to all muslims please answer me this

[smiffy65]

The lady who has been banned from wearing her cross at work, how many muslims are offended by us christians wearing a cross or cruxifix as a sign of our faith,and love of god, I bet in reallity not a lot of muslims are offended and that it is all down to do gooders who just like to cause trouble and stir things up,no idiot answers please

[Buenchico]

Not an idiot answer, I hope, but an honest one:

As an atheist, I find the display of any religious symbol offensive, irrespective of the particular religion.

To me, the cross represents a religion that has been responsible for more disharmony, prejudice and deaths throughout the world than all political movements (including Communism and the Third Reich) put together.

I don't expect to be served by somebody wearing a swastika. I find the display of a cross equally (or possibly even more) offensive.

Chris

PS: The purpose of my post is not to cause offence (although I'm not bothered if it does). It is simply to state a genuinely held point of view. Christians are entitled to their beliefs, and to express them through debate, but so are we atheists.

[jno]

not a believer myself, but I'm less bothered by symbolism than Chris is. I'm well aware of the horrors perpetrated in the name of religion (and of atheism), but I don't think a woman wearing a cross is necessarily going to kill the next woman she sees wearing a veil, or vice versa. Swastikas are a special case, being associated, except in the context of India, solely with fascism and mass murder and a creed of hate; but most Christians, Muslims, Jews, Sikhs, pagans and all the rest are ordinary, non-murderous people who ought to be allowed to acknowledge their religion in public.

[kev100]

What I find offensive is our continuing subsevrience to Islam, Britain wont be an Islamic country for at least twenty years, until then we should be able to to be Christians

[Booldawg]

I beleive Chris not to be an atheist per se but anti-Christian. He demonstrated his abhorance for religion by only mentioning the cross, a symbol of Christianity. If Chris feels that strongly about religion then maybe we should send him through Hounslow with an 'I hate Allah' sign around his neck so maybe he can explore the wrath and injustice of other faiths. Christianity is an easy, soft target for atheist sdue to the lack of action they take against their enemies which suggests me that Christianity in the West is by far the most peacful religion.

[Loosehead]

Trouble is the offence is reserved on behalf of the group that the lefty liberal elite believe should be offended. I doubt any one is actually offended at the sight of the symbols of another religion. (except Chis of course!) Trace back one of these cases and you won't find a muslim behind it you'll find some dogooding council official trying to weild their little bit of power by taking offence on behalf of Islam so they can have another go at bashing non muslims.

I too am an atheist but I'm not generally offended by religious symbols, religious actions yes!

[flip-flop]

As a complete non-believer (the idea of there being a higher entitiy is about as realisitc as the fairies at the bottom of the garden, the troll under the bridge, Santa Clause etc) I don't find religious symbols offensive.

I don't find them offensive BECAUSE I don't believe (although I must confess I do have reservations about the full veil for the simple reason that they are hiding behind religion as an excuse to wear it when in fact their religion doesn't tell them to - what I am rather clumsily trying to say is they wear the full veil just to prove a point such as the lawyer and the teaching assistant: I don't believe for a minute they were doing it for religious reasons - does that make sense?).

Apologies for the capital letter - I don't know how to do italics are bold!

[flip-flop]

Loosehead has picked up on an important point, and one that never ceases to get right on my tits............hand wringers being offended on behalf of people who aren't actually offended: it has got naff all to do with them and they should just butt out.

[vehelpfulguy]

BA are NOT against her wearing a cross.

They are against ALL neck jewelrey and provide cravattes for ladies so jewelery can be worn UNDER the cravatte.

This lady wanted to wear her cross OVER the cravatte which is against BA rules.

There may be safety reasons for not wanting neck jewelrey on display, in case it gets caught in machinary (printer. conveyor belt etc).

A few years ago I caught my tie in the mechanism of a printer and had a difficult job getting it out.

[sp1814]

kev100

What on earth has this story got to do with Islam????

[sp1814]

vehelpfulguy

Thank you for that...I had absolutely no idea that this was another bit of Mailaganda. I honestly thought the ban was on crosses.

So now we know that the ban is on ALL neck jewellry (I know I've spelled that incorrectly) can the people who have used this thread to point this out as 'another example of creeping subservience to Islam' please explain exactly what brought them to this conclusion.

[Gromit]

Strange how an Health and Safety in the workplace issue can be distorted into a religious persecution story.

The ban is on jewelry worn ourtside of clothing in the workplace and is for her own safety. All the other airlines have similar rules as would most other employers where machinery is operated.
She can wear the cross under her uniform - she has refused.
She has been offered a different job where the safety concerns do not apply. - She has refused.

I think she is probably in the wrong job anyway. I don't remember Mother Teresa being beatified for her work at baggage check-in.

[sp1814]

I'm in awe of the right wing press today. They even had me going on this story.

Brilliant piece of propaganda...absolutely A1 in execution and intent.

Even the question posed (to which we're answering) directs us towards Muslim attitudes to the cross and they aren't even involved in the story.

I honestly, and completely thought that the whole story was based on BA being worried about offending Muslims. I went along with it like everyone else.

Gromit/veryhelpfulguy - you deserve a medal...just as long as it's not in the shape of a cross.

[noxlumos]

I'm not offended by symbols of other's religion, just as I would not be offended by Chris wearing a symbol of atheism if there was a widely accepted one. Why can't everyone just get it into perpsective, this was from start to finish a non-story. This woman wanted to wear a necklace, she was widely accomodated, but she wanted a little attention drama and the Daily Mail obliged.That's it.No Muslims were offended, why would they be?
In helping my little girl finish off her RE topic that we'd set her on Islam ( she's doing all the major religions one by one and few fringe ones too), my Muslim friend was sitting on our lounge floor with her explaining things and then when she'd finished that, he helped her design the cover for her project on Christianity, that's how offended by crosses your average Muslim is.
This cross story was a one woman fuss from beginning to end.

[Gromit]

I didn't know, but should have guessed, that this was a Daily Mail inspired piece of disinformation. This led be to read on their website how they had spun this story today.

I"m afraid it has escalated in to national betrayal:

"British Airways has betrayed our national heritage by banning an employee from wearing a cross, said the Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu, the second most senior figure in the Church of England."

It also helfpfully informs us that Dr Sentamu is a black man from Uganda.

[Le Chat]

The problem that the cross-wearing lady has, is that other faiths are allowed to wear and expose their objects of divinity. For example, hindu workers are apparantly allowed to wear some kind of bangle and obviously, the headscarf for the muslims. Maybe she is just a little pi**ed off that she is unable to publicly show her christian faith, which is obviously important to her. On the health and safety issue, I would imagine that the jihab is more likely to cause real problems, as a small, fragile chain would snap, whereas the mass of black material of the jihab would not, should it come into contact with mechanical instruments.

[Pippa68]

You also have to remember that there are many people who wear a cross pendant (note there is a difference between a cross & a crucifix) who don't follow the Christian faith..they use it merely as a fashion accessory.

Then when a nice tasty chunk of propaganda spawned by the media appears, they shout out about Christianity and their rights to wear it.

[Gromit]

"The BA is developing a Muslim uniform for its staff. "Two ground staff at Heathrow wanted to pursue their religion and we would support that," said BA. The "modesty" uniform will be introduced in a few months.

So expect more of this nonsense then.

Meanwhile, here is a good Daily Telegraph article on the subject.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml =/news/2006/10/17/nfaith317.xml

[smiffy65]

I am sorry about mentioning the lady from BA now, It was only when I read about her and the cross that spurred my question. what I wanted to know really because in the passed it has been said many times by the powers that be,that crosses or crucifix's,should not be worn, or our national flag should not be flown ect ect because it offends muslims, but what I want to know does it really offend muslims? I think the majority would say no it does not

[smiffy65]

and by the way the lady in question has been wearing the said cross for 7 years why have they suddenly stopped her now?

[Rev Sermon]

In answer to the last question, if it really is based on health and safety then the "now" is probably because rules are constantly being tightened up. I work in the construction industry where H&S are paramount but some of the rules being enforced recently are beginning to go over the top.