h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Morning all,

With British Airways banning of a Christian employee from wearing a small Cross on a chain, whilslt at the same time 'allowing'' on 'religious rounds' the wearing of Muslim headscarves and Sikh turbans and wrist bands, we are reaching absurd levekls of bowing and scraping to prevent 'offence' to religions other than that to which the majority of the nation hold at least a tenuous connection.

The arguments in the press and on TV about the Muslim girs/ladies wanting to wear the veil at all times, even apparently whilst teaching children in a classroom cannot be anything other than a 'religious statement' and entirely innapropriate at that. It is about time that The Muslim Council of Great Britain stopped leaping to the defence of a practice which is clearly devisive and in many cases deliberately so.

Will soon be asked to remove the crosses from the tops of all church spires in the country for fear of offense?

Well I say enough is enough. Whether Muslims like it or not this is a nominally Christian country, and since even devout Christians don't go around thrusting silver crucifixes in the face of every person they meet , why should they expect licence to behave in a similar way - which I personally find discomforting if not offensive?

Lets have a bit of reverse tolerance here. Let us wear a cross if we wish to , let Christmas be Christmas and not Wintertide. Let us for the love of whichever God you worship INTERGRATE not divide.

(
Novo

Blackcat

I think one point everyone's ignoring in all of this...

NOWHERE in any christian scriptures or writings does it say you have to wear a crucifix to show your religious leanings.

Sikh's are supposed to wear turbans, certain muslims are supposed to wear veils, jews are supposed to wear headwear, etc... this is part of their belief system... Whether you like it or not, whether you think it should be allowed or not - that's a fact.

A crucifix around the neck is no more a 'requirement' of the christian religion than sticking a plastic fish on the back of your car.

The woman at Heathrow was actively "Pushing" it in the faces of her employers. The uniform code (at numerous airlines) is that you can wear any religious symbol you like, but it must be underneath the uniform. Where is the problem with that?

Turbans and veils physically cannot be hidden therefore, are allowed. I saw the likes of Anne Widdecombe at the weekend frothing at the mouth and urging people that "They should cut up their (exec club) cards and all christians should refuse to fly with BA"

What utter, utter pathetic drivel. It is all (yet again) the case of some religious zealout seeing how far they can ram their beliefs down the throat of an employer and then whining like a three year old when it looks like " the big bad company is picking on poor little old me"

It has been reported in the news that she was NOT suspended, is able to come back to work anytime she likes WHEN she can get it into her skull that there is a formal dress code in operation at the airport.

Wear whatever symbols you want, dress in any way you like but if you choose to work in a uniform then do not whinge if there is a dress code.
If you dont like it missus, then leave. It really is that simple.

I think it's unfair.

The cross is a symbol of who this lady is. It defines her religion.
To say that she isn't allowed to wear, because she just isn't is just not fair, and she is right to complain. This is one of the biggest things I'm having a problem with in this society.

There is a lot of acceptance for Muslims, and debate going on about what is acceptable and what isn't. Yet that acceptance is not being carried on for other religions / faiths.

My point exactly. I am not nitpicking the details. It is the one-sided nature of the 'tolerance; that I object to.

Novo

I dunno. She's not forbidden from wearing her cross, just displaying it. She signed a contract where this was stipulated. Any case she brings should be dismissed, with costs awarded against her. Similarly, Muslim shenanigans where they insist on things that aren't compulsory in their religion should be treated with the same contempt.

The workplace is not a religious fashion parade. Companies spend millions developing an image and employees are made fully aware of the requirements.

<< What utter, utter pathetic drivel. It is all (yet again) the case of some religious zealout seeing how far they can ram their beliefs down the throat of an employer and then whining like a three year old when it looks like " the big bad company is picking on poor little old me">>


Does that apply to the Muslim teacher who is refusing to remove her veil whilst teaching?

Novo

Hi Whisky,

Check this one

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5411320.stm

Not compulsory then??

Novo

Kitush:

It is not unfair in the case of the Heathrow employee.

"The cross is a symbol of who this lady is - It defines her religion" Well, good for her. It also is the case that she is choosing to flaunt a uniform dress code that she obviously signed up to when joining the company.

"To say that she isn't allowed to wear, because she just isn't is just not fair, and she is right to complain." Not true. The company concerned (as do other airlines) have no problem whatsoever in a person wearing whatever symbols they want AS LONG AS they are UNDERNEATH a dress uniform.

"This is one of the biggest things I'm having a problem with in this society" What problem? No one is banning wearing the cross, no one is sacking or suspending anyone for wearing a cross. All that is being asked on this occasion is that the lady concerned observes the rules and regulations that go with the uniform.

It seems to me that the wearing of a veil that obscures most of the face would make it very hard for children to learn, as they would be unable to read their teacher's facial expressions. Thus, it's acceptable for a school to insist that veils, hockey masks etc aren't worn. This is a question of practicality, not of religious tolerance. Thus a religious headscarf would be fine because it would not impact on her ability to do her job, but a veil covering the face wouldn't be.

A private sector employer has the right to require its employees to adhere to a reasonable dress code, depending on the nature of the work. But it's the question of reasonableness that's the tricky one here. I think BA are within their rights to limiting the wearing of religious jewelry to under the uniform, but I'm less sure that it's a sensible commercial decision. I suppose a lot depends on the size and distinctiveness of the crucifix, and how it looks over the uniform. If it's very distinctive and couldn't easily be missed, I'd be more sympathetic to BA.

But if it would be wrong for BA to suspend the woman working for wearing a cross, would it also be wrong for them to suspend workers who wanted to wear jewelry or adornments which had a similar personal meaning to them, such as nose rings, goth makeup etc.

"Does that apply to the Muslim teacher who is refusing to remove her veil whilst teaching?"

If the teacher concerned has been wearing her veil in the past and there have been no issues, then it does not apply to her.

If there is an existing and long standing dress code at the school, and she has suddenly started to wear it or is a new employee at the school, then it certainly does apply to her.

I would like to know which it is myself - new employee, new "Dress" code at the school or just someone who has suddenly decided to push the isssue?

Novo - yes, you could argue that wearing a veil is not a requirement, but there again, it looks like a lot of muslim scholars have already been arguing that and there's no hard and fast answer - so it comes down to personal belief, the upbringing you had and which part of your particular 'holy' teachings you choose to believe.

Now find me _anywhere_ in _any_ christian teachings where it tells you you should wear a crucifix.

(Of course you could go the other way and take the "Though shalt not make for yourself any graven image" commandment literally, in which case she's actually commiting a sin by wearing a crucifix)

"But if it would be wrong for BA to suspend the woman working for wearing a cross, would it also be wrong for them to suspend workers who wanted to wear jewelry or adornments which had a similar personal meaning to them, such as nose rings, goth makeup etc."

Firstly, PLEASE check the details on this. The woman has NOT been suspended, simply sent home and she is free to return at any time she chooses provided the cross is under the uniform.

As for Goth Makeup, nose rings, etc, these again are covered by the uniform code and are therefore not allowed, irrespective of "Personal" meaning to them. I would actually love to see the day that a Goth got stroppy and demanded to be allowed the full Goth warpaint.....

>>"The cross is a symbol of who this lady is. It defines her religion.
To say that she isn't allowed to wear, because she just isn't is just not fair, and she is right to complain."

Surely her beliefs about Christianity define her religion?
As far as I'm aware, a cross isn't like some kind of immobiliser chip that only enables the religion circuitry to operate when present near the body *and* displayed for other people to see.

Regarding the size issue, it's far easier to say 'no visible religious ornaments' than 'no visible religious ornaments over 25mm in height'.

BA stiputes that jewellery should not be worn, and if it is, then it should be worn underneath their clothes. However, it has made an allowance for Sikh bangles, and Muslim veils because they can't wear those under their clothes.

It has been argued that veils are not necessary for Muslim women - just decent clothes and modesty (although I argue that it is for the woman to decide if she should or should not depending on her job).

But I think the issue is more that there needs to be religious tolerance. This woman is arguing that it is unfair for the other religious groups to be allowed to wear items that signify their religion, yet she is being denied wearing a cross that depicts her as a Christian. She is not wearing the cross because it is a piece of jewellery. She is wearing it because she is proud to wear it. It is not offensive in anyway.

A similar situation was when the BBC journalist Fiona something wore a cross during a tv report. Her superiors requested she take it off because it offended people.

Out of curiosity, what kind of christian is she?

I think we need to know more context - can Jewish blokes wear the little hats? How about Rastafarians?

I used to work for an organisation (The all powerful mouse...) that banned all facial hair, all visible tattoos, and set limits on ear rings and rings on fingers, make up, no other jewelry.

They argued that all their employees were actors on a stage, even the cleaners.

Is that kind of approach any better?

sprout

Whisky

It is irrelevant to my complaint, whether the Bible requests, demands, or advises that Christians wear a Cross. It is not the point that I am making.

My beef is that when Muslims wish to make a religous/political statement the community at large is expected to accept it.

I find women covered from head to foot off-putting, even offensive, I do not attempt to tell them that they cannot dress in that way , but I am free to voice my disquiet.

Incidentally, whilst the BA dress code may be debatable, what is the stance of the BBC , who stopped Fiona Bruce from wearing a small cross - because it might offend. Offend whom?

Novo

Morning aek,

I 'believe' that she is a Coptic Christian, though I don't see the relevance.

Novo

"My beef is that when Muslims wish to make a religous/political statement the community at large is expected to accept it."

So you don't see the difference between someone's beliefs as to what their religion tells them to wear and someone wanting to make a political/religious statement then?

Does that mean _all_ beliefs are political/religious statements to you, and that unless someone is shouting from the rooftops "I am a Christian/Jew/Muslim/High Priest of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster" they can't be religious?