NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6051486.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6051486.stm

Who gives a fuck? It applies to all religions, not just to Christians.

Not really. They didn't say she couldn't wear a cross, they just said it shouldn't be on show. She refused, they responded.

Who gives a fuck? It applies to all religions, not just to Christians.

Not in this case - they make exceptions for other religions such as islam

Not in this case - they make exceptions for other religions such as islam

Only because the items specified can't be covered

Not in this case - they make exceptions for other religions such as islam

Does it say that in the article?

about time, with todays insane laws christians should get buttfucked as much as the next guy (if not more)

about time, with todays insane laws christians should get buttfucked as much as the next guy (if not more)

I'm all for the giving christians the back pay of the buggery they've missed. ;)

The rule applies to all jewellery, it's not against religious symbols. In what way is that discriminating?

I'm all for the giving christians the back pay of the buggery they've missed. ;)

it seems we are on the same page on a lot of things...

The rule applies to all jewellery, it's not against religious symbols. In what way is that discriminating?

My guess is they would let Muslims wear the Fatima's Hands-also a piece of jewelry, and a religious symbol.

oh and mass conversions:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/6050408.stm

My guess is they would let Muslims wear the Fatima's Hands-also a piece of jewelry, and a religious symbol.

Nope. They let Muslim's wear head scarves, it says in the article. But all items of jewellery have to be worn underneath the uniform.

oh and mass conversions:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/6050408.stm

Huh? Were they all flying British Airways or what's the point of posting that here?

oh and mass conversions:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/6050408.stm

WTF does that have to do with anything?

Nope. They let Muslim's wear head scarves, it says in the article. But all items of jewellery have to be worn underneath the uniform.

It would be different of a cross was just a piece of jewelry, but to many people, it's a religious symbol. Hence-you could classify this as religious persecution. I think they really went overboard with this one, by any measure.

My guess is they would let Muslims wear the Fatima's Hands-also a piece of jewelry, and a religious symbol.

What's fatima's hands? If it's a pendant worn on a necklace the rules clearly state that you can wear it, but it must be under your shirt. Personally I think this discriminates against those who choose to express their culture by wearing one of these.

http://i9.tinypic.com/29m6cz4.jpg

I'm all for the giving christians the back pay of the buggery they've missed. ;)

This is bigotry. And hatred.

I don't care what your reasons for it are, so don't go off on a rampage about the Crusades, and the Spanish Inquisition.

This is bigotry. And hatred. I hope you realize that.

Huh? Were they all flying British Airways or what's the point of posting that here?
That could make a great advertising slogan.

"Fly BA: God is on OUR side."

What's fatima's hands? If it's a pendant worn on a necklace the rules clearly state that you can wear it, but it must be under your shirt. Personally I think this discriminates against those who choose to express their culture by wearing one of these.

http://i9.tinypic.com/29m6cz4.jpg

It's an Islamic religous symbol. Fatima was the daughter of Mohammed, and she is the example for all Muslim women to follow-obedient, loyal, loving, and caring.

She's like the Virgin Mary, in a way.

It's an Islamic religous symbol. Fatima was the daughter of Mohammed, and she is the example for all Muslim women to follow-obedient, loyal, loving, and caring.

She's like the Virgin Mary, in a way.

So it could easily be concealed? If so what would make you guess that muslims would be allowed to wear it?

It would be different of a cross was just a piece of jewelry, but to many people, it's a religious symbol. Hence-you could classify this as religious persecution. I think they really went overboard with this one, by any measure.

They don't state you can't wear it. They say you can, but it has to be under your uniform. That's more than fair, many employers will ask that you wear no jewellery at all.
If you regard it as a religious symbol, that's your personal decision, but seeing as everybody is still allowed to wear it, I don't see any reason for calling it discrimination.

Um, wow.

The rule is "religious jewellery must be hidden." Not crosses, but all religious jewellery. A woman wears her cross necklace, and she's surprised she gets in trouble? Uh. Yeah. Rules apply to you too.

A Fatima's Hand would of course have to be hidden by these rules, or a pentagram, or a flaming chalice.

But you can't exactly hide a turban like that, unless you made them wear a bag over their heads, which would just be silly and impractical. That's all.

So it could easily be concealed? If so what would make you guess that muslims would be allowed to wear it?

Because not allowing Muslims to wear their religous symbols goes againt PC.

They don't state you can't wear it. They say you can, but it has to be under your uniform. That's more than fair, many employers will ask that you wear no jewellery at all.
If you regard it as a religious symbol, that's your personal decision, but seeing as everybody is still allowed to wear it, I don't see any reason for calling it discrimination.

That's a reasonable way to look at it. But just you wait till Bill O'Reilly hears about this.

I thought discrimination meant making an exception in the treatment of a particular group. You're not complaining about discrimination. You're complaining about a lack of discrimination. This wasn't about it being a cross. It was because it's jewelry. You've argued that it is unfair to treat Christians like everyone else.

Um, wow.

The rule is "religious jewellery must be hidden." Not crosses, but all religious jewellery. A woman wears her cross necklace, and she's surprised she gets in trouble? Uh. Yeah. Rules apply to you too.

A Fatima's Hand would of course have to be hidden by these rules, or a pentagram, or a flaming chalice.

But you can't exactly hide a turban like that, unless you made them wear a bag over their heads, which would just be silly and impractical. That's all.

Actually, the rule is "all jewellery must be hidden", not just religious jewellery. A Fatima's hand falls under these rules just like a cross.

Because not allowing Muslims to wear their religous symbols goes againt PC.

So your argument is based on your own assumptions nothing else. Fair enough

That's a reasonable way to look at it. But just you wait till Bill O'Reilly hears about this.

Who is Bill O'Reilly?

Because not allowing Muslims to wear their religous symbols goes againt PC.

Ha. So your argument is based on what they MIGHT have done had this been another religious symbol even though you have NO evidence and the stated position, the only evidence we have, is that they don't allow visible neck chains and pendants. All evidence suggests this is a case of them refusing to make an exception. You've not shown anything other than your complaints that suggest they would have provided an exception for anyone.

Lame.

Because not allowing Muslims to wear their religous symbols goes againt PC.

I love it how political correctness is mentioned like some evil monster ready to ambush you and take your baby. The fact is, the airlane has a fair, equal ban on jewellery, whether it be a Chai, Cross, Star&Crescent, Scorpio necklace, Darwin fish, Etc.

What is the big stink about equality? do you think christians are more equal than others?

Who is Bill O'Reilly?

http://i10.tinypic.com/33a53x3.jpg

I'm all for the giving christians the back pay of the buggery they've missed. ;)

yeah, cause they werent eaten by *&%^ing lions or anything

Actually, the rule is "all jewellery must be hidden", not just religious jewellery. A Fatima's hand falls under these rules just like a cross.

Upon double-checking the article... you're right. Whoops, misread it.

But otherwise, I think my point stands. I fail to see why this woman is protesting getting in trouble for breaking a rule that would apply equally to anyone of any religion and claiming "religious persecution."

So your argument is based on your own assumptions nothing else. Fair enough

No, it's just the way the whole thing works. It's easier for Muslims, and religious minorities in general to claim discrimination because they are a minority, and this leads to feelings of guilt among the majority. In some cases, they are discriminated against, but I think they use PC to get concessions in some cases where they aren't discriminated.

Let me ask you a question. What do you think the difference in reaction would be if I said on national cable television
1) "Christianity is a bad religion. It's been responsible for far more evil than good."

and
2) "Islam is a bad religion. It has been responsible for far more evil than good."

I think you know the answer. If I said #1, I would be classified as an enlightened secularist, and if I said #2, I would be classified as a bigot.

That's just one example.

No, it's just the way the whole thing works. It's easier for Muslims, and religious minorities in general to claim discrimination because they are a minority, and this leads to feelings of guilt among the majority. In some cases, they are discriminated against, but I think they use PC to get concessions in some cases where they aren't discriminated.

Let me ask you a question. What do you think the difference in reaction would be if I said on national cable television
1) "Christianity is a bad religion. It's been responsible for far more evil than good."

and
2) "Islam is a bad religion. It has been responsible for far more evil than good."

I think you know the answer. If I said #1, I would be classified as an enlightened secularist, and if I said #2, I would be classified as a bigot.

That's just one example.


Yet again I say your argument is based on your assumptions and nothing else

This is bigotry. And hatred.

I don't care what your reasons for it are, so don't go off on a rampage about the Crusades, and the Spanish Inquisition.

This is bigotry. And hatred. I hope you realize that.

hatred maybe. I can realize it. and embrace it.

Yet again I say your argument is based on your assumptions and nothing else

Remember the MoToons protests? A British man was arrested for yelling at a crowd of Muslim protesters. That's all he did.

The Musim protesters, on the other hand, were brandishing signs such as "Death to all those who defy Islam", and "Europe-Your Holocaust Is Coming"

The protesters didn't get arrested.

Is this what they call the 'Christian persecution complex'?

Yet again I say your argument is based on your assumptions and nothing else

Hear, hear.

hatred maybe. I can realize it. and embrace it.

So you're saying you hate Christians, and aren't ashamed of it in the least?

Is this what they call the 'Christian persecution complex'?

You ain't seen nothing yet. Wait until you read about a Christian who's being persecuted against because he can't use the public schools to force his faith on others.

Who is Bill O'Reilly?

A self-riteous, pig-headed idiot who somehow got his own Television show to sport his "Balanced" conservative views in the USA.

Thank God you don't know him.

My guess is they would let Muslims wear the Fatima's Hands-also a piece of jewelry, and a religious symbol.

This statement, in the context of this case, is based on assumptions and nothing else. See it yet?

No, it's just the way the whole thing works. It's easier for Muslims, and religious minorities in general to claim discrimination because they are a minority, and this leads to feelings of guilt among the majority. In some cases, they are discriminated against, but I think they use PC to get concessions in some cases where they aren't discriminated.

Let me ask you a question. What do you think the difference in reaction would be if I said on national cable television
1) "Christianity is a bad religion. It's been responsible for far more evil than good."

and
2) "Islam is a bad religion. It has been responsible for far more evil than good."

I think you know the answer. If I said #1, I would be classified as an enlightened secularist, and if I said #2, I would be classified as a bigot.

That's just one example.
I fully agree with both statements.

Is this what they call the 'Christian persecution complex'?

Exactamundo.

I wonder if in predominantly Muslim countries they get cases like this, but in reverse.

I hope so.

This statement, in the context of this case, is based on assumptions and nothing else. See it yet?

Of course it's an assumption. I never said it wasn't. And in this case, I think it's a correct assumption.

Care to disagree?

No, it's just the way the whole thing works. It's easier for Muslims, and religious minorities in general to claim discrimination because they are a minority, and this leads to feelings of guilt among the majority. In some cases, they are discriminated against, but I think they use PC to get concessions in some cases where they aren't discriminated.

Let me ask you a question. What do you think the difference in reaction would be if I said on national cable television
1) "Christianity is a bad religion. It's been responsible for far more evil than good."

and
2) "Islam is a bad religion. It has been responsible for far more evil than good."

I think you know the answer. If I said #1, I would be classified as an enlightened secularist, and if I said #2, I would be classified as a bigot.

That's just one example.

Okay, let's try an example that's not made up. Let's pretend there is a large powerful country in the world. We'll call that country Baberica. And let's pretend that the current government of Baberica has been around for 200 years. Now that government places In God We Trust on the money, not In Allah We Trust. And it has God in the pledge. And every President, every one, has at least claimed to be Christian while running. Greater than 90% of the federal politicians claim to be Christians while running for office. Christian values have often been encased in laws in Baberica. Christians have been allowed special treatment above beyond any other religious belief. Let's pretend such a place exists.

Now, we'll use your example that never happened and hasn't ever happened.

Hmmmm... I wonder which carries more weight.

The fantasy that Christians are mistreated is just a some bizarre persecution complex. There is nearly no countries in the world where Christians are prevented from excercising their faith and there are many countries in the world where Christians are given special priveleges. Now there are a few places where Muslims get special priveleges, but where would you prefer to live, Afghanistan or Sweden?

Poor Christians. How I managed to find my faith in a world where people are clearly mistreating Christians on a global scale by allowing them to have the majority of the power is really the miracle, no?

Of course it's an assumption. I never said it wasn't. And in this case, I think it's a correct assumption.

Care to disagree?

But when I siad before it was an assumption your reply stated.

No, it's just the way the whole thing works. It's easier for Muslims, and religious minorities in general to claim discrimination because they are a minority, and this leads to feelings of guilt among the majority. In some cases, they are discriminated against, but I think they use PC to get concessions in some cases where they aren't discriminated.

[QUOTE=RockTheCasbah;11808702]So you're saying you hate Christians, and aren't ashamed of it in the least?[/QUOTE

well, I ain't ashamed of my negative view of christianity but not christians as such. if you need to use the word hate, then I hate the religion not the people.

Normally I would be one also saying discrimination... but not this time.

British Airways says all jewellery and religious symbols on chains must be worn under the uniform. if the stewardess wants to wear her religious symbol openly, then get a pin or a ring. They are not "on Chains." and if they complain that it's not "Standard Uniform" THEN there would be a basis for saying Discrimination. but not for this... not yet.

Originally Posted by RockTheCasbah

Let me ask you a question. What do you think the difference in reaction would be if I said on national cable television
1) "Christianity is a bad religion. It's been responsible for far more evil than good."

and
2) "Islam is a bad religion. It has been responsible for far more evil than good."

I think you know the answer. If I said #1, I would be classified as an enlightened secularist, and if I said #2, I would be classified as a bigot.

That's just one example.

what if I were to say both?

Of course it's an assumption. I never said it wasn't. And in this case, I think it's a correct assumption.

Care to disagree?

I do. It's a false assumption or you wouldn't have to make things up. You could show real examples.

Here's a real world example. Many politicians have gotten away with attacking Muslims in this country. What do you think would happen if a prominent politician said that Christianity needed to be abolished or was a violent religion? What do you think would happen if GWB praised Allah in a speech? I think you know.

But, hey, let's pretend like you're mistreated. Your religious freedom is being violated every day because people are asking you to stop using the government to endorse your faith. Poor, poor, persecuted Christians. And I say persecuted Christians, because I'm a Christian and have NEVER been persecuted, so I guess there must be special persecuted Christians that I keep hearing about.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6051486.stm

British Airways says all jewellery and religious symbols on chains must be worn under the uniform.

Oh, yeah right! :rolleyes: And I bet if an employee was wearing a piece of jewelry that didn't have any kind of religious significance that this rule would NOT be enforced. Same as in other liberal companies. :mad:

Grrrrrrrrrr. Liberalism is such a contagious disease! :sniper: But then again Jesus is contagious, too, but he heals instead of hurts. :cool:

Remember the MoToons protests? A British man was arrested for yelling at a crowd of Muslim protesters. That's all he did.

The Musim protesters, on the other hand, were brandishing signs such as "Death to all those who defy Islam", and "Europe-Your Holocaust Is Coming"

The protesters didn't get arrested.

Link?

Oh, yeah right! :rolleyes: And I bet if an employee was wearing a piece of jewelry that didn't have any kind of religious significance that this rule would NOT be enforced. Same as in other liberal companies. :mad:

Grrrrrrrrrr. Liberalism is such a contagious disease! :sniper: But then again Jesus is contagious, too, but he heals instead of hurts. :cool:

This may be tongue-in-cheek, but I would can the trolling, bub.

Good.

I realy don't get the persecuted christians thing, I mean it's been over 2006 years since there was any serious move against them. No, being asked to follow the same rules as everyone else doesn't count as discrimination.
Now, the argument so far has been pretty much, "but but wahh the muslims get top" let's consider this, there is actiualy a pretty important political situation going on in regards to the muslims (not aided by our habit of blowing them up) but let's consider how christians are treated compared to a religious group we aren't quite so vigorously fucking over at the moment I think its safe to say they have it pretty damn good.

I think we can all safely agree that religion in large doses is a generaly a bad idea, to me a large dose is when it starts getting in the way of more important things, like the laws of physics, or peoples rights to a good education.

I realy don't get the persecuted christians thing, I mean it's been over 2006 years since there was any serious move against them. No, being asked to follow the same rules as everyone else doesn't count as discrimination.

Nero persecuted the shit out of them around the 50's(thats 50 C.E.)

As long as the dress code treats all religious symbols equally, I don't see the problem.
I find the power of the minority non-Christians amazing. After all, the 10 to 15% of the non-christians in the west have managed to oppress the 85% majority. That's fantastic.:rolleyes:

Oh, please. Honestly, all of this "OMG CHRISTIANS ARE BEING OPPRESSED!!!" is ridiculous. It was a religious symbol, people. This company did not want to present a religious front, and she did not comply with their wishes, so they took action. She would have been asked to hide the symbol if it was Jewish, Muslim, etc. There's only a fuss because so many people want to scream that the big-bad PC Liberals are being mean, and oppressing them. Get over it.

I love how this guy contradicts himself. Or didn't pay attention to the policy.

"I think I think it's petty-minded for British Airways to ask her to conceal the cross. My view is as long as they treat everybody the same, that's not a problem," he said.

Oh, yeah right! :rolleyes: And I bet if an employee was wearing a piece of jewelry that didn't have any kind of religious significance that this rule would NOT be enforced. Same as in other liberal companies. :mad:

Grrrrrrrrrr. Liberalism is such a contagious disease! :sniper: But then again Jesus is contagious, too, but he heals instead of hurts. :cool:

Is this for real? I only ask because it sounds tongue-in-cheek, but I'm not sure...

Okay, let's try an example that's not made up. Let's pretend there is a large powerful country in the world. We'll call that country Baberica. And let's pretend that the current government of Baberica has been around for 200 years. Now that government places In God We Trust on the money, not In Allah We Trust. And it has God in the pledge. And every President, every one, has at least claimed to be Christian while running. Greater than 90% of the federal politicians claim to be Christians while running for office. Christian values have often been encased in laws in Baberica. Christians have been allowed special treatment above beyond any other religious belief. Let's pretend such a place exists.

Now, we'll use your example that never happened and hasn't ever happened.

Hmmmm... I wonder which carries more weight.

The fantasy that Christians are mistreated is just a some bizarre persecution complex. There is nearly no countries in the world where Christians are prevented from excercising their faith and there are many countries in the world where Christians are given special priveleges. Now there are a few places where Muslims get special priveleges, but where would you prefer to live, Afghanistan or Sweden?

Poor Christians. How I managed to find my faith in a world where people are clearly mistreating Christians on a global scale by allowing them to have the majority of the power is really the miracle, no?

I never said Christians were persecuted. I just said that Muslims shouldn't be given special treatment, that's all. Don't make this into something it isn't.

And just for the record, Christians aren't free to practice their religion in most, if not all, Muslim-majority countries.

[QUOTE=RockTheCasbah;11808702]So you're saying you hate Christians, and aren't ashamed of it in the least?[/QUOTE

well, I ain't ashamed of my negative view of christianity but not christians as such. if you need to use the word hate, then I hate the religion not the people.

Ok, that clears things up. Oddly, I find myself agreeing with you.


But when I siad before it was an assumption your reply stated.
I do believe that was in reply to something else. In any case, it was an assumption and I stand by it.

I never said Christians were persecuted. I just said that Muslims shouldn't be given special treatment, that's all. Don't make this into something it isn't.

And just for the record, Christians aren't free to practice their religion in most, if not all, Muslim-majority countries.

So? What's your point? Are you upset because you're not welcome in Afghanistan? We're not talking about Muslims or Muslims speaking countries. You are.

I get it. You don't like Muslims. Peddle your phobias elsewhere. It's not the topic.

However, I'm not aware of any Muslim special treatment. I am aware of the abuse everyone who even looked Muslim had heaped on them in 2001. I am aware that my Muslim friends get searched at airports about 3 to 1 and have been asked to leave various establishments at various times because their presence was disruptive. I don't know of any similar stories apply to my friends.

I do. It's a false assumption or you wouldn't have to make things up. You could show real examples.

Here's a real world example. Many politicians have gotten away with attacking Muslims in this country. What do you think would happen if a prominent politician said that Christianity needed to be abolished or was a violent religion? What do you think would happen if GWB praised Allah in a speech? I think you know.

But, hey, let's pretend like you're mistreated. Your religious freedom is being violated every day because people are asking you to stop using the government to endorse your faith. Poor, poor, persecuted Christians. And I say persecuted Christians, because I'm a Christian and have NEVER been persecuted, so I guess there must be special persecuted Christians that I keep hearing about.

I did give a real example-about the British man who was arrested for yelling at the Muslim protesters, some of which were brandishing non-too flattening signs.

I can't think of a single American politician who has attacked Muslims.

I never said Christians were persecuted. I'm not even Christian. I'm saying that all faiths should be given equal treatment.

Originally Posted by RockTheCasbah

Let me ask you a question. What do you think the difference in reaction would be if I said on national cable television
1) "Christianity is a bad religion. It's been responsible for far more evil than good."

and
2) "Islam is a bad religion. It has been responsible for far more evil than good."

I think you know the answer. If I said #1, I would be classified as an enlightened secularist, and if I said #2, I would be classified as a bigot.

That's just one example.

what if I were to say both?

You would probably get more credibility, maybe you'd even get away with it.

[QUOTE=Babelistan;11808749]

Ok, that clears things up. Oddly, I find myself agreeing with you.




good. and that goes for mostly all religions, as a principle, I've had most experience with christianity is all.

You would probably get more credibility, maybe you'd even get away with it.

hope so because thats how I feel. I could give a shit about my cred. and if people dislike me because of it though.

So? What's your point? Are you upset because you're not welcome in Afghanistan? We're not talking about Muslims or Muslims speaking countries. You are.

I get it. You don't like Muslims. Peddle your phobias elsewhere. It's not the topic.

However, I'm not aware of any Muslim special treatment. I am aware of the abuse everyone who even looked Muslim had heaped on them in 2001. I am aware that my Muslim friends get searched at airports about 3 to 1 and have been asked to leave various establishments at various times because their presence was disruptive. I don't know of any similar stories apply to my friends.

I don't hate Muslims. I have Muslim friends. If you can't debate with out making ridiculous accusations, don't debate.

You said that Christians were free to practice their religion in most places of the world. I merely pointed out that they aren't in the Middle East, which is a large part of the world.

I don't claim that Christians are persecuted in America or in Europe.

Muslims are profiled at airports, and there is negative feeling against them. That much is true. On the other side of the coin, however, a German opera won't perform because it's play offends some Muslim sensibilities. It works both ways, you see.

I did give a real example-about the British man who was arrested for yelling at the Muslim protesters, some of which were brandishing non-too flattening signs.

I can't think of a single American politician who has attacked Muslims.

I never said Christians were persecuted. I'm not even Christian. I'm saying that all faiths should be given equal treatment.



You would probably get more credibility, maybe you'd even get away with it.

I asked you for a link. So far you've not shown any evidence that anyone other than Christian EVER gets special treatment.

I don't hate Muslims. I have Muslim friends. If you can't debate with out making ridiculous accusations, don't debate.

You said that Christians were free to practice their religion in most places of the world. I merely pointed out that they aren't in the Middle East, which is a large part of the world.

I don't claim that Christians are persecuted in America or in Europe.

Muslims are profiled at airports, and there is negative feeling against them. That much is true. On the other side of the coin, however, a German opera won't perform because it's play offends some Muslim sensibilities. It works both ways, you see.

In a thread about Christians and whether this woman was mistreated, you've decided to change the subject to how well Muslims are treated in comparison to Christians and you've ONLY complained abou tthe treatment of Muslims being too good. You made the point about Muslims despite it not being about Muslims and you made up a completely unstubstantiated claim that they would have allowed if she'd been Muslim. For someone who doesn't hate Muslims you sure be obsessed with bitching about them. You know what they say... if it quacks like a duck...

Your examples suck. The play chooses not to perform because they feel like it would be rude to do it. Private action. Versus governmental discrimination at airports. Yep, that's equivelant. Well, unless one actually pays attention.

Now, if you're really arguing for equal treatment you'd have mentioned some examples of other groups getting special treatment. Groups like Christians where special treatment is much more frequent and flagrant. You didn't. You'd have mentioned times when Muslims get mistreated. You didn't. You're not aiming at equality because the only unequal treatment you're upset about is the very few times Muslims actually get treated better than others. As a matter of fact you haven't even actually evidenced a single case of them actually getting special treatment.

British Airways says all jewellery and religious symbols on chains must be worn under the uniform.
Bolded

Is this self centerdness suddenly developed or something?

It was against work uniform, simple as that.

Hell I worked for a christian nursing home for years and they did not allow dangling jewlery with uniform for staff either

Airline British Midland has the same uniform policy, which it says is based not on religion but on the kind of image the company wants to present.
All businesses have commercial reasons for such rulings... few are trying to make their "target religion" feel bad.

I'm all for the giving christians the back pay of the buggery they've missed. ;)
So you agree with judicial systems applying trans-generational punishment?

I am surprised.

In a thread about Christians and whether this woman was mistreated, you've decided to change the subject to how well Muslims are treated in comparison to Christians and you've ONLY complained abou tthe treatment of Muslims being too good. You made the point about Muslims despite it not being about Muslims and you made up a completely unstubstantiated claim that they would have allowed if she'd been Muslim. For someone who doesn't hate Muslims you sure be obsessed with bitching about them. You know what they say... if it quacks like a duck...

Your examples suck. The play chooses not to perform because they feel like it would be rude to do it. Private action. Versus governmental discrimination at airports. Yep, that's equivelant. Well, unless one actually pays attention.

Now, if you're really arguing for equal treatment you'd have mentioned some examples of other groups getting special treatment. Groups like Christians where special treatment is much more frequent and flagrant. You didn't. You'd have mentioned times when Muslims get mistreated. You didn't. You're not aiming at equality because the only unequal treatment you're upset about is the very few times Muslims actually get treated better than others. As a matter of fact you haven't even actually evidenced a single case of them actually getting special treatment.

If you go back to page 1, all I did was imply that Muslims get special treatment. Then everyone pounced on me. If I implied the same about Christians, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Here is your link:

http://www.westernresistance.com/blog/archives/001840.html

If you go back to page 1, all I did was imply that Muslims get special treatment. Then everyone pounced on me. If I implied the same about Christians, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

You're right. Because in the west, it's actually true about Christians. Christians are in the majority and often have laws that favor their religious views and even in many cases have their religion espoused by governments, e.g. "In God We Trust", God in the pledge, courthouses with the 10 commandments, laws against gay marriage, state churches, etc.

To say that Christians on average get much better treatment in the west than other religious people is accurate. However, in order to come into a thread that isn't about Muslims and complain about the treatment that Muslims get in the West one must ignore that scads of poor treatment for Muslims in the West and the priority treatment most other religions get above and beyond what Muslims EVER get.

It would be different of a cross was just a piece of jewelry, but to many people, it's a religious symbol. Hence-you could classify this as religious persecution. I think they really went overboard with this one, by any measure.

It's a freaking piece of metal. Maybe with rocks in it. It has a chain, or perhaps a string, around it. It is shaped like a lowercase "t". Any significance you put to it besides that is yours and yours alone.


This is bigotry. And hatred.

I don't care what your reasons for it are, so don't go off on a rampage about the Crusades, and the Spanish Inquisition.

This is bigotry. And hatred. I hope you realize that.

Yeah..since christians aren't bigoted and hateful. They are the most hateful religion on the planet. Homosexuals, Jews, Muslims, Protestant/Catholic (depending on which congregation), liberals, democrats, communisists, nonwhites, people who want to be in control of their own body, poor people, etc, etc.

If you go back to page 1, all I did was imply that Muslims get special treatment. Then everyone pounced on me. If I implied the same about Christians, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Here is your link:

http://www.westernresistance.com/blog/archives/001840.html

Wow, one example. Yep, it's true, England is a pro-Muslim nation. No question about it. Yep that outweighs the two countries that are currently in chaos because their governments were removed by the west. That outweights the Muslim enemy combatants being held without trial. That outweighs the abuse that is hurled at them for being Muslims and the federal tracking that is done on them specifically because they are Muslim. That outweighs their treatment at airports. Because one little municipality attempt to respect their religious need to inter their dead immediately.

Again, you prove that you are focused on a particular agenda. Keep on quacking, duck.

Remember the MoToons protests? A British man was arrested for yelling at a crowd of Muslim protesters. That's all he did.

The Musim protesters, on the other hand, were brandishing signs such as "Death to all those who defy Islam", and "Europe-Your Holocaust Is Coming"

The protesters didn't get arrested.



Ugh...Ever heard of freedom of speech? Even in Britain, you have an unwritten constitution. What they did was peaceful protest, and what he did was hrassment. Plain and simple.

It's a freaking piece of metal. Maybe with rocks in it. It has a chain, or perhaps a string, around it. It is shaped like a lowercase "t". Any significance you put to it besides that is yours and yours alone.




Yeah..since christians aren't bigoted and hateful. They are the most hateful religion on the planet. Homosexuals, Jews, Muslims, Protestant/Catholic (depending on which congregation), liberals, democrats, communisists, nonwhites, people who want to be in control of their own body, poor people, etc, etc.

I totally agree.

I totally agree.

Which, the bigoted and hateful bit or the piece of metal bit? I thought the first one was a good point, the second one sounds a little more like rabid frothing than an excellent political point.


I can't think of a single American politician who has attacked Muslims.

Hi, George!

I never said Christians were persecuted. I'm not even Christian. I'm saying that all faiths should be given equal treatment. it.

I call BS on this one. You are clearly christian, or you would not defend them so passionately. You might make a few tossaway remarks about your own warped opinions about muslims, and then we'd be done.

You're right. Because in the west, it's actually true about Christians. Christians are in the majority and often have laws that favor their religious views and even in many cases have their religion espoused by governments, e.g. "In God We Trust", God in the pledge, courthouses with the 10 commandments, laws against gay marriage, state churches, etc.

To say that Christians on average get much better treatment in the west than other religious people is accurate. However, in order to come into a thread that isn't about Muslims and complain about the treatment that Muslims get in the West one must ignore that scads of poor treatment for Muslims in the West and the priority treatment most other religions get above and beyond what Muslims EVER get.

I never really intended to start a discussion about the treatment Muslims get. It's just something that came out. I should have probably saved it for a thread that actually is about Muslims.

That being said, everyone is discriminated in some way. Atheists are discriminated against, Muslims are discriminated against, and yes, in some ways Christians are discriminated against. Some colleges for example, ban Christian groups. Does that mean discrimination against Christians is widespread? Absolutely not. But it happens. The same happens to Muslims and other religious groups.

While some newspapers gave 5-star reviews to a play about Jesus having sex with Judas, they wouldn't reprint the mohammed cartoons.

When Mind of Mencia had the Religious Rumble episode, guess which religious prophet didn't appear?

The fact that on this forum there was a thread called "Silence them Christians" but no threads called "Silence Them Muslims".

These are three examples of the preferential treatment Muslims sometimes get. I have never heard of Muslims being told to leave restaurants because they're Muslim, but it's possible, I suppose.

If you didn't notice, the thread called "Silence them christians" was a story about a guy who felt he had just had a genuine religious experience. He was christian. It was not anti-christian in anyway. So THINK before you ACT.

Ugh...Ever heard of freedom of speech? Even in Britain, you have an unwritten constitution. What they did was peaceful protest, and what he did was hrassment. Plain and simple.

In America, if you incite violence during a protest, you will be arressted. And when someone says you should die because you're not Muslim you don't feel harrassed, or at least insulted?

I call BS on this one. You are clearly christian, or you would not defend them so passionately. You might make a few tossaway remarks about your own warped opinions about muslims, and then we'd be done.

In some ways, I'm sympathetic towards Christians, but I am not a Christian. If I was a Christian, I would be proud of it, and I would admit it. Same if I was a Muslim, a Hindu, or an atheist.

If you didn't notice, the thread called "Silence them christians" was a story about a guy who felt he had just had a genuine religious experience. He was christian. It was not anti-christian in anyway. So THINK before you ACT.

And suppose this thread was about a man who felt he had a genuine religious experience, and he was Muslim? Do you think anyone would start a thread called "Silence them muslims"?

By the way, exactly how has Bush attacked Muslims?

[QUOTE=Zarakon;11809551]Which, the bigoted and hateful bit or the piece of metal bit? I thought the first one was a good point, the second one sounds a little more like rabid frothing than an excellent political point.


both of them

I never really intended to start a discussion about the treatment Muslims get. It's just something that came out. I should have probably saved it for a thread that actually is about Muslims.

That being said, everyone is discriminated in some way. Atheists are discriminated against, Muslims are discriminated against, and yes, in some ways Christians are discriminated against. Some colleges for example, ban Christian groups. Does that mean discrimination against Christians is widespread? Absolutely not. But it happens. The same happens to Muslims and other religious groups.

While some newspapers gave 5-star reviews to a play about Jesus having sex with Judas, they wouldn't reprint the mohammed cartoons.

When Mind of Mencia had the Religious Rumble episode, guess which religious prophet didn't appear?

The fact that on this forum there was a thread called "Silence them Christians" but no threads called "Silence Them Muslims".

These are three examples of the preferential treatment Muslims sometimes get. I have never heard of Muslims being told to leave restaurants because they're Muslim, but it's possible, I suppose.

You're so absurd, you must be trolling. Anecdotal evidence is just that. You're picking and choosing specific examples but not looking at the big picture. It's because you're hear to try and convince us that Muslims are so unfairly treated well in the West which is a complete distortion of fact.

How many papers reprinted the cartoons? What percentage? What percentage of papers gave that play a bad review? The choices of an individual show on how they chose to do a comedy sketch reflects on that show and that show alone. And I've seen Mencia do many sketches making fun of Muslims.

And the Silence those Christians thread is a post written by a Christian where his pastor lied about Christians being silenced and how that motivated that particular Christian in the faith. It's not a thread actually suggesting that anyone silence Christians. Seriously, if you're not going to give examples where you have at least a modicum of knowledge then I'm jsut going to laugh at you and leave it at that. Also, if you think there are never anti-Muslim threads on NS, then you've got seriously problems with your basic faculties.

With each post, you keep on quakcing. It's clear you're just searching for 'evidence' that christians are mistreated and Muslims aren't. You don't even care that much of your evidence is either made up or plainly and utterly backwards. Example: Silence them Christians is promoting Christianity not trying to silence it.

Umm...I dunno. I suppose a muslim person who had just had a religious experience on account of the fact that his university had just stopped his church from getting TOO close to somewhere (I forget where. It's just the university was worried the church was going to be too loud, and the guy's minister blew it WAY out of proportion) MIGHT start a thread called "Silence Them Muslims", or he could also call it "I just had a religious experience" or he could call it "So my university doesn't want my mosque to close to ceremonies, which lead to what I feel is a religious experience" Or he could call it "Religious Experiences" or he could call it "Experience". He could call it damn near anything.

And suppose this thread was about a man who felt he had a genuine religious experience, and he was Muslim? Do you think anyone would start a thread called "Silence them muslims"?

By the way, exactly how has Bush attacked Muslims?

With all due respect, that's just dumb. The thread you're talking about was started by a Christian. In your example "Silence them Muslims" would be a thread promoting Islam written by the Muslim who had the experience. If you're seriously not even going to attempt to educate yourself on something you're talking about then you're jsut going to continuously embarrass yourself.

Seriously, read that thread before you bitch about it. You're really starting to look like a fanatic.

I might start a thread named: slience them muslims, just for the hell of it, and because i'm against religions on a principal basis.

Yeah, I thought about doing that. I thought about just copy-pasting the "Silence them christians" story and doing a global search-and-replace to replace the word "Church" with "Mosque", "Minister" with "Cleric", etc, etc.

$20 says Rock the Casbah would've said "Good! You bloody buggers only want to kill and maim us good, loving christians!"

You're so absurd, you must be trolling. Anecdotal evidence is just that. You're picking and choosing specific examples but not looking at the big picture. It's because you're hear to try and convince us that Muslims are so unfairly treated well in the West which is a complete distortion of fact.

How many papers reprinted the cartoons? What percentage? What percentage of papers gave that play a bad review? The choices of an individual show on how they chose to do a comedy sketch reflects on that show and that show alone. And I've seen Mencia do many sketches making fun of Muslims.

And the Silence those Christians thread is a post written by a Christian where his pastor lied about Christians being silenced and how that motivated that particular Christian in the faith. It's not a thread actually suggesting that anyone silence Christians. Seriously, if you're not going to give examples where you have at least a modicum of knowledge then I'm jsut going to laugh at you and leave it at that. Also, if you think there are never anti-Muslim threads on NS, then you've got seriously problems with your basic faculties.

With each post, you keep on quakcing. It's clear you're just searching for 'evidence' that christians are mistreated and Muslims aren't. You don't even care that much of your evidence is either made up or plainly and utterly backwards. Example: Silence them Christians is promoting Christianity not trying to silence it.

I won't waste my time trying to reason with you, as you have made it manifestly clear that you are incapable of having a mature debate without launching personal attacks. There is nothing I can say right now that won't bring me down to your level, so this will be my last post on this thread, regardless of what you may or may not say.

Maybe I was wrong. I never thought about the profiling at the airports of Muslims. I never thought about Muslims being asked to leave public places, like restaurants, although I have some amount of skepticism about that. I never thought about the other, subtler forms of discrimination they may receive. In some cases, non-Muslims have more sensitivity to Muslims, but maybe I was wrong about that being true all the time, especially outside the media and academia. So I will do the hard, but honorable thing, and concede to you this debate. I never thought of those things, and it may very well be true that Muslims are treated worse, not better than other religious groups.

Don't feel elated by this, though. You convinced me I was wrong not because of your childish personal attacks, but in spite of them.

Is this what they call the 'Christian persecution complex'?
That maybe the case, but it's nothing compared to the muslim persecution complex in this country. All they do is bitch about everything and the government will crawl up their arses every time.

As for the case in hand, while I disagree with what happened I think it was a good thing. There's nothing better than well publicised cases like this to increase public anger at whining religious minorities (Particularly muslims), even if they aren't directly responsible for what happened here.

No one has made childish personal attacks except you. You are so petty, so vulgar, so offensive to the soul that their is no word to describe you. They closest words in our language that describe you are "Filthy", "Asinine", "Vile", "Hateful", "Arrogant", and "Troglodyte"

See? That was a personal attack, but it wasn't childish. If you want childish personal attacks, watch O'Reily.

Frankly, No one gives a damn what you think. You lost your privilege to be listened to, your opinions weighed.

I won't waste my time trying to reason with you, as you have made it manifestly clear that you are incapable of having a mature debate without launching personal attacks. There is nothing I can say right now that won't bring me down to your level, so this will be my last post on this thread, regardless of what you may or may not say.

Maybe I was wrong. I never thought about the profiling at the airports of Muslims. I never thought about Muslims being asked to leave public places, like restaurants, although I have some amount of skepticism about that. I never thought about the other, subtler forms of discrimination they may receive. In some cases, non-Muslims have more sensitivity to Muslims, but maybe I was wrong about that being true all the time, especially outside the media and academia. So I will do the hard, but honorable thing, and concede to you this debate. I never thought of those things, and it may very well be true that Muslims are treated worse, not better than other religious groups.

Don't feel elated by this, though. You convinced me I was wrong not because of your childish personal attacks, but in spite of them.

Amusing. I'm not capable of having a mature debate? You're not debating. You're ranting. For example, did you read the Silence Them Christians thread or did you just assume what it was about? Nevermind, I know the answer. You're ranting about percieved persecution and you're basing on your misinsterpretations of evidence you can't be arsed to actually review. If you want to debate at least make the smallest effort to actually know what you're claiming. Open that thread and read the first post. Claiming that a thread promoting Christianity is evidence that Christians are treated worse than Muslims is nonsensical.

If you'd like to have a debate, you're going to have to make an effort to actually make sense. Saying that promoting Christianity somehow proves that Muslims get special treatment is blatantly absurd.

That maybe the case, but it's nothing compared to the muslim persecution complex in this country. All they do is bitch about everything and the government will crawl up their arses every time.

As for the case in hand, while I disagree with what happened I think it was a good thing. There's nothing better than well publicised cases like this to increase public anger at whining religious minorities (Particularly muslims), even if they aren't directly responsible for what happened here.

How sad. How many Christians are being held without trial by the US? Poor Christians being persecuted by those mean old Muslims in the West. Maybe one day Christians will be in the majority and then they can get those mean old Muslims back.

How sad. How many Christians are being held without trial by the US? Poor Christians being persecuted by those mean old Muslims in the West. Maybe one day Christians will be in the majority and then they can get those mean old Muslims back.
I wasn't talking about the US. When someone from Britain says 'this country', it's fairly safe to say they're not talking about the US. In Britain, muslim organisations always piss and moan and every time this pathetic weak labour government always bends over for them. Despite the damage they've always been doing to this country, making once decent towns look more like Pakistan.

I wasn't talking about the US. When someone from Britain says 'this country', it's fairly safe to say they're not talking about the US. In Britain, muslim organisations always piss and moan and every time this pathetic weak labour government always bends over for them. Despite the damage they've always been doing to this country, making once decent towns look more like Pakistan.

England supports the practice even if they aren't guilty of actually doing it. We're all good buddies. England does a lot more persecuting of Mulsims than they'll ever do of Christians. And they certainly don't treat them better than other groups. It's not a complex when you're actually generally mistreated and disdained.

England supports the practice even if they aren't guilty of actually doing it. We're all good buddies. England does a lot more persecuting of Mulsims than they'll ever do of Christians. And they certainly don't treat them better than other groups.
You obviously don't know what it's like here. You haven't seen our spineless government in action. A few isolated instances of detainment without tial or police shootings doesn't compare to the overall damage that this government is letting these people do to our country. The only thing the government won't do for muslims is stop following Bush and joining in on his wars. For everything else, they will happily crawl up the muslims' arses.

You obviously don't know what it's like here. You haven't seen our spineless government in action. A few isolated instances of detainment without tial or police shootings doesn't compare to the overall damage that this government is letting these people do to our country. The only thing the government won't do for muslims is stop following Bush and joining in on his wars. For everything else, they will happily crawl up the muslims' arses.

how refreshingly one-sided

You obviously don't know what it's like here. You haven't seen our spineless government in action. A few isolated instances of detainment without tial or police shootings doesn't compare to the overall damage that this government is letting these people do to our country. The only thing the government won't do for muslims is stop following Bush and joining in on his wars. For everything else, they will happily crawl up the muslims' arses.

I don't know that you suggested that Muslim persecution complex is more ridiculous in a country where they are a tiny minority and where their government is supporting two wars on coutnies where Muslims are in the majority than a Christian persecution complex is in a coutnry where Christians are in the VAST majority and where God is mentioned the pledge and on the money, where their beliefs are found in the laws and on courthouse walls and where all of their leaders are Christian. Yeah, I'd say that's a rational position. As long as you don't think about it for more than a second.

Face it, you're statemnts have no weight. You're not going to win this argument. They have a right to feel persecuted. The large percentage of people in the West view Muslims as barbaric and backwards. England is no different. Feeling like they aren't equal in a country where a large percentage of people believe they aren't equal isn't just understanding reality. It's not a complex. You've made it clear that you hope people look even lower upon them. You're evidence against your own claim.

Face it, you're statemnts have no weight. You're not going to win this argument. They have a right to feel persecuted. The large percentage of people in the West view Muslims as barbaric and backwards. England is no different. Feeling like they aren't equal in a country where a large percentage of people believe they aren't equal isn't just understanding reality. It's not a complex. You've made it clear that you hope people look even lower upon them. You're evidence against your own claim.
I do agree that a large percentage of people in the west don't look on muslims very well, and from my experiences there is increasing hostility towards them. But this hostility doesn't reflect the way our government is acting. 'Lions led by donkeys' is the term that springs to mind. Regardless of how a lot of people in this country feel, our weak government is still obsessed with pandering to muslims.

Persecution against Christians? Thank god!

Persecution against Christians? Thank god!

Sorry, it's only politically correct to hate jews, muslims, and wiccans right now. Go back about 2000 years, and you'll be A-OK. Back then people were mature enough to put down a religion before they and their intolerant views became global.

I do agree that a large percentage of people in the west don't look on muslims very well, and from my experiences there is increasing hostility towards them. But this hostility doesn't reflect the way our government is acting. 'Lions led by donkeys' is the term that springs to mind. Regardless of how a lot of people in this country feel, our weak government is still obsessed with pandering to muslims.

ah, I see. So you're upset that they aren't persecuting Muslims enough for your taste. Well, maybe your government and mine will continue the war and we can kill a few hundred thousand more this year coming up. Or is the death of 100,000's of Muslims not good enough for you?

Cry me a fucking river.

I don't hate Muslims. I have Muslim friends. If you can't debate with out making ridiculous accusations, don't debate.

You said that Christians were free to practice their religion in most places of the world. I merely pointed out that they aren't in the Middle East, which is a large part of the world.

I don't claim that Christians are persecuted in America or in Europe.

Muslims are profiled at airports, and there is negative feeling against them. That much is true. On the other side of the coin, however, a German opera won't perform because it's play offends some Muslim sensibilities. It works both ways, you see.

That opera was canceled without any Muslim complaining about it, ever. It's generally assumed that that was a publicity stunt by the director.

The rule applies to all jewellery, it's not against religious symbols. In what way is that discriminating?

If they made a rule that no headwear was to be worn, and that it applied to al religions, would that also not be discrimination?

If they made a rule that no headwear was to be worn, and that it applied to al religions, would that also not be discrimination?

No, because it applies to all. We are talking about a business here, deciding what their uniform should be.
British airways shows a great deal of tolerance in allowing Muslim women to wear a headscarf in the first place, as it is a clearly religious symbol. I'm pretty certain they wouldn't allow a non-Muslim woman to wear a fancy hat, for example.

This is bigotry. And hatred.

I don't care what your reasons for it are, so don't go off on a rampage about the Crusades, and the Spanish Inquisition.

This is bigotry. And hatred. I hope you realize that.

Aww hes trying to defend the monstrosity that is christianity :)
lets crush his hopes and faith.

RIGHT

Well, aside from the things that happened before the... ummm i'll focus on the 20th and 21st so you cant scream about how your lot have changed.

Backed up Hitler and had a platform of non-involvement (And still does) during the holocaust.

Discrimination and bigotry you say? well hypocrisy sure is ripe these days.
Gays and Lesbians
Now come down the blinkers, I LOVE MY RELIGION, YOUR GOING TO HELL!!!

ect.

Shall i continue? i have a whole book full.

Shall i continue? i have a whole book full.
Pity you've yet to find it on the bookshelf.

Pity you've yet to find it on the bookshelf.

Its more of a pad really. Besides which you dont seem to be denying anything ive said.

Its more of a pad really. Besides which you dont seem to be denying anything ive said.

It wasn't worth the effort. You made a far better pro-Christianity statement through that ranting than I ever could have done.

It wasn't worth the effort. You made a far better pro-Christianity statement through that ranting than I ever could have done.

Oh i see, you must be pro-Nazism and against gays then?
...
Did you read what i said right?

Nope. They let Muslim's wear head scarves, it says in the article. But all items of jewellery have to be worn underneath the uniform.

But it makes an exception for Sikh turbans and Muslim hijabs because they cannot be covered up.

arn't jewerly and religous symbols worn on the Turbans and Hijabs?

arn't jewerly and religous symbols worn on the Turbans and Hijabs?

Its all a terrorist thing :p

When they get off the plane they need to see whos muslim so they can jump to conclusions.

arn't jewerly and religous symbols worn on the Turbans and Hijabs?

I've met many Sikh men, but i've never seen any of them wearing religious symbols on their turbans.

I've met many Sikh men, but i've never seen any of them wearing religious symbols on their turbans.

Neither have I, but my contact is rather limited with those articles of clothing. I wonder why the phrase "Cannot be hidden" is included...

another question... is the Hajib and Turban hold a religious significance? outside of being cultural... that is.

As I understand it, the turban is just an article of clothing with no spiritual significance. It's function is to keep a Sikh man's hair - which, for observant Sikhs, is never cut (Iirc there is some significance to Sikh men not cutting their hair) - tidily maintained. As for the hijab, yeah it seems to have a significance, though I won't profess to be fully up-to-speed on that. Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijab) seems to have a comprehensive entry, though.

Neither have I, but my contact is rather limited with those articles of clothing. I wonder why the phrase "Cannot be hidden" is included...

another question... is the Hajib and Turban hold a religious significance? outside of being cultural... that is.

They do, and neither of them require any form of jewellery. I've seen some Arab women using hair clips to hold their veils in place, but that's about it.

The turban to the Sikh does indeed hold religious significance, as it protects their hair Linky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kesh_%28Sikhism%29)

For Muslims, the religious requirement is to "dress modestly", but as interpretations of what constitutes modesty can vary dramatically, many Muslim women don't wear anything distinguishing them from others, and some choose to hide themselves behind clothing from head to toe. It's a matter of interpretation, mostly.

People don't have a goddamn idea what Discrimination and opression is. There is an ancient Turkish proverb: Bird saw his ass and thought he might have been shot.
They don't drop rocks on your chest, put you down to snake pits or burn your eyes with red hot metal rods do they? You are free to pray you are free to believe you are free to live!

Cry me a fucking river.

and don't build a bridge and fucking drown!

They don't drop rocks on your chest, put you down to snake pits or burn your eyes with red hot metal rods do they?

now theres an idea :D

ah, I see. So you're upset that they aren't persecuting Muslims enough for your taste. Well, maybe your government and mine will continue the war and we can kill a few hundred thousand more this year coming up. Or is the death of 100,000's of Muslims not good enough for you?
I disagree with Britain joining in with the war in Iraq, the whole thing was never our concern. Going into Iraq hasn't helped fight the terror networks one bit. Instead of going to the ends of the earth, we would be better off getting rid of islam in our own country.

I disagree with Britain joining in with the war in Iraq, the whole thing was never our concern. Going into Iraq hasn't helped fight the terror networks one bit. Instead of going to the ends of the earth, we would be better off getting rid of islam in our own country.

Ah, yes, I see. So they have a 'complex' because they realize a large portion of the country they live in want to eliminate them. Perhaps you don't know what the word complex means. It's so much fun when I can get people to annihilate their OWN argument.

Normally I would be one also saying discrimination... but not this time.
British Airways says all jewellery and religious symbols on chains must be worn under the uniform.

if the stewardess wants to wear her religious symbol openly, then get a pin or a ring. They are not "on Chains." and if they complain that it's not "Standard Uniform" THEN there would be a basis for saying Discrimination. but not for this... not yet.
Also, it seems pretty clear there is a practical reason for requiring that jewelry and religious symbols on chains be worn under the uniform. Aircraft personnel routinely have to bend down over passengers to assist them in various ways. It would not be good customer service to have the customer getting hit in the nose or eye with a pendant every time a crew member puts down a tray or a beverage, now would it?

The requirement that the jewelry be worn under the uniform is also clearly NOT discrimination against a religion or religion in general. Nope, quite the opposite, in fact. Because BA employees wear uniforms, BA could have banned all jewelry, but if they did that, they could have been accused of discriminating against religious employees by denying them the right to carry their religious symbols on them -- you know, for comfort, in case the plan crashes or something.

By allowing jewelry on chains and religious jewelry on chains in particular, BA is, in fact, accommodating its religious employees. They are only asking that those employees also accommodate BA by remembering the comfort and convenience of the passengers. Wow, what bigoted bastards they must be to ask this Christian lady to be considerate of others.

Bolded

Is this self centerdness suddenly developed or something?

It was against work uniform, simple as that.

Hell I worked for a christian nursing home for years and they did not allow dangling jewlery with uniform for staff either

Exactly, because dangling jewelry inconveniences the people the staff are serving. It's a practical issue.

And suppose this thread was about a man who felt he had a genuine religious experience, and he was Muslim? Do you think anyone would start a thread called "Silence them muslims"?
Well, let's see, the Silence Them Christians thread was started by a Christian and it's all about some fantastical notion that Christians are being persecuted in the US and how great it felt to resist that fantasy.

So, I suppose, if a Muslim were to have a similar notion and feel similarly great about it, he might go ahead and post such a thread, too.

Hasn't happened yet? Well, maybe we should keep waiting, or maybe people are less likely to brag about being the targets of American bigotry when they really are.

By the way, exactly how has Bush attacked Muslims?
You're kidding, right?

They do, and neither of them require any form of jewellery. I've seen some Arab women using hair clips to hold their veils in place, but that's about it.

The turban to the Sikh does indeed hold religious significance, as it protects their hair Linky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kesh_%28Sikhism%29)

For Muslims, the religious requirement is to "dress modestly", but as interpretations of what constitutes modesty can vary dramatically, many Muslim women don't wear anything distinguishing them from others, and some choose to hide themselves behind clothing from head to toe. It's a matter of interpretation, mostly.

hmm... if the purpose of the Turban and Hajib is to protect the hair, would any form of head wear do?

if so, why can't the airlines make and distribute head coverings that bear the airline logo that all flight personnel can wear. because they are wearing the Turbins and Hajib in accordance to a religous law (for lack of a better word) it can be considered a religous symbol. but if any head gear that will protect their hair will do... why not make it totally non Religious and an optional part of the uniform. thus also removing any indication of Cultural identity *while they're on the job* of course when they are off duty, they can wear what they want.

hmm... if the purpose of the Turban and Hajib is to protect the hair, would any form of head wear do?

if so, why can't the airlines make and distribute head coverings that bear the airline logo that all flight personnel can wear. because they are wearing the Turbins and Hajib in accordance to a religous law (for lack of a better word) it can be considered a religous symbol. but if any head gear that will protect their hair will do... why not make it totally non Religious and an optional part of the uniform. thus also removing any indication of Cultural identity *while they're on the job* of course when they are off duty, they can wear what they want.


This seems like a solution in search of a problem. I don't know that they are having a problem with this. What evidence is there that this needs to be solved?

Also, it seems pretty clear there is a practical reason for requiring that jewelry and religious symbols on chains be worn under the uniform. Aircraft personnel routinely have to bend down over passengers to assist them in various ways. It would not be good customer service to have the customer getting hit in the nose or eye with a pendant every time a crew member puts down a tray or a beverage, now would it?

The requirement that the jewelry be worn under the uniform is also clearly NOT discrimination against a religion or religion in general. Nope, quite the opposite, in fact. Because BA employees wear uniforms, BA could have banned all jewelry, but if they did that, they could have been accused of discriminating against religious employees by denying them the right to carry their religious symbols on them -- you know, for comfort, in case the plan crashes or something.

By allowing jewelry on chains and religious jewelry on chains in particular, BA is, in fact, accommodating its religious employees. They are only asking that those employees also accommodate BA by remembering the comfort and convenience of the passengers. Wow, what bigoted bastards they must be to ask this Christian lady to be considerate of others.

chains can be of a length to prevent that. Chokers for one. and two. bending down is more of the person bending at the knees. it's ergonmically correct, takes up less room in a narrow plane, most uniforms for women don't allow for bending fully at the waist, and it prevents leecherous men from grabbing a peak down their front. (my Friend's wife had to go through training when she was a stewardess.)

I can see if the Turbin and Hajib has to be worn as a religous edict, it then becomes a religous symbol and allowing it to be worn is making a special case for one religon. but as I said in my earlier post, if the airline designs a head gear that everone can wear thus blending the Religous Symbol to become an optional part of the uniform, then it won't be a special exception for anyone.

Because think of this. In the Bible, Christians are ordered to go forth and preach to all nations. thus any attempt to silence a christian from proclaiming their faith and preaching is stiffling their religion yet allowing a muslim to follow theirs openly is discrimination.

so to truely be fair, by altering the Hajib and Turban, and making it an optional head gear for all, they in effect, cover the Hajib and Turban as others cover their jewerly by putting under their clothes.

This seems like a solution in search of a problem. I don't know that they are having a problem with this. What evidence is there that this needs to be solved?
simple. IF wearing a turban and hajib is ordered by their faith to protect their hair then it can be considered a religous artifact. and the fact that an exception is made for turbans and hajib, it does seem unfair to others.


but by creating that one alteration to the uniform, the muslims who feel that they have to protect their hair can do so, and others won't see the turban/Hajib. the only other option is to allow pins as long as they don't get obnoxious about it.

simple. IF wearing a turban and hajib is ordered by their faith to protect their hair then it can be considered a religous artifact. and the fact that an exception is made for turbans and hajib, it does seem unfair to others.


but by creating that one alteration to the uniform, the muslims who feel that they have to protect their hair can do so, and others won't see the turban/Hajib. the only other option is to allow pins as long as they don't get obnoxious about it.

I know you think this is a problem. The point is, has it been? Have they actually encountered an issue with this. Do they have attendants wearing veils? Turbans?

Again, can you give me an example where this actually occurred, where someone complained, where there was a conflict? Otherwise, it's a solution in search of a problem.

simple. IF wearing a turban and hajib is ordered by their faith to protect their hair then it can be considered a religous artifact. and the fact that an exception is made for turbans and hajib, it does seem unfair to others.


but by creating that one alteration to the uniform, the muslims who feel that they have to protect their hair can do so, and others won't see the turban/Hajib. the only other option is to allow pins as long as they don't get obnoxious about it.

I know you think this is a problem. The point is, has it been? Have they actually encountered an issue with this. Do they have attendants wearing veils? Turbans?

Again, can you give me an example where this actually occurred, where someone complained, where there was a conflict? Otherwise, it's a solution in search of a problem.

This debate is so ridiculous it isn't funny.

I sometimes wear a crucifix. I used to wear it daily when I was a brainwashed Christian. Now I wear it when I go out, because I like the chain and the other pendants on it (the crucifix is stuck).

Whenever I have entered a workplace, I remove it. I also removed my eyebrow piercing (completely, because the constant "out-and-in" routine invited infection). I only wear a watch and a dress ring.

So what's the big deal? Why are people complaining about a company making employees do something that I (and most people who maintain a professional appearance) have been doing for five years?

I don't hate Muslims. I have Muslim friends.

Ah, the "some of my best freinds are <FITB>" argument . . .

chains can be of a length to prevent that. Chokers for one.
Well, I hate to break it to you, but if you've ever seen a BA cabin crew uniform, a chain short enough not to dangle would be INSIDE the uniform.

and two. bending down is more of the person bending at the knees. it's ergonmically correct, takes up less room in a narrow plane, most uniforms for women don't allow for bending fully at the waist, and it prevents leecherous men from grabbing a peak down their front. (my Friend's wife had to go through training when she was a stewardess.)
I guess neither your nor your friend's wife have ever had to deal rows of seats three or four across. If the passenger in the middle needs physical assistance, the passengers next to him are going to get leaned over. Also I guess you've never been on one of those BA flights where the incredibly obnoxious attendant who thinks she supposed to act like a nanny lunges for your midriff to tug at your seat belt while screeching, "All buckled up, are we? LOOVEly!" If that bitch had been wearing a necklace, I'd have lost an eye. (My personal experience with British Airways and Heathrow airport have led me to believe that the British are a creepily touchy-feely people.)

I can see if the Turbin and Hajib has to be worn as a religous edict, it then becomes a religous symbol and allowing it to be worn is making a special case for one religon. but as I said in my earlier post, if the airline designs a head gear that everone can wear thus blending the Religous Symbol to become an optional part of the uniform, then it won't be a special exception for anyone.
Well, maybe you should design one instead of just bitching about it. You know, be part of the solution, rather than part of the problem.

Because think of this. In the Bible, Christians are ordered to go forth and preach to all nations. thus any attempt to silence a christian from proclaiming their faith and preaching is stiffling their religion yet allowing a muslim to follow theirs openly is discrimination.
I've just decided that my religion orders me to tell obnoxious evangelists who think they can do anything they damn well feel like, even on their bosses' time, to fuck the fuck off. Can I do that on the plane, too? That way, both passengers and crew can have a nice spiritual time annoying and resenting the living shit out of each other for ten excrutiating transatlantic hours.

When the hell are some people going to get the hell over themselves and realize that being asked not to foist their worthless religions on people who do not want them is NOT -- repeat, NOT -- discrimination against them?

so to truely be fair, by altering the Hajib and Turban, and making it an optional head gear for all, they in effect, cover the Hajib and Turban as others cover their jewerly by putting under their clothes.
Fine, so design such a thing and quit bothering us about this big fucking problem where your religion has to be seen to be precisely equal to every other religion on the frigging planet every frigging second of every frigging day for every frigging goddamned little thing.

And while you're at it, tell that frigging bitch of a flight attendant to stick that necklace inside her fucking blouse.

There, does that express it clearly enough for everyone?

I know you think this is a problem. The point is, has it been? Have they actually encountered an issue with this. Do they have attendants wearing veils? Turbans?

Again, can you give me an example where this actually occurred, where someone complained, where there was a conflict? Otherwise, it's a solution in search of a problem.someone complained (the stewardess) so there is a percived injury here. one way to deal with it is just bitch about her, which gets nothing done. Just hurl insults at each other and continue with petty bickering... which can devolve into flaming and possibly call down mod actions... which leaves everyone pissed at each other... think of solutions that might make everyone happy... or at least not so indigiant, find one that most people agree with and either suggest it to British Airlines, or just sit back and bask in the fact that instead of hurling insults or sitting around bitching about it, we actually came to some sort of solution that doesn't involve trying to shut anyone up.

Well, I hate to break it to you, but if you've ever seen a BA cabin crew uniform, a chain short enough not to dangle would be INSIDE the uniform.

I guess neither your nor your friend's wife have ever had to deal rows of seats three or four across. If the passenger in the middle needs physical assistance, the passengers next to him are going to get leaned over. Also I guess you've never been on one of those BA flights where the incredibly obnoxious attendant who thinks she supposed to act like a nanny lunges for your midriff to tug at your seat belt while screeching, "All buckled up, are we? LOOVEly!" If that bitch had been wearing a necklace, I'd have lost an eye. (My personal experience with British Airways and Heathrow airport have led me to believe that the British are a creepily touchy-feely people.)

Well, maybe you should design one instead of just bitching about it. You know, be part of the solution, rather than part of the problem.

I've just decided that my religion orders me to tell obnoxious evangelists who think they can do anything they damn well feel like, even on their bosses' time, to fuck the fuck off. Can I do that on the plane, too? That way, both passengers and crew can have a nice spiritual time annoying and resenting the living shit out of each other for ten excrutiating transatlantic hours.

When the hell are some people going to get the hell over themselves and realize that being asked not to foist their worthless religions on people who do not want them is NOT -- repeat, NOT -- discrimination against them?

Fine, so design such a thing and quit bothering us about this big fucking problem where your religion has to be seen to be precisely equal to every other religion on the frigging planet every frigging second of every frigging day for every frigging goddamned little thing.

And while you're at it, tell that frigging bitch of a flight attendant to stick that necklace inside her fucking blouse.

There, does that express it clearly enough for everyone?
For your information, since someone here didn't read the entire thread and noticed this post buried in the middle.

Normally I would be one also saying discrimination... but not this time.

if the stewardess wants to wear her religious symbol openly, then get a pin or a ring. They are not "on Chains." and if they complain that it's not "Standard Uniform" THEN there would be a basis for saying Discrimination. but not for this... not yet.
so I am not complaining about any discrimination here. I am, however, more interested to finding solutions instead of just bitching about it, and also just bitching about those bitching about it. so please, get off your fucking high horse and respond appropriately to posters who have nothing to do with any percived argument you are seeing.

Well, I hate to break it to you, but if you've ever seen a BA cabin crew uniform, a chain short enough not to dangle would be INSIDE the uniform.
Unless you wore it on top of your clothing...


And while you're at it, tell that frigging bitch of a flight attendant to stick that necklace inside her fucking blouse.
Wow...Bitch? Anger some eh?

Why did you not tell her yourself?

jewelry and religious symbols on chains
I can't off the top of my head think of any religion apart from christianity where the only item commonly worn as a religions expression is a religious symbol on a chain.

I know there are religions that DO have symbols on chains, but AFAIK most others have other symbols too. This looks like a VERY targeted policy descision - it allows Muslims and Sikhs to wear their headwear, it allows religious bangles but it does not allow christians to wear their (normally only) form of religous expression.

hmm... if the purpose of the Turban and Hajib is to protect the hair, would any form of head wear do?

if so, why can't the airlines make and distribute head coverings that bear the airline logo that all flight personnel can wear. because they are wearing the Turbins and Hajib in accordance to a religous law (for lack of a better word) it can be considered a religous symbol. but if any head gear that will protect their hair will do... why not make it totally non Religious and an optional part of the uniform. thus also removing any indication of Cultural identity *while they're on the job* of course when they are off duty, they can wear what they want.

I think it would be no big problem at all to include a Hajib into the regular uniform of BA flight attendants. So far I think this hasn't been requested, though. But then again, a Hajib is not a particularly specified piece of clothing, if can be a veil or a scarf, it's pretty flexible.
The turban for a Sikh is a slightly different matter, as it has to hide all hair, and as Sikhs are not allowed to cut their hair ever, a simple hat just won't do.
There'd be no problem putting a BA logo on the turban, though, I think.

I'm all for the giving christians the back pay of the buggery they've missed. ;)

We should have a crusade against the christians & burn them as witches :). *sigh* I can dream...

Unless you wore it on top of your clothing...

You couldn't wear a chocker on top of a BA uniform, that was his point. It's physically impossible due to the cut of the uniform.


I can't off the top of my head think of any religion apart from christianity where the only item commonly worn as a religions expression is a religious symbol on a chain.

I know there are religions that DO have symbols on chains, but AFAIK most others have other symbols too. This looks like a VERY targeted policy descision - it allows Muslims and Sikhs to wear their headwear, it allows religious bangles but it does not allow christians to wear their (normally only) form of religous expression.

They can still wear their pendants under their uniform. And have you never seen pins, earrings, even rings with Christian symbols on them? Because I definitely have.

The whole debatte is actually making me start question this woman's motives... if she's allowed to wear her cross underneath her uniform, but insists on wearing it on top, what is she trying to say? It's not important that I wear a cross around my neck, it's important that the rest of the world sees me wearing a cross around my neck???

They can still wear their pendants under their uniform. And have you never seen pins, earrings, even rings with Christian symbols on them? Because I definitely have.

But there does not seem to be any other religion required to cover up their commonly worn religious symbols under this rule.

And yes you get crosses on earrings and on rings and bracelets etc, but crosses on necklaces are the most common way for a christian to wear their religious symbol. And this rule seems to only really affect christians.

As to the cross dangling and hitting people - looking at the picture of the woman it does not seem to be a particulary long chain - she'd have to be real close to someone for it to affect them.

But there does not seem to be any other religion required to cover up their commonly worn religious symbols under this rule.

And yes you get crosses on earrings and on rings and bracelets etc, but crosses on necklaces are the most common way for a christian to wear their religious symbol. And this rule seems to only really affect christians.

As to the cross dangling and hitting people - looking at the picture of the woman it does not seem to be a particulary long chain - she'd have to be real close to someone for it to affect them.

You really haven't flown before, have you?
It's not only that you occasionally get into VERY close contact with stewardesse, but I would assume that a dangling chain is also a saftey hazard, just like long open hair, buckles on shoes and stilettos.
It's not aimed at Christians, get over yourselves. It's a simple uniform requirement and safety regulation.

The whole debatte is actually making me start question this woman's motives... if she's allowed to wear her cross underneath her uniform, but insists on wearing it on top, what is she trying to say? It's not important that I wear a cross around my neck, it's important that the rest of the world sees me wearing a cross around my neck???

To me, it seems like an excuse for another (Daily Mail propagated, no doubt) rant about My Religion Under Attack, not dissimilar to the current fuss over teaching with the full body veil on and Jack Straw's quite reasonable comments. (Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5410472.stm)) There's no problem at all with wearing a cross or a veil in private, but of your public job demands it be concealed, or you take off the veil, so be it.

Both sides like to make a fuss at any opportunity, whether it be the Muslim Council of Britain or the tabloid press. And I, for one, am sick of it.

Rant over.

The whole debatte is actually making me start question this woman's motives... if she's allowed to wear her cross underneath her uniform, but insists on wearing it on top, what is she trying to say? It's not important that I wear a cross around my neck, it's important that the rest of the world sees me wearing a cross around my neck???

That's exactly what she was trying to say. Would this story be headline news if it were a pentacle, or a Star of David, or Buddhist prayer beads? No, because it doesn't feed into the current persecution complex of Christians today.

It's not aimed at Christians, get over yourselves. It's a simple uniform requirement and safety regulation.

Exactly, the response, under BA regulations, would have been no different had it been a Hindu or Bhuddist pendant. Believe it or not, religions other than Christianity might wear thingies around their necks!:eek:

But there does not seem to be any other religion required to cover up their commonly worn religious symbols under this rule.

And yes you get crosses on earrings and on rings and bracelets etc, but crosses on necklaces are the most common way for a christian to wear their religious symbol. And this rule seems to only really affect christians.

As to the cross dangling and hitting people - looking at the picture of the woman it does not seem to be a particulary long chain - she'd have to be real close to someone for it to affect them.

No, it affects anyone who attaches sentimental value to pendants or necklaces. Friends of mine who are Pacific Islanders wear traditional carved jewellery round their necks. However, during school, because uniform code said no visible jewellery, they put it on straps and chains that fell below the shirt.

You really haven't flown before, have you?
It's not only that you occasionally get into VERY close contact with stewardesse, but I would assume that a dangling chain is also a saftey hazard, just like long open hair, buckles on shoes and stilettos.
It's not aimed at Christians, get over yourselves. It's a simple uniform requirement and safety regulation.

Not often... Just trans-altlantic flights every four weeks for the last two years. Bit of a newbie to this whole flying thing.

Looking at the length of that chain she'd hit you with her chin or bust before she hit you with the chain. And I don't know what level of service you expect on flights but i've yet to see the sorts of activity that would have the stewardess that close to a passenger... well - there was this 'movie' once...

Thing is - the article is not clear on exactly what is banned:

British Airways says all jewellery and religious symbols on chains must be worn under the uniform.
Which read one way would seem to say they are ONLY looking at banning chains. Are they allwed to wear a cross pin? It's not very clear as you could read it is "all jewellry including religoius symbols on chains" OR you could read it as "all jewellry on chains". Should she be allowed to wear a pin?

Then they muddy it further

But it makes an exception for Sikh turbans and Muslim hijabs because they cannot be covered up.
How do Turbans and Veils fit into a rule on chains? Why not say "Turbans and Veils are not on chains - so they are allowed", instead they have worded it in a way to say that only religious symbols that are easily covered are banned. But they then say it is not about religious symbols. Their arguement is all over the place.

Unfortunately Christians don't often wear difficult to cover religious symbols - so they get affected while others with more prominent religious expression do not.

Thing is - the article is not clear on exactly what is banned:


Which read one way would seem to say they are ONLY looking at banning chains. Are they allwed to wear a cross pin? It's not very clear as you could read it is "all jewellry including religoius symbols on chains" OR you could read it as "all jewellry on chains". Should she be allowed to wear a pin?

Then they muddy it further


How do Turbans and Veils fit into a rule on chains? Why not say "Turbans and Veils are not on chains - so they are allowed", instead they have worded it in a way to say that only religious symbols that are easily covered are banned. But they then say it is not about religious symbols. Their arguement is all over the place.

Unfortunately Christians don't often wear difficult to cover religious symbols - so they get affected while others with more prominent religious expression do not.

What's muddy about that? Everything you wear on a chain around your neck has to be wron under your uniform, everything else is fine.

I think it's not BA who worded things in an odd way, it was the writer of the article in an attempt to cover all religious symbols that could possibly be worn.
It doesn't say anywhere that they wouldn't be allowed a pin, or earrings, does it? So I guess if she absolutely wanted to make 100% sure that people really see how pious a Christian she is, she could have gone for that. I'm sure it would have been mentioned in the article if she had tried that.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6051486.stm
And, once again, we have Christians crying "discrimination!" when they are simply asked to follow the same rules as everybody else.

It's sad, because there are places in the world where Christians actually do face discrimination and persecution. But it would be boring and no-fun for Western Christians to actually put their time and energy into helping their brethren around the world who are really facing religious persecution! It's far more fun to whine and cry when the meanie-head secularists insist that Christians be held to the same laws and rules as all the other hell-bound folk!

This is absolutly brilliant, superb because we all want to intergrate into society. Well its about time, I mean with the current debate over whether Muslims should wear veils that conceal the face. On a side note as a christian I think the crucifix is one of the most depressing symbols anyway.

And, once again, we have Christians crying "discrimination!" when they are simply asked to follow the same rules as everybody else.

Such as like... not covering your face at work? Or is it a bit off if an employer expects to be able to see the faces of all their employees? Afterall - it is not a discriminitory practice if an employer demands all their employees follow the same dress code.

Let's not bother to mention the fact that even worn by devout Christians, a cross necklace is just a cross necklace, not a religious item. There is no rule in any Christian sect that I know that says you have to wear a cross necklace as a symbol of your faith, or any that even recognize a cross necklace as a symbol of the faith. Now, the rosary is a symbol of the faith, but no one wears those around, just silver plated crucifixes and claim they are religious items instead of jewelry.

Such as like... not covering your face at work? Or is it a bit off if an employer expects to be able to see the faces of all their employees? Afterall - it is not a discriminitory practice if an employer demands all their employees follow the same dress code.
Personally I don't think religious garments should be given any leeway that isn't extended to garments worn for personal reasons, but that's because I view all superstition and related affectations as silly. However, if an employer has a dress code regarding articles of clothing or jewelry, then all employees get to follow those rules.

If this Christian wanted to wear a head scarf and the employer refused to let them, then maybe that would be something of interest. But the employee just wanted to wear a bit of jewelry made in the shape of a torture device. The wearing of this sort of Jeebus bling is not required by Christian doctrine, it's just a personal choice of accessory that some people decide on.

According to the dress code of the employer, they're free to wear their bling under their uniform, just like any other form of bling. The employer isn't discriminating against Christians, just against bling that is worn over the uniform.

Such as like... not covering your face at work? Or is it a bit off if an employer expects to be able to see the faces of all their employees? Afterall - it is not a discriminitory practice if an employer demands all their employees follow the same dress code.

The veil isn't about religious practices. It's a cultural practice regarding modesty. Asking a woman who believes in it not to wear it is like asking a woman to show up to work in a tube top. You can make it required wear but don't be suprised if you get some completely secular feedback.

someone complained (the stewardess) so there is a percived injury here. one way to deal with it is just bitch about her, which gets nothing done. Just hurl insults at each other and continue with petty bickering... which can devolve into flaming and possibly call down mod actions... which leaves everyone pissed at each other... think of solutions that might make everyone happy... or at least not so indigiant, find one that most people agree with and either suggest it to British Airlines, or just sit back and bask in the fact that instead of hurling insults or sitting around bitching about it, we actually came to some sort of solution that doesn't involve trying to shut anyone up.

But you're talking about solutions that make everyone happy. We are talking about jewelry. That's the point. The company didn't ban religious symbols. They banned jewelry, including religious jewelry. You want them to ban all religious symbols which where it becomes a discriminatory practice, a 'solution' in search of a problem. You want them to change their practice to specifically attempt to address all possible forms of religious expression. I'm sure you're aware that they can't specifically focus on religious expression as it is a violation of the first amendment. There is no separation of Church and Airline.

Personally I don't think religious garments should be given any leeway that isn't extended to garments worn for personal reasons, but that's because I view all superstition and related affectations as silly. However, if an employer has a dress code regarding articles of clothing or jewelry, then all employees get to follow those rules.

I'm actually not too far off with my opinion of religious stuff being given priority. I always thought it odd that just because a few people tell you they believe they must wear something then you should respect when normally you would not have to. It seems bizarre to respect someones beliefs because they got them from a book, but not respect their beliefs that they arrived at on their own.
That said - this rule does seem very focused on a particular type of item that seems to affect one group much more than many others. Like demanding all employees uncover their faces - which would obviously be aimed at a very particular group.


If this Christian wanted to wear a head scarf and the employer refused to let them, then maybe that would be something of interest.
When I was in school I got my eyebrow pierced. Which prompted a revision of the school rules the next day after the headteacher pulled me into his office. After the banning of my eye-brow ring I pointed out that half the girls in the school had nose piercings (Hindu). In respect of this I was permitted to get a nose piercing (i'm a non-hindu male). As although eyebrow piercings presented an image the school did not want, nose-rings were apparently fine.:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

At least they were consistant. I felt very special though - having my own personal school rule.

But the employee just wanted to wear a bit of jewelry made in the shape of a torture device. The wearing of this sort of Jeebus bling is not required by Christian doctrine.
Likewise the veil is not stipulated by Islam, but we've got a hell of a situation on in the UK with people being asked to take it off as a violation of their religion

Nope. They let Muslim's wear head scarves, it says in the article. But all items of jewellery have to be worn underneath the uniform.

to make things fair they need to make compay logo head scarves and turbans so that even if they decide to wear them they are still in uniform.

But you're talking about solutions that make everyone happy. We are talking about jewelry. That's the point. The company didn't ban religious symbols. They banned jewelry, including religious jewelry. You want them to ban all religious symbols which where it becomes a discriminatory practice, a 'solution' in search of a problem. You want them to change their practice to specifically attempt to address all possible forms of religious expression. I'm sure you're aware that they can't specifically focus on religious expression as it is a violation of the first amendment. There is no separation of Church and Airline.Considering that it's British Airways, it kind of makes the 1st Ammendment rather irrelevant...

to make things fair they need to make compay logo head scarves and turbans so that even if they decide to wear them they are still in uniform.

I don't think they necessarily need company logos... not every item of a uniform has a logo on it. It probably just has to be in the company colours, to match the uniform.

I'm actually not too far off with my opinion of religious stuff being given priority. I always thought it odd that just because a few people tell you they believe they must wear something then you should respect when normally you would not have to. It seems bizarre to respect someones beliefs because they got them from a book, but not respect their beliefs that they arrived at on their own.

Precisely.


That said - this rule does seem very focused on a particular type of item that seems to affect one group much more than many others. Like demanding all employees uncover their faces - which would obviously be aimed at a very particular group.

I'm confused. Are you saying that the rule requiring that necklaces be worn under the uniform is targetted specifically at Christians? How so? Plenty of Jews I know wear the Star of David around their necks, and most women I know wear necklaces on a regular basis. Lots of men, too.


When I was in school I got my eyebrow pierced. Which prompted a revision of the school rules the next day after the headteacher pulled me into his office. After the banning of my eye-brow ring I pointed out that half the girls in the school had nose piercings (Hindu). In respect of this I was permitted to get a nose piercing (i'm a non-hindu male). As although eyebrow piercings presented an image the school did not want, nose-rings were apparently fine.:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

At least they were consistant. I felt very special though - having my own personal school rule.

I think your school had some stupid rules, but, as you said, at least they were consistent.


Likewise the veil is not stipulated by Islam, but we've got a hell of a situation on in the UK with people being asked to take it off as a violation of their religion
My point was simply that this employer has rules about neck jewelry that apply to everybody, and Christians are included in the "everybody." They can't claim religious discrimination because (1) ALL necklaces are "discriminated against," and (2) their wearing of necklaces isn't even religious in nature. It's just them choosing to decorate their bodies with religious paraphernalia; it's their personal aesthetic choice, which happens to include using religious symbols. It's not a religious act, it's just their choice of accessory. That's fine, just like it's fine for somebody else to wear a Star of David or a simple gold chain...but all of them get to wear their bling under the uniform.

Not often... Just trans-altlantic flights every four weeks for the last two years. Bit of a newbie to this whole flying thing.

Looking at the length of that chain she'd hit you with her chin or bust before she hit you with the chain. And I don't know what level of service you expect on flights but i've yet to see the sorts of activity that would have the stewardess that close to a passenger... well - there was this 'movie' once...

Thing is - the article is not clear on exactly what is banned:


Which read one way would seem to say they are ONLY looking at banning chains. Are they allwed to wear a cross pin? It's not very clear as you could read it is "all jewellry including religoius symbols on chains" OR you could read it as "all jewellry on chains". Should she be allowed to wear a pin?

Then they muddy it further


How do Turbans and Veils fit into a rule on chains? Why not say "Turbans and Veils are not on chains - so they are allowed", instead they have worded it in a way to say that only religious symbols that are easily covered are banned. But they then say it is not about religious symbols. Their arguement is all over the place.

Unfortunately Christians don't often wear difficult to cover religious symbols - so they get affected while others with more prominent religious expression do not.


The policy is not focused on religious expression. It's focused on jewelry of a specific type. The kind that dangles. There is no religious focus at all. The article words it to seem like there is, but they are just saying that there is not an exception for religious pendants. The company doesn't want anyone to wear dangling jewelry and they are permitted to do so.

A Star of David is a very common item for Jews as is the Hands pendant for some Muslims. Your appearing a bit paranoid.

Meanwhile, from a purely Christian perspective there is no direction on wearing a cross, and there is NOTHING in scripture that suggests it is a religious practice. There is however quite a bit of scripture about trying to show people that you are a Christian through appearances. For example, not looking like you are fasting or praying in closets. Christians who are upset about this haven't read the Bible.

I don't think they necessarily need company logos... not every item of a uniform has a logo on it. It probably just has to be in the company colours, to match the uniform.

Like Emirites Airways

Considering that it's British Airways, it kind of makes the 1st Ammendment rather irrelevant...

Good point. However, I suspect they have a freedom of religion.

Considering that it's British Airways, it kind of makes the 1st Ammendment rather irrelevant...

Voltaire, also, was not an American. The principles of personal liberty, especially of expression regarding faith, are not limited to the borders of the US.

Voltaire, also, was not an American. The principles of personal liberty, especially of expression regarding faith, are not limited to the borders of the US.

True, but legislation might be ;)

And considering that the official head of the United Kingdom is at the same time the head of its official church, I doubt that they have an explicit seperation of church and state as such.

Voltaire, also, was not an American. The principles of personal liberty, especially of expression regarding faith, are not limited to the borders of the US.

Its not really practiced within them either, these days...

The policy is not focused on religious expression. It's focused on jewelry of a specific type. The kind that dangles. There is no religious focus at all. The article words it to seem like there is, but they are just saying that there is not an exception for religious pendants. The company doesn't want anyone to wear dangling jewelry and they are permitted to do so.

A Star of David is a very common item for Jews as is the Hands pendant for some Muslims. Your appearing a bit paranoid.

Meanwhile, from a purely Christian perspective there is no direction on wearing a cross, and there is NOTHING in scripture that suggests it is a religious practice. There is however quite a bit of scripture about trying to show people that you are a Christian through appearances. For example, not looking like you are fasting or praying in closets. Christians who are upset about this haven't read the Bible.

You touch on something important here.... some religions have articles of faith that are 'required'. Christianity does not have any required articles that must be worn or carried. The Cross, or otherwise. Any such symbol is a PERSONAL choice, not one the religion calls for.

British Airways is far from the only business that has rules about jewellery. Most restaurants, for example, have specific rules about what (if any) such items can be worn, and where.

I didn't see - did anyone mention the security aspect of wearing chains around the neck?

Good point. However, I suspect they have a freedom of religion.

Voltaire, also, was not an American. The principles of personal liberty, especially of expression regarding faith, are not limited to the borders of the US.That's not the point though. Whatever the respective laws, the 1st Ammendment isn't it. Arguing this case on the basis of the 1st Ammendment is doomed to fail.

You touch on something important here.... some religions have articles of faith that are 'required'. Christianity does not have any required articles that must be worn or carried. The Cross, or otherwise. Any such symbol is a PERSONAL choice, not one the religion calls for.
Doesn't sikhism require men to carry a knife?


I didn't see - did anyone mention the security aspect of wearing chains around the neck?

For the wearer? Guess ties are out too then...

I didn't see - did anyone mention the security aspect of wearing chains around the neck?

I did... and it was ignored.

Doesn't sikhism require men to carry a knife?

It does. They tend to be exclusively ceremonial, though. You couldn't cut butter with them.


For the wearer? Guess ties are out too then...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11815887&postcount=145

I did point it out before.
Ties can be clipped to the shirt, and I wouldn't be surprised if that was a requirement.

I'm actually not too far off with my opinion of religious stuff being given priority. I always thought it odd that just because a few people tell you they believe they must wear something then you should respect when normally you would not have to. It seems bizarre to respect someones beliefs because they got them from a book, but not respect their beliefs that they arrived at on their own.
That said - this rule does seem very focused on a particular type of item that seems to affect one group much more than many others. Like demanding all employees uncover their faces - which would obviously be aimed at a very particular group.

Chavs?

Doesn't sikhism require men to carry a knife?


The Kirpan, yes.

I worked alongside a number of Sikhs, when I was in the UK - they have a number of very symbolic items that they are 'required' to observe... the uncut hair (symbolising doing no harm to the body), the wooden comb (symbolising bodily cleanliness), the bracelet (symbolising eternal truth, and unity), the special underwear (symbolising marital fidelity) and the 'sword' (symbolising defense of the weak).

Each of these items is a symbol, the 'sword' is usually no more than a symbolic knife. The original 'kirpan' was a blade of about thirty inches. Most now seem to be either a nine-inch-blade worn close to the body, or a purely symbolic blade (I've seen an inch-long 'kirpan') worn effectively, as jewellery.


For the wearer? Guess ties are out too then...

My brother worked as a bouncer... they were forbidden to wear hanging chains... or ties (except clip ons). Jobs where security is an issue, often do prohibit potentially life-endangering 'fashion'.

Yep I'm all for it.....

The Kirpan, yes.

I worked alongside a number of Sikhs, when I was in the UK - they have a number of very symbolic items that they are 'required' to observe... the uncut hair (symbolising doing no harm to the body), the wooden comb (symbolising bodily cleanliness), the bracelet (symbolising eternal truth, and unity), the special underwear (symbolising marital fidelity) and the 'sword' (symbolising defense of the weak).

Each of these items is a symbol, the 'sword' is usually no more than a symbolic knife. The original 'kirpan' was a blade of about thirty inches. Most now seem to be either a nine-inch-blade worn close to the body, or a purely symbolic blade (I've seen an inch-long 'kirpan') worn effectively, as jewellery.

Not quite true, but then a lot of Sikhs say these sorts of things too. The real reason that the Khalsa(baptised) Sikhs wear the 5K's is very simple, it is because Guru has told us to.

It is more about obeying the Hukamen(will/order) of God than any symbolic thing. In fact Sikhi is centered around the non proliferation of meaningless rituals, so you see there really is no symbolisim in Sikhi.

Not quite true, but then a lot of Sikhs say these sorts of things too. The real reason that the Khalsa(baptised) Sikhs wear the 5K's is very simple, it is because Guru has told us to.

It is more about obeying the Hukamen(will/order) of God than any symbolic thing. In fact Sikhi is centered around the non proliferation of meaningless rituals, so you see there really is no symbolisim in Sikhi.

Well, I've had personal interactions with dozens of Sikhs... and I've talked to you virtually, on an anonymous forum... I can't claim to be a Sikh (well, I could..), but I know what I've been told - quite a number of times.

I think we are disagreeing over the 'meaning' of symbols, maybe. I didn't say the symbols are meaningless. I didn't say there was 'ritual'. Sikhs wear the five K's because they are required to - I said that. But, that doesn't divorce the items from having symbolism.

One only has to look at the way the kirpan has changed over a couple of centuries, to see that there is a symbolic element.

But you're talking about solutions that make everyone happy. We are talking about jewelry. That's the point. The company didn't ban religious symbols. They banned jewelry, including religious jewelry. You want them to ban all religious symbols which where it becomes a discriminatory practice, a 'solution' in search of a problem. You want them to change their practice to specifically attempt to address all possible forms of religious expression. I'm sure you're aware that they can't specifically focus on religious expression as it is a violation of the first amendment. There is no separation of Church and Airline.
then why, in the article, do they mention about making an execption for Turbans and hajibs because "They cannot be hidden" while talking about jewerly on chains and religious symbols (and Religious Symbols on chains is also mentioned, not just Jewelry)? with that statement, the airlines either sees the Turban and Hajib as a form of religious symbol or they are wearing prohibited jewelry on the Turban and Hajib and being allowed to do so. Because it was mentioned, it may be the cause of the stewardess cry of discrimination.

then why, in the article, do they mention about making an execption for Turbans and hajibs because "They cannot be hidden" while talking about jewerly on chains and religious symbols (and Religious Symbols on chains is also mentioned, not just Jewelry)? with that statement, the airlines either sees the Turban and Hajib as a form of religious symbol or they are wearing prohibited jewelry on the Turban and Hajib and being allowed to do so. Because it was mentioned, it may be the cause of the stewardess cry of discrimination.

Fair point. It had been a while since I'd read the article. That certainly does give you a reason to suggest that solution.

Meanwhile, the article frames it a way I suspect they don't. The policy isn't framed around eliminating religious articles of clothing. It's framed around eliminating jewelry. I suspect the article reframes their policies because it's an article, in a newspaper, and they want people to read it.

My guess is they would let Muslims wear the Fatima's Hands-also a piece of jewelry, and a religious symbol.

Your... guess.

Nice. That works as hard evidence.

On a different note...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khamsa

It does NOT work the same way with Islam as the cross does with Christianity.

You touch on something important here.... some religions have articles of faith that are 'required'. Christianity does not have any required articles that must be worn or carried. The Cross, or otherwise. Any such symbol is a PERSONAL choice, not one the religion calls for.

British Airways is far from the only business that has rules about jewellery. Most restaurants, for example, have specific rules about what (if any) such items can be worn, and where.

I didn't see - did anyone mention the security aspect of wearing chains around the neck?

Islam doesn't "require" anything either, or else you'd see the Saudi Arabia soccer players wearing PANTS in the World Cup, which they didn't, since muslim men should cover their knees too.

They specifically say a sumptuary rule should be followed IF PRACTICAL.

Islam doesn't "require" anything either, or else you'd see the Saudi Arabia soccer players wearing PANTS in the World Cup, which they didn't, since muslim men should cover their knees too.

They specifically say a sumptuary rule should be followed IF PRACTICAL.

Pants are not impractical in a security conscious environment. A turban is not especially impractical. The hijab is not noticably impractical in such situations.

A cross (or the Khamsa, as noted above), on a chain presents a risk - especially if it is left hanging free.

Well, I've had personal interactions with dozens of Sikhs... and I've talked to you virtually, on an anonymous forum... I can't claim to be a Sikh (well, I could..), but I know what I've been told - quite a number of times.

I think we are disagreeing over the 'meaning' of symbols, maybe. I didn't say the symbols are meaningless. I didn't say there was 'ritual'. Sikhs wear the five K's because they are required to - I said that. But, that doesn't divorce the items from having symbolism.

One only has to look at the way the kirpan has changed over a couple of centuries, to see that there is a symbolic element.

Heh whilst I can claim to being a Sikh! I know what you mean, it seems to be a thing over the past few decades that this type of thinking has creapt back into Sikhi.

Originaly our Guru's told us that meaningless rites would not help one reach God. Some Punjabi Sikhs though are too emerssed in Punjabism and ego to remember this basic fact and so attribute symbolic reasons for keeping the 5 k's Although some Sikhs wear tiny little Kirpans most I know wear largeer ones, but under the cloths. The real reason for the smaller Kirpan though is the Sikhs regard for the laws of the land, and for the feelings of other people. Although we are allowed to carry the Kirpan, many hide it, or carry a smaller one so as not to scare people.

A cross (or the Khamsa, as noted above), on a chain presents a risk - especially if it is left hanging free.
Looking at the photo of the chain in question if you gave it a half decent pull it would snap.

Larger more 'blingey' chains are a bit different though.

someone complained (the stewardess) so there is a percived injury here. one way to deal with it is just bitch about her, which gets nothing done. Just hurl insults at each other and continue with petty bickering... which can devolve into flaming and possibly call down mod actions... which leaves everyone pissed at each other... think of solutions that might make everyone happy... or at least not so indigiant, find one that most people agree with and either suggest it to British Airlines, or just sit back and bask in the fact that instead of hurling insults or sitting around bitching about it, we actually came to some sort of solution that doesn't involve trying to shut anyone up.


For your information, since someone here didn't read the entire thread and noticed this post buried in the middle.


so I am not complaining about any discrimination here. I am, however, more interested to finding solutions instead of just bitching about it, and also just bitching about those bitching about it. so please, get off your fucking high horse and respond appropriately to posters who have nothing to do with any percived argument you are seeing.
Actualy I have read the entire thread, including your "this isn't discrimination" post. If you would like to take a moment to read the thread again, you will see that I actually responded directly to that post when you made it, so obviously, I saw it.

So, therefore, since you thought I was talking about the personal "you" in my fed-up post, let me clarify and say that you may read the "you" in my post as the rhetorical "you", meaning people who do think this is some kind of discrimination and who do act like the subject of comparative religion is a dick-measuring contest.

And while we're at it, since you -- the actual, personal you -- do not think BA is discriminating against this woman, please tell me why you're still carrying on about Muslims getting better treatment than Christians re getting to show off religious paraphernalia when they're supposed to be working. If Muslim women and Sikhs being allowed to wear special headgear bothers you so much because you see it as some kind of privilege that Christians have to have too, why don't you solve the problem by inventing a special Christian hat and then claim the right to wear it, too, everywhere you go. I'll bet you'll be allowed to.

I wondered how long it would be for this thread...

Right. PAB's opinion.

This lady that has been told that she cannot wear her cross - get over it! BA MUST remain secular for the sheer fact that if they tell one person that they cannot wear an article, then all they have to do is cry "discrimination" and the soliciters (and apparently Ann Widdecombe) come running.

If they allowed her to wear a cross, then they would have to allow all religions to wear articles that they choose, and then it all goes into what constitutes as "allowed" and the whole discrimination thing comes up AGAIN ("they're allowed to wear this, so why aren't we allowed to wear that"). No matter what the size of the article in question, secularity must be held, or else BA face the wrath of the PC Brigade. And they're usually forever dipping their toes in the hot water. BA, that is.

I, personally, am with BA, and believe that they're doing the right thing. Other companies can encourage secularity, especially those in the public relations, so why not BA?

BA MUST remain secular for the sheer fact that if they tell one person that they cannot wear an article, then all they have to do is cry "discrimination" and the soliciters (and apparently Ann Widdecombe) come running.

If they allowed her to wear a cross, then they would have to allow all religions to wear articles that they choose, and then it all goes into what constitutes as "allowed" and the whole discrimination thing comes up AGAIN ("they're allowed to wear this, so why aren't we allowed to wear that"). No matter what the size of the article in question, secularity must be held, or else BA face the wrath of the PC Brigade. And they're usually forever dipping their toes in the hot water. BA, that is.
They are not encouraging secularity.

They are allowing other religions to display their respective regligous dress.

Why are you not therefore condeming them for allowing headscarves and turbans?

At any rate - looking over this it does look that they have just banned necklaces, but this has been worded very badly by the writer of the article to add a bit of controversy to t all.

If that is the case, then I do condemn it.

Although, taking a second look at it...this woman could be overreacting. They banned a necklace after all, not necessarily because it was religious, but because it was on show...

Heh whilst I can claim to being a Sikh! I know what you mean, it seems to be a thing over the past few decades that this type of thinking has creapt back into Sikhi.

Originaly our Guru's told us that meaningless rites would not help one reach God. Some Punjabi Sikhs though are too emerssed in Punjabism and ego to remember this basic fact and so attribute symbolic reasons for keeping the 5 k's Although some Sikhs wear tiny little Kirpans most I know wear largeer ones, but under the cloths. The real reason for the smaller Kirpan though is the Sikhs regard for the laws of the land, and for the feelings of other people. Although we are allowed to carry the Kirpan, many hide it, or carry a smaller one so as not to scare people.

But even the 'larger' one, is only a 'symbol', in turn. Long gone is the actual 30" bladed sword.

And, It's not about 'meaningless rites' and whether or not they 'help one reach god'... at least, what I'm arguing isn't. The five K's are not 'meaningless'... they have a value of themselves, which often doesn't take a great deal of divination to see - the 'function' of the comb and sword are obvious, even if you don't use them for those explicit purposes.

Do these devices mean nothing to the ones that wear/carry them? No - they have a significance, even if it is just a collective significance of 'obedience'. They are symbolic od submission. And, to many, they have symbolism far greater... they become little lessons that are carried around.

Unless you wore it on top of your clothing...
Another person who has never seen a British Airways cabin crew uniform? You can't wear a short chain or choker over the uniform. It wouldn't fit.

Wow...Bitch? Anger some eh?

Why did you not tell her yourself?
I would have, had I been there.

And yeah, I am getting pissed off by all the people in the world -- Christian, Muslim, what have you -- who are so wrapped up in themselves, so obsessed with being at the head of the line, that any instance, no matter how trivial, of anyone getting something they don't get starts them jumping and yelling about discrimination. Like Today's Lucky Number said, these selfish asses have no idea what real discrimination is. I'm sick of their bellyaching.

It reminds me of a scene I witnessed on a ferry boat once. Two little girls, sisters, were arguing over two pieces of candy. They both had the same kind of candy, but the older girl suspected that the younger one's candy might be better than hers and so she was bullying the younger one into letting her taste test both of them. After a while of the older girl hanging onto both candies, the younger one started to complain, catching the attention of their father who asked what the problem was. The older one, confident in the justice of her argument, started explaining why she wanted to make sure she got a candy worthy of her. The father listened to this, then said, "Let me help you," and he took both candies, handed one to the older girl and the other to the younger girl and said, "There you go." The younger girl took hers and scarpered. The older girl's consternation was comical to behold. She sputtered in confusion and outrage for a while and then shouted, at the top of her lungs:

"BUT WHAT ABOUT MINE?!"

Her father laughed and said, "You've got yours," and turned away.

I really do not see much difference between that story and this flight attendant's story, or any claims by Christians that they are being discriminated against in Christian-dominated countries. They have the majority, they have the cultural influence, they have the automatic assumption that everything is about them, from public oaths to holidays, but it's still not enough. Anytime anyone else gets anything, they start screaming "What about mine?" like bratty little children.

And before they start screaming that they're getting picked on worse than the Muslims, I'll point out that I'm sick of hearing that exact same bullshit from Muslims in their countries, too.

And when I say "exact same bullshit," I mean the EXACT. SAME. BULLSHIT.

I can't off the top of my head think of any religion apart from christianity where the only item commonly worn as a religions expression is a religious symbol on a chain.

I know there are religions that DO have symbols on chains, but AFAIK most others have other symbols too. This looks like a VERY targeted policy descision - it allows Muslims and Sikhs to wear their headwear, it allows religious bangles but it does not allow christians to wear their (normally only) form of religous expression.
Then quit shouting "What about mine?" over and over, form a team with JuNii and invent a special Jesus hat for Christians to annoy people with, just like them Muslims, and then you can both have your own piece of goddamned candy.

Then quit shouting "What about mine?" over and over, form a team with JuNii and invent a special Jesus hat for Christians to annoy people with, just like them Muslims, and then you can both have your own piece of goddamned candy.

You don't need to create anything new. There are Christian women who feel that covering the hair is necessary for modesty, although they are of a smaller percentage than Muslim women who choose that route. Headscarves are not unheard of in Christian society.

But, in the end, it seems like a rather useless discussion. It seems fairly obvious that the rule bans jewelry being worn over the uniform. We can argue that it is a pointless rule, perhaps, but there is no evidence of it being discriminatory.

The uniform rules, do not, on the other hand, prohibit hijab or turbans. Thus, anyone who chose to wear them could do so. This is also non-discriminatory, so long as it is open to any employee, rather than just some of them.

If you think about it, it's actually pretty obvious that the only group that is discrimated here are Atheists.

While the BA dress code prevents religious people from visibly wearing religious jewelry, it does not prevent Atheists from wearing Atheistic jewelry, mostly because there is no such thing as Atheistic jewelry.

All religious groups are discriminated equally by this rule, ecxept Atheists.

That's discrimination.

But even the 'larger' one, is only a 'symbol', in turn. Long gone is the actual 30" bladed sword.

And, It's not about 'meaningless rites' and whether or not they 'help one reach god'... at least, what I'm arguing isn't. The five K's are not 'meaningless'... they have a value of themselves, which often doesn't take a great deal of divination to see - the 'function' of the comb and sword are obvious, even if you don't use them for those explicit purposes.

Do these devices mean nothing to the ones that wear/carry them? No - they have a significance, even if it is just a collective significance of 'obedience'. They are symbolic od submission. And, to many, they have symbolism far greater... they become little lessons that are carried around.

Agreed I am not saying that the 5 k's are without meaning, just that the symbolism that you attched to them in your previous post is wrong. We wear them because Guru tells us, there is no symbolism attached. The Kirpan is for two reasons.

1) Because Guru commands his Khasla to do so.
2) For the very real protection of the oppressed when all other means have failed.

But not, now and not 600 years ago because it symbolises anything.

I would further add that any Sikh that belives he/she carries the 5 K's as part of any sort of symbolisim is not practicing Sikhi as Guru intended.

You don't need to create anything new. There are Christian women who feel that covering the hair is necessary for modesty, although they are of a smaller percentage than Muslim women who choose that route. Headscarves are not unheard of in Christian society.

But, in the end, it seems like a rather useless discussion. It seems fairly obvious that the rule bans jewelry being worn over the uniform. We can argue that it is a pointless rule, perhaps, but there is no evidence of it being discriminatory.

The uniform rules, do not, on the other hand, prohibit hijab or turbans. Thus, anyone who chose to wear them could do so. This is also non-discriminatory, so long as it is open to any employee, rather than just some of them.
You put your finger on it precisely, on two points.

First, that there is nothing to stop Christians from taking advantage of the same privileges as Muslims if they want to.

Second, that this discussion is useless because no discrimination is involved.

you know... all the cross necklaces I've seen here in the US, outside the Gaudy, rapper style Bling, have no risk of being snagged on anything. However, I don't know if those necklaces sold in Europe are larger, but if what she was wearing was like the ones I've seen, that don't even reach her clevage, the only way it would be caught would be if she was bent down giving some joe a BJ.

then again, she could be a... well we call them gang bangers here...

you know... all the cross necklaces I've seen here in the US, outside the Gaudy, rapper style Bling, have no risk of being snagged on anything. However, I don't know if those necklaces sold in Europe are larger, but if what she was wearing was like the ones I've seen, that don't even reach her clevage, the only way it would be caught would be if she was bent down giving some joe a BJ.

then again, she could be a... well we call them gang bangers here...

It's not just that it might get caught on something, but that it would be undesirable to have an employee's necklace hanging down in the face of a passenger as the stewardess reaches across or over a passenger while assisting. It may also be part of their consideration that a potential "aggrivated passenger" might grab said necklace and use it to attempt to throttle her (this was an important issue I dealt with as a lifeguard).

I don't see any problem with a company making a policy saying "We don't want any jewelry that hangs on a chain to be on top of a uniform."

besides, just because ONE person is going to have a short chain "that doesn't even reach her clevage" doesn't mean that other stewardesses won't have longer chains.

It's not just that it might get caught on something, but that it would be undesirable to have an employee's necklace hanging down in the face of a passenger as the stewardess reaches across or over a passenger while assisting. It may also be part of their consideration that a potential "aggrivated passenger" might grab said necklace and use it to attempt to throttle her (this was an important issue I dealt with as a lifeguard).

I don't see any problem with a company making a policy saying "We don't want any jewelry that hangs on a chain to be on top of a uniform."

besides, just because ONE person is going to have a short chain "that doesn't even reach her clevage" doesn't mean that other stewardesses won't have longer chains.
again, if the chain loop is the same size as those sold here, the pendant would pass the chin... barely. thus if the pendant is bothering the passenger, then she is practically kissing his forhead and the chains, (all the ones I've seen anyway) are flimsy, made to break before serious harm is done to the person. again, there are the Rapper-style ones that really are execptions to the norm.

and I am not arguing that the company does not have the right to ask to place all jewerly under the clothes. They can prohibit Jewelry altogether. I'm just making an observation.

I'm sure you are aware that jewelry stores in the United States do not sell just one length of chain. I actually happen to own a handful of chains of varying length (some nearly choker length, all the way to ones that leave the pendant hanging in between my breasts). Again, just because ONE person buys a "short" chain to put their pendant on, doesn't mean *all* people will do so.

You are making an assumption as to chain length and then implying that that's the only length in question. I'm just trying to point out that this is not the only possibility.

As far as I am aware, necklaces are not "made to break" before harm can be done to the person wearing the necklace. A necklace's purpose is to look pretty or be functional (ie hold the pendant) not to "break away" upon being pulled on. I am quite sure that some of those chains are rather sturdy (enough to allow an attacker to use it to inflict harm) while others (especially filigree style chains) would be far more flimsy.

You are making an observation, and if your observation were in fact the only applicable fact, then what you say would definately be true. I'm not attempting to negate your observation, just point out that there is more to consider.

so I am not complaining about any discrimination here. I am, however, more interested to finding solutions instead of just bitching about it, and also just bitching about those bitching about it. so please, get off your fucking high horse and respond appropriately to posters who have nothing to do with any percived argument you are seeing.

The solution is simple. Don't violate your companys dress code and then bitch about it when you get punished for violating your companys dress code . . .

I find it hilarious that two or three Christians are making a fuss in this thread about the article stating that a turban can't be hidden, as though that's discrimination. I invite every single one of them to wrap a towel around their heads, then try to hide it.:rolleyes:

Agreed I am not saying that the 5 k's are without meaning, just that the symbolism that you attched to them in your previous post is wrong. We wear them because Guru tells us, there is no symbolism attached. The Kirpan is for two reasons.

1) Because Guru commands his Khasla to do so.
2) For the very real protection of the oppressed when all other means have failed.

But not, now and not 600 years ago because it symbolises anything.

I would further add that any Sikh that belives he/she carries the 5 K's as part of any sort of symbolisim is not practicing Sikhi as Guru intended.

I see you believe it... but that doesn't explain why the kirpan is no longer a sword, and - indeed - is often a trinket.

Perhaps your vision is just a little more fundamental than that of many Sikhs? Or, maybe you miss the symbolism?

You do realise that something can be 'real' and 'symbolic', at the same time?

I find it hilarious that two or three Christians are making a fuss in this thread about the article stating that a turban can't be hidden, as though that's discrimination. I invite every single one of them to wrap a towel around their heads, then try to hide it.:rolleyes:

It looks like this is not a rule about religious symbols, but about chains.

But - say you made a rule saying religious symbols could not be on display, then said that people with really big religious symbols would be allowed to keep wearing them, but the religion with small symbols would have to take them off or cover it up. Then that would be discrimination.

It looks like this is not a rule about religious symbols, but about chains.

But - say you made a rule saying religious symbols could not be on display, then said that people with really big religious symbols would be allowed to keep wearing them, but the religion with small symbols would have to take them off or cover it up. Then that would be discrimination.
You have just illustrated why this thread and its OP are meaningless.

It is a made-up argument over something that did not happen, in a circumstance that does not exist, just so a few people can enjoy (I guess) a vicarious feeling of being put-upon in some way.

about time, with todays insane laws christians should get buttfucked as much as the next guy (if not more)

Ah, thanks for providing an example of real discrimination ;)