Comments on: Russian Church: British Authorities Adopt Double Standard on Public Symbols

By: J.J. Kotalik

J.J. Kotalik — Fri, 23 Mar 2012 22:39:31 +0000

What does it have to do with the Patriarchate of Moscow? Well, the MP has MANY parishes – made up of both immigrant and converts – in the UK; I don’t have the numbers would I would not be surprised if the MP had the most parishes in the UK. As such, the MP has a duty to protect its flock living in the UK. Furthermore, one of the affected individuals is a parishioner at the MP’s Cathedral in London – which is a beautiful place and a wonder to attend – and so this duty is no longer an abstract concept; there are very real wolves now trying to devour the MP’s flock and it would be damning if they did not stand up to support this woman.

As to the situation with this woman, I hear that she is a nurse and did not even have her cross visible, as she wore it under her work clothing. When her employers told her that it could still fall out if on a chain, she offered to duck tape it to her skin; they however told her this was still not acceptable. So, she chose to resign rather than take off her cross, which IS VERY REQUIRED in the Russian tradition. There is no canonical requirement, no, but one should wear their baptismal cross every day, as it is that cross which we took on at baptism and its very real presence helps to remind us of our duty as a Christian. Now, I know some priests who insist it be worn under one’s shirt, lest it become a show, and this is what I do, but every Russian priest I have ever met insists on how necessary this is. Let us not forgot that to take off one’s cross was how, in during the Bolshevik revolution, one indicated that they had apostatized from the Church and that holy men and women were martyred from refusing to take theirs off. Now, if our brothers and sisters can face death for the sake of not taking off that which makes us a Christian – our cross – then we can face losing our jobs.

By: Michael Bauman

Michael Bauman — Thu, 22 Mar 2012 13:44:34 +0000

NO, it is not just a legal issue, it is an issue of actual religious freedom. The freedom to practice one’s belief without unneccesary restrictions. It is also a matter of what we in the US would call equal protection under the law. Of course these days that means that all are equally prohibited, but it used to mean that the law is applied without prejudice based on class. Never actually happened of course, but the concept, the ideal helped promote a civil society in ways that class consciousness simply does not.

As to why Moscow is involved, maybe the remember the old prohibitions of the Soviet time and don’t wish them repeated.

By: The English Observer

The English Observer — Thu, 22 Mar 2012 08:21:45 +0000

I do not see what this has to do with the Moscow Patriarchate. They have no business involving themselves in a matter still before the Courts in Britain.

Also, the widely-voiced reports from Father Mikhail Dudko about a parishioner in London being forbidden to wear a cross at work and choosing to resign are vague on detail. What sort of work was the parishioner doing? Was she trying to wear a visible cross? Has she taken legal advice?

In fact there is no law in Britain against wearing a cross at work; the argument is whether a cross may be worn visibly if the employer objects. I am not aware of any canonical requirement for an Orthodox Christian to wear a cross at all. That seems to be the essence of the legal issue.