The cross is banned,but Hijabs are okay at Heathrow

The BBQ Pit
141

[QUOTE=Northern Piper]
What exactly do the regulations protect? Well, I cast about a bit on the web and found an interesting site operated by the Citizens Advice Bureau, which appears to give general advice on matters such as employment law. Clicking on their Employment Fact Sheet – Religion (warning – pdf), I found an interesting summary of the law respecting religious dress or ornaments:

Assuming this is an accurate statement of the effect of the regulations, it suggests that the attendant has a potential claim against British Airways. It certainly fits with the text of the Regs I quoted in the previous post. By allowing some employees to wear religious items, but not allowing her to wear a cross, the employer appears to be treating her less favourably than it treats other employes, based on her religion, contrary to s. 3(1)(a) of the Regs.

As well, the cases would appear to be the same, or not materially different, as required by s. 3(3) of the Regs. The employer is allowing some employees to wear religious items, but not the attendant in issue. It strikes me that the employer would have a hard time with the argument that it tried to accomodate her by offering her a different job. By allowing other employees to wear turbans, hijabs and bangles, all with religious significance, the employer has shown that it can in fact accommodate exceptions to its uniform policy, for religious grounds. Once it makes that concession, I find it hard to see how it can justify only making it for some employees who wish to wear items of religious significance, but not others.

Obviously, whether the lady is successful or not in her claim is yet to be decided. However, based on the wording of the Regs, I think she certainly has a possible case of religious discrimination, which is exactly what The Flying Dutchman was arguing.
[/QUOTE]

The woman was not put ‘at a specific disadvantage’ therefore your cite is obviously irrelevant.

Neither, as has been pointed out endlessly, is she being required to remove sacred items. The dress code is against displaying jewellery and she is perfectly entitled to wear the cross under her clothes.

142

Is the Flying Dutchman really Dutch?
If so, I hope he/she didn’t exercise their right to vote.
The stupidity just burns.

143

I simply wish to express my gratitude towards Northern Piper for so ably, labouriously, and above all courageously posting in my defence. Thankyou.

144

[QUOTE=The Flying Dutchman]
I simply wish to express my gratitude towards Northern Piper for so ably, labouriously, and above all courageously posting in my defence. Thankyou.
[/QUOTE]

As NP’s posts don’t support your position and his cites don’t say what he thinks they say I’m going to have to question your understanding of the word ‘ably’.

145

OK, let’s look at things that are not the slightly-skewed contrast which the Flying Dutchman suggested in his OP.

There is a small cap, resembling a miniature wimple, that is always worn by a Mennonite woman or older girl in public. It symbolizes her duty to keep her head modestly covered in public as a part of her personal piety, her duty to God. She is not free to go about without wearing this cap even when in uniform (though of course something else which in fact serves the same purpose may be substituted). I was cared for at one time by a Mennonite woman who wore the hospital’s prescribed nursing uniform and her characteristic hat. What would be the BA rule as regards this item of garb?

As noted by others, Sikh men wear a small ceremonial dagger symbolizing their duty to take up arms in defense of the Sikh faith and the Granth when threatened by persecution. It is not an optional symbol; it’s their religious duty as devout Sikhs. They may wear it under clothes when its role might be misunderstood; they may not discard it. This is, I believe, true to the extent that they get “concealed carry” permits to wear their mini-daggers when living in states that regulate blade weapons. What might BA rules be regarding this?

As for whether the woman was “preaching” or “proselytizing,” she was clear: she insisted on wearing her cross openly, outside garments, as a quiete, mute witness to God’s love for those with whom she came in contact. To presuppose she was using it as a conversion technique is, I think, unfounded – but she was making a mute statement which she believed she should not be required not to make, by removing or hiding her cross.

146

[Pointless, uninteresting observation on the meanings of crosses…]

Back in my fundamentalist days, I went nowhere without my cross and always made certain that it was prominently displayed. If not, I was shirking my Christian duty. I can’t say I ever owned a huge piece of this type of jewelry, but I was of the mindset that if bling had been all the craze back in that day, then you might’ve seen something totally different.

Now, being on the complete opposite of whatever that was, I obviously no longer wear symbols of my belief system. However, I now notice (where I didn’t at all, unless hit up side the head by a 2 X 4) the most small and delicate rosaries, medals and the like. Those people and there witness speak more to me, than others who do the cramming-down-the-throat method.

[Hey, I said it was a tangent for y’all and I can pass up an epiphany for me. :slight_smile: ]

147

[QUOTE=The Flying Dutchman]
I simply wish to express my gratitude towards Northern Piper for so ably, labouriously, and above all courageously posting in my defence. Thankyou.
[/QUOTE]

Not to smear Northern Piper’s courage, but I don’t think I’d describe posting what he did was courageous. Courage would be leaping in and trying to support you using the kinds of arguments you have been making. One would have to be either or foolhardy or courageous to keep on in the vein you were going. Probably both.

What Northern Piper did was better than courageous. It was useful, it was sensible, it was appropriate to what the Dope is supposedly about. God bless an informed addition to the debate. I think people who bring that to the table have little need to summon courage.

In short, although I think you’re essentially wrong, the content of his support of your position is exactly the kind of thing I like to see on the Dope. I will leave it to the Brits and legal scholars to debate whether or not his points support your claims.

148

[QUOTE=Polycarp]
As noted by others, Sikh men wear a small ceremonial dagger symbolizing their duty to take up arms in defense of the Sikh faith and the Granth when threatened by persecution. It is not an optional symbol; it’s their religious duty as devout Sikhs. They may wear it under clothes when its role might be misunderstood; they may not discard it. This is, I believe, true to the extent that they get “concealed carry” permits to wear their mini-daggers when living in states that regulate blade weapons. What might BA rules be regarding this?
[/QUOTE]

I have never in my life seen a concealed carry permit that covered knives and not just guns. I’m not saying it doesn’t exist but that it strikes me as unusual. Can you give an example of a State that issues such?

On that subject, seems to me I remember a show on PBS a long while back where Sikh children were being allowed to bring their daggers to a school, so in protest several non-Sikh children brought their own knives to school - and were summarily suspended and threatened with juvenile hall. Anyone remember that, or did my brain invent it?

149

[QUOTE=Polycarp]
As for whether the woman was “preaching” or “proselytizing,” she was clear: she insisted on wearing her cross openly, outside garments, as a quiete, mute witness to God’s love for those with whom she came in contact.
[/quote]
I’d tend to disagree. “Witness” suggests she’d be thinking along the lines of “This cross shows what I believe, and represents me”. As she herself says, though (my bolding);

So her thinking is definetly along the lines of actually presenting her beliefs to other people. She wants other people to believe what she does, and her wearing of the cross is designed to promote that. It’s a non-verbal version of saying “Here’s your tickets, have a nice flight, let the one true Saviour into your life”, which i’m pretty sure people would complain about.

Why could she not hide her cross and still be a witness? I presume she’s witnessing to God, here, and I don’t recall him having problems seeing through BA uniforms. In fact, this shows that she was, in fact, witnessing to other people; she actively wanted others to see her cross. She wanted others to know Jesus loves them. That isn’t proseylatizing? That isn’t an attempt to, if not sit people down and give them a long talk on the benefits of Christianity, certainly designed as a nudge in the “right” direction.

That it is a “mute” statement is neither here nor there. If she’d carried a sign saying “Jesus loves you” would that be ok? Would no-one complain if a deaf member of staff signed “Jesus loves you” to customers after checking their bags? Of course not. It is exactly the same thing, by her own admission.

150

[QUOTE=Polycarp]
As noted by others, Sikh men wear a small ceremonial dagger symbolizing their duty to take up arms in defense of the Sikh faith and the Granth when threatened by persecution. It is not an optional symbol; it’s their religious duty as devout Sikhs. They may wear it under clothes when its role might be misunderstood; they may not discard it. This is, I believe, true to the extent that they get “concealed carry” permits to wear their mini-daggers when living in states that regulate blade weapons. What might BA rules be regarding this?
[/QUOTE]

No cite, but I’ve heard descriptions before of situations where Sikhs are willing (and permitted by religious authorities) to replace the kirpan with a plastic replica - including when working in the airline industry.

151

[QUOTE=The Flying Dutchman]
I simply wish to express my gratitude towards Northern Piper for so ably, labouriously, and above all courageously posting in my defence. Thankyou.
[/QUOTE]

Oh please. :rolleyes:
You spray invective and don’t even know what UK Parliamentary privilege is.

Northern Piper has a clear argument and provides useful cites. He is a credit to the thread.
I still disagree with him*, but he’s obviously well worth debating with.
I confidently expect he would be embarrassed if you supported him in another thread.

From the Concise Oxford Dictionary:

‘a constitution is a body of fundamental principles or established precedents according to which a state is acknowledged to be governed’

Having a bunch of laws passed by Parliaments over centuries which have covered such diverse topics as:

  • enforcing weekly practice with a longbow for all men
  • allowing Catholics certain rights
  • enforcing the death penalty for arson in Her Majesty’s dockyards
  • abolishing the death penalty
  • abolishing slavery
  • giving women the vote
  • passing the Official Secrets Act
  • passing the freedom of information Act
  • paying tax according to the ambient temperature of the shop
  • handing over authority to the European Union in certain areas

is not a ‘body of principles’ or ‘established precedents’.
It’s just a collection of laws that change according to which party is in power.

152

[QUOTE=faithfool]
However, I now notice (where I didn’t at all, unless hit up side the head by a 2 X 4) the most small and delicate rosaries, medals and the like.
[/QUOTE]

Bolding mine. Rosaries are NOT to be worn. Some priests, nuns, and monks may wearing them hanging from their belts, but no, rosaries are NOT necklaces.

You can find necklaces made similiar to rosaries, and such, but they’re not actual rosary beads.

153

[QUOTE=Polycarp]

As noted by others, Sikh men wear a small ceremonial dagger symbolizing their duty to take up arms in defense of the Sikh faith and the Granth when threatened by persecution. It is not an optional symbol; it’s their religious duty as devout Sikhs. They may wear it under clothes when its role might be misunderstood; they may not discard it.
[/QUOTE]

There is an exception. Sikhs are told by the World Sikh Organization (WSO) to discard their kirpans when travelling on airplanes.

Also, Sikh women wear the kirpan as well, although I don’t know if it is mandated.

154

Renevant Threshold: It appears we disagree only on a terminological issue. I have only two objections to your comments: What you describe is what I, the overwhelming majority of conservative Christians of my acquaintance, and the folks defining what form of argumentation goes in what forum here would call “witnessing” – and IMO, her words were not reflective of an effort to insist or urge on others a need to believe as she did, but rather state explicitly that her desire to display the cross openly as an item of jewelry was to affirm to them her belief that God loves them. In my book, that’s a form of witness – not necessarily of evangelization. And given what I know of Coptic faith, she’s not so much looking to convert to her belief system as she is to foster a relationship to God through Christ.

155

[QUOTE=Guinastasia]
Bolding mine. Rosaries are NOT to be worn. Some priests, nuns, and monks may wearing them hanging from their belts, but no, rosaries are NOT necklaces.

You can find necklaces made similiar to rosaries, and such, but they’re not actual rosary beads.
[/QUOTE]

Thank you Guin. I had no idea. I suppose the ones I’d seen were either just similar (and my untrained eye couldn’t tell the difference) or worn by those who were simply going for some sort of fashion statement. Ignorance fought. :slight_smile:

156

Oh, no problem. I’ve seen plenty that are certainly pretty enough to wear, but you’re not supposed to.

157

[QUOTE=Polycarp]
Renevant Threshold: It appears we disagree only on a terminological issue. I have only two objections to your comments: What you describe is what I, the overwhelming majority of conservative Christians of my acquaintance, and the folks defining what form of argumentation goes in what forum here would call “witnessing” – and IMO, her words were not reflective of an effort to insist or urge on others a need to believe as she did, but rather state explicitly that her desire to display the cross openly as an item of jewelry was to affirm to them her belief that God loves them.
[/quote]
Hmm. It certainly could be that, but given the lengths she’s gone to in order to wear the cross visibly rather than hidden, I can’t help but feel that she’s wearing it for other people, and not for her own self-belief. What you see as explicitly stating her desire to wear the cross in order to let others know they are loved by God, I see as her explicitly stating her desire for others to know that God loves them. What is telling someone God loves them if not an attempt to convert? If someone came up to me and said “You know, your God doesn’t actually exist”, i’d certainly take that as an attempt to convert me to atheism (or whatever other faith they are).

I think what you call “witnessing” is merely a form of attempted conversion “lite” - not exactly sending missionaries abroad or engaging a non-believer in debate, but a smaller (yet still active) form of faith pushing that can be done by anyone all the time.

I’m not aware of the particulars of Coptic faith, so i’ll do a bit of research on it. And I actually agree with what you’re saying here - I just think that the relationship she intends to foster is between other people and God, not herself and God. It’s not evanelization, but it is an attempt to convert.

158

Christian woman wins religious discrimination case

Full decision here: CASE OF EWEIDA AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

159

Oh, and I might as well respond to Monty’s six year old question.

Toy Story, of course!

160

It’s worth noting that she lost her case against BA. Her case at the ECHR level (like all ECHR cases) was against the state.