Skip to comments.CoE School Bans Girl From Wearing Crucifix - But Allows Sikh Pupils To Wear Bangles
Posted on 07/01/2009 6:31:23 PM PDT by Steelfish
CoE school bans girl from wearing crucifix - but allows Sikh pupils to wear bangles
A school told a child to remove a Christian cross she was wearing even though it lets Sikh children wear bangles as part of their religion.
Lauren Grimshaw-Brown was told to take off a necklace with a cross on it because of health and safety fears.
But the eight-year-old's furious mother has accused the school of double standards because they allow children following other faiths to wear jewellery on religious grounds.
The mother-of-two says Lauren and brother Callan, five, have always worn crosses at St Peter's CE School in Chorley, Lancashire.
'We're a Christian family and my children wear the necklaces underneath their tops,' she said.
'On Thursday Lauren was told by a teacher to take it off because apparently they're not allowed to wear jewellery.
'I could understand it if it was a fashion accessory or a High School Musical necklace, but it's part of our faith.'
Mrs Grimshaw-Brown complained directly to the headteacher, Helen Wright, who referred the matter to the school's chairman of governors, Father Atherton. He upheld the ban.
Mrs Grimshaw-Brown added: 'I received a letter in my child's reading folder. It said that if she had been a Sikh child she would be allowed to wear bangles because it's part of their religion.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
I really think it is all over for England. The hell with “God save the Queen”. Just get her a passport and a one way ticket out of the place.
Great Britain has really gone down the toilet.
To Muslims don't be rude
Living in dhimmitude,
No offense bring.
Gospel preaching is "hate"
Christian faith second rate
The end of servile state:
Alllah is King.
When Ramadan draws near
We forsake ale and beer
(Cant give offense)
School children cant eat lunch
Cant even candies crunch
Lest Moslems panties bunch
Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams.
FReepmail Huber or sionnsar if you want on or off this low-volume ping list.
This list is pinged by Huber and sionnsar.
Resource for Traditional Anglicans: http://trad-anglican.faithweb.com
Humor: The Anglican Blue
Speak the truth in love. Eph 4:15
You know who I feel sorry for in this story almost as much as this young little girl? The Sikhs!
Having known many of them, I can tell you Sikhs don’t complain one bit about religious symbols of other religions. In their religion other symbols are not offensive. I have taken them to Catholic churches with nary a complaint.
Now the Sikhs are going to get a backlash as people are going to assume they were against the crosses.
I just don’t get why we have become so PC. What the heck is the issue with a discreet cross. I ask my fellow FReepers. What about religious symbols set us off so.
If I saw my Muslim co-worker wearing a discreet crescent I would not be offended. Neither am I offended by Sikh bangles or Jewish Star of Davids.
Why are people so hung up on banning religion?
Sadly, we’re not far behind.
Because they hate God.
They just wanna ban Christians. Other religions are OK.
England is a socialist state run by leaders who hate Christianity specifically. The same is about to happen here in the USA but they haven’t fully consolidated their power yet.
Does anybody READ articles anymore, before making judgmental comments about them? Or has that tedious practice gone out of fashion on FR?
The school has NOT said she can’t wear a crucifix. In fact, they’ve invited her to wear one on the outside of her clothing. Really, *read* and you’ll understand.
Discrimination against Catholics!
The school has NOT said she cant wear a crucifix. In fact, theyve invited her to wear one on the outside of her clothing. Really, *read* and youll understand
Granted I'm a bit tired so my reading comprehension may be a bit off, but I cannot find anything to support your argument that the school is allowing the wearing of the cross. If you could point out the relevant passages for that, I'd be much obliged.
>> The prospectus makes clear that jewelery may not be worn except for earrings and watches. ... ‘We do want children to be proud of their Christian faith, therefore we would like to encourage them to wear crosses,’ she added.
>>In fact, theyve invited her to wear one on the outside of her clothing.
Well, sorta - I’ll be sure to look for all those cross-shaped watches the next time I’m in Wally*Mart. Maybe they’ll have one with a little man on it.
Read the section of the article posted here, yes; click the link and read the entire article, seldom, because depending on the linked site that can be a 5 minute load time or more on dial up, assuming that it even loads at all.
Yes, you are correct, they invited her to wear a brooch in the shape of a cross.
I give you that.
However, I do not understand why the necklace was not allowed.
The overly PC explanation of it being “dangerous” does not ring true.
In any case, I do fully respect the rules a school sets but we should not be so rigid as to forbid a discreet necklace.
But .. in fairness to you.. you did correctly point out that the school does allow crosses, albeit in the shape of watches or brooches.
This is a point a lot of us posters (including me) missed.
So, mea culpa!
Hear Ye! Hear Ye! Hear Ye!
FReeper Convention Ticket Drawing!!
All NEW monthlies of $10 or more submitted by July 31 that include the words FReeper Convention Ticket Drawing in the comment section will be included in a drawing for a Freeper Convention ticket!! The winner can use the ticket for himself or give it away to another FReeper!!
Hope to see you in DC!!
I read it...all the way to the end.
The Sikh bangles are bracelets.
The rules said “no bracelets”, too.
I don’t think the school should have a problem with either of these kids wearing their religious jewelry. The girls can always be told to put their necklaces in their clothing when they are at recess, etc. That was a sad excuse. I don’t know much about the Church of England or their beliefs, but it seemed strange, particularly from a school named “St. Peters”.
There was a case probably just a few hundred (or less) miles away from there almost exactly a year ago where the Sikh family took the school to court for not allowing their daughter to wear the bangles. They won. I think this school may have been trying to avoid that with the “brooches are OK” thing. I don’t know. It just reeked of more political correctness.
She can wear the exact same item as a brooch. That’s a pin. Take the crucifix off the chain, put a pin on the back of it (which can be done for about 50 cents with epoxy and a pin from the jewelry parts section of a crafts store, or pay a jeweler a few bucks to do it), and put it right on the front of her shirt — she could even put it in the exact same spot where the crucifix sits on her shirt when it’s hanging from a chain. I’ve done this myself with pendants I preferred to wear as a brooch. Since the crucifix presumably already has a little hole at the top, she could also get a little stud earring of the same metal, and fasten it to her shirt like a lapel pin, so no permanent alteration would need to be made, and it could still be worn elsewehre as a pendant.
The school bans necklaces of all kinds, not just religious. The Sikhs’ bangles were granted an exception because wearing them is a specific requirement of the religion, just as many workplaces ban hats, but make an exception for Jews who must wear a yarmulke. I know of no branch of Christianity which teaches that followers must wear a crucifix on a chain around their necks, and this family is not claiming to follow any religion which has such a requirement.
If parents at the school want to challenge to overall ban on necklaces, they’re free to do so. But I expect an insurance company is at the bottom of the rule.
These rules are usually driven by requirements of a school’s liability insurer. For example, at several schools I attended, backless shoes were among the prohibited items (danger of tripping and falling, especially down stairs). At one of these schools (a private school), the student government attempted to get the rule changed as clogs and “Scholl’s” were the current fashion rage, but quickly relented when they were shown the insurance company’s written requirement.
Sure, an insurer could probably be found that would write a policy without requiring that this rule be in place, but it would very likely be more expensive. And if the experience of the school, or of it staffers who’ve worked at other schools, is that necklaces, hooped earrings, and bracelets really do end up causing injuries, it’s well within reason to prohibit them. I’m not aware of any religion that actually requires necklaces or hooped earrings, I think the Sikhs are probably unique in requiring wrist bangles. A blanket ban, with exceptions only for the very rare cases of specific religious requirements, is reasonable. Otherwise teachers and staff end up having to police a large array of such jewelry, and kids will of course try to push the envelope and wear larger necklaces that are primarily or exclusively fashion statements and claim they’re “religious” (picture giant pentacles on 12 year olds who became Wiccans last week).
Maybe the thinking is that when the children are playing, the chain on which the crucifix hangs might catch on something and injure or, in the most extreme case, strangle the child.
I think BOTH of you are correct. Probably a necklace for young kids can be dangerous (as opposed to a closed bangle).
Perhaps the school was fair. Maybe it is the way they conveyed their message seems unfair.
However, now that my emotions have calmed down, maybe this is the one time where the News media has hyped this up too much.
It is just that we are like whipped dogs now. There are so many genuine attacks against Christianity that we are in a defensive posture and sometimes we may over-react to something that may not be an issue after all.
In any case, I feel calmer now...and maybe (just maybe) fully see both sides of the story
I understand about the liability insurance and all. Just wait til a kid gets stuck with one of those brooches with a rusty tip and has to get a tetanus shot. I guess those will be banned, too.
I’ve never been one to go for “zero tolerance” of any kind and this sounds like like that, with the exception of the Sikhs. Nothing against Sikhs, here, at all.
Still - I can’t be sure how it is in England, but I know here, classes were over 30 kids when I was in elementary school and my teachers did a very good job policing us during class, during lunch, on the playground and other activities without these blanket bans.
Not arguing with you, just airing my thoughts. I guess my first statement “They just wanna ban Christians” might have been a little harsh.
Given the almost daily goings on in Great Britain whereby everyone seems to bend over backwards to accommodate the minority population, often at the expense of the Christian community, your initial response is totally understandable.
With energetic help from the child's parents. I guess they've got their pulse on the mood of the news media, and realized they could get their family in the newspapers this way. But given what the underlying facts are, I'm inclined to put these parents in the same category as the all-too-numerous US parents who fight (sometimes even in court) sensible school dress codes, claiming that their little darling goth or grunge or skank or Crips offspring's First Amendment rights to free expression are being violated by being required to wear a white polo shirt and khaki pants or modest skirt to school.
You are correct about that. A school should have the right to set sensible policy.
As I said earlier, there has been so much Christian bashing in general that one tends to be very defensive...