Crucifix Ban

The principal of the school is correct when he says "Christianity does not require followers to wear a specific symbols."

A crucifix is a poor symbol of our faith in any case. Praise God, they may be able to insist on the girl removing her jewellry, but they can't do much about an empty tomb!

 

Why is a crucifix a worse symbol than a manger scene?

 

This has been tested and tried in courts. Religious jewelry such as crosses, crucifixes, stars of david, ichthuses, crescents, etc, are permissible if similar jewelry is permitted in the dresscode.

In this case, however, jewelry is banned by the dresscode. The case of the Sikh wearing a symbol of his faith is permitted because the sect of Sikhism requires it. Since the girl's religion does not require her wearing of a symbol, so the ban is permissible.

This would be similar to a ban on hats. Orthodox Judaism requires men to wear yamulkas, and they are legaly permitted to do so regardless of the ban. A Christian, however, cannot wear a baseball cap and claim religious reasons, because most Christian sects do not require men to cover their heads, and a ban on them would stand.

 

Ah, this is the likes of the Daily Express and Daily Mail fulminating at the mouth. There is also a slight piece of inaccuracy about the reporting in any event: the Sikhs were allowed to wear ceremonial bracelets, not daggers.

 

So if someone is a "radical" islamist who has taken a vow of self sacrifce they can strap on a bomb and go to school as required by the vow.

HankD

 

C'mon HankD, this is hardly the same thing. A Sikh is allowed to wear a bracelet because his faith requires it. He is not threatening anybody by wearing it. Christianity does not require Christians to wear any kind of symbolic jewellry or clothing. Many schools prohibit the wearing of jewellry and many people wear crucifixes who are not even remotely Christian. Let's be level headed about this thing.

 

Yes it is. The issue is not the harm it does but whether it's required by one's faith.

HankD

 

A bomb is not a prerequisite of Islam.

 

A crucifix is wrong anyway as Jesus is no longer on the cross. A crucifix reminds me of my days as an RC when they were displayed in every classroom and is a clear breach of the command against graven images.

Kind regards to all.

Bob

 

Many people wear crosses and it signifies nothing to them other than wearing a piece of jewelry.

Just an observation.

 

You are distorting my words Matt.

I purposely used the word "radical" related to "Islam". It is a requirement of the radical faction for a "dedicated" one to kill "infidels" through self-sacrifice.

My wife and I have muslim friends and while they do say that these are not "true" muslims, the homicide bomber sect beg the differ with them and that is why these killers shed the blood of other muslims as well.

HankD

[ December 09, 2005, 11:03 AM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

Amen.

 

Oh, c'mon Hank, that's apples and skyscrapers. Wearing of a piece of jewelry and stapping on a bomb are so unrelated, the analogy is at best laughable.

A better analogy would be a Rastafarian who claims that he must sell pot to the neighborhood as part of his religion. He's still gonna go to jail for drug dealing. Likewise, a militant who attempts to strap on a bomb is not going to be legally permitted.

 

Is it laughable to you Johnv it is not to the "radicals"?

It is NOT different in symbolism.

No matter what you think of a crucifix it is unfair of you to call a Catholic's symbol of her faith "a piece of jewelry", it is not just a piece of jewelry to her.

A wedding ring is just "a piece of jewelry". The symbolism of the ring carries the weight of the meaning to the wearer and often the message to the world.

Radical Islam showers honor, prestige and martyrdom on these killers. Pictures of "martyrs" in white robes, or bedecked with weaponry and/or bombs are becoming symbols of the "faith" being used in the radical islamic schools where children are taught the principles of martyrdom.

http://www.pmw.org.il/Latest%20bulletins%20new.htm#essay

http://www.pmw.org.il/tv%20part10.html

http://www.pmw.org.il/tv%20part1.html

HankD

[ December 09, 2005, 12:23 PM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

Yes it is. As a former Catholic, I speak with some authority on this issue.

I value my wedding ring. I value it highly. But it's just a piece of jewelry.

No one disagrees, but that's neither here nor there. It's completely irrelevant to the OP topic. It wasn't even a part of this thread until you introduced it.

 

So am I and I don't wear my crucifix anymore do you (after all it's just a piece of jewelry)?

Thank you. That is exactly my point it has a value other than what it is intrinsically!

It is completely relevant, read the articles about the issue. It has to do with symbols of faith and their meanings.

Read the articles, pictures of "martyrs", weaponry and strap-on bombs have become symbols of radical "Shahada".

A symbol is a symbol whatever it is. Bracelet, wedding ring, crucifix, cross, Star of David, bomb, swastika, whatever, whether good or evil.

HankD

[ December 09, 2005, 01:54 PM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

No. The chain broke several years ago, and I haven't yet gotten it fixed. If I get it fixed, I'll likey wear it again.

Note that I stated very clearly: I value it highly, but it has no value other than a piece of jewelry.

Again, that's already been addressed and discussed satisfactorily. You seem to want to continue to discuss it.

 

Forget it Johnv there won't be a meeting of the minds on this issue.

Bless you brother.

HankD

 

Actually, I have a Crucifix collection and it is not distinctly Roman Catholic. Martin Luther and Lutherans since the reformation have defended it's use. Calvin, Zwingli and the Anabaptists over reacted against Roman Catholicism on this. I wear one on occasion. It is no different than a Nativity scene, it is just a symbol of faith.