# The cross is banned,but Hijabs are okay at Heathrow **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [November 20, 2006, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-cross-is-banned-but-hijabs-are-okay-at-heathrow/381148 "2006-11-20T15:12:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2006, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-cross-is-banned-but-hijabs-are-okay-at-heathrow/381148/21 "2006-11-20T16:19:20Z")
[QUOTE=GorillaMan] So the policy should allow small crosses, but not bigger ones? I’d like to see how you’d phrase that. [/QUOTE] Perhaps they could issue her with a new cross enameled in a natty British Airways paint job. “Jesus loves our new Club Europe seat, with 32% more legroom” ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2006, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-cross-is-banned-but-hijabs-are-okay-at-heathrow/381148/22 "2006-11-20T16:28:42Z")
Frankly, I’m not sure the two (cross and hijab) are analagous. One is purely a symbol, and the other is a practical garment, worn for modesty’s sake. I don’t think that people wear the hijab as a method of self-expression, or to make a declaration that one is Muslim. It may telegraph that message, but it is not the PURPOSE of wearing it. If the Christian woman’s religion required a certain piece of clothing worn for modesty’s sake, THEN it would be unfair to allow the hijab but not whatever garment the Christian required, such as a skirt that covers her knees, sleeves that cover her arms, or a headcovering of some kind, all of which are required by some Christian denominations’ modesty rules. ---
**Author:** ![scr4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/59ef9b/32.png) [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2006, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-cross-is-banned-but-hijabs-are-okay-at-heathrow/381148/23 "2006-11-20T16:30:55Z")
[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold] The reason that they don’t ban people wearing headscarves or turbans or whatever is because you can’t wear those items under other clothing. [/QUOTE] I guess now the Christians would invent a religious symbol that can’t be worn under other clothing… Though I’m not really sure if a Hijab counts as a “religious symbol.” Isn’t there a difference between “cultural” and “religious”? ---
**Author:** ![NinjaChick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/71c47a/32.png) [@NinjaChick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NinjaChick)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2006, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-cross-is-banned-but-hijabs-are-okay-at-heathrow/381148/24 "2006-11-20T16:40:39Z")
[QUOTE=scr4] I guess now the Christians would invent a religious symbol that can’t be worn under other clothing… Though I’m not really sure if a Hijab counts as a “religious symbol.” Isn’t there a difference between “cultural” and “religious”? [/QUOTE] From [here](http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/beliefs/hijab_1.shtml): > [@](#): > > Hijab is an Arabic word meaning barrier or partition. > > In Islam however, it has a broader meaning. It is the principle of modesty and includes behaviour as well as dress for both males and females. > > The most visible form of hijab is the head covering that many Muslim women wear. Hijab however goes beyond the head scarf. In one popular school of Islamic thought, hijab refers to the complete covering of everything except the hands, face and feet in long, loose and non see-through garments. A woman who wears hijab is called Muhaajaba. > > Muslim women are required to observe the hijab in front of any man they could theoretically marry. This means that hijab is not obligatory in front of the father, brothers, grandfathers, uncles or young children. It’s not cultural, it’s a religious requirement. It’s certainly open to interpretation, the same as things in any religion, but it’s certainly something that there’s religious, textual support for, not just a cultural norm. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Odds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/d_odds/32/2882_2.png) [@D\_Odds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Odds)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2006, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-cross-is-banned-but-hijabs-are-okay-at-heathrow/381148/25 "2006-11-20T17:08:37Z")
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic] This is about six different kinds of stupid. Constitutional rights? … [/QUOTE] You’re being uncharacteristically kind, **DtC**. ---
**Author:** ![jjimm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2006, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-cross-is-banned-but-hijabs-are-okay-at-heathrow/381148/26 "2006-11-20T17:16:39Z")
[QUOTE=NinjaChick] It’s not cultural, it’s a religious requirement. It’s certainly open to interpretation, the same as things in any religion, but it’s certainly something that there’s religious, textual support for, not just a cultural norm. [/QUOTE] If it’s purely religious, how do you explain the millions of Muslim women who don’t wear any headcovering? Furthermore, can you find a similar passage from the Bible that demands a cross be worn? Anyway, it’s nice to see the SDMB sticking up for an Arab for once. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2006, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-cross-is-banned-but-hijabs-are-okay-at-heathrow/381148/27 "2006-11-20T17:20:22Z")
[QUOTE=jjimm] If it’s purely religious, how do you explain the millions of Muslim women who don’t wear any headcovering? [/QUOTE] Can you explain that millions of Christians that are pro-choice? Something can be both purely religious and not agreed on by the entire religious community. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2006, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-cross-is-banned-but-hijabs-are-okay-at-heathrow/381148/28 "2006-11-20T17:27:30Z")
[QUOTE=jjimm] If it’s purely religious, how do you explain the millions of Muslim women who don’t wear any headcovering? [/QUOTE] Probably the same way you explain the millions of Jews who eat pork and shellfish. ---
**Author:** ![jjimm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2006, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-cross-is-banned-but-hijabs-are-okay-at-heathrow/381148/29 "2006-11-20T17:27:47Z")
[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold] Something can be both purely religious and not agreed on by the entire religious community. [/QUOTE] Like Amish on spacehoppers. ---
**Author:** ![Li\_l\_Pluck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ee59a6/32.png) [@Li\_l\_Pluck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Li_l_Pluck)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2006, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-cross-is-banned-but-hijabs-are-okay-at-heathrow/381148/30 "2006-11-20T17:32:58Z")
[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright] Perhaps they could issue her with a new cross enameled in a natty British Airways paint job. “Jesus loves our new Club Europe seat, with 32% more legroom” [/QUOTE] 😃 Oh, and would you prefer an aisle or window Club Europe seat on your flight to hell and damnation? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2006, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-cross-is-banned-but-hijabs-are-okay-at-heathrow/381148/31 "2006-11-20T17:59:50Z")
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic] This is about six different kinds of stupid. Constitutional rights? Heathrow is in ENGLAND, moron, and even in the US, the Constutution only gurantees that your rights can’t be abridged by the GOVERNMENT. This BA policy is not a law, it’s just a private company policy. [/quote] This is pretty stupid statement. First of all, in the other thread discussing the proposed Dutch ban on facial covering in the Netherlands, the US constitution was brought up as well to suggest a superior American constitution. Most dopers were against the proposed law on the basis of freedom of expression. The second thing I’ll point out is that private companies in the US can’t discriminate against blacks or religion can they. Isn’t that guaranteed by the US constitution ? And finally, your American arrogance to suggest that foreigners who aren’t fully aware of the US constitution are stupid is downright assholish. > [@](#): > > You made a false claim in your OP. Either you didn’t read the story or you didn’t really care. Just admit you were wrong and move on to your next Muslim bashing thread. Please quote exactly the false claim I made in the OP. You can’t. But I can certainly charge you with making a false claim. > [@](#): > > The woman in that story atually admits that her goal was proselytization. British Airways is a private company that has every right to tell its employees not to preach at the customers. So where in the OP link does it say she was preaching? Why don’t you move on to your next fundie bashing thread ? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2006, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-cross-is-banned-but-hijabs-are-okay-at-heathrow/381148/32 "2006-11-20T18:03:24Z")
[QUOTE=jjimm] Anyway, it’s nice to see the SDMB sticking up for an Arab for once. [/QUOTE] Conflating Arabs with Muslims is just wrong. There are plenty of Christian and atheist Arabs. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2006, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-cross-is-banned-but-hijabs-are-okay-at-heathrow/381148/33 "2006-11-20T18:08:51Z")
[QUOTE=The Flying Dutchman] Please quote exactly the false claim I made in the OP. You can’t. [/quote] The title; > [@](#): > > The cross is banned,but Hijabs are okay at Heathrow The cross is not banned. It’s a false claim. > [@The Flying Dutchman](#): > > So where in the OP link does it say she was preaching? **Diogenes** said proselytizing, not preaching. Nice attempt at a redefinition. And it’s here; > [@](#): > > Ms Eweida added: "I am fairly disappointed but I’m looking forward to the next stage because the cross is important and the truth will be revealed. > > “It is important to wear it to express my faith so that other people will know that Jesus loves them.” ---
**Author:** ![GorillaMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/50afbb/32.png) [@GorillaMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GorillaMan)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2006, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-cross-is-banned-but-hijabs-are-okay-at-heathrow/381148/34 "2006-11-20T18:09:47Z")
[QUOTE=The Flying Dutchman] Please quote exactly the false claim I made in the OP. [/quote] She was not forbidden from wearing the cross. That’s where your OP was incorrect. [QUOTE=The Flying Dutchman] Conflating Arabs with Muslims is just wrong. There are plenty of Christian and atheist Arabs. [/QUOTE] Ironcially, the woman in question has an Egyptian background. ---
**Author:** ![Baron\_Greenback](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/baron_greenback/32/48_2.png) [@Baron\_Greenback](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baron_Greenback)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2006, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-cross-is-banned-but-hijabs-are-okay-at-heathrow/381148/35 "2006-11-20T18:14:03Z")
[QUOTE=The Flying Dutchman] Conflating Arabs with Muslims is just wrong. There are plenty of Christian and atheist Arabs. [/QUOTE] Indeed. The woman involved in the story is an Anglo-Egyptian Christian Arab. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2006, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-cross-is-banned-but-hijabs-are-okay-at-heathrow/381148/36 "2006-11-20T18:22:49Z")
[QUOTE=The Flying Dutchman] This is pretty stupid statement. First of all, in the other thread discussing the proposed Dutch ban on facial covering in the Netherlands, the US constitution was brought up as well to suggest a superior American constitution. Most dopers were against the proposed law on the basis of freedom of expression. [/quote] Yes, and it was brought up in the context of what the proper role of the government should be in dictating the limits of personal expression. Astonishingly enough, British Airways isn’t a government. > [@](#): > > The second thing I’ll point out is that private companies in the US can’t discriminate against blacks or religion can they. Isn’t that guaranteed by the US constitution ? Yes, it is, but the case you’ve cited isn’t an instance of discrimination. They haven’t refused to hire Christians, they haven’t prevented Christians from getting raises or promotions, and they haven’t forced Christians to do anything that conflicts with their religious principles. They simply required an employee to comply with the same regulations on personal jewelry required of all their other employees. So even if this were an action taken by an organ of the American government, it _still_ wouldn’t be unconstitutional. > [@](#): > > And finally, your American arrogance to suggest that foreigners who aren’t fully aware of the US constitution are stupid is downright assholish. Needless to say, no one should expect someone who is not an American to have a deep understanding of the role and function of the American constitution in our legal system or in society at large. On the other hand, if you don’t understand the role and function of the American constitution in our legal system or in society at large, you probably shouldn’t go around making proclamations about what the American constitution does and does not say, especially when you’re complaining about a situation that has nothing at all to do with America. Doing so makes you look stupid. > [@](#): > > Please quote exactly the false claim I made in the OP. You can’t. But I can certainly charge you with making a false claim. That would be this one: > [@](#): > > This is discrimination. Spoken like someone who has absolutely no idea what “discrimination” actually means. > [@](#): > > So where in the OP link does it say she was preaching? And that would be this one: > [@the article](#): > > “It is important to wear it to express my faith so that other people will know that Jesus loves them.” Which, technically, is proselyization, not preaching. But then, **Diogenes** didn’t say “preaching,” did he? > [@The Flying Dutchman](#): > > Why don’t you move on to your next fundie bashing thread ? Sure, but first let’s wrap up what we’ve learned from this thread: 1. British Airways is not the government. 2. British Airways is not American. 3. The American Consitution does not apply to non-American, non-governing entities. 4. Even if it did, nothing British Airways has done violates the American constitution. 5. You’re an idiot. Actually, I think most of us already knew all of that. Guess we haven’t learned anything from this thread after all. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2006, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-cross-is-banned-but-hijabs-are-okay-at-heathrow/381148/37 "2006-11-20T18:26:38Z")
[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold] The title; The cross is not banned. It’s a false claim. [/quote] Display of this piece of jewellry is banned. What purpose does jewellry have if it can’t be displayed. Perhaps to avoid discrimination against Christians, Muslim women could wrap their hijabs around their waist under their uniforms. Would that be okay with you? > [@](#): > > **Diogenes** said proselytizing, not preaching. Nice attempt at a redefinition. And it’s here; **Diogenes** used the word “preach” in his first post. Go back and read ity again. ---
**Author:** ![drachillix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/48db29/32.png) [@drachillix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drachillix)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2006, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-cross-is-banned-but-hijabs-are-okay-at-heathrow/381148/38 "2006-11-20T18:30:42Z")
[QUOTE=The Flying Dutchman] The second thing I’ll point out is that private companies in the US can’t discriminate against blacks or religion can they. [/QUOTE] They cannot discriminate for being, a race or religion but there are requirements for “reasonable accomodation”. Things that are safety issues or would impede your ability to perform a task. Examples you cannot exclude a certain ethnicity but you can require one to speak, read, and write in english if the job calls for it. Saying you have to read and write english to pick strawberries would not work. Almost any customer contact position in the United States can require you to speak english. If you are required by your religion to wear a headcovering that may impede your vision, do not expect accomodation if you are driving or working with dangerous machinery. The jewelry issue in the OP applies to all jewelry, not just religious ones. It is not discriminating on the basis of religion. Employers would also be free to supress proselytization on duty for fear of religious harassment issues against other employees. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2006, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-cross-is-banned-but-hijabs-are-okay-at-heathrow/381148/39 "2006-11-20T18:35:04Z")
[QUOTE=The Flying Dutchman] Display of this piece of jewellry is banned. What purpose does jewellry have if it can’t be displayed. [/quote] Doesn’t matter. You wanted a false claim; that’s a false claim. If you’re genuinely interested, wearing jewellery could have the purpose of just making the person who wears it feel better; religious jewellery and items in particular could easily fall under this purpose. I have a lucky charm that I wear around my neck, but I keep it under my clothes because I don’t need to show it off. > [@](#): > > Perhaps to avoid discrimination against Christians, Muslim women could wrap their hijabs around their waist under their uniforms. Would that be okay with you? Wow, you’ve completely missed the point of hijab. The idea is the covering of the body, not the wearing of specific items. > [@](#): > > **Diogenes** used the word “preach” in his first post. Go back and read ity again. You were replying to his use of proseylatize, however. Go back and read your own words again. Plus, she is actually preaching anyway; the wearing of her cross she admits is a form of proseylatizing for her, but by pointing out why she wears it to other people (and, indeed, to a news company) she’s preaching. ---
**Author:** ![GorillaMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/50afbb/32.png) [@GorillaMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GorillaMan)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2006, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-cross-is-banned-but-hijabs-are-okay-at-heathrow/381148/40 "2006-11-20T18:39:29Z")
[QUOTE=The Flying Dutchman] Display of this piece of jewellry is banned. What purpose does jewellry have if it can’t be displayed… **Diogenes** used the word “preach” in his first post. Go back and read ity again. [/QUOTE] The wearing of jewellery with a specific religious symbolism, and insisting that it be worn in a way that is prominent and visible, seems like preaching to me. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-cross-is-banned-but-hijabs-are-okay-at-heathrow/381148.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-cross-is-banned-but-hijabs-are-okay-at-heathrow/381148.md?page=3)