BA's chief executive Willie Walsh has upheld the action against Miss Eweida for failing to comply with "uniform regulations" despite himself coming under fire recently for failing to wear a tie. ... The airline's uniform code states that staff must not wear visible jewellery or other 'adornments' while on duty without permission from management.
It makes exceptions for Muslim and Sikh minorities by allowing them to wear hijabs and turbans. Under rules drawn up by BA's 'diversity team' and 'uniform committee', Sikh employees can even wear the traditional iron bangle - even though this would usually be classed as jewellery - while Muslim workers are also allowed prayer breaks during work time.
But Miss Eweida, 55, from Twickenham, insisted her cross, which is smaller than a ten pence piece, was not jewellery but an expression of her deep Christian faith.
Source: Daily Mail
Well, it certainly sounds like discrimination: Muslims and Sikhs are allowed to wear religious garb and even religious jewelry, but Christians are not. It seems pretty clear cut, right? Maybe not — read closely:
She questioned why she was being forced to hide her religion when BA's Muslim and Sikh workers could express theirs.
Miss Eweida said last night: "I will not hide my belief in the Lord Jesus. British Airways permits Muslims to wear a headscarf, Sikhs to wear a turban and other faiths religious apparel.
"Only Christians are forbidden to express their faith. I am a loyal and conscientious employee of British Airways, but I stand up for the rights of all citizens."
Eweida keeps talking about "expressing" her faith, but that's not what the hijab and the Kara (iron bangle) are about. Muslims don't wear the hijab to "express" their faith to others, but because they believe that their religion requires them to dress modestly in this way. Sikhs don't wear a Kara in order to express their religious beliefs, but because they believe that their religion teaches them to do so in order to remind them to "do the right action."
In other words, we have certain religious items which people believe their religion requires of them on the one hand but religious items which simply express certain beliefs on the other hand. Are they comparable? Not necessarily. It make sense for an employer to make exceptions in a dress code for items which people think their religion requires, but doing so does not logically or ethically entail making further exceptions for religious items which people simply want in order to "express" their beliefs.
Now, if British Airways wishes to make such an exception that they are free to do so. That might in fact be a very good policy in terms of maintaining good relations with both employees and customers. In this case, however, not doing so is not discrimination against Christians because Christianity does not now and has not ever required adherents to wear a cross necklace.
Christian & Religious Privilege:
“”Eweida keeps talking about “expressing” her faith, but that’s not what the hijab and the Kara (iron bangle) are about. Muslims don’t wear the hijab to “express” their faith to others, but because they believe that their religion requires them to dress modestly in this way. Sikhs don’t wear a Kara in order to express their religious beliefs, but because they believe that their religion teaches them to do so in order to remind them to “do the right action.”"”
i’ll disagree. It is a choice they make to wear or not wear something. A Sikh can choose to not wear the bangle. Their faith can require it all it wants. This is a case of discrimination and wrong tolerance. Discrimination because the company is being selective about when to enforce the dress code. Wrong Tolerance because they are tolerating the bad behavior the employees who are wearing they items in question. The company is tolerating it because they know those groups will hue and cry (and given the cartoon incident they just might go an murderous riot) as one if they didn’t.
This is a social contract issue. In exchange for pay and benefits, the employee gives up their time, energy and to some degree their rights for eight or so hours a day. The arrangement is not compulsory for either party, either can end it. BA is not asking for anything unfair in saying “no jewelry” and is right in telling this lady to not wear the cross, and wrong for being hypocritical in allowing others to break the rule.
Either change the rule or enforce it.
Religion can’t require ANYTHING of anyone living in a FREE nation.
I don’t believe you understand the dynamics of religion in these contexts. When you think your god requires something of you, then things like living in a “FREE nation” are irrelevant. On a psychological and emotional level, you have no “choice” to refuse.
Frankly, your argument here is much the same as those who tell abused wives: “Well, why didn’t you leave? He wasn’t standing over 24/7. You had a choice to leave and you chose to stay in that relationship.” That argument completely misses the dynamics of abusive relationships, just as your argument misses the dynamics of people’s relationship with their religion and their god.
Legally and physically, abused wives have the “choice” to leave their husbands; that choice does not really exist in their conceptual universe, though, for a variety of psychological and emotional reasons. Legally and physically, a Sikh may have the “choice” not to wear the bangle, but that choice doesn’t really exist in their conceptual universe — and won’t so long as they are part of that religion.
All of this is obviously very different from someone who does want to wear a cross necklace as a means for expressing her religion — i.e., to communicate to others that she is a Christian. A Sikh doesn’t wear a bangle in order to tell others that they are Sikh; a Muslim doesn’t wear a veil to tell others that she is Muslim. The Christian woman’s purpose and context is different enough that it’s not inconsistent to treat her case differently from the others.
Even if the purpose of a turban/hijab is not to communicate, it in effect makes a much more obvious statement than a necklace. That communicative tendency, even if not acknowledged, is probably one of the reasons the religion requires it–good marketing, something which leaders everywhere, religious or otherwise, seem to understand. That this is required by the religion makes no difference. After all,
many sects of Christianity requires its members to express themselves, to proselytize, to bear witness to what they regard as the truth (God’s son himself allegedly said that you’re not supposed to hide your lamp under bushel, etc).
If this distinction between desire to express and a desire to comply with a religious requirement really mattered, then a compromise should be a possible: she may wear her ornamental cross, but she may not use it as a topic of conversation by which to express opinions/proselytize.
I doubt that the employer would accept would accept such a compromise, and that is probably why it is never mentioned. What is happening here is exactly what it appears to be: the employer is discriminating against Christianity, specifically.
Your argument is based on this speculation; since there is no evidence to support it, your argument also crumbles.
“Christianity does not now and has not ever required adherents to wear a cross necklace.”
In fact there are many Christian groups and individual churches who require their members to wear symbols of their faith, including crosses.
Sikhs don’t wear a Kara in order to express their religious beliefs, but because they believe that their religion teaches them to do so in order to remind them to “do the right action.”
Your argument is totally hypocritical and biased, as you fail to mention the popular WWJD? phrase. Many Christians wear crosses and bracelets and the like in order to REMIND them about What Jesus Would Do. Please review all of your information before you start assuming that Christians are only wearing their “garb” to press their beliefs onto others. That’s not the case, Buddy.
Sir, I agree with the above statement.
To whom it may concern:
Point is, whether it’s a turban or a cross, it is still a religious article, plain and simple. You cannot make sweeping generalizations about why individuals are wearing the articles they choose.
You are assuming that all Sikhs wear turbans because they are supposed to remind them to do good. You are saying Christians never wear crosses for that reason, and are assuming that they solely want to convert everyone. You cannot rightly make this assumption. What if your argument was turned around to where you assumed that the Christians were the observers and the Sikhs the converters? But of course you couldn’t say thay because it’d be “insensitive.”
Basically, Sir, you CANNOT make up some generalized remark to justify the unfairness of this situation. Putting these words and intentions into people is just not right.
Both of these items are RELIGIOUS ARTICLES. If you’re going to let one be, the other should by all means have to same right.
Please (British Airways), review your logic in the future before jumping to extreme conclusions.
Thank you.
Many Christians wear crosses and bracelets and the like in order to REMIND them about What Jesus Would Do.
And is it something that has to be worn in a way that makes it visible to everyone else?
You are saying Christians never wear crosses for that reason, and are assuming that they solely want to convert everyone. You cannot rightly make this assumption.
Then why is it being worn outside the clothing?
Then why is it being worn outside the clothing?
….why not? Most necklaces are worn outside the clothing. Plus, even those who aren’t Christian may wear a cross because it looks nice to them. Oh no, it looks like atheists may want to shove Christianity down people’s throats too.
And about the bangle Sikhs wear: why don’t they have to be covered up? They are still a statement of one’s religion.
It seems the author has found a form of extreme verbal nonsense in order to intelletually grind his notions of what represents belief or the expression of that belief. If your religion requires certain actions in order to affirm your faith you are by definition demonstrating that faith in order to comply. If by contrast you did not have that faith none of these items would be required, therefore to try to draw a distintion here with this Christian lady is both stupid and meaningless.
Thanks to Austin Cline for his valuable writing. I don’t want to say anything controversial regarding to religion. Respecting to all religions I want to say some activities are must to be followed to some religions like iron bangle for Sikh and wearing of hijabs and turbans to Muslim believers. Without following this they can even face problem from socially and family. But it is not must to wear cross for Christian believers. Hope you understand gentleman. Thanks again.