PDA

View Full Version : "It is lawful to ban crucifixes while allowing other religious symbols"


Felix the Cat
12-07-2005, 01:31 AM
School ban on girl wearing cross 'discriminatory' (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/12/06/njewel06.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/12/06/ixhome.html)

A mother accused her daughter's school of discriminating against Christians yesterday after the teenager was suspended for refusing to take off a crucifix necklace.

Sam Morris, 16, was sent home from Sinfin Community School in Derby for breaking a school policy that bans jewellery.

Last night her mother, Debra, said that Sikh children were allowed to wear a steel bracelet, known as a kara, for religious reasons and said her daughter had every right to express her faith.

Education officials were unrepentant, however, and said that Sikhs are required by religion to wear items of jewellery, whereas Christians are not.

Mrs Morris, 37, said: "Sam has worn this necklace for more than three years. No one has told her to take it off before, and she doesn't want to remove it.

"She thinks it's very unfair when other people are allowed to wear religious symbols. It just ends up creating a divide between the pupils.

"Everyone is being told that they should be living in unity, but this rule is not right. Sam has just as much right to celebrate her own religion."

She said her daughter believed in God but did not regularly attend church.

Miss Morris, who is studying for GCSEs, was told on Thursday by the deputy headmaster to remove the necklace. When she refused, she was sent home for the day and told not to return until she agrees not to wear it.

Mrs Saunders, from Sinfin, said she allowed her daughter back to the 1,070-pupil comprehensive yesterday, minus the crucifix, because she did not want her to miss lessons.

She said: "Sam needs to get her GCSEs so she can go on to college. Although I'm still furious, in the long run her future is more important. But I'm still angry."

She said she will raise the matter with school governors.

Howard Jones, the deputy head who sent Miss Morris home, said the one-day suspension was a "last resort" after a 30-minute conversation failed to persuade her to take it off.

He said: "There was a long period of persuasion with her and she was given time. It was only at the end of that that I reluctantly had to exclude her for a day. I met her mother today and readmitted her daughter."

He said the school policy was "even-handed and fair".

He added: "As a Christian I don't have to wear a crucifix but Sikhs don't have that option and we have to be understanding. We live in a multi-faith society."

Derby city council urged any school imposing such regulations to look carefully at individual circumstances before issuing a total ban.

A spokesman said: "It is lawful to ban crucifixes while allowing other religious symbols, but whether it is desirable is another matter.

"For some people wearing a crucifix could be a deeply religious gesture, which is why personal needs should be taken into account."

Starr
12-07-2005, 04:15 AM
For some people wearing a crucifix could be a deeply religious gesture, which is why personal needs should be taken into account."

"They are not required to wear it" is a stupid arguement. I would think for someone who is super religious, taking something like this off because they live in a society that would require it, would be one step down from denying their faith. Which in their mind, cannot be at all a good thing. So maybe they are not required to wear it, per se, but it could be said they might be required not to take it off or hide it in such a way, also.

Ambrosio Spinola
12-14-2005, 11:31 AM
http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2005/12/anger_over_crucifix_ban.php


A row has broken out after a teenager was banned from wearing a crucifix at a school where Sikhs can carry ceremonial daggers.

Sam Morris, 16, was reportedly sent home from Sinfin Community School, Derby, after she refused to remove a gold cross on a necklace.

She was told wearing a crucifix was not compulsory for Christians, so the necklace breached dress codes.

Other pupils are allowed to wear kirpan daggers and metal bracelets, as they are classed as religious symbols, said the Daily Express.

GCSE student Sam missed two days of study before her mother Debra Saunders, 37, allowed her to return to school without the necklace.

Christian and Conservative MP Ann Widdecombe insisted a crucifix was not costume jewellery.

She said: “To persecute a young girl like this for her religious beliefs, whatever they are, is unacceptable.”

Sam, who had worn the necklace for the past three years, told Sky News the cross was not a “fashion accessory” and she felt “naked without it”.

Sinfin’s deputy head Howard Jones said: “Most of our pupils understand allowing Sikhs to wear a bracelet is a compulsory part of their religion.

“Christianity does not require followers to wear a specific symbols.”

Derby City Council said the ban was lawful but questioned whether it was “desirable”.

Banat
12-14-2005, 01:58 PM
In situations like this, Christian fundamentalism is the only answer. No other.

Jimbo Gomez
12-14-2005, 02:19 PM
I agree, secularism and atheism are useless and counterproductive attitudes in protecting our heritage.

Lenny
12-15-2005, 09:41 PM
Well if you have to appease South Asians, better Seeks than Muslims, am I right folks.


-------
In situations like this, Christian fundamentalism is the only answer. No other.I agree, secularism and atheism are useless and counterproductive attitudes in protecting our heritage.I was explaining this to Lucifer last week but he would not listen :argue:

Jimbo Gomez
12-15-2005, 09:48 PM
Well if you have to appease South Asians, better Seeks than Muslims, am I right folks.


-------
I was explaining this to Lucifer last week but he would not listen :argue:

A real man would do neither. Congrats with your new red box. :D

Vindex
12-15-2005, 09:57 PM
What no crucifix how is she going to protect herself from Count Dracula?:222: