Christian rights cases go before Strasbourg court - a case of double standards?

[Guest]

Other than this brief article here I am surprised at the lack of comment by the Guardian and on this forum. Maybe if it was a case of 'Cameron says wearing cross is wrong' then there would be more fulminating, he said slightly tongue-in-cheek.

Their case centres around Article 9 of the ECHR that.....

Article 9, “Freedom of thought, conscience and religion,” states the following:

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance. 2. Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Lawyers for the Government are believed to be arguing that "In neither case is there any suggestion that the wearing of a visible cross or crucifix was a generally [recognized] form of [practicing] the Christian faith".

Really? Then exactly what does a cross symbolise? A freebie from a Kelloggs pack of cornflakes?

If that is their view then surely this should be extended to other religions? Perhaps we should be following France's lead on this?

Double-standards and/or the marginalisation of Christianity, in my opinion.

I am an atheist but believe in a sense of fairness and a level playing field.

[ahinton]

Whilst it is and will always be impossible to satisfy all those who are subject to such laws and for whom such laws are created; I do think that the lawyers here have a valid point about "the wearing of a visible cross" (which should, strictly speaking, be better phrased as "the visible wearing of a cross"), since not everyone would consciously regard anyone whom they see wearing a cross as necessarily being a Christian in the same way as, for example, they might regard anyone seen wearing a swastika as seeking to make some kind of tacit public statement about their political beliefs. I have no problems about people in public places wearing items of jewellery including or based on the design of a cross, whether or not the wearers may be - and/or may wish there to be thought of as - Christians, especially since Christians themselves are so diverse a group of people even within their particular chosen branch of their faith. Do I have problems about Muslims wearing certain headgear in public. In principle, no. What I do object to, however, is religious or other organisations seeking to coerce or force people to wear items of clothing, jewellery or whatever else against their will, just as I deplore the kind of evangelising that embraces often ill-concealed threats.

As to David Cameron, he's gone public with a statement that he's some kind of semi-Christian (whatever he actually means and I can't now recall the specific term that he used to describe his relationship with Christianity), so perhaps he should only ever wear a cross every now and then...

[aeolium]

As to David Cameron, he's gone public with a statement that he's some kind of semi-Christian (whatever he actually means and I can't now recall the specific term that he used to describe his relationship with Christianity), so perhaps he should only ever wear a cross every now and then...

In 2008 Cameron reportedly compared his faith in Christianity with the reception for Magic FM in the Chilterns:

"I believe, you know. I am a sort of typical member of the Church of England. As Boris Johnson once said, his religious faith is a bit like the reception for Magic FM in the Chilterns: it sort of comes and goes. That sums up a lot of people in the Church of England. We are racked with doubts, but sort of fundamentally believe, but don't sort of wear it on our sleeves or make too much of it. I think that is sort of where I am."

From this interview.

[eighthobstruction]

>>>I am an atheist but believe in a sense of fairness and a level playing field<<<<

....and for those who are brunette??.....and how about a completely uneven pitch, but equally uneven for both sides....

[Resurrection Man]

>>>I am an atheist but believe in a sense of fairness and a level playing field<<<<

....and for those who are brunette??.....and how about a completely uneven pitch, but equally uneven for both sides....

All welcome for my church is open to all.

[Resurrection Man]

.... I do think that the lawyers here have a valid point about "the wearing of a visible cross" (which should, strictly speaking, be better phrased as "the visible wearing of a cross"), since not everyone would consciously regard anyone whom they see wearing a cross as necessarily being a Christian ......

I'm not sure that I agree with you. In fact, I'm pretty sure that if you had a set of photographs showing some people wearing a cross and others not and asked the man in the street to point out which ones he thought were Christian then I'd put money on him pointing out those wearing a cross.

in the same way as, for example, they might regard anyone seen wearing a swastika as seeking to make some kind of tacit public statement about their political beliefs.

Possibly. But there is also a strong chance that they might be considered Hindu, Buddhist or Jain since the use of the swastika remains widely used in those religions.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

It's those who put a fish symbol on the backs of their cars who worry me. They all seem to be terrible drivers.

[Bryn]

It's those who put a fish symbol on the backs of their cars who worry me. They all seem to be terrible drivers.

What, even those with the Darwin fish?

[eighthobstruction]

If only there was an easy simple logo to denote Adams or Mozart for the rear bumpers....

[MrGongGong]

But there is also a strong chance that they might be considered Hindu, Buddhist or Jain since the use of the swastika remains widely used in those religions.

indeed

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/DailyNews.jpg

a Jain monk haling the rising sun and spreading the love for all living things

[ahinton]

I'm not sure that I agree with you. In fact, I'm pretty sure that if you had a set of photographs showing some people wearing a cross and others not and asked the man in the street to point out which ones he thought were Christian then I'd put money on him pointing out those wearing a cross.

And you might be right in some cases but, as I have stated, the cross design has not merely represented but at the same time also transcended its Christian origins, so I suspect that much might depend upon the particular background, experiences and views of whichever "man in the street" might be asked for his opinion and a lot more would also rather obviously depend to some extent on which street the said man might be on when asked.

Possibly. But there is also a strong chance that they might be considered Hindu, Buddhist or Jain since the use of the swastika remains widely used in those religions.

But again how many people would be aware and conscious of this as distinct from those who might interpret the swastika as more likely representing the kind of viewpoint to which I drew attention? Again, it depends rather on which man on which street...

[ahinton]

If only there was an easy simple logo to denote Adams or Mozart for the rear bumpers....

Or indeed neither...

[eighthobstruction]

Indeed, I'd be as likely to go for Bortnyansky myself....in fact I could rub it into the dirt on the rear door of my van....or indeed not....

[Resurrection Man]

indeed

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/DailyNews.jpg

a Jain monk haling the rising sun and spreading the love for all living things

Childish. But I expect no less. I thought that the primary schools were back.

[Resurrection Man]

And you might be right in some cases but, as I have stated, the cross design has not merely represented but at the same time also transcended its Christian origins, so I suspect that much might depend upon the particular background, experiences and views of whichever "man in the street" might be asked for his opinion and a lot more would also rather obviously depend to some extent on which street the said man might be on when asked.


But again how many people would be aware and conscious of this as distinct from those who might interpret the swastika as more likely representing the kind of viewpoint to which I drew attention? Again, it depends rather on which man on which street...

Oh come off it. I'll grant you your second sentence but to suggest otherwise regarding how most people view someone wearing a cross is a tad disengenuous.