It's got nothing to do with them, it's an internal issue with BA and their Dress code. The bloody woman knew about the dress code when she took the job, she is just causing trouble and now MP's are sticking their oars in. Why don't they stick to not doing their own jobs correctly and let BA sack this annoying trouble maker.

:mad:

I cannot see why MPs should not defend this woman, for christ sake she is only wearing a cross(pun intended) BA are wrong. and in my opinion they are the trouble makers in this case

She is turning an argument about wearing jewellery into a religious issue. BA have always had very strict guidelines which include what size and style of ear rings down to how many rings you can wear on your fingers. It's their choice to choose such a code, you choose to abide to it when you accept the job. If the matter is to be questioned in court then fair enough but it has nothing to do with MP's.

I just can’t understand why wearing a cross on a chain around the neck would make any difference to the woman’s ability to do her job. If it doesn’t, she should be allowed to wear it. BA are definitely wrong.

The laughable thing about all this is that a woman cannot where a small cross, as it is jewelry. Why then not wear a crucifix, which is a religious icon.
If people are allowed on check in, dressed in fundamentalist religious garb with their faces covered, to not allow someone a small token of their religion seems petty in the extreme.

BA are entitled to enforce their dress code. If it is to be questioned at a tribunal then fair enough. I just don't think the interference helps.

let me point out it was BA who in the first place suspending the woman for wearing the cross so they brought out into the media.I would have thought they could have resolved this in a sensible way before making it the farce it is I cannot see the woman being a trouble maker just because she lost a well paid job for such a petty reason. BA were out of order

If it was anything other than a cross, the jewellery thing would've been a non-issue, but the powers that be are so hung up about not upsetting the Muslims, that they ban all religious symbols in a knee-jerk reaction to recent events.. Daft in't it?

If it was anything other than a cross, the jewellery thing would've been a non-issue, but the powers that be are so hung up about not updrtting the Muslims, that they ban all religious symbols in a knee-jerk reaction to recent events.. Daft in't it?


'udrtting' the Muslims? Blimey, sounds a bit scarey to me......

'udrtting' the Muslims? Blimey, sounds a bit scarey to me......

It was a typo, I meant to say upsetting the Muslims,

She is turning an argument about wearing jewellery into a religious issue. BA have always had very strict guidelines which include what size and style of ear rings down to how many rings you can wear on your fingers. It's their choice to choose such a code, you choose to abide to it when you accept the job. If the matter is to be questioned in court then fair enough but it has nothing to do with MP's.

I agree. Imagine going to an interview for an Engineering Sales job fully suited up in bib and tucker, the interviewer telling the applicant his standard of dress would be expected to remain as at the interview and thus gets the job, signs the Contract saying the same, and then turns up for work every day visiting potential buyers/ existing customers dressed as a hippy. :hihi:

Many jobs have dress codes. One expects an employee working as an Air Hostess or suchlike not to turn up in "Vera Duckworth's/Bet Lynch's" earrings etc.

As for the matter of it being a cross, I understand the woman involved was wearing it overtly, rather than covertly. I reckon a blind eye would have been taken to it by BA if it had been concealed elsewhere about the person.

The same happened the other week in respect of a Teaching Assistant, dressed "western" for the the interview, was appointed and turned up in full Muslim rig-out. The rest is history on that case.

After all, if a cross is important to you and your religious leanings, surely as long as it is somewhere within your garment it matters not, you are carrting it in devotion.

MP's should be concentrating on the real problems we all face, not trivial subjects.

let me point out it was BA who in the first place suspending the woman for wearing the cross so they brought out into the media

We have no idea how long this has been going on. We don't know how many verbal warnings or discussions or written warnings etc this woman was given before it got to the stage it has now reached.

let me point out it was BA who in the first place suspending the woman

Wrong!

She has never been suspended.

She chose to go on unpaid leave when she was told that the jewellery should not be worn over the uniform.

She has chosen to turn this into a matter of principle. She has also been offered a transfer to a non-uniform position where she could wear her cross openly .... which she has turned down.

whats the difference unpaid leave or suspension in this case it amounted to the same. if she had not took unpaid leave she would have been suspended so you are splitting hairs here

whats the difference unpaid leave or suspension in this case it amounted to the same. if she had not took unpaid leave she would have been suspended so you are splitting hairs here


How is *he* splitting hairs when it was *you* who brought up the subject of who made the issue public? He's merely pointing out that you were wrong.

If the point is irrelevant, you shouldn't have tried to make it in the first place, whether you were wrong or not.

It is part of an Mp's role to do this sort of thing

So if a person worked for BA and they wore a turban, would it be acceptable to ask them to remove it? its part of their religion, but if a cross cant be worn on show, then neither should a turban.

So if a person worked for BA and they wore a turban, would it be acceptable to ask them to remove it? its part of their religion, but if a cross cant be worn on show, then neither should a turban.

I am not even going to bother trying to explain.

im surprised

MP's should be concentrating on the real problems we all face, not trivial subjects.

As I understand it, and given the mass hysteria and fallout regarding the wearing of religious garb in recent months, this is a 'real' problem.

It falls under the ever increasing umbrella of the 'right to express your religious identity', and sadly, it's an issue that wont go away over night, due to its vogue nature, and money spinning potential.

Also if you read the story fully, you will see that the woman was allowed to wear her necklace for 7 years without a problem. So what changed? Why all of a sudden have they told her to take it off?

it's only been made into a religious thing by the woman who brought the case.

BA make their Jewellery policy perfectly clear:- size, style and visibility of....

it is not an unreasonable request on the part of the employer (BA) to tell their employee what jewellery is acceptable.

If the uniform is, say, a white shirt with a blue tie or neckscarf, and that is the expected garb, then if I turn up with a red shirt and a pink necktie, then, quite rightly, I would be disciplined. If the jewellery permissible with my uniform is small stud-earrings, and a wedding/engagement ring only, and I turned up with some huge bangle-sixed hoops hanging from my ears, then, again, I would expect to be disciplined.

this lady KNEW that VISIBLE, and/or OSTENTATIOUS jewellery is not permitted, but she insisted on wearing her necklace OVER her uniform, instead of discreetly having it inside. She brought it on herself.

It's not about belief, or the right to wear a cross, it's about disobedience and flagrant disregard for rules.

It is true - this is a massive problem. it seems to be that people's views are not being considered.

The worrying trend is that occurences like this are only on the up and by broadcasting it on all the news seems to be creating a raft of concern in the general population.

it seems to be turning into freedom-less country in which we are proud to accept so many other cultures but not that of those that have been present in the UK for a while now

So if a person worked for BA and they wore a turban, would it be acceptable to ask them to remove it? its part of their religion, but if a cross cant be worn on show, then neither should a turban.

I can't see in the rules of Christianity where the wearing of a cross is actually MANDATORY. for a male Sikh, his turban is part of his religion, it's not generally regarded as "optional"

your point being?

does that mean that rules are bent because someone's religion says "this is what we do and we will do as we like"?

if thats the case, the christians should also take that stand point and decide that they are not willing to change the way they think. dont give up the cross. the irony is that they would then be behaving differently to whole ethos of being a christian

there isnt any consistency in the way that things are approached. that is what p*sses people off

Well said PT.

It seems as if we are going backwards here. Instead of being consigned to the rubbish bin of history, along with dragons and pixies, it seems that religion is becoming more important to some people.
A vast reeducation program is required to pull these people out of their strange view that some supernatural entity is going to make everything alright.
These stories may be OK for toddlers and children, but have no place in the adult world.

does that mean that rules are bent because someone's religion says "this is what we do and we will do as we like"?

if thats the case, the christians should also take that stand point and decide that they are not willing to change the way they think. dont give up the cross. the irony is that they would then be behaving differently to whole ethos of being a christian

there isnt any consistency in the way that things are approached. that is what p*sses people off

As PT pointed out, NOWHERE does it say a cross should we worn on show to be a good honest Christian, this woman is wearing an item of jewellery that is against regulation and trying to say it's her religious right. It is her choice to wear that cross, if it was a shell or flower or any other item she would have been treated the same. If her religion stated that she must wear a silver cross in full view then I am sure BA would have something in it's contract stating the maximum size, shape and colour of such an item, like it does with earrings and other things.
She is turning this into a religious issue to cause trouble or for the attention.

your point being?

does that mean that rules are bent because someone's religion says "this is what we do and we will do as we like"?

if thats the case, the christians should also take that stand point and decide that they are not willing to change the way they think. dont give up the cross. the irony is that they would then be behaving differently to whole ethos of being a christian

there isnt any consistency in the way that things are approached. that is what p*sses people off
which bit of "a Christian doesn't HAVE to wear a cross" did you not understand?

None of it, obviously

It seems as if we are going backwards here. Instead of being consigned to the rubbish bin of history, along with dragons and pixies, it seems that religion is becoming more important to some people.
A vast reeducation program is required to pull these people out of their strange view that some supernatural entity is going to make everything alright.
These stories may be OK for toddlers and children, but have no place in the adult world

I never thought this would happen but I agree with artisan. None of your religions are real you know. The only thing any religion has done for me is give me some interesting buildings to look at.
We need a complete seperation of church and state in this country

None of it, obviously

Thought that might be the case...

we all know that if it had been a muslim belly aching this would have been sorted in the muslims favour

For example the guy who was brought back from death row after he was convicted by Sharia Law to death.

how is it on the one hand that Muslims want to live by their rules, but when their rules dont work in their favour , they want to shout and change they way things are done.

this guys death sentence has been in effect overuled by our british law. if the muslims like our rules so much to help in a court case, why is it that some can be dismissive of the rules that our society is built on when it suits them?

For example the guy who was brought back from death row after he was convicted by Sharia Law to death.

how is it on the one hand that Muslims want to live by their rules, but when their rules dont work in their favour , they want to shout and change they way things are done.

this guys death sentence has been in effect overuled by our british law. if the muslims like our rules so much to help in a court case, why is it that some can be dismissive of the rules that our society is built on when it suits them?

what was his death sentence for? Wearing a cross and chain, whilst working for BA?

I am pleased this man was released, from this sentence, especially after having been cleared of the murder charge twice, but his plight has absolutely no relevance whatsoever to this woman who flouted the rules on staff uniforms.

The laughable thing about all this is that a woman cannot where a small cross, as it is jewelry. Why then not wear a crucifix, which is a religious icon.
If people are allowed on check in, dressed in fundamentalist religious garb with their faces covered, to not allow someone a small token of their religion seems petty in the extreme.

what i kinda get from this is that some muslims have to dress traditionally, but as a christian she doesnt have to show the cross - she can wear this around the neck under her clothes no problem, whereas it may be unappropriate for a muslim to wear traditional clothes under BA uniform. I think she is kicking up a fuss because she knows she can.

its related as we are talking about sticking to the rules, and people sticking their oars into affairs that dont concern them.

Try to read the thread title WHITETRASH, it gives you hint into what the thread is about!
If you want to talk about the bloke being released START A NEW THREAD.

You People Love To Shout Dont You? You're So Condescending. Is This The Only Pleasure You Get In Life?

So if a person worked for BA and they wore a turban, would it be acceptable to ask them to remove it? its part of their religion, but if a cross cant be worn on show, then neither should a turban.

A turban is not jewellery, so it's not relevant to the issue at hand.

i love how you can only post on here if you agree with everyone else's opinion and if you stick by the strictest of rules and only think inside a tiny box. and kiss muslim arse's

Actually we let near anybody post, you don't even have to be able to sustain a rational argument (see this thread and your posts for evidence of that).

Mod. Note

If you can't post in a civilised manner you will be removed form the Forum.

You do not have to agree with what's said - just avoid abuse.

If you can't manage that, then you're not welcome.

So, stay on topic and please don't be abusive.

Thank you.

This is how SF works... lots of people shouting their opinion about something, and someone complaining of being persecuted.

If you feel your being treated unfairly, put together a rational argument and maybe people will listen. On a few occasions I've been swayed to another viewpoint by a rational argument. Your posts sound very inflammatory, designed to do not much more than rant...

The government are quite entitled to interfere with this situation as it has been met with interest from a large proportion of society. for BA to tell the lady that she is not allowed to express herself when she has been perfectly able to wear her cross in the past is contradictory to say the least.

the government need to step in to stop the situation escalating into a bigger issue than it already is. like the situation with the headscarf, it needed investigating. as the government has got involved it will only help to discuss these kinds of situations.

maybe the country should be invited to take votes on situations like this

The problem is we don't know that she has be able to wear it freely in the past, for all we know she may have been told not wear it, she stops for a few weeks then starts again, that sort of thing could have been going on for years and finally come to head. The government / ministers should not be voicing their opinions on something that is still currently being investigated, especially as it's got nothing to do with religion. They are interfering in an on-going dress code investigation in which only BA know the full details.

The government are quite entitled to interfere with this situation as it has been met with interest from a large proportion of society. for BA to tell the lady that she is not allowed to express herself when she has been perfectly able to wear her cross in the past is contradictory to say the least.

the government need to step in to stop the situation escalating into a bigger issue than it already is. like the situation with the headscarf, it needed investigating. as the government has got involved it will only help to discuss these kinds of situations.

maybe the country should be invited to take votes on situations like this


Since when has BA's internal dress policy been any business whatsoever of anybody except BA?

i love how you can only post on here if you agree with everyone else's opinion and if you stick by the strictest of rules and only think inside a tiny box. and kiss muslim arse's

Having a bad day? There's nothing in the rules about agreeing with everyone else's opinion. If your own view isn't robust enough to withstand some close examination and debate maybe the forum isn't the right place to be.

the government need to step in to stop the situation escalating into a bigger issue than it already is. like the situation with the headscarf

Read my post on here, before you go spouting off......the Muslim I referred to was not wearing a headscarf, but full-face concealment.

I presume your ability to read previous posts matches your inability to comprehend facts when presented clearly to you. :)

I can't see in the rules of Christianity where the wearing of a cross is actually MANDATORY. for a male Sikh, his turban is part of his religion, it's not generally regarded as "optional"

PT, in my view this argument is not only instrinsically flawed, but if used as a guiding principle in such matters, is likely to be the source of considerable trouble. Its central weakness is to use the concept of faith ‘requirements’ as the basis upon which decisions about acceptable deviations from the organisation’s dress code should be made. What this does in effect is to elevate certain kinds of religious adherence above others, particularly those with explicit doctrines and rules associated with adherence (and which also tend to be the least tolerant of people who think and act for themselves in matters of doctrine). It is also based on the assumption that such decisions are easy to make. For example, it is well known that Christianity is less rule bound than many other religions, in that most Christians are quite relaxed about which rules they observe and which they do not. However, this by no means applies to all Christians, some of whom take their faith very seriously indeed and have their own requirements with regard to observance. Christians are not children of a lesser God simply because they have greater freedom to interpret the doctrines of their faith than is the case with other religions. For this deeply religious woman, wearing a cross is a religious requirement and her request should be treated no differently from the requests made by adherents to other faiths.

The alternative would be to have a situation where, for example, A Sikh employee could wear his turban, kara and kirpan, a male muslim could sport a full beard, a female muslim employee could wear a veil, and an orthodox Jew could wear a yarmulke whilst on duty, but a Christian employee could not wear the smallest cross. Can you not envisage the resentment this would cause? Given that the cross has deep symbolic significance (not least for the lady in question) a cross necklace cannot be dismissed simply as an item of jewellery and therefore as fundamentally different from the above (it is no doubt just as symbolic for this lady as the kara, a bracelet, is for Sikhs).. Another flaw in this highly discriminatory principle is that, if acted upon, it would require the dress code setters in public organisations to become amateur theologians by making decisions as to which manifestations of religious adherence are essential requirements and therefore permissible and which are not. :thumbsup:

The easiest answer would be to not employ people who follow any religious faith at all. There are millions of us who would fill the bill.
Religious people are already showing themselves to be weak minded anyway, therefore it should not be too difficult to frame a law around this.
Religion should be kept private and between consenting adults, not fluanted in the face of decent people.
They do not realise the offence they cause to right minded people with silly adherence to outmoded and outdated concepts, or is that the reason that they do it? The look at me syndrome, so prevalent today.
Do they seriously expect us to accept that a living god would allow the carnage taking place in the world today.
The amusing part about it all is, that the people destroying their own gods creations, expect to sit at the side of that same god as some kind of martyr.
They have a strange definition of the word. It is normally reserved for people who have met their death, defending their religion from some dictator.
These people have turned it around to mean any one who dies whilst slaughtering hundreds of innocent people.
I cannot honestly imagine St Thomas a Becket sitting down for a nice cup of tea with Musahab al Zaquari

For example the guy who was brought back from death row after he was convicted by Sharia Law to death.

how is it on the one hand that Muslims want to live by their rules, but when their rules dont work in their favour , they want to shout and change they way things are done.

this guys death sentence has been in effect overuled by our british law. if the muslims like our rules so much to help in a court case, why is it that some can be dismissive of the rules that our society is built on when it suits them?

Because self interest is more fundamental to a human being than religious belief?

Can you not envisage the resentment this would cause? Given that the cross has deep symbolic significance (not least for the lady in question) a cross necklace cannot be dismissed simply as an item of jewellery and therefore as fundamentally different from the above (it is no doubt just as symbolic for this lady as the kara, a bracelet, is for Sikhs).. Another flaw in this highly discriminatory principle is that, if acted upon, it would require the dress code setters in public organisations to become amateur theologians by making decisions as to which manifestations of religious adherence are essential requirements and therefore permissible and which are not. :thumbsup:

No, it wouldn't. All religious items are treated in exactly the same way by British Airways, ie. not in any way whatsoever. They have rules regarding clothing, and rules regarding jewellery, and whether or not something is a religious item has no bearing on any of those rules.

PT, in my view this argument is not only instrinsically flawed, but if used as a guiding principle in such matters, is likely to be the source of considerable trouble. Its central weakness is to use the concept of faith ‘requirements’ as the basis upon which decisions about acceptable deviations from the organisation’s dress code should be made. What this does in effect is to elevate certain kinds of religious adherence above others, particularly those with explicit doctrines and rules associated with adherence (and which also tend to be the least tolerant of people who think and act for themselves in matters of doctrine). It is also based on the assumption that such decisions are easy to make. For example, it is well known that Christianity is less rule bound than many other religions, in that most Christians are quite relaxed about which rules they observe and which they do not. However, this by no means applies to all Christians, some of whom take their faith very seriously indeed and have their own requirements with regard to observance. Christians are not children of a lesser God simply because they have greater freedom to interpret the doctrines of their faith than is the case with other religions. For this deeply religious woman, wearing a cross is a religious requirement and her request should be treated no differently from the requests made by adherents to other faiths.

The alternative would be to have a situation where, for example, A Sikh employee could wear his turban, kara and kirpan, a male muslim could sport a full beard, a female muslim employee could wear a veil, and an orthodox Jew could wear a yarmulke whilst on duty, but a Christian employee could not wear the smallest cross.
Actually she was told that she could wear it, a big a cross as she likes, just so long as it's not visible.

Can you not envisage the resentment this would cause? Given that the cross has deep symbolic significance (not least for the lady in question) a cross necklace cannot be dismissed simply as an item of jewellery and therefore as fundamentally different from the above (it is no doubt just as symbolic for this lady as the kara, a bracelet, is for Sikhs).. Another flaw in this highly discriminatory principle is that, if acted upon, it would require the dress code setters in public organisations to become amateur theologians by making decisions as to which manifestations of religious adherence are essential requirements and therefore permissible and which are not. :thumbsup:

I am getting deja-vu... it's like a record, getting stuck in a groove.

we are talking, as I have already said, many times, about this woman flouting the rules over visible jewellery, the woman insists on wearing the jewellery OUTSIDE her clothing. It's not permitted. She has been taken to task about it. She can wear it tucked inside her clothing, but not have it visible, because visible necklaces are not permitted.

The rules are perfectly clear on what styles and sizes of jewellery ARE permitted. She knows these rules, and choses to ignore them, trying to make out she is some kind of Martyr when she was, quite rightly, taken to task for breaking those rules.

if she objects to the rules, then she should leave, and get a job somewhere where she can wear jewellery in whichever style and size she likes, leaving a vacancy at BA for someone who understands compliance with the rules.

Actually she was told that she could wear it, a big a cross as she likes, just so long as it's not visible.

But the whole point about symbols is that they are meant to be visible. In some cases this visibilty will be confined primarily to the individual (like the Sikh kachh or kangha) but in most cases (like the examples I gave earlier) they are meant to symbolise to others that the wearer is an adherent of a particular faith. :thumbsup:

I am getting deja-vu... it's like a record, getting stuck in a groove.

.

PT, this is because you have failed to understand the essential point that for this deeply religious woman a cross necklace is not simply an item of jewellery but a profoundly significant symbol of her faith. Until you do you you will condemned forever more, like Sisyphus in a different context, to repeat the same argument over and over again. I do hope you appreciate the help I am giving you in providing an escape route from your deja-vu. :thumbsup:

But the whole point about symbols is that they are meant to be visible. In some cases this visibilty will be confined primarily to the individual (like the Sikh kachh or kangha) but in most cases (like the examples I gave earlier) they are meant to symbolise to others that the wearer is an adherent of a particular faith. :thumbsup:

And the whole point about this case is that she wishes to wear jewellery visibily and she knows that this is not allowed. She has no religious justification for doing so. The fact that it's a religious symbol does not automatically give her carte blanche to do as she chooses.

It all seems very black and white to me.

If an employer stippulates conditions of employment, and you don't agree with those conditions, then it's wrong for you to take the job and then later break the rules.

End of story.

The matter of religion doens't come in to it, that's another issue. British Airways are free to set their own rules, and I think a rule such as 'no religious symbols on view' isn't unreasonable.

Whatever they do or don't do, they *are* going to offend someone.

The government are quite entitled to interfere with this situation as it has been met with interest from a large proportion of society. for BA to tell the lady that she is not allowed to express herself when she has been perfectly able to wear her cross in the past is contradictory to say the least.

the government need to step in to stop the situation escalating into a bigger issue than it already is. like the situation with the headscarf, it needed investigating. as the government has got involved it will only help to discuss these kinds of situations.

maybe the country should be invited to take votes on situations like this

I AGREE why is it that there seems to be lws that apply to seperate religons, at the end of the day this is a Christian country and BA should accept this womans diversity, don't think she was wearing the gold cross to chav it up.

and in this diverse society surely all religons should be treated the same, did the cross interfer with her job- er no. And if its a uniform related thing as BA claim why is it that Sikh police offices can wear a turban and not the traditional police helmet?

did the cross interfer with her job- er no.

Yes. It will be offensive to some poeple, hence bad for BA's public relations.

And if its a uniform related thing as BA claim why is it that Sikh police offices can wear a turban and not the traditional police helmet?

BA only set their own dress code policy, they don't influence the dess code of the police force.

Yes. It will be offensive to some poeple, hence bad for BA's public relations.



BA only set their own dress code policy, they don't influence the dess code of the police force.

How can Christianity offend some people at end of the day as stated this is a christian country, BA uses the union flag that could be deemed offensive. What people would it offend?

And i never said that BA influence the Police dress code that was an example

Yes. It will be offensive to some poeple, hence bad for BA's public relations.

So by your own argument BA should also ban turbans and veils because they are bound to be offensive to some people??

You cant have it both ways, either ban ALL forms of religious attire or accept all forms. To discriminate against one particular religion on the grounds that that particular religion will not start throwing its toys out of the pram and threatening violence if its does not get its way I find very offensive.

and in this diverse society surely all religons should be treated the same

And in BA's dress code, they ARE treated the same. No matter what your religion, you are not allowed to openly wear jewellery.

Which part of this do you still not understand, after we've been monotonously repeating it for five pages?

so if its a piece of string with a wooden cross on it is that classed as jewellery? whom decides the jewellery police?

hindus where friendship braclet things round their wrists surely this is classed as jewellery?

lets just have one rule for all religons, or alternatively, BA could smell the coffee and think whom they represent- a predomenantly christian country!!

so if its a piece of string with a wooden cross on it is that classed as jewellery? whom decides the jewellery police?
No, the dictionary. There's nothing in the word "jewellery" that says it has to be ornate. Any form of necklace would qualify, including a piece of string.

hindus where friendship braclet things round their wrists surely this is classed as jewellery?

Yes. And as such, if they're visibly on display, they wouldn't be allowed to wear them while working for BA. The rule bans jewellery, not just crosses.


...BA could smell the coffee and think whom they represent- a predomenantly christian country!!

Wrong. They represent a private company; and even if they did represent a country, that country would be the United Kingdom, which is predominately atheist. Less than five per cent of our population is practicing Christians.

Where did u get ur facts from BA is on the stock market but the country still owns shares in it and as a recall from various polls more than 5% of the country class themselves as christians.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/uk_rel.htm shows that 71% of population in UK consider them selves Christian in the 2001 census

if ur guna mention facts to support ur agruement can we see the evidence too please. Otherwise its could just be a made up figure that supports ur side of it

Is it official then, England is a Christian country?

Is there any official evidence of this?

So by your own argument BA should also ban turbans and veils because they are bound to be offensive to some people??

You cant have it both ways, either ban ALL forms of religious attire or accept all forms. To discriminate against one particular religion on the grounds that that particular religion will not start throwing its toys out of the pram and threatening violence if its does not get its way I find very offensive.

You can't ban items of clothing which are intrinsic to the religion. You can ban anything that isn't though, and small gold crosses are not intrinsic to Christianity.

Is it official then, England is a Christian country?

Is there any official evidence of this?

well according to the census thats what people say

Yes. And as such, if they're visibly on display, they wouldn't be allowed to wear them while working for BA. The rule bans jewellery, not just crosses.

.

Wrong again. Sikhs employed by BA are allowed to wear the kara (an iron bracelet or bangle) whilst on duty. This was decided by BA's ludicrous 'diversity committee', the same committee which is displaying such insensitivity and pig-headedness with regard to the wearing of Christian crosses.

I think its total hiphocracy on B.As behalf I have watched umpteen episodes of the A team and he definitely wears a cross!!! I wouldnt fly B.A anyway as he doesnt fly himself saying things like "i aint gettin on no plane with no crazy fool" how can you run a business when you make derogatory comments about your customers like that, wont use your own product eg flying and to cap it all im sure he is american.

well according to the census thats what people say

The UK was disestablished quite some time ago. We are a state with no (official) religion.

I think its total hiphocracy on B.As behalf I have watched umpteen episodes of the A team and he definitely wears a cross!!! I wouldnt fly B.A anyway as he doesnt fly himself saying things like "i aint gettin on no plane with no crazy fool" how can you run a business when you make derogatory comments about your customers like that, wont use your own product eg flying and to cap it all im sure he is american.
You a crazy fool, man :hihi: :hihi:

The UK was disestablished quite some time ago. We are a state with no (official) religion.

Eh?

Disestablishmentarianism must have scored a huge success without any of us noticing.

There are indeed still established churches in England and Scotland and the Queen is still 'Defender of the Faith', meaning the Protestant Christian faith. :thumbsup:

The UK was disestablished quite some time ago. We are a state with no (official) religion.

how come the government census fails to mention this?

Is it official then, England is a Christian country?

Is there any official evidence of this?

There's vast reams of evidence that England is NOT a Christian country; most of it being the fact that over ninety per cent of English inhabitants do not pray or attend church.

Wrong again. Sikhs employed by BA are allowed to wear the kara (an iron bracelet or bangle) whilst on duty. This was decided by BA's ludicrous 'diversity committee', the same committee which is displaying such insensitivity and pig-headedness with regard to the wearing of Christian crosses.

I WONDER WHO'S GONA BE NEXT TO ARGUE AGAINST THIS POINT? SEEMS TO BE SOME GOOD POINTS MADE HERE

There's vast reams of evidence that England is NOT a Christian country; most of it being the fact that over ninety per cent of English inhabitants do not pray or attend church.
You know that that is nonsense. Since when did you have to go to church to be a christian?
I am not a follower of any organised religion, but my way of life, and that of the people around me is based on the teachings of the christian church.
The life of this country for about the last 1600 years has been based around the christian church.
Do you honestly believe that a few oft comer religions will change the fundamental way people think and act?
You do not need to go to church to see that the teachings of Jesus were implicit truth.

You know that that is nonsense. Since when did you have to go to church to be a christian?

If you'd ever read any of the New Testament, you'd know the answer to that. Strike Three. You may consider yourself a Christian, but objective judgment does not.

If you'd ever read any of the New Testament, you'd know the answer to that. Strike Three. You may consider yourself a Christian, but objective judgment does not.
Eh? What has The New Testament got to do with going to church?
It is basically about the Life and Times of the Apostles, non of whom would have been very welcome in the places of worship at that time.
In fact if caught they would have been more likely to be martyred than given a priesthood.

BA uniform review after cross row


British Airways is to review its policy on uniforms in the wake of a row over a worker told to stop wearing a cross.
On Monday, Nadia Eweida, 55, from London, lost her appeal against a decision saying she could not wear the cross visibly at the check-in counter.

The airline's chief executive Willie Walsh said it had become clear BA's uniform policy needed to change "in the light of the public debate".

He said BA would consider allowing religious symbols worn as lapel badges.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6181746.stm

Lets hope they consider the whole situation long enough for the politicians to find something else they don't really give a sh*t about, (but feel they should intefere in) and for the Daily Mail to loose interest. Then they can decide they were right all along and sack the attention seeking trouble causing old bag!
:D

Whatever they do or don't do, they *are* going to offend someone.
.. and lots of people find it all too easy to become very offended if they can slip the word "Muslim" into the same paragraph. :)

Lets hope they consider the whole situation long enough for the politicians to find something else they don't really give a sh*t about, (but feel they should intefere in) and for the Daily Mail to loose interest. Then they can decide they were right all along and sack the attention seeking trouble causing old bag!
:D
Yes you feel a lot more confident boarding an aircraft when your luggage has been checked in by someone wearing a burka dont you.
It is not as if they are concealing their identity or any thing is it?
Far better to have that open honesty, than some evil swine hiding behind a 10mm cross. She could be anybody, with that awful cross concealing her face.
I bet she put thousands of people off travelling during the years she wore it, before being pulled up over it. :rolleyes:

I someone was wearing a crescent shaped piece of jewellery would they have been asked to remove it?

I someone was wearing a crescent shaped piece of jewellery would they have been asked to remove it?
They would find a passage in some ancient book to prove it was a religious icon, which must be worn for all to see.

no problem now BA have more or less admitted they were wrong and as such are reviewing the dress code presumably in this womans favour.

Just a thought for the day, I know its old news but anyway...

The lady who recently lost her appeal for a major airline for wearing a christian cross on her chain, I seen on news the same airline are selling chains on there flights with a cross on?? is it me or is this country going completly crazy?? how PC must we get before the country blows up? do muslims or any other religon really care if we wear crosses? I dont care what they do and I am sure they dont care what I do, BUT I wonder how many people the airline employ that wear turbans or any other item of clothing that relates to different religons?

why cant the PC's just leave us to plod on together? they cause more trouble than the skinheads used too....

thats my rant over, just sick of hearing about how christians are bad un's for following thier religon...

hi i totally agree with you and wondered if PC meant politically corect?? only we dicussed this in sociology the other day and its got to the point were they have actually passed through parliment that the term 'politically correct' shouldnt be used as it no longer exists in society as things have become so stupid!?! - how politically correct it that!!

Mod Note: Threads merged.