to organize some of them for the purpose of writing complaints, letter to editors, and blog notes. I hope it never comes to pikes and long bows again. God presented us with the tools to do His Will. Hopefully it will be as victorious as the long bows at Runnemede. By the way, for those who know nothing about the Magna Carta, and with our present education I would not doubt there are many, the long bows at Runnemede showed that with all its might, government does not always prevail.

My comments introduced the following new outrage on the part of the UK.

British Government Says Christians Don't Have Right To Wear Cross Or Crucifix At Work
Posted: 03/12/2012 4:32 pm Updated: 03/13/2012 2:11 pm

After facing consequences for refusing to cover or remove their crosses at work, two Christian women are taking the case to the European Court of Human Rights. A group of ministers is set to back employer regulations banning religious regalia in the workplace, arguing that wearing crosses aren't a "requirement" of the Christian faith.

Two British women are headed to court to argue for the right to wear Christian crosses at their workplaces, but a group of Christian ministers is reportedly set to back employers' rights to ban the regalia.

At the heart of the issue is whether or not the crosses are a "requirement" of the Christian faith.
According to
a document leaked to the Telegraph that allegedly contains their arguments, the ministers are set to tell the court that crosses are not required by religious doctrine, thus supporting the government's case that employers cannot be forced to allow such symbols.
Nadia Eweida and Shirley Chaplin were both told by their employers to cover or remove the Christian symbol hanging around their necks. When they refused,
they each faced consequences.
Eweida, a British Airways employee, was placed on unpaid leave in 2006 when she refused to remove the symbol,
according to CNS News. She argued that coworkers of other affiliations were allowed to showcase symbols of their faiths. Eweida took the airline before a British employment tribunal alleging religious discrimination but lost the case.

The company eventually changed its uniform policy and rehired Eweida, but did not compensate her for the suspension period.

In Chaplin's case, the longtime nurse was reprimanded for refusing to cover up a cross around her neck, RT reports. She was subsequently assigned to desk work instead of her usual rounds.

Now, it will be up to
the European Court of Human Rights to decide if wearing a cross or crucifix is a right under Article 9 of the European Convention of Human Rights.
Article 9, "
Freedom of thought, conscience and religion," states the following:

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance. 2. Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of
public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the
protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Lawyers for the women allegedly plan to argue that right to wear a cross is covered under Article 9 as a "manifestation" of religious expression, CNS News reports.
But the British Foreign Office has already prepared the
following statement, which was published in the Telegraph:

In neither case is there any suggestion that the wearing of a visible cross or crucifix was a generally [recognized] form of [practicing] the Christian faith, still less one that is regarded (including by the applicants themselves) as a requirement of the faith.

The case has been criticized by Archbishop of York, John Sentamu, who was unhappy officials were "meddling" in the matter.

Sentamu expressed his feelings on the BBC's Andrew Marr show, the Telegraph reports.
"My view is that this is
not the business of government, actually," he said. "I think that is a matter really for people and that we should allow it.The government should not raise the bar so high that in the end they are now being unjust."

Andrew Brown, a blogger for the Guardian, questions what exactly qualifies as a "requirement" of the faith:

Does Christianity demand that its adherents wear a cross? The courts here have decided that it doesn't, but I'm not sure the question is well framed. You might as well ask "does Christianity demand that you go to church on Sundays?" or "does it demand pacifism?" There are just too many Christianities for such a question to make sense.

No comments: