It is the latest in a spate of recent cases where Christians have claimed to be discriminated against, and courts have subsequently ruled that they have not.

Nadia Eweida, 56, was asked by BA to wear her cross under her clothing, as employees are not permitted to wear jewellery.

She took BA to an employment tribunal claiming it effectively discriminated against Christians since Muslims were allowed to wear hijabs, and Sikhs bangles.

However cross-wearing is entirely voluntary in Christianity, unlike the other items which are part of a core religious identity.

Churches subsequently used financial leverage and threats of boycotts to force British Airways to change its uniform policy and make a special exemption for the cross.

The airline changed its policy to allow crosses on chains over work clothes last year.

Following the news that she had lost her case for discrimination Nadia said: “I’m very disappointed,”.

“The judge has given way for BA to have a victory on imposing their will on all their staff.”

A BA spokesman said: “We are pleased that the tribunal’s decision supports our position.

“Our current policy allows symbols of faith to be worn openly and has been developed with multi-faith groups and our staff.”

The religious thinktank Ekklesia has been examining the claims of religious discrimination being made by Christians, and in 2006 published a book on the subject which looked at some of the pressure groups behind them.

Commenting on the latest case Ekklesia director Jonathan Bartley said: “Like many of the other claims of discrimination being made by Christians, this has turned out to be a false.

“People should be aware that behind many such cases there are groups whose interests are served by stirring up feelings of discrimination of marginalisation amongst Christians. What can appear to be a case of disrimination at first glance is often nothing of the sort. It is often more about Christians attempting to gain special privileges and exemptions.”

The post BA worker was not discriminated against over cross ban appeared first on Ekklesia.

The Church Investors Group (CIG) made up of representatives of the major church denominations – and with combined assets of £12 billion – has launched its new website which sets out for the first time the ethical investment approach of members.

It also includes responses to some recent controversial issues. Amongst them it explains how CIG members have been responding to the call to develop ethical policies related to investment issues connected to Israel/Palestine and investment in arms-related companies.

However, it also sets out how financial leverage has been used to further the specifically religious interests of Christians.

On the new website CIG cites the example of a British Airways members of staff who was not allowed to wear gold cross jewellery in line with BA’s company uniform policy which banned all jewellery.

CIG suggests that it took up the case with British Airways, and persuaded it to make an special exemption.

“BA listened to our concerns and amended its uniform policy in light of conversations with faith investors” the website claims.

“This is an important new resource that will help the Churches to ensure their investment portfolios reflect the moral stance and teachings of the Christian faith,” said Bill Seddon, Church Investors Group Deputy Chair. “It is a way we can share our work with Church members.”

The CIG represents many mainstream Church denominations and organisations in Britain and Ireland. It has 31 members with combined assets of around £12 billion. Each member has its own investment policy but members work together on issues of ‘common concern’.

“The Church Investors website should help people to see how we are responding,” said Bill Seddon. “But it also enables us to have a dialogue with the churches so we can hear about people’s concerns.”

The website also provides details of research projects and trustee training events.

Further information is available on the website www.churchinvestorsgroup.org.uk

The post Churches used financial leverage to change BA uniform policy appeared first on Ekklesia.

Each of these instances is different. Some involve what looks like the politicisation of the ‘presentation’ issue, while the latest seems to be about the definition of equal and fair treatment for different sections of the community in relation to specific company or organisational policy.

As for Sarika Watkins-Singh, aged 14, a pupil at Aberdare Girls’ School, who has refused to remove her kara, which reminds its wearers to do good, her case has been backed by the non-religious civil rights group Liberty. So trying to turn this into a catch-all complaint about ‘religion’ won’t work, either. It has wider ramifications for free expression. There are race equality considerations, too.

With some activists trying to push to ‘keep religion out of the workplace’ altogether, and some religious lobbyists using the power of symbolic representation to reassert themselves at a time when they perceive their influence to be under threat, there is a danger that all sense of perspective and proportion will be lost.

Until recently, with the odd exception, most organisations have come up with pragmatic approaches aimed at keeping everyone on board and included within the bounds of a common (legally sound) policy. That is how it should be, and it is the situation we need to encourage. Less heat, more light for everyone to share.

We should not look at religious clothing and symbols as if they are something entirely separate from the way in which we dress generally, either. We live in a consumer-driven society that encourages us to be distinctive, to be individual, to express ourselves in ways that are different to other people as well as peer-associated.

It seems extraordinary for someone to feel threatened just because one expression of difference (or solidarity) in an intentionally plural society is religious. In monocultural, illiberal or theocratic orders the issue is quite different, of course.

In a fast-changing world, there will always be things that appear strange to others. If it’s not the way people dress, it’ll be the colour of their skin; if it’s not the colour of their skin it will be something else, such as customs, patterns of thought, or language. The question is: how can we learn to cope with that, and even benefit from it?

You cannot and should not ban something just because it makes you feel uncomfortable. Instead of building walls, we should build relationships. We should strive for a situation in which people are prepared to be open towards others, including the variety of their appearance and presentation.

People dress in all sorts of ways that reflect their lifestyle. And it isn’t always straightforward to identify what is, or isn’t, inspired by religion. For example, some people wear a cross for religious reasons, while others wear one simply as jewellery.

I am certainly not opposed to a company or school having a dress or symbol policy that reflects corporate image, equal respect or health and safety concerns. Nevertheless, the idea of introducing a blanket ban on religious symbols in public institutions (such as the Iranian campaigner Azar Majedi has advocated) is only dealing with something by repressing it, rather than by encouraging people to understand each other better, which is the principle a modern, peaceful and fair society should be built upon.

So long as the form of dress is not dangerous, unhealthy, contrary to the needs of the task undertaken, or deliberately designed to menace or threaten someone else — in which case it becomes a public order issue — then we should seek to allow it wherever possible. That should be the default, though there will be exceptions and local circumstances.

Mediation and mutual adaptation should be viewed as the appropriate way forward, rather than prescription and litigation.

I personally feel great sympathy with the view that some Muslim veils can be seen as a tool of oppression. Complete covering is also not part of the tradition, and compulsion is to be deplored. Muslims have argued that, too. But I also respect the views of some women who say that it can be about protecting themselves from the invasive gaze of a male-dominated order.

As a plural society, we’re not going to reach an agreement on whether such veiling is a good or bad thing — but a ban wouldn’t solve anything. It would simply push the issue underground, up the ante for those who wish to squeeze political capital out of it, and cause more bitterness.

Indeed, the debate over religious symbols and dress is often a proxy for more complex political and cultural concerns. In some cases is has been picked up by groups with bigger agendas linked to racism or xenophobia. For individuals, a small fight over a personal item might reflect a sense of injustice about wider issues that are not being addressed.

We should acknowledge that living in a multicultural society has made some individuals feel anxious about their identity. But that anxiety – about self or toward others – will not be resolved by legal measures.

Like Azar Majedi, I believe in the positive virtue of secularity in the public square. But for me that does not mean one in which religious (or indeed anti-religious) expression has to be hidden away — it is one in which we acknowledge that we have to share public space and find ways of communicating with one another across our differences.

(c) Simon Barrow is co-director of Ekklesia. His blog is at http://faithinsociety.blogspot.com

Part of this article was originally written for Business Spotlight magazine and published in the Spring 2007 issue.

The post Should religious dress and symbols be banned at work? appeared first on Ekklesia.