This House believes Christians should be allowed to wear the Cross at work

The UK is a nation that claims to be tolerant of all faiths and to respect religious beliefs. If that is the case then it must be accepted that the law should respect actions in accordance with those beliefs insofar as they do not harm or infringe on the rights of others. Demonstrating one’s commitment to the cross is part of that faith[i] and should, therefore be shown some respect in a religiously diverse and tolerant society.

There may be more militant forms of religious profession that would be inappropriate in a workplace but wearing a simple piece of jewellery causes no harm or offence to others.

Both women have stated that they felt that wearing the cross was an important part of their faith[ii] and respect for those beliefs should be shown if society’s claims of tolerance and diversity are to have credibility.

As with the demonstration of any right, the fact that its exercise may not be convenient does not supersede its validity. Indeed the only way of demonstrating that a society is, in fact, a tolerant one is, by definition, when it tolerates the exercise of legitimate practices which are inconvenient.

[i] Galatians 6:14 among others

[ii] BBC News Website. “Shirley Chaplin and Nadia Eweida Take Cross Fight to Europe.” 12 March 2012.

There is no requirement within Christianity that the cross should be worn. This makes it quite different from other items of religious clothing – specifically required as articles of faith - that are accepted in the workplace. It is an entirely reasonable distinction to draw a line between iconography that the employee believes it would be a sin to go without and that which is an active choice.

Legislation should be consistent; otherwise it is, by definition, discriminatory.[i] If some faiths are allowed to show outward demonstrations of their faith in the workplace, then that should apply across the board.

Christianity is an established part of the state, as shown by the monarch being head of the Church of England. So it is perverse for two national brands to accept attire that demonstrates an employee’s profession of other faiths but to reject one that is universally recognised as a symbol of Christianity.

The very fact that both women were willing to risk, and lose, their jobs over the issue shows that they considered wearing the cross to be an important part of their faith. That should be enough to demonstrate that it is a matter of conscience. It is demonstrably true that allowing other religious symbols to be worn does not create immense difficulties, both the NHS and Heathrow airport allow sikh’s to wear a kirpan (small dagger).[ii]  Their right to do so is respected because it is important to the individual concerned. The same is clearly true here.

Either legislation should respect that commitment in all faiths or it should not do so in any.

[i] The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4^th ed., Houghton Mifflin Company, 2000, http://www.thefreedictionary.com/discriminatory

[ii] The Kirpan, A submission to the Department of Communities and Local Government (UK), British Sikh Consultative Forum, April 2009, P12

Legislation takes account of particularities. Christianity does not, and never has, required the wearing of the cross as a demonstration of faith and few representations are found before the fifth century[i] – indeed in early Church history it was discouraged. In much of the West, the cross has become simply another piece of jewellery and legislation should reflect that reality. To allow a Christian to wear such an adornment but not to allow a non-Christian to wear exactly the same thing would be unworkable. That is the consistent position.

[i] Maurice Dilasser, The Symbols of the Church,  1999, P.21, http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/The_Symbols_of_the_Church.html

People of faith attest that those beliefs determine the nature of their own identity and their place in the Universe. In the case of Nadia Eweida, at least, the employer’s case was based on the idea that wearing a symbol of that faith might not enhance their uniform. The difference between the significance of the claims could not be greater.

Indeed, British Airways, Eweida’s employer, has since changed their policy to permit staff to wear religious or charitable imagery[i] in large part because of the absurdity of the position.

The case against Chaplin was based on health and safety legislation - but not because the cross and chain posed a risk to others but to herself[ii]; a risk she was, presumably, prepared to accept.

On one hand there are individuals protecting their sincere beliefs in the most profound of issues and, on the other, managers applying what the Archbishop of Canterbury described as “wooden-headed bureaucratic silliness”.[iii] There is no suggestion that harm to another could have been caused here and, therefore, no reason not to respect the heartfelt beliefs of the individuals involved.

[i] BBC News Website. “Christian Airline Employee Loses Cross ban Appeal”. 12 February 2010.

[ii] Daily Mail. “It's a very bad day for Christianity: Nurse's verdict after tribunal rules she can't wear crucifix at work”

[iii] The Telegraph, ‘Archbishop of Canterbury hits out at cross ban’, 4 April 2010, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/7552145/Archbishop-of-Canterbury-hits-out-at-cross-ban.html

Virtually every employee dresses differently for work than they do outside. We accept the fact that there are behaviours and attitudes that must be left at the door when we enter the workplace. Those unwilling to make such an accommodation simply don’t work for organisations with those requirements. If the women concerned had such a great commitment to their faith, then they should find a different job.

Recognising rights when there is no inconvenience to anybody involved is verging on the irrelevant. This is, perhaps, especially true, with freedom of expression. If I recognise your right to express yourself freely - so long as I never have to see, hear or be aware of you doing – rather misses the point.

Likewise if the individual is free only so long as there aren’t any rules saying they shouldn’t be, goes somewhat against the grain of defending liberties. Indeed the history of the idea that people can exercise all the freedom they like as long as it’s out of sight, out of mind and doesn’t break any rules is not a noble one; among other absurd forms of “freedom”, it was used to justify both segregation and apartheid.

Although the effect and extent of the prejudice is clearly different here, the logic is the same: you are completely free to do whatever I think you should do.

Having a right to freely express oneself means to do so when it is inconvenient, challenging or offensive to others[i]. The rules being broken here were, as has already been mentioned, fairly petty and the sanctions comparatively minor – although the loss of someone’s livelihood should not be understated. The case is important because of the precedent it sets; what if the two women were risking not just their jobs but their liberty?

The UK considers itself to be a tolerant country. Tolerance means accepting those declarations and statements that are inconvenient. If the law is incapable of defending a statement as benign as wearing a small piece of jewellery, it is worrying to think how it would cope with something more forthright.

[i] UN Declaration of Human Rights. Articles 18, 19 and 23.

Proposition is completely over-reacting. Nobody is stopping the women involved from practising their faith but there is nothing within mainstream Christianity that requires the wearing of a cross as a public statement. Furthermore, a tolerant society can only function if it works within a framework of rules that are evenly applied.

This case demonstrates that as even the established religion is expected to confine to that framework.

The UK is a nation that claims to be tolerant of all faiths and to respect religious beliefs. If that is the case then it must be accepted that the law should respect actions in accordance with those beliefs insofar as they do not harm or infringe on the rights of others. Demonstrating one’s commitment to the cross is part of that faith[i] and should, therefore be shown some respect in a religiously diverse and tolerant society.

There may be more militant forms of religious profession that would be inappropriate in a workplace but wearing a simple piece of jewellery causes no harm or offence to others.

Both women have stated that they felt that wearing the cross was an important part of their faith[ii] and respect for those beliefs should be shown if society’s claims of tolerance and diversity are to have credibility.

As with the demonstration of any right, the fact that its exercise may not be convenient does not supersede its validity. Indeed the only way of demonstrating that a society is, in fact, a tolerant one is, by definition, when it tolerates the exercise of legitimate practices which are inconvenient.

[i] Galatians 6:14 among others

[ii] BBC News Website. “Shirley Chaplin and Nadia Eweida Take Cross Fight to Europe.” 12 March 2012.

There is no requirement within Christianity that the cross should be worn. This makes it quite different from other items of religious clothing – specifically required as articles of faith - that are accepted in the workplace. It is an entirely reasonable distinction to draw a line between iconography that the employee believes it would be a sin to go without and that which is an active choice.

Legislation should be consistent; otherwise it is, by definition, discriminatory.[i] If some faiths are allowed to show outward demonstrations of their faith in the workplace, then that should apply across the board.

Christianity is an established part of the state, as shown by the monarch being head of the Church of England. So it is perverse for two national brands to accept attire that demonstrates an employee’s profession of other faiths but to reject one that is universally recognised as a symbol of Christianity.

The very fact that both women were willing to risk, and lose, their jobs over the issue shows that they considered wearing the cross to be an important part of their faith. That should be enough to demonstrate that it is a matter of conscience. It is demonstrably true that allowing other religious symbols to be worn does not create immense difficulties, both the NHS and Heathrow airport allow sikh’s to wear a kirpan (small dagger).[ii]  Their right to do so is respected because it is important to the individual concerned. The same is clearly true here.

Either legislation should respect that commitment in all faiths or it should not do so in any.

[i] The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4^th ed., Houghton Mifflin Company, 2000, http://www.thefreedictionary.com/discriminatory

[ii] The Kirpan, A submission to the Department of Communities and Local Government (UK), British Sikh Consultative Forum, April 2009, P12

Legislation takes account of particularities. Christianity does not, and never has, required the wearing of the cross as a demonstration of faith and few representations are found before the fifth century[i] – indeed in early Church history it was discouraged. In much of the West, the cross has become simply another piece of jewellery and legislation should reflect that reality. To allow a Christian to wear such an adornment but not to allow a non-Christian to wear exactly the same thing would be unworkable. That is the consistent position.

[i] Maurice Dilasser, The Symbols of the Church,  1999, P.21, http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/The_Symbols_of_the_Church.html

People of faith attest that those beliefs determine the nature of their own identity and their place in the Universe. In the case of Nadia Eweida, at least, the employer’s case was based on the idea that wearing a symbol of that faith might not enhance their uniform. The difference between the significance of the claims could not be greater.

Indeed, British Airways, Eweida’s employer, has since changed their policy to permit staff to wear religious or charitable imagery[i] in large part because of the absurdity of the position.

The case against Chaplin was based on health and safety legislation - but not because the cross and chain posed a risk to others but to herself[ii]; a risk she was, presumably, prepared to accept.

On one hand there are individuals protecting their sincere beliefs in the most profound of issues and, on the other, managers applying what the Archbishop of Canterbury described as “wooden-headed bureaucratic silliness”.[iii] There is no suggestion that harm to another could have been caused here and, therefore, no reason not to respect the heartfelt beliefs of the individuals involved.

[i] BBC News Website. “Christian Airline Employee Loses Cross ban Appeal”. 12 February 2010.

[ii] Daily Mail. “It's a very bad day for Christianity: Nurse's verdict after tribunal rules she can't wear crucifix at work”

[iii] The Telegraph, ‘Archbishop of Canterbury hits out at cross ban’, 4 April 2010, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/7552145/Archbishop-of-Canterbury-hits-out-at-cross-ban.html

Virtually every employee dresses differently for work than they do outside. We accept the fact that there are behaviours and attitudes that must be left at the door when we enter the workplace. Those unwilling to make such an accommodation simply don’t work for organisations with those requirements. If the women concerned had such a great commitment to their faith, then they should find a different job.

Recognising rights when there is no inconvenience to anybody involved is verging on the irrelevant. This is, perhaps, especially true, with freedom of expression. If I recognise your right to express yourself freely - so long as I never have to see, hear or be aware of you doing – rather misses the point.

Likewise if the individual is free only so long as there aren’t any rules saying they shouldn’t be, goes somewhat against the grain of defending liberties. Indeed the history of the idea that people can exercise all the freedom they like as long as it’s out of sight, out of mind and doesn’t break any rules is not a noble one; among other absurd forms of “freedom”, it was used to justify both segregation and apartheid.

Although the effect and extent of the prejudice is clearly different here, the logic is the same: you are completely free to do whatever I think you should do.

Having a right to freely express oneself means to do so when it is inconvenient, challenging or offensive to others[i]. The rules being broken here were, as has already been mentioned, fairly petty and the sanctions comparatively minor – although the loss of someone’s livelihood should not be understated. The case is important because of the precedent it sets; what if the two women were risking not just their jobs but their liberty?

The UK considers itself to be a tolerant country. Tolerance means accepting those declarations and statements that are inconvenient. If the law is incapable of defending a statement as benign as wearing a small piece of jewellery, it is worrying to think how it would cope with something more forthright.

[i] UN Declaration of Human Rights. Articles 18, 19 and 23.

Proposition is completely over-reacting. Nobody is stopping the women involved from practising their faith but there is nothing within mainstream Christianity that requires the wearing of a cross as a public statement. Furthermore, a tolerant society can only function if it works within a framework of rules that are evenly applied.

This case demonstrates that as even the established religion is expected to confine to that framework.

Put simply, if you don’t like the rules, don’t do the job. The fact that the world of work and the life of faith can come into conflict should hardly have come as a surprise to the women concerned. From Biblical times onward, that has been a reality.

However, they chose these particular jobs and that choice comes with consequences. Their actions would seem to suggest that they prize their faith more highly than their jobs, the solution seems fairly straightforward – get another job.

Religious belief is also a choice. Nobody is compelling the two women into one particular faith and nobody, including the Church, is compelling them to wear a cross as a demonstration of that decision.

The problem seems to have arisen because one thing they chose to do was in conflict with another thing they chose to do. It is difficult to see how that is the responsibility of either the employer or the courts.

Both women were long-standing employees. The rules changed around them, it is, however, difficult to see how not wearing a cross was innate or fundamental to the job they were doing. Employers hire a worker’s labour, not their soul.

Employers don’t introduce rules because it’s fun but, rather, because they serve a purpose. Ms. Chaplin has expressed concern about the legal costs incurred by the NHS Trust which employed her in fighting the action she initiated. Health and safety rules exist, in part, to avoid the possibility of subsequent legal action; it might be reasonable for her to support such rules given her concern[i].

Likewise, airlines have uniform policies to make their services, well, uniform. It’s what their customers expect. In much the same way as many Christians refuse to receive communion from a woman or a homosexual, it simply goes with the job.

For any workplace to function, the lifestyles of the employees need to accommodate the needs of the customers or users of the service provided by the employer. Clearly there is a degree of balance involved and the values of the employee need to be respected. However, this case isn’t about the values of the employee – they weren’t fired for being Christian – it was about and active decision in how to demonstrate those values. A decision not taken by their co-religionists and one that seemed to owe more to belligerence than to belief.

[i] Daily Mail. “It's a very bad day for Christianity: Nurse's verdict after tribunal rules she can't wear crucifix at work”

No customer or patient complained in either case. Neither employer demonstrated that wearing the cross prevented either employee from performing their duties efficiently. Indeed, given the size and diversity of both organisations’ client base, a demonstration that they support free expression might be welcomed.

The key point here is that both of the employees concerned did believe that the right to not only hold, but proclaim, their beliefs was core to their faith. By denying them the right to express that impeded not just their actions but their beliefs.

If the image they were wearing endorsed a political candidate or another company, the issue would never have got to court. Neither complainant was employed in a capacity where their religious conviction was relevant to the job. If the situation were reversed and they were compelled to profess a religious faith in such a situation there would, rightly, be an outcry.

In neither situation would the consumer of the service being provided expect to be confronted with endorsements for which candidate to vote for or which soda to drink.

The question then arises, if political and corporate branding is out, why should suggestions about which god to pray to be okay? The very fact that they were willing to pursue this action demonstrates that images and symbols carry meaning beyond the explicit statement they make. If that is true, then it is equally true that others may object to, or be offended by, what that symbol represents. People who have bought airline tickets or are in need of healthcare should not be confronted by imagery they may find unpleasant.

Recognizing that people have different views is a fairly fundamental part of maintaining societal cohesion. Freedom of expression requires the corollary that there is no right not to be offended – it is hard to see how such a right would be manifest in practical terms. It is also worth reiterating that there were no complaints from customers or patients in either case.