I’m not one to go running to the defense of the evangelical, but I find myself trying to figure this whole “Ms. Eweida” thing out.  Let’s toss the facts out and go from there.

At issue is what constitutes a mandate by faith, what is simply an expression, and what are the rights of private sector employees with regard to religious adornments.

Our story begins in 2006 with British Airways.  Ms. Eweida, an evangelical, is told that her cross does not constitute a “necessary” expression of her faith–not like the religious requirements of hijabs, skikhs, or turbans.

“Between 20 September 2006 and 3 February 2007, the respondent prevented the appellant from attending work when she visibly wore the cross and did not pay her as a result, ” Nick Fagge, of the Express.co.uk reports. Read more »

Segnala presso:

Our story begins rather simply, as these cases typically do.  It is October 2004 and Donna Busch, parent of our protagonist, was invited to speak to the class during little Wesley’s “about me week” in his Kindergarten class.  Any mommy capable of squeezing time from work knows that the kindergarten visit is really special.  The teacher, Ms. Riley extended a visit, and Ms. Busch accepted.  One of the “about me week” activities including bringing in a favorite book to read aloud to the class.

According to court documents, Wesley chose the Bible because “of his Christian belief and because a reading from the Bible would express to the class an important aspect of his life and personality.”

Mind you, this wasn’t a kiddie Bible like the little doll to my left is holding (though that would have been inappropriate as well), this was the good ‘ol King James Version itself.  Mommy was slated to read from the Psalms. Read more »

Segnala presso: