British Airways and Crosses

[Kalahari Diver]

Did you know that Earl Haig spoke to god throughout the first world war! Kept him making all the right decisions as well!!!
David.

[Mick F]

Originally Posted by Kalahari Diver

Did you know that Earl Haig spoke to god throughout the first world war! Kept him making all the right decisions as well!!!
David.

Remember that scene in the last Blackadder goes Forth? The one where Haig sweeps the toy soldiers off the field with the dustpan and brush. Underneath the comedy, one of the most poignant Blackadder episodes ever.

[dlegros]

Perhaps there's some mileage in all this...

If she wins; I'm not supposed to wear a necklace at work - but I could demand that it's my religious right as an agnostic to wear a big gold question mark on a chain.

Dom

[uwila]

Originally Posted by Lou

She is allowed. No-one is stopping her, Leigh. She can wear 20 corsses, all of them as bling as she likes. They just have to be covered by her unifrom to fit BA's dress policy. As would any other necklace she chose to wear.

It is nothing to do with pc and evertyrhing to do with wearing a uniform of the employer's choice. Which is part of the job she is paid to do.

Spot on Lou.

This 'controversy' is a press generated event. BA are trying to impose standards of dress; they don't want front of house employees with pierced eyebrows, big or ugly jewelry dangling around necks etc. To implent a fair and simple policy, they've said no jewelry dangling down th front of the uniform. If she keeps the cross inside her uniform it's a non-issue. AFAIK, there is nothing in the Holy Bible which says one has to wear a cross on the outside of one's clothing. I can't be 100% on this, 'cos I haven't actually read it

BA allow slightly different styles of dress when there is a genuine, and widely acknowledged, religous or cultural reason - eg turbans by Seikhs. There is no widely acknowledged need to wear a crucifix on the outside by any Christian sect I've heard of.

[ahar]

Originally Posted by uwila

AFAIK, there is nothing in the Holy Bible which says one has to wear a cross on the outside of one's clothing. I can't be 100% on this, 'cos I haven't actually read it

There is - it's in the little known book excluded from the Bible at the Nicene convocation, the Gospel according to St Bastard. That's the one with the 11th commandment as well - "Thou shall not get caught".

Originally Posted by uwila

BA allow slightly different styles of dress when there is a genuine, and widely acknowledged, religous or cultural reason - eg turbans by Seikhs. There is no widely acknowledged need to wear a crucifix on the outside by any Christian sect I've heard of.

Being more serious, there isn't any requirement in the Bible saying that you have to wear any symbols identifying you as a Christian. However, there is a frustration amongst some christians at the continuing secularisation of society and general hostility towards christianity and religion in general. Some christians, rightly or wrongly, see a more tolerant attitude in general towards other religions (Islam, Hindu, Sikhs etc) and their practices and so are looking for some way to redress the balance. After all, although this is historically a christian country there are probably as many practicing muslims as there are practicing christians (taking church and mosque attendance figures).

I think this is what has prompted the woman to make the case. I don't actually agree with her though, I think she has picked the wrong fight and it won't help her and what she sees as her cause at all.

[dry suit diver]

Originally Posted by ahar

There is - it's in the little known book excluded from the Bible at the Nicene convocation, the Gospel according to St Bastard. That's the one with the 11th commandment as well - "Thou shall not get caught".



Being more serious, there isn't any requirement in the Bible saying that you have to wear any symbols identifying you as a Christian. However, there is a frustration amongst some christians at the continuing secularisation of society and general hostility towards christianity and religion in general. Some christians, rightly or wrongly, see a more tolerant attitude in general towards other religions (Islam, Hindu, Sikhs etc) and their practices and so are looking for some way to redress the balance. After all, although this is historically a christian country there are probably as many practicing muslims as there are practicing christians (taking church and mosque attendance figures).

I think this is what has prompted the woman to make the case. I don't actually agree with her though, I think she has picked the wrong fight and it won't help her and what she sees as her cause at all.

Indeed there are not and early followers of christianity would go to extraordinary lengths to conceal their faith for fear of persecution.

she needs to get off her soapbox and wear the cros under the bloody uniform like her terms and conditions stated.

Did she get legal aid for this waste of a good court room

[Buoyant Babe]

Originally Posted by Lazlo

Actually on reflection, I think that all god botherers should be made to wear overt signs of their "faith". Preferably a big flashing pointy hat with an arrow pointing at their heads and a scrolling message saying "Beware: this person believes in pixies, Father Christmas, supernatural beings and probably the tooth fairy in all likelihood".

Maybe all religious fanatics, intolerant of any belief other than their own, should be made to wear a big sign proclaiming they are a "bigot"? And perhaps people with and attitude like this should wear one with "intolerant tw@t"?

Isn't this how we got to the stage where daft folks feel the need to make a political stand? Political correctness gone mad and a lack of tolerance to other people's cultures and beliefs?

Originally Posted by Steve S

I was forced to go to church until I was 12 and can say without doubt that from my experiences then and afterwards, that a great many so called 'christians' are not very nice people for 6 1/2 days a week, and think that by attending church and singing loudly and nodding in agreement at the sermon will cancel out their unchristian behaviour.

Totally agree - going to Church on a Sunday no more makes you a Christian than standing in a garage makes you a car.

If she is still allowed to wear her Cross under her clothing, I can't see the problem, as long as the rule is applied equally to all employees.

[chrisch]

Originally Posted by Buoyant Babe

...
Isn't this how we got to the stage where daft folks feel the need to make a political stand? Political correctness gone mad and a lack of tolerance to other people's cultures and beliefs?
...

Its not PC, nutty or otherwise, its about the complex inter-relationship between freedoms, responsibilities and governance. The right to express one's beliefs is free speech, yet this is tempered by the responsibility not to offend. If I express my true belief I will offend some people - that is inevitable. So, am I truly possesed of "free" speech or not? Does my employer have the right to suppress my faith, or is it simply that dangly jewelery is unsafe in an aircraft?

Read a little about the ban on the wearing of headscarfs in the Islamic secular country of Turkey and then contrast with the proposition by the racist right in the Netherlands to do the same... Will the incoming Dutch government ban nuns from wearing their very obvious religious uniform in public?

Originally Posted by Buoyant Babe

...If she is still allowed to wear her Cross under her clothing, I can't see the problem, as long as the rule is applied equally to all employees.

Her "problem" is that this doesn't allow her to make the "political" stand she wants to. As Ahar rightly puts it..

Originally Posted by Ahar

...there is a frustration amongst some christians at the continuing secularisation of society and general hostility towards christianity and religion in general.

I think these people are mistaken, there is no "hostility" to christianity (although there is towards Islam). It is simply that science is continuing to challenge the core aspects of the Judeo-Christian mythology. Humans have evolved, the world is billions of years old, the universe older still. The world is not for our benefit, it is inert - a lump of rock. The existance of biological life can easily be explained as the actions of complex amino acids gradually developing ever more complex interactions. Life is meaningless and will end at some point in the future - the planet to be consumed by the Sun and all record of biological existance removed.

In the face of such complex and profound issues its much easier (and probably safer) just to poke fun. So lets

Chris

[Lazlo]

Originally Posted by Buoyant Babe

Maybe all religious fanatics, intolerant of any belief other than their own, should be made to wear a big sign proclaiming they are a "bigot"? And perhaps people with and attitude like this should wear one with "intolerant tw@t"?

Isn't this how we got to the stage where daft folks feel the need to make a political stand? Political correctness gone mad and a lack of tolerance to other people's cultures and beliefs?

It's a source of constant wonderment to me what "news" stories DO wind people up. I watch the "news" and see (as opposed to read) the newspapers and I just don't get it, it's just hours of trivial drivel. We live in a society where "cash for honours" is more important than cash for lunatic torturing dictators. A society where David Blunkett gets fired, not for locking people up without trial, not for stamping all over the civil liberties of everybody, making up new laws and ignoring old ones as he went, but for "fast-tracking a friend's paperwork". We live in a society which sees little problem spending billions of pounds on so-called "defence", and spends only a tiny fraction of that on foreign aid. Madonna adopting a child is a more important story than the fact that the child lived in a country full of orphans.

Now, my original comment obviously (to me) was not not meant to be taken that seriously, however, you will just have to respect my belief that religion is a bogus collection of historical make-believe, to my mind very much the same as the tooth fairy. Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Pastafarianism, Rastafarianism, Zoroastrianism, Paganism etc - I have little tolerance for any of it. (Note that I refer to the institutions, not the practice.) The fact that people actually believe in it mystifies me. I choose to live in a world where real things happen to real people, and supernatural beings do not have a monopoloy on morality.

Anyway, I couldn't care less what the woman wears. Let her have tattoos all over, a pierced nose, wear a hoodie, a big cross with a bleeding man on it, a Star of David, rosary beads, a Burqa, whatever. I don't believe in dress codes in the first place. People should be more tolerant of other people's self-expression. It's a more honest way to live.

[chas49]

Originally Posted by chrisch

In the face of such complex and profound issues its much easier (and probably safer) just to poke fun. So lets

Chris

At last someone is making sense

(Seriously, this thread is in real danger of everyone agreeing with everyone else on a non-diving topical issue. I demand an apology - and would whoever stole YD please put it back immediately.)

(yes - I agree - she's a stirrer and wasting taxpayers' money, and religion should be kept out of public life, and....)