Keep it buttoned, please
Yes, respect for religion is mandatory, why do you ask?
For the better part of 30 years, British Airways has operated a uniform policy without incident. The rules allow check-in staff and cabin crew to wear jewellery, but only underneath their shirts. There are many reasons for this, one of them being that people working at check-in have to lean over and tag bags. A necklace could easily get in the way…British Airways is at fault. For it is mishandling for a religious issue, betraying both its multicultural principles and a huge potential market. For, Ms Eweida not only has a strong argument of freedom of religious expression on her side, but also hundreds of millions of potential passengers. The 2001 census showed that 71.1 per cent of Britons identify themselves as Christians. According to Aquarius, a marketing consultancy focused on religious affairs, there are 2.1 billion people who call themselves Christian, by comparison with 1.1 billion who describe themselves as secular, non-religious, agnostic or atheist. The devout represent a powerful market: The Passion of the Christ has grossed $613 million at box offices worldwide…There are a growing number of Christians who feel threatened by secularism…By sticking to its guidelines on uniforms, BA is insensitively, perhaps unintentionally, appearing to use its professional code to make a secular case. People of faith expect not just tolerance, but respect. BA needs to show it.
Uh? BA has a longstanding and reasonable rule about external jewelry, which all in an instant turns out to be a violation of freedom of religious expression as well as a foolish flouting of the, um, hunger for a sight of external jewelry on the part of Christians, who are more numerous than atheists and who made Mel Gibson’s horrible sadism-porn flick a lot of money, therefore, BA is inthenthitive, and thus we see that ‘people of faith’ expect not just tolerance but ‘respect’ and therefore BA is obliged to show it. There’s a good knockdown argument for you!
No but seriously. What is this idea that people ‘expect’ ‘respect’ and that therefore everyone else ‘needs’ to give it to them? Why hasn’t that imbecilic and tiresome idea been nipped in the bud yet? People can expect anything and everything they like; that doesn’t oblige the rest of us to give it to them. I can sashay around the place announcing that I ‘expect’ everyone to fall down and knock their foreheads against the ground when I pass, but that doesn’t oblige them to oblige, does it. Expect away, ‘people of faith’, I don’t have to respect you unless you do something I consider respect-worthy. So get busy.
People of faith don’t expect faith, just tolerance.
If Virgin permits crosses, why can’t BA?
“By sticking to its guidelines on uniforms, BA is insensitively, perhaps unintentionally, appearing to use its professional code to make a secular case.”
Secularism appears to be becoming the bogeyman of the moment.
Secular means *indifferent* to religion. Either BA’s decision applies to all jewellery, and therefore its making a case about its dress-code, or just to religious symbols, in which case it’s not a secular action.
“People of faith expect not just tolerance, but respect.”
Then, just like the rest of us, they need to earn it.
Agreed with Matt M. A state airline company can be expected to make a secular case. It *should* do so. There’s a difference between that and making an “atheist” case, but I see the two words confused quite a lot.
“If Virgin permits crosses, why can’t BA?”
If Virgin jumped off the roof, would you jump too?
More seriously, since BA bans all jewelry worn outside the uniform, why should it exempt religious jewelry? Why should religious jewelry get special treatment?
you’re right, Jeffrey.
if Pakistan permits sharia, why can’t we?
why do we need to be so intolerant?
Hey, yeah, this is a good game.
If China harvests organs from executed prisoners, why can’t we?
If the Taliban kills teachers in girls’ schools so that girls will stay home and ignorant, why can’t we?
If the Pope says ‘No condoms not nohow!’ why can’t we?
If Saudi Arabia forbids women to drive, why can’t we?
I quite often read comments in these pages like “if christians want respect then they should earn it”.I would point out that these same people would never respect christianity whatever it did.
hmmm
Among other things I admire and respect is the charity work _some_ christians do. (Just for the record: not Mother Teresa).
The degree of my respect and admiration is inveresly proportional to the level of collateral mission when doing their good work.
But again: they have earned it.
Cassanders
If you’re not prejudiced, you just don’t understand!
S.Gorn’s Compendium of Rarely Used Clichés
Richard writes, ‘I would point out that these same people would never respect christianity whatever it did.’
With respect, Richard, I don’t think the commenter was talking about respecting Christianity, but respecting Christians. They, as individual people, have to earn it.
Ophelia opined, ‘More seriously, since BA bans all jewelry worn outside the uniform, why should it exempt religious jewelry? Why should religious jewelry get special treatment?’
Quite. I don’t like religion, but I couldn’t seriously object to someone’s wearing a piece of decoration that happened to be a signal to what beliefs they had, exceptional circumstances notwithstanding (I don’t think Tory Central office would take kindly if someone sat on the conference platform wearing a ‘Vote Labour’ badge). I believe the deciding factor has to be practicality. Does any necklace get in the way, potentially, of a person’s ability to do her job? Then ban it. Does it not? Then let her keep it.
I can’t object if a woman wears a binbag to walk down the street, much as I might not like it; but if she were to want to serve me with a newapepr in her shop I wouldn’t do business there. Irrespective of her religion, I’d buy her newspaper if she were not wearing the binbag.
If she were my employee, it would be for that reason that I’d ban her binbag. It would get in the way of business. Likewise classroom assistants who can’t communicate effectively because much of interpersonal communication is nonverbal.
BA put forward a ridiculous ‘argument’ when this thing flared up that some religious statements could be worn because they couldn’t be hidden under clothing. What? That suggests a woman could wear a binbag, then. If they use contingent arguments like that, where is the line to be drawn?
The thing is, BA does permit religious jewelry. Sikhs are permitted to wear bangles – because they are too bulky to wear under clothing, Muslims are permitted to wear head scarves, and married people wedding rings.
And when I compared Virgin’s policy to BA’s and said why can’t BA do the same as Virgin, OB replies if Vigin jumped off the roof would you follow them? Is that a real argument? One is comparing the business practices in the same area (Customer Services) of two competing British based competitor businesses at the same location and OB’s is ?
And permitting wearing a cross is the same as ‘Sharia Law’?
It does look as if many commenters on this site are not really interested in tolerance at all of anything but their own beliefs.
I understand the necklace rule, but why can’t they be allowed to wear a crucifix on their lapel?
I glanced at a headline on the Daily Express (24.11.06) saying that Jack “please remove your veil” Straw supports the crucifix wearer. Isn’t it a little inconsistent for him to support that “assertion of difference” but not the Moslem kind?
Jewelery is available to buy in the Heathrow airport. Alls sorts of jewelry. Silver. Gold. Even silver or gold crufixes. Its just a f@@king dress code. And does it say anywhere in the Bible that anyone ever has to wear a sodding crucifix (apart from Jesus) inside or out ? No ! Its an eccentric woman’s interpretation of her demented and pointless purpose on Earth. Ohh the lack of respect I’m showing. Well eat me. I’m going to burn anyway.
I agree it is just one woman’s interpretation, but if they allow other people to wear bangles, headscarves and rings then some for move jewellery that doesn’t get in the way would be a fair compromise. Was something like the lapel option actually offered to her?
Yeah, but the thing about the Sikh bangles is that they’re a *requirement* of religious practice, whereas a crucifix isn’t. But this is not, of course, a real answer here. Like so many things in recent years, it turns out that the line once thought to have been reasonably drawn to accommodate a variety of groups was too arbitrarily decided-on, once the ground of culture begins to shift, and things once thought indifferent become all at once capable of causing an almighty kerfuffle.
There is another question of course – why should BA have a policy on jewellery of any sort? The only valid purpose for a uniform so far as I can see is one of identification. I can recognise BA staff by the clothes they wear. Presence or absence of a gold chain, earrings etc have no impact on that.
“It does look as if many commenters on this site are not really interested in tolerance at all of anything but their own beliefs.”
Depends how you define tolerance. The word is subject to constant definition-creep, especially when it comes to religion. Special rules, special exemptions, special handling, special treatment – that’s not tolerance, it’s privilege. I don’t think religions should be privileged.
Ian – quite simply because the wearing of dangly neck-chains, necklaces and bangles in the 60s, 70s and 80s occasionally meant luggagage tagging, handling and inspection got f@cked up. It’s that boring.
Dave – see above. The words storm and teacup come to mind. It’s just a dress code. Everyone else wants it to be more than that.
‘there are 2.1 billion people who call themselves Christian’
One becomes tired of hearing this number bandied about time and again. It was debunked some time ago. Catholics count everyone born catholic even if they leave the church and attend other religious services(which occurs to 20% of catholics annually no denomination loses more members per annum).
Thes people are then counted twice by the RCC and it’s inflated number and the same for the church they attend. I have read that once you figure all this in the number of Christians is approx half that is claimed with an even smaller percentage actually attending churcheven monthly.
Take it for what you will, good or bad.
Andy my general point was, that if for instance the arch bishop of Canturbury were to personaly bring an end to war,hunger,pestilance,poverty,racism, sexism and anoying mobile phone ring tones, the people I was refering to would still not respect him or his faith.
Personally, if he could do all that, it would be great. He can have the Nobel Peace Prize. But Anglican doctrine, per se, still makes about as much sense as Gillian McKeith’s view that “all the energy” to grow a plant is contained in its seed….
I suspect this is what happened: Originally BA banned all externally visible religious accoutrements. Then along came Sikhs, whose religion requires the wearing of a large symbol that cannot be hiden, the turban. So a change was made to permit the turban and similar items. However the original rule was left in place and has produced the current farcical situation – a ban on small external religious symbols at the same time as permission for large religious symbols.
Since no one is going to ban the turban the cross in question has to be permitted.
I expect it is something like that, Paul P. I think the history and culture of this country have something to do with it too, as well as the practical issue of size. Some of this ‘special privilege’ debate is OTT. It is not a very big deal at all, but if you are making some exceptions, say, for Sikhs, then a small cross seems, well, small.
Or perhaps we should be out there telling all those Sikhs to remove those ridiculous hats, banning them here, there and everywhere? Out there, guys. Get telling!
No one has had any complaints about reasonable and practical Muslim wear either, it was just the big black postbox that seemed not only impractical but perhaps a bit too large a political statement.
You know, sometimes, I feel we are moving in an upside down world. If I have got this right you want to assert the right of atheists to remove other people’s signs of religion in as many places as possible. Blimey, my very old dad objects to being served in supermarkets by men with ponytails and piercings. ‘Get on with it, dad’ I say. And he does.
George S:
For the record I have no problem with religious symbols as long as they do not interfere with the job. I have a problem with the “tent with a slit” in general and would refuse to be treated by a doctor covering any part of her anatomy lest it be seen by men not related to her (except in emergencies etc).
I have been in the past treated by doctors wearing headscarves. Can’t say I have an issue with it. Would have in the case of niqaabs and the like – obviously. But what with me usually seeing a doctor when I’m ill, and being a hypochondriac meaning I want to hear the bad news quickly, I simply can’t be bothered about those issues. I think I tend to make a rather agreeable patient.
I will not be treated by someone wearing a headscarf any more than I will be treated by someone in swimwear. The clinical environment requires us to look at the human body without the normal considerations of modesty. If a non-medic asked me to take off my clothes my reaction would be forceful, whereas the same request from a medic would get my compliance. Conversely I do not trust someone who will not let me see her hair to look upon my body in the professional manner required. We’ve already seen attempts by some Muslim women to opt out of treating men entirely on grounds of some cock-eyed notions of “modesty”.
Yeah. And I would think it would have a whole large extra layer of complication for a woman being treated. I don’t know from experience, but surmise that it would inject worries about being seen as either a slut or an infidel, or perhaps both. It would inject all sorts of political baggage that I really wouldn’t want in such a power-imbalanced situation – or at least it would seem to. I’m not sure one would want to be treated by a doctor wearing a beret with a large political insignia on it, either, and it amounts to the same thing.
In fact…I’m pretty sure that – at least in the US – doctors are pretty careful about self-presentation, for just that sort of reason. I think they’re expected, and expect themselves, to dress: neutrally, reassuringly, and also ‘professionally’. They’re supposed to look a lot of things: competent, unscary, calm, attentive – and grown up. They don’t want to wear anything distracting. A friend of mine is a therapist, and she’s told me a fair amount about the self-presentation question. She’d love to just wear jeans and a sweatshirt to do her work, but she can’t, she has to convey more authority and reassurance than that would convey.
So – the hijab is political in the current context, so that’s one problem, and it’s a badge of inferiority, so that’s another.
I can see why this would all seem very unreasonable. But –
Well I tell you what, I would certainly never want a nun in traditional habit treating me. I’d scream and run like hell.