[Stoat]

See also:

Archbishop derides 'flawed reasoning' of BA cross decision 24dash.com - Communities

Archbishop derides 'flawed reasoning' of BA cross decision

 

Publisher:  Ian Morgan
Published: 20/11/2006 - 16:59:51 PM
 

 

The Archbishop of York, Dr. John Sentamu, today appealed to British Airways to reconsider their decision to refuse the appeal of Nadia Eweida who has lost her fight to openly wear a cross necklace at work at Heathrow.

Referring to the ‘flawed reasoning’ of BA’s decision, which allows male Sikh staff to wear turbans and female Muslim staff to wear hijabs, the Archbishop derided BA’s statement that the decision was “purely a question of practicality” suggesting that BA’s explanation meant an employee turning up for work with a ‘three foot cross must be allowed to wear it because to hide such a cross under their uniform would be impractical’.

The Archbishop also suggested as Britain’s national airline, the company ought to consider the place of the Christian values represented by the Cross.

The Archbishop said: “This decision by British Airways is a nonsense and is based on flawed reasoning.

“The basis for the decision should not be “practicality”, as BA suggests in its statement, but rather whether it impacts on Nadia’s ability to do her job. It is clear that Nadia’s cross does not form an impediment to her ability to carry out her duties at the check in counter. 

“Under BA’s current reasoning, an employee who turned up to work wearing a three foot long cross must be allowed to wear it, because to hide such a cross under their uniform would be impractical. Yet in Nadia’s case a cross of less than three inches is deemed a problem. 

“For me, the Cross is important because it reminds me that God keeps his promises. This horrible instrument of torture now carries something other than the body of that man whom to me is a Saviour and to others is a prophet.

“Wearing a Cross carries with it not only a symbol of our hopes but also a responsibility to act and to live as Christians. This symbol does not point only upwards but also outwards, it reminds us of our duties not only to God but also to one another.

“British Airways needs to look again at this decision and to look at the history of the country it represents, whose culture, laws, heritage and tradition owes so much to the very same symbol it would ban."

[Slings and Arrows]

"The policy recognises that it is not practical for some religious symbols - such as turbans and hijabs - to be worn underneath the uniform. This is purely a question of practicality..."

"...we don't want to be practically beheaded."

[Gideon Reader]

Sad for the poor sincere woman.
Bad for BA.
They lost the right to have me utilize their
airlines for my two, occasionally three yearly
flights.
There are at least two other enterprises leaving
from JFK Int'l for the UK and Europe.
I'll select another.

[Eva]

I read on Friday that the Netherlands had banned the public wearing of burkahs. That should be interesting. I can't wait to see them try to enforce the ruling.

[samtheman]

an x'd-out cross would have been ok

[BlessedBeGod]

...British Airways told her it respected her faith and accepted the cross was not jewellery...

"The policy does not ban staff from wearing a cross. It lays down that personal items of jewellery, including crosses may be worn - but underneath the uniform.

So, which is it? Is it jewellery which must be worn underneath, or isn't it. Make up your minds.

[badbass]

meant an employee turning up for work with a ‘three foot cross must be allowed to wear it because to hide such a cross under their uniform would be impractical’.

This lady really needs to find a 3 foot cross to bring to work. With appropriate notice to all news media of course. Mark my words. Political correctness versus Islam isn't going to cut it, and will be the death of our culture.

[HOTTIEBOY]

BA said in a statement: "British Airways has 34,000 uniformed staff, all of whom know they must abide by our uniform policy.

"The policy does not ban staff from wearing a cross. It lays down that personal items of jewellery, including crosses may be worn - but underneath the uniform. Other airlines have the same policy.

"In Nadia Eweida's case, she is not suspended and we want her to come back to work.

We have explained to her the need to comply with the uniform policy...

BA said Ms Eweida had been offered a non-uniformed post were she would be able to openly wear her cross but had refused to take it.

When this woman is on her own time she can wear what she wants and preach what she wants.
When she's on BA time, she must do as they say.
Sounds to me like they are trying to compromise with her.

[cbkaty]

All Christians see this train coming down the track....it only gets worse....the closer we get...

[par4]

The only way that I can see to stop this nonsense is for all Christian passengers to refuse to deal with any BA personnel wearing turbans, hajibs, whatever those painted on dots are called etc.

Pleasently ask for assistance from someone not wearing religious symbols. It might gum up the works a bit.

[Oratam]

However, an upside-down cross would've been perfectly acceptable.

[lilylangtree]

What's the difference in permitting islamics to wear their scarves, burkas, etc. and wearing the cross? BA is "gagging at a gnat and swallowing a camel" as my poor blessed mother always says.

[ichabod1]

She should show up wearing a scapular.

[redstates4ever]

Wear a burqa with a big crucifix stenciled all over it.

[doc30]

This story was posted about a month ago on FR. There are lots of employers in the U.S. who would ban wearing such a cross as a safety issue. I've been to such places and had to remove my wedding band as part of a safety policy. It's designed to reduce injuries when loose jewelery get caught in mechanical equipment. They do have baggage conveyors at check in desks and small chains like that have been caught up in equipment before.

[Stone Mountain]

"It is important to wear it to express my faith so that other people will know that Jesus loves them."

This is not something I need when I am checking in for a flight.

[skr]

Wouldn't it be more practical for the other religions to change their head-wear symbols into pins and pendants, so that a standard code could be established? Or do Christian flight attendants have to find some impractical head-wear, say, a crown of thorns, to indicate their personal belief?

[Aquinasfan]

"The policy recognises that it is not practical for some religious symbols - such as turbans and hijabs - to be worn underneath the uniform. This is purely a question of practicality. There is no discrimination between faiths.

No, none at all. Nothing to see here. Move along.

[rxgalfl]

My dad had airline tickets with BA to fly to London this Thursday afternoon. I just emailed him the link and he read it. Conclusion: he is calling BA right now to cancel his tickets. He is going to tell them why and this is going to hurt BA, he flies all his employees back and forth to UK and India via BA, hundreds of flights yearly.

People, this is the only way we're going to send strong messages to such corporations: hit them where it hurts most, their pockets!

[colorado tanker]

Bizarre. The Church of England is the state-supported, established religion, but companies are allowed to ban the wearing of its symbol.

[kevinm13]

I am only OK with this if ALL outward religious signs are forbidden. That means burkas, head scarves, turbans and any other religious symbol. If all of these are forbidden, then it should be OK to wear the cross but hidden under clothes, as I do with mine. Otherwise, BA should be boycotted for inconsistency and unfair treatment of Christians.