‘Ban The Cross’ is not a slogan by Islamist or a terrorist Outfit .
But by a Feature Writer from The Telegraph.
In a blog he expressed this view.
The instance relates to two separate incidents, one involving a Muslim Girl and another a Christian.
“So here we are again. A nine-year-old girl from south London has beenforbidden from wearing her hijab at school. As surely as night follows day, her family are suing the school for religious discrimination. Commentators on the Left, like the education journalist Susan Elkin, tie themselves in tautologies in efforts to call for toleration: “I know it’s hard for those of us who didn’t grow up in strict Muslim families to understand why it’s a sin for a child of nine to be bare headed in front of male teachers,” she concedes, “but would a uniform coloured headscarf really affect teaching and learning in the classroom?”
Which leads us to draw the inevitable comparison with the case of Celestina Mba, the Christian Baptist who was sacked for refusing to work on Sundays. A High Court judge, Mr Justice Langstaff, upheld the decision to dismiss her. And, of course, the case of Nadia Eweida and Shirley Chaplin, the two Christian women who claim that they were discriminated against when their employers barred them from wearing crosses at work. The Government positioned itself against the pair, stating that because wearing the cross is not a “requirement” of the Christian faith, wearing one in defiance of a ban can be a sackable offence. Or, as their lawyers pithily put it, Christians must “choose between their job and their faith….
Well taken point.
If wearing scarf affects learning,so is Cross.
Both are ridiculous.
Again if people are dismissed for not working on Sundays,where is Civil Liberty?
If wearing a Cross is not a requirement of the Christian faith,then it can be banned.
So if you ban Hijab on the count that it distracts, so can the Cross be banned.
Hijab at least has religious sanction.
As in Female Genital Mutilation(FGM) ,these steps are wholly unwarranted and an incitement of the Muslim Community..
To take a semantic tack: it is generally recognised that there is an important difference between tolerance and toleration. The former usually denotes an acceptance of alternative ways of life, whereas the latter tends to mean putting up with something with which one disagrees. It is often said that one of our best qualities in this country is our live-and-let-live mentality, and for this reason it is counter-intuitive to make a qualitative judgment about other people’s beliefs. But as even Susan Elkin’s commendably open-minded article demonstrates, in these cases it is necessary, however awkward, to distinguish between these two terms.
The fact is that wearing a cross to work, or arranging one’s shifts so that one doesn’t have to work on Sundays, is wholly benign and understandable. Even from an atheist point of view, it would be deeply unreasonable to object to people expressing their faith in these ways. Nothing more than tolerance is called for.
This process called FGM(Female genital Mutilation), in its opinion, violates woman’s’ Rights.
‘The resolution urges the 193 U.N. member states to condemn the practice, and to launch educational campaigns to eliminate it. It urges all countries to enact and enforce legislation to prohibit FGM, to protect women and girls “from this form of violence” and to end impunity for violators. Although not legally binding, UN General Assembly resolutions carry considerable moral and political weight.