Airline worker loses appeal on right to wear cross

[Janx Spirit 11,165]

Yahoo! News: Worker loses appeal over right to wear cross

 

 

A British Airways worker has lost an internal appeal against the company's refusal to let her wear a Christian cross over her uniform [...] Check-in staffer Nadia Eweida was told in October she must not display a small necklace crucifix over her clothes. She was instead instructed to hide it under her blouse or cravat...

Now, I am what I call a slightly agnostic atheist with quantum physic leanings and intrigued by dark matter, so I am playing the devil’s advocate a bit here. The policy regarding religion, to a lesser extent in the story mentioned, but generally speaking and in particular where children are concerned, should there be a blanket ban on all religious symbols in public places? Should the government go further and have, similar to “Safer Sex

[bern 17]

That asses me off... The whole political correctness/religion whatever has gotten way out of hand. This woman can't wear a cross, yet others can wear headscarves, Stars of David, etc, and no one bats an eyelash. Ok...I know that's an overstatement because there are movements afoot to ban headscarves as well. It's all STUPID!!! These small religious symbols are not hurting anyone. What's the big deal. Asinine. :angry:

[Deccie 244]

She was also quoted as saying:

 

 

It is important to wear it to express my faith so that other people will know that Jesus loves them.

 

Reading between the lines I think she may be a bit of a Jesus freak myself. The rule was that jewelry could be worn but concealed.

[parnell 68]

Sorta agree with this , she can wear whatever she likes so long as it's concealed.

[Owain Glyndwr 888]

would she have been able to wear a brooch or other jewelry on top of her uniform? I don't think so. BA have strict uniform regulations and jewellery must be concealed (except wedding and engagement rings). BA compromises where a piece of religious clothing is required or is a fundamental part of the beliefs (like turbans and head scarves) but still lays down the colour and method of dress etc. There is absolutely no reason why this woman MUST wear her cross outside her uniform. She is just being obtuse and trying to cause a stir.

[don_riina 7,405]

Banning a cross at work? Well, they are letting her wear it under clothes. Don't really understadn why this has become news really. It's pure sensationalism in the wake of headscarf arguments.

Religious sybolism aside, the headscarf ban is not too different from shops and banks banning motorbike helmets, or entire shopping centres banning hoods. Of course though, you cannot really separate the religious aspect, so they have to ban a weeny little cross to look "fair".

 

I doubt any employer would like me to bear my "satan rulez" tattoo at work.

[gills 88]

 

The 55-year-old had appealed against the decision, arguing she should be entitled to openly proclaim her Christian faith.

She should be, on her own time. Definitely NOT in the workplace. Especially with a uniform!

 

I consider myself religious AND Christian, but being religious is not about fashion/political statements. It is an utterly, utterly, private affair. And my personal opinion is that a crucifix has no business being in a classroom, unless it's an optional private religious school which parents have chosen for their children.

 

Is France taking the right approach? Maybe. I don't know what the solution is. But people like this sure don't help matters.

[Eleanor Rigby 1,934]

 

The policy regarding religion, to a lesser extent in the story mentioned, but generally speaking and in particular where children are concerned, should there be a blanket ban on all religious symbols in public places?

Yes and it should aply to all religions across the board.

[the Boy From Bozlem 574]

I saw this woman on the news yesterday and yes she is a proper Jebus freak who thinks that she’s going to save the world through the word of the lord.

 

fooking nutters, ban all religions I say.

[Janx Spirit 11,165]

That's my feeling too gills, people like this fuel dissent and aggravate the already volatile relationship between religion, state and public opinion.

 

Eleanor, a ban on wearing symbols is difficult thing and I am very undecided (like my religion;)) on how far nanny state should be allowed to dictate what we wear. There are so many aspects to be taken into account, from freedom of expression to the case of forcing your religion down other's throats. I think more emphasis needs to be placed upon how religion is portrayed to young impressionable people and a no-nonsense stance by the government. The Stoiber method is appalling.

[Eleanor Rigby 1,934]

Actually I agree with you in principle Janx .

 

My only stipulation is that whatever the decision it should be consistent across all religions. Which would mean that I am within my rights to start a religion tomorrow which dictates that I wear items that display child pornography. Because religion is such a personal thing and there are so many loopholes and exceptions that have to be made if you are to treat everyone and their beliefs equally, in my opinion the only manageable alternative is to ban the displlay of religious symbols in the workplace completely.

 

If it was at all possible to cater equally to each and every persons religious belief then I would agree with you, the government shouldn't really have a right to interfere but since I can't see this being possible I have to look at the only alternative that treats all people equally.

[Janx Spirit 11,165]

It's also the fine balance between banning religious icons in public, religious freedom and integrating into the comunity you have chosen to join. I feel often that those who shout the loudest for being allowed "religious freedom" do so for the sake of laying precedent and the words "zealots and fanatics" spring to mind - that's not what it's all about. It is about tolerence but also respect for others. I don't like being bothered in the cinema by someone's mobile - ergo I shut mine off. You want to eschew electrical goods and guns and marry your cousin, go and join a Mennonite community. You want to cry in public, talk in tongues and Praise the Lord - go to the bible belt. Tolerence but also intergration...and teach the kiddywinks religion but ALL religions and that includes the Jedi Faith, Bokononism, FSM and co ;)

[Freiheit 7]

 

"The policy recognises that it is not practical for some religious symbols -- such as turbans and hijabs -- to be worn underneath the uniform. This is purely a question of practicality. There is no discrimination between faiths whatsoever," the company said in a statement.

Regardless of whether the women's a nut, this policy is by no means equally applied. Either allow visible religious symbols or don't, but the above policy is discriminatory. Maybe she could get a turban with a bunch of crosses and "Jesus Saves!" printed all over it.

[cinzia 2,643]

Surely Jesus himself would be somewhat nauseous at the idea of people wearing crosses in his name or even worse, wearing or displaying crucifixes?

 

I think a private company should be able to limit the wearing or display of religious symbols that are not actually required by the religion itself. A cross is not required attire, and neither is a headscarf.

[Freiheit 7]

Do you really want an employer being the judge of what the Bible or Koran say regarding attire?

 

What happened to the idea that being devoutly religious requires sacrifice? The idea that one has the right to embrace a religion and demand everyone else accomodate it is just wrong. Believe what you will, but understand that it may close some doors to you in life.

 

Nevertheless, discrimination is wrong and policies should be equally applied.

[Pas 8,133]

From the BBC

 

 

A British Airways employee suffered discrimination at work over her Christian beliefs, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled.

 

Judges ruled Nadia Eweida's rights had been violated under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

 

She took her case to the European Court of Human Rights after BA made her stop wearing her white gold cross visibly.

 

Judges ruled that the rights of three other Christians had not been violated by their employers.

 

It's perhaps more significant that Shirley Chaplin's case was dismissed, along with those of Gary McFarlane and Lillian Ladele. Today's judgement sets the legal seal on years in which traditionalist Christians have tried, and failed, to defend their values against secular ones in British courts.

A truly fantastic ruling that hopefully is the path to a future where people hold whatever views they wish but are not allowed to discriminate in the workplace against others who don't share those views.

 

Somewhere on TT there's a thread discussing the original case before it was taken to the european court. Please merge this if somebody can find it!

 

[adminmerge][/adminmerge]

[perdido 6,083]

I am sure atheist paying the church tax while working in Bavarian hostpitals are saying "yeah right".

[El Jeffo 42,134]

A true victory for an oppressed, downtrodden minority. Surely congratulations are in order.

 

 

Yeah, the proportions are from the U.S., but you can assume the Christian "minority" in Germany is even larger

[MadAxeMurderer 6,248]

If my religion says women are inferior, blacks dirty, and gays an abomination is then ok to discriminate against me?

[sarabyrd 18,767]

 

Somewhere on TT there's a thread discussing the original case before it was taken to the european court. Please merge this if somebody can find it!

 

The magic word is "crucifix", you heathen.