|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Hell: BA bans the cross
|
auntie di
Ship's Magic Pudding
# 11521
|
Posted
I've just heard on the radio that BA has suspended a christian worker, without pay, for refusing to remove her crucifix.
I can't yet get anything on this on the BBC website, and I'm prepared to admit that there may be more than meets the ear, but WTF?
[ 04. April 2007, 12:32: Message edited by: Sarkycow ]
--------------------
auntie di
Posts: 586 | From: Staffordshire | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Erm. What's the BA?
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
Many of these things happen in cases where people wear crosses on the end of chains around their necks and things like that. It's often the case that the issue is the chain and not the Cross, but that ignorant and insensitive employers/management don't think to offer alternatives (a lapel pin, a tie-tack, a brooch, &c), and just demand iot to be removed.
I haven't come across the BA case and so don't know the exact details but I wouldn't be surprised if it were something like this. Was the member of staff cabin crew, by any chance?
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Ah. Thanks.
What a bunch of turds. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
auntie di
Ship's Magic Pudding
# 11521
|
Posted
weirdly, Five Live news gave her name, comments by two MPs, but not her job
--------------------
auntie di
Posts: 586 | From: Staffordshire | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430
|
Posted
Careful here, folks - I think Saint Bertolin might be right, and it may be the chain that's the problem, not the cross. In my job, we're not allowed to wear anything that might 'dangle' and perhaps be grabbed by a patient. That applies to things like pendant ear-rings (not that I sport them, in any case!) as well as chains, necklaces etc.
If this lass is a member of the cabin crew, it's just possible that a (for example) drunken passenger could grab the chain and cause her an injury.
More info needed, methinks.
Ian J.
--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)
Posts: 10151 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
I saw this story earlier - they ban all jewellery, unless special permission is given by a supervisor - apparently the employee didn't ask for this. The cross was on a necklace and so fell foul of the 'no jewellery' rule. They do allow some items of clothing deemed compulsory by various religions (turban for sikhs, hijab etc) but wearing a cross isn't compulsory for Christians and isn't clothing.
It would depend, as Bishop's Finger says, on the reason for the no jewellery rule - if it's actually a health and safety thing, then it's not about religion.
L.
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Living in Gin
Liturgical Pyromaniac
# 2572
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
If this lass is a member of the cabin crew, it's just possible that a (for example) drunken passenger could grab the chain and cause her an injury.
More info needed, methinks.
Agreed... And if the employee is a member of a maintenance crew or does work that involves being near mechanical equipment, any sort of jewelry would normally be banned for safety reasons as well. But without a link to a story, it's hard to do more than speculate.
--------------------
It's all fun and games until somebody gets burned at the stake.
Posts: 1893 | From: Cincinnati, USA | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
According to the Radio 4 news, she works on the check-in desk.
C
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
croshtique
Shipmate
# 4721
|
Posted
Oops... didn't see this thread when I started a similar one in Purg about the rights and implications of religious dress in the workplace.
--------------------
"When man has finished he is just beginning, and when he stops he is still perplexed" - Sirach 18:7
Posts: 165 | From: Sarf Lahndon | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
the coiled spring
Shipmate
# 2872
|
Posted
It appears acording to one report the lady worked in check-in and is a Coptic Christian. Her father is Eygptian, mother English. So she is Orthodox
The Cross is about size of 10p piece.
Interesting that some reports describe it as a Crucifix.
--------------------
give back to God what He gives so it is used for His glory not ours.
Posts: 2359 | From: mountain top retreat lodge overlooking skegness | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the coiled spring:
It appears acording to one report the lady worked in check-in and is a Coptic Christian. Her father is Eygptian, mother English. So she is Orthodox
The Cross is about size of 10p piece.
Interesting that some reports describe it as a Crucifix.
Well, taking this page as evidence, very few people seem to know the difference between a cross and a crucifix.
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
riverfalls
Shipmate
# 9168
|
Posted
It may not be the religious symbol that is the problem but someone may be able to grab it and thus strangle this lady. Maybe if she had a cross broach (hope I spelt that correctly) she would be ok.
Are we sure they objected because of religion?
--------------------
http://www.ourcatholicfaith.org/readings-listen.html
Posts: 1611 | From: Stoke On Trent | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Littlelady
Shipmate
# 9616
|
Posted
According to the BBC report it's to do with religion, rather than security. While I appreciate that not all Christians consider wearing a cross/crucifix as vital to their faith, some do and I think it's churlish of BA to deny an employee of one faith but not another (since not all Muslims, for example, feel it is important to wear the hijab). I wonder in what way BA thinks its 'image' will be damaged by the wearing of a cross/crucifix that is different from the turban or hijab?
Apparently the employee is threatening to sue BA, presumably for discrimination. If so, I think that is fair enough. All employees should be treated equally. Interestingly, she was told to remove it after attending a course on diversity. So I suppose being a Christian isn't diverse enough.
--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe
Posts: 3737 | From: home of the best Rugby League team in the universe | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430
|
Posted
Thanks, Littlelady - that makes things a lot clearer.
BA, you suck.
![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
Ian J.
--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)
Posts: 10151 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
I see Ann Widdicombe has been wheeled in for a completely unhelpful comment:
quote:
Devout Christian and MP, Ann Widdecombe, went further and said the situation was "absolutely crazy" and that Christians were "suffering".
"It's we who are being persecuted," she said.
No, love, persecution is when a bunch of militant followers of another religious position smash all your windows and threaten to firebomb your house. It's when the police come round and take you to a "re-education centre" until you change your beliefs.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the coiled spring:
It appears acording to one report the lady worked in check-in and is a Coptic Christian. Her father is Eygptian, mother English. So she is Orthodox
The Cross is about size of 10p piece.
Interesting that some reports describe it as a Crucifix.
(Puts hand up)
If she's from the Coptic church (who have a presence in Britain in the form of this body), then she isn't Orthodox. They use the word in the name of their church but in speech and writing they usually qualify it by referring to themselves as "Oriental Orthodox" so as to avoid confusion with the Orthodox Church, from which they are a completely separate body with different beliefs.
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Littlelady
Shipmate
# 9616
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the coiled spring:
The Cross is about size of 10p piece.
It's about the size of a 5p piece (in other words, tiny). I saw it on the BBC TV news tonight when the employee was interviewed. It's very small and it's just a cross (not a crucifix).
--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe
Posts: 3737 | From: home of the best Rugby League team in the universe | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
auntie di
Ship's Magic Pudding
# 11521
|
Posted
if the lady is a coptic, will she not have a cross tatooed on the palm of her hand? and would she not also be expected, if not required, to wear a cross (sorry I said crucifix earlier, it's what they said on the radio) to demonstrate her faith? like Littlelady, the parallel to the hijab is pretty exact for me.
--------------------
auntie di
Posts: 586 | From: Staffordshire | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
That's not how the article reads to me, Littlelady
quote:
The airline says: "British Airways does recognise that uniformed employees may wish to wear jewellery including religious symbols. These items can be worn, underneath the uniform."
Airline British Midland has the same uniform policy, which it says is based not on religion but on the kind of image the company wants to present.
The Telegraph has it too
quote:
She added: "British Airways does recognise that uniformed employees may wish to wear jewellery including religious symbols.
"Our uniform policy states that these items can be worn, underneath the uniform. There is no ban.
"This rule applies for all jewellery and religious symbols on chains and is not specific to the Christian cross.
"Other items such as turbans, hijabs and bangles can be worn as it is not practical for staff to conceal them beneath their uniforms."
Basically they don't want people wearing jewellery whether it's religious or not. It would apply equally to people wearing Stars of David or Wiccan pentagrams. Maybe she should tell them she has to wear a mantilla to work for religious reasons and see what they say to that!
L.
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Littlelady
Shipmate
# 9616
|
Posted
Except, Louise, the employee concerned wears it for religious reasons and thus is in the same position as a Muslim or Seikh. That BA request she hides the cross could be deemed discriminatory on that basis, particularly if you bear in mind that bangles as religious symbols are allowed to be worn openly.
I appreciate any company wanting to minimise the effects of personal fashion, especially considering some people's tastes, but that isn't the issue on this occasion and my guess is that BA fully knows this, and is hiding behind a policy which automatically discriminates against Christians simply because their most traditional symbol is a cross.
Either all such symbols should be allowed or none. Picking and choosing in the workplace shouldn't be tolerated imo.
--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe
Posts: 3737 | From: home of the best Rugby League team in the universe | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
Nope, it's not whether it's religious, it's whether it's concealable jewellery. Wiccans and Jews Buddhists and Hindus who want to wear religious jewellery are also affected. If she decided she wanted to dress like a nun and wear a headdress it would be comparable, but as things stand everyone who wants to wear something on a chain round their neck must cover it up.
L.
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by auntie di:
if the lady is a coptic, will she not have a cross tatooed on the palm of her hand?
Not necessarily. Coptic women in Egypt often do this to prevent them being kidnapped and forcibly married to Muslim men. The tattood cross makes them undesirable for this purpose and so it is a sort of protection. Not all women in Egypt do it and it is even less common among Coptic women outside of Egypt because, unless they often travel to Egypt, there isn't much of a need for it.
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
For us Orthodox types, the baptismal cross is the only cross that could possibly be considered compulsory to wear, and to be quite proper, it ought to be worn under your clothes, against your skin. I would expect that the same thing would be true for the Copts. If that is the case, she needs to tuck her cross in, not only because her employer says so, but if she asked her priest or her bishop, they'd say so, too.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
It does seem there policy is a little confusing with Hijab being allowed whilst visible crosses aren't so it could seem that there is a bias towards faiths with significantly visible apparel.
--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp
Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
For us Orthodox types, the baptismal cross is the only cross that could possibly be considered compulsory to wear, and to be quite proper, it ought to be worn under your clothes, against your skin. I would expect that the same thing would be true for the Copts. If that is the case, she needs to tuck her cross in, not only because her employer says so, but if she asked her priest or her bishop, they'd say so, too.
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
Shame on me!
Thank you for this, Josephine. I've just today been reading St Isaac the Syrian on humility and his understanding is all bit more interwoven than my brain was ready for a 4 a. m. (I couldn't sleep). I suppose this all fits in with that.
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alfred E. Neuman
What? Me worry?
# 6855
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Saint Bertolin:
quote:
Originally posted by auntie di:
if the lady is a coptic, will she not have a cross tatooed on the palm of her hand?
Not necessarily. Coptic women in Egypt often do this to prevent them being kidnapped and forcibly married to Muslim men. The tattood cross makes them undesirable for this purpose and so it is a sort of protection...
Fascinating. If I tattooed "666" on my forehead, would it prevent my kidnapping and forcible marriage to a Christian woman? We single guys can never be too careful, ya know?
--------------------
--Formerly: Gort--
Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dee.
Ship's Theological Acrobat
# 5681
|
Posted
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif) ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
Jesus - nice bloke, bit religious
Posts: 2679 | From: Under Downunder | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spiffy
Ship's WonderSheep
# 5267
|
Posted
So, she didn't ask permission, and she got yelled at, and now she's causing shit in the name of 'religious persecution'?
Lame. Suck it up and grow a backbone.
--------------------
Looking for a simple solution to all life's problems? We are proud to present obstinate denial. Accept no substitute. Accept nothing.
--Night Vale Radio Twitter Account
Posts: 10281 | From: Beervana | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gort:
Fascinating. If I tattooed "666" on my forehead, would it prevent my kidnapping and forcible marriage to a Christian woman? We single guys can never be too careful, ya know?
In your dreams, metalman.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
riverfalls
Shipmate
# 9168
|
Posted
I think this responce fits here as well. I originally meant to post this hear but I made a mistake and put it as an answer to the purgatory thread.
I tend to wear a Red Cross I have always worn it. I wear it as a symbol of my faith, it should be up to me if I wear it or not. I am sure people use the same argument with the muslin veil.
--------------------
http://www.ourcatholicfaith.org/readings-listen.html
Posts: 1611 | From: Stoke On Trent | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alfred E. Neuman
What? Me worry?
# 6855
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by riverfalls:
... I am sure people use the same argument with the muslin veil.
Or a polyester double-knit for that matter.
--------------------
--Formerly: Gort--
Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
Gag! If BA wants to make all their stewardesses look like clones and ban all jewelry whatsoever, that is their perogative.
If you must wear a cross, wear it under your clothes. In fact, wearing a cross under your clothes is just good taste; advertise your faith with love and charity instead.
Zach
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Foaming Draught
The Low in Low Church
# 9134
|
Posted
We don't need symbols for our faith, we don't have to leave secret signs behind to help our mates avoid being picked up by Circus lion food collectors.
If this woman wants to show that she's a Christian, let her do her job cheerfully and diligently and not whinge about an ephemeral thing like jewellery. Let her be ready to answer the question, "Why are you so cheerful?". Let her help her customers and colleagues and not show favouritism based on glamour or age or what she can get back in return. Let her say as an aside to colleagues going through a rough patch, "I'll pray for you", and then give practical assistance while she waits for God or His agents to do the bits which she can't.
I apply an inverse law when I see religious symbols, whether it's the giant bibles of my childhood wielded by giant hypocrites, or mediaeval dress worn by ecclesiocrats like some of our late Ship-pals, or "Jesus saves" car bumper stickers sported by the world's worst drivers, or crosses worn under the delusion that a symbol compensates for the lack of an ontological change.
Posts: 8661 | From: Et in Australia Ego | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Foaming Draught:
We don't need symbols for our faith, we don't have to leave secret signs behind to help our mates avoid being picked up by Circus lion food collectors.
If this woman wants to show that she's a Christian, let her do her job cheerfully and diligently and not whinge about an ephemeral thing like jewellery.
Translation: I do not come from a tradition where such jewelry is considered important; therefore it cannot really be important to anyone who is a true Christian like me.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Alfred E. Neuman
What? Me worry?
# 6855
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Foaming Draught:
... Let her be ready to answer the question, "Why are you so cheerful?"...
Why? Simple, really... I'm a Dancer!!
--------------------
--Formerly: Gort--
Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by riverfalls:
I am surprised she is going to Sue being a christian.
quote:
And how dare you take each other to court! When you think you have been wronged, does it make any sense to go before a court that knows nothing of God's ways instead of a family of Christians?
She's not taking a fellow congregation member to court, and there may or may not be some Christians on the bench or the jury.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spiffy
Ship's WonderSheep
# 5267
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by riverfalls:
I tend to wear a Red Cross I have always worn it. I wear it as a symbol of my faith, it should be up to me if I wear it or not. I am sure people use the same argument with the muslin veil.
Translation: I enjoy wearing tacky nicknacks around my neck. I will continue to wear them at all times even if they are a choking hazard to myself and children under three years of age. I am also the kind of pussy who will whine "Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!" if someone points out that they are a choking hazard and/or tacky.
[ 15. October 2006, 05:43: Message edited by: Spiffy da WonderSheep ]
--------------------
Looking for a simple solution to all life's problems? We are proud to present obstinate denial. Accept no substitute. Accept nothing.
--Night Vale Radio Twitter Account
Posts: 10281 | From: Beervana | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
the coiled spring
Shipmate
# 2872
|
Posted
Let us not forget B.A.`s track recorded in staff relations over the years which bring another meaning to B.A., bloody awfull
--------------------
give back to God what He gives so it is used for His glory not ours.
Posts: 2359 | From: mountain top retreat lodge overlooking skegness | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Littlelady
Shipmate
# 9616
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
Nope, it's not whether it's religious, it's whether it's concealable jewellery.
I disagree. But if it does get to Court then I imagine that will be the first point the lawyers get to argue about.
Spiffy - she isn't claiming persecution. She's claiming workplace discrimination. And I think making the point with a company the size of BA, especially one with BA's negative track record when it comes to staff relations, takes balls.
quote:
Originally posted by Foaming Drought:
If this woman wants to show that she's a Christian, let her do her job cheerfully and diligently and not whinge about an ephemeral thing like jewellery.
Oh boy. How to miss the point in an amazingly patronising way.
--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe
Posts: 3737 | From: home of the best Rugby League team in the universe | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarkycow
La belle Dame sans merci
# 1012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Foaming Draught:
We don't need symbols for our faith, we don't have to leave secret signs behind to help our mates avoid being picked up by Circus lion food collectors.
If this woman wants to show that she's a Christian, let her do her job cheerfully and diligently and not whinge about an ephemeral thing like jewellery.
Translation: I do not come from a tradition where such jewelry is considered important; therefore it cannot really be important to anyone who is a true Christian like me.
Bad translation.
I come from a family where such jewellery is important. My cross on a chain is very important to me, and worn all the time, except when I'm having a bath/shower.
And yet I wear my cross tucked in under my clothes, rather than on display. I'd prefer people to interact with me rather with what their stereotype of a christian is. I'd prefer people to know I'm christian because of how I act rather than because I have a cross round my neck.
Sarkycow
[ETA Although not a hugely bad translation. See my next post.]
[ 15. October 2006, 08:13: Message edited by: Sarkycow ]
--------------------
“Just because your voice reaches halfway around the world doesn't mean you are wiser than when it reached only to the end of the bar.”
Posts: 10787 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarkycow
La belle Dame sans merci
# 1012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Foaming Draught:
If this woman wants to show that she's a Christian, let her do her job cheerfully and diligently and not whinge about an ephemeral thing like jewellery.
Epheremal thing to you, very important symbol or reminder to me, and MT, and many others.
Just because you're not into visual symbolism etc. doesn't mean that you need to be stupid with it.
Sarkycow
--------------------
“Just because your voice reaches halfway around the world doesn't mean you are wiser than when it reached only to the end of the bar.”
Posts: 10787 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zorro
Shipmate
# 9156
|
Posted
quote:
Gag! If BA wants to make all their stewardesses look like clones and ban all jewelry whatsoever, that is their perogative.
If you must wear a cross, wear it under your clothes. In fact, wearing a cross under your clothes is just good taste; advertise your faith with love and charity instead.
Exactly! Schools everywhere minimise the amount of jewellery pupils can wear, and that includes "If you've got a crucifix, it's inside your shirt/blouse." Why are we moaning about this? They're not saying she can't be christian, they're not saying she can't wear a cross, they're saying no-one can wear items of jewellery, and that includes the cross, where it's apparent on their uniform.
--------------------
It is so hard to believe, because it is so hard to obey. Soren Kierkegaard
Well, churches really should be like sluts; take everyone no matter who they are or whether they can pay. Spiffy da wondersheep
Posts: 2568 | From: Baja California (actually the UK but that's where my fans know me from) | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Littlelady
Shipmate
# 9616
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zorro:
Exactly! Schools everywhere minimise the amount of jewellery pupils can wear, and that includes "If you've got a crucifix, it's inside your shirt/blouse." Why are we moaning about this? They're not saying she can't be christian, they're not saying she can't wear a cross, they're saying no-one can wear items of jewellery, and that includes the cross, where it's apparent on their uniform.
First off, this isn't school Zorro. It's a workplace. There are laws governing discrimination in the workplace. This employee is effectively challenging BA's interpretation of those laws as contained in their policy on dress. If a Seikh is allowed to wear bangles openly - also considered jewellery - then a Christian should be able to wear a cross openly. To some Christians a cross is not an item of jewellery; it is a symbol of faith. That's a significant difference. And if other faith symbols are allowed, including items of jewellery, then so should a cross/crucifix be.
I'm interested in your position here Zorro. You condemn Jack Straw for asking a Muslim woman to remove her veil while in his surgery yet you do not show equal tolerance for a Christian woman wanting to freely display her own symbol of faith. Why the discrepancy?
--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe
Posts: 3737 | From: home of the best Rugby League team in the universe | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
If a Seikh is allowed to wear bangles openly - also considered jewellery - then a Christian should be able to wear a cross openly.
A Sikh is required to wear a bangle just as he is required to wear a turban, it's not an option. It's one of the five signs of faith. As a Christian you're not required to wear a cross, you have the choice.
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zorro
Shipmate
# 9156
|
Posted
Because there isn't a religious need for people to openly display a cross, there is for some Muslim women to wear a veil.
Also, Sikh's don't, AFAIK, have to display a Kara, but they do have to wear it. It may well be that it's not banned because it's difficult to conceil, unlike a cross, which can be put under a blouse or shirt.
There isn't a religious obligation to wear a cross on display, therefore it's personal choice, therefore it counts as jewellery, which is banned from being displayed by BA. There's nothing wrong with wearing it in your blouse or shirt, but otherwise it's banned according to company policy.
Also, it's nice to see your "this isn't a school," comment, so presumably it wouldn't bother you if schools were oppressing pupil's freedom of religion?
ETA:Partial x-post with ariel, who's entirely right.
[ 15. October 2006, 09:13: Message edited by: Zorro ]
--------------------
It is so hard to believe, because it is so hard to obey. Soren Kierkegaard
Well, churches really should be like sluts; take everyone no matter who they are or whether they can pay. Spiffy da wondersheep
Posts: 2568 | From: Baja California (actually the UK but that's where my fans know me from) | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Littlelady
Shipmate
# 9616
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zorro:
Because there isn't a religious need for people to openly display a cross, there is for some Muslim women to wear a veil.
There isn't a religious need for a Muslim woman to wear a veil. The instruction in the Koran concerns dressing modestly, not wearing specific garments or garments covering the face. A Muslim girl I work with doesn't wear any traditional dress, yet she is a practising Muslim. I see other Muslim women walking around Sheffield who are fully covered. I see some Christians wearing crosses/crucifixes while others do not. The principle is exactly the same and should be treated as such. I still don't understand why you would promote one choice over the other.
quote:
Also, it's nice to see your "this isn't a school," comment, so presumably it wouldn't bother you if schools were oppressing pupil's freedom of religion?
You shouldn't presume. Workplace legislation is different from school legislation. The legislation spoken about here would relate to teaching staff, not to students (who are protected under The Children Act, etc). I didn't even imply much less state that schools should oppress a student's freedom of religion. My argument in support of this employee wearing a cross openly is evidence of my support for religious expression. And even though I personally have issues with the veil, I wouldn't deny a Muslim woman's right to wear it (though I may well challenge the rationale behind it, given my personal issues with it).
--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe
Posts: 3737 | From: home of the best Rugby League team in the universe | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zorro
Shipmate
# 9156
|
Posted
quote:
There isn't a religious need for a Muslim woman to wear a veil.
The muslims I have spoken to tell me that this isn't the case. I have seen the verse below
quote:
Those who harass believing men and believing women unjustifiably shall bear the guilt of slander and a grievous sin. O Prophet! Enjoin your wives, your daughters, and the wives of true believers to draw their cloaks over them [when they go out]. That is more proper, so that they may be distinguished [from slave women] and not be harassed. God is ever forgiving and merciful. If the hypocrites and those who have the ailment [of jealousy] in their hearts and the scandal mongers of Madinah do not desist, We will rouse you against them, and their days in that city will be numbered. Cursed be they; wherever found, they would be seized and put to death.
Used to say that the Qu'ran does in fact command women who go out to wear a Hijab, to distinguish them, i.e to identify them as Muslims, and therefore it's a necessary part of their faith. That might not work for all Muslims, but I've heard it used to justify wearing a Hijab outside. To my knowledge, no such commandment is in the Bible with regards to publically displaying a crucifix.
quote:
I didn't even imply much less state that schools should oppress a student's freedom of religion
I never said you did, but you did say "This isn't in school." That would seem to imply that you wouldn't be as bothered about religious oppression in schools as you would be in the workplace.
quote:
My argument in support of this employee wearing a cross openly is evidence of my support for religious expression.
No, it isn't. It's misguided. This woman has chosen to wear a crucifix in full display. There is no religious reason for this-it is a choice. BA are in no way infringing this woman's freedom of religion by asking her not to display a christian symbol-one that it isn't necessary even to wear, let alone display publically-in their workplace. Therefore, they have the right to ask that it not be displayed. BA don't have a problem with people wearing crucifixes, they have a problem with jewellery on display-this isn't a religious obligation at all, it's a personal choice, and one which the company doesn't like.
Frankly, Littlelady, there's fuck all point in arguing with you, because you've shown before that once you get an idea into your head, you totally refuse to accept the validity of anyone elses, you'll call them names, and eventually you'll walk away when you get bored of having your rationale-lacking ass kicked into orbit.
--------------------
It is so hard to believe, because it is so hard to obey. Soren Kierkegaard
Well, churches really should be like sluts; take everyone no matter who they are or whether they can pay. Spiffy da wondersheep
Posts: 2568 | From: Baja California (actually the UK but that's where my fans know me from) | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
