Lift high the cross

[rug]

Religious symbols at work

Nov 21st 2013, 17:23 by C.M. and B.C.

BRITAIN and Scandinavia have similarly idiosyncratic religious regimes: Christian monarchies and national churches, combined with increasingly secular, liberal and diverse societies. Even in Sweden where church and state were formally separated in 2000, the monarchy still professes the national Protestant faith; the same goes for Norway where church-state ties were loosened last year. In England, church-state ties are still so close, with Anglican bishops sitting in the legislature, that the prime minister expects some say on church affairs. David Cameron has just welcomed an Anglican vote that will bring closer the appointment of women bishops, breaking a year-old deadlock on the issue which he deplored.

Now you might think that in parts of the world where secular governance and Christianity are so intertwined, the display of Christian symbols by the staff of national institutions would be uncontroversial, perhaps even encouraged. But it so happens that in both England and Norway, there have been headline-hitting stories this year about people who were told not to wear a cross at work. The latest erupted this month at Norway's state broadcaster NRK, where a journalist, Siv Kristin Saellmann, was told to stop wearing a newly acquired necklace, featuring a gold cross studded with black jewels, on screen. NRK confirmed that she was instructed not to wear it after viewers complained that the symbol compromised her neutrality. The story zoomed round cyber-space in some exaggerated versions, claiming that a reporter had been fired for being a Christian. A right-wing Norwegian politician, Vidar Kleppe, demanded to know why a tiny cross was banned from the airwaves while the Norwegian armed forces allowed the Sikh turban or hijab.


In fact, Ms Saellmann told Erasmus, the whole thing has been blown out of proportion. She is still working away. Although the cross, a present from her husband, was meaningful to her, both spiritually and sentimentally, she would not have worn it on screen if she had known what a row it would cause, and even if her employers were to change their policy, she wouldn't put it back on while the cameras were rolling. It was not her intention to provoke.

But inevitably, there were comparisons with two British disputes over wearing a cross at work which culminated in a mixed verdict at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in January. Nadia Eweida, a Coptic Egyptian-born woman living in London who worked for British Airways, had a row with her employers in 2006 after she decided to wear visibly a small cross which she had previously concealed under her clothing, as staff were encouraged to do. British Airways changed its policy in early 2007 to allow the display of certain symbols, and hence solved Ms Eweida's problem. But she made a complaint over the damage to her interests and feelings during the several months when she did not attend work. The other case concerned a nurse, Shirley Chaplin, who was told to stop wearing a cross round her neck for safety reasons. The hospital insisted that it had rules that told nurses to keep jewelry to a minimum and avoid necklaces; she said she had worn a cross for many years without causing problems.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/erasmus/2013/11/religious-symbols-work