The government of Britain is about to argue before the European Court of Human Rights that because the cross or crucifix is not a “requirement” of the Christian faith, wearing a cross to work is grounds for dismissal from your job.

Wearing symbols of other religions, such as a turban or a hijab, are (of course) exempt from this absurd religious symbol restriction.   Wearing a cross will offend people, but wearing a turban or hijab or some other article of religious significance will not.  That’s the logic at play here, and it’s ridiculous.

Can you imagine going to work one day and being told that if you do not remove your cross that you would be fired?  Can you imagine the same threat being used against a Sikh, a Muslim or a Jew?

What’s next?  Will the British Government tell Jewish men that they can no longer wear a yarmulke in public?  They wouldn’t dare.

How about Wiccans or Celtic Druids?  Shall we ban them from wearing symbols of their religion and fire them if they don’t toe the line as well?

I say again, these idiots wouldn’t dare.

Freedom of Religion just doesn’t mean what it used to, that’s for sure.  Britain, the land that gave us our Common Law heritage of Rights and Freedoms through the Magna Carta and other historic documents, clearly has lost her way.

Bishop of Peterborough Donald Allister said, “It is a duty of a Christian to be public about their faith as well as private, and that is clear New Testament teaching.”

The Nanny State is in full swing in Britain and whatever nonsense goes on in Britain inevitably makes its way across the Atlantic to North America.

God save us all from this politically correct nonsense!

At issue in this case is whether or not Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (pdf version) protects the right of Christians to wear a cross or crucifix.  As I already said, wearing any other religious symbol does not appear to be a problem.  It’s only the wearing of a Christian symbol that seems to be at issue.

ARTICLE 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights

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 the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Two Christian women, Nadia Eweida and Shirley Chaplin, are bringing this case forward because they believe (rightly) that they were discriminated against when their employer demanded they remove their crosses or they would be fired.

Nadia Eweida works for British Airways, which freely allows employees of other faiths to wear religious garments and symbols, but was floored when she was told she must remove her cross “or else.”

Shirley Chaplin was a nurse for 31 years.  Her career ended when she refused to remove or hid the cross she wore on a chain around her neck, something she had done all her working life.

Andrea Williams, the director of the Christian Legal Center, said,

“It is extraordinary that a Conservative government should argue that the wearing of a cross is not a generally recognized practice of the Christian faith.”

 

She went on to say that in recent years British courts

“have refused to recognize the wearing of a cross, belief in marriage between a man and a woman, and Sundays as a day of worship as ‘core’ expressions of the Christian faith.”

Banning people from wearing a symbol of Christianity in the name of “religious tolerance” is simply religious intolerance at its worst.

Here is Shirley Chaplin telling her story (video length: 4:19):

 

 

If you would like to help the Christian Legal Center help Nadia Eweida and Shirley Chaplin, please visit their website where you can make a donation in support of the Nadia’s and Shirley’s cases.