I support this family !

Posted by: cosmicAvenger at January 13, 2007 7:26 AM

It is interesting how we are removing all aspects of Christianity within our schools while replacing it with other religious symbols.

Like the British General in Iraq said, we are pulling up our roots (our anchor) and now we are adrift. We are lost.

For the sake of diversity, we are weakening ourselves. Diversity does not create unity.

Posted by: Sir Oinks Alot at January 13, 2007 8:18 AM

Diversity is okay except you can't include muslims. Then it becomes adversity.

Posted by: TheOmegaMan at January 13, 2007 9:06 AM

How can a crucifix breach health and safety rules unless one is in saudi arabia or some other beautiful islamic paradise ?

Posted by: arjun.sevak at January 13, 2007 9:49 AM

clear case of christianophobia

Posted by: StillFedUp at January 13, 2007 10:12 AM

This girl should consider going to school dressed as nuns once dressed.

Wonder where that would leave them and their
"health and safety" rules?

Posted by: Anthony at January 13, 2007 10:34 AM

People in this country are too scared to say anything against other faiths because they don't want to be accused of discrimination.

That's what multiculturism does for a country.

And it's a health and safety issue unless it's required by a religion then it's not? How can that be? Either it is or it isn't.

Posted by: Borg at January 13, 2007 10:41 AM

The politically correct cops in Britian are blatantly anti-Christian.

A cross on a young girl's neck has absolutely nothing to do with "health and safety".

Do these British teachers really believe that we are foolish enough to accept their "health and safety" nonsense?

This is simply just another poor excuse to force Christianity to the margins of British society.

Resist discrimination and ignorance by protesting.

Posted by: Johnathan at January 13, 2007 11:20 AM

Hey, this is just progress in England. I mean, what did you expect? I hope you weren't under the impression that Roman Catholics have equal rights in England, or any rights for that matter.

Wearing a cross at school, IN PUBLIC?! Stop joking, it's not even funny.

Posted by: EliasAlucard at January 13, 2007 11:23 AM

I vote for banning Christianity in England! Make islam the new state religion!

Signed sincerely, just another Christianophobe.

Posted by: EliasAlucard at January 13, 2007 11:24 AM

Normally, I wouldn't advocate a 13 yr.old girl getting a tattoo...but if she wanted to get one of a cross, just to defy this idiotic rule, I'd say OK

Posted by: freedomschool at January 13, 2007 11:59 AM

Behold the triumph of secular humanism! It is creating the circumstances Islam needs to take an unshakable hold in Britain.

I feel for those who are trying to fight this- it's got to be nearly impossible with the government and media apparently on the side of Islam.

Posted by: s at January 13, 2007 12:37 PM

This is encouraging. I'm sure the hijab will be banned next, right? It's as much a religious symbol as the crucifix around a young girl's neck.

As long as all religious symbols are banned equally and we all suffer equally everything is good, right?

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at January 13, 2007 12:52 PM

Posted by: Mother Ecclesiastica

It is also possible that staff or other students may have overheard some unpleasant-persons threatening to 'smite her in the neck' which one must admit would be an 'health and safety problem'.

A very good point considering this incident

'Racist' hammer attack at school
January 12, 2007

PARENTS spoke of their shock and disgust today after a 15-year-old boy was attacked with a hammer at his school by an Asian gang.

The pupil was left lying in a pool of blood after he was set upon by a gang of at least four Asian men at the Ridgeway School in Wroughton, near Swindon, Wiltshire, at around 4pm yesterday.

The teenager, who has not been named, was taken to Swindon Great Western Hospital where his condition was today described as stable.

Eight men have been arrested and are being questioned at Gable Cross police station in the town.

Parents arriving at the modern comprehensive school today to drop their children off admitted they were worried about pupil safety following the attack.

One mother said her son had been attacked by Asians and claimed racism was rife in the school.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2007020044,00.html

Posted by: shiva at January 13, 2007 1:05 PM

We do not want the Asians (muslims) armed with hammers beating all the kids who are wearing crosses

Posted by: shiva at January 13, 2007 1:13 PM

Mother Ecclesiastica says:

"It is also possible that staff or other students may have overheard some unpleasant-persons threatening to 'smite her in the neck' which one must admit would be an 'health and safety problem"

Well, if that's the situation, then the authorities, including school administrators and the police, have to prosecute those threatening her, not cave in to their violent intimidation! That's what they're there for!

British Christians ought to be up in arms about this (and a whole lot of other things going on in the UK these days).

Four courses of action are advisable to start with. Try these first (not necessarily in any order)

1. Turf out the Labour government (may be helpful but not essential).

2. Loud, obnoxious protests demanding that the competent authorities do their job - if it’s a question of Muslim pressure again.

3. Legal challenges overturning these types of policies, fighting on to the highest court in the land if necesary (Individual Christians and their associations have to be prepared to dig deep into their pockets to fund this campaign).

4. An attempt at passive civil disobedience (Freedomschool has one creative idea)

If none of these work:

5. Let 'em have it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/05/nrelig05.xml

Posted by: templar at January 13, 2007 1:18 PM

I agree with freedomschool. For over a thousand years many Christians in Egypt, Eritrea, and other Middle Eastern countries would tattoo crosses on the hands or foreheads of their small children. This would make them less desirable for Muslim kidnappers since the child would have a permanent reminder of their real origins. If Christians in the UK did this, the schools would be helpless to stop it.

Posted by: Provoslavni at January 13, 2007 2:24 PM

I also agree with templar except where he wrote "An attempt at passive civil disobedience"

Passive my arse! The reason Muslims are successful is because the dhimmi authorities are scared of them. Well, let them be scared of us for a change. Meet terror with terror. The Armenian Secret Army (ASALA) had the right idea.

Jesus said "The Kingdom of Heaven suffers violence and the violent sieze it by force". Its time we abandon pacifism and fight to win. Long live the Secret Army of Anti-muslim Resistance.

Posted by: Provoslavni at January 13, 2007 2:37 PM

Sorry folks,

It's about wearing jewelry.

Here's a link to the BBC; and a video (top right).

http://search.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/search/results.pl?scope=all&edition=i&q=girl+%2B+cross

Posted by: PRCS at January 13, 2007 3:34 PM

Provoslavni:

Keep this in mind: The admiration I have for the Knights Templar, which prompts my use of the on-line name “Templar”, is based on the fact that they, like the other great military order - the Knights Hospitaller, combined military strength, training and discipline, with Christian devotion as pious monks. Like them, I am a faithful son of the Church (just as your on-line name suggests that you are). As such, some of the talk I’m reading in response to my earlier post is over the top and I find it objectionable and alarming. I agree with you on this much: “The Kingdom of Heaven suffers violence and the violent sieze it by force. Its time we abandon pacifism and fight to win“.

But we don’t want to turn into the very enemy we fight - or its spittin’ image and there are Christian moral principles regarding participation in warfare to consider (and I assume, similar moral principles binding on the followers of the other religions you mention), which some of your suggestions about private crusading armies overlook. To win, we also have to be right, and keep the moral high ground. So - says me - these groups have to avoid random violence (such as the suggestion to harass all Muslim women or to kill any hundred Muslims that can be found) unless the specific circumstance on the ground in that case make it absolutely and indisputably morally clear that all of the members of a Muslim community in question are either “combatants” themselves or willing supporters and collaborators and thus, a clear threat and accessory to the enemy’s actions. The principle that has to apply here is the imperative to stick to targeting those known to be guilty or, if necessary, those known to be protecting them. And this has to be concrete and specific, not the kind of vague theoretical equivalence used by the 9-11 hijackers and their supporters used (arguing that the victims of the terror attacks were quilty simply in view of being American, or working for the Western economic system, and other such nonsense) as by arguing, for example, that the fact that they are Muslims is enough in itself. (Islamic leaders who are known to promote attacks or other forms of oppression on non-Muslims are a legitimate target).

And for any group targeting the police in western countries to have any moral legitimacy or political traction with me they would have to draw the boundaries of the conflict with the police by a series of escalating actions first so that they’re not just committing mass murder themselves. Attacks on property, including public property, are one thing, but against living human beings - especially innocent ones caught in the middle such as most police officers in this unenviable predicament would be - are quite another. So if the kind of groups you're proposing are going to use terrorist tactics they should use those used by the less violent terrorist groups that operated in the West some years ago, namely by warning the police of what’s coming and telling them to evacuate their buildings, followed, if necesary at some point, by warnings that the next attacks will not be announced in advance. Make it clear to them that by siding with this enemy they have put themselves on the wrong side of justice and thereby inadvertently become the enemy in this civil conflict. In fact, here’s a better suggestion for those who want to take direct action: the next time Muslims hold noisy, menacing demonstrations threatening to behead those who “offend” them, go and do what the police are either afraid to do themselves or are prevented from doing by their political masters: read the miserable miscreants the riot act, and if they don’t disband and go home, break up the rally yourselves. More than that, look for ways in British law (or wherever else you live) to lay charges and prosecute the bastards yourselves, without the help of government’s prosecutors and police.

Posted by: templar at January 13, 2007 4:19 PM

PRCS:

Good of you to find that link and post it.

I note with satisfaction that the boycott lead by Christian groups has forced British Airways to reconsider its cross-banning policy.

Posted by: templar at January 13, 2007 4:36 PM

Behold the triumph of secular humanism! It is creating the circumstances Islam needs to take an unshakable hold in Britain.

I feel for those who are trying to fight this- it's got to be nearly impossible with the government and media apparently on the side of Islam.
Posted by: s

Yeah, secular humanism is at fault here for this mess. Usually, it's "secular humanists" who promote islam and dislike Christianity.

Posted by: EliasAlucard at January 13, 2007 5:30 PM

This british girl's family needs to sue the school district for antichristian bias and discrimination. Pure and simple ... it is discrimination. The British are really going down the toilet fast.

Posted by: callmeinfidel at January 13, 2007 5:37 PM

My job forbids me to wear "jewelry" for safety reasons. I have worn a cross around my neck every day. If they want to fire me, fine. I will not take off my cross for their policy. Occassionally someone notices it under my shirt and raises an eyebrow at my flaunting their rules, but to date no one has said anything to me about it except, "You ought to remove that."

In the U.S.S.R. there was a man that spent about ten years in prison for refusing to remove his cross in the 80's and early 90's. I don't remember his name. Perhaps someone with links to Keston College could find out.

Posted by: St. David, King of Georgia at January 13, 2007 6:26 PM

Templar,

I wrote the above to purposely sound as extreme as our enemies. It was a polemic and should have been taken that way. I also know that Jesus didn't mean the quoted statement the way I used it. The point was how it would be if we were willing to be just like our enemies.

Of course, as Christians we must hold ourselves to both the golden rule and the command to "Love our enemies". In reality, no Christian (or Jew, Hindu or Buddhist) could seriously consider rape or the puposeful killing of innocent civilians as justified. We are the defenders of the culture of life and will never adopt the tactics of the culture of death.

Nevertheless, it is justified to resist violence with equal or superior force. The examples of St. Juan of Capistrano, Bl. Vlad Tepes, Bl. Isabel of Castille, St. Lazar of Kosovo, or General Suvorov come to mind among Christians. Joshua ben Nun or the Maccabees come to mind among Jews, and Shivaji among Hindus. All are in the category of righteous warriors.

In truth, our hearts should mourn for our Muslim brothers and sisters, who have been raised in this cult of death. As such, we need both a military response against jihadist violence and a missionary response to free as many as posible from the spiritual darkness under which they live. I know that many will discount this because of takkiya but to do so is to doubt the power of the Holy Spirit.

Saints John of the Cross and Teresa of Avila were both the children of Muslims who converted to Catholicism. Even if their parent's conversions were mere takiyya there is no doubt of the true faith of the next generation. So, although I defend a strong response of meeting terror with greater terror to the wrongdoers, I also pray continually that God will soften the hearts of the millions of decent Muslims and bring them to the Truth.

Posted by: Provoslavni at January 13, 2007 6:27 PM

So how long will it take until Christians are fed to lions in England? Considering where England is going, it won't take long until the Roman Empire catches up.

Posted by: EliasAlucard at January 13, 2007 6:50 PM

I can't help feeling this story is a bit of a canard. No young British schoolkid has been allowed to wear a chain around their neck since time immemorial. the teachers suffer from a nightmare vision of them dangling from some piece of gym apparatus with their tongues lolling out of their mouths.
Te hammer attack in Wroughton is genuinely disturbing: film of a gathering of parents outside the school was a more striking image than any I've seen of fear actually appearing on British people's faces as a direct result of intimidation by Muslims. The BBC was a bit coy about even describing them as Asians, omitting this detail in some of their reports. But the TV channel 4 version mentioned (well on into the story) that Muslim community leaders were being consulted in connection with the attack. Rather disturbingly, given the cultural fondness for creating an atmosphere of fear, it appears that all those arrested have been allowed out on bail.

Posted by: wallyUK at January 13, 2007 7:26 PM

templar/

See, also from the Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=1TTBVGMQIIIMPQFIQMGCFF4AVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/2006/10/15/nveil15.xml

and the original article by Mr. Davis:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/10/15/do1509.xml

Dominic.

Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at January 13, 2007 8:43 PM

“I wrote the above to purposely sound as extreme as our enemies“.

Posted by Provoslavni

Well (LOL), you succeeded brilliantly!

Also:

"Of course, as Christians we must hold ourselves to both the golden rule and the command to "Love our enemies". In reality, no Christian (or Jew, Hindu or Buddhist) could seriously consider rape or the puposeful killing of innocent civilians as justified. We are the defenders of the culture of life and will never adopt the tactics of the culture of death.

"Nevertheless, it is justified to resist violence with equal or superior force. The examples of St. Juan of Capistrano, Bl. Vlad Tepes, Bl. Isabel of Castille, St. Lazar of Kosovo, or General Suvorov come to mind among Christians. Joshua ben Nun or the Maccabees come to mind among Jews, and Shivaji among Hindus. All are in the category of righteous warriors.

"In truth, our hearts should mourn for our Muslim brothers and sisters, who have been raised in this cult of death. As such, we need both a military response against jihadist violence and a missionary response to free as many as posible from the spiritual darkness under which they live. I know that many will discount this because of takkiya but to do so is to doubt the power of the Holy Spirit".

Yes. Well said., by the way. Thanks for that clarification.

I'm also glad that you mentioned St. John of the Cross and St. Teresa of Avila. There are some posting on this site who, if they're not posturing for effect (I‘ve argued at length with some of them and know for a fact that many of them are not), do sound very extreme indeed, and it's good for them to know such things.

Unfortunately, I believe it may be necesary in the not very distant future (possibly very soon) to adopt the kind of proportional use of force that you refer to in this last post of yours.

God help us all. (No laughing matter).

Posted by: templar at January 13, 2007 8:55 PM

Dominic:

Thanx for the links. I've given them a cursory look (since I'm in a bit of a hurry at the moment) but plan to study them in more detail later.

I must say that I find it a bit distressing to hear the word "homophobia" being used in the Hennesey/Kite article (it's being used everywhere far too much) since it should be obvious to the good old MSM - if it didn't suffer from PC blindness - that far from constituting any kind of "phobia", there is very good, solid, rational grounds for fear and resentment of Islam.

The whole situation in the UK is very disturbing indeed.

But thanks again for the info. I'll give it a good careful review.

Cheers

Posted by: templar at January 13, 2007 9:04 PM

We do not want the Asians (muslims) armed with hammers beating all the kids who are wearing crosses
Posted by: shiva

Yes we do, if that's what it takes to wake up the Dhimwits selling us down the river alongside them.

They are drowning and holding on to those who can swim!

Posted by: MeanieMo at January 13, 2007 9:39 PM

It's truly amazing.. we are allowing the moFoes - who are still a minority among us - to treat us like the Germans treated the Jews in the 30's.

People often wondered how comne the Jews didn't fight back. There was no precedent then for what was to come and things hadn't been clearly spelled out by the perpetrators. Second.. the Jews were actually in the minority.

So they have some "reason" for not having fought back. This time around we are being bullied and terrorized by a "tiny minority" and yet we stand aside and look each and every time!!

When will we finally RISE UP??!!

Posted by: MeanieMo at January 13, 2007 9:45 PM

Sorry folks,

It's about wearing jewelry.

Here's a link to the BBC; and a video (top right).

http://search.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/search/results.pl?scope=all&edition=i&q=girl+%2B+cross

Posted by: PRCS at January 13, 2007 10:17 PM

This post is about something else entirely than jewelry now.

Posted by: templar at January 13, 2007 11:42 PM

"This thread... " I should say.

Posted by: templar at January 13, 2007 11:44 PM

OT The BNP ballarina

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/12/nballet112.xml

Posted by: Borg at January 13, 2007 11:56 PM

Hi Templar,

It appears they've deleted the part of my first post where I facetiously called for a Christan Al-Qaida, so nobody else will now understand our conversation. Nevertheless, I enjoy your posts and almost always find myself in full agreement.

Posted by: Provoslavni at January 14, 2007 12:37 AM

They're not preventing her from wearing a cross.

She could wear a cross as a lapel piece. She could have a cross on her wrist watch (if they're allowed).

If the school district were to allow Muslims to wear a necklace with a crescent and star, and yet prohibit this girl from wearing a necklace with a cross, that would be reason to complain.

Fighting windmills.

Posted by: PRCS at January 14, 2007 1:57 AM

Crap like this is making me seriously consider getting an obvious tattoo of the Crucifix.

I may not be a good christian, but I will die believing in Jesus Christ.

I'm seriously considering getting one on my upper arm anyhow. A rugged, wooden, splintered cross.

Posted by: Canadian Christian at January 14, 2007 1:58 AM

Right back at you, Provoslavni!

Cheers!

Dominic:

Sorry for any confusion caused by my reference to "homophobia". (Don't know how I ended up typing that - neuron misfiring I guess!).

I meant "Islamophobia" (obviously).

Take care.

Posted by: templar at January 14, 2007 2:19 AM

Now if it was an asian that was attacked,we would see the asians pouring out of the mosques screaming for revenge.

Posted by: shiva at January 14, 2007 9:57 AM

I'm just waiting for Westminster Cathedral to be turned into a mosque and get it over with.

Posted by: Catawhumpus at January 15, 2007 8:42 PM

Funny I'm an atheist, but I consider myself a cultura christian. 15 years ago in my buisiness I took out all the crosses, doing the multicutural thing. But I have put them back in, and don't ask me to take them out because I won't. There are limits to tolerance, and without limits we have nothing, just like a beach ready to be washed over and disappear with the smallest wave.

Posted by: chucky at January 15, 2007 10:43 PM

As a teachers wife, I can see why the school didn't not want her to wear the necklace, as school children should not be allowed to wear anything which can hurt them in any way what so ever,, we didn't even allow hanging earrings, bracelets or rings, as things can get caught in them and some children have been very badly damaged. however if other religions are allowed to wear symbols around their necks, hands, etc then this is definitely a case of discrimination against Christians... if the symbols are on their clothing that is less likely to do damage unless someone falls against them...so it might be wise to find out where the muslims are allowed to wear their symbols,,, Muslims world wide must be dancing for joy,, it means that they have won over many parts of America, and will think that their tactics are working...with people pandering to them and being against christianity, they know that they will soon win...

Posted by: Gaye at January 15, 2007 11:18 PM

"school children should not be allowed to wear anything which can hurt them in any way what so ever,, we didn't even allow hanging earrings, bracelets or rings, as things can get caught in them and some children have been very badly damaged."

If we took this rule to its logical conclusion, then children would not even be allowed to wear clothes to school, as articles of clothing such as pants, socks, sweaters, bras and underwear (and head scarves too, now that I think of it) can easily be used to strangle, smother, suffocate, etc., shoes can be used to bash heads in, hats can be pulled down over eyes to obstruct vision, the imagination reels with all the potential horrors... in seriousness though I am curious as to whether the school would allow the cross to be worn in another "safe" but still visible format, such as a tattoo on the forehead or the back of the hand, unless the school also has a rule against tattoos... this could be an interesting test case.

Posted by: angloirishslav at January 15, 2007 11:44 PM

as an example of dhimmitude, this is not appropriate. as a former teacher, i know it is normal for schools to ban necklaces, rings, earrings, etc. and, as has already been pointed out by a poster, she has been told that she may wear a lapel pin, cross lapel pins being readily available in christian bookshops. this young lady should continue to broadcast her faith in the advised manner, and stop her rebellion against the school authorities

Posted by: freddiefreeloader at January 16, 2007 11:31 AM