A British teenager has been suspended from school for refusing to take off a crucifix necklace
Nick Britten:
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."
Another example of tolerance for all faiths except Christianity.
posted by Adam Lawson @ 10:04 AM
11 comments
11 Comments:
Adam,
Make sure you understand what Christianity is before you start making coments like your closinf ones. It is not defined by the wearing of crucifixes.
Many Christians - such as Catholics - do wear crosses as a sign of their religious faith. If non-Christians are allowed to wear symbols of their faith, then Christians should be allowed to do likewise.
But the point is that no Christian (using any broad definition) can point to a scripture, creed, catechism of the faith and say, "There! It says I must wear this!" To argue that it is a 'must' is simply not Christianity of any stripe. I am inviting you to a) understand Christianity b) stop devaluing the word "Christian" by arguing for the indefensible. If you do so, you, Adam, become the real enemy! I plead with you - don't do it. Think your way out of this and don't just regurgitate this freedom-of-expression mantra. Christ does not want this kind of help!
Christ may not want this kind of help, however the west sure needs it. The west is of Christendom. Christendom has been under attack for decades and since people have lost their faith due to this relentless attack, the west is buckling.
It is irrelevent whether the cross is a "must" or not. It is a stand and one that must be made. Splitting hairs in view of taking the moral high road has gotten us to the point of racial and cultural extinction. No longer is it necessary nor wanted. The next time you want to voice your objection after examing the "fine print", DON'T. People like yourself have done "enough".
People don't lose their faith because of 'relentless attack'. People lose faith because they love the world and lusts of the flesh too much. Trials prove faith. As the quote goes, "the blood of martyrs is the seed of the church". If you want to know where the real power of Christianity is, don't make stands on pointless meaningless, symbols. The enemy laughs at this. Make the stand for Christ by faithful obedience to him and make sure you worship him as your first priority. I don't care about culture and ethnicity. There are only two kinds of people in the world: those in the church, the kingdom of God, and the world. The latter is doomed. Which are you in?
I come from part of the world, the west of Scotland, where men and women were slaughtered in the 17th century at the hands of a bloodthirsty government simply for things like carrying a Bible. Out of it came a glorious church, and it changed society.
Would there were more like it in these days.
To argue that it is a 'must' is simply not Christianity of any stripe
Stephen, unless I'm missing something, it looks like you're beating a straw man. Nowhere does the story, or Adam's comments, say or even imply that wearing a crucifix is essential to the Christian faith. The purpose of Adam's post is to expose the double standard in allowing Muslims to display symbols of their faith, but bar Christians from making any public display. If it offends Muslims, then it must go.
Also I'm not sure that Scripture equates the church with the kingdom of God. Christ said my kingdom is not of this world. The church by necessity is a worldy institution, is it not? He also advised the faithful, as did Paul and Peter, to follow the rules of the world. Jesus made a distinction between the things that belong to Caesar, and the things that belong to God. Yes, we are not supposed to put our faith in the world, but are we supposed to turn it over to our enemies, to those who wish to destroy the West? I don't think my Puritan forebears who left England to settle Connecticut and Long Island in the 1650s thought that the purpose of a Christian life was to allow Mohammedans to overtake, inhabit and ultimately destroy the West. That you don't care about "culture and ethnicity" is part of the reason why even the most tradition-minded in the West have lost the will to defend it.
jlh,
I accept that he doesn't, but the point I am making is that this is not something to go to the barricades over. You and many others are misreading this affair, from a great distance, as a swipe at Christianity. I say, emphatically, no it is not. I know this because I am close to the situation. In fact I have just confirmed an hour ago that the issue is not the crucifix at all. Many children wear lapel pins on blazers and jackets with crosses, crucifixes and fish, FWIW. The problem is the chain which, from past experience of the teachers, is deemed potentially dangerous.
What you believe about the relation of the church to the kingdom of God depends on what you mean by "the world". The way that the bible writers use the term it does not simply mean the planet, or all the people that live on the planet. Rather it means the moral order in rebellion against God. Read John's gospel an I think you will see that this definition fits pretty well. Therefore the church, made up of those who have put off the old self, and put on the new, are also "not of this world". Of course the church has a visible expression in the world. But it is definitely not "a worldly institution".
Hope this helps...
Thanks, Stephen, I appreciate your point and your forebearance.
What you believe about the relation of the church to the kingdom of God depends on what you mean by "the world"... it means the moral order in rebellion against God.
Yes, very well put, I agree. But the trouble here is Islam thinks of us, even as Christians, as being in rebellion against God. My point is I thought we were supposed to submit to God's judgment, rather than Islam's judgment (terrorism). And following that logic, we should be able to defend ourselves, our countries, our lives and our faith against the kind of alien attack represented by these people. Again, if I'm off base here, tell me where I'm wrong. Thanks.
People don't lose their faith because of 'relentless attack'.
Of course they do. We have undeniable evidence of this over the last half century where Christendom has been under attack after WWII and the steady march leftward in order to prevent another "Hitler". LOL What a joke.
The enemy laughs at this.
This is absurd because the enemy laughs at your logic. They do not care one iota how their goal is achieved, as long as it is. You are blinded by hair splitting to see that this is a very fight for survival and you want to fight "by the rules". Fuck the rules, buddy.
I don't care about culture and ethnicity. There are only two kinds of people in the world: those in the church, the kingdom of God, and the world. The latter is doomed. Which are you in?
I am on the side of my people. Not your stupid ideology. Culture IS race, "Stephen". Religion is one of the dividing points in humanity. Or are you oblivious to Christianity, Judaism, and Islam? God is god, if there IS a God. The issue is race and ethnicity that use it to further their agenda. You can have your multicult madness and praise the lord with all your genetically distant "brothers". I will choose where my genes lay.
Also, what part of "don't bother voicing ridiculous objections" and "your kind has done enough" do you not understand?
I didn't argue that people don't lose faith - they do. But I identified the real reason for it - love of the world and lusts of the flesh. When there is rot within then the structure cannot stand.
Let me tell you who is not 'the enemy'. Paul says, "For our struggle is not against flesh and blood". So if you think you should fight those from a different gene pool in order to preserve 'Christendom', you could not be more at odds with true 'Christendom'.
Rather Paul says the struggle is "against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms." Satan rules the world (as defined in an earlier comment). The kingdom of Christ stands against it and He will prevail - no question.
You, on one hand, claim to be defending 'Christendom', but then, on the other, you question the existence of God, while mocking Christians. Can't you see which side that puts you on?
I urge you, my friend, to see the truth about yourself, the world we live in and the Saviour who died to win the victory (Jn 12:31,32). "Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free... So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed." (Jn 8:32,36)
I don't expect you will read this properly. For some reason the internet and blogging brings out the worst in some people. But all I can do is urge to drop your pagan idolatry (yes, that's what it is) and submit to Christ.
Here endeth the sermon!
Maybe I haven't made myself clear. It is the relentless march leftward from a sociopolitical perspective, which in your words is "the love of the world and lusts of the flesh" that has caused a move towards secularism and away from conservative Christian values as well as spirituality. That is what has been happening for a good 50 or so years that has sown the seeds of the current fruits of society's mess.
I also do not fight strictly for Christendom, I fight for our race and ethny which IS Christendom. Saving the race will save Christendom for the most part. The attack is from all angles and only one is against religion. Though it is an important attack, because as we have seen, without some degree of religious belief, one is open to all sorts of warped and demented ideas. I am not looking to save Christendom solely by going along with the strict "rules" such as the crucifix issue. One needs a MUCH broader set of rules and if they do not apply then scrap any rules because as I have said before, this is a fight for survival.
Re God, I have yet to become a true believer if there IS a God. And if there is, then how many do we have? This is a conundrum of religion per se. Who's God is the real God? Regardless of my own beliefs of religion, I still value the right of our people to hold onto their religious beliefs which is more than what some others believe. And I am not only referring to Islam.
Also, with respect to Christendom and other races. Again, using logic and NOT faith, I fail to realize this obsession that has been around for eons to convert others, including barely sentient beings to follow the word of Christ. Many a man was lost in this "humanitarian" crusade to save the heathens and barbarians that resided in all sorts of ghastly jungles. To me, this is absurdity at its finest. Who told us? Who showed us? Who forced us to believe in Christ? Get the picture? They are not my soul brothers, nor brothers by any stretch. I follow what is verifiable and concrete. Not what is idealistic.
Post a Comment
<< Home