Tuesday, April 06, 2010

Nurse loses crucifix appeal

She may well look downcast.

Even the boundless barrister and arch-defender of Christian liberties Paul Diamond could not prevail against the 'anti-Christian' onslaught.

Nurse Shirley Chaplin has lost her Tribunal case against the Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Trust Hospital, who had moved her to a desk job after she refused to remove the crucifix she had worn for 30 years.

She has argued that her necklace was an 'exceptionally important expression of her faith' and belief in Jesus Christ. In her statement to the Tribunal, she said: "To deliberately remove or hide my crucifix or to treat it disrespectfully would violate my faith." Mr Diamond argued that she was being denied the free expression of her religious beliefs.

The trust rejected her claim, saying the decision was motivated by 'Health & Safety' concerns about patients grabbing necklaces.

The fact remains, however, that never in 30 years has her cross caused injury either to her or to anyone else, and no patient has ever complained about her wearing it.

But the Tribunal ruled that the Trust had acted in a 'reasonable' manner in trying to reach a compromise, and the chairman added that the damage to her was 'slight', pointedly remarking that 'wearing a crucifix is not a requirement of the Christian faith'.

It is good that this tribunal is so theologically aware, at least in regard to Christian orthodoxy.

Mrs Chaplin's case was highlighted by the Archbishop of Canterbury in his Easter sermon last weekend, in which he referred to 'wooden-headed bureaucratic silliness' which has seen some Christians stopped from wearing religious symbols at work.

But Cranmer is in complete agreement with the Tribunal chairman: the wearing of a crucifix is not a requirement of the Christian faith.

But neither is the wearing of a hijab a requirement of the Muslim faith.

There are many different interpretations of what quranic 'modesty' requires.

And neither is the wearing of a kara a requirement of the Sikh faith.

There is no decalogue: there are many different interpretations of the Khalsa requirements.

But time and again Muslims and Sikhs win such cases of 'religious discrimination' in tribunals up and down the land. Their garments and symbols of religion are considered such important expressions of their religious adherence that deliberately to remove or hide them does indeed, in law, 'violate' their faith.

But Christians may not possess such a sense of violation.

Even the Trust's 'Health & Safety' regulations are disciminatory: if a patient may grab a chain and cause injury, equally may they grab a kara. If a crucifix might harbour bacterial infection, how much moreso might the folds of a hijab or turban?

When politicians wake up to the fact that the symbols of all religions are simply cultural expressions of adherence, and that no religion stipulates on tablets of stone that items must be worn prominently to signify either personal adherence or religio-cultural supremacy, then employment tribunals might bother to educate themselves on the politico-religiosity of hijabs, karas, turbans, burkhas, kirpans, kippas, jilbabs and sacred threads.

And then the Christians would not feel that it is simply their symbols which are not tolerated in this increasingly secular-except-for-foreign-gods context.

'Wooden-headed bureaucratic silliness' indeed.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Although only nominally a Christian, I started wearing a cross on a chain some months ago. Time to start fighting back in my opinion.

6 April 2010 at 17:49  
Anonymous Old Grumpy said...

YG - So we can now look forward to Sikhs being told to take their turbans off when riding motorbikes, the same as the rest of us?

I doubt it, somehow. It's only Christians who have their religion trumped by secular law in Brown's Britain. Mussies, Sikh's, etc may ride (sic) roughshod over secular law and get away with it, plus compensation for hurt feelings, of course

6 April 2010 at 17:56  
Anonymous Stuart said...

This was the right decision.

This is primarily an issue of health and safety in the medical environment, connected with manual handling and infection control.

She was only asked to remove or conceal the necklace for her and her patients sakes.

Is that so bad?

This was a comment from the health trust:

“Sadly, it appears that Mrs Chaplin may have been deflected from agreeing a sensible and pragmatic resolution of this dispute by the involvement of other parties outside the trust.”

Who were these outside parties?

It was a certain Christian legal organisation who thrive on such legal cases?

They thrive on stirring up a “persecution complex” among Christians. They attempt to elicit a rather pathetic victim mentality.

This is yet another "persecution legal case" which has brought derision & contempt on our community.

The Christian community has not lost another legal case over religious freedoms, but has lost in terms of credibility.


6 April 2010 at 17:59  
Anonymous treforus said...

Never forget that the members of the Tribunal were selected by the "Ministry of Justice",a new Department with sinister Soviet-era overtones,brought in by newlab to replace the centuries' old and Christian grounded Lord Chancellor's Department and headed by the Gromyko of our politics,Jack Straw,a marxist atheist.

6 April 2010 at 18:02  
Anonymous len said...

While not wishing to minimise the nurses problems Christians are being killed for their belief worldwide ; According to the World Evangelical Alliance, over 200 million Christians in at least 60 countries are denied fundamental human rights solely because of their faith. David B. Barrett, Todd M. Johnson, and Peter F. Crossing in their 2009 report in the International Bulletin of Missionary Research (Vol. 33, No. 1: 32) estimate that approximately 176,000 Christians will have been martyred from mid-2008 to mid-2009. This, according to the authors, compares to 160,000 martyrs in mid-2000 and 34,400 at the beginning of the 20th century. If current trends continue, Barrett, Johnson and Crossing estimate that by 2025, an average of 210,000 Christians will be martyred annually beliefs worldwide.

6 April 2010 at 18:44  
Anonymous Stuart said...

@len. Now that's real perscution.

If we consider Christians in the UK to suffer "persecution", they we will have to find another word to describe the terrible plight of our brothers and sisters dwelling in Islamic lands....

6 April 2010 at 19:07  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

Compare this case to the legalisation of abortion. Originally it was only to be used in 'extreme' cases, and yet it's taken but 40 years to get abortion on demand.

We will (hopefully) never again be killed for our faith in this country, but we will be mocked and derided and pushed to the extremes of society alongside the insane and the debauched and we will be compared to them as the same. The forces in this country are far more dangerous than the forces of Islam. Muslims can break our bodies, but the Secularist aims for the spirit, which is far more precious.

We should mourn the martyrs of our age and seek to prevent any more being made, but we should also be heartened that they are in a far better place. Those whose faith is destroyed by our society may not have such comfort in death.

6 April 2010 at 19:25  
Anonymous no nonny said...

Tribunal, then; not a trial by jury. And presumption of guilt for the 'defendant,' I expect?

Fascinating, too, that those so-called judges are suddenly so interested in standards of hygiene in hospitals!! Last time I ventured into an NHS institution the (foreign) doctors told me my aunt had contracted one of the unavoidable infections which infest their wards, and that they had decided to withhold antibiotics. At that stage, they assured me, it was too late to reverse the illness, whatever she or I wanted.

During the final days, as I sat by her side, a "cleaner" (from somewhere east of the subcontinent) stirred up clouds of dust with a besom - the contamination settled back on everything in and around us; including our lungs. I was very ill myself, after my aunt died.


To be consistent, with this ruling, I suppose we'll soon all have to turn in our filth-infested jewellery at the hospital door? Not only necklaces, but rings, bracelets, watches, earrings, brooches, belts and buckles; and er, what about name tags and professional badges - to say nothing of the nose and lip rings so fashionable today. I see wonderful ways for the NHS to profit from this...

btw. If an indigenous patient is inclined to attack "care-givers," a piece of jewellery - especially the traditional symbol of all-encompassing Love and Redemption - is unlikely to have "incited the hatred." Unless, that is, the people have bought into the propaganda against it.

At least thirty years ago, someone (who'd never met me) went for my throat and started pulling my hair the minute I entered a ward; she was presumably just waiting to attack anyone who happened by. I wore no cross.

6 April 2010 at 19:25  
Blogger Dominic Mary said...


of course what Christians in the UK suffer isn't 'persecution' in the sense that our brothers and sisters worldwide suffer it : but the fact remains that in an allegedly Christian country there is now more than enough evidence of outright discrimination against Christians - discrimination which, as Cranmer quite rightly points out, would never be tolerated if it was against Muslims or Sikhs.

And yes, it was very bad that the Health Trust refused to accept that (a) they can be wrong, and (b) that they ARE wrong when they discriminate against someone Christian when they won't enforce the same position against their staff of other faiths.

'Health & Safety' and 'Political Correctness' are now becoming the new religions - ones in resepct of which my Catholicism actively yearns for a return to the fires of the Inquisition. The time has come for ALL Christians to condemn these pernicious heresies for what they are - the devil's way of making 'secularism' do his job for him .

6 April 2010 at 19:33  
Anonymous Old Grumpy said...

@Stuart 17.29

Fair enough, my friend....so is this ruling now to apply to burkhas, turbans, and similar non-essential manifestations of religious beliefs?

Of course not.

Does health and safety suddenly trump human rights. Well, that would be a first, now wouldn't it?

The difference being that the state knows it can push Christians around, but is scared witless of Islam. (and others) (There is a moral here somewhere, of course)

Please do feel free to tell me why you feel that the above isn't the case, and that all the canon of case law built up in this area is my imagination...and that I'm simply the victim of a persecution complex.

6 April 2010 at 19:41  
Anonymous Stuart said...

@Dominic Mary + @Old Grumpy

I have much potentially to say in response to your questions, however, for the sake of avoiding tedium, I will instead ask a question of you.

If your claims of persecution are indeed right and correct, and this is being suffered as a direct result of bearing the name of Jesus, then what response would Jesus advocate in these situations?

Would it be to bitch and moan and run to the courts of this world?

I suggest not.

6 April 2010 at 19:54  
Blogger Jared Gaites said...


Jesus might say that we should pray for them, and that we do not need bits of metal dangling from our necks. But at the end of the day we are all sinners and fall short of the Glory. If this woman feels that a cross helps her over herself then why not? Unless there is an agenda of course.

The important question you have ignored is why are other faiths allowed such things? Maybe it is a Christian weakness, but there are far more terrible sins than having a metal cross dangling from your neck, and it has been suggested that if your right eye offend thee then pluck it out, but surely if you could overcome such drastic action by wearing a tiny cross as a strength for your faith, then what is this to anyone?

6 April 2010 at 20:13  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

No, he would suggest an intelligent and non-violent protest/non-compliance. He wouldn't, as many non-Christians espouse, condone acquiescing to injustice.

Turn the other cheek; because then the attacker has to strike you with his palm or left hand, making you equals or making him unclean respectively

Run 2 miles; because the Romans are not allowed to use you as a courier for more than 1 mile and the one who gave the order will be punished.

Give up your cloak as well; because the owner of your debt is not allowed to take it by law.

6 April 2010 at 20:15  
Blogger Jared Gaites said...

To be perfectly honest, I think the crux of the matter is that Christians feel that they are having to hide themselves away because they are offencive to the newcomers. Christians must shut themselves up and be not seen or even heard so as to avoid giving offence to the sensibilities of those who have freshly landed from the backward lands of the East.


6 April 2010 at 20:27  
Anonymous len said...

Lakerster 91,
While I am in fully accord with what you are saying, we are not living in a Christian county,each Christian is an outpost of the faith as I see it.We are to be salt and light in a darkening world, the enemy comes in various forms to suppress and stifle the Christian voice but he will not succeed.
Jesus told us to expect persecution because we bear witness to Him.
It will be vital in these end times that Christians operate in the power of the Holy Spirit because
He has regenerated us and we have overcome the world. 1 John 5:4-5 "For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith. Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God".

Jesus Christ is in us and we are in him and we have overcome. 1 John 4:4 Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

6 April 2010 at 20:28  
Anonymous Stuart said...

I'll be honest with you, I expected no different responses to the ones above.

I particularly like the "Well if they don't have to it, then why should we?" I'm referring to other beliefs here. How do burkhas, turbans etc impact on health and safety in the medical environment, does anybody even know?

This woman was simply asked to remove or conceal her necklace for the sake of her patients, but that's way too much for most Christians today.

Manual handling and infection control knowledge and understanding have moved a considerable way forward in the last 30 years, and protruding necklaces constitute a hazard in the medical environment today. Period.

If you can't do it for yourself, then do it for your patients sake and show the Gospel for real.

This health trust even went as far as to offer her an office based job.

She could even have had cross ear-studs to demonstrate her religion.

She was not asked to deny her faith, there were others ways of compromse, and this would have stopped all Christians being tarred with the same fundamentalist dominionism brush.

Oh, but none of this is good enough for us today.

No we have to fight and convince that this is indeed a restriction on our so called "rights".

So legal groups, who depend on these types of cases, refuse to budge even one iota and proceed to the courts.


As the representatives of Christ on earth, how does this all reflect on Him, especially given how He actually lived and taught on Earth.

Perhaps fine for you, but not for me any longer, oh and yes I was a fundie supporter of all things CCFON.

We are called to rejoice and hold our heads up high with dignity if we are counted worthy to suffer for His sake.

When did Jesus fight for His "rights" on the way to the cross?

6 April 2010 at 20:43  
Anonymous philip walling said...

According to the Telegraph today nearly a third of the public sector pensions go to people who were employed by the NHS and nearly 40% to those who were employed by local government.
Every year £10 billion of those pensions is unfunded: that means it is paid out of general taxation.
This whole damned state edifice is paid for by people who do useful and enterprising things (yes, bankers and industrialists) - not the public sector whose purpose has become to provide salaries and pensions for its employees and only if there's anything left over do they apply it to what they're supposed to be there for in the first place.
I feel deeply angry that half of my income goes to pay for a system that is designed to repress me. Who the hell do these people who sit on employment tribunals and work for the NHS think pays their grossly inflated wages? They are taking the piss!
If we refused to pay our taxes the whole corrupt system would collapse.
How far are we from that?
If people don't rebel soon we're done for.

6 April 2010 at 20:48  
Blogger Jared Gaites said...


When did Jesus fight for His "rights" on the way to the cross?

You need to take a deep breath and begin afresh. You are falling over something here that could quite easily be removed from your path. I am weak in faith, but you are in a pit of faulty logic here.

6 April 2010 at 20:50  
Anonymous Stuart said...

@Jared, Don't worry I understand what you are saying.

Well I'm going duck out and leave you with the good news that the fight will go on:


So there's still hope for you all to triumph over this wicked, terrible injustice and adversity.

6 April 2010 at 21:02  
Blogger Jared Gaites said...


Cheer up man

Sign the Westminster2010 Declaration

We the undersigned are Christians who believe that protecting human life, protecting marriage, and protecting freedom of conscience are foundational for creating and maintaining strong families, caring communities and a just society.

6 April 2010 at 21:05  
Anonymous Tony B said...

>We will (hopefully) never again be killed for our faith in this country

when you say that, just remember that for the most part, when Christians were being killed "for their faith" in this country, it was other Christians doing the killing.

Philip walling - everyone's wages are paid by everyone else. If you decide to make millions of public servants unemployed, are you sure that will be good for the rest of the country? I think not.

The test of whether the NHS is really discriminating against Christians would be for someone in the NHS who doesn't work in a patient-facing role to openly wear a cross, and see what happens. I'm 99% certain that nothing would, and as such a person I'm happy to volunteer to carry out the experiment, and prove that all your absurd paranoid fantasies of persecution are just that. Or not.

6 April 2010 at 21:14  
Anonymous Tony B said...

Incidentally, I've seen a number of desks with Christian effigies on display, in NHS offices, going back a number of years. I'm happy to check this week to see if they are still there. That's if I can shake off this bout of tonsillitis.

6 April 2010 at 21:25  
Anonymous Old Grumpy said...


Many thanks for your further thoughts

I note in particular that you've anticipated all the (inevitable) replies to your post, and that you're really not surprised at any of them. Good for you, my friend.

So the whole point of your post was a little bit of judicious Christian baiting, then? You know the kind of thing, hit them hard and if they retaliate, then ask them whether the good Lord would have done that. Excellent fun, of course... I recall that the bible had a pretty good account of that sort of thing immediately prior to Jesus' crucifixion.

But then, The Roman society in Israel made no pretensions about being fair. As long as you were OK with Rome, then, fine. In the UK, we are, I understood, supposed to have progressed beyond that.

Really, the question I'm politely asking of you, is where's this idea of your fair society got to? Secularists are always banging on about how fair society has to be, after all. I'm merely trying to point out that it seems to be only fair up to a point. Surely you of all people should be trying to uphold the idea of the rule of law equally? Without colour nor creed (etc)

So, no answer yet about why it's OK for the the Mussies and the Sikhs, but not for the Christians, or have I missed it, in which case please feel free to answer again.

Unless your answer is that the Christians should start loosing off a few car bombs here and there (in sad, but righteous indignation, of course) to see whether that improves their standing in the equally league tables. An interesting thought.

I think that Islam would approve, whatever else. Those guys understand that might is right.

And that meekness is weakness.

6 April 2010 at 21:40  
Blogger happyuk said...

What a bloody shame. I was really hoping common sense would prevail. What conceivable hard would the wearing of a crucific do to people?

Damn these people.

6 April 2010 at 21:51  
Anonymous Tony B said...

Happyuk, I take it you have heard of such things as clostridium difficile, MRSA, norovirus, etc? Or are you not one of those who joins in with the outcry every time someone acquires an infection in hospital? You don't wish your local hospital to take whatever steps are necessary to control infection?

It's not really that hard to conceive of what harm jewellery might do; unless it suits your political purpose to feign ignorance, of course. I'm sure no-one would do that. Ha ha.

6 April 2010 at 21:59  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

Oh yes, as a student of chemistry and biology (soon to be medicine, hooray!) I can totally agree that exposed metal, especially un-reactive transition metals, can harbour all kinds of infection. Err... oh wait, yeah, no they can't. This was never about infection control. This is a hospital, anyone there could tell you that metal is truly poor at harbouring microbiological beasties because they have no nooks or crannies to hide from the elements (I could go into metallic bonding, free electrons and why the atomic structure of transition metals give these fun properties but that is for another time). This was a thinly disguised attempt at removing Christian imagery from the public sphere. Too much Christianity in the NHS and someone may start objecting to abortion, or euthanasia when that comes along (despite their SPECIFIC proscription in the Hippocratic oath).

If they were worried about infection control then they'd employ cleaners who actually clean. God forbid we waste NHS cash on paying them more than minimum wage though. I'm sure the positive effect on morale would never improve their performance. No, the money is far better spent on taking a Christian nurse to court for wearing a crucifix.

Of course the culture of suing publicly funded institutions also has nothing to do with this. She may well have worked for the NHS for donkeys' years without any problem, but eventually there is a tiny chance that some mad patient may grab on to her crucifix (if it's anything like mine, then you'd really need to plan your attack well, as it is not a loose free flowing affair one can grab accidently).

No offence Tony B, but something tells me that you've only heard brief rumours about C Diff., MRSA and Norovirus. If you had, then you'd realise why a small crucifix would make little, if any difference to their rates: even if everyone in the NHS wore them.

6 April 2010 at 23:00  
Anonymous len said...

The cross actually purged the world of the worst sort of infection known to mankind which has killed countless millions; sin.

6 April 2010 at 23:06  
Anonymous no nonny said...

If the hospitals did try to control infection - that would be fine. They don't. They deliberately spread it and kill the patients with it.

If they've learned anything new about infection control - they certainly aren't applying it in favour of British indigenes. Unless you count death a boon - which it probably is under the present circumstances.

6 April 2010 at 23:10  
Anonymous not a machine said...

They just dont get it do they your grace !

7 April 2010 at 00:23  
Blogger adrian said...

Yes but they are not Secular, you only have to look at the euromed agreement to know that some religions are or will be more equal than others.

Euromed Agreement

7 April 2010 at 01:24  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Stuart....you are not alone in hawking 'reasonableness' - but in the long run, it just won't do. I believe it is time for all of us nominal, and 'not particularly good' Christians, to assert ourselves. If the truly 'good' can't, or won't do it; then it behoves us lesser types to smash our unturned cheeks against all who would do us down. Christianity appears to be 'fair game' for all, but not any other religion! It's about time we reintroduced 'Onward Christian Soldiers' back into our hymnals, lives, schools and sentiments....even if we do have to scrap against certain of our own to do so. Sometimes the 'very good' have to be saved from themselves. We don't need to become 'po-faced' - just somewhat more robust and 'beefy' in our support.

7 April 2010 at 03:06  
Anonymous Tony B said...

>If the hospitals did try to control infection - that would be fine. They don't. They deliberately spread it and kill the patients with it.

What absolute twaddle.

7 April 2010 at 07:36  
Anonymous Tony B said...

Lakester91 - no offence taken. I'm no expert in infection control. But as I said above, if this really is an attempt to purge the NHS of Christian imagery, rather than to do with patient safety, it would be simple to test this.

7 April 2010 at 07:41  
Anonymous Tony B said...


You won't be forcing Christianity down my kids throats any time soon.

7 April 2010 at 07:43  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

>The cross actually purged the world of the worst sort of infection known to mankind which has killed countless millions; sin.

A lot of sinning seems to go on, just the same.

7 April 2010 at 07:57  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Iv lived in Malaysia for 6 years this is a Muslim country yet I never heard of Christians been discriminated against like this here.

7 April 2010 at 08:06  
Anonymous len said...

Anon 07;57 Depends of whether you take up Gods offer of being redeemed( born again)
Much of the world in pride and ignorance seems intent on destroying itself. God has given us His solution to all mankind`s problems in Jesus Christ.

7 April 2010 at 08:09  
Anonymous Tony B said...

Ien, if you say so. But even Christians sin. So even if everyone were to take up "God's offer", the world would not have been purged of sin.

7 April 2010 at 08:38  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am not religious but I think this is atrocious and just another symptom of the demise of Britain and common sense. Someone has already pointed out that christianity is being replaced by a new religion - Healthianity.

Here is the preferred style of a 'caring' nurse cum preacher of the new religion.

I give you Nurse Jane DeVille-Almond;Yes, she is a nurse!


Complaints were made re this comment but she was supported by the authorities (nursing council or similar)!!!

Says it all really!

7 April 2010 at 10:06  
Anonymous Graham Davis said...

I fully support this lady and like her I demand respect for my deeply held conviction of imminent alien abduction and that I should be able to wear a safety harness in hospital so that I will not be taken.

7 April 2010 at 10:32  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

How in the name of Hell can a cross on a chain around a nurses neck be a heath and safety issue it makes me swear FFS. Has common sense completely deserted the judiciary.

If I was a Christian I would be praying that some one some where will throttle a Sikh with his turban, a Muslim with her hijab and rectally stab Harry Potter with his pointy hat. All in the name of highlighting health and safety - of course.

7 April 2010 at 11:08  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

When will they remove the crosses from Her Majesty's regalia? Perhaps when they hand it over to Charles?

7 April 2010 at 12:53  
Anonymous len said...

One of the great meanings of the Cross, as shown by the New Testament, is that there in the representative person of God's Son, man by nature was set aside. A whole order of creation was cut off, so far as God's mind is concerned. In His resurrection Christ represents a new order, and "If any man be in Christ there is a new creation." In that union with Christ by faith, when we have accepted His death as our death, there is something imparted which is the life of a new nature, a different species. The development of that will see, not the doom, but the originally intended destiny realized.


What is true of man is also true of sin. We cannot say that man has really morally gone up and up. While we admire courage, heroism, endurance, and self-sacrifice, we are horrified at the awful filth and vileness that is in human nature. The standard is such that the one who protests against its looseness and lowness is regarded as being behind the times, or an offense. Sin has not changed nor diminished through the ages, and the present colossal sufferings and miseries of the world are a terrible disclosure of the hatred, murder, pride, greed, selfishness, passion, lust, cruelty, callousness, etc., which are still here. But God has never accepted this, and in the Cross of Christ His zero has been registered.

"He who knew no sin was made sin for us" (in our stead) - so runs the Divine word.

The sin of the whole world was laid on Him and He suffered its judgment. From that zero point God regards sin as having been put away. The acceptance of Christ as the sin-bearer determines our acceptance with God. It is not now a question as to whether we are sinners more or less, greater or smaller, but whether "The Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world" has been appropriated by us in faith, and brought to God as our offering for sin.

In the resurrection of Christ the new order is that in which sin has been set aside, and righteousness made to prevail. Our union with Christ by faith means a new life within which is Christ's own life of victory over, and separation from, sin.

( From an article by T A sparks)

7 April 2010 at 13:27  
Blogger Preacher said...

For 2000 years christians have been ridiculed, dicriminated against & persecuted, so what's new? When Jesus died it wasn't the end (even if it seemed so for His followers) but the beginning. Our faith & belief in Him may be tested, but testing should make us stronger, you only get muscle when you sweat, you sweat when you are active, thus active christianity equals strong christianity. The bullies always pick on the weak so let all of us that call Christ our Lord & Saviour stand up speak out the gospel & Where we can wear a cross, & bear testimony to the one who died on it for us & rose again. Remember those Like Cranmer, Latimer & Ridley who followed His example & Not only kept the faith alive, but lit the fires of revival for generations to come. The only question is, do we have the guts to stand for Jesus in the face of mounting opposition or will we just stand on the sidelines & carp about the injustice? A brief read through Acts should help to point the way.

7 April 2010 at 14:16  
Anonymous Septimus said...

Oswin is right.All this mealy mouth
deference is not going to achieve anything.Is it Christian to allow
yourselves to be trampled into the ground? I think that is called
masochism not Christianity.Time
for the crosses and crucifixes to come out in public.Tatoos if necessary.

7 April 2010 at 17:21  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

Mr Tony B,
Thanks for replying. I doubt that the reason for this ban was solely because it was Christian imagery (I can't imagine any man's conscience being in such a place even if he hated Christianity), but it was certainly a major factor.

Many of those on the left have no idea about religion, and therefore they actually believe that people take offence to imagery of other religions. I expect that this was the deciding factor. They don't want minority religions and atheists to be upset by Christian imagery. Maybe they would get confused, upset and violent upon seeing a crucifix, I dunno.

I sometimes wonder if Christians are picked out in order to foster difficulties between them and other religions; just as races and ethnicities are segregated into so called 'communities' so that a wall is built between them and the native populous.

7 April 2010 at 17:22  
Anonymous Tony B said...

Any sign of a ban on those silly fish stickers you see on the back of cars?

8 April 2010 at 07:13  
Anonymous len said...

Thanks for bringing that one up T B
Christian symbols are obviously important,important enough to produce reactions in the secular world.
I think I will put some fish symbols on my car, and get a cross to wear,
thanks .

8 April 2010 at 08:02  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And what is she wore a head scarf or a hadith? Or were she a Jewish man with a skullcap? Or a Sikh with a turban and scimitar? No respect for anyone's beliefs unless these %$#@& are either afraid of them or paid by them.

If Parliament were populated by persons of honor and courage, they would cut off the funding of the clowns who have "decrossed" the lady.
But then, were the American Congress populated by persons of honor and courage, this destruction of the United States might be averted as well.

8 April 2010 at 22:29  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr/Mrs/Miss/Ms Anonymous,

His Grace does not usually address anonymice, but in your case he makes a rare exception.

He would like to point out that it is exceptionally difficult to wear an hadith.

8 April 2010 at 22:41  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Tony B - I said : ''Sometimes even the 'very good' have to be saved from themselves'' - just how does that relate to you and yours?

9 April 2010 at 18:59  
Anonymous Tony B said...

Oswin - sorry, I can't pick up the thread of this.. What are you referring to?

10 April 2010 at 08:04  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older