Widdecombe may be tempted by Virgin over BA cross row
-14/10/06
Outspoken Catholic and
Widdecombe may be tempted by Virgin over BA cross row
-14/10/06
Outspoken Catholic and Tory MP Ann Widdecombe has claimed that Christians in Britain are being ìpersecutedî, after an airline worker was suspended for refusing to remove a small cross from her uniform or hide it underneath her jacket.
The incident has caused a huge public row, and the non-nonsense Ms Widdecombe says she will boycott British Airways (BA) if they do not change their policy on religious adornments ñ a move which means she may have to revert to Virgin or some other carrier, observers note.
BA check-in worker Nadia Eweida has said that she plans to take legal action against her employers after they told her that wearing a cross breached company rules, which expressly prohibit adornments.
Ms Eweida, aged 55, refused to remove the cross (roughly the size of a 5p piece) and was sent home on unpaid leave.
She told the Daily Mail newspaper: ìI 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 religiousÖ I stand up for the rights of all citizens.î
Nadia Eweida also said to BBC news that she felt humiliated and discriminated against: ìI am annihilatedÖ Christianity is null and voidî.
BA permits religious apparel like veils, turbans and bangles when their use is a core part of the religion. Crosses are not required items for most Christians, and many Protestants refuse to wear them at all.
A British Airways spokeswoman explained: ìBritish Airways does recognise that uniformed employees may wish to wear jewellery including religious symbols. Our uniform policy states that these items can be worn underneath their uniform. There is no ban.î
She continued: ìThis rule applies for all jewellery and religious symbols on chains and is not specific to the cross.î
Airline British Midland has the same policy, which is also not based on religion but upon the kind of primary image the company wants to present through its own uniforms and symbols.
The BBC has recently had a discussion over newsreader Fiona Bruce’s cross necklace as part of a wider debate about impartiality, religious dress and political symbols. It has no bans but is trying to develop guidelines to reflect diverse needs and perspectives.
Meanwhile the row over Muslim coverings continues, as a support teacher in a Church of England school in Yorkshire fights suspension for wearing a full veil in lessons.
Reactions to the British Airways policy and its application have been predictably polarised. Some groups, like Christians at Work have called it ìpetty-mindedî and have said companies should treat everyone the same.
Secularists disagree. ìQuite simply, there should be no religious expression [allowed] in public lifeî, wrote John Milton from Wiltshire on the BBCís discussion boards.
However MP Ann Widdecombe told the BBC the situation was ìabsolutely crazyî and that Christians were ìsufferingÖItís we who are being persecuted.î
The UK Christian think tank Ekklesia says that arguments like this are increasing because old ëChristendomí assumptions about a privileged place for Christianity are collapsing. They urge a less heated, more reflective approach.
In his new book, Faith and Politics After Christendom, Ekklesiaís Jonathan Bartley says some Christians are seeking aggressively to reassert their influence and profile ñ while others reject this as incompatible a Gospel focused on community, service, peacemaking and identification with those at the margins of society.
ìWe need a radically different spirit in this conversationî, says Ekklesia co-director Simon Barrow. ìRather than trying to restrict each otherís symbols or seeking to impose our beliefs on others, we should commit to making space for difference in public life.î
The think tank also questions the way some Christians are quickly resorting to language about persecution. ìGiven that Britain is a pretty open society, this kind of talk lacks proportion and is grossly insensitive towards many different minority groups across the world who face prison or death for their convictions,î says Barrow.
In France there has been a ban on overt religious symbols in schools and other public places since 2004. Groups like the National Secular Society favour moves in this direction in the UK, but civil liberties campaigners argue that prescriptions are not a good way of balancing sensitivities with freedom of expression.
[Also on Ekklesia: Faith and Politics After Christendom by Jonathan Bartley; Restoring our faith in free speech Simon Barrow explains why Christians should shun censorship; Rethinking hate speech, blasphemy and free expression; The veils governing our own thinking – bridges not barriers will help relations with Muslims]
Widdecombe may be tempted by Virgin over BA cross row
-14/10/06
Outspoken Catholic and Tory MP Ann Widdecombe has claimed that Christians in Britain are being ìpersecutedî, after an airline worker was suspended for refusing to remove a small cross from her uniform or hide it underneath her jacket.
The incident has caused a huge public row, and the non-nonsense Ms Widdecombe says she will boycott British Airways (BA) if they do not change their policy on religious adornments ñ a move which means she may have to revert to Virgin or some other carrier, observers note.
BA check-in worker Nadia Eweida has said that she plans to take legal action against her employers after they told her that wearing a cross breached company rules, which expressly prohibit adornments.
Ms Eweida, aged 55, refused to remove the cross (roughly the size of a 5p piece) and was sent home on unpaid leave.
She told the Daily Mail newspaper: ìI 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 religiousÖ I stand up for the rights of all citizens.î
Nadia Eweida also said to BBC news that she felt humiliated and discriminated against: ìI am annihilatedÖ Christianity is null and voidî.
BA permits religious apparel like veils, turbans and bangles when their use is a core part of the religion. Crosses are not required items for most Christians, and many Protestants refuse to wear them at all.
A British Airways spokeswoman explained: ìBritish Airways does recognise that uniformed employees may wish to wear jewellery including religious symbols. Our uniform policy states that these items can be worn underneath their uniform. There is no ban.î
She continued: ìThis rule applies for all jewellery and religious symbols on chains and is not specific to the cross.î
Airline British Midland has the same policy, which is also not based on religion but upon the kind of primary image the company wants to present through its own uniforms and symbols.
The BBC has recently had a discussion over newsreader Fiona Bruce’s cross necklace as part of a wider debate about impartiality, religious dress and political symbols. It has no bans but is trying to develop guidelines to reflect diverse needs and perspectives.
Meanwhile the row over Muslim coverings continues, as a support teacher in a Church of England school in Yorkshire fights suspension for wearing a full veil in lessons.
Reactions to the British Airways policy and its application have been predictably polarised. Some groups, like Christians at Work have called it ìpetty-mindedî and have said companies should treat everyone the same.
Secularists disagree. ìQuite simply, there should be no religious expression [allowed] in public lifeî, wrote John Milton from Wiltshire on the BBCís discussion boards.
However MP Ann Widdecombe told the BBC the situation was ìabsolutely crazyî and that Christians were ìsufferingÖItís we who are being persecuted.î
The UK Christian think tank Ekklesia says that arguments like this are increasing because old ëChristendomí assumptions about a privileged place for Christianity are collapsing. They urge a less heated, more reflective approach.
In his new book, Faith and Politics After Christendom, Ekklesiaís Jonathan Bartley says some Christians are seeking aggressively to reassert their influence and profile ñ while others reject this as incompatible a Gospel focused on community, service, peacemaking and identification with those at the margins of society.
ìWe need a radically different spirit in this conversationî, says Ekklesia co-director Simon Barrow. ìRather than trying to restrict each otherís symbols or seeking to impose our beliefs on others, we should commit to making space for difference in public life.î
The think tank also questions the way some Christians are quickly resorting to language about persecution. ìGiven that Britain is a pretty open society, this kind of talk lacks proportion and is grossly insensitive towards many different minority groups across the world who face prison or death for their convictions,î says Barrow.
In France there has been a ban on overt religious symbols in schools and other public places since 2004. Groups like the National Secular Society favour moves in this direction in the UK, but civil liberties campaigners argue that prescriptions are not a good way of balancing sensitivities with freedom of expression.
[Also on Ekklesia: Faith and Politics After Christendom by Jonathan Bartley; Restoring our faith in free speech Simon Barrow explains why Christians should shun censorship; Rethinking hate speech, blasphemy and free expression; The veils governing our own thinking – bridges not barriers will help relations with Muslims]