Ship of Fools: Hell: BA bans the cross

Thread: Hell: BA bans the cross Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000606

Posted by auntie di (# 11521) on :

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 ]

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

Erm. What's the BA?

Posted by Scots lass (# 2699) on :

BA = British Airways

Posted by Saint Bertolin (# 5638) on :

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?

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

Ah. Thanks.

What a bunch of turds. [Disappointed]

Posted by auntie di (# 11521) on :

weirdly, Five Live news gave her name, comments by two MPs, but not her job

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

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.

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :

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.

Posted by Living in Gin (# 2572) on :

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.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

According to the Radio 4 news, she works on the check-in desk.

C

Posted by croshtique (# 4721) on :

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.

Posted by the coiled spring (# 2872) on :

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.

Posted by ACOL-ite (# 4991) on :

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.

Posted by riverfalls (# 9168) on :

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?

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :

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.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Thanks, Littlelady - that makes things a lot clearer.

BA, you suck.

[Mad]

Ian J.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

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.

Posted by Saint Bertolin (# 5638) on :

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.

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :

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).

Posted by auntie di (# 11521) on :

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.

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :

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.

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :

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.

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :

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.

Posted by Saint Bertolin (# 5638) on :

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.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

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.

Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :

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.

Posted by Saint Bertolin (# 5638) on :

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.

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.

Posted by Gort (# 6855) on :

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?

Posted by Dee. (# 5681) on :

[Killing me]

Posted by Spiffy da WonderSheep (# 5267) on :

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.

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :

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.

Posted by riverfalls (# 9168) on :

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.

Posted by Gort (# 6855) on :

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.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

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. [Disappointed]

Zach

Posted by Foaming Draught (# 9134) on :

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.

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :

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.

Posted by riverfalls (# 9168) on :

I am surprised she is going to Sue being a christian.

Posted by Gort (# 6855) on :

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!!

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

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.

Posted by Spiffy da WonderSheep (# 5267) on :

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 ]

Posted by the coiled spring (# 2872) on :

Let us not forget B.A.`s track recorded in staff relations over the years which bring another meaning to B.A., bloody awfull

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :

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.

Posted by Sarkycow (# 1012) on :

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 ]

Posted by Sarkycow (# 1012) on :

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

Posted by Zorro (# 9156) on :

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.

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :

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?

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

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.

Posted by Zorro (# 9156) on :

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 ]

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :

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).

Posted by Zorro (# 9156) on :

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.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

From my reading of the article, ISTM that the rules are about visible jewelry, especially chains. Religious jewelry is mentioned as just a subset of that.

So, if the rules are applied evenly:

--a Christian Scientist would wear their cross and crown necklace inside their uniform. Ditto for pentacles, Stars of David, etc.

--In the extremely unlikely situation that an Old Order Mennonite woman worked for BA, she could wear her lace/mesh cap.

--Mr. T would have to wear his bling inside his uniform. (Though he gave up his bling after helping in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. He decided it just wasn't right to wear it anymore.)

Are Rasta folks required to wear the rainbow hats I've sometimes seen? I wonder if those would be permitted? Those stand out a bit more, IMHO, than the other items mentioned.

I would guess that a member of the group that runs the Golden Temple restaurants would have a problem, since they're covered by their own head-to-toe uniform.

I wonder if the woman in question wore her cross for personal devotion, witnessing, or both? If devotion, I'd think she could easily wear it inside her clothes. (Do Coptics ever wear scapulars, or are those just for RCs?) If witnessing...perhaps work isn't the best place for that? (Other than simply living your faith, whatever it is.)

Personally, I like it when folks wear devotional items that no one else can see, and also when they wear small symbols that can be seen. I've worked where colleagues had small religious items at their desks, such as holy cards (Infant Jesus of Prague for an RC woman, and various deities for a Hindu woman). I've sometimes done it, too. It's iffy in the workplace, but it's easy enough to put the items where they aren't obvious.

I suspect that BA wants its workers to project a clean, uncluttered image --and also doesn't want to offend any passengers. As long as the jewelry rule is applied evenly, I don't see that it should be a huge problem.

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zorro:

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 ...

The verses you quote are those I was thinking of too. How far 'wearing a cloke' is taken in terms of cover is down to interpretation, I suppose. However, those verses don't support the specific wearing of the niqab. There are similar references in the Bible about women dressing modestly and also covering their hair. Hence many Christian women of a certain age in the west wore hats to church. Teaching concerning modest dress for women seems to appear in Judaism, Islam and Christianity. How far it is taken, though, appears to differ and in contemporary western society at least, seems to depend upon individual choice/interpretation.

quote:
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.

Hardly. I was just stating a fairly obvious difference. School and workplace are different.

quote:
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.

You're entitled to think I'm misguided; I happen to think you and others who are taking your position are misguided. That's fine by me. We disagree.

quote:
Frankly, Littlelady, there's fuck all point in arguing with you, because .. blah

Fine, don't bother arguing with me then.

I think Golden Key asked some interesting questions:

quote:
I wonder if the woman in question wore her cross for personal devotion, witnessing, or both? If devotion, I'd think she could easily wear it inside her clothes. If witnessing...perhaps work isn't the best place for that?

I think these point to why this woman's wearing of a cross may well be considered different to a simple case of it being jewellery. Since witnessing is considered by some Christians to be a direct command of Jesus, and therefore an aspect of devotion, wearing a cross openly is an important response to that command, and also a non-invasive one (that is, wearing a cross is often the only way a Christian can feel comfortable witnessing at work without crossing any boundaries).

Posted by auntie di (# 11521) on :

Funnily, I work in a school which has many muslim pupils. Some girls wear the hijab, some wear the full length dress, some wear the scarf loosely around their shoulders and some wear none. they are all pretty devout, and devotion does not necessarily correlate to strictness of dress, so to say a muslim woman MUST wear the hijab is incorrect. She (or her society) chooses that she should. If that choice is allowed for a working woman as a display of modesty and adherence to the advice of the prophet (NOT an expression of faith), then the cross should de allowed. One rule for one religious group and another for a different one comes across to me as clear workplace discrimination and should be challenged. I'm inclined to agree with St B- BA being heavy handed could have negotiated a discreet symbol of faith and turned this to their advantage, but their worker relations/public relations is pants.

Posted by eyeliner (# 4648) on :

Apart from a few occasions when I'm going out and want to wear something else for the purpouses of an outfit, I always wear a cross around my neck. I have four, and they're all important to me for different reasons-one Gambit bought me (which is the one I usually wear, although sadly it seems to have fallen off at some point-I'm rather upset about this), another was a confirmation present, another was a birthday present bought for me at Greenbelt by a dear friend who I really don't see enough of, and another is a hand-made wooden one that a missionary friend sent me over from South Africa.

I wear them partly because of the sentemental value they all hold in themselves, partly out of habit, and partly because I find them comforting. I have pledged a bit of myself and my life to this eternal and frankly rather perplexing deity, and I like to have something around to remind me of that.

I don't hide them, and there is one very simple reason for this-I always wear low-cut tops, and own very few tops with a neckline that a necklace could be worn underneath. If that bothers you, quite frankly I don't think that's my problem.

I think that the way BA have treated this woman is atrocious, and that she should most certainly be allowed to wear this cross if she wishes.

Posted by Bean Sidhe (# 11823) on :

I don't wear necklaces or anything around my neck, it's just aesthetic, I don't think they suit me. So I have never worn a cross or a crucifix around my neck.

However I do have a large ring with a cross on it. I wear a lot of rings, if ever I get mugged I can smack the bastard in the face with a heap of metal but that's not the reason, I just like the look. And a cross on my finger seems a little less stated than one round my neck. But that's just me. As for BA, it just seems to me they're enforcing a jewellery rule, which any employer can.

Posted by Zorro (# 9156) on :

quote:
I don't hide them, and there is one very simple reason for this-I always wear low-cut tops, and own very few tops with a neckline that a necklace could be worn underneath. If that bothers you, quite frankly I don't think that's my problem.

I think that the way BA have treated this woman is atrocious, and that she should most certainly be allowed to wear this cross if she wishes.

But BA hostesses have a uniform, and part of that involves not displaying jewellery. That might suck, but at the end of the day, it's the uniform code. It doesn't infringe on your religious freedom, but more your freedom to wear whatever you like to work-something which not many companies will afford you.

Eyeliner points out that she wears her crosses on display because she chooses to. Not because she feels she has to as part of her religion. This has nothing to do with religion, it has everything to do with people getting uppity because they can't wear particular things in a particular fashion to work. That's just tough shit-when you take a job, part of that involves dressing appropriately for the work you do-if you don't like your company's dress-code, then you know what you can do.

[ 15. October 2006, 13:35: Message edited by: Zorro ]

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by auntie di:
Funnily, I work in a school which has many muslim pupils. Some girls wear the hijab, some wear the full length dress, some wear the scarf loosely around their shoulders and some wear none. they are all pretty devout, and devotion does not necessarily correlate to strictness of dress, so to say a muslim woman MUST wear the hijab is incorrect.

Imagine that you're a multinational employer, and your employees are taking some kind of week-long retreat. An Orthodox Christian has requested vegan meals for Wednesdays and Fridays, and a Roman Catholic has requested a no-meat meal for Friday. Other Christians, including other Orthodox and RCs, have made no such request.

Would it then be reasonable to say, "Some Christians are vegan on Wednesdays and Fridays, some don't eat meat on Fridays, some eat whatever they want whenever they want. They are all pretty devout, and devotion does not necessarily correlate to strictness of diet, so to say a Christian MUST abstain from particular foods is incorrect."

I'll give you a clue: No.

Different Christians have different rules regarding diet. Some have no rules at all. Some have very strict rules. Some of those with very strict rules make different exceptions for different reasons, or interpret them in different ways.

I can only assume that the same is true for Muslim women. The fact that different women interpret or express their rule regarding modesty differently doesn't mean it's based entirely on personal whim. And it doesn't mean that a woman who follows one version of the rule can just follow a different version without seriously violating her convictions and her conscience.

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zorro:
Eyeliner points out that she wears her crosses on display because she chooses to. Not because she feels she has to as part of her religion. This has nothing to do with religion, it has everything to do with people getting uppity because they can't wear particular things in a particular fashion to work.

I agree that if it's a question of wearing a cross as a fashion accessory or for personal reasons then conforming with a dress code is fine.

What I don't agree with is that this is what is happening in this case. The employee concerned has made it very clear that she wears her cross for religious reasons (not personal or fashion) and wants to wear it visibly for those reasons. And a cross/crucifix does have religious symbolism: it is known the world over as indicative of a Christian faith.

I personally don't see why BA can't simply allow a small cross/crucifix to be worn visibly by those whose Christian faith means that it is meant to be a visible witness to that faith, in much the same way as the hijab or turban is a visible witness to those faiths (even though they are not worn to be a visible witness).

But as auntie di so rightly says, BA's employee relations is pants. They're operating from a position of at least remarkable ignorance (at worst outright prejudice) by sweeping all crosses into the fashion accessory bin.

I hope this woman takes BA to Court and I hope she wins.

Posted by Zorro (# 9156) on :

quote:
I agree that if it's a question of wearing a cross as a fashion accessory or for personal reasons then conforming with a dress code is fine.

What I don't agree with is that this is what is happening in this case. The employee concerned has made it very clear that she wears her cross for religious reasons (not personal or fashion) and wants to wear it visibly for those reasons. And a cross/crucifix does have religious symbolism: it is known the world over as indicative of a Christian faith.

I personally don't see why BA can't simply allow a small cross/crucifix to be worn visibly by those whose Christian faith means that it is meant to be a visible witness to that faith, in much the same way as the hijab or turban is a visible witness to those faiths (even though they are not worn to be a visible witness).

It is a personal choice-she isn't obliged for religious reasons to wear it the way she does. It's a christian symbol being worn in a way that christianity doesn't demand or expect-that's a personal choice.

It doesn't matter if you don't think BA are good at dealing with employees, because at the end of the day, they don't give a fuck about your opinion, and they don't have to, because IT'S THEIR COMPANY. They make the rules, and as long as they're not oppressing someone's religion, sexuality or ability to work because of their age or sex, then there's nothing wrong here. You might not like it, she might not like it, but basically she's getting all bent out of shape because BA insist on a uniform code she chooses to break, not because of her religious beliefs, but because she chooses to wear a piece of jewellery in a certain way.

quote:
I hope this woman takes BA to Court and I hope she wins.

Oh that's great. I do to, really, it's not as if BA should have any say over the dress code of its employees.

[ 15. October 2006, 14:59: Message edited by: Zorro ]

Posted by chive (# 208) on :

I think she's behaving very badly. When she took the job she presumably knew the dress code and if she couldn't adhere to it she shouldn't have taken it. At the moment it appears she's breaching her contract in that she's not wearing her uniform so instead of being suspended she should be sacked. I've seen absolutely no evidence that she has a religious need to show off her cross so why she can't just tuck it in beneath her clothes is a mystery.

I am increasingly fed up with people who seem to think that they have a right to do X because someone else can do Y. As far as I'm concerned it's time folk stop looking around to find reasons to be offended and start behaving like grown ups.

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

Nobody is forcing any of these people to work for a particular company. If you choose to apply to a particular organization, and certain principles are particularly important to you, you should check it out before you start and see whether you feel you can work under the rules as they stand - not join then raise hell because you can't do X or Y. You sign up to the rules when you sign the contract accepting employment.

I'd have thought that anyone with half a grain of common sense would have expected a company like British Airways to have a clear dress code anyway. If you have to wear a uniform for work, there are usually conditions that go with it. If you don't think you'll like it, don't apply.

Posted by Spiffy da WonderSheep (# 5267) on :

Workplace discrimination, religious oppression, what the flames and death ever. People (especially whiny babies) use them indiscriminately.

You would be surprised how much machinery airports have in them (even in unexpected places). This isn't a case of Secularisim vs. Christianity, this is a case of Safety vs. Gaping Head Wounds.

You wanna be martyred for your faith on a luggage conveyor belt? Go for it. One less idiot in the world.

Posted by Carys (# 78) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chive:
I think she's behaving very badly. When she took the job she presumably knew the dress code and if she couldn't adhere to it she shouldn't have taken it. At the moment it appears she's breaching her contract in that she's not wearing her uniform so instead of being suspended she should be sacked. I've seen absolutely no evidence that she has a religious need to show off her cross so why she can't just tuck it in beneath her clothes is a mystery.

Having seen the cross she wears on the news, I noted that it was only a very short chain (not much longer than the circumference of her neck). It would not tuck under a lot of tops as a result; it would go under a blouse with a collar but other than for school uniform such things seem relatively uncommon; with most other tops I think it would remain visible. Now, that's not to say that she has a right to wear that particular cross if it cannot be hidden under her clothes, but I suspect the design of the particular cross is part of the problem.

Carys

Posted by Saint Bertolin (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chive:
I think she's behaving very badly. When she took the job she presumably knew the dress code and if she couldn't adhere to it she shouldn't have taken it.

I'm not disagreeing with you about her behaviour as such, chive, but I do think that it may not be so easy to be sure that she did know the dress-code. I trust that BA is better organised than a particular company, recently involved in a high-profile merger, which I used to work for.

When I started working there, there was no dress code beyond what was generally considered to be decent to go out in, in public. Most people turned up in t-shirts, jeans, jumpers, dress-tops, &c.

Later, there was a change of management, and there was an insistence on "smart casual". Over a couple of years, this began to be refined further and further and the generally-held understanding was quite a strict code of smart "business dress". people would be sent home to get changed if they turned up in jeans or if they wore a jumper rather than a shirt and tie, for not adhering to "the dress code", until one day, someone refused and actually asked to see the dress code, and do you know what? There wasn't one. There was just a general understanding of what was and wasn't acceptable and it could have varied depending on which team leader you asked, but nothing had ever been put on paper and nobody had ever actually been told that, as a condition of working, they would be expected to dress in a particular way.

So they formulated a detailed dress code whichmost people hated. I left early last year for unrelated reasons although I still have friends whom work there. Now there is once again new management and the "dres code" is once again precisely what it was when I started working there.

My point is that we who do not know cannot be so sure that it was properly briefed what she could and couldn't wear. Yes, BA staff wear a company-provided uniform but what terminal staff may or may not wear in conjunction with that may not have been made clear, especially if there was some sort of clause about some things being allowed for religious reasons.

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :

Sark, I don't say I think she should be allowed to wear her cross openly, or that she is being discriminated against; only that Foaming Draught's post was dismissive of people with attitudes different from his own.

If nobody else is being allowed to wear religious neck-jewelry visibly, I don't think she has a discrimination case at all.

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zorro:
They make the rules, and as long as they're not oppressing someone's religion, sexuality or ability to work because of their age or sex, then there's nothing wrong here.

And that's just the point I've been trying to make, Zorro. You and some others see this as a fashion issue, to do with dress code. That's not how this woman views it and it isn't how I view it, not because she's wearing a cross but because of the reasons she is wearing that cross. She herself claims she wears it for religious reasons, just as a Muslim woman would claim she wears the hijab for religious reasons.

I know about dress codes at work: I've been working for 20 years. Where I'm working at the moment even jeans are allowed (Council offices). That's very unusual in an office: normally, jeans are banned. So my argument isn't with a dress code or that she shouldn't abide by the company's dress code. It's about her motivation for wearing a cross and how her religious wishes are not being respected in a way that those of other religions are.

You are arguing that she is wearing a piece of jewellery; I am arguing that to her the cross she is wearing is an important witness to her faith. Given our different starting positions we aren't going to agree.

quote:
Originally posted by St Bertolin:
My point is that we who do not know cannot be so sure that it was properly briefed what she could and couldn't wear.

According to the BBC, she was asked to hide her cross after she attended a course on diversity, which kind of suggests to me that this is more than an issue of dress code.

Posted by Zorro (# 9156) on :

quote:
You are arguing that she is wearing a piece of jewellery; I am arguing that to her the cross she is wearing is an important witness to her faith. Given our different starting positions we aren't going to agree.

It's a piece of jewellery which to which she gives religious significance of her own choice-it's not that she has to because of her religion. It's not our different starting positions, it's that you're incapable of understanding that people can attach sentimental value to things, but that the rest of the universe doesn't have to stop and revolve around that. She doesn't have to wear a cross, she chooses to, and she chooses to wear it in a fashion which her company disagrees with.

If you can't deal with that, then that's your problem, but don't put it down to religious oppression or any of that bullshit. Grow the fuck up and realise that actually, one woman's choice to wear jewellery shouldn't mean the re-assessment of a whole company's dress-code.

Posted by Saint Bertolin (# 5638) on :

Yes, I remember now. I heard that in the Beeb report and chuckled at the irony of it.

[+post]

[ 15. October 2006, 16:35: Message edited by: Saint Bertolin ]

Posted by Zorro (# 9156) on :

quote:
, just as a Muslim woman would claim she wears the hijab for religious reasons.

No, it isn't. Some Muslim women could claim quite legitimately that the Qu'ran instructs them to wear a hijab.

quote:
According to the BBC, she was asked to hide her cross after she attended a course on diversity, which kind of suggests to me that this is more than an issue of dress code.

So what, pray tell is your issue? 'Cos it sounds to me like "those other people get to wear their cloaks but people like me can't even wear a cross!"

Again, this isn't to do with religion. It's to do with a woman getting pissed that she can't wear jewellery the way she wants to at work and saying that to her it has religious significance. I'm gonna stick my head above the parapet here and say "Fuck her, it's the company's decision what their employees wear. If she doesn't realise that, then she can scuttle off into a job where they don't care."

Don't come crying to me because that nasty company don't let you dress the way you want to-that's bullshit. Either put your cross on a different chain, or don't wear it-but don't equate it to things which do actually have religious significance like a Hijab.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zorro:
Don't come crying to me because that nasty company don't let you dress the way you want to-that's bullshit. Either put your cross on a different chain, or don't wear it-but don't equate it to things which do actually have religious significance like a Hijab.

You know, Zorro, I hate to tell you this, because I agree that that she should wear her cross inside her uniform while she's at work. But a cross actually does have religious significance, and your statement that it doesn't is just plain stupid.

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zorro:
It's a piece of jewellery which to which she gives religious significance of her own choice-it's not that she has to because of her religion.

Right. Except, as has been said by others on here not just me (and on the thread in Purg too), a Muslim woman does not have to wear a hijab. She chooses to do so. Yet you would have apoplexy if BA tried to stop a Muslim woman from wearing the hijab wouldn't you?

And fair enough. I believe that all faiths should be able to express symbols of their faith and have their faith respected in the workplace. Compromises as to how that is done could be made - and are made in other workplaces - if the company are of the kind who likes to work with its employees. BA have never really struck me as such a company.

quote:
It's not our different starting positions, it's that you're incapable of understanding that people can attach sentimental value to things, but that the rest of the universe doesn't have to stop and revolve around that.

Sure, and that's why I said further up the page:

quote:
I agree that if it's a question of wearing a cross as a fashion accessory or for personal reasons then conforming with a dress code is fine.

Posted by Zorro (# 9156) on :

quote:
You know, Zorro, I hate to tell you this, because I agree that that she should wear her cross inside her uniform while she's at work. But a cross actually does have religious significance, and your statement that it doesn't is just plain stupid.

You're right, didn't mean it like that, duh, should think before posting.

What I meant was that you she shouldn't say that she needs to display her cross openly to conform to her religious practice.

Posted by Zorro (# 9156) on :

quote:
Right. Except, as has been said by others on here not just me (and on the thread in Purg too), a Muslim woman does not have to wear a hijab. She chooses to do so. Yet you would have apoplexy if BA tried to stop a Muslim woman from wearing the hijab wouldn't you?

And fair enough. I believe that all faiths should be able to express symbols of their faith and have their faith respected in the workplace. Compromises as to how that is done could be made - and are made in other workplaces - if the company are of the kind who likes to work with its employees. BA have never really struck me as such a company.

Again. The difference here is that you choose to wear a cross. A lot of Muslim women would tell you that the Qu'ran commands them to wear a Hijab. There is no such command in the bible relating to crosses, and as such, it becomes a personal choice to wear it-one made without consideration of biblical teaching. That, for me, makes it just as much a personal choice as the type of watch you wear. There is no biblical teaching on it, and as such, you can't claim that you're being discriminated against.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
Except, as has been said by others on here not just me (and on the thread in Purg too), a Muslim woman does not have to wear a hijab. She chooses to do so.

The fact that some Muslim women wear a hijab and some don't is exactly equivalent to the fact that some Christians abstain from meat on Fridays and some don't. Or that some Jewish men wear a yarmulke and some don't. Or that some Christian women wear prayer bonnets and some don't. Or that some Buddhists eat eggs and some don't.

The fact that our expressions of piety and devotion are not universal in our religion does not mean that it's just our choice, a personal whim, something we can do or not do depending on which way the wind is blowing. Your easy dismissal doesn't take into account the fact that these practices may, in fact, be an essential and utterly non-negotiable part of our understanding and practice of our faith.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zorro:
The difference here is that you choose to wear a cross. A lot of Muslim women would tell you that the Qu'ran commands them to wear a Hijab. There is no such command in the bible relating to crosses,

I hate to slap you again, Zorro, but not all Christians are sola scriptura. The fact that the Bible doesn't include a command to wear a cross doesn't mean that her tradition doesn't require it.

It may well be that it's every bit as imperative for her to wear it as it is for a Muslim woman who wears a hijab to wear that. If she's Coptic, as has been said, and it's her baptismal cross, as may be reasonably inferred, then she may consider it an obligation to wear the cross at all times.

But not to display it. There is simply no obligation to display ones baptismal cross.

Posted by Zorro (# 9156) on :

quote:
I hate to slap you again, Zorro, but not all Christians are sola scriptura. The fact that the Bible doesn't include a command to wear a cross doesn't mean that her tradition doesn't require it.

I wonder if it'd stand up in court that your tradition, with no formal religious direction behind it, could be discriminated against? Genuinely, I don't know-it'd be interesting to find out.

I know not all christians are Sola Scriptura, but to equate not being allowed to publically wear a cross with not being allowed to wear a Hijab strikes me as ludicrous, when there is no particular religious or biblical directive to do so.

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zorro:
The difference here is that you choose to wear a cross.

Me personally? I don't wear a cross at all. I don't even claim a Christian faith. My concern isn't about me: it's about a woman who, following a course on diversity, was told to hide the cross she wears as a symbol of her faith when other faith symbols are allowed to be worn openly. That BA have got away with it so far is because no-one has challenged it. I say they shouldn't get away with it.

If this woman attaches religious significance to the cross, it isn't any business of anyone else's whether she is right or not to do so imo. She should be as entitled to wear it openly as a Seikh is to wear his turban, a Muslim her hijab, whatever.

If a Christian woman was to respond to the Bible in the same way you say a Muslim woman can to the cloaking command in the Koran, then Christian women should cover their hair. But Christians don't do that in the West anymore. Wearing a cross has had religious significance for many for a very long time. Just because there isn't a command in the Bible to wear one doesn't mean that to a devout Christian woman the cross is any less meaningful than the hijab is to a devout Muslim one. I'm simply arguing the point that the two should be equally respected. At BA they are not. At other workplaces, they are.

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
The fact that our expressions of piety and devotion are not universal in our religion does not mean that it's just our choice, a personal whim, something we can do or not do depending on which way the wind is blowing. Your easy dismissal doesn't take into account the fact that these practices may, in fact, be an essential and utterly non-negotiable part of our understanding and practice of our faith.

Josephine, I was far from making an 'easy dismissal', thanks very much. I was countering Zorro's dismissal on the grounds of choice.

My point exactly is that the cross to some Christians is incredibly important, which is why I am defending this woman's position. I do not know what Christian denomination she belongs to nor whether it is her tradition or not to wear a cross. What matters to me is that she is a Christian whose cross means a very great deal to her in a religious context. So much so, it seems, that she is willing to put her job at risk to continue wearing it in the way that is meaningful to her faith. I would equally defend your right to wear your cross hidden if, say, BA wanted to ban the wearing of crosses outright.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zorro:

quote:
I hate to slap you again, Zorro, but not all Christians are sola scriptura. The fact that the Bible doesn't include a command to wear a cross doesn't mean that her tradition doesn't require it.
I wonder if it'd stand up in court that your tradition, with no formal religious direction behind it, could be discriminated against? Genuinely, I don't know-it'd be interesting to find out.

There's nothing in the Bible that says we have to attend divine services on Holy Friday, but employers are required to allow workers to take the day off work for religious observances if the employee chooses to do so. They don't have to pay you for the day, but they do have to let you have the time off.

And that's the case even if some or most of your fellow Christians don't do so.

And it holds up in court.

Does that answer your question?

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :

Except in the more oppressive Islamic countries, it is a free choice for Muslim women to wear a veil or not; the passage from the Quran may be interpreted in a number of ways, as can passages from the Bible.

If an employer permits Muslim women to wear the hijab, or Sikhs their turbans and bangles, or Orthodox Jews their kippahs and (in the case of some women) wigs, and all sorts of religious men to wear beards in spite of employers' policies against facial hair, then it seems like clear discrimination to forbid Christian symbols.

Many Christians do not feel compelled to wear a cross or crucifix. Others do. It's a personal choice, just as the decision to wear the hijab or the wig is a personal choice. A small cross worn on a chain around the neck is certainly less in-your-face than a hijab, which could also be yanked on by a small child.

Consistency is a virtue in this as in so many other matters, and the management at British Airways would be well advised to read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest that basic truth.

Ross

Posted by Zorro (# 9156) on :

quote:
Many Christians do not feel compelled to wear a cross or crucifix. Others do. It's a personal choice,

But nobody's saying she can't wear a cross, just that if she does, it has to be inside her clothing. I don't see how that's wrong-there is no need religiously to do that, and if it goes against company policy, that's just tough luck.

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zorro:

quote:
Many Christians do not feel compelled to wear a cross or crucifix. Others do. It's a personal choice,
But nobody's saying she can't wear a cross, just that if she does, it has to be inside her clothing. I don't see how that's wrong-there is no need religiously to do that

No need maybe - that is, it isn't a directive in the Bible or from her pastor - but a conviction that it is the spiritual thing to do is equally important. A lot of evangelical Christians I have known in the past have worn crosses partly has a devotion, partly as a witness. What good is a hidden cross to someone who believes it is a witness? The witnessing itself is a directive - Jesus said to make disciples of all nations. So while you will not find anything in the Bible about Christians wearing crosses, you will find that certain Christians are convinced wearing a cross is a silent unobtrusive way of obeying the command of Jesus to make disciples. My guess is that maybe this is what this woman is upset about: BA are denying her what she considers to be a crucial aspect of her Christian faith. But as I said earlier, I don't know which Christian tradition she belongs to, so I may be wrong about that. If I'm correct, though, then BA are guilty of discrimination because her wearing of the cross is just as important to her faith as the hijab is to the Muslim or the turban to the Seikh.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
No need maybe - that is, it isn't a directive in the Bible or from her pastor - but a conviction that it is the spiritual thing to do is equally important.

One wonders how many other things people may have a "conviction" about you would argue they should be allowed to do while at work. I'm sure there's a religion somewhere that will let me keep a bottle of whisky in my desk drawer, and if the company complain I'll sue them for every penny for discrimination.

And if she is wearing it as a means of making disciples then I fully agree that she should be stopped - BA are paying her to check people's baggage, not convert them to her faith. She can do that on her own time.

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
And if she is wearing it as a means of making disciples then I fully agree that she should be stopped - BA are paying her to check people's baggage, not convert them to her faith. She can do that on her own time.

I've no idea why she wants to wear a cross: I was simply speculating. But clearly wearing it and being free to do so openly is important to her, for religious reasons. However, if she does view wearing a cross as a witness then I don't see how that is equivalent to converting people to her faith. She's busy doing her job and there's her little cross. How's that attempting to convert people? So far as I know, when evangelical Christians wear crosses for witness purposes it's as a silent witness, often because they aren't in a position to discuss their faith. Like at work, for instance.

Posted by aumbry (# 436) on :

British Airways is a company with bonkers management. As I understand it nobody had complained about this cross and I doubt whether 99% of its customers would have noticed it. When the company has problems with absenteeism amongst its staff this seems a funny old thing to decide to make a stand on.

I don't know how this squares with a company which some years ago painted all its plane tail-fins with ethnic motifs to create a more inclusive appeal. As things turned out this is now considered one of the biggest marketing and public relations disasters in British corporate history so perhaps they are now over-compensating.

The sanest thing to do would be to fly Ryanair (At least to Europe).

Aumbry

Posted by babybear (# 34) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
it is a free choice for Muslim women to wear a veil or not; ...If an employer permits Muslim women to wear the hijab, or Sikhs their turbans and bangles, or Orthodox Jews their kippahs and (in the case of some women) wigs, and all sorts of religious men to wear beards in spite of employers' policies against facial hair, then it seems like clear discrimination to forbid Christian symbols.

Jeff Banks (a British designer) created a new set of uniforms for London's Metropolitan Police Force. In the design he created turbans, veils, and quite a few ethnic pices of clothing, all within the over-arching uniform. He has done similar things for other companies.

This can mean that a turban or veil can be part of the uniform, whereas necklaces etc are addional.

Posted by aumbry (# 436) on :

Sorry 1% not 99% was meant.

Aumbry

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :

quote:
Originally posted by babybear:
...This can mean that a turban or veil can be part of the uniform, whereas necklaces etc are addional.

A veil is still a choice. Not a religious requirement, but a religious choice. And a veil can get caught in machinery a lot more easily than a necklace.

I'm sure it's not your intent, but you are effectively defending an institutional double standard.

Ross

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

Ross, by that definition, what isn't a choice? Food?

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :

The kinds of food you eat are a choice, sure. I just chose to eat a Dove Mini over some far healthier green stuff.

Again, I'm just asking for consistency. Ban all religious garb and symbols, or ban none of them. To do otherwise gives the appearance of favoring one religion over another.

Ross

Posted by babybear (# 34) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
I'm sure it's not your intent, but you are effectively defending an institutional double standard.

I am not defending anything, merely reporting that some British companies have decided that it is in their interests to provide options for different forms of 'ethnic clothing' (for want of a better phrase). This has been done at a time when the Police especially have been on a drive to recruit more people from ethnic groups.

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :

quote:
Originally posted by babybear:
I am not defending anything, merely reporting that some British companies have decided that it is in their interests to provide options for different forms of 'ethnic clothing' ....

But we're not talking about ethnicity; we're talking about allowing some forms of optional religious expression and not others.

Posted by Spiffy da WonderSheep (# 5267) on :

Okay, You've all convinced me. I'm going to run right out and get a big fat ol' metal cross and hang it from a thick chain around my neck like a choker and walk right into Radiology tomorrow. And when they tell me that I have to take it off 'cause it's against Radiology's dress code, I'm going to scream "Religious persecution! You just made me take a diversity class and damnit, you are oppressing me by making me take this symbol of my faith off!"

And when they flip the switch on the MRI machine and the gigantic magnets attract my necklace, and it pulls me to the machine and strangles me to death, I will die triumphant in the fact that I died without giving up my principles.

Even if every sane person in the world calls me a moron for ignoring safety hazards.

It has to be religious persecution, not safety concerns, because God wouldn't let any idiot Christian become a new Darwin Awards candidate because they are wearing a cross around dangerous machinery with small, moving bits.

The stupid on this thread! It burns us, precious!

[ 16. October 2006, 03:32: Message edited by: Spiffy da WonderSheep ]

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy da WonderSheep:
Even if every sane person in the world calls me a moron for ignoring safety hazards.

Even BA haven't claimed health and safety as their reason for asking this woman to hide her cross, Spiffy. They've been clear in their response: they're claiming it's an issue of dress code. I think she works on the check-in desk. Unless she dives on the machine moving the suitcases then you'd have a hard time finding any dangerous machinery on a check-in desk. And as for her cross being grabbed ... you can strangle someone with their shirt, so should people not wear shirts? [Roll Eyes]

Posted by the coiled spring (# 2872) on :

In case we forget, B.A.`s claim
"The world`s favourite airline"
A very arrogant statement.

Posted by Spiffy da WonderSheep (# 5267) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:

quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy da WonderSheep:
Even if every sane person in the world calls me a moron for ignoring safety hazards.
Even BA haven't claimed health and safety as their reason for asking this woman to hide her cross, Spiffy. They've been clear in their response: they're claiming it's an issue of dress code. I think she works on the check-in desk. Unless she dives on the machine moving the suitcases then you'd have a hard time finding any dangerous machinery on a check-in desk. And as for her cross being grabbed ... you can strangle someone with their shirt, so should people not wear shirts?

Yes! EVERYONE GO TOPLESS! WOO!

You idiot, health and safety is one of the major reasons to have a dress code. Or else someone will wear opened toed shoes onto a construction site. People are stupid (as your every post on this thread seems to prove)

Besides, every check in desk I've been at has one of those nifty conveyor belts behind it, to take the luggage away to Never-Never Land. And then behind the check-in desks are the lifters and carts and luggage hooks-- I've worked in an airpot. And I was smart enough to realise the dangers.

You wanna go ahead and get yourself killed messily, I'm not cleaning it up.

[ 16. October 2006, 06:41: Message edited by: Spiffy da WonderSheep ]

Posted by dinghy sailor (# 8507) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy da WonderSheep:
Okay, You've all convinced me. I'm going to run right out and get a big fat ol' metal cross and hang it from a thick chain around my neck like a choker and walk right into Radiology tomorrow.

You deserve your Darwin Award if you're too stupid to get a wooden one.

Posted by Rat (# 3373) on :

As far as I remember, the BA uniform features a snazzy red, white and blue scarf/necktie doodah, tied right up at the neck like this girl with an umbrella. In fact, the neckwear is pretty much the thing that distinguishes BA staff from anybody in a smart blue suit. So it seems fairly clear that eyeliner's comments about low-cut tops don't apply, the high neckline is intrinsic to the BA uniform.

That being the case, it seems reasonable for them to ban necklaces. The woman displaying her cross necklace must either be howking it up and over the collar of her uniform (which would look stupid and untidy) or must have undone her necktie thing and unbuttoned her blouse (which would be non-uniform).

In that case, claiming religious persecution seems to be stretching things quite a lot. Nobody's saying that she can't wear her cross, nobody's threatening to strip-search her for religious trinkets concealed about her person, they are merely asking her to adhere to the dress code she signed up for.

Like the muslim teaching assistant story being discussed on the other thread, I have to suspect a hidden agenda.

Posted by Rat (# 3373) on :

P.S. I have a rather blurry celtic cross tattooed on my shoulder blade. Can I claim persecution if my employer refuses to provide me with a backless uniform to show it off?

Posted by Keren-Happuch (# 9818) on :

Thanks for posting the picture Rat - I was about to look for one as that's my memory of the BA uniform too. Hard to imagine any necklace that couldn't be concealed underneath it.

Posted by Carys (# 78) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Keren-Happuch:
Thanks for posting the picture Rat - I was about to look for one as that's my memory of the BA uniform too. Hard to imagine any necklace that couldn't be concealed underneath it.

Whereas my memory was a open-necked blouse (possibly blue with a pattern on it) whereby it was quite hard to see how the cross could be hidden under it.

Carys

Posted by Spiffy da WonderSheep (# 5267) on :

quote:
Originally posted by dinghy sailor:

quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy da WonderSheep:
Okay, You've all convinced me. I'm going to run right out and get a big fat ol' metal cross and hang it from a thick chain around my neck like a choker and walk right into Radiology tomorrow.
You deserve your Darwin Award if you're too stupid to get a wooden one.

Sarcasm, honeybunches. Look into it when you get your head out of your ass.

Posted by Bean Sidhe (# 11823) on :

I think there's always a conflict between needing to be flexible and sensitive, and needing to have clear rules we can refer to, in order to avoid accusations of discrimination. These two issues, the wearing of a veil and the wearing of a crucifix or cross, seem to cut right across that conflict. Neither are compulsory according to the texts of the two faiths, but both have significant emotional and religious implications for the people concerned.

At which point I hesitate and don't know what to say next. I have a lot of sympathy with the French approach of banning all outward faith symbols within public institutions, at least then everyone is on the same footing. No crosses, stars of David or Hijabs. I'd happily take off my ring with the cross on it if it was going to help. But that is France, here I can see such a policy causing a lot of trouble.

I don't know, I just wish everyone would calm down about it. I love that phrase, "people of the book", which I am told Muslims use to describe those of us of the Abrahamic faiths. After having initial reactions like many of us to these issues, on reflection I'd like to dwell on that commonality more than on crosses and veils.

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy da WonderSheep:
You idiot, health and safety is one of the major reasons to have a dress code.

Another being image.

Hey, since neither BA nor British Midland referred to health and safety, and British Midland referred to image, which one might it be? G'won. Have a guess.

Yeah. Well done! Image. That means your inane rambling is a waste of space.

quote:
People are stupid (as your every post on this thread seems to prove)

You've been my inspiration, babe.

Posted by dinghy sailor (# 8507) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy da WonderSheep:

quote:
Originally posted by dinghy sailor:

quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy da WonderSheep:
Okay, You've all convinced me. I'm going to run right out and get a big fat ol' metal cross and hang it from a thick chain around my neck like a choker and walk right into Radiology tomorrow.
You deserve your Darwin Award if you're too stupid to get a wooden one.
Sarcasm, honeybunches.

Take the plank out of your own eye and learn to recognise it first, woolbrain

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bean Sidhe:
At which point I hesitate and don't know what to say next. I have a lot of sympathy with the French approach of banning all outward faith symbols within public institutions, at least then everyone is on the same footing.

There's also the pragmatic approach, which is the one I favour, where everyone is allowed to wear their faith symbols openly if they so choose. Obviously there would need to be some measure of negotiation, but there's nothing wrong with a bit of negotiation (well, unless you're an exec at BA when it seems there's plenty wrong with it).

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

What about the ESL teacher who wishes to cover her face (including mouth) or an abortion nurse who refuses (theoretical) to help with abortions after her conversion? Should everyone have the right to do whatever they think is right? What if the sign of my religion is a swastika?

[ 16. October 2006, 17:54: Message edited by: Gwai ]

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :

My religion expressly requires me to hunt down and strangle people that make a ridiculous fuss over minor slights. Particularly with respect to corporate interference with quasi-religious bling.

Posted by Bean Sidhe (# 11823) on :

It's tough Gwai to draw lines, but we do all in the end put that "line in the sand" according to our values. I'm still not sure where I put mine on this issue.

Posted by Bean Sidhe (# 11823) on :

Rook, what is the difference between religious bling and quasi-religious bling?

Posted by dinghy sailor (# 8507) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
What about the ESL teacher who wishes to cover her face (including mouth) or an abortion nurse who refuses (theoretical) to help with abortions after her conversion? Should everyone have the right to do whatever they think is right? What if the sign of my religion is a swastika?

It's perfectly reasonable to disallow religious trappings that directly impedes my ability to carry out my professional duties. It's also perfectly reasonable to disallow me because of attitudes I have because of my faith, that are at odds with the ones I must necessarily to hold and/or promulgate as part of my job. Apart from that, people should be allowed to meet the requirements (whether you think they're requirements or not) of whatever faith they hold to, whether those involve 'jewellery', bangles, headdresses or whatever.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

I think BA would say that it is consistent with your guidelines, Dingy Sailor. If chains are forbidden at her work then insisting on wearing her cross on a chain is surely to be said to be against the attitude of following orders or as they call it these days "team spirit."

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
If chains are forbidden at her work then insisting on wearing her cross on a chain is surely to be said to be against the attitude of following orders or as they call it these days "team spirit."

Or as they call it outside the asylum, "sticking to the fucking contract you signed when you started working there".

Posted by chive (# 208) on :

Our management are bringing in a uniform policy which didn't exist before. I'm sitting here thinking just how much trouble I could create. Maybe I should get a religious facial tattoo. See what happens then.

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
If chains are forbidden at her work then insisting on wearing her cross on a chain is surely to be said to be against the attitude of following orders or as they call it these days "team spirit."
Or as they call it outside the asylum, "sticking to the fucking contract you signed when you started working there".

That's fine except, according to a BBC report, she was only asked to hide her cross after she attended a course on diversity. In which case, she didn't sign up to it when she started working there.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

I doubt they changed her contract after the course. They just started enforcing it.

Marvin,
There's a world outside the asylum?

Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
What about the ESL teacher who wishes to cover her face (including mouth) or an abortion nurse who refuses (theoretical) to help with abortions after her conversion? Should everyone have the right to do whatever they think is right? What if the sign of my religion is a swastika?

In the UK, if either doctors or nurses don't believe they should be helping to do abortions, they are allowed not to participate.

Posted by dinghy sailor (# 8507) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
I think BA would say that it is consistent with your guidelines, Dingy Sailor. If chains are forbidden at her work then insisting on wearing her cross on a chain is surely to be said to be against the attitude of following orders or as they call it these days "team spirit."

No, because my point was not about whether something breaks a rubbishy little rule (which the airline may or may not have actually had) but about whether it affects my ability to do my job. If I'm meant to be teaching RE to a bunch of kids, my view that atheists should go out and kill all people of faith would count. If I work on a bouncy castle, my religious belief that I should never take off my high heeled shoes would count. In both cases, I couldn't do my job properly because of my religious beliefs. Whereas a company refusing to compromise as far as letting someone wear a small cross symbol because of their religious beliefs is going way over the top. If the rules don't allow that when they allow other faiths to have far more ostentatious (and dangerous) displays of themselves, they're bad rules and should be changed.

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bean Sidhe:
Rook, what is the difference between religious bling and quasi-religious bling?

One requires me to strangle you with more reverance than the other.

Posted by Bean Sidhe (# 11823) on :

Ok!

Posted by chive (# 208) on :

quote:
Originally posted by dinghy sailor:
Whereas a company refusing to compromise as far as letting someone wear a small cross symbol because of their religious beliefs is going way over the top.

Where did BA say she couldn't wear it? As far as I can see she's being asked to move it the approximately 2 mms from one side of her shirt to another. Not exactly the start of a pogrom is it?

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Marvin,
There's a world outside the asylum?

Gwai, have you read Doug Adams' "So Long, & Thanks For All The Fish"?
[Killing me]

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
What if the sign of my religion is a swastika?

The you'd be a Hindu. And you should have every right to display the sign in public. Its engraved in large friendly relief on the the walls of India House in Aldwych, right next door to the BBC World Service.

Posted by Dave the Bass (# 155) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
That's fine except, according to a BBC report, she was only asked to hide her cross after she attended a course on diversity. In which case, she didn't sign up to it when she started working there.

So BA made her attend a course on diversity, and then insisted she display more uniformity...

Posted by MouseThief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Bass:

quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
That's fine except, according to a BBC report, she was only asked to hide her cross after she attended a course on diversity. In which case, she didn't sign up to it when she started working there.
So BA made her attend a course on diversity, and then insisted she display more uniformity...

Thank you. I was wondering when somebody would notice this little inconsistency.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

If BA have only recently issued this demand and have apparently been perfectly happy for her to wear the cross thus up until now, then their insistence that she remove it could amount to a purported unilateral variation of her contract of employment, which she is entitled to reject; if they then push the point, they could find themselves in an Industrial Tribunal. Presumably m'learned friends have explained this to them?

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
What if the sign of my religion is a swastika?
The you'd be a Hindu. And you should have every right to display the sign in public. Its engraved in large friendly relief on the the walls of India House in Aldwych, right next door to the BBC World Service.

Fair enough. I just think that any freedom can intrude into other's space eventually. I'm thinking religious images featuring child pornography, for instance.

[ 17. October 2006, 15:56: Message edited by: Gwai ]

Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:

quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Bass:
So BA made her attend a course on diversity, and then insisted she display more uniformity...
Thank you. I was wondering when somebody would notice this little inconsistency.

Maybe she went to the diversity thang, noticed other people with religious wear and decided she wanted in on that too. Or maybe BA had a good a reason to send her to the diversity thang, and she's resentful about it and has decided to make a stink. OliviaG

Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chive:

quote:
Originally posted by dinghy sailor:
Whereas a company refusing to compromise as far as letting someone wear a small cross symbol because of their religious beliefs is going way over the top.
Where did BA say she couldn't wear it? As far as I can see she's being asked to move it the approximately 2 mms from one side of her shirt to another. Not exactly the start of a pogrom is it?

Okay, I'll change one word then.

"...as far as letting someone display a small cross symbol..."

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

So because she happens to believe in Christ she should have the right to wear cross to broadcast that to the world? Why ever would BA want to have its employees broadcasting their opinions. Perhaps another employee hates Christianity. Should she be able to wear a crossed out cross symbol? It could certainly represent her religious beliefs.

Posted by Beautiful_Dreamer (# 10880) on :

quote:
Originally posted by dinghy sailor:

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
I think BA would say that it is consistent with your guidelines, Dingy Sailor. If chains are forbidden at her work then insisting on wearing her cross on a chain is surely to be said to be against the attitude of following orders or as they call it these days "team spirit."
No, because my point was not about whether something breaks a rubbishy little rule (which the airline may or may not have actually had) but about whether it affects my ability to do my job. If I'm meant to be teaching RE to a bunch of kids, my view that atheists should go out and kill all people of faith would count. If I work on a bouncy castle, my religious belief that I should never take off my high heeled shoes would count. In both cases, I couldn't do my job properly because of my religious beliefs. Whereas a company refusing to compromise as far as letting someone wear a small cross symbol because of their religious beliefs is going way over the top. If the rules don't allow that when they allow other faiths to have far more ostentatious (and dangerous) displays of themselves, they're bad rules and should be changed.

I agree with you here. All safety issues aside, if other religions are going to be able to wear their symbols, Christians should be able to as well. Diversity and fair play are two-way streets.

Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
So because she happens to believe in Christ she should have the right to wear cross to broadcast that to the world?

That depends on whether turbans, hijabs, etc, or not. Since they do, then yes she should.

quote:
Perhaps another employee hates Christianity. Should she be able to wear a crossed out cross symbol?

Yup

Posted by Zorro (# 9156) on :

quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Gwai:
So because she happens to believe in Christ she should have the right to wear cross to broadcast that to the world?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That depends on whether turbans, hijabs, etc, or not. Since they do, then yes she should.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps another employee hates Christianity. Should she be able to wear a crossed out cross symbol?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yup

No, crosses aren't an essential in anyone's book of christianity-at least not displayed outside your clothing. Hijabs are. That's the difference. Perhaps the whole point of this is to try and minimise the religious outwardness of the company image? By limiting all religious clothing to just the stuff that's a neccessity, like a Hijab or a turban.

And please, do you really think that people should be allowed to display items of clothing which are derogatory towards other faiths?

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zorro:
No, crosses aren't an essential in anyone's book of christianity-at least not displayed outside your clothing. Hijabs are. That's the difference. ...

No, Zorro, people keep trying to tell you: Neither is "essential" -- except to the individual who feels strongly about wearing one or the other. Both are a matter of choice. Both should be permitted -- or neither should -- as long as we're just talking about dress codes. And there really and truly are people who feel that their crosses are just as essential as someone else's hijab.

Ross

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

Dingy Sailor,
At least you're consistent. I disagree but I can respect that.

Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :

Zorro, since we're talking about belief here - that's right, we're talking about what people *believe* - then if someone thinks it's essential to wear a cross, then it's essential in their *faith*. And since some muslim women don't wear the hijab, how can you say it's somehow objectively more essential than wearing a cross is? It's got to be pretty essential to someone's faith if they risk their job over it.

As for symbols being offensive, well my understanding of Christianity (and one heck of a lot of non-Christians' understanding of Christianity) says that everyone who isn't a Christian has got rather a lot of stuff wrong, and could quite possibly suffer eternal consequences for that. Ditto Islam and non-muslims. If you choose to be offended by someone saying you're wrong (and especially if they're saying you'll have serious problems in the next life because of it) then any religion that cares to make truth claims for itself is offensive.

Posted by auntie di (# 11521) on :

Had converse on this topic today at work with three colleagues- two sikh men (neither of whom wear turbans) and one muslim woman (who wears the hijab). None of them could believe that BA could possibly be acting properly- all defended their right to express their faith through clothing and jewellery (and yes, it was a sikh man who used that word of the bangle), and were flabberghasted that a christian woman was prevented from so doing in the same organisation. And all this in the spirit of multiculturalism and multi-faith Britain. Multicultural has to mean just that.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Re required attire for Muslim women:

See Wikipedia's in-progress article about "hijab". The rules seem quite complicated and varied. There are also guidelines for men, and general rules about modesty.

As I and others have said many times, it seems that the rule is about JEWELRY, not religion. I took a quick look at the Sikh bangle ("kara") online. It's a bracelet, and I gather that the BA prohibition is for neck jewelry. If the prohibition is supposed to be of ALL jewelry yet the kara is allowed, then IMHO other religious jewelry should be allowed. But if only neck jewelry is prohibited, then either tuck your necklace inside your uniform or wear a bracelet or ring that shows your symbol.

FWIW.

Posted by The Man With No Name (# 10858) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zorro:
And please, do you really think that people should be allowed to display items of clothing which are derogatory towards other faiths?

Yes. A few years ago, someone I know walked past a girl in the street who was wearing a t-shirt with the caption "Jesus died for his sins not mine" on the front.

It's hard to supress my contempt for someone with the poor sense, poor taste and poor manners to choose a garment like that. I doubt whether she would have had the intellect to understand quite how offensive it was to a Christian.

But she has the right to wear it in her own time.

Of course this is a separate issue to what an employer may reasonable require in terms of dress code in a contract of employment.

Posted by Bean Sidhe (# 11823) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
if only neck jewelry is prohibited, then either tuck your necklace inside your uniform or wear a bracelet or ring that shows your symbol.

FWIW.

Right. I've mentioned a couple of times I wear a large ring with a cross on it, silver on black, and while I feel for my part it's less in your face than something round my neck, people do remark on it. There's usually a compromise and a way around problems like this, and by doing something less typical or up front you can often find you make more of a statement.

Posted by the coiled spring (# 2872) on :

Often fly Sri Lankan Airline and have often noticed the stewardess wear a Cross or a Crucfix.
Interesting as Sri Lanka is Budhist country and there have been problems with churches being attacked there. Airline is run by one of the Emirate airlines.

Posted by Iole Nui (# 3373) on :

The lady in the case was interviewed on The Heaven and Earth Show on Sunday morning. Admittedly I wasn't in the best of moods, but she didn't impress me.

I just have to mention that I was right (nyah!) - Gloria asked her if her uniform featured a scarf up to the neck that would cover up any necklace (religious or not) and the lady agreed. Unfortunately this line of enquiry wasn't pursued.

Later, she was asked if she was willing to lose her job over the issue, whereupon she said at some length (I'm paraphrasing) that the Lord would punish her on judgement day for not displaying her cross and that she feared the Lord's wrath more than BA. Unfortunately Gloria didn't point out that fear of the Lord's wrath hadn't seemed to prey much on her mind for the last 5 or so years she'd worked for BA, or ask her when the Lord had revealed to her this special plan for the punishment of people who wear uniforms up to their necks. Instead, she nodded sympathetically, at which point I got irritated and went and did something else.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

According to Nadia Eweida's interview with Fox News' Hannity and Colmes, were she to wear the cross under her garments it would mean "being ashamed" of her faith. Now, we may not all share that particular interpretation of what 'being ashamed' includes, but if that's how she interprets it and, provided it is not posing a H&S risk, then she has the right to do it and BA need to back off.

[ETA - she seems to have taken her story to Fox to get the US Religious Right on her side. While I don't have a lot of time for the latter group, if they decide to boycott BA if BA sack her then, frankly, BA will have brought that upon themselves]

[ 25. October 2006, 14:43: Message edited by: Matt Black ]

Posted by riverfalls (# 9168) on :

An aeroplane is in the shape of a cross

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :

Only after the tail falls off, and before it crashes into the side of a mountain.

Posted by riverfalls (# 9168) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Only after the tail falls off, and before it crashes into the side of a mountain.

Posted by altarbird (# 11983) on :

Somehow I think the Lord will punish her for more on judgement day than for not making sure she displays her cross. It seems like her point (and BAs) is not whether she can wear the cross, but only whether she can make sure the public sees it. In which case, the argument isn't whether it is the same as the turban or the hijab, but whether if, say, a turban-wearing Sikh, if ordered by BA as part of the dress code to put the turban under something (assuming it applies to all headgear, turbans, yarmulkes, lace nets of the Mennonites, nun's wimples, etc) so as not to display them publicly for some reason. I don't actually know the full rules for all these, but at the core most of them seem to be about "covering up as respect for God" to put it as condensed as I can. Further cover would then not contravene anything, yes?

All the Lenten scripture readings about piety, what others see and jolly well hiding your light under a bushel come to mind quickly.

I'm always struck by how people are aware of their rights to freedom from religious oppression/discrimination are guaranteed by human rights legislation, etc (although I'm also struck by how their rights are next to never what they perceive them to be, since they seem to pick up all their legal education in this area from reading Sun headlines), and yet never seem to grasp that no where is there legislation giving you the right to a job, and certainly not giving you the right to any particular job. If there is such legislation, could someone please point me to it? Because I'm desiring something that lets me sleep in late, work 20 hours a week without breaking a sweat, and pays a minimum of 2 million p.a. Thanks in advance for your help.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0