A lot of Christians wear a cross of some description, a lot of Christians are also getting a wee bit peed off with the current government too with its insistence on gay marriage and what appears to be a mild persecution of their faith. The government may come to regret this later, but we’re in the here and now and looking at a double standard.
Christians do not have a right to wear a cross or crucifix openly at work, the Government is to argue in a landmark court case.
In a highly significant move, ministers will fight a case at the European Court of Human Rights in which two British women will seek to establish their right to display the cross.
It is the first time that the Government has been forced to state whether it backs the right of Christians to wear the symbol at work.
A document seen by The Sunday Telegraph discloses that ministers will argue that because it is not a “requirement” of the Christian faith, employers can ban the wearing of the cross and sack workers who insist on doing so.
The Government’s position received an angry response last night from prominent figures including Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury.
He accused ministers and the courts of “dictating” to Christians and said it was another example of Christianity becoming sidelined in official life.
To my mind,the government is actually right in the detail, but acting in gross hypocrisy in the wider sense of what it does appear to allow. They are correct in stating that it’s not mandatory for Christians to wear crosses, a lot of Christians don’t after all. It’s not mentioned in the Bible and is in a lot of cases just a piece of jewellery, no matter the personal significance of it to the wearer. It’s not for example mandatory as in the case of Sikhs with turbans and hair cutting, along with the kara bracelet. However, in the case of the NHS which is technically a branch of the state Muslim women are allowed to wear a hijab whilst nursing and despite claims by some Muslims that this is a religious symbol, it isn’t. It’s not mentioned in the Quran and it’s only mention in the hadiths is An-Nur 24:31, which doesn’t explicitly say that the head should be covered, it just talks about modesty. To wear the Hijab is certainly NOT an Islamic obligatory on women. It is just an innovation of Islamic men suffering from a piety/sexual complex who are so weak morally that they just cannot trust themselves to keep their hands off women.
The Government claims the two women’s application to the Strasbourg court is “manifestly ill-founded”.
Its response states: “The Government submit that… the applicants’ wearing of a visible cross or crucifix was not a manifestation of their religion or belief within the meaning of Article 9, and…the restriction on the applicants’ wearing of a visible cross or crucifix was not an ‘interference’ with their rights protected by Article 9.”
The response, prepared by the Foreign Office, adds: “In neither case is there any suggestion that the wearing of a visible cross or crucifix was a generally recognised form of practising the Christian faith, still less one that is regarded (including by the applicants themselves) as a requirement of the faith.”
I suspect it’s time to get the popcorn out, because if I know about the hijab, you can bet that those bringing the case know about it and whilst two wrongs don’t make a right, they do make for interesting court cases.