Nelson Jones

Belief, disbelief and beyond belief

Cross purposes

Why the government is opposing the right of two workers to wear crosses at work.

By Nelson Jones Published 12 March 2012 13:08

American usage makes a distinction between "the government" -- the permanent apparatus of the state and those who work for it -- and "the Administration" headed by the President. In Britain, the word "government" is ambiguous. In popular usage it tends to refer to the group of ruling politicians. But it also means the "permanent government", the civil servants, lawyers and other officials who remain in place irrespective of which party happens to be in power.

This can lead to confusion. Yesterday, for example, theSunday Telegraph claimed that "the government" was opposing the case brought before the European Court of Human Rights by two Christians who sought the right to wear a cross or crucifix at work. Indeed, David Barrett's report attributed the decision to "ministers" and produced quotes denouncing "the government" from, among others, the former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey and Andrea Williams, the omnipresent boss of the Christian Legal Centre.

Williams described it "as extraordinary that a Conservative government [sic] should argue that the wearing of a cross is not a generally recognised practice of the Christian faith." The Telegraph went on to contrast the ban with the coalition's support for same-sex marriage, and quoted a remark by Delia Smith as evidence of "growing anger among Christians" over the government's stance. The piece provoked the response the Telegraph must have been hoping for. More than two-and-a-half thousand comments have so far been registered, the vast majority seeing the story as proof of the government's duplicitous or even anti-Christian attitude. A high proportion singled out David Cameron personally for abuse.

Yet it's unlikely that any minister has even seen the document on which the Telegraph based its report, which was a formal submission to the Strasbourg court drawn up by government lawyers. The submission in effect sets out the decision reached by Lord Justice Sedley and his colleagues in 2010 when considering the case of Nadia Eweida, a British Airways check-in clerk who objected to her employers demand that she conceal the cross she wished to wear as a testimony to her Christian faith.

The Court of Appeal concluded that Eweida's wish to wear the cross was a personal choice rather than a religious requirement, and therefore did not attract the protection that the law afforded to religious dress such as Sikh turbans or Muslim headscarves. Her case, and that of Shirley Chaplin, a nurse who was told she could not work on an NHS ward while wearing a crucifix, is formally taken against the government, that is against the British state. Unless the government brings in legislation to explicitly allow Eweida and Chaplin to wear their crosses at work, government lawyers have no choice but to set out the legal position as arrived at by the domestic courts.

This procedural manoeuvre implies nothing about the actual opinions of ministers on the issue. Indeed, given pro-faith comments in recent months by the likes of David Cameron, Sayeeda Warsi and Eric Pickles, it would be amazing if the submission did reflect the views of most members of the government. The Mail is today claiming that Lynne Featherstone, the Equalities Minister, "ordered" government lawyers to oppose the case, but the only evidence it has for this is a quote from a Home Office spokesman setting out the government's understanding of the Equality Act. Even if she was consulted she is more likely to have been acting on official advice rather than pro-actively directing policy.

An irony in all this is that the Equality and Human Rights Commission, a body regularly denounced by the Mail and the Telegraph (as well as in a recent report by Evangelical MPs) for its alleged anti-Christian bias, is supporting Eweida and Chaplin at Strasbourg. In its recent review of the state of human rights in Britain, the EHRC argued that the British courts had interpreted the law too narrowly. In particular 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.

The EHRC notes that while the Strasbourg court has in the past "tended to take the view that a practice amounted to the "manifestation" of a religion or belief only if required by the particular religion" recent cases have taken a different line. For example, a Polish Buddhist was allowed to adhere to a vegetarian diet in prison even though refraining from meat is not an explicit requirement of Buddhism. It stresses that Article 9 of the European Convention protects the beliefs of individuals, not merely of groups. What matters, the report argues, is how the individual interprets her faith. Wearing a cross might not be a requirement imposed on Christians, but they feel a strong personal obligation to do so, and that is what matters.

For what it's worth, I think the EHRC is right about this, and "the government" is wrong. Indeed, when it comes to matters of religious belief the language of group rights is more than usually unhelpful. The core of any religious belief is personal commitment; how that commitment is manifested is secondary and in any case highly variable. This is especially true of Christianity. While some Christians may feel a strong personal need to wear a cross, or not to work on Sunday, or object to same-sex relationships, many others do not. But that fact does not diminish the sincerity with which some believers assert their personal need to do so. And it's in any case dangerous for the law to start adjudicating about belief.

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

Tags: Christianity Religion

More from Nelson Jones

View the discussion thread.

29 comments

Tue, 2012-04-24 00:35 — John Cheese (not verified)

I agree, all in or all out...however, would I have to reattach 4skin?

Mon, 2012-03-12 22:51 — Daniele1

All I can say is that it is lucky indeed that Jesus, or rather his dad decided he would die on a cross and not let's say, drown in a fish pond. Otherwise all these good Christians would be going around with fish bowls around their necks...Just a thought.
Btw, why is it just women who insist in wearing this instrument of torture around their necks? Apart from priests, I have never seen a Christian bloke wearing one. I wonder why that is...Another thought.Which shows these two silly women really didn't have to wear this particular piece of jewellery. Personally, I'd rather wear a snake or something but that's me, an atheist who will sooner or later, go to Hell as all you good Christians keep telling me.

Thu, 2012-03-15 01:51 — Sir Michael (not verified)

Daniele, honey bunch, there is no need to get so angry.

"My comment was meant as a joke, only for atheists, as the deluded ones out there, have no sense of humour when it comes to their (sacred) beliefs."

Ahh. So it was only for the superior people then? Gotcha sweet cheeks. You know that smug arrogance of yours is so adorable.

Mon, 2012-03-12 23:31 — willoyen

@ Daniele Actually Jesus' dad i.e. Dad, did decide that his son should drown in a fish pond. However, the Romans, being in charge, were able to apply their own preferred method of execution. They have tried to keep up their precedence of pope above god ever since.
It's amusing that millions of Chinese and Japanese women wear the crucifix just because they like it.

Tue, 2012-03-13 20:38 — andyg (not verified)

Andrew J Chandler:
"Shirley Chaplin, a nurse who was told she could not work on an NHS ward while wearing a crucifix."
Maybe you should read the article again.
Are you allowed to wear a fish? Or do you draw it secretly in the sand?

Tue, 2012-03-13 20:44 — andyg (not verified)

Daniele:
"All I can say is that it is lucky indeed that Jesus, or rather his dad decided he would die on a cross and not let's say, drown in a fish pond. Otherwise all these good Christians would be going around with fish bowls around their necks...Just a thought."
Sweet heart, it was the Romans that decided, it's what they use to do to people they feared.

Tue, 2012-03-13 20:47 — andyg (not verified)

Willoyen:
The Pope is actually a German shepherd.

Thu, 2012-03-15 11:05 — Andyb (not verified)

Sir Michael

"If someones expression of their religion has no impact on their ability to do their work the law has no business at all telling them what they can and can't do with their crucifixes. That's what a secular society means."

I agree completely. However in at least one of these cases (that of the nurse) didn't the crucifix ban have something to do with health and safety and not public expressions of religious belief?

"State atheism has always been as big a disaster as the very worst theocracies. Let's not try it again."

Then you go and spoil your contribution with this nonsense. What examples of "state atheism" can you come up with from your books on revisionist history? I can't think on any.

Mon, 2012-03-12 14:10 — Freeman2

No problem - if someone insists on wearing a small model of a man dying on a cross at work, I'll refuse as a customer to have anything to do with them. What is it with these BDSM followers insisting we share their tastes?

Thu, 2012-03-15 11:34 — Sir Michael (not verified)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dechristianisation_of_France_during_the_Fre...

Etc.

Tue, 2012-03-13 07:43 — McMac (not verified)

A fish bowl wouldn't be so bad. If it had been 'death by mau mau'...

Mon, 2012-03-12 14:26 — Al (not verified)

Wasn't a major part of both cases that they were wearing necklasses specifically- Indeed, wasn't the BA case settled that she could wear a broach instead? In both cases the issue was never, from the perspective of the employers, about the symbols, it was the simple fact of them having bans on jewellery, especailly necklases. One from a "corporate appearence" point of view, the other from a H&S view (generally a bad idea for front line medical personel to wear things round their necks that can be grabbed).

Mon, 2012-03-12 14:29 — Jerry Taylor (not verified)

Wearing a decorative jewellery item is not considered a Christian duty by the vast majority of Christians so its very different from the vegetarian case as some schools say they believe the Buddha insisted his followers not eat meat.

Mon, 2012-03-12 14:29 — Keir

British Airways check-in clerks wear uniform. Dress that bears any idiosyncratic customisation cannot be uniform. There's no issue.

British Airways back-room staff wear mufti. There's an issue, perhaps.

Christians do not feel a strong personal need to wear a cross. They may wear one in order to witness to their faith. Whether this witness, or whether any other similar 'statement' may apply in a workplace is doubtful. Ordinarily, one is not employed to evangelise, for any religion.

Christians will work on 'Sundays', because all days are the same, to them. It rains, or it doesn't. 'Sun days' are strictly pagan, to them, and a seven-day week is pure happenstance, at best.

Christians do not object on a personal level to same-sex relationships between non-Christians, though as voters they may do. They do not accept those relationships as Christian.

Mon, 2012-03-12 14:31 — Richard (not verified)

As someone who has appeared in civil matters for the crown, I would be quite surprised if the AG or the SG hadn't read and passed it. Submissions to Strasbourg on behalf of HMG do tend to get some attention from the law officers, indeed they often take a surprising interest in things far lower down the courts. But I agree it's unlikely the cabinet has taken any view.

Mon, 2012-03-12 14:42 — Murder most fowl (not verified)

And if a young lady wants to wear a niqab or burka?

And if another young lady feels a strong personal obligation to undergo female circumcision?

Or if I, a Jedi knight, (and there were lots of us in the last census) want to bring my light sabre to work?

No religious symbols in any work.

Mon, 2012-03-12 15:58 — Sir Michael (not verified)

Freeman - "No problem - if someone insists on wearing a small model of a man dying on a cross at work, I'll refuse as a customer to have anything to do with them."

That makes you a bigoted whack job.

If someones expression of their religion has no impact on their ability to do their work the law has no business at all telling them what they can and can't do with their crucifixes. That's what a secular society means.

State atheism has always been as big a disaster as the very worst theocracies. Let's not try it again.

Wed, 2012-03-14 19:29 — jankaas (not verified)

i do think that an employer should be able to dictate what correct uniform means, so if a religious symbol os deemed unsuitable then so be it.

but, for anti-theists to say this is dangerous or offensive is an abuse of the meaning of those words. as a non-theist i do find all this jumping up and down a bit undignified.

and for theists to claim this is victimisation cheapens the value of that very word. i also have a suspicion that the faith of these 'victims' is greatly amplified by this type of attention. and good for them i say!

Mon, 2012-03-12 16:48 — Chris (not verified)

@Keir
"Christians do not feel a strong personal need to wear a cross"
"Christians will work on 'Sundays', because all days are the same..."
"Christians do not object on a personal level to same-sex relationships"
Wow...one is forced to ask - who made you the expert on how millions of Christians think?

Thu, 2012-03-15 14:13 — Daniele1

Sir Michael:
I am glad you recognise my superiority.Of course I can't quite compete with a pompous self important ass like you. Actually, "smug" and "arrogant" are 2 words which would also describe you perfectly.

Tue, 2012-03-13 13:31 — Sir Michael (not verified)

Daniele - "Personally, I'd rather wear a snake or something but that's me, an atheist who will sooner or later, go to Hell as all you good Christians keep telling me."

Yes. Smug self-superior attitudes are so very unbecoming aren't they?

Fri, 2012-03-16 00:15 — jankaas (not verified)

@Sir M
great bit of French history. well worth reading about. proves a great deal.

Mon, 2012-03-12 18:54 — Keir

'who made you the expert on how millions of Christians think?'

Literacy.

Mon, 2012-03-12 19:28 — Andrew J Chandler (not verified)

A message for Freeman. The article was about 'crosses' not crucifixes. You betray your religious illiteracy, something that even Richard Dawkins abhorrs, by not realising that while some Christians wear crucifixes, more wear plain, empty crosses.

A message for the author - many Christians do not object to same-sex relationships, but do object to the idea that churches, against their conscience, can be forced by the UK government to hold 'Gay marriage' services. Have you even asked what Gay Christians think? Delia is right - we are angry, angry about the ignorance so-called 'educated' liberal humanists show towards all matters religious. I'm a Christian Socialist by the way!

Wed, 2012-03-14 12:23 — Alun W

Is society so brittle that the sight of a cross could dash it to pieces? Grow up!

Wed, 2012-03-14 22:22 — Daniele1

@andyg:
stop this patronising crap with me please. stop calling people "sweet heart", it makes you appear like a complete male dick head which, after reading your comment, makes me think you probably are.
Yes the Romans liked to crucify people.They used to crucify hundreds at a time. It was routine executions for them and you didn't need to scare them to get this treatment.Which means there was nothing unique about the crucifixion of that individual called "jesus". There was nothing special about his torture and agony, described to me, when I was a child, as something only him had and could endure.Ordinary human beings still endure vile torture today, in the hands of other human beings.No, nothing special.
My comment was meant as a joke, only for atheists, as the deluded ones out there, have no sense of humour when it comes to their (sacred) beliefs.

Mon, 2012-03-12 19:51 — MartinC (not verified)

I once was in Saudi Arabia/Riyadh doing some consultancy work there. The Hotel I stayed at was the Al Khozama, a lovely place with a fine indoor (and cool) swimming pool.

In the dressing room I was putting back on my silver chain and cross that I wear under my shirt. After a minute or so a Filipino attendant came over and asked me, ever so politely, not to put it on in public. I was apparently observed by a Saudi gentleman that was moved to complain at my public "insult" to his religion.

It seems that fundamentalism exists at both ends of the spectrum, and people of moderate faith get it from daft militant secularists as well as daft religions fundamentalists - who are only defending their perceived rights!

Wed, 2012-03-14 22:35 — Will (not verified)

Nelson Jones looks just like you'd imagine an internet atheist would. Obviously he's paid for his writing and isn't an internet-atheist, but if Viz were to lampoon the modern day angst-ridden internet atheist leaving comments here there and everywhere, I imagine they'd draw him to look like Mr Jones.

Mon, 2012-03-12 22:14 — Lox (not verified)

Well said, Sir Michael. What's the problem with tolerance? Someone wearing a cross isn't evangelising-not unless they actually try to convert you.

Murder most fowl-I've never seen a Christian wearing a cross that covered his or her face, but never mind. If a Muslim woman wants to wear a niqab or burka, fine. That's her business. Not mine, or yours. The rest of your post is puerile. Sorry-all of it is.