Scudding about somewhere in my old jewellery box is the little gold crucifix my parents gave me after my confirmation nearly 50 years ago.
It shares accommodation with an ornate and handsome Lalibela cross, apparently made from an old melted-down silver coin and purchased during a trip to Ethiopia. My cross-wearing, like my church-going, is somewhat spasmodic these days but, like 54% of UK population in a survey organised by celebrated atheist Richard Dawkins (that's about 33 million people), I still regard myself as a Christian.
Even if I didn't, I'd like to think I'd be outraged by the news that the UK Government has dispatched its lawyers to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg this week to argue that a worker victimised at work for wearing a cross should resign and look for another job. James Eadie QC asserted that: "The person who asserts religious rights may on occasion have to take account of their position."
This is the case of Shirley Chaplin, the Exeter nurse moved to clerical work for refusing to remove her crucifix, and Nadia Eweida, the BA worker sent home for refusing to hide her cross from view. So Muslims can wear headscarves and Sikhs are allowed their turbans, but Christians are denied the right to exhibit a tiny piece of metal.
The argument seems to be that cross-wearing is not "required by scripture" but it isn't that black and white, is it? Many Muslims women don't feel compelled to don headscarves and, as evidenced by this case, some Christians don't view their crosses as some optional extra. Though BA backed down after its ban provoked widespread condemnation, a subsequent Appeal Court ruling went against Ms Eweida on the grounds that she "did not suffer disadvantage". What planet were they on? This woman was suspended without pay because she chose her faith over her job. Of course, she suffered disadvantage.
In what appears to be a bit of political cross-dressing, the two women are defended by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, normally linked to the secular left, against a Tory-led government, generally associated with religious traditionalism. To confuse matters further, earlier this year David Cameron made great play of supporting the wearing of crosses, in clear contradiction of his own government's latest stand.
It's difficult to escape the sense that Christians are being singled out here. Perhaps there's an assumption that, as the default faith in the UK, somehow it can take care of itself. After all, daily business in the Commons still starts with prayers, court witnesses are offered the Bible to swear upon and at her coronation, Queen Elizabeth swore to uphold the faith of the Anglican Church alone.
Personally, I'd be happy for her son to be simply the "defender of faith" in general, when the time comes because the state should protect the practice of all faiths, including Christianity. And that protection cannot stop at someone's front door or place of worship. Everyone should have the right to express their faith without interference from the state or their boss.
We need to find ways of accommodating those with sincerely-held beliefs, as we used to. Both the Abortion Act and the Sunday trading laws contained exemptions to respect strongly-held religious convictions. Yet today Christians find themselves marginalised and their faith "airbrushed out of public life", as Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury puts it. So, while supporting the bill itself, I welcome the SNP's pledge to allow its MSPs a free vote in the forthcoming Marriage and Civil Partnership Bill. I'm not offended by someone wearing a niqab or turban or skull cap, any more than by someone wearing a nose-ring or gruesome tattoos all over their body. Does wearing a cross offend people who have other faiths or no faith at all? I think not.
So here's my prayer: Oh Lord, may there be an outbreak of common sense on this issue and free us from this new tyranny.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article