[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”
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.
[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”?
[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:
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=Diogenes the Cynic]
This is about six different kinds of stupid. Constitutional rights? …
[/QUOTE]
You’re being uncharacteristically kind, DtC.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
Something can be both purely religious and not agreed on by the entire religious community.
[/QUOTE]
Like Amish on spacehoppers.
[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?
[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.
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.
So where in the OP link does it say she was preaching?
Why don’t you move on to your next fundie bashing thread ?
[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.
[QUOTE=The Flying Dutchman]
Please quote exactly the false claim I made in the OP. You can’t.
[/quote]
The title;
The cross is not banned. It’s a false claim.
Diogenes said proselytizing, not preaching. Nice attempt at a redefinition. And it’s here;
[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.
[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.
[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.
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.
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.
That would be this one:
Spoken like someone who has absolutely no idea what “discrimination” actually means.
And that would be this one:
Which, technically, is proselyization, not preaching. But then, Diogenes didn’t say “preaching,” did he?
Sure, but first let’s wrap up what we’ve learned from this thread:
Actually, I think most of us already knew all of that. Guess we haven’t learned anything from this thread after all.
[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 used the word “preach” in his first post. Go back and read ity again.
[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.
[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.
Wow, you’ve completely missed the point of hijab. The idea is the covering of the body, not the wearing of specific items.
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.
[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.