"Christians Have No Right to Wear Cross at Work, Says Government"
Peter Robinson ·
March 18, 2012 at 9:38pm
That's the headline. Here's the lead:
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.
What'll they do with the orb during the coronation of Charles III? Snap off the cross?
- Comment (40)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (4)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Dec '10
Re: "Christians Have No Right to Wear Cross at Work, Says Government"
Peter,
The agnostic horror that creeps under the cover of darkness relentlessly sabotaging the moral fiber of human society has succeeded so well these last 50 years that it has lost its fear.
Out in the open the ugly thing treats even the majority religion with utter contempt. It demands that all bow to souless, meaningless oblivion.
Gd digs a pit for such people. We need to keep the faith and live long enough to see the day of their demise.
Regards,
Jim
Feb '11
Re: "Christians Have No Right to Wear Cross at Work, Says Government"
I need to be convinced that this decision is bad. I mean, I can be convinced, I think. But on its face, it sounds like this: the government won’t step in and punish employers for a requirement about what employees can wear to work. So it sounds like a win for liberty.
For the most part, I would think that an employer who had such a rule would be behaving unreasonably. But I might be able to imagine some exceptions. Maybe it would be best to let employers be unreasonable.
Re: "Christians Have No Right to Wear Cross at Work, Says Government"
Alas, Cool Britannia never got around to find a suitable logo to replace the antiquated Azure, the Crosses Saltire of St Andrew and St Patrick, quarterly per saltire, counterchanged Argent and Gules, the latter fimbriated of the second, surmounted by the Cross of St George of the third, fimbriated as the saltire. So there may be further problems… : )
Jun '10
Re: "Christians Have No Right to Wear Cross at Work, Says Government"
I love how politicians can so easily decide what religious requirements are and aren't, therefore it's their obligation - nay, duty to regulate said behavior on behalf of the State.
Jun '10
Re: "Christians Have No Right to Wear Cross at Work, Says Government"
I tend to agree, particularly if the employee is interacting with customers. I think McDonalds or Disneyland are entitled to set and enforce dress codes that protect their corporate image. What if a cashier at McDonalds insists on wearing a full burqa, does she have that right as well? Or can McDonalds tell her "wear the standard uniform or you're fired?"
Re: "Christians Have No Right to Wear Cross at Work, Says Government"
"What if a cashier at McDonalds insists on wearing a full burqa, does she have that right as well? Or can McDonalds tell her "wear the standard uniform or you're fired?"" Except that this case singles out Christianity, if I'm reading Peter's link correctly. I'm not sure how the European Court would react if this were an Islamic issue, given Sharia law's inroads on the continent. Christians aren't likely to start barbecuing automobiles, after all, so they're fair game.
Edited on March 18, 2012 at 10:32pmOct '10
Re: "Christians Have No Right to Wear Cross at Work, Says Government"
What is most maddening about this issue is the degree to which people accept the idea that their employment is a privilege granted them by an employer, rather than the idea that the employer is granted the privilege of access to our time and talents for remuneration.
Begging for a job is a demeaning of us as people. If you demand the freedom to do as you please, accept the freedom of an employer to not want you around.
For my entire lifetime of employment, over 50 years, I have never begged for a job nor worked under unreasonable, to me, conditions.
It really is about freedom... ours and theirs.
Meanwhile, James Gawron above, accurately characterizes where we are as a culture. It is called suicide. In this case, by blowing the bottom out of the ship of Western Judeo-Christian civilization. We're all in that same boat.
Apr '11
Re: "Christians Have No Right to Wear Cross at Work, Says Government"
Rights are clearly contextual, but it says something about a culture when a mere cross causes offense in a business environment, particularly when the faith publically expressed is so intimately tied with the history and development of said culture.
Feb '11
Re: "Christians Have No Right to Wear Cross at Work, Says Government"
[Note: this was in response to Joseph Stanko] Well, we don’t need to go that far. If the law protects the rights of men and women to wear indiscrete symbols of the faith — and wear them at work, then it protects the rights of men and women to wear crosses — and wear them at work. A burqa is not indiscrete. It significantly inhibits an employee from doing all sorts of jobs, and it might very well be asking too much of an employer to permit wearing one.
What are the precedents that they should be drawing on in the U.K.?
Edited on March 18, 2012 at 10:38pmDec '10
Re: "Christians Have No Right to Wear Cross at Work, Says Government"
I'm still holding out hope that Liz will outlive Charlie so there won't be a Charles III
May '10
Re: "Christians Have No Right to Wear Cross at Work, Says Government"
Matthew is quite right. The government is looking to affirm the right of employers to regulate the dress code on their premises, not to prohibit the wearing of religious icons at work where no employer objections exist.
Feb '11
Re: "Christians Have No Right to Wear Cross at Work, Says Government"
I trust that no Islamic symbols will be allow at work?
Not likely I think.
Nov '11
Re: "Christians Have No Right to Wear Cross at Work, Says Government"
Egads, words fail...
Mar '12
Re: "Christians Have No Right to Wear Cross at Work, Says Government"
The cross on the coronation orb: maybe they can cover it with a burka?
Dec '10
Re: "Christians Have No Right to Wear Cross at Work, Says Government"
James Gawron: Peter,
Out in the open the ugly thing treats even the majority religion with utter contempt. It demands that all bow to souless, meaningless oblivion.
It is especially the majority religion (or majority anything) that is treated with contempt. Remember, these people think that a minority cannot discriminate or be racist in any manner at all, only the majority can.
Thank God (literally) that ineffable twerp Rowan Atkinson, no sorry, Rowan Williams, is retiring as Archbishop of Canterbury. I admit it: I am totally in the bag for Archbishop of York John Sentamu to replace him. On the right side of just about every issue.
John Tucker Mugabi Sentamu.
A black man.
Born in Uganda.
Finally. An unabashed English patriot.
Edited on March 18, 2012 at 10:59pmMay '10
Re: "Christians Have No Right to Wear Cross at Work, Says Government"
I agree with Matthew that we should distinguish between ethics and legality here. Legally, employers should be able to determine whether or not employees are permitted to wear religious symbols or jewelry on the job. Ethically, we should discourage the hiding of religious imagery and speech with shame and with our money as consumers.
The phrase "It's just business" has become far too popular. Business is a moral activity. It is one of the most common and most significant ways in which human beings interact with each other. A consumer is a person. A seller is a person. A manufacturer is a person. We don't become machines when we enter work environments.
So, while an employer's financial interest in putting his customers at ease and limiting distractions from his products or services is significant, that financial interest should not be his sole concern as a businessman. Business is always personal.
It is the responsibility of all citizens to honor and protect our freedoms wherever they are and whatever they are doing. That responsibility is not suspended during work hours.
May '10
Re: "Christians Have No Right to Wear Cross at Work, Says Government"
Considering this article by itself, I might agree with you. But in the context of dozens of articles I have read, typically via Mark Steyn, about the state of religious freedom in Europe, I doubt the same standard would be applied to the Islamic crescent as is being applied to the Christian cross.
Feb '11
Re: "Christians Have No Right to Wear Cross at Work, Says Government"
I enjoy Mr. Steyn as much as anybody, but the day I decide his judgment is the final assessment of objective truth is the day I can’t muster the will to get out of bed.
Jun '10
Re: "Christians Have No Right to Wear Cross at Work, Says Government"
Aaron Miller
I doubt the same standard would be applied to the Islamic crescent as is being applied to the Christian cross.
You're probably right about that. I've heard some liberals candidly explain that if you object to the use of Islamic symbols you are almost certainly a racist, and it is really the person's skin color rather than their beliefs that offend you. Whereas if you object to Christian symbols you are free from the taint of racism, you're merely a good secularist trying to protect the naked public square.
Therefore, banning Christian symbols = secularism = good, while banning non-Christian symbols = racism = bad.
It's a rather twisted abuse of logic, but there you have it.
Dec '10
Re: "Christians Have No Right to Wear Cross at Work, Says Government"
Peter Robinson
Whereas the Obama Administration has decreed that even a REQUIREMENT of the Catholic faith can be abrogated by the State if it has to do with contraception.