(Image source: New Statesman)


BY STACEY WELSH

ANCHOR LAUREN GORES

 

The Telegraph has reported the British government could be cracking down on crosses. This comes after two women were suspended from their jobs for wearing crosses to work more than five years ago. The paper says the government is dragging out the issue based on a document that...

“...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.”

So basically, the government might allow employers to ban their employees from wearing crosses at work.

CBN's The 700 Club reports some say this reasoning isn’t fair to Christians because...

“...critics point out that Sikhs and Muslims have been given special protections for their clothing.”

British Airways employee Nadia Eweida was suspended in 2006 after she refused to take off her cross necklace at work. A blogger for The Guardian writes the controversy highlights...  

“...the way in which even secularist governments are unable to get away from theological questions... Christianity is so much taken as the norm that it seems wrong, unchristian, when its demands clash with those of the secular world.”

Media outlets report the court is set to begin reconsidering Eweida’s and a second woman, Shirley Chaplin’s. The Daily Mail quotes former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey, who sees irony in the situation:

“...when governments and courts dictate to Christians that the cross is a matter of insignificance, it becomes an even more important symbol and expression of our faith.”

Britain’s Equality and Human Rights Commission promotes and enforces non-discrimination laws and will support the women. The New Statesman reports the EHRC feels the...

“ … it was wrong to conclude that because it was not a religious requirement for Christians to wear a cross all the time individual Christians need not feel a personal obligation to do so.”

Despite the looming court case, The Huffington Post U.K. argues The Daily Mail and The Telegraph wrote overly sensational stories about the controversy. That writer says crosses aren’t actually banned from the workplace in the U.K., and the two women were condemned under special circumstances. In the case of nurse Shirley Chaplin...

“The [hospital’s] uniform and dress code prohibits front-line staff from wearing any type of necklace, be that a crucifix or a lucky pixie, in case patients try to grab them. It offered Mrs Chaplin the compromise of wearing her cross pinned inside a uniform lapel or pocket, but she said being asked to hide her faith was ‘disrespectful’.”

The Huffington Post also cites Eweida’s suspension resulted from a company policy that didn’t allow additions to the uniform, and that she still claimed religious discrimination. The court will start looking at the cases again sometime this Spring.

Cross Controversy Stirred Up Again in U.K.

by
0
Transcript
Mar 12, 2012

Cross Controversy Stirred Up Again in U.K.

(Image source: New Statesman)


BY STACEY WELSH

ANCHOR LAUREN GORES

 

The Telegraph has reported the British government could be cracking down on crosses. This comes after two women were suspended from their jobs for wearing crosses to work more than five years ago. The paper says the government is dragging out the issue based on a document that...

“...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.”

So basically, the government might allow employers to ban their employees from wearing crosses at work.

CBN's The 700 Club reports some say this reasoning isn’t fair to Christians because...

“...critics point out that Sikhs and Muslims have been given special protections for their clothing.”

British Airways employee Nadia Eweida was suspended in 2006 after she refused to take off her cross necklace at work. A blogger for The Guardian writes the controversy highlights...  

“...the way in which even secularist governments are unable to get away from theological questions... Christianity is so much taken as the norm that it seems wrong, unchristian, when its demands clash with those of the secular world.”

Media outlets report the court is set to begin reconsidering Eweida’s and a second woman, Shirley Chaplin’s. The Daily Mail quotes former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey, who sees irony in the situation:

“...when governments and courts dictate to Christians that the cross is a matter of insignificance, it becomes an even more important symbol and expression of our faith.”

Britain’s Equality and Human Rights Commission promotes and enforces non-discrimination laws and will support the women. The New Statesman reports the EHRC feels the...

“ … it was wrong to conclude that because it was not a religious requirement for Christians to wear a cross all the time individual Christians need not feel a personal obligation to do so.”

Despite the looming court case, The Huffington Post U.K. argues The Daily Mail and The Telegraph wrote overly sensational stories about the controversy. That writer says crosses aren’t actually banned from the workplace in the U.K., and the two women were condemned under special circumstances. In the case of nurse Shirley Chaplin...

“The [hospital’s] uniform and dress code prohibits front-line staff from wearing any type of necklace, be that a crucifix or a lucky pixie, in case patients try to grab them. It offered Mrs Chaplin the compromise of wearing her cross pinned inside a uniform lapel or pocket, but she said being asked to hide her faith was ‘disrespectful’.”

The Huffington Post also cites Eweida’s suspension resulted from a company policy that didn’t allow additions to the uniform, and that she still claimed religious discrimination. The court will start looking at the cases again sometime this Spring.

View More
Comments
Newsy
www2