It is my right to blah blah blah
Look at this leering little pill. Look at that ineffable smirk. Well naturally, she’s got her picture in the paper, and she’s been given a chance to set up as the new fun thing to be, a Martyr for her Faith. Of course she’s smirking. She must have been beside herself with joy and excitement when a teacher told her to take off the nasty little necklace with torture-execution emblem. She’s probably been waiting to be told that for weeks, wondering what was taking everyone so long. Mind you, she was allowed to wear the same revolting thing as a lapel badge if she wanted to, the pious little creep, but no, that would interfere with the martyrdom-pose, so obviously she wasn’t about to close with that offer. Hell no. Where would be the fun in that? She would hardly get a chance to announce to the Telegraph that ‘I am determined to keep wearing the crucifix whatever the consequences – even if I get suspended or expelled’ if she settled for just swapping a necklace for a lapel badge, would she. Nor would her mother get the chance to drone to the same newspaper that ‘I was brought up to be proud of my religion and we believe it is Sam’s right to be proud of what she believes in and wear a symbol of her faith. It’s a total disgrace. I don’t want Sam’s schoolwork to suffer, but she believes in standing up for what she believes in.’
They must all be just tumbling over each other with bliss in the cross-infested sitting room of their pious devout proud spiritual faith-based religious proud courageous dwelling place. They get to be in the newspaper. Called devout. Talking about what they are determined to do even if they are tortured or killed or imprisoned, or anyway expelled from Robert Napier School, Gillingham, Kent, which is much the same thing if you look at it the right way. Everyone will admire them! Everyone will think how brave and proud and self-sacrificing and devout and brought up they are! Everyone will be so impressed! They’ll probably get to meet the queen, and Charles, and Camilla, they’ll probably get to have Julia Roberts over for dinner, they’ll probably get to make the House of Lords do something or other. It is all so exciting. Darling little cross, what fun it is.
Now, now, aren’t you being a little bit too uncharitable here? It’s a thirteen-year old girl, for goodness’ sake.
And what’s so revolting about the cross, anyway? That it’s a symbol of torture and execution? It may be for you. But one can hardly argue that this revoltingness is somehow objectively there. For many Christians, the cross would symbolize sacrifice (which is usually regarded as a virtue) and the presence of God as sharing humanity’s fate, as opposed to the stern lawgiver of the first covenant.
Mind you, it’s perfectly possible that this event is (again) exploited as a propaganda coup for christians claiming the mantle of victimhood. I just suspect that it may be the parents, rather than the girl itself, who are mainly responsible. Also, little necklaces being health and safety hazards seems nonsensical to me. Sounds like nannyism gone mad.
But OB, it’s all part of the UK-wide assault on christianity being carried out by the nasty, evil, aggressive atheists…surely you can see that?
I’ll offer a tenner wager the press strategy was sanctioned (if not planned) by that old paedophile-priest-protector, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Conman…
:-)
Merlijn – it’s not really about expressions of religiosity from the school’s point of view. She CAN express religiosity in a symbolically identical way with the lapel badge if she/her family weren’t such attention seekers. It doesn’t seem to be about health and safety either (as it’s only for years 7-10). It’s about jewellery. They don’t want jewellery for whatever reason it is that schools don’t like that stuff. It’s the same for nose piercings, and wildly dyed hair, and noticeable accessories. My state school even had rules about the length of your hair (not too long or too short), and although they were largely ignored, they were there for some reason. It was never clear what it was, but I think essentially it was about stopping nonconformity in dress because it would lead to other kinds of attention seeking, disruptive behaviour (like running around crying). And by the way, these aren’t archaic rules or anything, I left last year.
Anyway, the point is that this is an attempt to stop people wearing jewellery, and if people tried to wheedle their way out of it using religion, everyone would be at it. As for the ‘mandatory symbols’, it’s probably just not worth the aggravation of challenge the hardcore who think that mandatory bangles and so on are important, and it leaves the “no jewellery” rule intact. All seems perfectly sensible and pragmatic to me.
“Also, little necklaces being health and safety hazards seems nonsensical to me. Sounds like nannyism gone mad.”
Presumably you got the idea that this is down to health and safety regulations from the girl’s words in the article. Given that she brazenly lies in the article (“…why can I not wear a cross to show my devotion to God?” Um, you can.), I doubt her word on this is particularly reliable. Like you say, this may be a ‘christian victim’ story being exploited. In fact that seems obvious, given that it doesn’t actually show her right to religion being frustrated, yet is still, bizarrely, being reported as if their complaint made any sense. In fact, it is bizarre that this non-story is even in the papers at all.
Well at least it was a thirteen year old complaining. This is very thirteen year old behaviour – what to wear, who to be friends with, striking extreme emotional poses to test adult authority.
It’s just a pity so much of the rest of the world has been getting so adolescent about religion recently. How can a newspaper find this newsworthy? Not that there aren’t important disagreements in society over religion, but the recent flashpoints have been so childish.
I also think health and safety has a ring of truth about it. Adults seem to have lost a basic capacity to justify their actions, while health and safety is seen as a good all purpose justification. Much easier than asserting that teachers are in a position of authority and children are there to learn.
It’s no different than me turning up in an Arsenal shirt and saying I should be able to wear it because I’m proud of my team.
Oh and I’ve just reread the article and I managed to notice the first sentence this time. “A devout Catholic schoolgirl has been banned from wearing a crucifix in class on health and safety grounds.” Sorry Merlijn…
Still though, I do find it odd that in year 11 it suddenly stops being dangerous.
AAh yes. Peurile.
And the thirteen year old girl’s actions were too. Disappointing all round.
this leering little pill … nasty little necklace … pious little creep … darling little cross
Militant little secularists certainly know how to damage their own cause – no wonder that most agnostics and atheists would probably prefer to be ruled by the likes of woolly-headed Rowan ‘Primrose’ Williams than by zealots who give the impression that they would criminalise the display of any religious symbols in public places. They may not mean to give that impression, but they do.
That said, the crucifix tale certainly has something fishy about it. As Ophelia suggests, the ‘scandal’ has probably been concocted by the girl’s parents for attention-seeking purposes (though that’s no reason for virtually dehumanising them).
In fact, the Robert Napier School seems to be a disciplinarian’s paradise. I’ve just had a quick glance at the school’s December 2006 Newsletter and it is clear they run a tight ship with a martinet dress code:
Year 11 Boys: White shirt, Maroon sweatshirt and tie (purchased from the school). Plain grey or black tailored trousers and Black or brown shoes – no trainers.
Year 11 Girls: White shirt or blouse, Maroon sweatshirt (purchased from the school). Grey or black skirt of appropriate length or tailored trousers and Black or brown shoes – no trainers.
Discreet make-up and jewellery may be worn. No earrings other than a single stud or small ring worn in each ear. No denim or leather or hoodies to be worn.
See here – warning: PDF file.
The school management actually distinguishes between boys and girls. I thought that was against the law these days. No crap about metrosexuals’ rights. No mini-skirts for mini-prostitutes. No special accommodation for Muslim girls to dress up like bats either. Zero tolerance of all deviant behavior – the way a good school should be.
A photo of a school visit to the Imperial War Museum also reveals that these kids are from the right side of the track. In fact, the school looks like an oasis of monoculturalism – not even a token person of colour, unless one includes one upper-caste Indian boy who could pass for a Greek. One is more likely to be hit by a terrorist bullet than to be a victim of interracial or interfaith violence at the Robert Napier School. No class wars. No sex wars. No race wars. No religious wars.
Spot on, crucifix or no crucifix.
When I’m reincarnated I’ll send my kids there myself.
Cross my heart and hope to die.
“It’s just a pity so much of the rest of the world has been getting so adolescent about religion recently.”
But the whole religion thing is adolescent – isn’t it?
Cathal, why did you bother posting my abusive rhetoric; you surely don’t think I’m unaware that it’s over the top? You surely don’t think it wasn’t meant to be?
Ah, just seen OB’s last comment. I was going to say I thought you were a tad OTT, Ophelia, on a 13-year-old girl who is probably easily influenced by her parents (and no doubt her parish priest and other assorted nutcases).
I do wish, though, that newspapers would get it right: the caption calls it a cross and elsewhere it’s correctly described as a crucifix (clear from the pic). It’s as annoying as when BBC reporters repeated use ship and boat to described the same vessel.
I share one commenter’s comment. ‘Paul Jackson, the deputy head at the secondary school, said: “The school has a policy of no jewellery to be worn by students in years 7-10.
‘”The only exception to our uniform rule we would consider making is if the jewellery were an essential requirement of a particular religion“‘(my italics)
Why? Why? Why?
O.Bs over the top discription of this 13 year old girl kind of adds fuel to the argument that christians are under seige from militant athiests.
OB – Your post is just nasty. The fact that you meant it to be OTT doesn’t make it less nasty.
‘”The only exception to our uniform rule we would consider making is if the jewellery were an essential requirement of a particular religion”‘(my italics)
Why? Why? Why?”
Well the obvious reason is that unless this concession is made children with particularly strict relgiious ome environments will tend to be self-excluded from mainstream schools and that will be bad for them and bad for society at large. The price to be paid is in this sort of silly brouhahha though.
Your post is just nasty. The fact that you meant it to be OTT doesn’t make it less nasty.
Welcome to the world of satire.
If you don’t like the style of the post then do what I do with religiose posts and just parse it for content.
I’m looking forward to the first Goth kids arguing that they should have coffins in school. It’s their faith after all (more than a 7-10 year old’s religion), and you know what happens to vampires if sunlight hits them.
Yeah, Ophelia’s comments were ‘nasty’, but I can understand why. All this current bullshit makes me want to scream too (as Ophelia could tell you, for she sometimes has to endure such rage in emails from me!).
;-)
I had to laugh at the Telegraph article. The journalist wrote that the child ran from school crying because she couldn’t wear her fetish, and also mentioned that she wanted to be a vet. Damni those secularist bullies for picking on a weepy girl who just wants to look after poorly bunnies ;-)
To be fair, I think a lot of kids go through the stage of wanting action on the school uniform policy – I went to a Catholic School, run by nuns, no less, which had a near identical rule. The most we saw was a near-annual revolt by girls wanting the right to wear trousers. Never made the national press, however…
Then again, my first thoughts on reading this story were ‘Prissy little madam!’. I wasn’t aware I’d become a middle aged woman until now…
Well, being male, I always score 0 in those “what do these eyes mean?” tests, but I do know that, unlike YHWH, I am not supposed to fancy 13-year-old girls, so I am right glad that it was OB not me who detected a leer. Two mature ripostes occur to me:
1. To anyone wearing a cross or crucifix: I see you are a Christian and proud of it. I realise that to some apologists, your ornament “would symbolize sacrifice (which is usually regarded as a virtue) and the presence of God as sharing humanity’s fate, as opposed to the stern lawgiver of the first covenant.” Personally I cannot understand why YHWH, if he is a good god, would need a sacrifice, let alone the sacrifice of his own son, before he would forgive the descendants of Eve for Eve’s sin of listening to a talking snake. Please would you explain? Please would you also explain why Jesus’s sacrifice was any big deal compared with that of, say, Spartacus, given that Jesus knew he was coming back to life again in 48 hours?
2. According my religion, which has just been revealed to me by an Angel called Sodomi, and is inscribed on 47 holy potatoes which have unfortunately been made into chips by mistake, salvation is obtained by sucking arse. Adherents are required to wear a small tableau depicting two gorgeous lads enjoying this act.
I would be devastated if OB ceased to pour scorn on such people.
My school had a strict dress code – and it would never have occurred to me to violate it with my sombrero of atheism.
I remember wearing an inverted cross to RE class just to piss of my teacher (a devout Christian) when I was at school – and at the time I still considered myself a Christian too. Kids will rebel against any of the seemingly (and mostly actually) arbitrary rules they’re subject to. Religion is just topical right now.
Ken,
Now there’s a thought. A non-theist dress requirement which, if challenged can cause us to run crying from the room and seeking redress as a victim. Sombrero sounds good. How about a clip- on Darwin beard?
Why not? Apparently 73% of the UK population are officially victimised minorities.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2394841,00.html
So what about the other 27%? Surely by being non-victims we are a minority (sorry, OB, as a woman you get automatic victim status) and as such isolated from mainstream victim society.
I will not rest until every person in this great nation can proudly stand up and say, ‘It’s not my fault, I’m a victim.’
>My Jesus, often have I signed The death warrant by my sins; save me by Thy death from that eternal death which I have so often deserved.< The above is an excerpt from the first station of the + DIVINE + DEVINE + CROSS!!
Brenda, of course it’s nasty (whether it’s ‘just’ nasty is more debatable, but never mind that), and of course the fact that I intended it to be nasty doesn’t make it less so – but Cathal seemed to think he was telling me something I didn’t know. Come to think of it, he often does, which is one reason he often gets on my nerves.
I long for a sombrero of atheism. Can we think of one? One that would be an unmistakable chapeau of infidelism, I mean? Probably not, probably just have to stick with the old T shirt with writing on.
Argh –
Thanks, Marie-Therese.
That’s quite a horrible morbid death-hugging thought, isn’t it. I’m horrible; I’ve helped to kill Jesus by being horrible; Jesus please parlay your horrible painful death into saving me from the eternal death I deserve because of my horribleness.
It’s just…not…good for people, a thought like that.
May “Devine Mercy” be with you always!
Oh, thank you so much!
It’s like the old catchphrase: with friends like these, who needs enemies? With mercy like that, who needs brutality?
>Whilst before Thy face I humbly kneel, and with burning soul, pray and beseech Thee, to impress deep in my heart lively sentiments of faith, hope and charity, true contrition for my sins and a firm purpose of amendment.
Whilst I contemplate with great love and tender pity Thy five wounds, pondering over them within me,
and call to mind the words which David Thy prophet placed on Thy lips, good Jesus: “They have pierced My hands and feet; they have numbered all My bones” (Ps. XXI, 17-18). < (A plenary indugence applicable to the poor souls in purgatory may be gained by those who recite this prayer before an image or picture of Christ crucified after pray for the intentions of the Pope.) You know, Sam will have to face the “piercing truth” when she finds herself expelled from school.
Perhaps, like Cathal she too needs to pray the above prayer in order to gain some plenary indulgences.
Slowly, slowly catchee Monkey.
OB was ruthless – she used wit, sarcasm and hyperbowl. Once she stapled my knees to the floor. But I deserved it. I had broken the Code.
I’ve seen grown men rip their own heads off to avoid my sarcasm.
Vercotti: Olivia(takes a drink) Well, I was terrified. Everyone was terrified of Olivia. I’ve seen grown men pull their own heads off rather than see Olivia. Even Dinsdale was frightened of Olivia.
2nd Interviewer: What did she do?
Vercotti: She used… sarcasm. She knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor, bathos, puns, parody, litotes and… satire. She was vicious.
Presenter:By a combination of violence and sarcasm, Butterlies&Wheels by February 1966 controlled London and the Southeast of England. It was in January, though, that Olivia made a big mistake.
http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/87382.aspx
Sorry, it was just there, you know how it is…
Mariska Hargitay Alert!
Leering Little Pills for Jesus !
By the way “My Jesus, often have I signed The death warrant by my sins; save me by Thy death from that eternal death which I have so often deserved”
If I was the girl, I’d get the school sued good and proper, and then swap the crucifix for an oversized Slipknot T-Shirt, black eye-liner and a spot of self-harming, and then sue my parents for mental cruelty and emotional damages in making me ‘believe’ such esteem-crippling stuff in the first place.
Don, double-victimhood: it’s the only way to stay ahead of the pack.
>then sue my parents for mental cruelty and emotional damages in making me ‘believe’ such esteem-crippling stuff in the first place.< With a name like Devine, Samantha’s parent/parents most probably grew up chanting, Faith of our fathers! living still In spite of dungeon, fire, and sword; O how our hearts beat high with joy Whene’er we hear that glorious word! Faith of our fathers, holy faith!
We will be true to thee till death.
They too in turn could sue those who put such esteemed crippling stuff down their throats.
ChrisPer,
Phew, I think the ‘Olivia’ thing went under the radar.
Careful, she may be lulling us into a false sense of cliche…
>Religion is just topical right now< On a similar note.
LONDON — Nov 2006. A British Airways employee was suspended from work for refusing to remove a necklace bearing a Christian cross, a British newspaper reported Saturday. Nadia Eweida, a check-in worker at Heathrow Airport, told the Daily Mail she was suing the airline for religious discrimination after being sent home for breaching BA’s dress code. “British Airways permits Muslims to wear a headscarf, Sikhs to wear a turban and other faiths religious apparel. Only Christians are forbidden to express their faith,” Eweida was quoted as saying. British Airways said company policy said employees must wear jewellery, including religious symbols, under their uniforms. “This rule applies for all jewellery and religious symbols on chains and is not specific to the cross,” the airline said in a statement.
Radar was turned off at the time.
Why am I reminded of the muslim girl who was pushed by H-u-T into demanding her full body-covering dress at school?
And lost at court?
And the muslim teaching assitant, whose face could not be seen?