E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Yui Mok/PA via AP
British Airways employee Nadia Eweida celebrates winning her religious rights case outside her lawyer's office in London Tuesday.
A Christian airline worker in England who was sent home for wearing a small silver cross at work has won a lawsuit in which she alleged her right to freedom of religion had been violated.
In a judgment Tuesday, the European Court of Human Rights ordered that the United Kingdom should pay Nadia Eweida, who works for British Airways, about $2,675 in damages and $40,000 in costs.
However another Christian worker, Shirley Chaplin, lost her case that she should be allowed to wear a crucifix while working as a nurse in a hospital geriatric ward in Devon, England.
The court accepted hospital managers’ arguments that the cross “could cause injury if a patient pulled on it or if, for example, it came into contact with an open wound,” the court said in a statement.
Patients’ health and safety was “inherently of much greater importance” than Chaplin’s right to wear a cross, the court said.
The judgment also dealt with two other separate claims in which practicing Christians from the U.K. complained they had been fired for refusing to carry out duties that they considered would condone homosexuality.
Lillian Ladele, a registrar of births, deaths and marriages, and Gary McFarlane, who worked for the marriage guidance charity Relate, both lost their claims with the court noting that in both cases “the employer was pursuing a policy of non-discrimination” and that discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation was against the European Convention on Human Rights.
The decisions are not final as they can be appealed to the court’s “Grand Chamber.”
British premier 'delighted'
Eweida’s victory was welcomed by U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron, who said on Twitter that he was “delighted that principle of wearing religious symbols at work has been upheld – ppl shouldn't suffer discrimination due to religious beliefs.”
Eweida said when she heard the verdict she was “very selfish initially” because “I was jumping for joy and saying ‘thank you Jesus,’” according to the U.K.’s ITV News.
“It's a vindication that Christians have a right to express their faith on par with other colleagues at work visibly and not be ashamed of their faith,” she said.
“I'm disappointed on behalf of the other three applicants but I fully support them in their asking for a referral for their cases to be heard in the Grand Chamber, and I wish them every success in the future to win,” she added.
In its statement, the court said Eweida was sent home without pay in 2006 after she decided to start wearing a cross on a chain on top of her uniform in defiance of British Airway's then policy to allow no visible jewelry. She returned to work in 2007 after BA changed its rules to allow religious and charity symbols.
The court said freedom of religion was “an essential part of the identity of believers and one of the foundations of pluralistic, democratic societies.”
However it added that “where an individual’s religious observance impinges on the rights of others, some restrictions can be made.”
'Common sense'
Shami Chakrabarti, director of U.K. human rights group Liberty, said in an emailed statement that the judgment was “an excellent result for equal treatment, religious freedom and common sense.”
"Nadia Eweida wasn't hurting anyone and was perfectly capable of doing her job whilst wearing a small cross,” she said. "She had just as much a right to express her faith as a Sikh man in a turban or a Muslim woman with a headscarf.”
"However the Court was also right to uphold judgments in other cases that employers can expect staff not to discriminate in the discharge of duties at work,” she added.
On the issue of wearing crosses at work, Keith Porteous Wood, executive director of the U.K.’s National Secular Society, said in a statement that Eweida had won “a very limited victory which simply means that if employers want to prevent an employee wearing religious symbol for corporate image purposes, they must prove that their image is negatively affected by such manifestations of belief.”
“In the case of Chaplin we are pleased that the court has acknowledged that employers are better placed than the court to decide if jewellery is a health and safety risk and did not support the idea of blanket permission to wear religious symbols in the workplace,” he added.
Porteous Wood said if Ladele and McFarlane had won this would have “driven a coach and horses through the equality laws.”
“The rights of gay people to fair and equal treatment would have been kicked back by decades,” he added.
British Christians who want to wear a cross at work have won a victory at the highest court in Europe. They can wear them, the European Court of Human Rights ruled when it sided with Nadia Eweida, a British Airways employee who was banned by the airline wearing a cross to work. ITV's Penny Marshall reports.
Leave a Comment:
I think the courts got all 4 of these cases correct.
As long as EVERYBODY else has the same rights... I agree!
Jolly Good Show!!!!
I did too UNTIL I read taht Ms Eweida was orginally sent home when she decided to wear her cross outside her uniform in defiance of her employers rule of "No visible jewlery", that rule is diffent than a rule saying no religious jewelry.
I am with you on this Holly. I agreed with all the rulings until I read that part that she did this in protest. NO ONE was allowed to wear visible jewelry. They weren't discriminating against her because of religion but because she was breaking the rules that EVERYONE had to follow.
I actually think that the court got this wrong. If a job requires you to wear a uniform and the uniform rules say no visible jewelry is permitted then that is the right of the employer. They are trying to present a certain image to their customers and that image extends to the appearance of their employees. The restriction that BA had was not against religious jewelry, it was against any visible jewelry. This makes non-discriminatory and their right to have and enforce this rule should have been upheld.
Holly and Middle, did you also read that British Airways changed their policy to allow the wearing of religious imagery and jewelry, and that's when she returned to work?
Sure did, whats your point?
If the uniform code said no head coverings, would a Muslim woman be allowed to wear a head scarf, as required by her religion? Probably. So why not allow this woman to wear her cross, as long as it wasn't hurting anyone.
Christians aren't required to wear crosses. Not really the same argument.
I'm all about being fair, if one can all can, if can't no one can. In this case no one was allowed to wear jewelry and Nadia decided to be defiant of her works rules. If I break a rule at work, regardless of "it not hurting anyone", then i a reprimanded accordingly.
Yes !! And a Muslim can wear a picture of Mohammed around his or her neck( I know there are no pictures of Mohammed but if there are! ).And a Jew can wear a star of David. And a Buddhists one of their symbols.This is so obvious and freedom of expression.Now if someone tries to force their religion down the throats of others..Or asking for special exemptions..that´s another story!!
That's exactly what this was about, making special exceptions. NO ONE was allowed to wear VISIBLE jewelry. Nadia decided that she should be allowed exception because her jewelry depicted a religious symbol.
Wear a horseshoe or a rabbit's foot or any other charm or superstitious piece of jewelry as long as it doesn't interfere with the job. Fine.
For some reason, god belief mixed with airplanes makes me nervous!
The fact that you apparently don't know why God belief mixed with airplanes makes you nervous should make you nervous.
In the end, Muslim women may wear their burkhas also. Isn't that correct?
In the end, nothing matters, Earthgirl.
Not if she is a flight attendant for British Airways. WTF?
earthgirl, you just reminded me of my vacation in Dubai. I went up the world's tallest building, and there on the observation deck was an Arab guy taking a photograph of his wife posing in front of the beautiful view - - - IN A BURQA! I wanted to ask him, "What's the point?"
"I'm going to take the picture now, are you smiling?"
Thank goodness she was able to continue wearing it. What's disturbing is that she was punished in the first place. It's come to this now in Europe?
Read what the original rule was......
I still feel there was an agenda here over the cross.
Everyone wants religious freedom until it's one you disagree with. If a Satan worshiper came to work with a pentagram shaved on his head, you'd definitely argue that it violates the hair cut policy. And you'd be right.
Being Christian might lead you to cheer for this woman's win, but she still broke a policy that was applied fairly to everyone.
Or, it's just one more step to wiping out Christianity in Europe. Europe has been Christian for centuries and now because they've allowed so many others from the middle east and Africa in (Muslims) in the name of 'multiculturalism" it is now 'unfair' to display anything having to do with Christianity in the name of said multiculturalism. Thus, Islam is taking Europe by mass immigration and having large families there to Europe's small ones, without having to fire a shot, as opposed to Africa, which they are taking by brute force. They are not stupid people.
Compare this situation to Japan where 1%-2% of the population are Christian but a much larger percentage of women wear a cross as a "standard" piece of jewelry.
Good for Europe! If the Muslims can wear all their religious I want to say crap, but I will go with garb, then they should suck it up if it "offends" them.
Women wearing those black cover the entire body suits offend me too.
Especially when I fly. It is just down right creepy.
Women in this day and age covering up like it's 2000 years ago. But then for those people time has stood still. There will be no advancement in the human gene pool for them.
Religion is the worst of what is wrong with the human population. Always has been.
Steven, Other than all those Catholic and Protestant (and doubtless other religious instituted) hospitals, countless charities that feed the hungry, clothe the poor, and console the downtrodden, help the helpless and give hope to the hopeless, you might have a point there. The fact is that while religion in and of itself is a poor substitute for a personal relationship with the true and living God, it still inspires millions of people to do good in a world increasingly drowning in self centeredness and greed. I disagree with your thinking that religion represents the worst in mankind. I think Atheism such as motivated Mao and Stalin to their evil deeds is a much worse influence. At best Atheism inspires practical worship of self and produces self centeredness, and and worst inspires acceptance of evil run amok as the world experienced with the purges and genocide of Stalin and Mao,the killing fields of Pol Pot, etc.
If you want to be fair... shall we now begin to name all the evil deeds perpetrated by the Catholic Church? Crusades? Witch trials? Spanish Inquisition? Burning of heretics? Destruction of libraries? Misogyny?
Have you BEEN to the vatican? Do you see the hoarding of wealth that could be used to feed the world?
Let's not confuse the inherent goodness of humans with the establishment of faith. If the only reason why you're doing good is for an eternal reward or fear of punishment.... you're not good at all.
I don't mind facing up to any and all evil done in the name of religio, including Christianity. As I said, religion is a poor substitute for a real relationship with God (with recognition that many think this is foolishness), and all of us are deeply flawed. Religious intitutioons are all also deeply flawed, but even with the flaws so much good is done through them. If we are to compare overall intent, then I say people inspired by God (not religion so much) are better motivated to do good than people motivated by elevation of self, or even of humanity as a cause. But such comparisons are inevitably subjective and a source of endless arguments. Perhaps we can agree that trashing religion or lack of religion merely reduces us all to a a fight over who's right, and we're better off supporting each other and living out loving our neighbors as ourselves.
And also, speaking for myself and countless others with a stong faith in God, we do what we do out of love for God, and a desire to please him and obey his call to love one anothr, not out of fear or desire for reward. It is God's love for us and his sacrifices on our behalf that motivate us. Believe that or not, but that's the heart of Christianity.
You are both right. But one critical fact is that if charity is left to a secular world, then charity will cease to exist.
Utter nonsense and bigotry. What a nasty assumption that people who don't rely on a deity are selfish and apathetic to either their neighbors or humanity as a whole! You can sit there high on your horse of righteousness all day and point at the unbelievers of the world - but until you stop judging others based on your own sense of morality, you'll remain blind to the goodness that goes on around from a-theistic people.
No, I do not believe that people who do not rely on a deity are any more selfish or apathetic than any people that do rely on a deity. I have associated with many from both groups, and have met as many kind atheists as I have met hypocritical 'believer's'.
But my point is, if society became completely secular, then what is to stop the belief that welfare/charity is a total waste, and that every single person is just going to have to go to work, or else?
Answer: the inherent goodness and sense of morality built into humans.
My question for you is... if it were proven somehow that there was no "god". Would you suddenly stop doing charitable things for your neighbor because it was a "waste"?
I know by now that I will never stop doing charitable things, which may make the inherent goodness argument true. Yet not completely true. I know people whom, if they ceased to believe in "god", they would stop doing anything charitable - I have to work with one.
I stand by my statement that people inspired by God are better motivated to do good than otherwise. This is not to say that non believing people are not generous too. I would say that any inherent goodness and morality you speak of is built into us by God. My post was a response to your assertions of evil perpetrated by the Catholic Church. True, evil has been perpetrated by the Catholic, and other, religion, but let's not throw the baby out with the bath water. Lots of Catholics do immeasurable good inspired primarily or completely by their faith, inspired by God himself. I don't think I have judged anyone, although perhaps my words do judge Stalin and Mao. Truth is, we're all mixed bags. I know and hate the bad parts of myself, but am thankful to God that he loves me and has made provision through Christ to redeem me to himself. That's grace, and that is my only hope of reconciliation to God. And my gratefulness is a big source of motivation to do good to the extent I do.
As an atheist, it kills me to say this but Jogrinder is correct.
Studies have shown that the religious tend to give more money to charity (although, the definition of 'charity' might be an issue. If a christian gives money to the catholic church, is that charity?).
That isn't to say that individual atheists are not charitable. I have my own charities that I like (go Child's Play), but the numbers are the numbers.
And yet I find studies that prove the opposite:
From the Huffington Post:
A quarter of respondents in a new national study said they tithed 10 percent of their income to charity. But when their donations were checked against income figures, only 3 percent of the group gave more than 5 percent to charity.
The people most likely to misreport high levels of giving were those who said faith was very important to them and those who attend services more than weekly, according to a report by University of Notre Dame sociologists Christian Smith and Heather Price presented at the recent Association for the Sociology of Religion meeting in Denver.
Jesus Akbaaaaarrrrr!
I'm always happy to see people of faith standing up for their rights! One victory is the UK doesn't mean this social war is over however!! Given the outcome of the nurse who lost her case, the signal is that those in authority who resist with the flimsiest oppositions, will still voice their ignorances in times to come!!
It is always a chuckle when religious people -- whose beliefs are founded on quicksand rationalization -- accuse people who find them intellectually compromised of being "ignorant". Oh, there's ignorance afoot, alright. Perhaps the shoe's fitment is incorrectly stated?
The decision about the nurse sounds reasonable to me, assuming other people there can't wear similar non-religious jewelry. Restrictions on jewelry, clothing, hair, etc, in workplaces where such things can cause problems have a long history, and make a lot of sense.
"social war"? lol. I guess the "war on christmas" is over, so we have to have another war? :)
Patients’ health and safety was “inherently of much greater importance” than Chaplin’s right to wear a cross, the court said.
Of course! Nobody really wants to go to Heaven; they would rather return home to their dog than pass on to a "home" with God. They want to leave the hospital alive!
Now, if they can just get this message across to the Hassidic Jews and the intolerant Muslims of the world that they are not the only people who wear certain garb indicative of their religious convictions.
The reason the hospital gave for her not wearing a cross is a little flimsy, esp when you consider how long nuns wore them in hospitals, but I do respect it there. What I find more disturbing is the crusade England has taken up against Christianity, which they probably don't go after Muslims with. If, they say it is to be fair to all because they have allowed so many Muslims in now, that's just scary. England sure has become some weak, lost 'Empire'.
Good ruling. As long as she isnt forcing it on anyone else, its no ones business what religious symbol she wears.
I do think she should have to wear it underneath her uniform though. I dont think anyone should be allowed to advertise their belief system at work, or in public. Because that is forcing it on others. But at the same time, they should not be denied being allowed to wear it at all.
She wasn't denied being able to wear it. She was more than welcome to wear it as long as it was not visible. Nadia choose to protest and break her employers rules by making the jewelry visible.
What about the Atheists what do they get to wear ? Oh right their brains !
on their sleeves
Gee, I'm sure the cross, Jesus, and God will surely save this woman if her airliner hits the ground at 500 MPH. Will people EVER realize that religion is in the same category as myth, superstition, fairy tales, and astrology? It's all just a bunch of man-made crap with no basis in science, proof, or reality.
I think most people do by now Michael. I believe that even a large percentage of professed "believers" are, in fact, atheists, but remain in the closet.
Leroy, I don't give much credibility to atheists, either. How anyone can be sure there is, or is not, a creator, or higher power, or whatever you want to call it? Either stand seems arrogant to me. I'm agnostic. I don't know, and neither do you. I cannot know, and neither can you.
I think you misunderstand the term "atheist" All it means is "not a theist," that is, without a particular belief in a particular god. It is not a positive assertion that there is not or cannot be a god. Agnostics are, in fact, atheists. "Atheist" should not even be a word really. We don't call people who don't drive a car "adrivers," we don't call them anything, you don't describe a person by what they are not, except when it comes to people who don't believe there are supernatural beings. I would call them sane.
So you don't listen to science when Julian Huxley states that the odds against the evolution of a horse are 10 (to the 300,000th power)? Or in 1967 when mathematicians/biologists met to consider whether random mutations and natural selection could qualify as the mechanism for evolutionary change and all the mathematicians said "no". Or Dr. Murray Eden of M.I.T. stating "without some constraint on the notion of random variation, in either the properties of the organism or the sequence of the DNA, there is no particular reason to expect that we could have gotten any kind of viable form other than nonsense."
Yes, science contains the answer to everything right? Those above would appeal that it doesn't know everything and never will.
"Thus, creationists are shamefully abusing this quote when they use it to claim that it refers to the odds with natural selection--that is claiming the exact opposite of what Huxley wrote. Instead, Huxley continues after this calculation to show how "thanks to the workings of natural selection and the properties of living substance which make natural selection inevitable" (p. 46) "rare and abnormal events" become "common and normal" (p. 47) and "all objections to a selectionist explanation of evolution that are based on the improbability of its results fall to the ground" (p. 48)."
The true skeptic is represented by the agnostic. And by the way, 17 different kinds of atheism have been defined. For example, a beleif in a higher power that is not a god of a religion? Or no beleif in any higher power whatsoever?
I think our literature and belief systems tend to over-simplify God in order to dumb Him down to our ability to perceive. If He is the greatest mind in the universe, He must be incredibly logical - essentially the mind of the universe itself. Perhaps the end product of all past and future evolution, so intelligent that He (or It) was able to completely remove Himself from cause and effect, influencing time itself and existing before anything even came to be. He is not a man with a white beard and lightning bolts.
I think life on Earth is a type of a college course, or at least a very serious video game. It's hard not to view death as a tragedy while we're in the Matrix that is our reality. I'm not making light of death and plane crashes, but I view dying a bit like taking the red pill. It's not something you should rush to do, and getting flushed out of life isn't easy and often involves intense pain and fear. We don't even know for sure where we're going or what the place will look like once we get there. The people that we leave behind when we die wallow in heartbreak for years to come, sometimes for the rest of their lives if the death of a loved one was completely unexpected. But from God's perspective, it's nothing.
People point to bad things happening to good people as evidence for the non-existence of God. The fact is that "Good" and "Evil" are permitted to mix in this world. Without that fact and the tragedies that result, we wouldn't have a clue as to how wonderful the next world will be once everyone is filtered into the places they belong based on their allegiances and/or philosophies.
Maybe Heaven and Hell aren't as simple as what we learned when we were children. Maybe Hell is the place where evil is accepted as the winning philosophy of life (every man for himself), and those people who live there have essentially declared their allegiances to those who have rebelled against order. Evil results in chaos and despair and victimization of the weak. Heaven is merely the place for those who have declared their allegience to the Master of the Universe, otherwise known as God. Those who live there have embraced good as their code of existence, and good works best when evil is completely absent. Good results in order and happiness, and the weak are raised up.
Michael1601, fair enough, but why don't you now verbalize exactly how it affects YOU if someone decides to wear something they chose to believe in?
And fwiw this doesn't only hold true on religion. Does it impact you in any way? Does it make YOUR life worth less because she chooses to live her life according to a set of morals she believes come from a greater being instead of just from other mere mortals?
People should spend less time worrying about what someone else believes in and more time worrying about themselves.
And like I said this can be applied to a multitude of topics, e.g. does someone's desire for a same-sex marriage impact yours negatively?
"Heaven is merely the place for those who have declared their allegience to the Master of the Universe,.."
He-Man? :)
Please wear your torture devise symbols and other mythical symbols big and proud so I know who to stay far away from, thank you.
I'm all for people being allowed to where their crosses. It helps to identify the stupid.
Yes, Chris, obviously you are brilliant (rolling eyes). I think you meant "wear" their crosses. It's always amusing when people spell things incorrectly while they make blanket statements about large groups of people being "stupid" because they don't share your non-beliefs.
Religion.....the number one special interest group.
These types of court cases will be coming to U.S. shores. Put it in stone.
we've already had plenty of cases about religious freedom here.
Yuck, stupid religious people. I think the airline should make part of her job to hand out contraceptives... hehe.
I love it. Everyone should have the same rights.
However I wonder where the British law came from. The idea of separation of church and state is an American concept. If the British are just make these laws for current social whims, that is not really good.
The concept of separation of church and state came from philosopher John Locke from the Enlightenment period of time (16-1700s). Hardly a social whim!
Thank you for that info. But my question is, did the British originally adopt the idea of separation of church and state because they edified Locke's ideas in the same way that the American revolutionaries did?
That is, do the British have some precedent about decisions regarding clothing and displays? If not, then this could be applied to anything, not just religious wear. Of course, some policy is necessary in employment situations for safety.
fgh-1038628
How long the British have embraced the idea of separation of Church and State is a very complex question in Britain, after all some could argue that they embraced it with King Henry the 8th’s break from the Roman Catholic Church, others could point out that England doesn’t have a true separation as the current head of state (Queen Elizabeth the 2nd) is also the head of The Church of England, added to this is the fact that the higher branch of the legislator (the House of Lords which is equitant to the American Senate) has Bishops from the Church of England serving in it (one of the biggest differences between the American Senate and the British House of Lords is the House of Lords is appointed rather than elected.) All in all though many in Britain hold the view that religion is a private affair and should play as small as part as possible in British public/political life.
Which given this case leads me to simply ask the question why she thought it was so important that she advertise her faith to everybody in the first place, after all the rule was no visible jewellery (which meant she could have worn it under her uniform) but no, she felt it was important that others saw the logo of the brand of faith she supports.
Los, as usual, is ignoring the important facts and blowing smokes. Do you know that
Christians and Jews in Egypt were forced to identify their religious identity so they can be publicly harassed. This started hundreds of years ago and continued until the nineteenth century. Today, religion is spelled out on the Egyptian ID card, and many students who are taking Oral Exams are asked what is their religion. Islamist thugs will try to identify Christians and beat them up in today's Egypt.
Many Christians have a Cross tattoo on their arm so they will not be misidentified as Muslims and forced to convert.
So can the liberals in the UK respect the reason why a Coptic woman, after suffering for being identified as a Christian in Egypt, shows her pride of being a Christian in a Country that used to be Christian.
BTW did you read that quote in the article
or that one
Coptic Christian
As usual trying to side-line the issue this article is about the UK not Egypt so your entire first paragraph has nothing to do with this. Furthermore I did read those quotes and if you notice I did not give my opinion other than to say I don’t see why it was such a big deal for her in the first place to advertise the brand of faith she buys into. It’s not like she was being prevented from being a Christian just because she was not allowed to have her brands logo on display at work. In short this is just people making a mountain out of a mole hill, as of far greater relevance would be those other Christians this article mentioned who either were refused because of health and safety, or because they would have been discriminating against gays.
Los, if you adhere to whatever liberal retentions you claim, one of your most important rules is to respect the cultural and ethnic backgrounds of everyone you welcomed to your land. If this rule applies to every non Christian who immigrated to the UK why not apply to a Christian woman?
Umm that rule does apply to Christians too, after all the court ruled in her favour. The question is why she had to take the whole issue to court in the first place over what was essentially a fashion disagreement. After all no one at work was stopping her from practicing her faith, it says nowhere in the bible that you have to where a crucifix to be a Christian, and she was not being discriminated against by her bosses because the rule was for all jewellery not just religious stuff. So again why bother? What was so important that she had to wear an advertising logo at work where people could see it? It sounds like the aggressive nit-picking conservatives accuse Muslims of doing here in the UK when they ask for companies to provide Hala meat and so forth
Los, for her it is not only "a fashion disagreement", the cross for many Christians, especially those living in non-Christian countries is not just a fashion; Did you read what I just posted above?
For many Christians the Cross is not just a piece of jewelry.
Coptic
How many times? This is not about Egypt, she was not living in Egypt, she’s living in a Christian country, where again she was not being discriminated against, she was not being supressed nor was she in any meaningful way not being allowed to practice her faith. Hell had she asked I have no doubt she would have been allowed to wear her logo underneath her uniform and thus been in complete compliance with the companies’ rules. Pretty much this whole case is someone using religion to get their own way, which considering she’s a Christian and not Muslim I notice you think she was completely in the right to do so. Personally I don’t think she was as she could have handled this very simply by tucking the thing under her uniform where it couldn’t be seen, no big deal. But I’m guessing that wasn’t good enough for her and she wanted to advertise, which at the end of the day all wearing a cross really is, it’s advertising.
Los, can't you at least try to understand why a Christian woman does not accept hiding her little Cross, while others are allowed total freedom to display their religious beliefs. You are even ignoring what your prime minister have said and obviously you don't care about what other devout Christians will say. So go ahead spread your muddled messages that are always critical of Western Civilization and Judea-Christian teachings while you are very generous and tolerant of all other Civilizations and religions.
Coptic Christian
For a start I’d say that criticising me for not agreeing with my Prime Minister when you’re on here all the time bitching and disagreeing with Obama is a bit two faced. Next I’m perfectly willing to accept that to this woman the little piece of metal she wore on her neck had more significance and meaning then I put in to it. However I think she was completely wrong to take this issue to court, as she was in no way being required to “hide” her faith. She was just being asked not to wear any jewellery, which is a perfectly reasonable request for a company to make. It was she who turned this into a religious issue, and decided that the UK court’s decision wasn’t good enough (as they sided with BA) for her. In all I don’t think her motives were any more noble then wanting a cash pay-out. Especially considering BA changed their policy a few years before this decision in the EU courts was made.
Los, I brought up the position of the prime minister to respond to your ridiculous claim
Yes it is not about Egypt it is about the West in general and Europe in particular which are losing the cultural battle and replacing Christianity with the new ABC "Anything But Christianity"
You are one of those who are spending all their energy promoting this anti-Christian agenda, so let's drop that subject so you can go back to criticizing France and the US as you have already done.
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/14/16506741-why-france-is-taking-on-mali-extremists?threadId=3646667&commentId=73395577#c73395577
What cultural battle? The only cultural battle is the one in the minds of conservatives like you and Anders Breivik. Secular liberals in the west are not trying to replace Christianity, we are trying not to let the current breed of conservative Christians (which is very poor due to their insistence of following biblical literalism) dictate our social and political lives.
Ps thanks for pointing out my opinions on another thread, I particularly like the way you have tried to frame it as criticism of the US and France when I in reality said nothing about France on that post and criticised this blatantly (and false) nationalistic belief that Americans have that they have the “greatest military” in the world.
So you you don't care about the new breed of radical Muslims in Europe, nor the anarchists who are wrecking havoc with many European countries because you are busy trying
If that's what worries you, you can keep on ignoring the reality and fighting those nasty windmills..
Coptic Christian
You know what Coptic; I don’t think we are going to see eye to eye on this. As your “reality” of a joint Muslim-Liberal/Atheist plot to wipe out Christianity in the west to pave way for an insidious Muslim takeover of the world I think is nothing more than a self-aggrandising paranoid delusion, very much akin to the insidious communist takeover fears of the 1950s and McCarthyism.
However what I see in the west is Christians who are becoming increasing vocal in their literal interpretation of the bible who want to used that as justification to deny the rights of groups they deem to be undesirable, I see them wanting to take society back to some mythical golden age when Christianity played a bigger part in everyone’s lives , and issues like racism, sexism and discrimination were glossed over or just ignored.
I agree we will never going to see eye to eye on this, simply because you are busy trashing the West, the United States, and Christianity, and you have never said a word of condemnation of what Muslim terrorists are doing. The reason I referred to you other comments on Mali, is that everything you posted there was an attack on the West, you did not say a single word of criticism of what the Jehadists are doing there. Here, you have harsh words of criticism of this Coptic woman, did you say anything about the destruction of the world heritage in Timbuktu by the Al Qaeda, if you have said something please point it to me because I surely missed it.
The bottom line is do you consider a woman fight to display a little cross is more threatening to Western civilization than what the radical Muslims have been doing since the 1990's
Coptic Christian
Actually I never trashed Muslims because everyone else was trashing Muslims on that post, one extra voice would have been pointless. Personally it’s nice to see the French involved in this as it’ll give the west more (and a much different) experience in dealing with counter insurgency. I will however criticise the west as that is covered under my right of free speech (you do support that don’t you?) and in particular I will voice my opinions especially when confronted with this patriotic belief that many Americans have in thinking their military is the best in the world, and that a bunch of assault rifle waving yahoos can take on the US military.
Oh and as for this article I never said I think she’s a threat to western civilisation (although nice way to try and twist what I said) I said that in my opinion she was wrong to take this issue to work and that in fact her religious freedom was not being restricted in anyway just because she was asked not to have any visible jewellery.
I have noticed that you seem insistent on drawing a line in the sand between us here, you are basically saying that because I’m not with you I must be with the Muslims which is exactly the same attitude a fanatic takes, so Coptic are you a right-wing fanatic?
PS radical Islam has been active in Europe since atleast the 1980s by many accounts, just to let you know
Los,
As usual you have a nicely worded post, but there are some issues that need to addressed. So I will focus on some of your statements
Actually I never trashed Muslims because everyone else was trashing Muslims on that post, one extra voice would have been pointless.
I did not ask you to trash Muslims, I asked you to speak out against the wrongs committed in the name of Islam, something you have never done. As for the excuse that you will be just one extra voice, in fact a year or two ago there were more people attacking Christianity and the West than Islam even if the article they are discussing was about a terrorist act committed in the name of Islam. Are you saying that at that time you were just one extra pointless voice.
I will voice my opinions especially when confronted with this patriotic belief that many Americans have in thinking their military is the best in the world, and that a bunch of assault rifle waving yahoos can take on the US military.
We are used to the fact that the United States has always been criticized by foreigners who will jump on the first opportunity to immigrate to the States, sadly Obama’s presidency may turn the United States to another Greece, and the lands of opportunity will be turned into yet another European style country.
Oh and as for this article I never said I think she’s a threat to western civilisation (although nice way to try and twist what I said) I said that in my opinion she was wrong to take this issue to work and that in fact her religious freedom was not being restricted in anyway just because she was asked not to have any visible jewellery.
Well you invested more time attacking this woman than you have ever done discussing the radical Muslim’s threat to Europe, why?
I have noticed that you seem insistent on drawing a line in the sand between us here, you are basically saying that because I’m not with you I must be with the Muslims which is exactly the same attitude a fanatic takes, so Coptic are you a right-wing fanatic?
No I am not a right-wing fanatic, I and many Christians who left Islamic countries are more sensitive to the Islamist’s threat because they know what will be coming to the West. This is the same when people who escaped communist countries were warning against communism, while many liberals in the West were dreaming about the day their countries will become communist.
PS radical Islam has been active in Europe since atleast the 1980s by many accounts, just to let you know
I chose the 1990, because that when the Jihadist have started their major attack on the West. Islamic propaganda was limited to Saudi Arabia until 1960’s the turning point was when Saudi Arabia became filthy rich and started spreading their backward way of life everywhere, then the defeat of Egypt in the1967 war demolished the nationalist camp, then Sadat released MB from jails and Khomeini took control of Iran. All of these factors came together by the early 1980’s but I wanted to focus on the big events of the 1990’s and beyond
Coptic Christian
Ok Coptic since you wish to bring this up I will address the points you wanted.
For s start why would I decry the wrongs of Islam when it would in effect add nothing new to the discussion, hell people like yourself and Adam44 seem to go out of you way to inform the rest of us of the evils of Islam. So how is me adding my voice to this of any benefit? All I can see is that by me decrying Islamic terrorists as you ask I’m just joining your side which I don’t want to do because I disagree with the solutions and reasons put forward by you guys. For example I certainly disagree with your statement on this article that the west should embrace more of its Judo-Christian heritage because the way I have heard that argument used before is that Christianity should play a bigger part in political and legal life which I disagree with.
Furthermore you say that on an article one or two years ago I was with the majority blasting Christianity. Well I’d say can you provide more info then that because I have commented on plenty of articles and really cannot remember them all, I’d also say that if this really was the case then yes I was just another “extra pointless voice” but I’d also say that chances are I joined in because the Christians were coming out with things I completely disagree with.
I’m going to ignore the part about “the united states being used to being criticised by foreigners” because that not really relevant here. I will say is that yes I criticised the US on that article but I am well within my rights to because I do not believe nor have they proven evidence to show that they are the greatest military on earth.
As for accusing me of attacking this woman, which I didn’t do, I just said I don’t think she should have taken this issue to court as her freedom of worship was not being infringed upon and she could just have easily resolved this out of court. I’ll also say that the so called “Muslim threat to Europe” as you call it I think is completely overblown, I think those who advocate it often have a different agenda either to increase the numbers or power of Christians (remember you are the one saying we should go back to our Judo-Christian roots) as nothing brings a group together then telling them they are under attack, or that they just completely under-estimate just how entrenched secular custom or even Christianity is in Europe. That at the end of the day no matter how many Muslims end up in Europe, Europe will not change institutions have existed for centuries. Especially to replace them with a culture that is ultimately alien and methods of enforcing that culture which many find abhorrent.
Ok so you chose the 1990s because of the big events of the 1990s and beyond, well fine, I’m not really going to argue with that.
Los, First, I don't ask you to condemn Islam, I ask you when have you ever condemned crimes committed in the name of Islam. According to your logic you do not need to condemn any crime including the massacre in Newtown because whatever you will say has been said by many.
Second, as for your old postings, I assume you know that you can click on your name, that will take you to Newsvine, and if if you click on "show more" at the bottom of the page, it will give everything you ever posted since you joined. Here's what you commented on in November 2010.
http://losmuertos.newsvine.com/_more/users/comments?year=2010&month=11&filterBy=a
and here's your first comment
http://world-news.newsvine.com/_news/2010/11/01/5387554-58-die-in-siege-on-baghdad-catholic-church?commentId=19007231#c19007231
Coptic Christian
Ok Coptic you’re going way off topic by bringing up the Newtown massacre, however you are partly onto something so I will elaborate. First you are correct that I do not see the need to decry something when a lot of posters are, using Newtown as an example, I never once decried or condemned that massacre, instead I voiced my opinions on what I thought was a contributing factor. However, this does not mean I condoned it or thought it was good in anyway, which is what you seem to want to imply and to me is just another example of the “your either with us or against us” mentality I see from so many conservatives these days.
Secondly yes I’m aware of that function but you’ll have to forgive me if I cannot be bothered to trek back through 2 years of my contributions just to find out what you’re talking about.
Finally thanks for providing one, but I have to ask did you read all of it? In particular did you read the part where I said “both Christianity and Islam”? Or the part where I said “are for all intents and purposes uncompromising political doctrines that take the view “your either with us or going to hell”? I hardly would call that favouring Islam over Christianity. Furthermore would you not agree that both religions believe in hell as a punishment for not following their rules?
Los, Newtown was not intended to be a sidetrack, what I was trying to say is that when a horrible crime is committed everyone should condemn it, and that leads to my second point.
Your first comment on this website sums up your attitude, and is the attitude of few on this website; when terrorists intentionally killed 58 people in a Church, your lame and meaningless comment “both Christianity and Islam are for all intents and purposes uncompromising political doctrines,” is an attempt to establish moral equivalency between the criminals and the victims. Only hard core liberals cannot unequivocally condemn evil, they always feel the need to include the other side in their blame. This silly exercise of mental gymnastics is good for debating clubs, but is out of place when we are dealing with life and death issues.
Ok Coptic first does not Christianity contain the doctrine that if you are not a Christian you are going to hell? Second does not Islam contain a similar doctrine? Finally is that not an uncompromising position to take?
The answer to all these questions is yes therefore there is an equivalency between the two faiths. That is all I established. I said nothing about who was the most moral in that situation because I believed my reader would be intelligent enough to know that killing a load of civilians is immoral regardless of any other factor. Apparently I was wrong and according to you should have said the Muslims who did it were evil, before giving my opinion that both religions involved are “uncompromising political doctrines” anyway. Either that or you’re following the current hard-core conservative trend of trying to suggest that your faith is morally superior to Islam/ any-other, and that anyone who disagrees with that is a liberal who cannot/will not tell the difference between good and evil. This is an awfully closed minded and somewhat elitist position to take in my opinion.
Los, now after a long trail of points/ counter points, we are getting into something that hopefully can be settled down.
I will start with your argument that both Christianity and Islam are taking an uncompromising position in regard to who’s going to Heaven and that’s make them equal. Yes both religions have that argument, but while today’s Christians leave that decision to God, radical Muslims take matter into their own hands, so to save people from going to hell they use force to convert non-Muslims to Islam and to prevent Muslims from leaving Islam. In this regard they are acting like the Catholic Church in the time of inquisition when they used to burn you alive to make sure that you will not burn in Hell. I totally condemn what the Catholic Church used to do in the time of inquisitions and what radical Muslims are doing today, can we agree on that.
While I am not trying to force any one to accept the dogmatic teachings of Christianity, its moral teachings are superior to the teachings of many other religions. In fact the Koran advices Muslims to consult the Holly Books of the Jews and Christians, and some Muslims do that. However radical Muslims claim that both Jews and Christians have corrupted their Books and that’s why they don’t care about them. If you want a study, try to compare the moral teachings in the New Testament with what is in the Koran.
I am not saying that liberals do not know the difference between good and evil; I am saying that today’s liberals, in trying to be non-judgmental, avoid making any clear statement about what’s right and what’s wrong. This makes liberals feel morally superior but does not help in addressing and solving today’s problems.
Coptic Christian
Ok Coptic, I agree with you, both of us condemn the former actions of the Catholic Church and the current actions of Muslim extremists in their attempts on trying to force a conversion to their faith. I will say that I disagree with you, in that I don’t think Christians have decided to leave the decision of who goes to hell to God. But in all yes on the whole they are not using force/violence to convert/enforce it anymore.
That you find the moral teachings of Christianity superior to other religions is your opinion. Personally I find the moral teachings of all the Abrahamic faiths to be very lacking. But then I’m an anti-theist who has no use for any religion at all.
Finally I don’t think that “today’s liberals” as you put it are avoiding from making clear statements on morality because they don’t want to offend. I think it that they make statements on morality that conservatives do not agree with, which is an age old process.
Los, at that point we can call it a draw and shake hands.
Then why do you consider yourself an agnostic (as i've seen you write in other posts) and not an atheist?
Who cares if they are not trying to send people there themselves as the radical Muslims do?
Adam44
I consider myself agnostic because an agnostic is someone who will say “there may be a god there may not I do not know” (I prefer to say if there is a god then he’s an @!$%#) where as an Atheist will say “there is no god” furthermore I’m an Anti-theist because I am against theism, I do not like religions in themselves and believe them to be nothing more than antiquated political doctrines.
Finally I care because both Christians and Muslims have the same goal in mind that is to convert people to their ideology. Both therefore are seeking power over others, just because Muslims are using more violent measures to achieve those ends doesn’t mean that I don’t find those ends to be repulsive, and since I live in a “Christian country” which has a cultural acceptance and foundation of Christianity going back hundreds of years I think they are far more of an insidious threat to the maintainance of my countries secular government then people from a creed that has no traditional legitimacy to call upon and is on the whole being made pretty unpopular due to the violence of those who want to convert people.
Interesting how we frame this question so differently for ourselves even though we are basically of the same disposition vis-a-vis religion. Atheists who declare there is no god or gods are usually hostile to religion. You are hostile to religion. It seems to be a match, yet you self-describe as agnostic because you make no claim as to whether there is actually a god(s) or not.
Whereas I take the more literal course defining my belief (or lack thereof) by the word "atheism" itself which means without theism, without religion, as more of a personal description. It's kind of odd that the self-described atheist is seemingly less hostile to religion in general than the self-described agnostic. I am also seemingly more concerned by which religions are basically benign and which are basically aggressive, whereas you seem to take a more leveling approach, viewing them all as basically equivalent (at least the ones of Abrahamic origin and practice), aspiring to power and more-or-less morally equivalent notwithstanding whether the path to power is more physical (violence) or persuasive (non-violent).
At least that's my take of this moment. I might not have your approach quite right but I'm working on it ;-)
What causes you to sleep poorly? Racing mind? something else?
Adam44
As a basic gist you’re pretty accurate here, so I won’t add much more.
As for not sleeping, racing mind is pretty much it yeah.
When Christianity is forbidden in Europe (which is already on its way) then Islam will step in over. And sorry Atheists, but they will.
So, you are trying to scare us into accepting christianity with the threat of a more unfriendly and dangerous form of ludicrous, fairytale belief, replacing it?
leroy, nature abhores a vacuum, when Europe rejected Christianity, this vacuum opened the door for Communism and now it is opening the door for Islam. This is a fact, you should be scared by it. The same way everyone should be scared when he sees someone aiming a gun at him.
Hi CC. I don't like the way you equated religion and politics.
Hey Leroy, what are you talking about? Scare you into Christianity? That Has been the religion of Europe (be it Catholic or Protestant) for centuries, hell milleniums. And since you've been living in a vacuum Islam is spreading thru mass immigration in Europe at a very rapid rate! Keeping your head in your a** won't change that.
Unbelievable is unbelievable!
A great day for a Coptic Women, who was persecuted by what used to be a Christian nation, while her fellow Christians in Egypt are trying to survive under the onslaught of radical Islam.
It appears to me that the West is in dire need of awakening and going back to its Judea-Christian roots before it is too late.
She was persecuted for breaking her work rules that all her other co-workers were able to follow, regardless of there religious preference.
Can you tell me how wearing a small cross as a necklace will interfere with her work. You maybe able to say that wearing a Nekab will limit women's vision, or that a hard had may interfere with your Turban, but the silliness of establishing an all inclusive dress code to avoid discriminating against any group and then kowtowing when confronted with the loudest voices or the deepest pockets, which are usually the radical Islamists, is a joke.
No one said she couldn't wear it, it just couldn't be visible. This had nothing to do with religion either, it was to do with a dress code violation that was in place for all employees, NO VISIBLE JEWELRY. She wanted the exception because of her religion. Now that she has won the case we must afford the same rights to all religions, careful what you wish for.
As far as the rest of your rant it's pointless and has no bearing here. I see no where in the article where radical Islamists even come up.
So if there was a law at here work place that banned let's say gays then that would be ok to you because that was in the jobs rule book, is that right. The only reason why your upset with this ruling is because you're an atheist, say it don't come up with theses sorry excuses. First off she is not perching to people to turn into Christians so if you don't like the cross she is wearing then don't look at it kid.
@Middle If you are following the news in the States, you would have found out that there are cases brought against Disney, Abercrombie & Fitch, to name a few over Islamic dress code
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/14/disney-sued-discrimination-muslim-employee
http://blogs.kqed.org/newsfix/2011/06/28/another-abercrombie-fitch-hijab-lawsuit/
Steve, What a useless argument you make, kid. No where in there did it ban her from work for being christian or gay or muslim or female so comparing to banning gays is ridiculous. I'm not upset at the ruling, couldn't careless really and the rule has changed at BA so now EVERYONE, not just this lady, are allowed to wear VISIBLE jewelry. They were ALWAYS allowed to wear jewelry, she just thought she was more special than the rest. I'm just making the argument that this isn't about religion but about a dress code.
Coptic, yes in those articles you may have a point, but please show me where in THIS article any of that comes up.
@Middle, here's a quote
OK, touche! I read the Abercrombie article and again the company screwed up. They originally told her it was no problem and then went back on their word. However, those religions require them to wear that, christianity does not require its followers to wear a cross. I do feel though that if they are allowed to force a company to change the rules then that company must allow all variations. By forcing Abercrombie to allow this women to wear the head scarf than they must allow all religions to be displayed, I don't disagree with you there.
P.S-thank you for the articles. I mean it.
Thanks, as long as we can both see the other side point of view, that's the most important benefit of these discussions
Good for her. The whole thing was ridiculous.
Hooray for common sense.
If people want to wear a visible cross at their place of work they should have the right to do so.
Good for her.
Wrong. They should have to follow the rules of the employer. As long as the rules apply to everyone then they should have to follow them.
Stop using these sorry excuses & admit that your mad that she won is because you're an atheist. She is not preaching to turn anyone into Christians so if you don't like her wearing the Cross then turn away & not look at it.
@Middle, so what's your stand in regard to the cases against Disney, Abercrombie & Fitch,and the fact that the Obama administration is siding with the plaintiffs on some of those cases.
Steve, Can I wear a big Swastika Medallion to work? If you don't like it just don't look at it, right?
Coptic- As far as the Disney article(Didn't read the Abercrombie yet) she was verbally abused on multiple occasion. Are you ok with that? Also, the problem I see here is not that Disney refused her to wear it but allowed it to be worn in certain circumstances. My argument above which I have stated multiple times is an all or nothing argument. Either she can wear it all the time or not at all. Where Disney makes a mistake is by saying you can't wear it out here but can in the back. Now you have opened yourself to a lawsuit, along with the harassment that nobody did anything about.
@Middle, Abercrombie case is even more bizarre, this clothing outfit was notorious for the most outrageous scantly clad men and women shown in their advertizements, so joining this outfit and suing for not allowed to be different is questionable.