Wearing Crosses at Work Banned

[bex1218]

By the way, I live in America, am a lesbian and Atheist. I do however believe in religious freedom for all. I try not to judge others.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/reli...overnment.html

When I think of any religion, I think of their symbols. Catholics/Christians with the cross and the Jewish with the Star of David, etc. It is significant to their religion. I know it doesn't say directly in the Bible that you have to wear a cross (that I read), but really? Banning it would just seem so wrong and discriminatory. Also, who is really offended someone is wearing a cross, religious or not (I love crosses)?

[fireheart17]

When I think of any religion, I think of their symbols. Catholics/Christians with the cross and the Jewish with the Star of David, etc. It is significant to their religion. I know it doesn't say directly in the Bible that you have to wear a cross (that I read), but really? Banning it would just seem so wrong and discriminatory. Also, who is really offended someone is wearing a cross, religious or not (I love crosses)?

Except that those symbols are not required to be worn. They are purely optional. It's also easy for someone to wear the cross at a workplace and not be a "true" Christian (for example, they wear it because it's "cool").

The ministers are right-wearing a cross is OPTIONAL. You aren't forced to wear a cross if you're Christian. You aren't kicked out of church for not wearing a cross. Comparing Christians to Muslims and/or Jews is the dumbest thing on the planet.

Muslim hijab can either only be worn during religious festivals, attending a Muslim school and going to mosque, or they can opt to wear it full time. The bare minimum is to cover their head, arms and legs. They do NOT have to cover their face, that is cultural, NOT religious.

Jewish boys wear kippah/yarmulke at a minimum (I don't know if they wear the little vest or not all the time?)

Sikh women and men have the five K's to follow: uncut hair, wooden comb, some form of underpants, a steel bracelet and a small dagger (which can be worn as a bracelet or similar). The bracelet, the dagger and the uncut hair are all visible, while the comb and the underpants are not.

Buddhists don't display any symbols of their faith. At all. Ditto for Hindus (as far as I'm aware).

The comments in that article are nuts. Seriously, they aren't trying to stamp out Christianity, nor are they persecuting you. The fact is, Christianity seems to have become so diluted these days, that just about anything and everything can be claimed in the name of the Lord.

[Andara Bledin]

This is a sticky situation for certain.

I can see the banning of the open wearing of religious paraphernalia being allowed in the US (I'm not as up on UK law) provided that all forms of open support/declaration paraphernalia was also banned. Because, when you boil it all down, that's pretty much what it comes down to.

However, going by the Article quoted in the article, it specifically states, "in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance." That pretty much covers every location extant (although I suspect that safety concerns would override) and protects pretty much any manner in which a person chose to manifest their religion. Whether the religion has any requirement to wear a sign of observance or not is rendered completely irrelevant for this argument, despite that being the tack the government is going to take in supporting the ban.

^-.-^

[Dips]

The article omits a very relevant point.

Are crosses banned because they are jewelry and all jewelry is banned by an employee dress code?

Or is some jewelry allowed but crosses are banned because they are religious?

I can support the first because:

A. Employers can have uniform codes.

B. Most Christian sects (at least the one I belong to) do not require adherents to wear crosses. Therefore such a work rule does not prevent me from practicing my religion.

I cannot the support the second because it's clearly religious discrimation to allow employees to wear jewelry but not specific religious jewelry.

I really don't understand why the author failed to clarify if they are talking about blanket jewelry ban or just a ban on crosses. My guess would be the issue is the first one: employers who have blanket jewelry bans. And the author omitted the information to create outrage over religious discrimation where there really isn't any religious discrimination.

I reserve the right to be wrong but it always makes me suspicous of motives when something that essential to the issue isn't mentioned at all.

[crashhelmet]

The article omits a very relevant point.

Are crosses banned because they are jewelry and all jewelry is banned by an employee dress code?

Or is some jewelry allowed but crosses are banned because they are religious?

I can support the first because:

A. Employers can have uniform codes.

B. Most Christian sects (at least the one I belong to) do not require adherents to wear crosses. Therefore such a work rule does not prevent me from practicing my religion.

I cannot the support the second because it's clearly religious discrimation to allow employees to wear jewelry but not specific religious jewelry.

I really don't understand why the author failed to clarify if they are talking about blanket jewelry ban or just a ban on crosses. My guess would be the issue is the first one: employers who have blanket jewelry bans. And the author omitted the information to create outrage over religious discrimation where there really isn't any religious discrimination.

I reserve the right to be wrong but it always makes me suspicous of motives when something that essential to the issue isn't mentioned at all.

I read this as it saying the banning of the crosses and crucifixes is solely up to the employer. Should an employer decide to ban them for uniform or dress code purposes, then that's their right to do so. All because they are not a requirement of the religion itself. Now if the Catholic Church, the Church of England, or some other group decide to make it a requirement, the employer will have no choice but to allow it.

When I was working at UPS, they made the decision to ban facial hair. There were coworkers of mine that had worn beards for years and had to shave them off or find work elsewhere. Unless their religious viewpoints required it. One guy happened to be a Muslim and was allowed to keep his, but had to fill out some sort of waiver request to prove/declare it.

Employees should have the right to fight discrimination, if they are in fact being discriminated against. But those are going to be on a case by case basis. This ruling, as it stands, is fair. It's not a requirement of the religion, therefore the employer can "ban" it in their dress codes.

[wraiths_crono]

Sticky situation indeed. At my work, crosses and Muslim attire are allowed outside shirts, but I was told to keep my pentacle covered as to not 'create a situation'

[Nyoibo]

Sticky situation indeed. At my work, crosses and Muslim attire are allowed outside shirts, but I was told to keep my pentacle covered as to not 'create a situation'

See that, that's discrimination.

[Andara Bledin]

That's the thing, however, in that the law as stated doesn't require that any observation actually be mandated by the religion. Plus, the institution in question has already allowed for head coverings which, as has been discussed, is a cultural issue, not religious.

^-.-^

[Gravekeeper]

Bit of a sticky situation for sure. However, sounds like it could have been resolved more amicably if the subjects in question weren't zealots. Whether you like it or not, the government must be secular in nature and this sounds like they're arguing over their right to advertise their religion not practice their religion. Big difference.

Woman #1 was suspended because she refused to comply with the dress code when asked to take the cross off. You're Doing it Wrong. If you think your employer is discriminating against you in a fashion this minor, the correct course of action is to take it straight to the proper authority. Not throw a shit fit on the spot in the face of your employer and give them a reason to suspend/fire you.

Woman #2 was fired because she wouldn't tuck her cross into her shirt. Thats straight up bitching that she's not allowed to advertise her religion, not that she's not allowed to practice it.

I must admit I'm becoming quite tired of this bizzarre Christian persecution complex some people have. The government is not suppose to be Christian. Get over it. You're not being victimized because you have to follow the rules.

[fireheart17]

That's the thing, however, in that the law as stated doesn't require that any observation actually be mandated by the religion. Plus, the institution in question has already allowed for head coverings which, as has been discussed, is a cultural issue, not religious.

^-.-^

I was referring to facial coverings, not head coverings. If you're Muslim and female, you ARE required to wear head coverings during certain religious festivals such as Ramadan. I'm going to hazard a guess, but it would be the same for Jewish festivals?

Bit of a sticky situation for sure. However, sounds like it could have been resolved more amicably if the subjects in question weren't zealots. Whether you like it or not, the government must be secular in nature and this sounds like they're arguing over their right to advertise their religion not practice their religion. Big difference.

Agreed. And if you're wearing it to advertise your religion, you're also doing it wrong. You don't need to advertise Christianity, they're pretty good at doing that themselves.
Hell, my grandmother and aunt still attend the Uniting Church of Australia services on the weekend. None of them wear crosses. My great-aunt and uncle are both Mormons (my uncle spent one weekend explaining the basics of Mormonism to my dad.) and my great-uncle actually takes one of the teenage groups on the weekends (or something like that). None of them wear crosses or otherwise make statements regarding their faith.

Woman #2 was fired because she wouldn't tuck her cross into her shirt. Thats straight up bitching that she's not allowed to advertise her religion, not that she's not allowed to practice it.

I can see a safety issue behind that as well. If you're working in an environment and you have something that's not clipped onto/tucked under your shirt, you swing forward and it can easily catch onto a shredder/other machinery and cause injury.

I must admit I'm becoming quite tired of this bizzarre Christian persecution complex some people have. The government is not suppose to be Christian. Get over it. You're not being victimized because you have to follow the rules.

As am I. This might also seem a little strange, but ironically they are acting just like other minority religions in the country when confronted about certain ideals (I'm looking at this from an Australian standpoint). They're quite happy to knock down Muslims, Buddhists and so on for wanting certain rights/objects, (there's a small-scale shitstorm down here about building a Buddhist Temple in the middle of a region that's mostly hills with very few houses nearby) yet the second something is denied to THEM, they start crying poor about it.

[HYHYBT]

Whether you like it or not, the government must be secular in nature and this sounds like they're arguing over their right to advertise their religion not practice their religion. Big difference.

There is, and there isn't. There especially isn't if, as what I've quoted tries to do, this is moved from what employers can do onto the government. It's akin to (though not precisely the same, especially in a work environment) as telling people they must keep their religious affiliation a secret. "It's ok to *be* a (whatever) as long as you stay in the closet about it" is no more right for a religion than for anything else.

But, again, since this is *not* about the government banning the expression, but instead is about an employer doing so, it's not quite the same.

On the other hand, employers have entirely too much leeway in what they can ban to begin with, under the (often false) excuse that if you don't like it you can work somewhere else, as has been covered extensively in other threads. Certainly, saying "you can't wear that at work" is much more reasonable than telling people what they can and cannot do off the clock, yet they're usually allowed to get away with that.

[jedimaster91]

Hell, my grandmother and aunt still attend the Uniting Church of Australia services on the weekend. None of them wear crosses. My great-aunt and uncle are both Mormons (my uncle spent one weekend explaining the basics of Mormonism to my dad.) and my great-uncle actually takes one of the teenage groups on the weekends (or something like that). None of them wear crosses or otherwise make statements regarding their faith.

Very, very few LDS wear crosses. The ones I know who do are converts, and it's more of a carry over from their previous religions (heck, I own a cross necklace I got from my grandmother, a devout Catholic). They're just not as central to our faith as in other Christian religions. That being said, we do have our own symbols/jewelry that we wear. Almost every LDS kid I know has at least one CTR (Choose the Right) ring. Recent years have seen CTR necklaces and bracelets as well. But most people don't recognize the CTR shield as a religious thing unless you are LDS or know someone who is.

What religious attire/jewelry should do is remind the wearer of the way they should be living according to their religious beliefs. But I do agree that sometimes it seems to be more of an advertisement of someone pretending to be such and such religion. Not always, mind you. But enough of the time.

[telecom_goddess]

Sticky situation indeed. At my work, crosses and Muslim attire are allowed outside shirts, but I was told to keep my pentacle covered as to not 'create a situation'

that is definitely discrimination. They can't allow some religious symbols and not others cause they aren't as acceptable in their eyes.

[fireheart17]

What religious attire/jewelry should do is remind the wearer of the way they should be living according to their religious beliefs. But I do agree that sometimes it seems to be more of an advertisement of someone pretending to be such and such religion. Not always, mind you. But enough of the time.

QFT. I wonder what reaction I'd get wearing my Thor's Hammer necklace...(there's a guy down here who hand-made all these awesome pendants and whatnot, including Thor's Hammers. My boyfriend has a heavier chunkier one, so I wear the less chunky one)

Also, I've tended to notice that those who use their jewelery/attire to "convert" others tend to be Christian in origin. I'm sorry, but that's what I've noticed. Most Muslim women do not actually make a huge deal about their religion. same deal with Sikhs.

In fact, the latest season of Masterchef Australia has a practicing Muslim contestant on the show. She's proven to be a HUGELY good cook, without relying on "tokenism" votes and she's well-liked by the other contestants. (She has no problem identifying ingredients) The media haven't made a huge spectacle over her so far, the only real emphasis on her has been one short article in TV Week on how she copes in the Masterchef kitchen. The only real issues for her are the use of pork and alcohol. All the meat is halal regardless and that has been the ONLY real change made to accomodate her (which doesn't affect the competition one bit). She just wears her hijab and cooks up a storm. I'm gunning for her to win actually.

Sticky situation indeed. At my work, crosses and Muslim attire are allowed outside shirts, but I was told to keep my pentacle covered as to not 'create a situation'

while I 100% agree that's discrimination, I can sort of see where it's coming from for two reasons: 1) it can be assumed that the pentacle is just a pretty piece of "costume jewellery" (depending on the pentacle you're wearing) and therefore falls into the line with most jewellery policies. This isn't helped by some "alternative" (but not necessarily Pagan) stores selling pentacles. Which leads me into point #2) the assumption that your religion/belief system is not real, or is in fact another name for Satanism...

It doesn't change the fact that it's still discrimination.

[SongsOfDragons]

In fact, the latest season of Masterchef Australia has a practicing Muslim contestant on the show. She's proven to be a HUGELY good cook, without relying on "tokenism" votes and she's well-liked by the other contestants. (She has no problem identifying ingredients) The media haven't made a huge spectacle over her so far, the only real emphasis on her has been one short article in TV Week on how she copes in the Masterchef kitchen. The only real issues for her are the use of pork and alcohol. All the meat is halal regardless and that has been the ONLY real change made to accomodate her (which doesn't affect the competition one bit). She just wears her hijab and cooks up a storm. I'm gunning for her to win actually.

I watched last year's...awww, you're making me want to waste several months' worth of evenings watching this year's!! XD That sounds brilliant!

Do they still do Friday Night Masterclasses?

while I 100% agree that's discrimination, I can sort of see where it's coming from for two reasons: 1) it can be assumed that the pentacle is just a pretty piece of "costume jewellery" (depending on the pentacle you're wearing) and therefore falls into the line with most jewellery policies. This isn't helped by some "alternative" (but not necessarily Pagan) stores selling pentacles. Which leads me into point #2) the assumption that your religion/belief system is not real, or is in fact another name for Satanism...

It doesn't change the fact that it's still discrimination.

Surely Satanism is also a viable and therefore protected religious choice?