[From a BBC article regarding a woman who was asked to conceal her necklace in order to comply with British Airway's dress code].
Devout Christian and MP, Ann Widdecombe, went further and said the situation was "absolutely crazy" and that Christians were "suffering".
"It's we who are being persecuted," she said.
38 comments
I wouldn't have written the dress code that way, but this persecution hysteria is just absurd. There's nothing unusual, injurious, or malicious about having people keep jewelry under a uniform. If you had tattoos or piercing holes that couldn't be hidden, they'd probably have never even hired you in the first place. This is for the exact same reason you're supposed to put the jewelry under the uniform: you're representing the company!
Good God...being requested to tuck a necklace into your blouse now fits the definition of being "persecuted?" I would give that, at most, "mildly inconvienced," but only in the sense that you had to waste 2 seconds of your life complying with the request.
Gosh, I can't think of anytime in history that a religious group was "persecuted" more than that! WOW! Isn't it outrageous that such indignities and affronts to the human spirit can be tolerated and ENCOURAGED in the modern world? What have we become? Are we men, or have we become monsters! And for god's sake, won't somebody please think of the children!
Yes. It's so incredibly hard when you're the majority, isn't it?
Well, if they're allowing Sikh employees to wear turbans , banning Ms Eweida's neckless seems patently unfair to me.
I read (in the article the link 'BBC' took me to) were Ann Widdecombe said xtains were "being persecuted but nothing about absolutely crazy or suffering. I did read where Northern Ireland Secretary Peter Hain said that British Airways were "loopy" and, "I don't understand it. I don't think anybody understands it and that's my view." Which begs the question .. Who the hell is Peter Hain and what does the Secretary of N. Ireland have to do with this issue? Looks like a wandering quote someone roped in and is possibly non sequitur.should stay in churches where they belong so that the believers can worship their idols out of my view. I never had issue with crosses alongside roads showing where some loved one died (and all other symbols), but now I do .. and it's because the xtains keep pushing their way into the government and the public's life where they have no business forcing their way into either. Go to your church, hang with your people, sing your songs, live your life .. perfectly okay with me. But force your beliefs onto me, undermine the Constitution by expecting it to reflect your religious views claiming it's what we all want and yes, I take issue. I now DO take offense to all the imagery, and rhetoric, and in-my-face tactics of any belief. I have to wonder about the strength of people's belief who think their identity and faith rests on and resides in, a cross necklace. And apparently faith can't work if the cross is obscured by cloth. This is the same as thinking you will have no more religion if all the bibbles are burned, or out of view under a coat. Just what are they putting their faith in? And they want me to jump aboard their bandwagon ... they really do need to buy a clue, Pat.
This is yet another ploy to bring xtains into the limelight least we all forget they're there.
As for veils, etc. .. if you're coming into my country, I want to see your face. If my little bottle of hand sanitizer scares plane officials then certainly a wrapped turban should so yes, make them remove those. They can stow them with the crosses and petroleum jelly ...
I think that having to tuck in a necklace is a silly aspect to a dress code; but if it's on the books, and it is about jewelry or all religious iconography as opposed to "crosses only," then this is NOT persecution, and the woman should abide by the rules of her job.
Would be a stupid statement, but as every other religion can apparently wear 'symbols' (turban, burka, etc), she's got a point.
I think it's a matter of Jewlery versus headgear at that point, religious connotations aside.
It's a long way from persecution, but the woman has a point. What could be more innocuous than a cross on a necklace, or a voodoo charm, for that matter?
So, if they´re not allowed to wear a piercing, you applaud, if it´s a religious element, which she can wear anywhere outside the plain, just during her duty, is it persecution?, please, don´t use double standards. It doesn´t fit you.
Bwa ha ha ha!! Oh, geez, poor, poor bitch!! I point and laugh at you while forcing you to hide your necklace!
When you're on the clock you represent your employer, not yourself, and so you dress the way the company wants you to. If you're unfairly held to a different standard than other employees, say if your particular religious symbol is banned but others aren't, that's a different issue.
The most sensible comment came from the catholic journalist at the end of that article who said:
This is the one thing that Christian fundamentalists never seem to understand, but which those I would call real Christians try to live by.
If as Maronan said last January is true and all chains are prohibited, then what would actually be discrimination would be allowing her to continue wearing it. The comparisons with other religious symbols isn't really productive because, unlike for instance a Sikh's turban, Christianity doesn't *mandate* the wearing of a cross.
This woman, Ann Widdecombe, along with a Catholic priest took on Stephen Fry and Christopher Hitchens in a debate. And lost bad. "Is religion good for the world?" was the base debate question, votes were taken before and after the debate. Fry and Hitchens position of NO had signifigant gains at the end.
Now, you can say she wasn't too bright to take on Fry and Hitchens but that's because we know they're more informed then most. She, like most her ilk, think the atrocities of Catholism are in the past and should be forgotten (wiped from the history books in fact)or are surpassed by the good religion has done. She and the priest faced two experts in the history of most cultures and religions.
She is feisty, I'll say that. I expect she can hold her own in parliment on important policies and that parliment shoves nonsense like this main post aside in quick order.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
