Thursday, November 23, 2006

Crossing British Airways

There's a new website encouraging people to boycott British Airways over the crucifix issue HERE.

47 comments:

wrinkled weasel said...

Thank you for signposting it.

neil h said...

Oh good grief. There is nothing in the bible anywhere to say that christians have to wear crosses or make any other sort of public declaration of religious observance. In fact, it's exactly the opposite with prayer and charitable giving to be done privately. The BA stewardess is free to wear a cross privately if she wants to, in accordance with the dress code that she signed up to when she took the job.

Anonymous said...

Good 'ol Daily Politics from you Iain...

Nice one.

verity said...

I see that over a hundred MPs, including a Hindu and a Muslim, have brought some sort of motion of censure of BA.

Boy, did those little thought fascist bigots in BA trip up over that one. Let's hope some people lose their jobs over this bigotry. I hope when they're sacked, they won't be able to pay their mortgages and the stress will be unbearable. That will teach them to favour immigrant religions over Christianity, which has driven the progress of advanced Western civilisation. Self-righteous little thought Hitlers.

newmania said...

I `m not sure why you are so jolly keen on the church Iain . They would , for the most part like to put a stop to your sex life . Now where would you be without absinthe soaked afternoons feasting on lithe Nubian boys dusted with sherbert eh?
Christianity is only acceptable because sane poeple remind them how nutty they are .

Hitchenophile said...

Oh come on Iain, isn't it about time you dropped this issue? You're doing your reputation as an intelligent, incisive commentator no good.

BA's rule is no jewellry on show. Sounds pretty simple to me; I fail to understand why the woman involved seemed to think that she was entitled to flaunt it just because her bit of gold tat was in the shape of a religious icon.

And there's no counter-argument to be made by claiming that BA would allow a Sikh to wear a turban; firstly it's not jewellry. Secondly, it's a commandment by his religion that he must wear it. There is no similar 'commandment' status for Christian adornments or clothing; and the Bible takes a firm stand AGAINST public displays of faith anyway.

dynamite said...

I thought Conservatives considered this this sort of thing to be purile, callow student union nonsense?

Cranmer said...

And there's no counter-argument to be made by claiming that BA would allow a Sikh to wear a turban; firstly it's not jewellry. Secondly, it's a commandment by his religion that he must wear it. There is no similar 'commandment' status for Christian adornments or clothing; and the Bible takes a firm stand AGAINST public displays of faith anyway.

Mr Hitchenophile,

You appear to revel in your igorance.

Firstly, the Sikh kara is jewelley, and it is permitted by BA.

Secondly, there is no commandment anywhere that Sikhs must wear turbans, not least because the Sikh faith has no book of law; their scripture - the Guru Granth Sahob - is devotional.

Thirdly, the lady in question is a Coptic Christian, about which you appear to know absolutely nothing.

Fourthly, the Bible is against public professions of faith when the heart is insincere; ie, the Bible is against hypocritical outward expressions of faith.

Finally, His Grace applauds Mr Dale for taking up this issue, which, from the link, appears to have got the attention of some very senior MPs (not merely Ms Widdecombe), and the United Nations. It is hardly an article of trivia.

Anonymous said...

It is

wrinkled weasel said...

Newmania is such a silly billy. He must live in a time warp when it comes to Christians. He seems to be repeating stuff he heard 30 years ago. And anyway, what's it to him? He should mind his own business.

As for the sherbert dusted loukoums etc, he is just being absurd. I am a Christian and I wish to do nothing of the sort and Newmania is merely trying the rather snivelling approach to gain your sympathy.

This is about BA being bastards, no more, no less.

I cannot figure out for the life of me why you are so sympathetic to us Chrizzies, but I am grateful for it and as you know, Iain, if you ever decided to become one, come as you are.

dr random said...

I think that it is completely wrong to make an argument about whether or not a particular symbol is prescribed by a person's religion or not, as these things are entirely arbritrary. The cross itself is pretty arbitrary, as the Romans actually crucified people on a T shaped structure. Most likely it was a pagan symbol prior to Christianity, most of these things were.

The only question here is whether BA's rule about jewellery is reasonable, just like we might question whether it is reasonable for a schoolteacher to wear a full veil. If it is reasonable, then she shouldn't be allowed to wear a cross. If it isn't reasonable, then all BA employees should be allowed to wear jewellery.

Manfarang said...

It's a Coptic Cross for God's sake!

Anonymous said...

Now where would you be without absinthe soaked afternoons feasting on lithe Nubian boys dusted with sherbert eh

Er, he doesn't drink.

towcestarian said...

Now if there was a website/petition urging BA to ban all forms of religious dress, then I would support it. I rather like the idea of not having other people's religious obsessions flaunted at me when I am paying for a service from them.

Anonymous said...

Well said Iain. I was a bit unkind to you this morning but entirely agree that BA is out of order. Mind you I went off them long before this lastest bit of double standards; remember when they tried to
changes their name simply to "British"; then there were the awful tail fins; and I won't bore you with personal tales. I'd never fly BA again; mind you their shenanigans remind me a bit of the Tory Party for which I will not vote whilst Master Cameroon is in charge.

Nevertheless you heart is in the right place on this one.

Etzel Pangloss said...

The original Christian symbol was a fish.

The cross was taken up a long time later. (It probably wouldn't have been approved of in the early days)

Anonymous said...

chunky jewellery is quite fashionable. and the cross looks nice. but BA are entitled to specify the dress of their employees while they are at work.

if they banned the wearing of certain kinds of jewellery or chunky jewellery or collarettes, no problem.

Was it banned on religious grounds? That's not what BA are saying. A breach of dress code provided quite sufficient grounds for BA to request its removal.

Making a religious issue out of this dress code is OTT. It is a dress code issue only.

Fly the flag.

tapestry moved to tapestrytalks.typepad.com

previous address 100% jammed by gremlins

Little Black Sambo said...

Jeremycj said...
"It is"

Knock-down argument there JCJ.

Northwing said...

Nice one Ian. BA could have stopped all this fuss quite easily. But instead, as with their hideous tailfin design, they have chosen to ignore popular British opinion.

If their ill-informed dress policy allows the kara to be worn, then it can easily be adapted to take a small 3 inch cross.

How the hell can anyone possibly be offended by a little cross round someone's neck?

They'll be banning garlic from in-flight meals next . . .

Anonymous said...

Tapestry says "Fly the flag" but as noted they have sought to underplay the British element more than once. I prefer flying the flag with Virgin which last time I flew with them I noticed had what looked like a bit of the Union Jack on its tail fin.

Voyager said...

Can we please be clear that Nadia Eweida does NOT wear a Crucifix but a Cross.

Roman Catholics and Orthodox wear Crucifixes because the effigy of the Crucified Christ is symbolic of the Passion of The Christ whereas Protestants wear the Cross without the body of Christ to symbolise The Resurrection

Eweida

Beachhutman said...

Of COURSE it was on religeous grounds! Mustn't upset all those muslim passengers on the profitable Middle East routes.
I shouldn't go on about that famous Fish symbol either, its origins (like many "Christian traditions") are far older, and in the case of the fish, reputedly quite unsuitable for family discussion.

Anyway, I couldn't possibly support a website that doesn't know better than to put an apostrophe in "its".

uk-events said...

People are free to believe whatever they wish but not to impose it on the rest of us.

I'm with BA on this providing it applies to all religions.

verity said...

hitchenophile - You are very ignorant about Sikhism. Sikh men wear steel bracelets. In fact, that is the one item of faith that they all wear. Many have abandoned turbans and wear smart haircuts. But even those still wear the steel bracelet. Steel bracelets are not only jewellery, but religious jewellery at that. There's a certain viciousness about allowing jewellery from an imported religion and not from our own religion, which BA clearly loathes almost as much as it loathes Britain.

Tapestry - a tiny cross that was smaller than her thumbnail is hardly "chunky jewellery".

A cross party committee of MPs has condemned BA, the signatories including one Hindu and one Muslim MP.

Anyway, there should be no religion being touted by people serving the public. I don't want someone in my face shrieking "I'm a muslima!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" Why would I care?

gas turbine nerd said...

British Airways lost my "Fly the Flag" loyalty vote when they decided to fit american GE90 engines on their fleet of Boeing 777 rather than the Rolls Royce Trent 800 (a decision which nearly killed the Trent program and the company). Depending on who you believe it was either because of a glof course spat between the 2 British charimen or because GE offered to buy BA's loss making engine overhaul factory in Wales. Whatever the reason, BA were sold a pup; the GE90 turned out to be the biggest white elephant since the millenium dome and the Trent has become the market leader.

Nicholas Ball said...

I would rather see a lady wearing a discrete cross than sit next to a beer bellied tattood man wearing a football shirt any day.

By the way Sikhs also carry a small concealed dagger. What is the BA policy on that?

Anonymous said...

Verity - I saw the piece on TV. It was chunky.

Anonymous said...

"The cross itself is the size of a 5 pence piece" - Newsnight, a moment ago. Your definition of "chunky" is clearly rather looser than that used by the rest of the English speaking world.

verity said...

Nicholas Ball - Presumably the small daggers are fine as long as they're worn under the uniform. And what about that string they wear round their wrists? It could be used for strangling passengers!

BA should get its head out of its arse. None of us thinks the Sikhs pose any threat to us or our civilisation, and no one thinks that wearing a small cross, which millions of people do in Britain, poses an implied insult to the MFR (Most Favoured Religion). Far greater is the threat from islam. BA is consumed with hatred of Britain, our historical associations and our culture. I've never liked them, but now I hate them. I will be talking them down to my American friends.

verity said...

Tapestry - I saw a photo of the cross in a newspaper article and it was very small. Definitely not as big, say, as a hijab.

Manfarang said...

verity 7:23
"our own religion'
You are talking about paganism,aren't you?Not that middle eastern import Christianity.

scroblene said...

Morning Beachhutman,

How about a fish with wings?

Bring back the flying boat I say :-)

Anonymous said...

Haven't our MP's got more important things to be doing with their time and our taxpayers money rather than waste time debating the fact that company dress code has been breached and people are using religon as an excuse. I bet God is well chuffed, besides the lady in question is makign quite a good publicity stunt of it which I am sure God will approve of!!- and judging by the amount of time she has been on TV & Radio she must have troubling fitting in her faith.
Should our government be focusing on more pressing issues such as Iraq, Pensions, Hospitals rather than a farce that alienates non christians as well as providing an easy focus for something that MPs can directly influence and get Brownie points without focussing on real issues outlined above!

Rural Housewife said...

Newmania is very wrong to say that Christians would stop your sexlife Ian. I am a lifelong Christian belonging to a Religious Lay Order and I know few fellow Christians who would presume to know the mind of God and judge your sexuality.

Personally I have enough definite sins of my own to worry!

Also it is not the fault of Christians that non Christians have taken their sign of faith and turned it into a fashion trinket.

If one finds comfort -and perhaps a tangible reminder of the need to take our faith into all aspects of our lives especially when dealing with those who applaud any other religion but denigrate Christianity!then why should it be denied.

If it was decided by all church leaders that all Christians should wear a cross -what then?

Chuck Unsworth said...

Verity 7:23 - 'A cross party committee of MPs has condemned BA'

'Cross?' = Irate, Crucifix, All Party etc?

Sorry - couldn't resist...

Vienna Woods said...

Etzel Pangloss wrote -

The original Christian symbol was a fish.

Hmmm, Yes, I know and the particular Christian group using this today have an outline fish symbol sticker plastered on the back of their cars. Actually I find it very helpful when I'm following one of these as it usually indicates that they are highly likely to make some hair-brained maneuver.

Anonymous said...

a lady wearing a discrete cross

is a discrete object always discreet ?

Voyager said...

Attire for those long haul flights on BA

Christmas Gifts

Jimmy said...

BA should allow anybody to wear whatever jewelery they want. He always wore loads of chains when he was part of the A-List (sorry I meant A-Team).

Should BA also allow people to wear pentagrams if they are Pagans or swastikas if they are Neo-Nazis? I think the Christians speaking out on this issue should realise that there are limits to freedom of expression which are designed to protect people.

There is no Christian ruling that crucifixes must be displayed. Why do religious fundamentalists always try to outdo each other when it comes to making up rules that they expect other people to accept or to abide by?

Pogo said...

I've been avoiding using BA for years... Not for such high-minded reasons though, just that they're too bloody expensive!

Anonymous said...

All this proves that is that trying to make sweeping rules is very easy to do but a nightmare to enforce.

This is about BA making a PR cock-up. That's all.

verity said...

Jimmy - I'm not going to let this go because it is the crux, so to speak, of where leftist thought fascism is designed to take us.

As we know, the left is driven by a ravening hatred of our country. They don't hate islam; nor do they like it or relate to it, but they do see it as a very strong weapon against Britain.

There is absolutely no reason, other than ignorance, to allow people behind the check-in counter to wear fanciful Arabian nights get-ups to work. Their religion does not require it. And frankly, even if it did require the wearing of the hijab et al, which it doesn't, that would mean that person was disqualified from getting hired as an interface with the public by BA.

But as we have seen, the heavy-handed concessions are all in one direction - mollifying immigrants in order to make the British feel like foreigners in their own country.

No one should underestimate the amount of malevolent thought that goes into making these rules.

Jimmy says, in all his naiveté: "I think the Christians speaking out on this issue should realise that there are limits to freedom of expression which are designed to protect people."

Designed to protect which people? Could you let us hear from you on that, please? Please apply a critical Western mind to this question. Designed to protect who? And why? The muslims? Why? Are they being beaten up in the streets? Are mosques being set on fire?

Ask yourself: why are they being handed an advantage and why is a Christian being denied equal rights? Answer the question: to protect whom?

It seems they've scored one with you, Jimmy.

jafo said...

According to the BBC news website, BA told Ms Eweida they accepted her cross was NOT jewellery.

So what's their argument then? Other staff can wear turbans, bangles, the hijab etc. because these are apparently symbols of their religion. She can't wear a tiny silver cross the size of a 5p piece as a symbol of hers.

Whether one is religious or not, doesn't that sound awfully like discrimination.............

no longer anonymous said...

"People are free to believe whatever they wish but not to impose it on the rest of us."

How is wearing a cross imposition? I don't even find veiled Muslim women imposing.

"Should BA also allow people to wear pentagrams if they are Pagans or swastikas if they are Neo-Nazis?"

That's up to BA. But seeing as swastikas are socially unacceptable and crosses aren't I doubt BA would risk it.

Anonymous said...

Maybe the woman wearing the cross was a pygmy. I don't think she was. Newsnight are stirring it. It was a chunky cross compared to the slight, undemonstrative ones you can get. It wasn't a stamping or a casting. It was a leached out silver cross, which are quite big. I used to sell them.

verity said...

tapestry - you seem to have angry issues. Yawn. I don't think most of us care what you "used to sell" at- I guess boot sales, "medieval" fairs, antique gatherings or whatever.

The lady's cross was not "chunky", as in your nomenclature. The size was of her thumbnail.

You seem not to understand what is happening to Britain. You appear to have some dreamy-eyed belief that hundreds of thousands of incomers are the same as us, as long as we just don't judge them or look at them funny. They may bomb our transit systems, as in London and Madrid, but, actually, they're basically OK.

Fact - they are aggressors and try to take territory wherever they can.

Neil H says, "Oh, good grief!" the clan cry of the superior people who know better and are just so frustrated that others resist their lefty point of view. Good grief! We've explained it a million times!

jimmy the chimp weighs in on the side of the destructors with his exasperated little cries.

I am amazed.

In a tiny 10 years - many wars went on longer than that - you have allowed your ancient freedoms to be removed from under you without a squeak. After N Korea, you are now officially the world's most spied upon people. Worse than the Soviet Union of old. Worse that the Stazi of yore. You're just second after N Korea.

Congratulations!

Oh, good grief!

Little Black Sambo said...

Cross & crucifix. Nadia Eweida is neither Catholic nor Protestant (I think) but a Copt, and the Copts have particularly good reason to be sensitive to pro-Islamic policies, suffering as they do great intolerance by Moslems in Egypt.