That’s the whole point though – a cross is religious paraphernalia for a Christian, but a turban is a religious necessity for a Sikh. Allowing the former when it’s against company dress code is pandering to whimsy, whereas forbidding the latter is religious discrimination and consequently the dress code must accommodate this possibility.

IMO, Eweida is a religious ambulance chaser and an irritating god-botherer to boot.

In the case of disability, we’ve rightly moved from the latter attitude to the former. In the case of Christianity, we seem to be moving in the other direction.

“when it comes to allowing Muslim headscarfs while not allowing an employee to wear a trinket around her neck, it hardly constitutes an ‘anti-Christian’ policy!”

AHH! Fr Richard a slight stumble in acknowledging the headscarf as a Muslim expression of faith, but not the trinket (Cross) as a Christian expression of faith.

Should the logic of your argument not dictate that both are costume trinkets.

I wonder how many who comment or blog on this topic have actually read the original legal rulings (most are or were available on line). What is striking in the case of the nurse and air-stewardess, is that neither were commended for their behaviour as employees – indeed one had a track record for being a difficult person to work with and manage! While I am not unsympathetic to the idea of calling into question an unequal application of a company’s policy, when it comes to allowing Muslim headscarfs while not allowing an employee to wear a trinket around her neck, it hardly constitutes an ‘anti-Christian’ policy! As for the nurse, on several occasions the health authority offered reasonable compromises, however she, on the advice of her ‘ambulance chasing’ ‘Christian’ legal advisers, refused to accept these compromises (despite the fact it is common policy on some hospital wards for staff to remove jewellery when at work).

The Christian registrar happily signed Islington Council’s Equal Opportunities’ Policy – a legally binding agreement where she stated she would not practice discrimination in the provision of the Council’s services. Perhaps she should have thought about what she was signing! And given the bread and butter of a registry office are remarriages, it is rather odd that this strict interpreter of Scriptural values concerning marriage would be involved in marrying divorcees, in light of Jesus’ views on such behaviour. Did this registrar ask to only be allowed to officiate at first time marriages or the marriages of those whose grounds for their previous divorce were unfaithfulness? I suspect not – I suspect she didn’t give it a thought.

In 1993, as a student social worker, I attended an interview for a placement with Relate – at that interview I was asked if I would have any problems counselling same-sex couples; hence I find it rather hard to believe the conscientious Christian sex therapist – working for Relate almost 20 years on, wouldn’t have been asked the same question at interview. Tho’ it seems this man of strict Christian principals had no problems giving sex therapy to unmarried heterosexual couples – which rather calls into question the integrity of his Christian orthodoxy! And again, the fact his hypocrisy was questioned, does not constitute an ‘anti-Christian’ policy.

Is it ‘anti-Christian’ to challenge these – shall we say ‘cherry-pickers’ of what aspects of the Christian religion they choose to get haughty about and the ones they conveniently forget? We are – thankfully – emerging from a time when the ‘race card’ could be conveniently played when poor employees were challenged in their work. Is that now to be replaced by the ‘Christian Card’? Whereby crap or difficult employees can claim discrimination on the grounds of religious belief (and perhaps get a nice compo cheque in the process)? There has to be some application of the law to stop such excesses; and to stop religion being used as an excuse for prejudice, bigotry and hatred. Court after court has ruled against the cases above – I would suggest READING the legal decisions before jumping to easy conclusions and joining in the whining ‘It’s not fair’ that seems the habit of a certain flavour of Christian these days. With the exception of the BA worker, I think all the judgements have been fair in light of ALL the evidence and the particular circumstances.

The Bible tells us the means of expressing one’s Christian belief to wider society is by one’s behaviour: turning the other cheek, loving one’s neighbour, rejoicing in persecution, forgiving one’s enemies, carrying other’s burdens, being the servant of all etc… If wearing a bit of tat around the neck or parroting the ‘The Bible says Thou Shalt Not…’ are the only ways and means Christians can live out their faith in the workplace, then God help the churches – and God help Britain!

Wouldn’t Hitler have said the same, as an excuse for expelling the Jews? Indeed is there any evil that could not be made endemic, any minority could not be persecuted, if we used those words? Every persecutor in the world passes laws that he knows his victims must break, and then shrieks about “law breakers”.

It is the hallmark of a repressive state that it forces Christians to choose between the law and Christ. No normal state has any need to do this.

As for ‘my rights’, this is all about politics. Law in this land is created by court cases. What they’re trying to do is NOT allow “Christians may not work in the state sector” to become the default position of the law in this country. And that, surely, we should all cheer them for.

“At the root of this, though, is a feeling that these cases are not organic. They are more like theological ambulance chasing with people encouraged to come forward to have cases taken on their behalf.”

That is the point to bring human rights principles into disrepute in the minds of the general public in preparation for the destruction of those values.

The human rights ambulances and the obligatory ambulance chasers whizz past the dispossessed of Scottish social housing schemes without a moral glance.

Not wanting to put words in your mouth webmaster, but I think your article hints at the bigger conscience and discrimination picture – at what point should Christians war with the State in self-defence.

How can you lead by example when the very conscience of the example is being outlawed, in consequence does it not go against Christianity to roam the World in a permanent state of (suppressed) Christian unconsciousness?

This is a question that has vexed me for a long time.

At the root of this, though, is a feeling that these cases are not organic. They are more like theological ambulance chasing with people encouraged to come forward to have cases taken on their behalf. If this sort of thing was widespread we would see more actions brought by individuals without the assistance of these other organisations.

Since when has Christianity been ‘all about me’?

As I have said before about any form of bullying – if it is not stopped, it will get worse. These cases may not seem important in the overall scheme of things, but if they are lost the anti-Christians will have won, which will give them fresh impetus, and worse will surely follow.