The Government of the UK (the same one bent on introducing full marriage rights for gay couples) has upheld employers’ rights to sack any employee for wearing a visible cross or a crucifix.
Now any worker commanded to remove his/her cross has no legal redress. It’s an outrage.
But that two British women, Nadia Eweider and Shirley Chaplin – who have already suffered in this way – have to challenge that decision in the European Court of Human Rights (unaided and indeed opposed by their own national authorities) is an even a greater outrage.
Britain is still legally a Christian country where Christianity ought to be upheld. This isn’t a matter of faith. It’s a matter of constitutional fact. If we travel to a Muslim country, or a Buddhist one, we expect to pay due regard to their customs and symbols. If we chose to live and work – for example – in Israel, we would not seek legislation against Israeli workers following their religious codes – and we’d be amazed if their own Government ruled against it! So why on earth do people tolerate such religious animosity against Christians in the UK?
Argument Number One: No matter how small the religious symbol, it is inappropriate in the work place.
So why would anyone object to the wearing of an invisible little cross at work? One organisation’s reasoning [Royal Devon & Exeter Health Trust] was that wearing a cross at work in a hospital could lead to infections. But how? Were the patients being asked to lick the cross or handle it? Surely a little necklace tucked inside a shirt is no more prone to cross-infection than a badge or belt-buckle that is on display?
The other protagonist, British Airways, felt that other workers – Muslims for example – would be offended, which is plain nonsense. This argument is always cited: “We mustn’t offend Muslims by having a town Christmas Tree (etc)” whereas in fact the town’s Muslims don’t care. They actually like our national fesitvals.
No, this argument is just a cover for the truth. Atheists, gays, humanists and a whole traunch of lefty/liberal “new thinkers” hate any sign of the Christian faith and always complain about it. Search for the person who has actually been “offended” and you won’t find a Muslim or Hindu. You’ll find a social worker in the council who is hiding behind “tolerance” to fulfill his or her own agenda. That is, removing all public expression of Christianity from the UK.
However, we did have tacit support from the Government. Now that too has become infected with religious intolerance, and if I had to guess I’d say it was the result of yet more pressure by Nick Clegg’s little gaggle of new-age softies.
UPDATED: I was right. It was Liberal Democrat “Equalities Minister” Lynne Featherstone who ordered government lawyers to oppose the right of Christians to wear a cross! Featherstone is a secular Jew with little or no regard for hasidic habits. I doubt she’d dictate to the Jewish community, though, with their distinctive outward appearances. Nor the Muslims or any other group. She’s decided that Christians are different! (or an easy target).
And guess what? She’s also behind the disgusting proposal to introduce gay marriage.
Writing in the Daily Telegraph, Ms Featherstone said: “Some believe the government has no right to change it (marriage) at all; they want to leave tradition alone. I want to challenge that view – it is the government’s fundamental job to reflect society and to shape the future, not stay silent where it has the power to act and change things for the better.”
Her comments came after the former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey, a critic of the plans, said “not even the Church owns marriage. I mean that the Church has no authority to change the definition of marriage as far as Christian thinking is concerned – it’s a given.”
But “Lynne Featherstone’s logic implies the will of the people is sovereign. So let’s suppose that in 10 years’ time it is proposed that, as people are living in multiples of four, we may call that marriage also”.
Carey is right. And it strikes me that saying the “will of the people” is sovereign is the ultimate “Laodicean” end of mankind’s wilful and godless condition! The very word Laodicea comes from two Greek words that mean the rule or will of the people! Self-willed, arrogant and rebellious, heedless of the commands of his Maker, man blunders on into a lost eternity.
Argument Number Two: wearing a cross is not a religious ‘requirement’.
The government’s defense is that ‘the wearing of a visible cross’ can be banned because it isn’t ‘a requirement of the faith’. But what about the right to freedom of expression, and freedom of religion? What if a non-Christian wore a cross. Would that also be banned? What if a satanist wore a pentagram or a baphomet symbol? [See below for news on that one] What if an American wore a little flag in his/her lapel? Would there be an equal amount of discrimination about that?
Judging by recent cases, no. A worker who put a cross on the dashboard of his work van when he was delivering goods was ordered to remove it; however his Employer saw no need to remove the religious posters permanently displayed in his own office.
Years ago when I was living in a private housing complex run by a committee, I was commanded to remove a tasteful Christian poster I had in my window, yet pro-Labour election posters were plastered all over windows elsewhere in the estate, along with pictures of John Lennon & Yoko Ono, Che Guevara, and various other left-wing heros.
This discrinimation now seems to have gone nationwide. It’s become fashionable to kick Christianity at every opportunity. Now the Government is helping this intolerance take root legally.
No, our God does not FORCE us to wear a cross. But what’s wrong with doing it by choice?
If you choose to hang a portrait of your hero the Iranian Ayatollah Khomeni in your office I might secretly despise it but do I have the right to force you to remove it? No. (Nor would I get any legal support to do so). So why can’t you do the same for me?
The answer seems to be that the Government and lawmakers hate Christianity more than anything else. They hate the cross! This is only to be expected of the world that nailed Jesus to the cross in the first place. Now they try to absolve themselves of guilt and sin by turning away from every reminder of the God who loves them.
“If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you,’A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you. If they kept My word, they will keep yours also. But all these things they will do to you for My name’s sake, because they do not know Him who sent Me. If I had not come and spoken to them, they would have no sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin. He who hates Me hates My Father also. If I had not done among them the works which no one else did, they would have no sin; but now they have seen and also hated both Me and My Father. But this happened that the word might be fulfilled which is written in their law, ‘They hated Me without a cause.’ [John 15:18-25]
UPDATE: “Let us pray in the nude and wear hooded robes in our cells“, demand pagan prisoners
One pagan in a high security jail in Durham, has claimed that he is being ‘discriminated against’ because he is not allowed to pray wearing a hooded robe in his cell. Pagan prisoners are also want to perform rites in the nude in their cells.
The Ministry of Justice already allows pagan prisoners to have a number of religious ‘artefacts’ in their cells, including incense, a pentagram necklace, a ‘flexible twig or wand’, rune stones made from ‘wood, stone or clay’, a chalice, an altar to pray at and tarot cards. But the guidelines state: ‘Most pagans wear ordinary dress for worship – in prison, skyclad [naked] worship is not permitted [and] a hoodless robe [is permitted], but only to be used during private or corporate worship.’
So, a pagan can wear a pentagram necklace in prison because that is his “right” even though a criminal, and he calls it “discrimination” if he cannot worship as he pleases. BUT a Christian has no right to wear a cross?
- Whose side is Rowan Williams on? 12 Mar 2012
- British Christians fight for right to wear cross 12 March 2012
- Christians: no ‘right’ to wear cross 10 Mar 2012
- Archbishop of Canterbury hits out at cross ban 04 Apr 2010