Wearing a crucifix at work not a right

Two months ago, presumably under pressure, he said Christians should be allowed to display the symbol of their belief. He pledged to protect religious freedoms. But it has emerged that European Union judges were told last month to ignore an appeal by four devout British Christians who were barred from showing their faith in the workplace.

A government lawyer, James Eadie, QC, stunned the four when he said if they did not like the ban, they could always “resign and move to another job”. He argued that wearing a cross was not a Christian “scriptural requirement”, so employers had no obligation to recognise it. He said if they were not allowed to visibly wear a cross at work, this did not prevent them from practising their religion in private. He added that a Christian affected by such a ban is not discriminated against if the choice of resigning and moving to another job is not blocked.

Mr Eadie was at the time addressing the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, where the four took their battle against religious discrimination. Two of them, one an airline worker and the other a nurse, clashed with their bosses after refusing to remove their necklaces which each had a crucifix as a pendant. The other two, a man and a woman, also felt they had suffered discrimination. The man, a relationship counsellor, was sacked after raising objections to giving sex advice to gay couples. The woman, a registrar, was disciplined for refusing to conduct same-sex civil partnership ceremonies. All four took their cases to Strasbourg because they felt they did not get justice in the British courts.

The airline worker and the nurse argued that their employers’ bans on crosses breached the European Convention on Human Rights because their Muslim, Sikh and Jewish colleagues were allowed to wear religious symbols such as headscarves, turbans and skull caps. The other two asked Strasbourg to overturn a Court of Appeal ruling that they had not been discriminated against.

The Archbishop of Cant-

erbury, Dr Rowan Williams, who retires at the end of the year, commented on several aspects of the story. He said he tended to think that religious faith was something that should be carried in the heart rather than worn on the head, arm or neck, but he could understand the difficulty of the airline employee. He added that all around her, other employees were allowed to signify their religious affiliation by means of a Muslim headscarf, Sikh turban or Jewish skullcap on the grounds that such clothing was mandatory in their religion and could not be concealed. Only the woman with the crucifix caused the airline’s managers problems.

Dr Williams continued, “Now, wearing the cross is clearly not a requirement of the Christian faith but a manifestation of it. None the less, I have some trouble with the requirement of the faith argument which implies that only religions that are publicly bossy enough with their followers about clothes will be granted freedom of expression at work.

“Yet, there are Muslim scholars, for example, who argue very convincingly that the Koran does not require women to cover their heads, but merely to dress modestly. And many Muslim women do not wear the hijab. The lines between requirement, manifestation and choice are often rather blurred.”

The former Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Carey, had an angry response to the whole issue. He accused ministers and the courts of dictating to Christians and said it was another example of Christianity becoming sidelined in official life.

He added, “Their reasoning is based on a wholly inappropriate judgement of matters of theology and worship about which they can claim no expertise. The irony is that 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 faith.”

Earlier, the government’s plans to legalise same-sex marriages were attacked by leaders of the Roman Catholic Church in Britain.

The hearing in Strasbourg of the appeals by the four was adjourned, with the court reserving judgement to a date to be set.