# Brits seek to force Christians to live hyphenated lives



## mvdm

Christians being told to leave their faith at home and keep it private:

Christians should 'leave their beliefs at home or get another job' - Telegraph


----------



## sevenzedek

Here comes the persecution. All the more reason to pray Psalms 67:1-2.

1 God be merciful unto us, and bless us;
and cause his face to shine upon us; Selah.
2 That thy way may be known upon earth,
thy saving health among all nations.


----------



## SolaScriptura

Remember, if the R2K folks are right, we just need to keep quiet and let the godless run the government however they see fit.


----------



## Sola Gratia

I find this to be quite sad and fear that it may cross the Atlantic as well. Whether you are a Democrat or not (as in this is not politically based) while watching the convention i heard some scary things including evangelicals being called idiots as well as people asserting that "evangelicals" don't actually read the Bible (the last comment I found to be quite funny).


----------



## OPC'n

China allows Christians to worship but they are not allowed to witness to anyone and they are not allowed to bring young ppl into the church in hopes that the worshipping dies with the age of the older congregation. It sounds like Britain is trying to do the same thing by making them keep their faith "at home"....no witnessing. Our own government is striping our rights by throwing out portions of our Constitution. Our forefathers gave us a Constitution that allowed personal freedom and limited government interference and now we see big government invading every aspect of our lives not just in the area of religion.


----------



## PhilA

I cannot get very worked up about this (and other similar cases). In my opinion this has very little (if anything) to do with faith and is more to do with the wearing of jewellery. The British press loves to whip up a frenzy about these things. 

This is not persecution.


----------



## JennyG

PhilA said:


> I cannot get very worked up about this (and other similar cases). In my opinion this has very little (if anything) to do with faith and is more to do with the wearing of jewellery. The British press loves to whip up a frenzy about these things.


there's a lot in that, but I still think there's an important principle in there that needs upholding. 
Apart from anything else, if the forces of militant humanism and secularism see this pass without a fight, we'll find it was just one more inch, and soon they'll go all out for the ell.


----------



## PhilA

JennyG said:


> PhilA said:
> 
> 
> 
> I cannot get very worked up about this (and other similar cases). In my opinion this has very little (if anything) to do with faith and is more to do with the wearing of jewellery. The British press loves to whip up a frenzy about these things.
> 
> 
> 
> there's a lot in that, but I still think there's an important principle in there that needs upholding.
> Apart from anything else, if the forces of militant humanism and secularism see this pass without a fight, we'll find it was just one more inch, and soon they'll go all out for the ell.
Click to expand...


But what is the point? In the BA case the company did a full u-turn, allowed the wearing of jewellery. This issue is about money. It has been rejected by the highest court in the land. This person appears to want to be "persecuted" and to be paid for her "persecution" as well. This form of militant "Christianity" leaves me very uncomfortable.


----------



## sevenzedek

PhilA said:


> JennyG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PhilA said:
> 
> 
> 
> I cannot get very worked up about this (and other similar cases). In my opinion this has very little (if anything) to do with faith and is more to do with the wearing of jewellery. The British press loves to whip up a frenzy about these things.
> 
> 
> 
> there's a lot in that, but I still think there's an important principle in there that needs upholding.
> Apart from anything else, if the forces of militant humanism and secularism see this pass without a fight, we'll find it was just one more inch, and soon they'll go all out for the ell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But what is the point? In the BA case the company did a full u-turn, allowed the wearing of jewellery. This issue is about money. It has been rejected by the highest court in the land. This person appears to want to be "persecuted" and to be paid for her "persecution" as well. This form of militant "Christianity" leaves me very uncomfortable.
Click to expand...


Perhaps I should read the article for myself. I would have much to say about Christian persecution. I would also have much to say about "this form of militant 'Christianity.'"


----------



## OPC'n

This may not be the highest or the most cruel form of persecution, but it is a form of persecution. If the company had a rule against wearing any type of jewelry to work, then I would agree that it isn't persecution. However, the company obviously doesn't like Christianity, and therefore, doesn't allow its employees to wear anything that signifies Christianity. I would take it to court too if it were happening to me. I don't like when ppl try and take away my rights especially the government, so it has nothing to do with money and everything to do with upholding personal rights.


----------



## mvdm

Phil, perhaps you are correct about the nefarious motive you ascribe to the employees who brought suit. But the point is we do not have to guess as to what the government lawyer is intending, where he makes it plain:

_“There is a difference between the professional sphere where your religious freedoms necessarily abut onto and confront other interests and the private sphere. The employees concerned could indeed pursue all the generally recognised manifestations of their religion outside the work sphere.” _

If wearing a cross is considered "militant Christianity" worthy of government telling us to keep faith privatized, then we are in deeper trouble than I imagined.


----------



## PhilA

OPC'n said:


> This may not be the highest or the most cruel form of persecution, but it is a form of persecution. If the company had a rule against wearing any type of jewelry to work, then I would agree that it isn't persecution. However, the company obviously doesn't like Christianity, and therefore, doesn't allow its employees to wear anything that signifies Christianity. I would take it to court too if it were happening to me. I don't like when ppl try and take away my rights especially the government, so it has nothing to do with money and everything to do with upholding personal rights.



My understanding is that the company did have a policy against wearing jewellery. They private company compromised under pressure to allow a cross as a lapel badge and finally capitulated to accept the wearing of the chain after the state church and government intervened. The individual refused any compromise. I also understand an out of court settlement was refused. The action is to pursue lost earnings while the individual was suspended without pay.


----------



## PhilA

mvdm said:


> Phil, perhaps you are correct about the nefarious motive you ascribe to the employees who brought suit. But the point is we do not have to guess as to what the government lawyer is intending, where he makes it plain:
> 
> _“There is a difference between the professional sphere where your religious freedoms necessarily abut onto and confront other interests and the private sphere. The employees concerned could indeed pursue all the generally recognised manifestations of their religion outside the work sphere.” _
> 
> If wearing a cross is considered "militant Christianity" worthy of government telling us to keep faith privatized, then we are in deeper trouble than I imagined.



Mark

The statement from the "Government lawyer" is what you would expect from a lawyer in any similar case. The Government is defending the rule of law not the specific position. This case has been through the full British legal system and it failed as it had no merit. The individual has appealed to a "higher court" in Europe. It was the Government intervention and that of the state church (quite ironic really) that forced the private company it a full reversal and permitting the wearing of the jewellery. The Government and the state church supported the individual wearing the jewellery.


----------



## ProtestantBankie

I think the Government has a right to outlaw the wearing of crosses if it wishes. I also think private companies and government agencies have a right to restrict it being worn.
Graven images form no part of my faith as a Christian, and I will "Honour all men" and "Honour the king" on this issue.

BUT, there are different cases where genuine discrimination takes place. viz. Christian foster parents being removed due to their views on homosexuality.


----------



## SRoper

Aren't employers are allowed to establish dress codes for their employees? I'm pretty sure the US military has long forbidden the wearing of necklaces.

In any case, wouldn't a truly Christian nation forbid the wearing of crucifixes? Isn't that part of enforcing both tables of the law?


----------



## Peairtach

> I think the Government has a right to outlaw the wearing of crosses if it wishes.



In my humble opinion, I think this would be a very heavy-handed civil enforcement of the Second Commandment even in a fully constituted Christian state.

De minimis non regat lex (the law - civil and criminal - does not take an interest in small matters) is an important legal principle to remind civil government not to become a pedantic but heavy-handed nitpicker.

The fuss over this woman's cross isn't motivated by British Airways zeal for the Second Commandment, but by company policy against jewellery in general, and by secularist anti-Christian zeal towards all varieties of Christianity, getting on the bandwagon.

The secularists would like to put all forms of Christian expression "into the closet" , just as the homosexuals are coming out of the closet.


----------



## sevenzedek

ProtestantBankie said:


> I think the Government has a right to outlaw the wearing of crosses if it wishes. I also think private companies and government agencies have a right to restrict it being worn.
> Graven images form no part of my faith as a Christian, and I will "Honour all men" and "Honour the king" on this issue.
> 
> BUT, there are different cases where genuine discrimination takes place. viz. Christian foster parents being removed due to their views on homosexuality.



It scares me when the government outlaws crosses. However, I concede the right of a private institution to govern the fashion choices of it's employees. After all, the employees are there on the company's terms and not the other way around.


----------



## PhilA

ProtestantBankie said:


> I think the Government has a right to outlaw the wearing of crosses if it wishes. I also think private companies and government agencies have a right to restrict it being worn.
> Graven images form no part of my faith as a Christian, and I will "Honour all men" and "Honour the king" on this issue.
> 
> BUT, there are different cases where genuine discrimination takes place. viz. Christian foster parents being removed due to their views on homosexuality.



I agree wholeheartedly with you.

My frustration is that cases such as the one highlighted in the OP (and other similar cases) distract our attention from the real issues such as the one you highlight.


----------



## PhilA

sevenzedek said:


> ProtestantBankie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the Government has a right to outlaw the wearing of crosses if it wishes. I also think private companies and government agencies have a right to restrict it being worn.
> Graven images form no part of my faith as a Christian, and I will "Honour all men" and "Honour the king" on this issue.
> 
> BUT, there are different cases where genuine discrimination takes place. viz. Christian foster parents being removed due to their views on homosexuality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It scares me when the government outlaws crosses. However, I concede the right of a private institution to govern the fashion choices of it's employees. After all, the employees are there on the company's terms and not the other way around.
Click to expand...


Why should there be one rule for private institutions and another for public (Government)? After all Public employers are usually some of the largest employers. Isn't that discrimination?


----------



## sevenzedek

PhilA said:


> sevenzedek said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ProtestantBankie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the Government has a right to outlaw the wearing of crosses if it wishes. I also think private companies and government agencies have a right to restrict it being worn.
> Graven images form no part of my faith as a Christian, and I will "Honour all men" and "Honour the king" on this issue.
> 
> BUT, there are different cases where genuine discrimination takes place. viz. Christian foster parents being removed due to their views on homosexuality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It scares me when the government outlaws crosses. However, I concede the right of a private institution to govern the fashion choices of it's employees. After all, the employees are there on the company's terms and not the other way around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should there be one rule for private institutions and another for public (Government)? After all Public employers are usually some of the largest employers. Isn't that discrimination?
Click to expand...


Discrimination? Yes. I am discriminating between the right of the government and the right of the people. I would include corporations under the heading of "people." I admit that I haven't thought through the implications of my statement as much as others probably have, but I just think there is a big problem when the government tells me how what I can...

I was born and raised in America. I guess I am culturally conditioned to have certain expectations of my government. Nevertheless, limiting free speech seems to put us all on a slippery slope.

This issue gets more complicated the more I think about it. Heaven will be much more simple. Anyone got an aspirin?


----------



## crimsonleaf

The issue was and is one of the wearing of jewellery. The woman pleaded a special case as a Christian but it was ruled that the cross isn't a necessary accessory for Christian worship. Which of course it isn't. All jewellery is subject to the same rules regardless of faith, unless the wearing of it is essential. It's not religious freedom that's being curtailed, it's the freedom to wear whatever jewellery you want at work.

A Muslim headscarf however, is recognised as part of Islamic worship and is therefore OK. I can see both sides of the argument to be honest.


----------



## PhilA

sevenzedek said:


> PhilA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sevenzedek said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ProtestantBankie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the Government has a right to outlaw the wearing of crosses if it wishes. I also think private companies and government agencies have a right to restrict it being worn.
> Graven images form no part of my faith as a Christian, and I will "Honour all men" and "Honour the king" on this issue.
> 
> BUT, there are different cases where genuine discrimination takes place. viz. Christian foster parents being removed due to their views on homosexuality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It scares me when the government outlaws crosses. However, I concede the right of a private institution to govern the fashion choices of it's employees. After all, the employees are there on the company's terms and not the other way around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should there be one rule for private institutions and another for public (Government)? After all Public employers are usually some of the largest employers. Isn't that discrimination?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Discrimination? Yes. I am discriminating between the right of the government and the right of the people. I would include corporations under the heading of "people." I admit that I haven't thought through the implications of my statement as much as others probably have, but I just think there is a big problem when the government tells me how what I can...
> 
> I was born and raised in America. I guess I am culturally conditioned to have certain expectations of my government. Nevertheless, limiting free speech seems to put us all on a slippery slope.
> 
> This issue gets more complicated the more I think about it. Heaven will be much more simple. Anyone got an aspirin?
Click to expand...


We all have high expectations from our respective Governments and I suspect that we will all be disappointed to some extent or another. I used to work for Government for over 30 years until we fell out big style. 

In this case the government created the law to stop discrimination on religious grounds. The private company (British Airways) enforced a strict dress code on jewellery and the employee objected. She tried to argue that she was being discriminated against on religious grounds by her employer. Unable to reach compromise (again, the company made a complete reversal under pressure from the Government and the Church of England) she must have been dismissed and fought her case as an unfair dismissal case at tribunal which she lost. On the grounds that it wasn't a case of religious discrimination.

She is now taking the Government to court in Europe on the grounds that the various tribunals reached the wrong conclusion. The Government is defending the process and that the correct conclusion was reached in law. 

Pass the Asprin when your done.


----------



## sevenzedek

PhilA said:


> sevenzedek said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PhilA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sevenzedek said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ProtestantBankie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the Government has a right to outlaw the wearing of crosses if it wishes. I also think private companies and government agencies have a right to restrict it being worn.
> Graven images form no part of my faith as a Christian, and I will "Honour all men" and "Honour the king" on this issue.
> 
> BUT, there are different cases where genuine discrimination takes place. viz. Christian foster parents being removed due to their views on homosexuality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It scares me when the government outlaws crosses. However, I concede the right of a private institution to govern the fashion choices of it's employees. After all, the employees are there on the company's terms and not the other way around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should there be one rule for private institutions and another for public (Government)? After all Public employers are usually some of the largest employers. Isn't that discrimination?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Discrimination? Yes. I am discriminating between the right of the government and the right of the people. I would include corporations under the heading of "people." I admit that I haven't thought through the implications of my statement as much as others probably have, but I just think there is a big problem when the government tells me how what I can...
> 
> I was born and raised in America. I guess I am culturally conditioned to have certain expectations of my government. Nevertheless, limiting free speech seems to put us all on a slippery slope.
> 
> This issue gets more complicated the more I think about it. Heaven will be much more simple. Anyone got an aspirin?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We all have high expectations from our respective Governments and I suspect that we will all be disappointed to some extent or another. I used to work for Government for over 30 years until we fell out big style.
> 
> In this case the government created the law to stop discrimination on religious grounds. The private company (British Airways) enforced a strict dress code on jewellery and the employee objected. She tried to argue that she was being discriminated against on religious grounds by her employer. Unable to reach compromise (again, the company made a complete reversal under pressure from the Government and the Church of England) she must have been dismissed and fought her case as an unfair dismissal case at tribunal which she lost. On the grounds that it wasn't a case of religious discrimination.
> 
> She is now taking the Government to court in Europe on the grounds that the various tribunals reached the wrong conclusion. The Government is defending the process and that the correct conclusion was reached in law.
> 
> Pass the Asprin when your done.
Click to expand...


I still haven't made it a priority to read that bless-ed article. But I don't see how the government is wrong—given that your summary of the case is accurate.


----------



## KevinInReno

SolaScriptura said:


> Remember, if the R2K folks are right, we just need to keep quiet and let the godless run the government however they see fit.



Really not an accurate summation of the R2K perspective, but it got you 5 helpful votes.... so what do I know? R2K doesn't argue for being idle within the public sphere. However to yoke a Donkey to live like an Ox is something that isn't profitable to a R2Ker, but to not allow an Ox to be an Ox is something different all together. This will be my only response on R2K in this thread.


----------



## PhilA

sevenzedek said:


> PhilA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sevenzedek said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PhilA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sevenzedek said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ProtestantBankie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the Government has a right to outlaw the wearing of crosses if it wishes. I also think private companies and government agencies have a right to restrict it being worn.
> Graven images form no part of my faith as a Christian, and I will "Honour all men" and "Honour the king" on this issue.
> 
> BUT, there are different cases where genuine discrimination takes place. viz. Christian foster parents being removed due to their views on homosexuality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It scares me when the government outlaws crosses. However, I concede the right of a private institution to govern the fashion choices of it's employees. After all, the employees are there on the company's terms and not the other way around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should there be one rule for private institutions and another for public (Government)? After all Public employers are usually some of the largest employers. Isn't that discrimination?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Discrimination? Yes. I am discriminating between the right of the government and the right of the people. I would include corporations under the heading of "people." I admit that I haven't thought through the implications of my statement as much as others probably have, but I just think there is a big problem when the government tells me how what I can...
> 
> I was born and raised in America. I guess I am culturally conditioned to have certain expectations of my government. Nevertheless, limiting free speech seems to put us all on a slippery slope.
> 
> This issue gets more complicated the more I think about it. Heaven will be much more simple. Anyone got an aspirin?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We all have high expectations from our respective Governments and I suspect that we will all be disappointed to some extent or another. I used to work for Government for over 30 years until we fell out big style.
> 
> In this case the government created the law to stop discrimination on religious grounds. The private company (British Airways) enforced a strict dress code on jewellery and the employee objected. She tried to argue that she was being discriminated against on religious grounds by her employer. Unable to reach compromise (again, the company made a complete reversal under pressure from the Government and the Church of England) she must have been dismissed and fought her case as an unfair dismissal case at tribunal which she lost. On the grounds that it wasn't a case of religious discrimination.
> 
> She is now taking the Government to court in Europe on the grounds that the various tribunals reached the wrong conclusion. The Government is defending the process and that the correct conclusion was reached in law.
> 
> Pass the Asprin when your done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I still haven't made it a priority to read that bless-ed article. But I don't see how the government is wrong—given that your summary of the case is accurate.
Click to expand...


I presume that she is pursuing the British Government on the basis that she feels that they failed to protect her human rights.


----------



## Edward

OPC'n said:


> China allows Christians to worship but they are not allowed to witness to anyone and they are not allowed to bring young ppl into the church in hopes that the worshipping dies with the age of the older congregation.



That's not accurate, based upon first hand accounts that I have heard.


----------



## ProtestantBankie

Edward said:


> OPC'n said:
> 
> 
> 
> China allows Christians to worship but they are not allowed to witness to anyone and they are not allowed to bring young ppl into the church in hopes that the worshipping dies with the age of the older congregation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not accurate, based upon first hand accounts that I have heard.
Click to expand...


China is a massive country of course, and some places are more strict than others. It may well be that it is accurate in places but not accurate in other places.
The best treatment of the Chinese Church I have seen is the work of Tony Lambert "China's Christian Millions". Which points out the difficulties of persecution range from mild to extreme.


----------



## JoannaV

There was more than one case mentioned in the article. They focused on the jewellery one, but further down they mentioned a counsellor who lost his job because he wouldn't give homosexual couples sex advice and a registrar who lost her job because she wouldn't conduct civil partnerships.


----------



## PhilA

JoannaV said:


> There was more than one case mentioned in the article. They focused on the jewellery one, but further down they mentioned a counsellor who lost his job because he wouldn't give homosexual couples sex advice and a registrar who lost her job because she wouldn't conduct civil partnerships.



There are several as you say. If you dig a little deeper then you will find that they are not as straight forward as the press would have you believe.


----------



## OPC'n

ProtestantBankie said:


> I think the Government has a right to outlaw the wearing of crosses if it wishes. I also think private companies and government agencies have a right to restrict it being worn.
> Graven images form no part of my faith as a Christian, and I will "Honour all men" and "Honour the king" on this issue.
> 
> BUT, there are different cases where genuine discrimination takes place. viz. Christian foster parents being removed due to their views on homosexuality.



It isn't the government's right to stick their nose into ppl's personal life. That's called communism. If wearing crosses goes against your conscious, then you shouldn't wear one. However, ppl who want to wear one should be allowed to do so in a free country. I personally wouldn't wear one but that's my right not to wear one. BTW, The use of a cross in church architecture is not explicitly mentioned in the Westminster Standards (Confession of Faith and Catechisms) and some reformed churches have them and some do not. So I doubt that wearing a crucifix would be completely out of line. A government that can take away the rights of other ppl you think should have their rights taken away can turn around and take away your rights also. Is that the type of country in which you want to live? It's not the type of country in which I want to live.


----------



## OPC'n

Edward said:


> OPC'n said:
> 
> 
> 
> China allows Christians to worship but they are not allowed to witness to anyone and they are not allowed to bring young ppl into the church in hopes that the worshipping dies with the age of the older congregation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not accurate, based upon first hand accounts that I have heard.
Click to expand...


I belong to the Voice of Martyrs and I regularly get magazines talking about the persecution of Christians in China and that is what they said.


----------



## jandrusk

You can make me leave my faith at home when you pry it from my cold dead soul. Wait, my soul is going to last forever, so it's never going to happen!


----------



## PhilA

OPC'n said:


> ProtestantBankie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the Government has a right to outlaw the wearing of crosses if it wishes. I also think private companies and government agencies have a right to restrict it being worn.
> Graven images form no part of my faith as a Christian, and I will "Honour all men" and "Honour the king" on this issue.
> 
> BUT, there are different cases where genuine discrimination takes place. viz. Christian foster parents being removed due to their views on homosexuality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't the government's right to stick their nose into ppl's personal life. That's called communism. If wearing crosses goes against your conscious, then you shouldn't wear one. However, ppl who want to wear one should be allowed to do so in a free country. I personally wouldn't wear one but that's my right not to wear one. BTW, The use of a cross in church architecture is not explicitly mentioned in the Westminster Standards (Confession of Faith and Catechisms) and some reformed churches have them and some do not. So I doubt that wearing a crucifix would be completely out of line. A government that can take away the rights of other ppl you think should have their rights taken away can turn around and take away your rights also. Is that the type of country in which you want to live? It's not the type of country in which I want to live.
Click to expand...


Sarah

It wasn't the Government who sought to stop the wearing of the jewellery/Cross. It was the private company (British Airways). They eventually gave way and permitted employees to wear jewellery/crosses under pressure from the Government and the Church of England.


----------



## mvdm

PhilA said:


> OPC'n said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ProtestantBankie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the Government has a right to outlaw the wearing of crosses if it wishes. I also think private companies and government agencies have a right to restrict it being worn.
> Graven images form no part of my faith as a Christian, and I will "Honour all men" and "Honour the king" on this issue.
> 
> BUT, there are different cases where genuine discrimination takes place. viz. Christian foster parents being removed due to their views on homosexuality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't the government's right to stick their nose into ppl's personal life. That's called communism. If wearing crosses goes against your conscious, then you shouldn't wear one. However, ppl who want to wear one should be allowed to do so in a free country. I personally wouldn't wear one but that's my right not to wear one. BTW, The use of a cross in church architecture is not explicitly mentioned in the Westminster Standards (Confession of Faith and Catechisms) and some reformed churches have them and some do not. So I doubt that wearing a crucifix would be completely out of line. A government that can take away the rights of other ppl you think should have their rights taken away can turn around and take away your rights also. Is that the type of country in which you want to live? It's not the type of country in which I want to live.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sarah
> 
> It wasn't the Government who sought to stop the wearing of the jewellery/Cross. It was the private company (British Airways). They eventually gave way and permitted employees to wear jewellery/crosses under pressure from the Government and the Church of England.
Click to expand...


Phil, we understand the private company had the rule. But in this proceeding, was it not the government lawyer making the argument against the complainants, stating they should privatize their faith?


----------



## Miss Marple

I thought Great Britain was officially a Christian nation, that is, it has "established" Christianity in some manner officially.

In which case I'd think expression of Christianity would be particularly protected.

Perhaps those in the know could illuminate me on this.


----------



## Peairtach

Miss Marple said:


> I thought Great Britain was officially a Christian nation, that is, it has "established" Christianity in some manner officially.
> 
> In which case I'd think expression of Christianity would be particularly protected.
> 
> Perhaps those in the know could illuminate me on this.



It's not officially or formally protected by traditional statute or common law because it didn't need protecting for centuries, militant secularism only having got off the ground since the '60s.

Religious freedoms generally may have some protection in domestic equality legislation, and in the adoption of the European Convention of Human Rights into British law.


----------



## PhilA

mvdm said:


> PhilA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OPC'n said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ProtestantBankie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the Government has a right to outlaw the wearing of crosses if it wishes. I also think private companies and government agencies have a right to restrict it being worn.
> Graven images form no part of my faith as a Christian, and I will "Honour all men" and "Honour the king" on this issue.
> 
> BUT, there are different cases where genuine discrimination takes place. viz. Christian foster parents being removed due to their views on homosexuality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't the government's right to stick their nose into ppl's personal life. That's called communism. If wearing crosses goes against your conscious, then you shouldn't wear one. However, ppl who want to wear one should be allowed to do so in a free country. I personally wouldn't wear one but that's my right not to wear one. BTW, The use of a cross in church architecture is not explicitly mentioned in the Westminster Standards (Confession of Faith and Catechisms) and some reformed churches have them and some do not. So I doubt that wearing a crucifix would be completely out of line. A government that can take away the rights of other ppl you think should have their rights taken away can turn around and take away your rights also. Is that the type of country in which you want to live? It's not the type of country in which I want to live.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sarah
> 
> It wasn't the Government who sought to stop the wearing of the jewellery/Cross. It was the private company (British Airways). They eventually gave way and permitted employees to wear jewellery/crosses under pressure from the Government and the Church of England.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Phil, we understand the private company had the rule. But in this proceeding, was it not the government lawyer making the argument against the complainants, stating they should privatize their faith?
Click to expand...


Mark
There are two distinct sections to this issue. The first is the action between the employee and the employer. This was dealt with through the British judicial system to its full extent resulting in the employee losing. My point of interest in the BA case was that the Government and the Church of England intervened on behalf of the employee to support Christianity. Unusual in my opinion as both seem to do their best to undermine as often as possible.
Having lost their individual cases in the UK courts the employees have filed a case in the European Court of Human Rights. They are alleging that the contracting state, in this case the UK, has violated their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights, specifically under section 9 (a right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination).

My understanding from a brief review (I stand to be corrected) is that the employees are arguing that they ought to have the right to force their employer to accept their religious/faith practices and customs. The government is arguing that any reasonable restriction that might be put in place by an employer does not infringe upon the rights of an individual to exercise those rights outside of work. This relates to two of the cases where the individuals wore religious jewellery. The other two cases appear to relate to the rights of an employee to stop an employer from changing their terms and conditions.

The Government’s position (again, if I understand correctly from such a brief review and it is understood that I am not defending their position) is that they are defending their record to ensure an individual’s freedom of thought, conscience and religion and prohibit discrimination. The quote from the lawyer has to be taken in context. My take (again, I stand to be corrected) is that he is saying the workplace is for work, not the advancement of religious/political or cultural views. The British press is infamous for putting their own spin on stories and can rarely be trusted.

My initial thought having briefly reviewed this case is that should the employees win (or find positive comments in the eventual judgment) I can see no reason why other religious groups would fail to take this issue up. I would expect Muslims demanding that employers provide a suitable place to pray during work time to be high on the list.


----------



## mvdm

PhilA said:


> My point of interest in the BA case was that the Government and the Church of England intervened on behalf of the employee to support Christianity.



I don't see this in the article. Could you point to where it is reported that the government sided with the employee?



PhilA said:


> The quote from the lawyer has to be taken in context. My take (again, I stand to be corrected) is that he is saying the workplace is for work, not the advancement of religious/political or cultural views.



Here you and I are reading the story similarly, i.e. that upon some legal basis the government lawyer is arguing that faith should remain private, not publicly expressed in the workplace. It is this argument that I find problematic, which is the original point of this thread. The manner of the expression of the faith, e.g. wearing a cross, etc. is not my point. I recognize this is where folks can get into all sorts of disagreements over what is or is not appropriate.


----------



## PhilA

mvdm said:


> PhilA said:
> 
> 
> 
> My point of interest in the BA case was that the Government and the Church of England intervened on behalf of the employee to support Christianity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see this in the article. Could you point to where it is reported that the government sided with the employee?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PhilA said:
> 
> 
> 
> The quote from the lawyer has to be taken in context. My take (again, I stand to be corrected) is that he is saying the workplace is for work, not the advancement of religious/political or cultural views.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here you and I are reading the story similarly, i.e. that upon some legal basis the government lawyer is arguing that faith should remain private, not publicly expressed in the workplace. It is this argument that I find problematic, which is the original point of this thread. The manner of the expression of the faith, e.g. wearing a cross, etc. is not my point. I recognize this is where folks can get into all sorts of disagreements over what is or is not appropriate.
Click to expand...



I would direct you to the Wikipedia article on Eweida v British Airways PLC where you can find referenced the comments of the British Prime Minister and the Archbishop of Canterbury.

As I have stated previously I generally take what the British printed press states with a pinch of salt. I prefer to get to source documents whenever possible. 

At this time I cannot get hold of the transcript of proceedings at ECHR on 4th September. Again I am not defending Eadie’s comments but I would say that they have to be taken in the context of the case as a whole and not in the context of the journalist’s article. British journalism, especially the printed press, has credibility issues. 

The comments in the press report specifically relate to the visible wearing of the crosses in the work place. I would expect Eadie’s comments to relate specifically to the four cases involved (specifically, two cases related to cross wearing). The complainants allege that “domestic law failed adequately to protect their right to manifest their religion, contrary to Article 9 of the Convention, taken alone or in conjunction with Article 14.” One complainant states “I cannot remove my Crucifix without violating my faith “. 

I have to take his comments to relate specifically to the jewellery/cross cases until I am better enlightened. My brief research suggests that the key issue in respect of the two Jewellery/cross cases is: “In each case, did the restriction on visibly wearing a cross or crucifix at work amount to an interference with the applicant's right to manifest her religion or belief, as protected by Article 9 of the Convention?” Quotes extracted from ECHR docs. 

Eadie is arguing (as I see it) that a restriction on visibly wearing a cross in the workplace does not infringe on their individual right as a whole. Not that it must be in private but that a restriction at the workplace does not interfere with their right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion as protected by the ECHR. 

Sorry if this is a little jumbled. I am multitasking at the rate where it is more accurately described as juggling.


----------



## crixus

I work freelance in the TV and Film production industry and there has been persecution against Christians in my field for as long as I can remember. It's not as up front as what's happening in England. But I have noticed that it's getting more blatant each and every year. I've lost work because of my faith, but it's better than losing my soul.


----------



## csedan

If I may interject a comment here, this sets a precedent. The precedent like the one the French did with the nijabs, and it can and probably will resound for some time to come. Maybe not right away, but how do you split a log? With a small wedge, pound it in, then a bigger wedge, pound it in, do you see my point. It starts small, then gets bigger and bigger, until it falls apart. The enemy of our soul knows in some places, like China, direct severe persecution works, in others, like UK, USA and other nations, subtle persecution starts in the form of cultural change, and thus rights are taken away. Perhaps not quickly, but it begins. We should watch this, very closely. Those of us in USA can remember the big issue of the Ten Commandments on public buildings a few years ago, yes? Well, in Texas several churches have put up huge crosses on private property visible from the expressway, and many are trying to have them removed. Our Lord said stay awake and watch.


----------



## JennyG

In Britain, we're frogs in a slowly-boiled pot...


----------



## mvdm

PhilA said:


> Eadie is arguing (as I see it) that a restriction on visibly wearing a cross in the workplace does not infringe on their individual right as a whole. Not that it must be in private



To the contrary, taking his words at face value, he did argue a general principle that expression of faith not be in the workplace and that it remain private. That principle was then applied to the facts of the case, i.e., wearing a cross as the particular expresssion of faith. Again, the example of cross wearing is not my point, but the general principle being advanced.


----------



## PhilA

mvdm said:


> PhilA said:
> 
> 
> 
> Eadie is arguing (as I see it) that a restriction on visibly wearing a cross in the workplace does not infringe on their individual right as a whole. Not that it must be in private
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To the contrary, taking his words at face value, he did argue a general principle that expression of faith not be in the workplace and that it remain private. That principle was then applied to the facts of the case, i.e., wearing a cross as the particular expresssion of faith. Again, the example of cross wearing is not my point, but the general principle being advanced.
Click to expand...


I don’t think you can separate the cross wearing from the equation. Eadie’s comments were made in specific relation to that issue. As I see it the complainants are arguing that the Government has failed to protect their right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. How have the Government done this? Because they have not forced a private company (BA) and a public institution (the NHS) to allow a person to express their religion as they want when they want. Instead they have supported the employers in applying employer codes of practise. 

I am not a supporter of Government. I was employed by them for over 30 years. I was regularly discriminated against and eventually lost my job which I could argue was discrimination.

I recall many years ago, probably within twelve months of this particular legislation being introduced. I took the step of banning Christmas decorations in the office. This was not received well be a significant number of employees. It was suggested that I was in breach of this particular legislation as they felt their right to religious freedom was being restricted. After all over 70% of the UK population consider themselves to be Christian (oh that they were!). I will leave it to your imagination what the British press headlines would have been had they heard of this story (which they did not). The “Christians”, I had known all of them for some ten years, had probably only ever stepped into church at Christening or Marriage if that. 

The truth of the issue was that Christmas decorations were setting off the alarm system and we were incurring exorbitant out of hours call out fees. In addition, the building, which was not a Crown building, had private landlords who would extract exorbitant fees at the drop of a hat from the Government for “repairs” (where decoration had been damaged by sellotape and blue-tack etc.). Costs which were being met from the public purse (taxation receipts). 

The matter was quickly resolved. I offered to reverse the decision (allowing them their right to freedom of religion) on the basis that those that wanted the decorations met all the additional cost including those already incurred. Needless to say I have never seen decorations come down so quickly. 

Was I right in insisting the decorations be taken down? I think I was. Did I restrict an individual’s freedom of thought, conscience and religion?


----------



## mvdm

PhilA said:


> Was I right in insisting the decorations be taken down? I think I was. Did I restrict an individual’s freedom of thought, conscience and religion?



I would agree with your decision. Did you restrict their right to express their religious/ popish/pagan holiday accoutrouments? Sure you did. And bravo for it!


----------



## PhilA

mvdm said:


> PhilA said:
> 
> 
> 
> Was I right in insisting the decorations be taken down? I think I was. Did I restrict an individual’s freedom of thought, conscience and religion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would agree with your decision. Did you restrict their right to express their religious/ popish/pagan holiday accoutrouments? Sure you did. And bravo for it!
Click to expand...


That is precisely why I have concerns over these four individuals taking this action at the ECHR. If they win, as I see it, then you as employer would not be able to stop anyone celebrating their “faith” or religion as they like and when they like. You will not be able to discriminate between religions. It is not the religion/faith that you find acceptable that would be the problem. It is all the others that have to be admitted as a consequence, the pagans, muslim, orthodox, RC etc. etc.


----------



## mvdm

PhilA said:


> If they win, as I see it, then you as employer would not be able to stop anyone celebrating their “faith” or religion as they like and when they like. You will not be able to discriminate between religions. It is not the religion/faith that you find acceptable that would be the problem. It is all the others that have to be admitted as a consequence, the pagans, muslim, orthodox, RC etc. etc.



So then you agree with the lawyer that the solution is to relegate faith to private expressions out of the public realm?


----------



## PhilA

mvdm said:


> PhilA said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they win, as I see it, then you as employer would not be able to stop anyone celebrating their “faith” or religion as they like and when they like. You will not be able to discriminate between religions. It is not the religion/faith that you find acceptable that would be the problem. It is all the others that have to be admitted as a consequence, the pagans, muslim, orthodox, RC etc. etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So then you agree with the lawyer that the solution is to relegate faith to private expressions out of the public realm?
Click to expand...



With the Christmas decorations there was nothing to stop the individuals (singularly or collectively) putting up decorations at home, in the street or anywhere else they were permitted to do so. Would they be permitted to put their decorations up on your house/property? Why not? Do they not have the right to express their religious freedom when and where they choose? Are you restricting their religious freedom?

As for Eadie’s comments I still do not know the context or have independent confirmation of what was said. I would repeat that I do not take what is put in the British written press as being necessarily accurate or true. I do not feel able to agree or disagree with him on the little information we have. However, looking at the isolated fact I suspect that what he is implying as part of the Government’s defensive is this. The complainant alleges that the UK Government has failed to provide an individual a right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion under ECHR. How has the Government done this? The claimant alleges the domestic UK legislation has failed to protect their right to put up Christmas decorations in the workplace. The Government argues, can the complainant put up their decorations at home? Can they put them on the outside of their home and illuminate the street? If yes, that is they can do this thing in “private”, how can the claimant allege that they cannot do this thing at all? You can substitute “wear cross” for Christmas decorations the principle at issue is the same. I do not believe Eadie is suggesting that "in private" is a solution to the issue. I think he is drawing the conclusion that if religious expression can be done at some time (i.e. "in private" which I believe in context equals not in the workplace as opposed to "in secret") then, under ECHR, it cannot be argued that it is prohibited at all times. Just because it is not at the individuals time or place of choosing does not mean that they do not have a right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion at all. the Human Rights legislation is very complex and has many pitfalls. 

Another issue I would expect to arise at some point is how, under the law, can a Government (who must not discriminate – a requirement under ECHR) differentiate between religious groups who hold opposing views in the same environment. For example, please don’t think I am purposefully trivialising this matter, let us say two Christian groups one sincerely demanding the right to celebrate Christmas in the workplace and the other group sincerely objecting to the practise. Both groups could claim that their right to religious freedom is being infringed under ECHR. Who should the law support? (Understand this is not a Theological argument, nor is an attempt to get an early start to the annual debate/discussion on the PB!)


----------



## J. Dean

SRoper said:


> In any case, wouldn't a truly Christian nation forbid the wearing of crucifixes? Isn't that part of enforcing both tables of the law?


Not all Christians agree with this interpretation. Crucifixes are not found solely in Roman Catholic churches.


----------



## mvdm

As I asked before, let's *assume* I am correct that the government argument was faith should be kept private and not in the workplace, is that the principle you would advocate? It appears that is your position since you won't answer that principled question and perist in raising application scenarios under the converse principle where faith may be expressed in the workplace.


----------



## SRoper

J. Dean said:


> SRoper said:
> 
> 
> 
> In any case, wouldn't a truly Christian nation forbid the wearing of crucifixes? Isn't that part of enforcing both tables of the law?
> 
> 
> 
> Not all Christians agree with this interpretation. Crucifixes are not found solely in Roman Catholic churches.
Click to expand...


"Truly" modifies the word "Christian." Such a nation would have a proper understanding of the second commandment.

Mark, it seems to me that the right of an employee to practice their religion as they see fit runs up against the right of the employer to run his business as he sees fit. The right of the employee to practice his religion must be less fettered in private than in the workplace unless the employer's rights are non-existent.


----------



## Supersillymanable

From a person who lives in England, and the city, I would say this:




JennyG said:


> In Britain, we're frogs in a slowly-boiled pot...



Is what is happening. Whether the government on these specific occasions took genuinely (or subtlety, or not at all) an anti Christian position, that doesn't really matter. Even if they didn't, what did matter was the militant secularists, humanists, new atheists and all the other anti Christian groups of people made themselves and are making themselves clearly heard. They have been given an outlet to voice their opinion and that WILL affect public opinion in the future. People will listen to their arguments and people will adopt and regurgitate the arguments. It has been the same with homosexuality. It will be the same withreligious expression generally, unless God breaks in. 



csedan said:


> Maybe not right away, but how do you split a log? With a small wedge, pound it in, then a bigger wedge, pound it in, do you see my point. It starts small, then gets bigger and bigger, until it falls apart. The enemy of our soul knows in some places, like China, direct severe persecution works, in others, like UK, USA and other nations, subtle persecution starts in the form of cultural change, and thus rights are taken away. Perhaps not quickly, but it begins. We should watch this, very closely. Those of us in USA can remember the big issue of the Ten Commandments on public buildings a few years ago, yes? Well, in Texas several churches have put up huge crosses on private property visible from the expressway, and many are trying to have them removed. Our Lord said stay awake and watch.



As Charles has pointed out. Outright persecution doesn't really work in our cultures. It is a slow subtle grinding away. It starts with small issues such as these, which may or may not be motivated by anti Christian attitudes. Just as the Chief priests and Elders persuaded the crowd to choose Barabbas, so will the small minority of Britain who are militant persuade the masses to choose increasing secularity over Christianity.


----------



## PhilA

mvdm said:


> As I asked before, let's *assume* I am correct that the government argument was faith should be kept private and not in the workplace, is that the principle you would advocate? It appears that is your position since you won't answer that principled question and perist in raising application scenarios under the converse principle where faith may be expressed in the workplace.



Please accept my apologies, I had not realised that you had asked me a question. I have merely sought to clarify what actually happened at Strasbourg and what is suggested in the newspaper article that you identified.

To address your assumption that “the government argument was faith should be kept private and not in the workplace”. I will have to assume what you mean by the use of “faith” and “private”. I will assume that you refer to faith as we would typically use it on the PB with reference to our personal faith and that you use the word private to imply not revealing thoughts or feelings to others with the implication that that this is a forced position not one of choice. 

I would never advocate such a position.

Should the Government apply your assumption I cannot see it being successful. The ambiguity around the use of the words “faith”, “private” and even “workplace” would, in my opinion, render it impossible to implement or defend. I have seen many fine cases lost in “the courts” over the words “private” and “workplace”. I see no reason why the word “faith” would not create similar confusion.


----------



## mvdm

PhilA said:


> To address your assumption that “the government argument was faith should be kept private and not in the workplace”. I will have to assume what you mean by the use of “faith” and “private”. I will assume that you refer to faith as we would typically use it on the PB with reference to our personal faith and that you use the word private to imply not revealing thoughts or feelings to others with the implication that that this is a forced position not one of choice.
> 
> I would never advocate such a position.



Thanks, Phil.


----------



## mvdm

SRoper said:


> Mark, it seems to me that the right of an employee to practice their religion as they see fit runs up against the right of the employer to run his business as he sees fit. The right of the employee to practice his religion must be less fettered in private than in the workplace unless the employer's rights are non-existent.



I agree there can be competing interests, but of course, this competition occurs in the context where faith is not mandatorily relegated out of the workplace altogether. IN other words, let us be wary of the myth of a neutral faith free zone.


----------



## SRoper

Oh, I agree there should be no such thing as a faith-free zone. I understand the cited lawyer to be merely saying that there is a difference between the public and the private, not that the public is a faith-free zone. Maybe I am being too generous.


----------



## BJClark

I wonder, do they also forbid Muslim women from wearing their hajib, while not jewelry it is a symbol of their religious beliefs. I know, I know, they claim not all Christians wear a cross, and it's not a mandate in the Bible..but they are still 'expressing' their faith in the work place.

And these things show more of the discrimination...I wonder if two homosexuals went to a Mosque to be 'joined together' if the Muslims would be sued if they were taken to court for not performing the ceremony.



> The human rights challenge also includes the cases of a Relate therapist sacked for saying he might not be comfortable giving sex counselling to homosexual couples and a Christian registrar who wishes not to conduct civil partnership ceremonies.
> 
> Lillian Ladele, a registrar in Islington, was disciplined after she refused to conduct same-sex civil partnership ceremonies on religious grounds.
> 
> In a similar case, Gary McFarlane, a Bristol marriage counsellor, was sacked because his employer, who was suspicious because of his open Christianity, learned that he had privately expressed his reluctance to give “sex therapy” to homosexual couples.


----------



## mvdm

SRoper said:


> Oh, I agree there should be no such thing as a faith-free zone. I understand the cited lawyer to be merely saying that there is a difference between the public and the private, not that the public is a faith-free zone. Maybe I am being too generous.



I think at the least, his argument (as reported) *suggests* a normative principle of a faith free zone at the workplace. As the report states:

_James Eadie QC, acting for the government, told the European court that the refusal to allow an NHS nurse and a British Airways worker to visibly wear a crucifix at work “did not prevent either of them practicing religion in private”, which would be protected by human rights law. 

He argued that a Christian facing problems at work with religious expression needed to consider their position and that they were not discriminated against if they still have the choice of leaving their job and finding new employment. 

“There are two aspects to this part of the argument. Firstly resigning and moving to another job and secondly there is clear and consistent jurisprudence that the person who asserts religious rights may on occasion have to take account of their position,” he said._ 

Perhaps the escape hatch from seeing this argument as a blanket principle is his use of the phrase "on occasion". What criteria is applied to define such "occasions" is not stated in the report. The concern is that given the rapid decline of Christian influence on culture, coupled with concession by some in the church that the Christian faith should not seek to shape culture, I suspect that the "privatizing of faith" will become the norm rather than an "occasional" exception.


----------



## BJClark

csedan said:


> If I may interject a comment here, this sets a precedent. The precedent like the one the French did with the nijabs, and it can and probably will resound for some time to come. Maybe not right away, but how do you split a log? With a small wedge, pound it in, then a bigger wedge, pound it in, do you see my point. It starts small, then gets bigger and bigger, until it falls apart. The enemy of our soul knows in some places, like China, direct severe persecution works, in others, like UK, USA and other nations, subtle persecution starts in the form of cultural change, and thus rights are taken away. Perhaps not quickly, but it begins. We should watch this, very closely. Those of us in USA can remember the big issue of the Ten Commandments on public buildings a few years ago, yes? Well, in Texas several churches have put up huge crosses on private property visible from the expressway, and many are trying to have them removed. Our Lord said stay awake and watch.




Georgia has placed the Ten Commandments back in their Courts and State Houses, they hang along side other historical documents such as the Magna Carta.



> James Eadie QC, acting for the government, told the European court that the refusal to allow an NHS nurse and a British Airways worker to visibly wear a crucifix at work “did not prevent either of them practicing religion in private”, which would be protected by human rights law.



This is an interesting debate.."they are free to practice their religion in private' --basically in the privacy of their own home, thus, lets look to the logical conclusion of this..Private would not mean a gathering of the Saints together in a building to worship together--that is considered 'public' worship, so we must ask at which point in the near future will this begin to take effect? No worshipping in public places at all as it has in many other countries around the globe.


----------



## PhilA

mvdm said:


> SRoper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I agree there should be no such thing as a faith-free zone. I understand the cited lawyer to be merely saying that there is a difference between the public and the private, not that the public is a faith-free zone. Maybe I am being too generous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think at the least, his argument (as reported) *suggests* a normative principle of a faith free zone at the workplace. As the report states:
> 
> _James Eadie QC, acting for the government, told the European court that the refusal to allow an NHS nurse and a British Airways worker to visibly wear a crucifix at work “did not prevent either of them practicing religion in private”, which would be protected by human rights law.
> 
> He argued that a Christian facing problems at work with religious expression needed to consider their position and that they were not discriminated against if they still have the choice of leaving their job and finding new employment.
> 
> “There are two aspects to this part of the argument. Firstly resigning and moving to another job and secondly there is clear and consistent jurisprudence that the person who asserts religious rights may on occasion have to take account of their position,” he said._
> 
> Perhaps the escape hatch from seeing this argument as a blanket principle is his use of the phrase "on occasion". What criteria is applied to define such "occasions" is not stated in the report. The concern is that given the rapid decline of Christian influence on culture, coupled with concession by some in the church that the Christian faith should not seek to shape culture, I suspect that the "privatizing of faith" will become the norm rather than an "occasional" exception.
Click to expand...



I still think it worth repeating that we do not have Eadie’s comments in context. I am still seeking the transcripts.

I think it is also worth re-stating that Eadie is not putting forward an argument to change the law. Eadie is arguing to maintain the status quo (as it has been for the last eight or nine years). It is the complainants that are seeking a change to the law.


----------



## PhilA

BJClark said:


> I wonder, do they also forbid Muslim women from wearing their hajib, while not jewelry it is a symbol of their religious beliefs. I know, I know, they claim not all Christians wear a cross, and it's not a mandate in the Bible..but they are still 'expressing' their faith in the work place.
> 
> And these things show more of the discrimination...I wonder if two homosexuals went to a Mosque to be 'joined together' if the Muslims would be sued if they were taken to court for not performing the ceremony.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The human rights challenge also includes the cases of a Relate therapist sacked for saying he might not be comfortable giving sex counselling to homosexual couples and a Christian registrar who wishes not to conduct civil partnership ceremonies.
> 
> Lillian Ladele, a registrar in Islington, was disciplined after she refused to conduct same-sex civil partnership ceremonies on religious grounds.
> 
> In a similar case, Gary McFarlane, a Bristol marriage counsellor, was sacked because his employer, who was suspicious because of his open Christianity, learned that he had privately expressed his reluctance to give “sex therapy” to homosexual couples.
Click to expand...


There was a case brought by a muslim schoolgirl who wanted to wear a particular type of religious clothing and the school would not accommodate her. She claimed her right to religious freedom was being denied. She lost because it was recognised that she could readily attend another school which would accommodate her dress/beliefs. 

I am not defending muslims or the law. I am just providing an answer to the point you raise. I believe this case was sited in the recent ECHR case.


----------



## Miss Marple

Bobbie, not all Muslims wear a hijab, either. There are plenty, I'd venture to guess hundreds of thousands, of Muslim women who don't.

So I don't think Muslims should be allowed to wear a hijab on the job if Christian women can't wear a cross necklace.


----------



## PhilA

> James Eadie QC, acting for the government, told the European court that the refusal to allow an NHS nurse and a British Airways worker to visibly wear a crucifix at work “did not prevent either of them practicing religion in private”, which would be protected by human rights law.



This is an interesting debate.."they are free to practice their religion in private' --basically in the privacy of their own home, thus, lets look to the logical conclusion of this..Private would not mean a gathering of the Saints together in a building to worship together--that is considered 'public' worship, so we must ask at which point in the near future will this begin to take effect? No worshipping in public places at all as it has in many other countries around the globe.[/QUOTE]

I have not yet been able to verify the context of what was said or indeed if the quotes made by the journalist were made by Eadie. From what I have seen so far he appears to be arguing from case law and and the word "private" is used as a contrast to worrk-place. I repeat again, Eadie is not arguing for a change he is arguing to maintain the position for the last few years.


----------



## PhilA

I still cannot find a transcript of proceedings at the ECrtHR on 4th September. However I have found video coverage of the proceedings. I have been through Eadie’s submission on behalf of the UK Government 3 or 4 times. I am struggling to find the quotes that have been attributed to him by the press. Call me old fashioned but when I see quotation marks used as they were in the press article, I expect to find the exact statements from the individual concerned. I can find some of the key phrases and words used. Some of these appear to be either specific references to previous ECrtHR cases or in some instances Eadie is himself quoting verbatim from past cases.

The video can easily be found on the ECHR website and you can select which part of proceedings you want to watch, It is only approx. 43 mins long but it is not easy to follow. Eadie is having to condense his whole submission into a precise time slot (I think 45 mins) set by the Chamber, and he is siting substantial amounts of case law. 

If you do watch and you do find the exact quotations please let me know. It would not be the first time I have missed the obvious.


----------



## PhilA

Miss Marple said:


> So I don't think Muslims should be allowed to wear a hijab on the job if Christian women can't wear a cross necklace.



I agree with you wholeheartedly on this point. Would you accept the principle in reverse? That is if Christian women can wear a cross necklace should Muslim women be allowed to wear the hijab?

Interestingly I have found that Turkey, a Muslim country, has banned the hijab in public schools, universities or government buildings. I think the same goes for Tunisia.


----------



## mvdm

PhilA said:


> I still cannot find a transcript of proceedings at the ECrtHR on 4th September. However I have found video coverage of the proceedings. I have been through Eadie’s submission on behalf of the UK Government 3 or 4 times.



I poked around the ECHR site and could not find any transcript either. You mention you found video coverage. Could you provide me a direct link to where you found that so I could watch it? Thanks.


----------



## PhilA

The direct link is below.

ECHR - Webcasts of hearings


----------



## Miss Marple

Phil, I think it should be one way or another.

As long as safety rules are enforced.

Not "niqab ok, cross necklace banned."


----------



## JohnGill

PhilA said:


> I cannot get very worked up about this (and other similar cases). In my opinion this has very little (if anything) to do with faith and is more to do with the wearing of jewellery. The British press loves to whip up a frenzy about these things.
> 
> This is not persecution.



Further down in the article it covers Christians being fired for not wanting to perform same-sex marriages because of their faith and a man being fired for comments he made about his faith while not at work. It's not just the jewelry issue. 

From the article:



> In a similar case, Gary McFarlane, a Bristol marriage counsellor, was sacked because his employer, who was suspicious because of his open Christianity, learned that he had privately expressed his reluctance to give “sex therapy” to homosexual couples.


----------



## PhilA

JohnGill said:


> PhilA said:
> 
> 
> 
> I cannot get very worked up about this (and other similar cases). In my opinion this has very little (if anything) to do with faith and is more to do with the wearing of jewellery. The British press loves to whip up a frenzy about these things.
> 
> This is not persecution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Further down in the article it covers Christians being fired for not wanting to perform same-sex marriages because of their faith and a man being fired for comments he made about his faith while not at work. It's not just the jewelry issue.
> 
> From the article:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a similar case, Gary McFarlane, a Bristol marriage counsellor, was sacked because his employer, who was suspicious because of his open Christianity, learned that he had privately expressed his reluctance to give “sex therapy” to homosexual couples.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


My comment “(and other similar cases)” was meant to convey the fact that there were four similar cases heard together at Strasbourg on 4th September. My apologies if I did not make that clear. 

Nadia Eweida and Shirley Chaplin relate to the employees breaching their employers’ code of practise on jewellery (Eweida) and health and safety (Chaplin). Lillian Ladele and Gary McFarlane relate to employees failing to meet the requirements of their employers’ anti-discrimination policies.

There are many employments that I do not think I could do as a Christian. I would not work for example in a bar/club/casino or a job that requires me to work on a Sunday e.g. most retail outlets (I am not referring to emergency workers etc.). I don’t think I would work as a Registrar as the huge numbers of divorcees getting re-married would cause me difficulty. I don’t think I would work as a relationship/sex therapist giving counselling to the unmarried.

My personal view is that I have a great deal of sympathy in the Ladele case. From the detail of the case that I have seen I think that if she had taken action against her employer for harassment/bullying she would have won.


----------



## ZackF

PhilA said:


> mvdm said:
> 
> 
> 
> Phil, perhaps you are correct about the nefarious motive you ascribe to the employees who brought suit. But the point is we do not have to guess as to what the government lawyer is intending, where he makes it plain:
> 
> _“There is a difference between the professional sphere where your religious freedoms necessarily abut onto and confront other interests and the private sphere. The employees concerned could indeed pursue all the generally recognised manifestations of their religion outside the work sphere.” _
> 
> If wearing a cross is considered "militant Christianity" worthy of government telling us to keep faith privatized, then we are in deeper trouble than I imagined.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mark
> 
> The statement from the "Government lawyer" is what you would expect from a lawyer in any similar case. The Government is defending the rule of law not the specific position. This case has been through the full British legal system and it failed as it had no merit. The individual has appealed to a "higher court" in Europe. It was the Government intervention and that of the state church (quite ironic really) that forced the private company it a full reversal and permitting the wearing of the jewellery. The Government and the state church supported the individual wearing the jewellery.
Click to expand...


I think we might agree. Some people have a persecution complex. Just be a man about it. I see it as a dress code issue and ultimately a private property matter. If the appropriate company agent wants to require crosses it is within his domain. The opposite is permissible too. If my boss wanted me to wear a burka or miniskirt to work or go in my birthday suit, I would just go work elsewhere.


----------

