Crucifix banned by school in Australia

[Jenn! 918]

August 20, 2006 12:00am

A TEENAGE Christian has been banned from wearing a treasured crucifix by her high school.

Jamie Derman, 17, said she was stunned when told she could be suspended from Sunbury Downs Secondary College if she did not remove it.

Her discreet cross was outlawed as part of the multicultural college's new rules on jewellery and dress.

But major churches were united yesterday in criticising the ban, with some saying it thwarted students' religious aspirations.

Ms Derman said she was being discriminated against and prevented from displaying her belief.

"`I am angry, confused and upset," the teenager said.

"I honestly believe I should be allowed to acknowledge (my Christianity).

"Being told to take it off hurts. It cuts really deep."

The cross, which she bought during a family pilgrimage to England, had immense sentimental value because she had lost her baptism gifts, Ms Derman said.

"I can't understand why it is not all right for me to wear a cross," she said.

"I honestly felt like crying."

Her furious father, Gordon, criticised the school and said it was the equivalent of ordering a female Muslim student to take off a religious head dress.

"Nobody should take offence to anybody wearing a religious sign," Mr Derman said.

"She has a right to wear it. I believe it is discriminatory. If we had a Muslim girl come wearing a headscarf, nobody would say `boo' about it."

Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne auxiliary bishop Christopher Prouse said genuine Christians should be allowed to wear a crucifix without question.

"A reasonable demonstration of one's faith is something Australians should rejoice in," Bishop Prouse said.

"People's religious aspirations need to be respected."

Anglican Bishop John Wilson, bishop administrator of the Anglican archdiocese of Melbourne, said the wearing of a cross reminded Christians of their faith and could be a source of comfort and strength.

The Uniting Church also questioned the ban.

"Wearing discreet religious symbols is a normal part of life, " a church spokesman said.

Sunbury Downs principal Brett Moore said teachers had enforced a dress code policy instigated by the school council.

"It is not my decision, it is the policy," he said. "Necklaces should not be visible."

Mr Moore said the policy was supported by the majority of parents.

"The policy has been implemented. If the family wishes to seek an exemption there is a process by which that can occur."

Mr Derman said he had tried to discuss the issue with the school, but had not been offered any exemption.

The Department of Education and Training said it did not get involved in uniform policies.

A school's dress code was set by the school council in close consultation with teachers, parents and students to reflect the values of the school community, spokeswoman Lisa Mulhall said.

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,2...154-661,00.html

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

"I honestly believe I should be allowed to acknowledge (my Christianity).

[Fuzzness 2]

kids should be allowed to wear religious jewelry or clothing or whatever regardless of their religion

[mawilson 2,133]

Australia too?

[Veiled Princess 1]

This is ridiculous. People are determined to take God out of every aspect of our lives.

[Fuzzness 2]

This is ridiculous. People are determined to take God out of every aspect of our lives.

and some people are determined to force God into every aspect of our lives

[Widge 0]

According to the principal quoted the problem was not the cross or jewelry it was the fact that it was visible ......... is this perhaps a case of someone taking an innocent event and turning it into some major religious controversy ??

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

According to the principal quoted the problem was not the cross or jewelry it was the fact that it was visible ......... is this perhaps a case of someone taking an innocent event and turning it into some major religious controversy ??

Even taking that into account, I don't think the kid was wearing a 50lb Mr T style necklace.

I'm sure Australia has something similar to France where they ban accessories with religious significance. Never really understood that - pretend religion doesn't exist by stopping people expressing their faith (at least from appearances).

[Veiled Princess 1]

According to the principal quoted the problem was not the cross or jewelry it was the fact that it was visible ......... is this perhaps a case of someone taking an innocent event and turning it into some major religious controversy ??

Well, is the rule no religious symbols or is it no visible jewelry?

If it's to cut down on wannabe gang members wearing those HUGE pendants to school I can understand that rule

If it's no religious symbols then I don't think the schools have a right to make that call....

Oh but this is not the US so I don't know what the laws are there

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Oh but this is not the US so I don't know what the laws are there

VP, you noticed

[kittykatwoman 0]

In france, religion is a private thing, it stays home not that it doesn't exist...

For those who know our history, our philosophs and our culture, it's easy to understand.

No proselistism and no ostentatious sign, if people want their kids to be in religious school, they have to go in private schools but not in the state one.

Christianity is dead in France, we are a secular democracy, there is no mention of God in our hymn, no God on our money and God is nowhere here, churches are beautiful museum of the past.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Christianity is dead in France, we are a secular democracy, there is no mention of God in our hymn, no God on our money and God is nowhere here, churches are beautiful museum of the past.

Just so we all understand, are you saying this is a good thing or a bad thing?

[Ban Hammer 13,337]

Christianity is dead in France, we are a secular democracy, there is no mention of God in our hymn, no God on our money and God is nowhere here, churches are beautiful museum of the past.

and i find that saddening.

[kittykatwoman 0]

But most importantly we are not

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

But most importantly we are not

We are not what? I am confused.