BA banned worker from displaying her Crucifx over her uniform

[VanillaMilkshake]

Cannot believe this has happened - it's PC gone mad!

BA advise they still allow turbans, bangles etc, as it's not practical to cover such religious symblols with the uniform. But banned a Christian worker from displaying a small silver crucifix no bigger than a 5pence piece!

Is England - Britain, not a historically Christian country - And are they not caled British Airways.

I am Christian and I where a crucifx at all times. However in no way do I look down upon or pretend to understand other religions. I belive firmly in freedom of choice - but feel this decision is ridiculous - where will it end?!

Message withdrawn

Hmm I have given this more thought, if she can wear the cross under her uniform then she is just trying to make a political point.

If she is allowed to display the cross when it is not a religious requirement then the next step will be stirred up by radical Muslims who will get a hostess to make their political statement and demand she wears a veil during flights (I think fuzzy said this was more cultural than religious?).

Personally faced by a veiled person on a flight would be like being back at the dentists and if ive paid £2000 for a week away during the school holidays ive damn well paid for them to smile

Personally I feel: worship who you like wear bangles, earrings, necklaces hell get your fanjo pierced and paint your toes blue - Im not offended (or interested) but for heavens sake just stop baging on about it and playing religious tit for tat.

It seems strange that a country who had muddled along fine with such a diverse mix of cultures has descended into this.

It's not about religion because BA's rules have always forbidden the wearing of visible necklaces! Obvious! Her religion does not make this compulsory (in fact has no opinion on it all) so it is not a religious issue. BA is
not 'banning' the wearing of a cross, it is reminding an employee that no visible necklaces should be worn as part of their uniform, and this is a mixture of a media bandwagon-jumping and one arsey employee.

"Are we going to only allow relgious observance if a big gang have written rules you must obey ?"

What? Of course the rules of a religion are the things 'a big gang have written rules you must obey'. That's what it means.
Otherwise as Bloss says, a steward could say, 'Jesus was crucified wearing a loincloth. As part of wanting to be like Him, I insist on my right to wear a loincloth.' This gets more Life of Brian by the minute!

Where do you draw the line ?
The answer is "nowhere".
You have an interpretation of Christian theology that sounds like mine.
So what ?
In any case you're confusing tradtion, doctrine and personal faith.
One core of Christianity is that you have free will to work out what is right and wrong. Different people will reach different conclusions, yet both have the same moral standing, even if one is in error, or frankly stupid. It is the attempt to be better that matters.

I don't have the right to decide what you believe, any more than you have to say her beliefs should be disregarded.

I can't see any plausible alternative to accepting her assertion that it's her faith. She labels herself a Christian, but that is a very wide spectrum of beliefs, and that to my certain knowledge, some large sects require some women to wear crosses.

The only line I see as reasonable is one of practicality. You scoff at the notion of going topless but to a moslem woman, being forced to take off her veil is much the same thing.
It someone wants to dangle something from her necks that might get caught in machinery, then that is valid, but discrimination against small groups is at least as bad as discrimination against large ones.
Her faith is equally valid, even if she's the only one who believes this crap.

Again I uege you to think through, using examples from history, what happens when the state gets involved in deciding which interpretation of which religion is "acceptable".

OK, DC, if you're not prepared actually to consider the theology of Christianity and whether it actually creates a religious obligation... if it really is all just what one perceives as 'religious', then where will you draw the line? What if she thinks her obligation as a Christian or a Rastafarian or whatever it is requires her to go topless? Will you take that seriously as well, simply because she asserts it? Or would you actually look around and say, 'well, nothing in Christianity or Rastafarianism requires you to go topless, so I don't accept that this is an issue of religious freedom'.

It's nothing to do with religion because BA have banned jewellery, not crucifixes.
They would have banned her from wearing a little diamond pendant, a CND symbol, a 'charm' with her initial or an abstract arty little 'objet'.

And obviously neither myself nor a huge gang of MN-ers are the arbiters of what is 'required' in religious observance.

A agree with Scummy about the 'impartial' press here.

So, DC, what about my fictional airline steward and his loincloth? I think your posts are a bit ridiculous and baffling tbh.

I agree that BA's ban on necklaces is not intented to target religeon. However, I think it is about religeon to she/he who wears the cross. I wouldn't wear a star of David because I'm not Jewish, no matter how fashionable it might be (unless of course my name was Madona).

She may well wear her necklace as a religious symbol because she is Christian, but is isn't be told to take it off or wear it under her uniform because it is a religious symbol. She is being told to hide it because it is JEWELLERY! And BA would say the same to someone wearing a necklace with a Jewish or Islamic symbol on it. Or as Blu says, a CND symbol.

Message withdrawn

DC actually said that we have the free will to work out what is right and wrong. Not decide what is right and wrong.

But it isn't a religious obligation though!

Some muslims say wearing a veil is a religious obligation. Some say it isn't. DC, much as I hate to say, somewhere in all that purple prose, does have a point.

Does something have to be strictly required by a religeon in order for it to be done for the religeon?

I think the women's issue is most certainly religeous, but that BA's intend when they made and enforeced the no necklace rule was not. However, I think BA should give in. They allow other religeons to wear their religeous expressions. They should afford the same priviledge to Christians. (although if they gave her the option of cross earrings that would be acceptable). Does anyone know if earrings are acceptable? I'm just trying to establish if the woman has another acceptable avenue through which to display her cross within the current BA dress code rules.

She can still wear her cross and feel Christian. All she has to do is wear it under her (hideous) BA cravat. Why is she so insistent that Steve from Sales on his business flight to Dubai can see she's wearing her crucifix? As a passenger all I want to know is that she knows how to open the emergency exit - not which God she will pray to as we plummet earthwards!

But nobody in Christianity says wearing a cross is an obligation! Nobody! So if I said that my beliefs meant I felt obliged to carry a rat on my shoulder, should that be respected? It's not a relgious obligation in Christianity.

Indeed Blu!

Why can't she display the cross for others? I think jewelry (and clothing for that matter) are an outward expression of something (Christianity in this case). If she has to tuck it in, it's not really the same.

I think that the freedom of religeon includes the right to have one, including Christianity.

I haven't said that we should all be allowed to display our religious symbols as we see fit. And I think this woman is probably just causing a bit of bother. But it's an interesting point. How mainstream does the religion have to be, and how authoritative the source of the doctrine (regarding wearing of religious artefacts), for it to be accepted?

She has a right to be a Christian. She has an agreement within her contract to work for BA that she can wear anything that does not contrvene their uniform code. She can, within her contract, wear her cross under her uniform. She is there to do a job. She chose to take unpaid leave (she was not suspended) because she wanted to break her contract by wearing something on top of her uniform.

Could you elaborate on religeous obligation, Sorrell? There are lots of ways to worship in Christianity. And, as far as I know, no one is specifically required. So, does that mean that none of them deserve the importance of the "required" obligations of other religeons.

I might choose to worship through attending church, through charity work, through prayer on my own in my garden, through my contribution to an internet chat, through donations to my church, or I might choose to wear the cross on a flight to Zimbabwe. When to these things become "required" and when do they become fashion statements?

I agree with you pretty much. Not sure why I'm arguing really. I don't know of any Christian denomination that insists on the wearing of a crucifix. However, if she felt compelled to do so as part of her religious beliefs, is that any different to a sikh turban? And if it is, what are the criteria for deciding which should be protected and which not? That's all I'm wondering.

My school uniform code used to specify that no jewellery was allowed other than plain stud earrings and a small cross worn for religious reasons.

All that has happened here is that BA have unwittingly put together (or probably, evolved) a set of rules which have had the unfortunate result of discriminating against the small minority of Christians who believe it is religiously important to wear (and display) a symbol of their faith. Would be easy enough to rectify and I don't know why they don't just do that.

i dont know what everyone is getting so worked up about as a few people have pointed out no one banned her from wearing it! its just not allowed to be visible and im sure that ba isnt the only uniformed job that bans wearing visible jewellery

uniform wise ba does ban facial piercings and visible tattoos as do most other airlines so a cross in her nose is a definate no!

also in my experience i have never met a female muslim crew member and i was in the industry over 10 years! obviousy there are some muslims in the airline industry as i have worked with a few but they were not practicing as they wore skirts did not cover up

it is one job where practicing any religion would be difficult as you do not pick and choose when you work christians work sundays jews would have to work saturdays etc no time off for religious holidays

Well said Blu