SPEAKING AS AN INFIDEL
A story about a woman in the UK employed by British Airways is barred from wearing a small cross suspended by a chain around her neck while working by her employer. This news item appeared here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/north_yorkshire
/6166746.stmhttp://
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/north_yorkshire/6166746.stm
The employer explains that other B.A. employees, such as Sikhs with turbans and women with headscarves are not barred from wearing symbols of their faiths. B.A. counters that the cross is only banned because all “jewelry” must be worn beneath clothing and not showing, but since turbans etc. cannot be hidden under clothing they are allowed. They are just following the rules and regulations of the company. If the woman, now on leave, were to accept a position not dealing with the public, she could wear her cross. B.A. says it is not about religious observance, it’s just regulations.
But is it really about religion? It’s only about the wearing of jewelry by uniformed personnel, trinkets which may be worn if concealed. Do you buy that? Okay, let’s say I do too. But then one reads of passengers boarding planes who have been processed by uniformed personnel wearing turbans, bracelets and neck chains sporting Islamic symbols. That sort of "jewelry" is okay?
As an infidel it doesn’t matter whether I am an atheist, christian, jew, Buddhist, or girl scout. (I
am not going to own up toward which I may be leaning, but I will if I ever do make up my mind about a preference for any sect, cult, or even card readers who work out of “psychic fairs“.)
As a matter of fact, whether or not you are an atheist, christian, jew, Buddhist or member of any other major or minor religious group: you are all still infidels too, subject to deliberate, planned extermination by some believers of a major religion.
Is the above incident with the cross on a neck chain a case of political correctness gone mad? No right-thinking person will approve deliberate slighting, racial or ethnic profiling, or denying any religious group to follow the laws of its faith. Sacrifice of virgins? Not if that breaks any federal laws. Sacrifice a domestic animal in a holy rite? To forbid that would be laughable as long as slaughterhouses exist as commercial enterprises. Permit drivers’ licenses to be issued to women who always go about with their faces covered, and whose license photographs are taken with faces covered? Only if our laws are not intended to protect the public. So when is a person forbidden to wear a sign of her faith become a victim of religious prejudice?
There is nothing about this which is simple. If the woman who insists on openly wearing her cross while in uniform while insisting that she does so with an evangelistic purpose a victim of prejudice? After all, christians are not following a religious law by wearing crosses. For a long time crosses worn as jewelry have been just that. Two examples: rock musicians like large crosses in platinum, with platinum chains; they are often sold as tourist kitsch and worn as travel am not going to own up toward which I may be leaning, but I will if I ever do make up my mind about a preference for any sect, cult, or even card readers who work out of “psychic fairs“.)
As a matter of fact, whether or not you are an atheist, christian, jew, Buddhist etc., you are all still infidels too, subject to deliberate, planned extermination. Still, we celebrate ethnic and religious diversity, unless such diversity frightens us in some way. If elements of religious practice threaten our culture, should national security or political correctness take precedence? How should we respond to complaints and threatens that parts of our Western civilization and culture "insult" Islamic culture and religion? Perhaps we should just overlook the small stuff (tiny crosses on neckchains), and worry more about the weaknesses in our domestic security.
A story about a woman in the UK employed by British Airways is barred from wearing a small cross suspended by a chain around her neck while working by her employer. This news item appeared here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/north_yorkshire
/6166746.stmhttp://
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/north_yorkshire/6166746.stm
The employer explains that other B.A. employees, such as Sikhs with turbans and women with headscarves are not barred from wearing symbols of their faiths. B.A. counters that the cross is only banned because all “jewelry” must be worn beneath clothing and not showing, but since turbans etc. cannot be hidden under clothing they are allowed. They are just following the rules and regulations of the company. If the woman, now on leave, were to accept a position not dealing with the public, she could wear her cross. B.A. says it is not about religious observance, it’s just regulations.
But is it really about religion? It’s only about the wearing of jewelry by uniformed personnel, trinkets which may be worn if concealed. Do you buy that? Okay, let’s say I do too. But then one reads of passengers boarding planes who have been processed by uniformed personnel wearing turbans, bracelets and neck chains sporting Islamic symbols. That sort of "jewelry" is okay?
As an infidel it doesn’t matter whether I am an atheist, christian, jew, Buddhist, or girl scout. (I
am not going to own up toward which I may be leaning, but I will if I ever do make up my mind about a preference for any sect, cult, or even card readers who work out of “psychic fairs“.)
As a matter of fact, whether or not you are an atheist, christian, jew, Buddhist or member of any other major or minor religious group: you are all still infidels too, subject to deliberate, planned extermination by some believers of a major religion.
Is the above incident with the cross on a neck chain a case of political correctness gone mad? No right-thinking person will approve deliberate slighting, racial or ethnic profiling, or denying any religious group to follow the laws of its faith. Sacrifice of virgins? Not if that breaks any federal laws. Sacrifice a domestic animal in a holy rite? To forbid that would be laughable as long as slaughterhouses exist as commercial enterprises. Permit drivers’ licenses to be issued to women who always go about with their faces covered, and whose license photographs are taken with faces covered? Only if our laws are not intended to protect the public. So when is a person forbidden to wear a sign of her faith become a victim of religious prejudice?
There is nothing about this which is simple. If the woman who insists on openly wearing her cross while in uniform while insisting that she does so with an evangelistic purpose a victim of prejudice? After all, christians are not following a religious law by wearing crosses. For a long time crosses worn as jewelry have been just that. Two examples: rock musicians like large crosses in platinum, with platinum chains; they are often sold as tourist kitsch and worn as travel am not going to own up toward which I may be leaning, but I will if I ever do make up my mind about a preference for any sect, cult, or even card readers who work out of “psychic fairs“.)
As a matter of fact, whether or not you are an atheist, christian, jew, Buddhist etc., you are all still infidels too, subject to deliberate, planned extermination. Still, we celebrate ethnic and religious diversity, unless such diversity frightens us in some way. If elements of religious practice threaten our culture, should national security or political correctness take precedence? How should we respond to complaints and threatens that parts of our Western civilization and culture "insult" Islamic culture and religion? Perhaps we should just overlook the small stuff (tiny crosses on neckchains), and worry more about the weaknesses in our domestic security.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home