All we have to say is, here it comes! Regardless of your religion, once you start stomping on one, it will not be long until all faiths see their rights trampled. In Britain, the current government is going to the European Court of Human Rights and saying that crosses are not allowed to be worn visibly. Hajibs and turbans are OK, but not crosses.
We have not seen this yet in the US, however, we predict it will not be long before it makes the jump across the pond. What will you do then? Will you cave in and say "hey, it's not a big deal." Or will you have the guts to speak up and say NO! Unfortunately, most will not.
Our larger question is, why are Arab and Sikh wear alright but not Christian? Would Jewish Stars of David also be verboten? This whole argument seems a bit outrageous and very one sided. The argument by the British government makes no sense to us. A cross might not be a requirement of the faith but does that make it wrong to wear?, Maybe our readers can help us out. Why, in your opinion, are they taking this stand.
Help us out. Thanks.
Conservative Tom
British Government: Christians Have No Right to Wear Visible Cross or Crucifix
The British government plans to argue in the European Court of Human Rights that since displaying a cross is not a requirement of Christianity, employers may ban them. (AP Photo)
(CNSNews.com) – Britain’s Conservative-led government plans to argue in a European Court of Human Rights case that employers are entitled to ban the visible wearing of crosses at work because displaying the symbol is not a recognized “requirement” of the Christian faith.
A document leaked to Britain’sSunday Telegraph outlines the argument the government plans to present at the tribunal in Strasbourg, France, where two Christian women will claim that their rights were violated when employers barred them from wearing crosses at work.
At the center of the applicants’ case is Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which states, “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.”
But the government will argue 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.”
Furthermore, it will say that “the restriction on the applicants’ wearing of a visible cross or crucifix was not an ‘interference’ with their rights protected by Article 9.”
“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,” says the document, which the Telegraph says was prepared by the Foreign Office.
The second most-senior figure in the Anglican Church, Archbishop of York John Sentamu, told the BBC Sunday that the government was “beginning to meddle in areas that they ought not to. I think they should leave that to the courts to make a judgment.”
Earlier another Anglican bishop challenged the argument about displaying a cross not being a requirement of Christianity.
“OK, if you say wearing a cross isn’t a compulsory part of Christianity, we agree,” Bishop of Peterborough Donald Allister told the Telegraph last month. “But it is a duty of a Christian to be public about their faith as well as private, and that is clear New Testament teaching.”
News of the government’s intervention in the case comes amid a raging dispute between the government and church leaders over Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron’s plans to legalize same-sex marriage by 2015.
Hijabs, turbans allowed
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) is the final destination of two drawn-out legal battles, brought by Nadia Eweida and Shirley Chaplin, two women who fell foul of their employers for wearing crosses at work.
Eweida, a Coptic Christian and British Airways staffer at Heathrow Airport, was told in 2006 to remove or cover up a small cross she wears around her neck. She refused and was sent home on unpaid leave. Eweida noted that colleagues of other religions, including Muslims and Sikhs, were allowed to wear religious items such as hijabs, turbans and religious bracelets.
The airline policy won the backing of the National Secular Society, which complained that activists were “determined to push religion to the front line of British life” and accused Eweida of clearly being “motivated by a wish to evangelize at work.”
The following year British Airways changed its uniform policy and allowed Eweida to return to work, but refused to pay her for the period she was suspended. Claiming religious discrimination, she took the case to an employment tribunal, but lost.
After the Supreme Court declined to consider her case, she decided to take the matter to the ECHR.
Chaplin, a nurse in her 50s, was prohibited from working at a hospital after refusing to cover up a cross she said she had worn at work throughout a 30-year nursing career. An employment tribunal in 2010 ruled in favor of the employer, a government National Health Service (NHS) trust, saying its policy was based on health and safety grounds, not religion, and adding that wearing a cross was not a requirement for Christians.
“The uniform policy of the NHS trust permits exemptions for religious clothing,” they wrote. “This has been exercised with regard to other faiths, but not with regard to the wearing of a cross around the neck.”
The ECHR has also been asked to consider two other cases brought by British Christians claiming religious discrimination – a woman who lost her job with a London council in 2007 after she refused to conduct civil partnership ceremonies for same-sex couples; and a relationship counselor who was fired by a large national charity after refusing to provide sex therapy to same-sex couples.
Britain has given same-sex couples similar legal rights to married couples under civil partnership provisions introduced in 2005.
Now Cameron’s government is proposing to legalize marriage for same-sex couples in England and Wales, launching a public consultation exercise on the matter.
Although churches will not be forced to perform “weddings” for homosexual and lesbian couples, the proposals have ignited a storm of protest.
A letter by senior Roman Catholic archbishops, read at thousands of churches across England and Wales on Sunday, warned that that changing the legal definition of marriage would be a “profoundly radical step” that would “gradually and inevitably transform society’s understanding of the purpose of marriage.”
Dear Tom,
ReplyDeleteI have some philosophical questions regarding a conservative agenda. Does it make sense that the religious right's highest purpose would be to look after the poor and disenfranchised rather than wealthy interests? How does one resolve this dilemma? If the greatest thing one can do is to give their life to save others, does it follow that the worst is to influence another to take their life to murder others?
I am not a spokesman for the conservative movement but I will start a conversation with you regarding my view of the agenda. Regarding helping the "poor and disenfranchised", conservatives on whole give more to charity than to liberals aka progressives. Our Vice President who, as a Senator, gave millions away of public money but contributed less than $500 to charity per his tax return.
ReplyDeleteThe conservative movement as well as I do not have a problem giving temporary help to someone down on their luck that needs a helping hand. We are against a permanent solution to a temporary problem. The old axiom is "give a man a fish and you will feed him for a day. Teach the man to fish and he will feed himself for a lifetime." We believe in the latter prescription. Having a permanent welfare class where people are on the dole for three generations is not a solution.
The democrats (usually liberal or progressive) are trying to eliminate charitable contributions as a deduction on taxes. These organizations do the hard work of working with those who need help. Cutting off deductions would devastate them. It is not the Republicans who are trying to do that.
As far as you last sentence, I do not understand your point, will you please clarify.
Tom,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your reply. These questions continue to pester my conscience. The last sentence was just a rhetorical question comparing an ultimate selfless act and the horrors of suicide bombers. I'd have to agree with teaching someone to fish. It seems as if our society does a terrible job trying to lift up the poor and disenfranchised. Obviously, welfare is not the answer, but so many of our young people around the world seem so hopeless and many for good reason. We incarcerate rather than rehabilitate and lift up. I don't think we can progress as a society unless we concentrate on lifting up the lowest levels of society thereby lifting up the whole. Big business seems utterly disinterested in working for the public good, legally required to do their best for their own selfish interests rather than what is best in society's interest. It seems as if we want less government, big business needs to step up and orient themselves to operate in society's best interest. We are just temporary stewards carrying forward our inheritence for tomorrow's society. It seems to me that Jesus Christ was trying to teach us about how to best survive as a species, his children. These natural guidelines speak to me about the best way to survive. They speak of cooperation, community and a way of life leading to a just and righteous world. Again, thanks for letting me spout off.
I do not think it is society's job "to lift up the poor and disenfranchised." We have tried that with the Great Society which has shown that trillions can be spent to improve the poor and we still have the same percentage of poor in this country as we did when the program started. We have too many people on long term welfare (over 5 years) and many of these people are able to work but find having welfare, ADC and other benefits too profitable to do otherwise. One can hardly blame them.
ReplyDeleteIf you look around the world, the poorest of the poor in this country live better than at least 75% of the other people in the world. All one has to do is to look at China, India, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia or Africa and see how the truly poor live in those countries compared to here. Or closer to the US, go to the border cities of Mexico and see real poverty. It is nothing like what we have here in the US.
Anyone who lives here is very lucky.
It is also not the business of business to do social work. The purpose of business is to make money, to employ people to do so and to pay dividends to the people who put up the money for the company to operate. To expect anything else is wrong.
As a closing point, let me make one thing very clear. I give to charities all year long. I believe in what they do. My family has started a foundation to help children and their families
effected by cancer, so I am not one who says one thing and does the opposite. I eat what I cook.
On the other hand, I believe in the human spirit and the ability to rise up to meet potential. The programs we have in the country has STOLEN this human spirit from many of our citizens who believe they cannot make it and that government must give it to them. That is wrong and we as a country seeing the effects of it.
Dear Tom,
ReplyDeleteI think it is society’s job to lift up the poor and disenfranchised for how else are we to raise our whole society. Otherwise, we are just fighting it out tooth and nail with the least able among us bearing the brunt. I believe if the current trend continues with the increasing very wealthy and very poor, we’ll return to the middle ages and the accompanying barbarism and potential for unrest of the masses.
I think poor citizens in the US are comparatively fortunate and the poor around the world, as you mentioned, suffer greatly. The poor do suffer and it has been so for thousands of years. Your personal charitable giving is admirable and I know there are thousands of individuals like yourself who give to and start worthy causes. A lot of corporations also give to charities. Is this charity enough? Shouldn’t big corporations have a conscience?
Recently, corporations were given the rights of an individual. Should these individuals operate without conscience in pursuit of profits? Unrestrained pursuit of profit reminds me of organized crime where tactics do not matter. I don’t really believe in handouts from the government. It’s too much like charity, whether it’s to individuals or to corporations. Even taxes for the public good can be avoided if you have the resources to structure the organization accordingly. Some corporations do seem to be working in the best interests of society rather than their own selfish interests. USAA insurance and Credit Unions come to mind. Big business without conscience and only in pursuit of the dollar leads to Enron’s and collateralized debt obligations sold to widows and orphans.
I think the US and the basic human spirit can overcome adversity. I also think cooperation and building on community can help. I think big business needs to be in the business of bettering our society for their sake and all our sake. To often, it seems as if it is always us against them and we’re all the worse for it.
Thanks for reading and responding.
I do believe that the basic human spirit can overcome all adversity. There is only one being that can transform a society and it is a divine being. What you are describing is so totally naive. there will never be utopia on earth until the second coming of Christ. People can make a differnce--hence Mother Thesa , Martin Luther King etc. But government programs have never worked.Liberals have been running capaigns on helping the poor for years, and yet they still sing that tired song. If they had actually done there wouldn't be any poor.
Delete