Hot cross buns have become a hot topic at an elementary school in England.

The traditional Easter bun that bears a cross is apparently too much for Jehovah’s Witnesses to bear.

Jehovah's Witness headquarters -- no hot corss buns here“Hot cross buns are a pagan symbol of fertility no different [then] bunnies, eggs and Easter…The bible states we should not worship things of a pagan origin,” a local spokesperson for Jehovah’s Witnesses told the Evening Star.

The headteacher of Oaks Primary School in Ipswich has asked suppliers to get the cross off its buns.

Interestingly, the Witnesses insist that they are “Christians,” but actually reject the trinity and see Jesus as an angel rather than the Son of God.

Doesn’t seem very “Christian” does it?

No Christian denomination has historically ever accepted Jehovah’s Witnesses as Christian.

It seems Witness children at the Ipswich school who are already forbidden to participate in its holiday programs such as Christmas, Easter and Valentine’s Day and are also routinely barred from celebrating birthdays, must now forswear hot cross buns too.

A seemingly startled local told the newspaper, “I have never heard of anything so ridiculous.” 

However, hot cross buns appear to be serious business for the Witnesses.


8 comments untill now

  1. Jesus warned of fanatics who would,”strain out the gnat but gulp down the camel”.
    Jehovah’s Witnesses are thinking and the Watchtower is shrinking, i was in the cult and now i’m out.- Danny Haszard Bangor Maine

  2. I likek how RR spun this article. Reading the originals you would see that the teacher is theone who made the fus. No JW’s were quoted in the original story. Must be a slow day.

  3. keikihipa @ 2006-02-06 18:34

    I find the statement “see Jesus as an angel rather than the Son of God.” is ridiculous. That is a TOTAL lie. Jehovah’s Witnesses DO indeed view Jesus as he is, God’s son. It’s the other “Christian” religions that say he is not God’s son, but God himself. Get it straight!

  4. cali2indy @ 2006-02-07 05:14

    You would normally expect a journalist to publish the facts. The fact that Rick Ross inaccurately stated one of the most basic teachings of Jehovah’s Witnesses should make any thinking person question the accuracy and intent of what he writes. See the JW website and see what the Bible teaches (what JW’s believe) about who Jesus is.

    As Christians, Jehovah’s Witness know that things like this will be said:
    (1 Pet. 4:4) “Because you do not continue running with them in this course to the same low sink of debauchery, they are puzzled and go on speaking abusively of you.”
    (John 15:20) “Bear in mind the word I said to you, A slave is not greater than his master. If they have persecuted me, they will persecute you also”

  5. Triple GGG @ 2006-02-07 18:31


    Sounds like you change the facts to suit the story. I am looking at a new
    JW publication What does the Bible really teach. On page 41 paragraph
    11 states: ” Jesus is Jehovah’s most precious Son.” Seems you must have missed this new book.

  6. I have been one of Jehovah’s witness for over 40 years, previously to
    that I was a Baptist.

    As a Baptist, I believed Jesus Christ was part of a Trinity, or God.

    As Jehovah’s witness all 6 million believe Jesus was created by his
    Father Jehovah, as stated in Colosians 1:. 15 “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; ” we also believe and teach that Jesus is God’s son…he even said so, “” John 10: 34 Jesus answered them: “Is it not written in your Law, I said: “YOU are gods”’? 35 If he called gods’ those against whom the word of God came, and yet the Scripture cannot be nullified, 36 do YOU say to me whom the Father sanctified and dispatched into the world, You blaspheme,’ because I said, I am God’s Son? ”

    any who doubt this may check the official Watchtower site on the
    subject and see scriptural proof that Jehovah’s witnessed do indeed
    believe Jesus Christ is God’s son.

    Thanks for listening

  7. This proposed ban on hot cross buns doesn’t seem to have been prompted by JWs themselves – and to be fair, I don’t recall any activist actions on their part for this kind of thing.

    My recollection is that JWs who are troubled by “pagan” celebrations and symbols simply do not participate, and they do not partake of those foods if they feel they are too closely associated with holidays.

    I’m curious about how exactly this school made the decision, and why they leave it at the feet of JWs. If they wanted to mollify JWs, they would have to end all of the holidays, delete all of the celebrations, get rid of anything that suggested a connection to any of them. Somehow I don’t see that happening.

    Inclusivity, toleration, respect and dignity for all people regardless of their religious beliefs – these are the deeper issues, and I don’t see how these are served by eroding and erasing one set of beliefs for another. There is no need to become bland in order to have dialogue. This attempt, if it was sincere, only reinforces resentment – the JW is reconfirmed in his own sense of superiority above the “impure” and the “pagan” remnants tied up with Christian tradition (as though there were a “pure” place without such influences), and the traditional Christians feel threatened and upset that even the most innocuous food should(?) be sacrificed (they don’t necessarily know the history of traditions, but why spoil them for everyone?).

    If what has come to be called “political correctness” is really about attempting to erase difference in some authoritative way, then it no longer represents a move toward a language of liberation and freedom. As I recall, the main point was to create a language of inclusivity and dialogue so that everyone could speak – not to make every utterance so problematic that people were afraid to speak at all. Those who would make freedom of expression a way to limit expression have profoundly misunderstood. The regulatory function has to do with limiting hate speech, not with erasing one’s own differences from others.

    It’s interesting that JWs are singled out. No mention of any other religions?

  8. Oh, on the doctrinal issue being discussed, it is my recollection that JWs believe that Jesus was really Michael the Archangel, brother to Lucifer. After he came to earth, he was regarded as God’s only-begotten son (presumably “gotten” on Mary). There are some conflicting interpretations about his status after his return to heaven. In no case is Jesus to be considered as part of a Trinity. They believe that the Holy Spirit is a neutral force belonging to God as a sort of tool.