British Airways Boycott Grows After Christian Employee Suspended For Wearing Cross

barbados-british-airways-christian-boycott-ewilda.jpg“I will not hide my belief in the Lord Jesus. British Airways permits Muslims to wear a headscarf, Sikhs to wear a turban and other faiths religious apparel.”Only Christians are forbidden to express their faith.I am a loyal and conscientious employee of British Airways, but I stand up for the rights of all citizens.”Nadia Eweida – BA employee suspended for wearing Christian cross.

100 British MPs Refusing To Fly British Airways Over Employee Crucifix Ban

British Airways is facing growing calls for a boycott by Christian passengers as it deals with the fallout after a Christian employee was suspended for wearing a small Christian Cross on a necklace while at work. * (See Update Below)

The airline allows Sikhs and Muslims to wear religious headcovering and jewellery, but the Christian employee, Nadia Ewilda, was suspended without pay for wearing the small cross.

“I’ve cut up my British Airways Executive Club card – will you?”

… businessman Marcus Stafford – creator of the Boycott British Airways website: www.baboycott.com

British Airways Gives A Slap In The Face To All Christians

This situation has been going on for six weeks and BA’s Chief Executive Willie Walsh has upheld the action against a Christian for wearing a cross.

Today, British Airways announced that they are going to “review” their policy. (Telegraph article here)

We Call Upon The Prime Minister Of Barbados To Cancel All Government Travel On British Airways

The Government off Barbados should cancel all travel on British Airways for reason of BA’s persecution of Christian employees – for putting the rights of Christian employees lower than any other religion.

“To Hell with British Airways. Even if they change their policy, I will look at their aircraft and tail logo for the next decade and remember.”

…Taxi passenger today at Grantley Adams Airport, Bridgetown, Barbados (courtesy of Shona’s little brother)

* Update

One of our readers points out that the Christian lady was offered another non-uniform post where her Cross would be allowed…

Ms Eweida said she was effectively forced to take unpaid leave after refusing to hide the cross symbol she wore round her neck when people of other faiths were allowed to wear visible religious symbols such as headscarves.” – (link here)

(BFP) Stated that BA suspended the employee when in fact she was offered an alternative position

“BA said Ms Eweida had been offered a non-uniformed post were she would be able to openly wear her cross but had refused to take it.” – (link here)

While I agree the the BA position is wrong, lets not un-necessarily demonise by falsely representing their actions.

We thank Andrew for his information and making the story more accurate, but we think it’s really a sidebar on the entire issue when Sikhs are allowed to wear their religious jewellery in uniform.

Once again, some Christians view the wearing of a cross as not important at all. Some view it as integral to their faith. Who are we, and who are BA to presume to dictate what is acceptable practice for a Christian?

In a society that is bending over backwards at every turn to accomodate faiths of all kinds, it is simply unacceptable that the same consideration is not extended to Christians. 

… and millions of Brits agree with our opinion.

30 Comments

Filed under Barbados, Politics & Corruption, Religion

30 responses to “British Airways Boycott Grows After Christian Employee Suspended For Wearing Cross

  1. West Side Davie

    Disgusting double standard and typical slap in the face of always passive Christians.

    Try telling the Sikhs or Muslims to remove religious symbols and see what happens.

    British Airways can stick it where the sun don’t shine. Never again will I set foot on a BA Airbus. Never.

  2. Let’s not be hasty. Yes BA has done wrong, but they seem to be coming around. Today they announced a review of policy.
    Maybe they will see that their position is untenable.

  3. Oh and factually she was not suspended… she took voluntary leave when it was requested that she remove the cross.

  4. Anonymous-

    We Call Upon The Prime Minister Of Barbados To Cancel All Government Travel On British Airways

    The Government off Barbados should cancel all travel on British Airways for reason of BA’s persecution of Christian employees – for putting the rights of Christian employees lower than any other religion.

    Stupse.

  5. thats for the heads up i hadnt heard about this. I’m sure all will be corrected because of the uproar.

  6. passin thru

    Anonymous… why “stupse” for demanding that Christians be treated at least on a par with other religions?

    BA did put the rights of Christians “lower than any other religion”.

    As for me, I’ve had it with the prejudice against Christians in the media, government, political correctness.

    I agree with the passenger who said “to Hell with BA”

    You are stupse

  7. Disposable Arts

    Religion is like the biggest conspiracy ever!

  8. bajanboy

    People, don’t be stupid. Get all the facts before you start making wild demands for people to boycott the airline.

  9. West Side Davie

    What is to say? She was asked to take off her Cross, refused and was sent home without pay.

    Muslims and Sihks were not asked to take off their religious symbols.

    End of story.

    It’s really pretty simple – and the same political correctness against Christians and their faith has people saying that the British flag should be revised because it contains a Christian cross.

    It really is pretty simple. You just have to choose sides.

  10. West Side Davie

    Why is the demand to boycott the airline “wild”?

    British Airways boycotted Christian employees but not others who displayed their religion.

    Just who started the “boycott” in the first place?…. British Airways.

  11. Anonymous-

    A cross is neither required nor mandatory for Christians to wear, so the comparison to the Muslims and Sikhs is irrelevant.

    The uniform rules speak against jewelry, and she was in breach of those rules. If 50 cent or another one of these rappers with their dazzling crosses were working for BA and were asked to remove their chain, would you be up in arms? Contemplate it, and ask yourself why. If this same Christian was wearing the chain without the crucifix pendant, and was still asked to remove the chain, would you be up in arms? And on what grounds?

    The Bible says but one thing is necessary to tell who Christians are – it’s not a cross, it’s not what they say, it’s their fruit. ‘By their fruit shall they be known’. This old lady needs not wear a cross to show her Christianity, and the Bible nor God himself does not require her to wear it to show it.. so why should she be allowed to wear jewelry that breaches the uniform code?

    Boycott what. Stupidness.

  12. reality check

    Whether religious instruction mandates the wearing of a cross or not is irrelevant. This lady perceives that the wearing of a cross expresses her religious and spiritual faith in her God. Its called equal rights and tolerance for ones belief’s in a supposedly true democracy.

    Only anonymouse and religious fundamentalists adhere to old, outdated, mythical and dictatorial
    views of life.

  13. Anonymous-

    “Whether religious instruction mandates the wearing of a cross or not is irrelevant.”

    How so? When the Muslims and Sikhs are only being permitted to wear alterations to the uniform because it is mandated by their religion?

    “This lady perceives that the wearing of a cross expresses her religious and spiritual faith in her God”

    Her perception is irrelevant.

    “Its called equal rights and tolerance for ones belief’s in a supposedly true democracy.”

    When she is fired for saying a prayer at her desk, or making a reference to Jesus, then you can talk about equal rights and tolerance. Being asked to remove jewelry in a uniform code does not have anything to do with beliefs. She would have been asked to remove a plain chain without a pendant in the same way.

    “Only anonymouse and religious fundamentalists adhere to old, outdated, mythical and dictatorial
    views of life.”

    I quoted from the New Testament. If you think that such is “old, outdated, mythical and dictatorial”, then really you must think that her Christian beliefs are nonsense and that she doesn’t deserve to wear a chain either.

  14. BFP

    Anonymous MUST be a government bee. Who else would think that government or a business owner should be able to set the standards for an individual employee’s religious faith?

    What an illustration of the type of thinking that is so typical of the self-appointed government elites.

    Retire to Switzerland with your bank accounts, dear friend. It is almost worth the price of whatever you stole just to have you off the island.

  15. Anonymous (now with moderation :) )

    Wait, is that self-righteous Christian BFP telling me I’m a thief? Well, well…

    “Who else would think that government or a business owner should be able to set the standards for an individual employee’s religious faith?”

    And what does this have to do with jewelry?

    BFP are you a bunch of teenagers? It is these wild and ludicrous comments you make that will see nobody but hair-brained conspiracy theorists and Henny Pennys taking you seriously.

    But, thanks for your well wishes on my retirement. I’ll send you photographs. Ruffled a feather or two I see…

  16. jose marti

    The ‘hajib’ – veil worn by Musilm women’ – isn’t a stipulation of the Koran. Should they be required to take it off while working ?
    Never mind .. Muslim women aren’t allowed to work… or learn… or drive …

  17. Hants

    From the http://www.BarbadosAdvocate.com Editorial page.

    “Endangering male species.”

  18. Phoenix

    I think this may have been blown out of proportion just a little. The solution is quite simple, change the rules. Simply make it so all small expressions of religious faith, no matter the faith, are allowed.

    The lady was definately in breach of the policy that she agreed too, a turbin or a hajib is not jewelry by no stretch of the imagination. While a chain, no matter what the pendant is, is still a chain.

    Also, there is nothing in the bible that i know about that requires or encourages the wearing of anything other than the clothes on your back to support christianity, however, she has a right to make noise since it is her right to express her religion as long as its not obscenely large and obvious, i agree with her on that, but boycotting is a little extreme for something that can be fixed by the quick stroke of a pen.

    I must admit, Anonymous- is very annoying, but he is right to some extent on this one.

  19. reality check

    the only way of changing the rules at the stroke of a pen is by letting your views be heard loud and clear where it counts—in the pocketbook—and this especially includes a boycott!!!

    the pendant is more than jewellery to this lady or she wouldn’t be making the point

  20. Pat

    Well, my hairdresser is a Moslem and prays 5 times a day. Sometimes in the salon on a prayer mat. She says, there is nowhere mandated in the Koran that a woman wears a veil or burka. She says the Koran says a woman should cover up her beauty. It was the Islamic clerics who dictated that women should cover up their heads and ankles, etc. It is the radicals who insists that women wear the burka.

    One of my colleagues was a Sihk. He told me, Sikhism is a branch of the Hindu faith. They are by religion required after baptism, to wear the kirpan (ceremonial knife) and not cut their hair. They must also wear the iron bracelet. The turban was a development over the centuries, to cover up the 4, 5, or 6 feet of hair these men grow after baptism, which happens at 15-16. They ae not allowed to cut their beards, so he used to roll his in a beard net, which is tied on the top of his head before the turban is wrapped. The turban is non-religious. Many Sikhs to fit in and not feel ostracised now cut their hair. But they always wear the iron bracelet and carry the kirpan next to the body. Some at the waist some on a chain hanging from their necks under the clothes. The kirpan is actually a sword, but for western societies and to accommodate our cultures, they are allowed to substitute a ceremonial knife.

    Before the turban, the Sikh men used to have long pigtails of hair flowing behind them some even dragging on the ground. (Thus the term coolie.) Sikh women dont cut their hair either. The turban is more or less for hygiene and safety purposes.

    For the Christians out there, God did not give Adam and Eve clothes, but we all wear them today, dont we? Just try walking down Broad street naked, or half naked.

  21. As Phoenex said….this whole thing as blown out of proportion. If the airline rules said not to wear any jewelery, she could have just complied….it was just by coincidence that her jewelery was a cross.

    According to Reality Check: “This lady perceives that the wearing of a cross expresses her religious and spiritual faith in her God. Its called equal rights and tolerance for ones belief’s in a supposedly true democracy.”

    So if she went to work wearing a crown, should that be excused cause thinks it expresses her religious and spiritual faith in her God ?

    West Side Davie, she wasn’t asked to take it off, but to cover it up as the rules stated…..but obviously, she’s not wearing it for her nor her faith, shes wearing it for the public, and must prove to everyone, she has faith in God…..(hey BFP, Anonymous makes the most sense on this forum…after me of course 🙂 )

  22. BFP

    The Sikhs were allowed to wear their jewellery and were not asked to cover it up.

    Only the Christian was directed to cover up her religious jewellery.

    Can’t have it. Just not going to take any more of this sort of backhand to Christians.

  23. BFP, I note that you have not corrected your original post.

    “Ms Eweida said she was effectively forced to take unpaid leave after refusing to hide the cross symbol she wore round her neck when people of other faiths were allowed to wear visible religious symbols such as headscarves.” – http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6181746.stm

    Stating that BA suspended the employee when in fact she was offered an alternative position

    “BA said Ms Eweida had been offered a non-uniformed post were she would be able to openly wear her cross but had refused to take it.” – http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6178492.stm

    While I agree the the BA position is wrong, lets not un-necessarily demonise by falsely representing their actions.

  24. “Can’t have it. Just not going to take any more of this sort of backhand to Christians.” – BFP

    What happened to turn the other cheek?

  25. Anonymous-

    “Can’t have it. Just not going to take any more of this sort of backhand to Christians.” – BFP

    What happened to turn the other cheek?
    ——

    I believe only modern-day ‘true’ Christians subscribe to this. Don’t explain ‘turn the other cheek’ to BFP – people who would call me a thief and have no clue who I am – they are the type of ‘Christians’ who make true Christians look bad.

  26. Andrew, christains are some of the most contradictory people your ever gonna meet……for someone who really has faith in God, a stupid “graven image” on a string would never have been an issue.
    All Religions are the same, none of them can find you peace.

  27. Anonymous-

    For the Christians out there, God did not give Adam and Eve clothes, but we all wear them today, dont we? Just try walking down Broad street naked, or half naked.

    Pat darling, this is the most stupid thing you’ve said on the forum of late. If we want to kill this analogy to death, biblically speaking Adam and Eve chose to wear clothes (leaves) to cover up their shame after they had sinned.

    God did not direct them to wear clothes or had problems with them being naked to begin with – it was their *choice* to do so, the same way it was this woman’s choice to wear a chain with a cross.

    The fact that we cannot walk around naked today reflects laws and RULES of the land – the same rules that told this lady that her jewelry was not acceptable.

    God doesn’t care whether she wears a chain or not to show she’s a Christian, that was her choice (rappers and killers were chains with crosses everyday!), and if God does not require it – the same way He doesn’t require us to be naked, or clothed – then by all means, you follow the established laws and rules.

    Christians who are taking it upon themselves to make this a big issue really are loosing sight of their purpose on Earth. Their purpose is not to squabble with these legalistic issues of what they wear and don’t wear… their purpose is to save souls for Christ, and be an example for others to follow. The Bible says to let your let shine before men so that others will see the reflection of Christ in you. When Jesus himself was being beaten, spit upon, cursed and lashed in the streets…did he advise his followers to curse, fight back and rally them against the Jews of that time? No! In humility, Jesus asked his followers to forgive them. Blessed are the peacemakers, He said.. blessed are you when people revile you and persecute you, He said..

    Being asked to remove a chain as part of a uniform policy is NOTHING! The Apostle Paul was martyred. Whereas this incident gives so-called Christians grounds for righteous indignation, it should actually make them start soul-searching and ask themselves what is more important in life as a Christian: making noise over a chain that tries to convince the outside world that you’re a Christian? Or seeing how best they can “make their light so shine among men” so that they don’t even NEED a chain for everyone to see Christ in them.

    The cross has been gradually robbed of its significance long before our time. In my younger days in law, I saw young men hauled into the police station after just committing murders.. wearing a cross. These exterior trappings are of no concern to God… the world will not be convinced of your standing with God by a chain – but by your fruit! The Scribes and the Pharisees were the most outwardly religious men of their day, and Jesus compared them to ‘whitewashed tombs’, whose exterior give the impression of holiness but whose insides are full of dead bones.

    I would suggest that any person who gets into righteous indignation over this chain is in fact loosing sight of their purpose… and needs to re-examine what their view of being a Christian is about.

  28. BFP

    Hello Andrew

    We’ll reference your comment for the sake of accuracy, but it’s really a sidebar on the entire issue when Sikhs are allowed to wear their religious jewellery in uniform.

  29. Pat

    Anonymous, please dont call me darling. Crocodiles dont pour oil on prey before they eat it. Secondly, your post is so long I did not finish reading it. Thirdly, your epistle I think is for Christians. I am an agnostic.

    Goodbye Anonymous, please enjoy your retirement. Remember to get in some regular exercise. It is important with all the free time you will be having on your hands. Go easy on the rich foods, avoid fried stuff, eat whole grains, forget the Perrier and boil your drinking water. Reduce your intake of red meat, but make up the difference with a good red wine and you should live to be over 100, with all your faculties and mobility intact.

  30. Roland

    Pat, Dearest…is dearest more acceptable than “Darling?” The second most verbose reader to post here was you (325 words). And I’m certain the the magic number for the title of “verbosity: would be…326?

    Unfortunately, retired and verbose as he may be Anonymous is the only one here who has it figured out. I suggest, Dearest, that you focus more on being wise and less on being clever.