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?!

I note that the voice of any union on this matter has been unheard - if she or any BA employee would like to negotiate a change to their contracts to allow a visible crucifix, shouldn't she negotiate it that way first, rather than have a public stand-off in the press?

but that would be so much less fun wouldn't it?

"and britain isn't a christian country. it is a secular country. "

Do you really believe this when the Queen sits as the head of state and the Church of England?

There is a national religeon in this country. If there weren't the USA would have a very different history, if it even existed. There is a separation of church and state in the US, but not in the UK.

sorrell - only male sikhs as far as I know, and apparently a comb too, and erm underpants.

Hadn't thought about that with respect to the present climate hmmm

just because we have an established church doesn't make us a christian country. We shouldn't have an established church, but that's beside the point.

the war of independence was about taxes, not religion, wasn't it?

I think it was a bit more complicated. Yes, they were fed up with the taxes. They chucke the tea into the river in Boston. But, the separation of Church and State was definitely also a motivating factor in the declaration of independance. It is a huge theme in American History (one the incidentally seems to have been forgotten in the current administration).

As an American whose ancestors fought on the American side of this revolution, I am in full support of separating church from state. However, as a guest in the UK, I also appreciate that there is no such separation here. Plain and simple the Queen binds the state to the church. This may perhaps change when Charles is king. But, today, the Church of England is the state religeon. And, that makes us a Christian country.

PS A bit of irony is that US money all says "in God we trust". A violation of the separation of church and state????? Possibly!

but we're not a christian country in the sense that Iran is an islamic country: our laws are not based on any religion. I still prefer to think of the UK as a secular country - after all, the majority of the population do not attend any religious ceremony regularly. far fewer do than in the US in fact.

It's quite possible that separating Church and state saved the Churches. The consequences of trying to run large countries based on superstition were truly awful, and militant atheism was very strong.
Iran corresponds to much of Europe in Victorian times. Actually, in many ways it's ahead of (say) England when it was more strongly Christian. Women are allowed to own propery in Iran and to vote.

I always find it odd when Americans distance themselves from Bush's religous views.
He was elected because of them, and the statistics show superstition is vastly more widespread.
That is parly due to the fact that until very recently Americans were spared the full consequences of applying Bronze age delusions to running a large modern country.
Americans simply don't realise how bad theocracy can be, and for reasons that only serve to underline the defects in their education system, genuinely believe that historically Christianity were the good guys.

DC, why do you find it odd that Americans might distance themselves from Bush's public devotion to God?

I can see why individual American might distance themselves from Bush and his God, but to me it's odd that all Americans seem to do so.
Most Americans regularly attend some form of mass superstitious hysteria, yet win conversation, they give the impression that religious types are simply 3 people in Arkansas.
It's also the case that turnout in both Bush elections was pretty miserable, allowing the more extremely superstious to swing the election.
Thus I don't get the "nothing to do with me" attitude.
Also one notes that all recent US presidents have been quite loudly religious. Carter was a preacher, Clinton referred to himself as "born again", and Reagan seemed to believe in a form of Christianity much of his own devising.
Outside of Iran, which country can you think of that it's head of state holds "prayer breakfasts" ?
Ironically the least religious President appears to have been Bush sr.

Sorry, DC, but I think you have posted a plethora of misconceptions. You really should re-evaluate your sources.

Which misconception ?
Surely you're aware that religious observance in America is vastly more common than in any other developed country ?

Having read Clinton's autobiography, I'm half sure he admitted to bullshitting about his faith, but the important issue is then that he felt it useful to tell such a lie, which is the nub of problem.

Interstingly enough, no one, even the Michael Moore's of this world has come up with a remotely credible assertion that Bush Jr is not 100% sincere in his beliefs.

Most Americans regularly attend some form of mass superstitious hysteria. Are you sure? In my circles (which are incidentally full of Republicans) I'd say regular church attenders are in the minority.

Do all American distance themselves from Bush and 9his) God? I wouldn't think that was true. A lot might, but surely not all.

I don't think I would rank Clinton, Bush Sr. or Reagan as "loudly religeous".

Since Clinton's autobiography is be definition written by Clinton (alledgedly), what makes you think the satements contained it are true? I wouldn't believe anything he says that I didn't otherwise know to be true.

There are more to points to be made about misconceptions in your post(s) but this is all I have time for.

There does seem to be some sort of separation between educated Americans who talk to foreigners and a large rump who don't.

As for other Presidents being loud about their religion, I did specifically say that Bush Sr, wasn't that loud, but Clinton et al all spoke As frequently about "god". Clinton's autobiography is in parts a very good practical manual for politics.
He explains how you can assert that you are relgious, and how to deal with people who try to use that against you, or throw your immoral behaviour at you because of it.

American leaders are louder about god than in other countries. Blair is very superstitious, yet is almost silent on the matter. Only time I can recall him saying anything publicly was at the death of Princess Di.

Americans are now victims of their own success.
The constitution is well designed to limit religious power, but Bush's Christians have now managed to poke a big enough hole that they can implement Christian government red in tooth and claw.