Christian BA employee suspended for wearing cross necklace
Newsbot @ Fri Oct 13, 2006 9:47 pm
<strong>Title: </strong> <a href="/link.php?id=14689" target="_blank">Christian BA employee suspended for wearing cross necklace</a> (click to view)
<strong>Category:</strong> <a href="/modules.php?name=News_Links&file=category&catid=16" target="_blank">Misc World</a>
<strong>Posted By: </strong> <a href="/modules.php?name=Your_Account&op=userinfo&username=RUEZ" target="_blank">RUEZ</a>
<strong>Date: </strong> 2006-10-13 22:22:51
Subsandwich @ Fri Oct 13, 2006 9:47 pm
Give me a break! So often, many people are scared to offend many religions and cultures; we are told to keep our comments in check, not to pray in schools, or do anything to remind others of our faith. We must walk on thin ice.
When a Christian wants to wear something such as this woman who wore her cross and chain, people are offended. Any free country should permit anyone to wear a small chain with cross even if it's not considered part of an employer's uniform.
As Christians we demand equal time. We aren't wearing crosses to offend anyone; we do it because this is something close to our hearts. What are people afraid of - a cross and chain!
grainfedprairieboy @ Sat Oct 14, 2006 10:51 pm
About a year after the subway bombings Britain has returned to being a country afraid to confront domestic Muslim extremist issues lest they offend someone. BBC roundtable discussions on the threat have been replaced by a rejuvenated commitment to political correctness. Some of the worlds most extreme Imams hail from the jolly old island and are directly responsible for helping to orchestrate the planned hijacking of BA planes with the intent to destroy them and their pax. If only the English could stand firm against terrorism in the South of England the way they do in the South of Iraq. I suppose St. Georges Cross is next?
Hardy @ Sat Oct 14, 2006 11:44 pm
Well, I'm not sure that this lady's going to get the settlement she's hoping for.
Something's not being mentioned in this article.
$1:
It makes exceptions for Muslim and Sikh minorities by allowing them to wear hijabs and turbans.
Under rules drawn up by BA's 'diversity team' and 'uniform committee', Sikh employees can even wear the traditional iron bangle - even though this would usually be classed as jewellery...
Under rules drawn up by BA's 'diversity team' and 'uniform committee', Sikh employees can even wear the traditional iron bangle - even though this would usually be classed as jewellery...
There are two main branches of the Sikh religion, one more traditional and orthodox than the other. The less orthodox ones dress pretty much however they like. The more traditional ones are forbidden by religious law from ever cutting their hair, and the men are required to wind their metre of hair into a turban. Same goes for the iron bracelet, it's in no way considered an option by their religion. For them to be without those, they would be feeling like... a Jew with a foreskin. Violating a fundamental religious law.
And that is where I see her case as being weak. They wear those things because their religion gives them no choice in the matter. Anyone familiar with Christianity knows that no denomination has any rules at all requiring the wearing of crosses.
Maybe she's unaware of the difference, but I'm sure that BA's lawyers will be pointing it out shortly.
HyperionTheEvil @ Sat Oct 14, 2006 11:50 pm
Hardy Hardy:
Well, I'm not sure that this lady's going to get the settlement she's hoping for.
Something's not being mentioned in this article.
There are two main branches of the Sikh religion, one more traditional and orthodox than the other. The less orthodox ones dress pretty much however they like. The more traditional ones are forbidden by religious law from ever cutting their hair, and the men are required to wind their metre of hair into a turban. Same goes for the iron bracelet, it's in no way considered an option by their religion. For them to be without those, they would be feeling like... a Jew with a foreskin. Violating a fundamental religious law.
And that is where I see her case as being weak. They wear those things because their religion gives them no choice in the matter. Anyone familiar with Christianity knows that no denomination has any rules at all requiring the wearing of crosses.
Maybe she's unaware of the difference, but I'm sure that BA's lawyers will be pointing it out shortly.
Something's not being mentioned in this article.
$1:
It makes exceptions for Muslim and Sikh minorities by allowing them to wear hijabs and turbans.
Under rules drawn up by BA's 'diversity team' and 'uniform committee', Sikh employees can even wear the traditional iron bangle - even though this would usually be classed as jewellery...
Under rules drawn up by BA's 'diversity team' and 'uniform committee', Sikh employees can even wear the traditional iron bangle - even though this would usually be classed as jewellery...
There are two main branches of the Sikh religion, one more traditional and orthodox than the other. The less orthodox ones dress pretty much however they like. The more traditional ones are forbidden by religious law from ever cutting their hair, and the men are required to wind their metre of hair into a turban. Same goes for the iron bracelet, it's in no way considered an option by their religion. For them to be without those, they would be feeling like... a Jew with a foreskin. Violating a fundamental religious law.
And that is where I see her case as being weak. They wear those things because their religion gives them no choice in the matter. Anyone familiar with Christianity knows that no denomination has any rules at all requiring the wearing of crosses.
Maybe she's unaware of the difference, but I'm sure that BA's lawyers will be pointing it out shortly.
Try telling that to a christian , and by the way doing so would be considered discriminatory, how do you know that her particular faith doesnt require it? Have you checked her background , what church she attends , what her level of faith is.
If Sikhs can carry those knives they call Kirpans a Christian can wear a cross.
Hardy @ Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:23 am
HyperionTheEvil HyperionTheEvil:
Try telling that to a christian , and by the way doing so would be considered discriminatory, how do you know that her particular faith doesnt require it?
Because she's a Coptic, so she follows the rules of the Pope of Alexandria, who has never ordered the observant to wear crosses. You can find out about them here if you like: http://www.copticchurch.net/
$1:
Have you checked her background , what church she attends , what her level of faith is.
Yes, it says in the article that she is a Coptic. Read more carefully next time.
HyperionTheEvil @ Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Hardy Hardy:
HyperionTheEvil HyperionTheEvil:
Try telling that to a christian , and by the way doing so would be considered discriminatory, how do you know that her particular faith doesnt require it?
Because she's a Coptic, so she follows the rules of the Pope of Alexandria, who has never ordered the observant to wear crosses. You can find out about them here if you like: http://www.copticchurch.net/
$1:
Have you checked her background , what church she attends , what her level of faith is.
Yes, it says in the article that she is a Coptic. Read more carefully next time.
In the 'article' it said she was coptic unless you've checked this for yourself your generalizing and matbe coming to a conclusion based upon incomplete concluisons. Or perhaps she defines her faith as requiring to show a corss
How very judgmnetal of you being a liberal, but not defending your ideas.
Think about your post next time
Hardy @ Sun Oct 15, 2006 1:06 am
HyperionTheEvil HyperionTheEvil:
Hardy Hardy:
Yes, it says in the article that she is a Coptic. Read more carefully next time.
In the 'article' it said she was coptic unless you've checked this for yourself your generalizing and matbe coming to a conclusion based upon incomplete concluisons.
What utter and complete rubbish. If there was reason to believe that this article was a fabrication, there would be no point in discussing it. I am assuming that the article is not making things up as it goes. So are you.
If you even believe that she exists, you should believe that she's a Coptic, because your authority for either belief is exactly the same.
And if she's decided, contrary to guidance from her Pope, that she needs to wear a cross, or have "You're going to hell if you're not Coptic" tattooed to her forehead, or whatever, she's on her own. No court is going to worry about one individual's quirky interpretation of their religion.
Try taking LSD as a personal religious sacrament and tell me how it works out for you.
kitty @ Sun Oct 15, 2006 10:22 am
If you are required to wear a uniform, regardless if its for work, school or otherwise, you should follow the rules. PERIOD It really should not matter what religion or faith or.... rock band you follow because the uniform is a standard for everyone.
obedience is a virtue
HyperionTheEvil @ Sun Oct 15, 2006 10:59 am
Hardy Hardy:
HyperionTheEvil HyperionTheEvil:
Hardy Hardy:
Yes, it says in the article that she is a Coptic. Read more carefully next time.
In the 'article' it said she was coptic unless you've checked this for yourself your generalizing and matbe coming to a conclusion based upon incomplete concluisons.
What utter and complete rubbish. If there was reason to believe that this article was a fabrication, there would be no point in discussing it. I am assuming that the article is not making things up as it goes. So are you.
If you even believe that she exists, you should believe that she's a Coptic, because your authority for either belief is exactly the same.
And if she's decided, contrary to guidance from her Pope, that she needs to wear a cross, or have "You're going to hell if you're not Coptic" tattooed to her forehead, or whatever, she's on her own. No court is going to worry about one individual's quirky interpretation of their religion.
Try taking LSD as a personal religious sacrament and tell me how it works out for you.
I didnt say it wasa fabrcation and again your jumpin to conclusions, you assumption that you are personally aware of this womans personal strength of faith shows that your biased towards christians. Who sais that there must be a direction from the head of a church in order to feel compelled to bear witness to ones faith?
Presumambly people who have religious faiths [whatever the creed] feel that thier lives are directed by god, i have has in my discussions about thier faith- and my lack of it. That they trult believe that god works through them. It is entirely possible that this owman believes she is doing gods will by wearing this cross, and by treating her differently from any other faith that has an outward show of faith is deiscriminatory
Even as an agnostic i can understand that one
HyperionTheEvil @ Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:23 pm
IceOwl IceOwl:
HyperionTheEvil HyperionTheEvil:
Presumambly people who have religious faiths [whatever the creed] feel that thier lives are directed by god, i have has in my discussions about thier faith- and my lack of it. That they trult believe that god works through them. It is entirely possible that this owman believes she is doing gods will by wearing this cross, and by treating her differently from any other faith that has an outward show of faith is deiscriminatory
The article doesn't say she has to stop being a christian, it just says she can't wear the necklace to work without specific permission. Since being a christian doesn't require any material objects, and wearing a cross could even loosely be seen as idol worship, there shouldn't really be an issue here.
You ignored the point of my last post, if as a christian she believes that god has told her that she must wear the cross it is entirely the same as a sikh wearing a Kirpan or a muslim woman wearing a veil, yo're attempting to enforce a double standard as far as religious dress is concerned. You believe that being a christian wearing a cross is not required, but if in her faith and belief that god has determined that she must, then she has the same rights as muslims and sikhs and be allowed to wear the cross.
HyperionTheEvil @ Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:25 pm
kitty kitty:
If you are required to wear a uniform, regardless if its for work, school or otherwise, you should follow the rules. PERIOD It really should not matter what religion or faith or.... rock band you follow because the uniform is a standard for everyone.
obedience is a virtue
obedience is a virtue
i would tend to agree with you, whats good for the gander is good for the goose. But people want to impose the double standard against christians. Thier hypocracy must be shown for what it is.
Firecat @ Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:30 pm
Oh let her wear the cross thingie once and push her out at 30,000. If her God catches her then she can wear it.
( I am going to burn.)