Christians do not have a right openly to wear a crucifix at work, the government is to tell the European Court of Human Rights.
Ministers are set to argue at the Strasbourg court that employers should be able to dismiss workers who insist on wearing a cross….
Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, said the government’s position was another sign that Christianity was becoming sidelined.
Read it all (requires subscription).
And Europe wonders why Americans want nothing to do with being under the thumb of the European Court of Human Rights, when one of our founding principles is religious freedom.
The Telegraph has this story and a vigorous discussion, no subscription needed. If it’s been bumped for the new edition, you can find a link to it under the “most discussed” or “most viewed” list on the homepage.
And I agree with the sentiments expressed at The Telegraph. This may turn into a real blessing in disguise for Christianity in Britain. There have been calls even by atheists for everyone to wear a cross to show solidarity with Christians and in defense of personal rights. Some lukewarm Christians even admitted that this was a wakeup call for them, that the faith they take for granted is under attack.
#1 Archer, I’m afraid that I can’t hold up the American way in this at all. The marriage of religion and politics in this country is oftentimes shameful. Our government should be neutral in this regard — not playing the religious card or using religious groups to get elected/ keep support as in the U.S. AND not interfering with religious belief/practice as we see in this story.
Does the UK prohibit the wearing of hijabs, of Sikh turbans, of Jewish yarmulkes at work? Does it prohibit Hindu women from putting a red mark on their foreheads? Does it regulate how large a Muslim man’s prayer bump on the forehead may be?
We don’t need the European Court of “Human Rights” to eradicate our religious “freedom” – we have the contraception mandate forced down the throats of all employers, regardless of their religious convictions, by the current Administration.
Thomas Jefferson wrote the “separation of church and state” clause in the Bill of Rights simply to prevent the establishment of an American version Church of England. Contrary to the allegations of the ACLU, litigious atheists, and the misinformed beliefs of the general public, his purpose was not to prevent citizens from practicing their own religions. Teatime#2, to the extent that there is any “marriage of religion and politics” in the US, may I politely observe that it is only to defend the true explanation of Jefferson’s purpose, not to force Americans to worship or to believe in a deity or deities in a particular way, or at all. If you have knowledge of a politician who is demanding that Americans worship a deity, and that Americans must do so as Christians, Moslems, or Jews, please inform the readers of this blog. (I am not mentioning other religions in this reference, because I am not aware of any politicians in this country who are members of other religions, although I daresay such exist). The existence of a tablet of the Ten Commandments in a courthouse not a mandate that its occupants become active members of the religions that venerate those strictures, any more than the presentation of a sand mandala at a museum by Tibetan monks or the presence of a maze at an episcopal church constitutes a government-enforced requirement that Americans follow those belief systems.
#4, Sophy, Does any politician or party “demand” overtly that Americans worship/believe? No. But what do you call the religious litmus tests that we have in this country, particularly when it comes to presidential candidates? For instance, if we don’t care about people’s religious beliefs (or lack thereof), then why is each candidate’s religion and faith scrutinized and, if possible, criticized? Why is it even a talking point that Romney is a Mormon? And why did certain sectors get traction by calling Obama a Muslim?
We’ve never had a Jewish president, it will probably be a long time before we’d ever have a Muslim (or even Hindu or Sikkh) presidential candidate. We may have had atheist presidents but they kept their lack of belief hidden. An overt atheist wouldn’t have a chance. Is this because of a law? Of course not. Too bad, because it’s a lot easier to change an actual law than it is to change minds, perceptions of tradition, and habits.
But this is off-topic now and I’ll end it here.
Other than perhaps the Mormons being prohibited from practicing polygamy, and occasional judicial interventions to save children from being denied life-saving medical treatment withheld by believing parents, I really can’t think of any real restraint by government on religious belief in the United States. It is a remarkably free structure when it comes to belief, as the Founders intended it would be.
So, forcing pro-life Christian churches and allied groups to pay for abortifacient drugs isn’t a “real restraint by government on religious belief”? That’s a pretty slippery definition, there.