The Daily Mail headline was large and clear yesterday. "Crucifix banned in school" (or something similar). Samantha Devine, who attends a non-denominational school, had been told to remove her crucifix, a gift from her father. Outrageous? Her father thinks so: "I have seen other religous pupils at the school who are not part of the Christian fath, but they are allowed to wear their religious garments and symbols without being questioned," he said. However, the school has stated that the reason she has been asked to remove the necklace is because it represents a health and safety risk, and therefore goes against the school rules, which state that neck chains cannot be worn. The school has given Samantha the option of wearing a small lapel badge. After all, Christians are not required to wear any symbol of Christianity, whereas in some religions there is a religious requirement to wear certain clothing or symbols - for example, the 5Ks of Sikhism require every Sikh to have uncut hair (kesh) (and therefore wear a turban) and to wear a bangle (kanga).
At a conference yesterday, I heard that a Bishop (unfortunately I cannot remember the name, nor can I find it on the internet - can anyone help me find his statement?) was interviewed, explaining that Christians are not required to wear symbols, but are required to follow the rules of authority (or something like that) - in this case, if the girl really wishes to show her devotion she could wear a lapel badge, but she should certainly keep the school rules. There is no need for her to break them.
This is an interesting discussion, covering free will, the place of symbolism, devotion, and using religion as an excuse to get your own way ... I'd be with the school and the Bishop on this one. Would you be?
For more on this story at the BBC, click here.
No comments:
Post a Comment