symbols

nadia eweida, a check-in staff worker for ba, has lost her case against british airways. a ba appeals panel have said ms eweida cannot return to work if she wishes to display her necklace and the cross upon it. for ba this is a question of a uniform code, which states that no jewellery can be displayed. for ms eweida it is about her religious freedom.

now i am a failed roman catholic (and there are a lot of us out there), and i wear a crucifix and i have been wearing it for more years than i can remember. so on this basis i should be very sympathetic to ms eweida’s case.
but i don’t.
why?

well for a start this is about a dress policy that has clear rules about the appearance of the company uniform, and jewellery plays no part in it. they are not saying she cannot wear her necklace and cross, they are saying that she cannot have it on public show.
they are not making a judgement about religion; they are defining their corporate image. it is apparently a dress code that everyone who works for the company is aware of, it is a policy that all abide by.
brick lane curry house

except for nadia eweida. she says, "i am not politically motivated or minded, i just follow the ." biblical truth
and as we all know one of the best loved gospels of the bible, that of trinny and susannah, does have an extensive section on just when and where to wear the cross. ms eweida has also been offered a back room job, which would allow her to wear her cross openly, but this is not acceptable to nadia eweida, she believes that to accept this offer would be ”morally degrading.”

anne widdecombe, http://www.annwiddecombemp.com/ a devout catholic, tory mp and political icon, has argued that people should support ms eweida by boycotting ba. while the archbishop of york, dr john sentamu,
has argued the “ban” was based on flawed logic. he goes on to describe the cross as being "… not only a symbol of our hopes but also a responsibility to act and to live as christians. this symbol does not point only upwards but also outwards, it reminds us of our duties not only to god but also to one another.
he is right about the flawed logic of the ba argument (through necessity ba allow the wearing turbans and hajibs, both outward symbols of faith), but in his description of what the cross symbolizes he also points to a reason why nadia eweida appears to be jumping on a bandwagon.

for me what seems to be the heart of this debate is the question of a person’s strength of faith. i wear the crucifix because my mum gave it to me and because i believe. my faith and belief is not stronger when others can see that i am wearing the crucifix.
i would wager that people seeing her cross does not buoy up ms eweida’s faith, nor would it be diminished if she were to wear it underneath her company scarf.
it strikes me that people who have to display the signs of their faith, as an issue of faith, are more likely to be the ones who need to have affirmation of their beliefs.
if you believe, if you have faith then that is all you need. as dr. sentamu says christians have a responsibility to live and act as christians, not to spend your time worrying about the fact that others can or can’t see your cross.

ironically while this storm in a teacup was brewing (i am so clever) the various secular/ humanist societies were talking about whether or not they should have a symbol to proclaim that they were of a humanist/secularist bent.
so while they may be sniggering at the religious fanatics fighting the good fight to wear their crosses or whatever, give it a few years and we will be having the same sort of arguments over people being allowed to wear their symbol of secular belief.

my advice to the very religious is: check the dress code before you take the job.