Crosses on Chains to be allowed by BA

SteveGrenard

Philosopher
S
Joined
Oct 6, 2002
Messages
5,528
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6280311.stm

British Airways is changing its uniform policy to allow all religious symbols, including crosses, to be worn openly. BA announced a review last year after a row erupted when Heathrow check-in worker Nadia Eweida challenged a ban on her visibly wearing a cross necklace. The airline now says it will allow religious symbols such as lapel pins and "some flexibility for individuals to wear a symbol of faith on a chain". BA had banned crosses on chains, but allowed hijabs and turbans to be worn.
Click to expand...
 
Great idea!

Will they be throwing people with 666 tattoo'd on their forehead off intercontinental flights, and will wearing a Crescent moon make you a terrorist suspect?

Isn't this just a bit like drawing a line and daring someone to cross it? ;)
 
Mephisto said:
Will they be throwing people with 666 tattoo'd on their forehead off intercontinental flights, and will wearing a Crescent moon make you a terrorist suspect?

Isn't this just a bit like drawing a line and daring someone to cross it? ;)
Click to expand...
No, this is the other way round.

BA were accepting stuff like Muslim headscarves and Sikh daggers but getting all sniffy about Christians wearing a little jewellery-style cross on a necklace.

This was clearly bollocks, and it's good that they're revising their policy.

The good guys just won, let's have a party.

Religious tolerance and beer for all!
 
So, basically, you're not allowed to wear jewelry unless you believe it represents magical sky fairies? Stewardess Amy, who has a nice locket her grandma gave her, can't wear it because it's against the rules. Stewardess Betty, who has a cross because she luvs Jeebus so much, can.

Sounds like another of the rules the religious get a free pass to break.
 
Dr Adequate said:
No, this is the other way round.

BA were accepting stuff like Muslim headscarves and Sikh daggers but getting all sniffy about Christians wearing a little jewellery-style cross on a necklace.

This was clearly bollocks, and it's good that they're revising their policy.

The good guys just won, let's have a party.

Religious tolerance and beer for all!
Click to expand...

What was mentioned was head scarves and bangels, which can not be worn under the uniform, but a cross can be. So it is not exactly the same, the old rule was if possible all such items should not be worn openly.
 
TragicMonkey said:
So, basically, you're not allowed to wear jewelry unless you believe it represents magical sky fairies? Stewardess Amy, who has a nice locket her grandma gave her, can't wear it because it's against the rules. Stewardess Betty, who has a cross because she luvs Jeebus so much, can.
Click to expand...
Ignoring the childish and pointless jab at Christianity for a moment, please point to the part of the article that says or even implies this. All I see is they had banned crosses on chains, not any jewelry of any kind. Or maybe there's another article that explains this-? If so I agree it's also inconsistent. Either let people wear a necklace (or whatever) or not.

Sounds like another of the rules the religious get a free pass to break.
Click to expand...
Sounds like yet another atheist (most of course anti-Christian) whine.

Anyone have a Bible I can borrow, I want to thump it

:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
TheBoyPaj said:
www.darwinfish.com
Click to expand...

From the link:

"Our chrome car plaques are a perfect way to make your statement to the rest of the world. "

Yeah - that statement being "I'm an obnoxious a-hole." ie not simply 'advertising' that one believes in evolution, but using a traditionally Christian symbol to do it, in a sneering "up yours" kinda way. Oh goody, I was hoping for another such car doo-dad - the Calvin whizzing on stuff is so yesterday.

Looks like yet another way to say "I'm so clueless about Christianity that I think most of them don't believe in evolution."
 
Last edited:
Nah, it's more like "I'm so clueless about Christianity, I forgot that they pick and choose the bits they like from the Bible and pretend that the rest was always supposed to be allegory"
 
TheBoyPaj said:
Nah, it's more like "I'm so clueless about Christianity, I forgot that they pick and choose the bits they like from the Bible and pretend that the rest was always supposed to be allegory"
Click to expand...

lol - thanks for the backup, even tho unintended
 
TheBoyPaj said:
Nah, it's more like "I'm so clueless about Christianity, I forgot that they pick and choose the bits they like from the Bible and pretend that the rest was always supposed to be allegory"
Click to expand...

lol - thanks for the backup, even tho unintended
 
bigred said:
Looks like yet another way to say "I'm so clueless about Christianity that I think most of them don't believe in evolution."
Click to expand...
In the U.S., most of the ones who actually put Jesus-fish decorations on their cars do NOT, in fact, believe in Evolution.

The majority of Christians, who don't have a problem with Evolution, also tend not to advertise their religious convictions on their car bumpers.
 
tracer said:
In the U.S., most of the ones who actually put Jesus-fish decorations on their cars do NOT, in fact, believe in Evolution.

The majority of Christians, who don't have a problem with Evolution, also tend not to advertise their religious convictions on their car bumpers.
Click to expand...
It seems that out in Hollywood, Heidi Fleiss badly misread the admonition of the Scriptures. With a will, she
1. tried to prostletyze, no, prostitutize as a
2. "f___er of men" rather than as a fisher of men.

A warning to all against careless reading of the Scriptures.

DR
 
bigred said:
Ignoring the childish and pointless jab at Christianity for a moment, please point to the part of the article that says or even implies this. All I see is they had banned crosses on chains, not any jewelry of any kind. Or maybe there's another article that explains this-? If so I agree it's also inconsistent. Either let people wear a necklace (or whatever) or not.
Click to expand...

The matter began because BA decided on safety grounds to disallow jewelry such as necklaces. Complaints arose because some felt that excemption should be made for religious necklaces on the grounds that religious headgear and bracelets were permitted. Of course those things aren't necklaces, but BA's attempted compromise of allowing cross lapel pins wasn't acceptable. Hence the current news story.

The irony will arise when someone handling baggage (which was what they were worried about) gets decapitated because their religious necklace gets sucked into a machine or something. When that happens, their families will sue BA for millions and win, of course, since they didn't prevent a safety hazard.


Sounds like yet another atheist (most of course anti-Christian) whine.
Click to expand...

I'm equally against all religion, actually. Especially when people decide to use their religion as an excuse to break the rules everyone else is expected to follow. I suppose it is anti-Christian, in some views, to oppose special treatment for Christians.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom