Take your dam crucifix off

[Jesus-made-me-do-it]

A checking worker at British Airways was told to remove her crucifix because it was against uniform regulations. And it may cause religious conflict.

Now she's taking legal action to remove this rule.

Honestly Im for this rule to remove religious symbols at any Airports. Not because I’m an atheist but because a large portion of religious community are arsey when it comes to other religions. Almost every one in every religion thinks there religion is 'THE RIGHT' religion because there following it. So that might cause an uproar. Now ask yourself if your a Christian what do you think of the Hindu religion? Your probably going to say there unholy and there religion is wrong and there going to hell and blah blah blah.

So if you don’t want to risk a punch up. Just take the fucker off your neck and pocket it.

[defactoidZERO]

Dumb.

I never did understand how some people can take "offense" about subtle religious expression like this. I mean, she's only wearing a cross around here neck. It's not like she's shoving it right in your face or anything.

Zzz...

[jlwelch]

Actually false religion is a serious problem in today's society and I am all for Christians sticking to their guns on the matter.

http://www.jesus-is-../false_religions.htm

[stafffighter]

Couldn't she just tuck it into her shirt?

[ImmoralLibertarian]

At 10/14/06 11:54 PM, jlwelch wrote: Actually false religion is a serious problem in today's society and I am all for Christians sticking to their guns on the matter.

…and yet you contest you’re not a troll?

[defactoidZERO]

At 10/15/06 12:03 AM, o-r-i-g-i-n-a-l wrote: …and yet you contest you’re not a troll?

Have you clicked on the link, yet? Hilarious.

Ironically enough, the only people who'd actually buy this, are already christians.

[Jesus-made-me-do-it]

At 10/14/06 11:54 PM, jlwelch wrote: Actually false religion is a serious problem in today's society and I am all for Christians sticking to their guns on the matter.

http://www.jesus-is-../false_religions.htm

THe guy who wrote that must of been on pills

[ImmoralLibertarian]

At 10/15/06 12:08 AM, defactoidZERO wrote: Have you clicked on the link, yet? Hilarious.

Ironically enough, the only people who'd actually buy this, are already christians.

Yeah, he seems to have a strange fascination with that site.

I’ve showed all my work colleagues the link….kept us amused for hours…

[jlwelch]

At 10/15/06 12:08 AM, defactoidZERO wrote:

At 10/15/06 12:03 AM, o-r-i-g-i-n-a-l wrote: …and yet you contest you’re not a troll?

Have you clicked on the link, yet? Hilarious.

I fail to see what is so humorous about such an extensive problem in modern society. Continue to accuse me of trolling if you will for it matters not, I am taking a stand for what is right.

[Jesus-made-me-do-it]

At 10/15/06 12:12 AM, jlwelch wrote:
I fail to see what is so humorous about such an extensive problem in modern society. Continue to accuse me of trolling if you will for it matters not, I am taking a stand for what is right.

And what would that be my good man

[troubles1]

IT is her right, to wear the crucifix. People should get a life, And quit screwing with people over there beliefs. As long as it does not interfere with them,OR IF she was for example trying to preach to people wile at work that would be wrong, But our country was based on the freedom of religion, So if she wants to wear a cross or a Jew wants to wear the star of David, even if a Wicca wants to wear the pentagram so what as long as they are not trying to convert people at work leave them alone.

[Extremewookie]

THe guy who wrote that must of been on pills

I am sick and tired of seeing this damn grammatical error over and over again, incessantly! It's must HAVE!!!! Get it right!!! Thankyou.

**************************

Anyway, I think she should wear her cross because think of it this way: if she isn't allowed to wear it because some (insert religion name here) protests, who's the one who wants attention? The Christian lady is just wearing her symbol, likes Jesus, awesome. Okay. Now we've got Ali baba over here who just HAS to say that it's offending HIS RELIGION! Well did he ever consider that maybe it's offensive to Christian lady, who is just devoted to God???

[defactoidZERO]

At 10/15/06 01:48 AM, troubles1 wrote: IT is her right, to wear the crucifix. People should get a life, And quit screwing with people over there beliefs. As long as it does not interfere with them,OR IF she was for example trying to preach to people wile at work that would be wrong, But our country was based on the freedom of religion, So if she wants to wear a cross or a Jew wants to wear the star of David, even if a Wicca wants to wear the pentagram so what as long as they are not trying to convert people at work leave them alone.

Which brings up a good point: Had she'd been wearing a Star of David, nobody would have said anything.

The pentagram would only have been viewed as inappropriate and unprofessional.

[fli]

At 10/15/06 01:48 AM, troubles1 wrote: IT is her right, to wear the crucifix. People should get a life, And quit screwing with people over there beliefs. As long as it does not interfere with them,OR IF she was for example trying to preach to people wile at work that would be wrong, But our country was based on the freedom of religion, So if she wants to wear a cross or a Jew wants to wear the star of David, even if a Wicca wants to wear the pentagram so what as long as they are not trying to convert people at work leave them alone.

Sensible what you said, however... many professional jobs put in their contracts that one can't wear religious symbols.

When I was bank supervisor, I was told not to wear religious symbols outwardly not because the company is anti-religion but try to minimize risk to anything wear they will lose money. And simply put, if I didn't like that idea, then I didn't have to stay there. I personally own a beautiful Santo Nino de Atoche sachet thingy that I put on now and then. I don't feel the need to expose it, I keep it as close to my heart (meaning, under my shirt) since it has great sentimental to me.

That being said, I think the woman should really know when to tuck in her crucifix in her shirt because the airlines isn't trying to censore her, but make sure they don't lose money by either people sueing or people taking their business elsewhere.

[AdamRice]

Don't you guys see!? It starts small but before you know it these fanatics like this woman will be demanding prayer hours in all schools.

[defactoidZERO]

At 10/15/06 03:29 AM, fasdit wrote: Don't you guys see!? It starts small but before you know it these fanatics like this woman will be demanding prayer hours in all schools.

There's a very thick line between religious freedom, and religious dominance.

[cellardoor6]

At 10/15/06 03:29 AM, fasdit wrote: Don't you guys see!? It starts small but before you know it these fanatics like this woman will be demanding prayer hours in all schools.

What are you talking about? The woman doesn't impose her religion on anybody, all she wanted was the right to wear a religious symbol, which is her right! Did she demand that everyone wear one as well? No! Did she demand that everyone follow Christianity? No! She was simply excercising freedom of expression, free speech, and freedom of religion. Actually, if you think about this objectively, forcing her to remove the crucifix from her neck would be like 'forcing atheism' down the throat of a person with seperate idealogical views.

Now since people, especially modern youth these days have a grudge against Christianity they are going to be all for this, yet when people have asked Muslim women to remove their veils, there was rights in the streets and all the Muslim-fellating liberals were having fits about how the Muslims were being opressed. Now that Christians are having their religious freedom trampled its all jolly-good?

Either way, wearing a veil, Star of David, Cross, Crescent, Buddha, Krishna, Fonzee etc... this is the right of anyone. Trampling on this right in any way, (unless the religious symbols could be used as weapons or something asinine like that) is a major step backwards in western society.

[EnragedSephiroth]

Personally I think different religions give the world more variety. Funny thing is the 3 main religions (Christianity, Judaism and Islam) are all spawned from the same beginning and arrive at the same conclusion so... it's just funny. As far as Hinduism goes, that religion is extremely interesting and I'd love to learn more of it. Someone true and secure in their religion would not reject others but instead learn about others and see what they may have in common with them. After all, the bible teaches all those good christians to embrace those who are different and not forcibly baptize them :)

Jwelch, it is important to back your arguments with a source which is not the same source for everything else. If you use the same source for everything you distort your own views and make them seem very narrow, closed-minded and exclusive of everything else, which would suggest no one else agrees with you on the matter... which based on what I've seen in this forum, is exactly what is happening. If this forum is a microcosm of world ideologies, then your views are seriously flawed, even amongst the religious.

[lapis]

Corporations should have the right to enforce any dress code they want. If I have a large reversed pentagram tattooed on my forehead I shouldn't be surprised when I get turned down after applying for a front office job. The company wants the interaction between their employees and the customers to be as pleasant as possible, and if my urge to express my Satanism by wearing anti-Christian trinkets pisses off Christian customers then they'll leave with a bad feeling about the company as a whole. The same could happen, albeit to a lesser degree, with Chistian or Islamic religious symbols like crucifixes and headscarves. That's bad marketing. If the government decides to obligate corporations to accept employees wearing religious symbols in a conspicuous manner then they're forcing them to hurt their company's image. And for what? Nowhere in the New Testament does it say that adherents should visibly carry crucifixes at all times, and headscarves are only mentioned in Hadith, not in the Qur'an, and they're already banned in public institutions in France and Turkey.

If a corporation feels that an employee wearing a crucifix or a headscarf makes some customers feel uncomfortable then let them forbid the display. If you're devout then show your faith in you free time, but don't bother your employer with your religious ardour.

[Jesus-made-me-do-it]

At 10/15/06 01:49 AM, Extremewookie wrote:

THe guy who wrote that must of been on pills

I am sick and tired of seeing this damn grammatical error over and over again, incessantly! It's must HAVE!!!! Get it right!!! Thankyou.

I apologise for grammar but until I get some booze I anit goin to be sayin a wurd rieight. it all been a anoying sence all drink is gone.

Relax my good man, I don’t think you should be concerned with my grammar, its shit.

[emmytee]

What pisses me off is that at the same time we have a muslim women being fired for wearing a veil and everybody jumps to the christian ladies defence and agrees the muslim should be fired.

[SkyCube]

At 10/15/06 01:29 PM, emmytee wrote: What pisses me off is that at the same time we have a muslim women being fired for wearing a veil and everybody jumps to the christian ladies defence and agrees the muslim should be fired.

She was suspended (not fired) because the veil was making it difficult for the children to understand her in English lessons (where seeing lip movement is especially helpful). In other words; it was stopping her doing her job.

The Christian ladies' crucifix was not stopping her doing her job. Plus, BA does allow women from other religions (e.g. Muslims & Sikhs) to wear head scarves. Why can't Cristians wear Crosses? Don't forget that this is technically a Christian country, despite the way we seem to be bending over backwards to appease and avoid "offending" muslims at the moment.

[lapis]

At 10/15/06 01:29 PM, emmytee wrote: What pisses me off is that at the same time we have a muslim women being fired for wearing a veil and everybody jumps to the christian ladies defence and agrees the muslim should be fired.

If a school board doesn't want their teachers to look like miss Aishah Azmi as portrayed in the picture below then they should have the full right to sack her. This isn't religious discrimination: "There is no religious obligation whatsoever for Muslim women to cover themselves up in front of primary school children" - Shahid Malik, Labour MP for Dewsbury. She chooses to dress in a way that hinders communication with her students and by doing so she knowingly risks her job. I'll feel little compassion if she ends up getting the sack.

The same goes for crucifixes: if a school board doesn't like teachers expressing their religious beliefs using their clothing in general then they should be able to demand from the teacher that he or she abides by the dress code. Teacher refuses, teacher gets fired.

[Neoptolemus]

At 10/15/06 02:03 PM, lapis wrote:

At 10/15/06 01:29 PM, emmytee wrote: What pisses me off is that at the same time we have a muslim women being fired for wearing a veil and everybody jumps to the christian ladies defence and agrees the muslim should be fired.

If a school board doesn't want their teachers to look like miss Aishah Azmi as portrayed in the picture below then they should have the full right to sack her. This isn't religious discrimination: "There is no religious obligation whatsoever for Muslim women to cover themselves up in front of primary school children" - Shahid Malik, Labour MP for Dewsbury. She chooses to dress in a way that hinders communication with her students and by doing so she knowingly risks her job. I'll feel little compassion if she ends up getting the sack.

The thing is the Muslim women wouldn't cover herself when amongst children, only adult males outside of her family. Thus covering herself when around male collegues.

Personally i'm appalled with where Britian is going. I remember the hgood old days when we, as a religious nation, decided it'd be best to put Jedi on the census.

[LazyDrunk]

Wait. So she'd wear the garb for when males walk by, then change once she's alone with the students?

The christian woman could've tucked her cross in, or if she felt uber-vigilant, pull it out once the plane was in the air.

Some professions, like child indoctrination (see how I did that?), deserve to be free of overzealous religious statements.

If you can't handle living in a society that won't kill you for not covering your face, then don't try to set your life up around it. IT'S BAD FOR YOUR KIDS.

[SkyCube]

At 10/15/06 02:16 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: Wait. So she'd wear the garb for when males walk by, then change once she's alone with the students?

Possibly, although I doubt it. All that we know is she didn't take it off in front of students in English lessons and so caused problems with communication.

[lapis]

At 10/15/06 02:10 PM, neoptolemus wrote: The thing is the Muslim women wouldn't cover herself when amongst children, only adult males outside of her family. Thus covering herself when around male collegues.

So a male colleague can't walk into her classroom to borrow a piece of chalk or a blackboard eraser? Should her colleagues be forced to take special care when they're in her neighbourhood simply because she decided to follow the most rigid interpretations of Suras 24:31 and 33:59 and cries religious discrimination whenever she isn't given prerogatives, while tens of thousands of Muslim women in Turkey walk around unveiled on a daily basis?

[SkyCube]

At 10/15/06 02:30 PM, lapis wrote: So a male colleague can't walk into her classroom to borrow a piece of chalk or a blackboard eraser?

That's why I expect she always wore the veil, claiming that she only needed to wear it before male colleagues was most likely just to defend herself once the fuss began.

It is worth noting that the woman has admitted that she didn't actually wear the veil for her interview for the job, which was conducted with a male govener.

...And you can't call it a blackboard anymore, the term is chalkboard!
"Blackboard" might offend someone! (although of course, the term "whiteboard" is perfectly acceptable).

[dySWN]

At 10/14/06 11:49 PM, the-man-who-knew wrote: A checking worker at British Airways was told to remove her crucifix because it was against uniform regulations. And it may cause religious conflict.

Now she's taking legal action to remove this rule.

Honestly Im for this rule to remove religious symbols at any Airports. Not because I’m an atheist but because a large portion of religious community are arsey when it comes to other religions. Almost every one in every religion thinks there religion is 'THE RIGHT' religion because there following it. So that might cause an uproar. Now ask yourself if your a Christian what do you think of the Hindu religion? Your probably going to say there unholy and there religion is wrong and there going to hell and blah blah blah.

So if you don’t want to risk a punch up. Just take the fucker off your neck and pocket it.

Dude, there are so may things wrong with your conclusions that I'm finding it hard to think of where to begin. For starters, being able to express your religion via such symbols as a crucifix is not only the right of any free man or woman, but it is a form of expression and I was under the impression that if your freedom of expression is stomped then you're being denied one of your basic human rights. Second, her wearing the crucifix in public breaks no ones legs and steals no one's money, su unless someone can prove otherwise it harms no one that she wear it.

[dySWN]

BTW I appologize for any mispellings or gramatical errors in the prefious post. I was a bit rushed. Also, forgive me for the double post.