Skip to main content.
« Previous entry: The Nativity Story | Main page | Next entry: Christian Unions »

November 22nd, 2006

Religious discrimination

discrimination cartoon

I am of course woefully late commenting about the story of the woman who wanted to wear a cross for evangelistic reasons but British Airways said no.

Archbishop Sentamu has waded in, but my opinion is that he should have saved his wading for a better issue. There is a time to wade and a time not to, and this was one of the latter.

It seems fairly clear to me that this is a case of “Christians… seeking aggressively to reassert their influence and profile”, to quote the Ekklesia article. It continues:

The think tank also questions the way some Christians are quickly resorting to language about persecution. “Given that Britain is a pretty open society, this kind of talk lacks proportion and is grossly insensitive towards many different minority groups across the world who face prison or death for their convictions,” says Barrow.

I suspect some of you will disagree with me. Feel free to tell me so in no uncertain terms.

Feel free to reuse this cartoon. Copying and pasting this code is one way to do so:

<img src="http://www.weblogcartoons.com/cb/discriminate.gif" alt="cartoon from www.weblogcartoons.com" />
<p>Cartoon by <a href="http://www.cartoonchurch.com/blog/">Dave Walker</a>. Find more cartoons you can freely re-use on your blog at <a href="http://www.weblogcartoons.com/">We Blog Cartoons</a>.</p>

Update: Good points here: Bigbulkyanglican: Nadia Eweida – a Christian stand?

30 Comments »



Share this on Facebook:

If you enjoyed this post you might also enjoy these (possibly) related articles:

If you liked this post why not send it to someone else by e-mail? Click here to do so.

This is a single post on the Cartoon Blog by Dave posted on Wednesday, November 22nd, 2006 at 11:03 am. Click here to read all of the latest posts. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

Other things technologically advanced people may like to do: trackback from another site, follow responses via the comments feed, bookmark on del.icio.us or digg.

30 Responses to “Religious discrimination”


  1. MadPriest says:

    The whole thing about being a Christian under the New Covenant is that we DON’T have to wear a cross, when other religions have strict LAWS about what they must wear (and eat etc.). Doesn’t anybody read St. Paul anymore?

    By the way, Dave, you have been in fine form recently, cartoonwise. Some of them, if I dare say it, have been quite biting in their wit. Keep the faith, brother, but don’t give too much of the good stuff away!

    November 22nd, 2006 at 11:34 am
  2. Rick says:

    To be honest I am far more worried about the story in Saturdays Times newspaper (it is on-line but I can’t be bothered to look up the link, sorry.) that some universities and their Student Union bodies are refusing to recognise their Christian Unions because you have to be a christian to be allowed to sit on the organising committee.

    Ruth Gledhill has commented on this story and I am surprised it hasn’t made a wider impact in blog-land.

    November 22nd, 2006 at 12:28 pm
  3. Karin says:

    I like to wear a small Celtic cross I bought on Iona. It reminds me that Jesus Christ embraces the whole world. I am not aware that anyone objects to me doing this.

    That cross is not a sign that I am a Christian. The way I behave should show that, although it doesn’t always. If I insist on my rights to wear what I like and ignore others’ feelings, if I am arrogant rather than humble, then whatever I wear it will not show people that I am a Christian – not even if I wrap myself in the Turin shroud!!

    November 22nd, 2006 at 12:36 pm
  4. Rhys says:

    The article Rick’s discussing is this one. ‘Discrimination’ against Christian Unions has been going on for about ten years or so. But it cuts both ways: in some cases, the CUs don’t want to identify with some of the policies of the Student Union either.

    As for your general point, Dave, I agree with you in no uncertain terms. I find that when Christians start talking about ‘political correctness’, and particularly when it’s suffixed by the phrase ‘gone mad’, it’s usually time to start a more interesting and/or illuminating discussion.

    November 22nd, 2006 at 1:18 pm
  5. Infidel says:

    Don’t get me started on university CUs. There are some very dodgy goings on in this societies, and it’s rather a good thing that the Student Unions are ceasing to support them. It’s not that the CU’s are saying that only Christians can be on the committee – it’s also a very particular (and in my mind – peculiar) brand of Christianity that they’re after.

    November 22nd, 2006 at 1:45 pm
  6. jody says:

    Hi

    with regards crosses, I’m not sure. John Sentamu is a theologically savvy bloke (understatement ;-) and so I wonder if there is more at stake than I ‘get’. On the other hand if our ‘christian-ness’ boils down to what we wear rather than who we are then we’re in trouble….oh….we are.

    regarding the uni CU thing, I found this interesting link to a comment on Fulcrum

    Karen says ‘Via Fulcrum, I read the Times Online article “Hallelujah, they’re standing up for Jesus” by Minette Marrin and the readers comments. I wasn’t that impressed by the article but I was particularly struck by the post from Dave, a RC student from Exeter,

    “I think you’ve really missed the point of the problems in Exeter. I am Christian, a Catholic and the CU’s doctrinal basis contains content which excludes Catholics & other Christian denominations. Only those who signed the DB can join the CU committee, or speak at meetings. Therefore as a Catholic I refuse to go to join the CU. The CU’s DB illustrates an Evangelical view, & as such it was deemed appropriate for its name to be changed to the ECU to correct the misleading impression that the CU was an umbrella organisation. Surely this is fair. They had their name changed because their core beliefs were ‘too exclusive’ to be named the Christian Union, ie. the Union of Christians, which they are not by their own admission.”

    Dave, Exeter, Devon

    might put a different spin on it.

    jody

    November 22nd, 2006 at 1:52 pm
  7. Tiffer says:

    I was surprised more people didn’t come out and say how silly this story was. Perhaps it was badly timed, coming out right after (during) the veil debate, but I think it is a different issue.

    Of course BA are being harsh, but I think she is being harsher by suing. I would rather a Christian were to be in the law courts fighting for someones rights or being tried for loving their neighbour than because they want to wear a symbol of their faith. Of course symbolism is important in Christianity but not at the expense of witness.

    Then again, I don’t wear a cross. Because I haven’t worked out where to buy that leather cord stuff yet.

    November 22nd, 2006 at 2:02 pm
  8. Dave says:

    MadPriest – thanks. I am giving this one away to bloggers as I tend not to add the more topical ones to the subscribers section as they become outdated.

    Yes, the CU-related stories (at least 2 or 3 going around at the moment) are rather complex.

    Tiffer – your point about BA being harsh. I can’t see that they were. There are different dress codes for different jobs – it so happens that in this particular case jewellery worn outside the clothing was not allowed. It was the fact it was jewellery worn outside the clothing that was the issue and not the fact it was a cross.

    November 22nd, 2006 at 2:23 pm
  9. Eve says:

    ALl this argument about cross or no cross, veil or no veil seems to me to be a case of not seeing the wood for the trees.
    If God thought we needed to have an easily visible billlboard sign to show our religious affiliations then wouldn’t we all have stigmata or some other symbolic skin change?

    As to the fuss about the CU in the student union. I’m glad to see dissent is still alive at Universities. I don’t hold with enforced conformity wherever it occurs but if the union decided that all its societies should have an open door policy then that is a matter for the current members of that union to debate if they want it changed.

    November 22nd, 2006 at 2:26 pm
  10. Tiffer says:

    I stand corrected

    November 22nd, 2006 at 3:03 pm
  11. Dave says:

    Tiffer – you should argue with me a bit before standing corrected. It just livens things up a bit.

    November 22nd, 2006 at 3:21 pm
  12. joe says:

    Dave you’re totally wrong (am I being argumentative enough?)

    If sikh headwear (a religious requirement) is allowed, how can a small silver cross not be allowed?

    Are they going to tell the sikhs to walk around with paper bags on their heads?

    Joe

    November 22nd, 2006 at 4:06 pm
  13. Dave says:

    Joe,

    Yes indeed – that is more like it.

    My reasoning would be that the sikh headwear is a religious requirement, whereas the small silver cross isn’t.

    She is being treated the same as all wearers of necklace-based jewellery would in the particlar role she is in.

    As an unrelated aside, does your website have a feed? I couldn’t find one.

    Dave

    November 22nd, 2006 at 4:38 pm
  14. Simon Davies says:

    Dave, you will no doubt recall that the CU at a particular university in the East Midlands was excluded from the SU over 15 years ago for the reasons outlined above. I believe that has changed in more recent times and that there is now a Church which meets in the Union building.

    Simon

    November 22nd, 2006 at 4:47 pm
  15. David Hodgson says:

    I agree with Dave

    November 22nd, 2006 at 7:41 pm
  16. Karin says:

    I did hear that BA allow sikhs to wear turbans and some religious group to wear bangles because they cannot be worn under clothing. So maybe they aren’t being entirely fair to this Christian lady, but is her attitude truly Christian? And a cross isn’t essential for a Christian. Some Christian groups even think it is wrong.

    As to CU’s, what I heard on Radio 4′ Sunday programme was that not only were they told they should be allowing non-Christians to speak at their meetings, which might not always be a bad thing, but they should allow non-Christians into their leadership, which did sound totally daft.

    I think it’s good that Exeter has insisted it’s CU make it clear that it was an Evangelical CU, as it excluded other Christians.

    Does that cover everything?

    November 22nd, 2006 at 7:52 pm
  17. Tiffer says:

    Karin, balanced as ever.

    Dave, I am afraid I was completely in the wrong – as I was not as informed as I made out I was. However your refutation of my assumptions only led my initial argument to become all the more stronger, in fact so strong that it could, if time and effort allowed, take over the world.

    The whole CU thing is a big distraction in my opinion. There is an element of PC silliness from SUs and the like and an element of persecution complex (and homophobia/lack of grace)amongst CUs;

    Our CU got kicked out because the Pres was a nonny and wrote a hellfire email to someone who just happened to be the editor of the Student newspaper, pretending to be a gay christian and proud of it. Overnight the gay community felt got at, because suddenly they were being told CU members didn’t like them – and overnight the CU felt got at, because their values (which have little to do with what they are there for anyway) felt got at.

    Lots of people who differ being incited to get dramatic about it. It would be hard to find one non Christian who knew or cared what the CUs stance was on homosexuality before the cak hit the flak. It was all very silly and I think everyone behaved stupidly – in the end though, there is an element of agreeing to differ – unless anyone is actually being abused which they weren’t.

    And the second wave of Exeter SU silliness about non christians being allowed to address the Christians – also stupid. If a non Christian did want to stand up and say something about how to do Christian mission (which is what the main meetings are for apparently) then go ahead – I don’t imagine there being a large queue of people.

    I just think that the time and effort could be better spent on all that Jesus stuff.

    November 22nd, 2006 at 8:40 pm
  18. joe says:

    Dave,

    Who is to say what a religious obligation is? If one person decides that it is a religious obligation to wear a small silver cross, then it is a religious obligation.

    If she decided it was a religious obligation to walk around painted yellow, one might reasonably decide that was inappropriate when working for an airline.

    But we’re talking about a small silver cross – something considerably less noticable than the sikh headgear which is considered appropriate.

    Similarly, if someone is acting as a solicitor in an Immigration Tribunal, the important thing is that they are heard, not whether or not we agree with their religious clothing. If the judge cannot hear the solicitor then maybe it is time the judge cleaned his ears out. I have asked a question regarding the regularity of ear-cleaning of judges via my MP as you may see on my blog.

    I’ve no idea what a feed is, Dave. And yes, in the above I am being argumentative. Just in case anyone was wondering.

    November 22nd, 2006 at 10:39 pm
  19. RevG says:

    Can I just say how refreshing it is to hear someone speak out for once on behalf of those of us whose public witness involves street tambourinism.
    You wouldn’t believe how much opposition and spiritual warfare we face.
    Sign of the times, I suppose.

    Peace, blessings and instrumental worship CDs.

    November 23rd, 2006 at 8:42 am
  20. Karin says:

    Would Rev G be the Rev Gerald Ambulance, by any chance?

    November 23rd, 2006 at 8:49 am
  21. RevG says:

    No, he is the Rev Gerald Ambulance by divine decree.

    November 23rd, 2006 at 9:17 am
  22. Chris Clark says:

    Would BA object to a “what would Jesus do” arm band? Would Jesus object to what we do in His name? Do we worry enough about doing what Jesus would do even if we thinkt he armbands are naff?

    November 23rd, 2006 at 9:50 am
  23. joe says:

    I have trouble getting my brain around what Jesus Would Do Whilst Working at the BA check-in desk.

    I somehow doubt he would even be working at the BA check-in desk, so the conjecture is entirely lost on me.

    November 23rd, 2006 at 10:42 am
  24. Chris Clark says:

    Well Jo do you think that being a carpenter is in any way superior to working at a BA check in desk? A whole new kind of discrimination arises methinks!

    November 23rd, 2006 at 11:31 am
  25. Eve says:

    As I understand it Jesus was a “sole trader” and then made a career change to working on spec, trusting to the generosity of others to provide for him and his entourage, (loaves and fishes notwithstanding).
    But if he said “none shall come to the father except through me” does that not mean he is check-in staff – though obviously not BA?

    November 23rd, 2006 at 11:54 am
  26. Adrian says:

    Actually Jesus didn’t like people who broadcast their religion openly. I think allowing this cross would look silly, the BA uniform is very nice as it is. Also male christian staff would have to be allowed to wear a cross over their ties which frankly will look wierd…

    November 24th, 2006 at 3:35 pm
  27. Karin says:

    Good points, Adrian.

    November 24th, 2006 at 4:04 pm
  28. tumbleweed says:

    I’m confused, I thought Jesus told his disciples to go out and share the good news, you don’t light a candle and then hide it under the bed or something like that, well, I suppose the wearing of a cross wasn’t exactly what he had in mind when he said that.
    I don’t feel comfortable wearing jewellery, and somewhere along the line in 20ys of marriage I removed my wedding ring. But when I met Jesus some 4ys ago I felt compelled to dig the ring out of hiding and reintroduce it to my finger, funny what meeting Jesus can do for you if you let him. I also felt compelled to start wearing a small cross around my neck, not sure why cause I don’t always feel very comfortable with it on, but I just can’t bring myself not to wear it, maybe it has something to do with this love I’ve found.

    Ps: thought I might go one better and have a cross tattooed too my neck, or better still, on my forehead…………….only joking.

    I know this comment is a bit late but I don’t check into this site very often, great site though Dave, cheers, Ed.

    December 6th, 2006 at 1:00 pm
  29. Augustus Meriwether says:

    Any Christian who insists on a ‘right’ to wear a cross ought to be forced to carry a proper nought-century, full-sized crucifix on their back for a year. And scourged. And ridiculed. And humiliated.

    I do this all the time with the curtains drawn and it does me no harm.

    It’s about time some people started taking their religion seriously instead of wafting about their nice shiny trinkets.

    (By the way, do you think it is wrong to apply savlon to my auto-flagellatory wounds? Am I compromising faith?)

    December 26th, 2006 at 4:14 pm
  30. Sam-Maree West says:

    Is it not logical that wearing a cross on a chain can be both positive and negative depending on cecomstances? Is it not possible for the wearer of a cross to be positively influenced by the reminder of what Jesus did for them haning around their neck, could not people who see this cross be influeced to think about why that person might choose to wear such an item and similarly could the person wearing the cross simply be arrogant or prideful which could cause those who see it to react negatively. It does not seem that there is something inherrently wrong about wearing a cross, there can only be something wrong with the wearer or the reaction of others to the cross.

    January 2nd, 2007 at 9:17 am