School asking daughter to remove small cross despite religious symbols policy

[FanFckingTastic]

I'm looking for some advice and thoughts!

DD is 15 and at secondary school. She has always worn a small silver cross - at primary school this was never an issue (it was a church school) Up until this point it's not been an issue at secondary school either. The cross is very small and is tucked into her shirt so you would have to be really looking for it in order to see it. She always removes it for PE etc.

Last Monday her head of year saw the cross and asked her to remove it. My daughter replied that it was her cross, and that she didn't want to. She was then approached and asked to remove it every day for the remainder of the week, with increasing threats of sanctions if she didn't comply with the schools 'no jewelry' rule. My daughter kept reiterating that this was her cross, and asked the teacher to speak with me. Finally on Friday I received an email to tell me that my daughter needed to take her cross off.

I completely understand the new jewelry rule but wonder how this sits alongside the responsibility that the school has under the equalities act 2010. In their uniform policy it states that it will 'allow pupils to wear headscarves and other religious or cultural symbols' I would interpret this to include a cross too?

My daughter wears her cross as a sign of her faith and really wants to continue to do this.

Has anyone come across this situation before? If so, what was the solution?

If you’re this devout, then surely you’re familiar with these Bible quotes:
Matthew 6:5-6 — Jesus explicitly tells followers not to make a public display of their faith: “When you pray, do not be like the hypocrites… go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father in secret.” The principle is that genuine faith is inward, not performed.
Matthew 6:1 — “Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them.” Hard to argue a visible symbol is a spiritual necessity when Jesus says the opposite.
1 Corinthians 3:16 — “Do you not know that you are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you?” Faith lives in the person, not an object worn on them.
John 4:24 — “God is spirit, and his worshippers must worship in spirit and in truth.” Again — inward, not outward.

so she’s not going against her religion by complying with the school policy- it’s as simple as that.

No, we do not need to accept it, what a load of tosh!

Could you buy her a small holding cross? I use one daily which is made out of olive wood. It fits nicely into my hand in my pocket and brings me comfort through the day. I work in an environment where a cross can be easily pulled from my neck. If you google olive wood holding cross you’ll find lots

Stop preaching. It's about law and precedence not your interpretation of scripture being used as a weapon against the OP.

Precisely:
Matthew 6:5-6 — Jesus explicitly tells followers not to make a public display of their faith: “When you pray, do not be like the hypocrites… go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father in secret.” The principle is that genuine faith is inward, not performed.
Matthew 6:1 — “Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them.” Hard to argue a visible symbol is a spiritual necessity when Jesus says the opposite.
1 Corinthians 3:16 — “Do you not know that you are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you?” Faith lives in the person, not an object worn on them.
John 4:24 — “God is spirit, and his worshippers must worship in spirit and in truth.” Again — inward, not outward.

even priests only wear pectoral crosses if they wear them at all- PURELY as a sign of their office and episcopal authority, never as a jewellery.

Totally agree, that the timing of this post seems a little curious, especially that the commenting history of the OP places them firmly on the right side of politics.
tell you what- nice try, I’m still voting green today ✌🏻

oh come on now, you’re trying to oversimplify and fit a very complex issue here within precedence and legality. A minor raised in Islamic faith would very rarely have a choice in whether they want to wear a head covering or not- and if they chose not to, they could be ostracised by her family and wider community. That’s why some concessions are made in the “religious symbols” school policy- to protect and safeguard. There’s a blanket ban on jewellery, and crosses are not exempt, because there’s literally no consequences in a catholic faith for someone who does not wear a cross. It’s purely a choice, and even the OP says daughter didn’t remove her cross because she WANTED to wear it. Not that she’d face consequences at home and in her wider circle if she didn’t.

Respectfully, you're trying to complicate it with your personal views.

I'm removing mine (note I acknowledge that I do have them), by focussing on the matter to hand.

The legal precedence has been set. OP has legal recourse.

Facts over feelings.

lol, I’m removing mine too! I’m a Christian Catholic who took all my sacraments to date and I’m in the process of arranging baptism for my little one! And as a mother I understand why the concessions for religious symbols in uniform policies exist.
but if you really want to simplify it then let’s- schools have every right to impose whichever police they please to- so just adhere to it. There- couldn’t be simpler! Policy is a policy 🤷‍♀️

But, it's not.

Please refer to NHS being challenged on "policy" and losing, hence, the precedent.

Anyway, I'm here to advise OP on their position as they asked for advice.

Others personal views, which are not legalistic, are not relevant to me and should not be relevant to OP.

I would have thought religious dogma would override both in religious matters, for the religious person anyway.

Is that not what this is about ?

so most schools allow only Small stud earrings to be worn as jewellery. Someone has already suggested to OP to get little crucifix studs, which she thought was a great idea. Isn’t that a solution to the problem? DD would not in any way be discriminated against outwardly displaying her faith. Would you agree?

@Fleetingmoment Yes, they just allow a small stud. Schools often allow a cross lapel badge too. Tiny cross studs might be difficult to source. A lapel badge is much easier.

Actually, freedom of religion and freedom from religion are both protected characteristics in many legal systems. The point of the Pastafarian example was not that it is equivalent to Christianity, but that schools and courts have to be able to draw workable boundaries around religious expression and policy.

The girl may well be genuinely devout, but that still doesn’t automatically mean every form of religious expression overrides a school’s rules. That's why I said ‘render unto Caesar’; not as ‘submit blindly to authority’, but to recognise that schools can impose rules provided they are lawful and proportionate.

In any case, Christianity is not expressed solely through symbols. There’s a beautiful hymn called They Will Know We Are Christians By Our Love, which rather makes the point that faith can be expressed through conduct and character as much as through outward display.

Perhaps she should try that.

No it's about determination to break school rules being framed as some sort of essential religious observance, when the truth is the wearing of crosses is nothing of the sort and may well be contrary to the teachings of both the old and new Testaments.

Policy is a policy until it’s seen as discrimination against religion (accept Christian’s that doesn’t count) we have been conditioned to stop making a fuss and mind what we say, and people do it because they fear rejection so they reject themselves and their religion instead.

Also keen to find out the faith of the teacher saying she can’t wear a cross under her shirt in a Christian country.

You really betray your ignorance by suggesting I am relying on ChatGPT. Does it occur to you that others on this thread may be practising and experienced lawyers in the relevant field? You simply are not applying Eweida properly in the school context, let alone the full context as given by OP.

I’m surprised she went through multiple requests to remove it without speaking to you?

Surely the solution is to approach the school. Ask them if there is an exemption to the jewellery rule for religious symbols, and ask if an alternative to the necklace would be more
acceptable. You can offer to ask the priest/vicar of the church she attends every week for a letter of support if she belongs
to a denomination that is ok with the wearing of symbols.

Hasn’t it occurred to you that if the girl was indeed wearing the necklace under her shirt none of this would have arisen as it would not be visible?

Just one of the clear anomalies in the tale.

It is highly relevant, however, to people claiming that being prevented from wearing a cross is preventing them from manifesting their religious beliefs.

No-one is asking Christians for one moment to reject their religion. After all, the rule would apply in exactly the same way to a pupil wanting to wear the symbol of any other religion on a chain around their necks.

Far from Christian children being required to reject their religion in the UK, they are in a privileged position in a state school as the school is required to carry out regular acts of worship that are Christian in character. There is absolutely nothing within Christian teachings that says that, if you fail to wear a cross, you are rejecting the faith.

I don't understand why she's so keen to outwardly show her faith when the news is full of scandals involving the church: irish baby home scandal with bodies buried in the ground, Spanish babies for sale scandal (who do you think you are special tv programme), catholic priest abuse of children covered up by a pope or 2, Archbishop of Canterbury losing his job for covering up some awful abuse by priests on boys.... It's never ending. And these are just the ones who got caught and couldn't be denied any more - despite decades of haughty protestations.

It seems children and the church aren't a healthy combination. Again, best to keep religious fervour out of schools and sort one's own house first. No wonder the new Archbishop is a woman... A safer (but not foolproof) option.

Keep religion to clothing in schools. Keep policies clear, no jewellery for anyone, and before Christians get all preachy, consider why other Christians, me included, don't want any more stirring of religious fervour, especially in schools. They are for learning, not politics, or any other agenda.

The stats at GCSE at pitiful. And they've been manipulated too...for years.

But small crucifix studs can be worn or even crosses on lapels, as another use suggested, so DD has other options to express her faith outwardly if she wants to. Where’s the alleged discrimination?

Christian country? Is 1946 posting on here now...?