In a highly significant move, ministers will fight a case at the European Court of Human Rights in which two British women will seek to establish their right to display the cross.
It is the first time that the Government has been forced to state whether it backs the right of Christians to wear the symbol at work.
A document seen by The Sunday Telegraph discloses that ministers will argue that because it is not a “requirement” of the Christian faith, employers can ban the wearing of the cross and sack workers who insist on doing so.
The Government’s position received an angry response last night from prominent figures including Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury.
He accused ministers and the courts of “dictating” to Christians and said it was another example of Christianity becoming sidelined in official life.
Some of you may be shocked, due to my identification as an Atheist, that I am deeply troubled by ANY law which allows the firing of a person for displaying their religious faith through the wearing of ornaments or clothing.
While I may have a very different view of allowing proselytizing at work, and this COULD be categorized as a subtle form of that invasive practice, I do not see it in the same light at all.
However though this may seem a simple case of free speech or religious tolerance, it is a little more complicated.
The Strasbourg case hinges on whether human rights laws protect the right to wear a cross or crucifix at work under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
It states: “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.”
The Christian women bringing the case, Nadia Eweida and Shirley Chaplin, claim that they were discriminated against when their employers barred them from wearing the symbols.
They want the European Court to rule that this breached their human right to manifest their religion.
The Government’s official response states that wearing the cross is not a “requirement of the faith” and therefore does not fall under the remit of Article 9.
Lawyers for the two women claim that the Government is setting the bar too high and that “manifesting” religion includes doing things that are not a “requirement of the faith”, and that they are therefore protected by human rights.
I actually read about this case several days ago, but there was so much going on that I was unable to address it back then.
Still I think it is a rather fascinating topic and am interested in what all you have to say about it.
It is wrong to tell people they cannot wear a cross. Or a saint's medalion. Or a pentagram. Or the Star of David. Or the Buddha.
ReplyDeleteTo my way of thinking, yes.
DeleteSo does this mean Jews can't wear a Star of David on the job? If they pick on Christians, they have to include all religions.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, discriminating against someone for wearing a cross pendant, and telling them they cannot wear one at work, is no different than discriminating against an atheist and telling them they *have* to wear a cross to work.
ReplyDeleteThis is a very important issue and yes I do agree with you.
ReplyDeleteAlso the legal language is good.It has to be simple and clear before we will not be allowed to wear flower jewelry because it reminds a others they might sneeze.
We will soon be wrapped in so many laws we just might be reduced to a single color onesy and identical haircuts.
It's exactly like the French forbidding Muslim women from wearing headscarves, though the French would claim that is an anti-terrorist measure - so much wrong with that contention, in the first place.
ReplyDeleteIt's Freedom of Religion, unless someone is trying to impose their beliefs on others. Displaying a cross is just displaying a cross. It may bug some people who don't ascribe to that particular religion, but it's every person's right to do so if they feel it is a self expression or an integral part of their individual faith practice.
No it isn't the same at all. I think the French forbid covering the face not the head. Am I wrong? Covering the face hides the identity. I recall an issue in Florida, I think, where the government was sued to allow Muslims to cover their face for ID photos or to be exempt from them based on religious beliefs. Now we are treading into the area of national security. Conversely, how does wearing a cross intimidate others or defy national security? I think what the British government will have to do is prove that wearing a religious symbol intimidates others. Good luck with that.
DeleteYou are correct in that the French forbid the wearing of the burqua or naqib that hide the face.
DeleteHeadscarves are banned in public schools though.
Correct. Young French Muslim women are forbidden from practicing their religion in the way they wish. The government actually intervened against a tradition they found distasteful, as it ran counter to their notion of the superiority of secularism.
DeleteThe law was not created as a national security measure, at all. At least not publicly or openly. In fact, the original legislation sought to ban the wearing of any and all religious symbols, regardless of particular faith. Crosses were out, as well.
I can tell you this much, however, it sure came across as persecution of Muslims in a country that has a poor track record on this issue. I believe Nicolas Sarkozy ran on these kinds of ideas, and it garnered him many racist votes in the election.
French public schools ban the open wearing of all religious symbols. And the students are doing just fine.
DeleteSorry to disappoint you, but :
Delete- I work in a French public school and I can tell you the wearing of religious jewelry is well spread among students and nobody cares.
- wearing a veil has nothing to do with being Muslim. The Quran asks for women to wear "clothes" for modesty - as in, not walk around naked. Many Muslim countries are known for their ban of veils (Turkey, Tunisia).
- practicing one's religion means, for most French Muslim, a special diet and the observance of the Ramadan. French public schools readily accomodate for that.
- France has a better track record at not persecuting minorities than most countries. The last time a protesting non-white was beaten up to death by police was 1986. When was the last time in America ?
- Most French agree with having Aid, Muslims' holiest day, being made a vacation. The government disagrees - because bosses hate having to pay one more vacation.
- That Sarkozy panders to the racist far-right doesn't mean that their views are widely shared ; on the contrary, it's a sign of his despair. Let's remember that the only one time when the far-right Le Pen presidential candidate ended up in an electable position, 80% voted against him.
@Anonymous 2:36
DeleteThere has never been any tradition of wearing the Saudi hijab amongst French Muslims - who are mostly coming from Maghreb. Nobody wore hijabs of any kind in the 70s. Hijabs started to appear in France in the late 80s - a few years after Khomeiny took power in Iran, with the help of France.
The hijab issue sure appeared as a persecution to fanatical Muslims. It appeared as a big relief to moderate Muslims, who are the vast majority. Let's remind that hijabs are quite allowed outside of schools, including in higher education.
So this must mean Jews cannot wear Star of David, or a yarmulke, on the job.
ReplyDeleteAs someone who has held jobs where the wearing of any ornamentation other than the official uniform and ID badge was not allowed,I understand.They are saying that an exception to the companies policy is not a legal Requirement.Of course an employer can dictate what you can wear.If you choose to apply for and accept a job,you must abide by things like dress codes at work.Those who feel they must wear a cross due to religious reasons(something not mandated by any religion)can easily wear one inside their shirt,as many employees of companies with dress codes do now.Their right to practice their religion is not being damaged in any way.Imagine a Mr T cross on a policeman,or a shiny gold cross hanging around the neck of a casino dealer and swinging around as they deal the cards,or Minnie Mouse at a theme park,anywhere that an employer has a certain theme or uniform look they desire.You may have never held a job with a dress code requirement,but I have.I have also been a supervisor enforcing it.Let me say that if you allow an exception for across,it will become 2 crosses,huge earrings,cross pins stuck on the ID badge,large flashy crosses,and what ever else employees want to push the envelope with.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you on the dress code issue, but there is nothing in the article that implies a dress code is the concern. If this company bans all jewelry, then there should be no exceptions. However, it appears that is not the case here.
Delete~physicsmom
It's "Britons" you dumbass.
ReplyDeleteGeoffrey Dunn has been trying everything to ride the Game Change bandwagon to get somebody, anybody to buy his book. Maybe he should get some tips from Shailey Tripp. She's sold 240 already.
The only person to make money on Sarah Palin books is...wait for it...
Sarah Palin
Which is why "Going Rogue" is in the .99cent sale bin?
DeleteTodd Palin makes money on hookers.
DeleteGeoffrey Dunn's book "The LIES of Sarah Palin" is the best one out there and his sales have increased since the "Game Change" was released on HBO (with such a huge following). So, too, have increased sales taken place w/the book by Joe McGinniss "The Rougue - Searching for the REAL Sarah Palin"!
DeleteBoth books are well written, researched and have proof sources involved. I recommend ALL of you read these books! You'll get some more information about the liar and idiot, Sarah Palin, that were not in the "Game Change".
If it goes to court, it might actually be settled. Clearly this is an issue that is going to come up one way or another, with various religions, and if it is settled in court then it applies to all religions.
ReplyDeleteAnd frankly, I rather sympathize with the position the government is taking. You can be a Christian without wearing a cross: supposedly it's all in the heart. Whereas a Muslim is required by his or her religion to be "modest" which means wearing the scarf, for a woman, is required. And I understand that Sikh men must carry a knife, which has been resolved (in at least one school district that I know of) that the knife must have a dull blade, be less than 3 inches long, and be permanently sewn into a sheath so that it cannot be used as a weapon. There are all kinds of religions and varying requirements.
This case isn't actually about wearing a cross- it's about wearing a visible cross in defiance of whatever uniform rules are present. If these women felt they must have a cross, why must they wear it so that it shows? They could wear it on a long enough chain so it drops beneath their blouses. They could wear it pinned to the underside of a collar. If they need a cross, they can have one. They are choosing to display it in violation of the standards of the job they chose.
No: I'm in sympathy with the government on this one. But I'm a witch, and not superstitious as these Christians are. They evidently can't feel they're properly Christian without shoving it in people's faces. And given that they could wear a cross without showing it, they want to shove it in people's faces.
Ivyfree
Exactly Ivyfree! I bet you have experienced the same thing I have when I dared, I tell you dared!, to wear a pentagram openly. BB!
DeleteA witch isn't superstitious? Seriously? Wow.
DeleteNo more than any other cult.
DeletePeople don't need to ram 'their' religion down my throat. I don't want to see Palin type accessories (especially on belts adorning her private area or Jewish ornamentation displayed when she is no more a Jew than me!)
DeleteReligion and its accessories should be a private matter that people use. Many of us in the USA don't believe in God and are we telling supposed christians that in the workplace? I've never heard anyone express it and I've been in the workplace for years.
Ivyfree,
DeleteI used to be self conscious to wear a pentagram, but not anymore. I wear pentagram earrings and pentagram necklace. I'm sick of these xtains!
Not going back to the burning times! Evah!
You're a witch??? Oh isn't that nice, and you somehow think you have the credentials to criticize the christian sky fairy believers?
DeleteLike with gay rights, I think, "Who the hell cares! Why get in the middle of it?" Does it harm others? No. So why the hell is government coming between the religious symbol and the person wearing it? Same with gay rights. Why do other people care so much about someone else's sex life? That's a bit sick if you ask me. If God has ordained that "gay" is immoral, then isn't the issue between the gay person and God? How did government get involved? How is wearing a religous symbol harmful or intimidating to anyone? Dumbasses! Let me fix that, Sanctimonious dumbasses. There, that's much better.
ReplyDeleteOr they could be like Sarah and wear a cross one day and a Star Of David the next or a rhinestone cross on the belt or on a hat. Or all of them together an have an American flag an an Israel flag in your office. Perhaps an angel blowing a horn or a little fat Buddha around her neck or an AIP flag on her lapel. She just wants to make everyone comfortable to be around her. Sarah, you don't have to wear your religion on your body to tell people what kind of person you are. Your filthy speech gives you away...you are not a Christian! Christians love one another and treat everyone with respect. Even Jews, Atheists, Buddists, Mormons,Muslims don't need bling to be nice to people. They show it by their actions and love for one another. As far as England goes, they have a state religion. In case Sarah doesn't remember, that's why our forefathers came here..to have freedom from religion and to worship as they wanted without persecution. If they want to rule against wearing a cross, that is their business. You can wear any religious symbol you want here, but it would be nice if a person of celebrity status would pick one and stick with it. We also have the right to point out how stupid it looks! Do you know it's National DS Day? Are you going to wear a necklace to honor them? No, I didn't think so. Hypocrite!
ReplyDeleteMrs Gunka
Once again, there are three things you never discuss in polite company. Religion. Politics. Sex.
ReplyDeleteIf you dare to bring up these topics, a fight will break out. Guaranteed.
I talk religion and politics with my friends and family all the time, and no fights breaks out.
DeleteYea, but I bet you don't do it at work! (responding to comment 10:40 a.m.)
DeleteI remember years ago being on a lunch break with co-workers and the conversation moved into blacks and their lives on the east coast. It got heated and management came into the office lunchroom and asked us to stop the conversation because voices were increasing and anger was heard.
So, doubt that politics and religion are discussed in the majority of offices. Can you imagine bringing up the subject of Sarah Palin? Oh my, my, my!!!!!!!
a cross? ...a graven image?
ReplyDeleteof COURSE they have the right!
...and as a Pastafarian, I too, reserve the right to wear my colander on my head at work.
RUCK the fools!
Ha! May you be touched by his noodly appendage. Ramen.
DeleteI can't see any harm in the freedom to wear crosses or, as many others have pointed out, any number of symbols that reflect who you are. I think it's repressive and uncalled for. It's (so far) a lesser version of what some are trying to force on people in this country.
ReplyDeleteI agree - though I had to chuckle - some crosses and crucifixes are gigantic and could interfere with safety concerns, though is probably not a concern in this instance. Safety concerns would not concentrate upon the type of jewelry, but rather the size.
ReplyDeleteThe issue about head scarfs for Muslim women is often brought up in the context of safety or security because obscuring one's hair can make identification of individuals more difficult, though in most situations that might not apply. An all-encompassing headdress and body robe could be more problematic because then it is more obviously an identification issue.
As long as a person is not actively trying to influence co-workers about religion, then there should be no problem.
Note: when I worked as a temp in a Jewish reform temple's office, I discovered they preferred to hire Christians for the clerical work to avoid having congregants or possible congregants access to personal information of other members. They felt keeping a distinct separation between faith members was an asset to their security. Even in that instance, no one said anything about the Christian workers wearing or not wearing crosses - it was a non-issue. So, if that did not raise problems, I wonder why it did in the British situation.
It's the 21st. century and this is as offensive to intelligent thinking people as wearing an electric chair around one's neck. No display of torture devices is appropriate for wearing in public. US excepted of course, where half the people don't believe in evolution yet.
ReplyDeleteWow. So I must be a stupid unthinking person if I wear a cross? I better quit my job as a teacher immediately! BTW, genius, are there intelligent, unthinking people or stupid, thinking people?
DeleteWell you certainly have one big strike against you if you believe in a sky fairy that the cross signifies. But hey, you're probably an american anyway so go right ahead. If you're not an american then you may have a point.
DeleteSo, I see that you are one of those "my way or the highway" , narrow-minded, stupid thinking people.
DeleteAnon. 2:16 PM
DeleteI believe in God, and will shout it to the world.
This is not meant for America. There people should just continue to believe in sky fairies, witchcraft (palin), creation, or any other nonsense they want to believe in. This is meant for other countries where people are deciding to live in the 21st. century.
ReplyDeleteWell, I can you that this Christian is far more evolved and accepting of others than some of the "my way or the highway" atheist thinkers here.
DeleteBullshit!
DeleteJust another insecure (alleged) Xtrian who can't stand having their brainless beliefs questioned.
To whom are you replying, hrh?
DeleteThe problem is that there is a state religion in England, and the king or queen takes an oath to be the "defender of the faith." That's the sticking point if Charles were to be sworn in as King, since he is divorced-- something that the Anglican Church had a problem with in the 1930's when King Edward gave up his throne to marry a twice divorced woman.
ReplyDeleteWhen the founders of our Constitution drew a line between church and state it was for a good reason. Some of the first colonists left England to practice a more strict version of their Anglican Faith. The church in England had become too liberal for them. (Kind of like the Religious Right here). Other religions also found freedom to worship here. Early settlers in South Carolina were Protestant Huguenots who left France when Catholicism became the official state religion.
I wonder how a rule like this would affect Sarah Palin, who wears a Jewish star in Israel, New York or to Breitbart's Jewish funeral. Then, she wears a cross when she wants to appeal to that crowd.
Charles is not going to become King of England. His son is already in line for that job
DeleteI'm not religious, but I see nothing wrong with wearing a cross necklace at work at all. The only exception would be if all kinds necklaces were banned for EVERYONE because of dress code, safety issues, or whatever.
ReplyDeleteA religious symbol around the neck isn't offensive, it's not preaching. Let them wear it.
Exactly! Who the hell cares unless it is a safety issue? As a Christian, I am not one bit intimidated or offended by someone wearing any kind of religious jewelry. Live and let live and mind your own damn business. It's very simple: Just respect others and give them space to live their lives as long as they aren't infringing on the rights of others.
DeleteThats the point.The women bringing the suit want an exception to work dress codes to be made to require their employers to allow them to openly wear a cross necklace when the employer has a dress code that bans the wearing of all visible necklaces.
DeleteWhere did it say that? Source, please.
Delete~physicsmom
I apologize, I went back and read the "Telegraph" article and found that, at least in the BA case, there was a dress code which prohibited jewelry. It's not clear about the nurse, although, at most hospitals here, necklaces are not allowed for safety reasons. The article also includes an appeal by two employees for being "forced" to deal with gay couples (performing civil unions and/or counselling). The latter issue is more interesting to me, in that I strongly disagree with the "conscience" exclusion for pharmacists. If it's part of the job and is known at the time of hiring (or study), one choosing that profession makes a decision in the beginning knowing that these requirements exist.
Delete~physicsmom
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
ReplyDeleteI don't think the government should be able to prevent people from wearing a cross, or Star of David, or...... But the workplace isn't the Community Square. IN today's highly politicized religious environment, a cross may not be just a cross. It may be a message to subordinates, or colleagues. And the lack of a cross, or the presence of something "not a cross" may be an invitation to proselytizing. Okay, so you can make rules against proselytizing? And exactly how would you define proselytizing?
ReplyDeleteOf course, not wearing a cross won't prevent proselytizing. It may even be a stupid rule. But then, you don't have to take the job.
Jobs can have dress codes. Why isn't this just part of a dress code.
Lucy (who isn't sure which side she comes down on for this and needs to go read more about the case and the issues)
Europe is becoming increasingly secular - much more so than the U.S. And as such, it is seeming that they are much more intolerant of religious trappings such as wearing a symbol of faith around ones neck. I can somewhat see their point, especially if it is being worn openly. I can also see the prohibition against all ornamentation being worn IF it directly poses a health threat, such as a necklace getting caught in machinery, OR if it makes clients uncomfortable in a meaningful manner.
ReplyDeleteLet's look at this in the context of tatoos and body piercing art. While some people's body art is of a religious nature, most of it is not, and tat wearers are often asked to cover up, or refused jobs because of their body art. Employers regularly ask people wearing lots of piercings to remove them before coming to work. If society has no problem with asking people to do so, if society also asks people to adhere to other "dress codes" either as a uniform for staff or as a safety issue - don't want to wear a burka near a big printing press....then this isn't any different in my humble opinion.
That said, you are not going to get people to stop wearing their belief symbols. So while we have "freedom of expression" we don't really have freedom of clothing - if you are a woman, can you go topless in this country (besides NY city or at NO Mardigras) if you want to? Can you wear what you want when in school? (No hoodies, shades, baggy pants). No you can't.
I think an employer has every right to say "keep it out of sight, or keep it off" if it affects his clientele and/or the employee's safety or performance. This doesn't restrict that employees right to believe whatever they want to. It doesn't keep them from worshiping. But it does stop that person from silently announcing to the world what their personal beliefs are.
In the end I think businesses have the right to establish a dress code for their employees PERIOD.
ReplyDeleteThe government has no place in this one way or the other. If an employer, for some reason, does not want religious symbols of any kind (because maybe his clientele is diverse and he wants to be neutral) then it is his right to tell these women they can't wear a cross. If they don't like that, they can quit or be fired.
It's a piece of jewelry, not a a gun.
DeleteI think you're nuts.
DeleteAnon at 10:50a
DeleteOooooo, such anger. Feeling threatened? Becoming emotionally undone because the brainwashing is beginning to wash away and you may no longer have a fantasy to cling to?
Or just having a bad hair day?
Don't forget that employers have to think about their employees and be fair to ALL within their environment. Some employees are offended by one thing where another may not. So, they solve it by banning all religious items. Makes perfect sense to me.
DeleteIf the employee doesn't like, they can find another job!
@12:42 Exactly. The thing that "Christians" never understand, because they think only in terms of special treatment for themselves, is that you can't just decree that all employers must allow CROSSES, you'd have to allow "any and all personal belief icons".
DeleteImagine the uproar from Christians being forced to work with people wearing pentagrams or Muslim symbols? And what about the guy who wants to wear a gay pride pin?
And what do you do if you have some true nutcase who wants to wear a 12" crucifix featuring a bloody, agonized Christ on it? Now it would be illegal for you to fire that person even though they'd surely be driving customers away and hurting your business. It's clearly better and automatically FAIR to say "no religious icons, please".
It's always about "religious liberty" until it's SOMEONE ELSE'S beliefs being validated. THIS is why we have separation of church and state and why religious symbols are not allowed in government buildings. That way EVRYONE is treated the same. But again, Christians aren't about being equal, they think they're obviously superior, that this is "their" country and that is why it is not "special treatment".
My oldest daughter was told she could not wear a cross to work unless it was hidden from sight by her clothing. When a co-worker spotted it as she bent over to pick her purse off the floor in the cafeteria, she was put on report asnd told she could not wear it again - or be fired.
ReplyDeleteThat happened at the company Intel, in San Jose Calif - 1997.
This has been going on for a really long time and even though I am not religious I have always been appalled at the lunacy of this attitude in the workplace. Who cares what jewelry someone else wears?
-OzMud
Who cares? Can I tell you how many times friends of mine who wear the pentagram have gotten horrified looks and words from people who have spotted it?
DeleteObviously it was not well concealed.All she had to do was comply with the dress code.She didn't.She was disciplined for breaking the rules at her job.
Deleteright now i am of a mind that we should bring back the lions.
ReplyDeleteYes, I can see how that might be useful.
DeleteThe problem isn't the wearing of a cross as such, but wearing it (visibly) in a (public) workspace and/or being an employee of the state (as is the case with the nurse):
ReplyDelete"Last year it emerged that Mrs Eweida, a British Airways worker, and Mrs Chaplin, a nurse, had taken their fight to the European Court in Strasbourg after both faced disciplinary action for wearing a cross at work."
They are both employees with a public face, representing their (neutral or non-religious) organisation, so they must obey the rules of the club.
The argument of the government that wearing a cross isn't 'required' by Christian 'rules' is exactly why they can't wear them at work. If it were a rule (like with Sikhs or Jews) then they would have a point (up to a limit of course).
If Christians can't wear a cross, then Jews can't wear a Star of David, or a yarmulke. It's only fare.
DeleteNo. It's "fair."
DeleteHowever an observant Jew is required to cover his head at prescribed times.
At no time is a Christian required to wear a cross.
You are right.Jews are not required to wear a Star Of David,so they have no protection under the law to do so.A Yarmulke for an Orthodox Jew is worn in the Synagogue or at home.Same deal as a cross.
DeleteIt seems ridiculous. What harm is done to anyone if someone is wearing a cross, crucifix (cross with Jesus hanging on it), star of David, some symbol that has meaning for a person? As along as it isn't insulting to others (KKK, for instance), it doesn't impose on anyone, has been done for centuries.
ReplyDeleteLegislating what people wear beyond requiring decency, is strange and opens the door for tons of nonsense. (You can't wear your little golf-club tie clasp? No shamrocks allowed on St. Paddy's Day?)
Outlawing the burkha I could see, as it disguises the person, a terrorist or criminal could use it. But jewelry? Silly.
But there's the point, you said "as long as it doesn't offend somebody"....Well there are people who are offended by the Christian cross, or the Star of David, or the 5 pointed Pentagram of a Wiccan, etc., etc. Who determines that level "of offensiveness"?
DeleteI don't hold truck with those that are "offended" by things are are not meant to be offensive.
Delete"OMG--she's wearing a cross/other item! The mere sight of it offends me! I don't care that it was her grandmother's and it comforts her and make her feel close to her grandmother! My day is ruined because I saw THAT THING around her neck!"
Really? And you're so incredibly weak and self-centered that the entire situation must suddenly be about YOU and how you feel. Screw everyone else. Why should we cave in to these people?
Interesting point. Some people are offended by the damndest things. But a general acceptance of "symbols" in our culture. Most cultures. It's always been so.
DeleteSymbols usually represent what we're for, wearing a flag, cross, whatever. Symbols that represent hatred of a group and incite such, we usually recognize: the Confederate flag that represents the South of slavery still flies some places in this country, sad but true. The Nazi swastica. But in a diverse nation, all kinds of symbols abound and it would be sad to see Big Brother say no more.
The point is that the women involved want it Legislated that their employers must let them wear a cross even though they have a dress code in place that says they cannot.
DeleteIt's jewelry right? . I guess it depends on the job. As a nurse, we are not allowed to wear necklaces that may conk people on the head when we lean over them or which may contaminate a sterile field. For good hand hygiene we can not wear nail polish that has chips in it or fake fingernails. We can only wear a wristwatch, no bracelets and only wedding rings, preferable just a band. So, yeah, I'm fine with dress codes at work.
ReplyDeleteDress codes are fine and appropriate for 'whatever' environment.
DeleteI was responsible for personnel years ago and had to tell a gal to go home and put on a bra because she had a see- through blouse on (was getting the attention of the guys needless to say! Cracks me up thinking about it! She actually got ticked at me for making her go home and return properly dressed for the office! Short, short skirts were also an issue back in the day too...probably as they might be in our fashion world of today.
Employees just need to read the 'dress code' of their employer and follow the rules. They can dress however the hell they want 'outside' of work!
This is ridiculous, and exactly the kind of thing that undermines us liberals.
ReplyDeleteHow anyone can support this is beyond me.
It's almost like parody of a charge the right-wing would make about liberals. In this case, it's actually true.
Sad, and stupid.
How anyone can support forcing an employer to change their dress code through the courts is sad and stupid.
DeleteThe whole point of religious freedom is to be able to express your beliefs without fear of losing your job, being thrown in jail or publicly shunned.
DeleteEmployers have lots of court-mandated standards by which they must conduct their business - why should a dress code that neither addresses an issue of workers safety, identifying employers brand (as in a company uniform) or civil decorum be any different? Bosses don't get to circumvent human rights just because they 'want to'.
If that were true, Catholic-run hospitals would only hire Catholics, Jewish-owned jewelry companies would only hire Jews, Scientologist-owned juice bars would only hire other scientologists, etc.
And that's against the law.
-OzMud
Can thy keep thy job if thy uses birth control pills for birth control?
ReplyDeleteIt really needs to come down to this. Faith or the lack of it is PERSONAL.
ReplyDeleteGryphen you will be outraged by this:
How the Fundamentalist Mind Compels Conservative Christians to Force Their Beliefs on You | | AlterNet - http://goo.gl/ONli3
There are linked to a pdf in there from the MRFF (Lea Burton is one of the people involved)
And you won't believe the "christian" sentiments expressed against all other faith faiths or Atheists.
I agree with Anon 8:31 am
ReplyDeleteYou accept the job - you accept the rules of the employer as to dress code, the wearing of jewellery as some you cannot wear rings including wedding rings due to safety.
Some of the crosses or crucifix worn have taken on a life of their own - have grown in size, materials, etc. Many I've seen are gaudy and unprofessional looking in a business setting. You get one pushing the envelope, then the next, etc. Saw some that look like they were their kid's made out of plastic multi-color beads. Looked like it came from a dollar store. Others have been 6 to 8 inch wooden on aa leather lace. Not in my office is this allowed and I totally agree.
This really has nothing to do with 'religion' but has to do with someone wishing to display their religion. Nowhere does it say a cross or crucifix is a mandated requirement.
We had a case not that long ago with regard to an employee wearing on their business apron a 'worded' 'One Nation under God' flag button wherein the employee was fired.
I'm on the government side on this one. No one forced them to accept the jobs. They did that voluntarily. It's like someone bitching to me the job doesn't pay enough -- I tell them 'So quit, I didn't ask you to take the job' They made the choice to go to school to train for that job and if they didn't research what it pays - that's their stupidity.
Gryphen: "While I may have a very different view of allowing proselytizing at work, and this COULD be categorized as a subtle form of that invasive practice, I do not see it in the same light at all."
ReplyDeleteI don't really have anything to add to this comment - this is my first impression, as well. I will have to look further into this issue; I'm wondering if there were some incidents that led to such a policy. Of course, even if there were, it's usually best to try and find a solution that imposes limitations on a broad group of people because of the actions of a scant few.
Eeeks, I meant to say it's "usually best to find a solution that DOESN'T impose limitations on a broad group because of the actions of a scant few."
DeleteThink of Palin - strutting with a cross on a belt buckle or what appeared to be a wooded cross on a leather or suede string. In my opinion, it actually cheapens the symbol of religion as the choices of what is worn now look like stuff you would buy from a flea market or an 'everything for a dollar' store.
ReplyDeleteYuck. Especially since she is sleazy. "See the cross above my promised land?" She is a walking desecration to the crosses she wears, and has no realization of the size of the cross her vanity bares!
DeleteEVERYTHING touched by $P becomes cheapened. (Just ask Dr Baldwin-Johnson; if you can find her!)
DeleteI say wear the crucifix, but keep it hidden under clothing. If these women feel that they must share their faith, maybe they should work in a faith-based organization rather than in an organization where the requirement is non-religious jewelry. Of course, if ONLY crucifix are outlawed, then it could be discriminatory. If no religious-based jewelry is allowed, then it is an all-encompassing rule and should be followed by all employees.
ReplyDeleteThat said, I always wear a Celtic cross and I suppose some people would say that I am wearing a religious ornament. However, it is NOT a crucifix and thus does not reflect Christian beliefs. It would more likely represent Druid or Wicca beliefs I think. I wear it because it makes me feel good. It soothes my ancient Celtic soul :)
Having worked in an organization where a strict uniform code had to be followed, I am with those who believe that if one cannot follow the dress code requirements, you may be in the wrong job and should search elsewhere for employment. You signed on for the job and all the requirements that came along with it, thus you should follow the rules cheerfully - or leave. Pretty simple.
I agree with everything you say.
DeleteI would only add, re. dress code issues, there are also jobs in which all jewelry is forbidden for safety reasons.
10:34 Agree with you. It immediately made me think of Sarah Palin wearing Jewish jewelry when she is not a Jew! If I saw her wearing it, I'd be very, very tempted to walk up to her and yank it off her neck!
ReplyDeleteSarah Palin cheapens everything friggin thing she touches!!!! She's supposed to be a christian, but assuredly doesn't act like one!
Oops! Just commented in response to another commenter saying that $P cheapens everything she touches. If I had only known.............
DeleteWrong, Palin acts just like a christian. Very few christians are smart enough to completely cover up their evil thinking and their evil ways. If they could then they wouldn't be christians by definition.
DeleteExodus 20:4 speaks of not making nor using/wearing ¨graven images¨. A cross symbolizes an early Roman form of torture/execution. Even the fish symbol is verboten by God in the Old Testament. I am not a believer but don´t think ¨firing¨ someone over a cross is going to change anything with xtian hypocrites.
ReplyDeleteThe crucifix just a gang symbol.
ReplyDeleteHi Gryph in reference to your headline - There is only one Britain, there is no plural for that word. I'm sure you meant "Britons" or maybe just "Brits."
ReplyDeleteI am an Orthodox Catholic who covers. I cover my hair as it is a personal boundary. I love to look nice, but my focus is inward. (Very similar to Chabad Jews.) I also cover to my knees and elbows and collar bone. It's not required of my faith, but I quietly practice. I also agree with you, Griffen, on many issues!
ReplyDeleteA cross or crucifix is personal, like what I do, but I don't
wear crosses. If someone chooses to wear and display one, I think they should be able to. If crosses are outlawed, will the company also outlaw other Christian symbols? Eggs? Fish? X's? Modern crosses? What about pendants that reflect light in such a way that the light makes a cross on them? How about embroidery? Greek letters that spell a verse? Not to mention other religious symbols. I know fire fighters who aren't religious, but they won't take off their saint medals even to shower or make love-- do they want to tell fire fighters what to do?
I imagine the firefighters wear their medals inside their clothing where it wont catch on something,not outside their coveralls.
DeleteWould you take a job at Hooters and then ask the government to force your employer to let you dress as you wish?
DeleteIf we say a cross is just a piece of jewelry and is of little significance, than why do we care what $arah wears around her neck (though, it is good to see that figurative political noose resting there in the aftermath of Game Change). To many, a cross is not just a piece of jewelry, it symbolizes a set of beliefs contrary to their own. In some highly charged situations, this can lead to disruptions in the workplace. I can understand why an employer may want to eliminate these conflicts, or remove the association between a religion and their services.
ReplyDeleteA bandanna to me is just a piece of cotton to soak up the sweat when I'm out riding my horse in the summertime, but if I'm wearing it in an inner city...? Many schools have banned items of clothing used to display gang colors. Many schools enforce dress codes and require uniforms for similar reasons.
How often are the items linked below seen in the workplace, and would they be considered just jewelry in many areas of the US and especially NYC in the wake of 911.
http://www.divinejewelry.com/b/3353046011?gclid=CJ6g3vDE7q4CFasERQodeAIGHw
I hope one day we can all be appreciative of belief and faith of others. But as long as groups seek to dominate and control others, these sort of complications will persist.
Religion has created nothing but wars in our history. Some on the Repubs on the far right of their party are trying to ram their religion down our throats! It ain't a gonna work!
DeletePalin and Santorum....both lie and have been caught in them time and time again! I know enough about Santorum already to never cast a vote for him for national office. He's too radical - anti contraception - sex's not for enjoyment, etc.
Palin has proven time and time again during the past years that she is NOT a true christian. She lives by none of the teachings that I know and doesn't even attend church in Wasilla. She's a lyin' sack of shit!
O/T
ReplyDeleteFirst, there was the war on drugs. Then came the war on terrorism. Followed by the war on Christmas, women and religion. We seem to love waging wars.
And now a new war has broken out: the war on comedy.
http://www.local10.com/news/Stop-the-war-on-comedy/-/1717324/9423296/-/9tmfw0/-/
With religion having become a hot topic and in my opinion a watering down of religion in that it's now 'used and abused' by so many, this issue would not have come up had it not been that the lines of religion and politics have become so crossed in many places.
ReplyDeleteFor years and decades, it's never been an issue as to wearing a cross, etc.
It's not just her fault -- but Palin & ilk in the U.S. are much to blame for the 'use and abuse' in politics. Santorum et al is guilty too. They've also added to the 'cheapening' of religion. Then you add all the lies they speak about it. They've done more harm to religion than good.
Personally - I don't believe the women have a leg to stand on.
It's unfortunate but it will bring out those like Palin who spew religion but truthfully -- doesn't practice it or in reality -- truly knows it. For her it's for appearance sake.
I noticed Santorum being caught lying regarding Puerto Rico and his English statement yesterday or day before. He said he didn't say it and the newscaster pulled up the video showing HE DID SAY IT and was proven wrong in his statement. English is not a requirement to become a state!
DeleteAnother supposed religious freak who lies! What is new and are we surprised? He is making a horrible name for Catholics.
No sex for fun - just to make babies!!! What an idiot. Feel sorry for his wife! Cannot imagine going to bed w/him or Gingrich! Creepy!
Given the fact that England has an established church (ie state church), The Church of England, I find this a very odd ruling,
ReplyDeleteYeah, I thought about that too...
DeleteAnd I'm sure that some of the more nimble minds among the toothless cousin humper fundagelical set here in the U.S. will somehow find President Obama personally responsible for the persecution of Christians in Britain.
ReplyDeleteNo doubt. I think you are on to something.
Deleteas an Agnathiest I find this disturbing. The British should worry about beer, football and dental health.
ReplyDeleteI think the President should call Sara and ask her to go visit the Queen and set them straight.
ReplyDeleteWhat better adviser on christian living than our own wasilla grifter who thinks the Queen runs England?
BTW - I wonder if Sara understands the difference between England and Great Britain? Or what "countries" consider themselves part of the United Kingdom? OR even England for that matter?
It just goes to show that Americans don't have a lock on the Extreme Stupid gene.
ReplyDeleteMy view is, they're not interfering with anyone else's freedom by wearing a cross, so let them keep it on. If they were blatantly waving it around, trying to press the faith on others, it would become an entirely different matter. From what I've read it doesnt seem that this was the case. It's a bit silly/extreme that they can't wear a symbol of their faith. As an atheist, i respect others beliefs, and this prevents them from showing those beliefs.
ReplyDeleteIt just goes to show that Americans don't have a lock on the Extreme Stupid gene.
ReplyDeleteOh yes they do. You are just not up to speed yet on what is evil and harmful to society and what is not.
DeleteI think your headline is misleading. The women are not being ordered by the government not to wear crosses. This is an employment issue. It is the ABC Company. Headline should be:
ReplyDeleteABC Company Employees may be fired for wearing a crucifix around their neck at work.
They may work in Britain, but the connotation, and immediate reaction is very different.
I could care less. The cross has no meaning for me so I am not offended, but if these women are trying to wear these crosses and there is a rule at the work place where no jewelery is allowed, then, too bad, no crosses--No matter what your religious right is. Practice your religion AFTER work.
ReplyDeleteI remember reading a long time ago that the symbol of the cross actually predates christianity. It was used to represent the four corners(points) of the world. (In my opinion, though, this whole issue has gotten dopey and silly.) Just sayin'.
ReplyDeleteI think a lot of Christian jewelry is very attractive and I've bought some for friends, even though I'm not Christian. This dispute is over the line, similar to the decree in France that Muslim women cannot wear their hijabs in school (not sure about work). One can proclaim their faith or ethnicity on their person, but proselytizing is very different and should be illegal.
ReplyDelete~physicsmom
Physicsmom - let's not mix different things here.
DeleteFirst, Muslim jewelry is totally allowed in French schools (the Hand of Fatma). Many girls wear it, just like others wear crosses or stars of David. As long as it's discreet, nobody objects to religious jewelry. So faith can be proclaimed on one's person in French schools. Moreover, school food allows for choices according to one's religious diet - which is what French Muslims most care about.
Secund, nobody is allowed to cover one's head in France's schools, neither children nor staff. Whether it is a hijab or a baseball cap, it's forbidden. Why ? It's a cultural thing - wearing headdress inside is considered utterly disrespectful.
Third, most Muslim women do not wear hijabs in France. Islam does not require women to veil their head. And outside of schools, hijabs and baseball caps are quite allowed.
Fourth, only fanatics insist on veils, in order to make a show-off of their fanaticism. Those fanatical males have taken to theaten with rape girls who do not wear hijabs in poorer suburbs. Schools are not going to play their game.
Most Muslim French women come from Maghreb. The traditional head scarf there doesn't look at all like the Saudi hijab that fanatics try to impose in France by frightening the women into it. And now, they try with the Taliban burqa. Guess with which terrorist group those fanatics associate ?
The French authorities are protecting the moderate Muslim from the fanatics - at least, as long as they are minors, inside schools. Trust me, the moderate Muslim parents are not happy at all with seeing their daughters wearing hijabs. They are so afraid their veiled daughters are going to end up being the fourth wife of a fanatic, and their sons are gonna end up dead abroad in a suicide attack. Many parents forbid their children to go to the Mosque because they are wary of the fanatics that lurk around there.
The parents did come to France to give their children a better future - not to see them fall in a backwardness worse than that existing in Maghreb.
Try to look a little deeper into this issue americans. Consider the huge damage being done to ordinary people by evil bastards like Santorum and then consider that nearly everything he does is in the name of his sky fairy religion. Learn to look on religious wackos as the enemy because they surely are.
ReplyDeleteBefore the repub field was narrowed down I for one didn't think that the people could ever accept a crazy person such as Santorum. Now, it really is starting to look like a possibility. That is very scary and it should be scary to all decent americans who can at least visualize some of the damage he could do in a position of power. Abolish birth control? What else?
And so the logical conclusion is: Religion is the enemy. Christians are a part of it and it's time to draw the line in the sand.
I think one of these people works for British Airways. The cross she showed the media was a small, plain cross. What she was wearing to work was a large crucifix, much different.
ReplyDeleteSmall and unobtrusive is fine, but a crucifix 3 inches long is not. Nor would be a Star of David, Bahai star,
or Pentacle.
This isn't a religious policy, it is a dress code violation.
ReplyDeleteNo visible jewelry is allowed and these employees knew this. There is nothing in any Christian sect that I know of that mandates the visible wearing of a crucifix (they could put it on a longer chain and tuck it in) or mandates the wearing of a crudifix at all. Unlike the headscarves of muslim women or the turbans of Sikhs, the crucifix is not protected by law.
These women are in the wrong. The company has every reason to enforce this particiular dress code. This is a case of UK Xian extremists trying to force an issue.
It doesn't matter whether it's a crucifix, a star of David or a flying spaghetti monster. The size also does not matter. It is jewelry. If the employer is allowed to cave on this, then gothic punks wearing huge crucifixes as fashion statements rather than for religious purposes would also be allowed to wear them.
It's dress code, not religion. And xians don't get a pass on the law, as much as they'd like to be "special" and exempt from it.
Jesus didn't wear jewelry. Why should christians?
ReplyDeleteChristians are a fraud! And, the majority don't even act as the 'christians' they profess to be. They have hate and evil in their souls! Look at the Jerry Prevo group! I know practicing Catholics that beat their wives and I know the Jerry Prevo group to be unethical to include their leader! We need to knock them on their asses in Alaska and across the USA!
DeleteThe push of religion has created wars throughout our history and it will continue to do so! The majority of them do not practice what they preach!!!
The Brits can do what they like. For the US, I wouldn't care if people wear 6' symbols around their neck or anyplace. As long as Religions are no longer tax exempt. Most charity is a racket or front of some kind. The ones that can, can prove they are for real, they deserve a break. Sincere people will help disadvantage because that is who they are, good people, they will go the extra mile to keep good records and show they are doing as they say. Religion is a business and must pay their share. They are free to believe what they want, if a Hooters waitress wants to wear a big ugly gaudy cross or anything else, fine with me.
ReplyDeleteGlad to see a few facts finally posted in this thread! As a couple of commenters stated, these cases aren’t about religion although a litigious extremist fundie group presents them that way.
ReplyDeleteOne woman is a nurse who knows the hospital bans loose jewelry for safety and hygiene reasons. Now she demands the right to make the wellbeing of patients secondary to wearing a necklace. She wasn’t fired, but she cannot work in certain areas of the facility.
The other one was a flight attendant who accepted a job that required a uniform. She could wear as many crosses as she wanted or other necklace under her uniform, but she could not wear a personal necklace over the uniform. She demanded an exception to let her display her necklace of choice, claiming the right to do so because it was a religious symbol. She lost her job for refusing to conform to the uniform requirement.
The same crazy group also brought a case on behalf of another healthcare worker who applied for, accepted, and worked a job that required working on Sundays. Then she demanded that the job description be changed to give her Sundays off for religious reasons – even though she was specifically hired to work on those days. She lost her job when she refused to work, just like any of us would if we decided to stop working on a random day of our choice.
She also lost the case. As I suspect these two women will, too, and not for reasons pertaining to their religious preferences. All three women made stupid choices and now claim they are Christian martyrs.
You are so correct about the tax exempt status of churches in America. That fraud has to be stopped!!!! Especially when we watch the churches participate in political views and encourage their congregations to follow their lead. The USA is so fucking screwed up!!!! Knock the 'overt' religious and right wing Republicans off their ass!!! We need to stop them! Religion has created many wars in our history and I think another is on the horizon. I'm an atheist and will fight the hell out of them!
ReplyDeleteBottom line is that America is not the christian nation that it 'supposedly' once was. I was raised in faith, but am now agnostic. Christianity is bullshit and has created nothing but wars in our past history. I'm assuredly NOT going to believe a word the extreme right on the Republican side is pushing out there with all their might! Palin and Santorum are the devils themselves!
ReplyDeleteThese are old stories from several years ago. The women lost their labor cases and appeals. Now they're looking for more attention and the right to shove their beliefs on employers. The nurse was accommodated. She was told she could wear cross clip-on earrings. The airline woman was told she would be rehired if she wore a small cross lapel pin instead of the necklace. Both refused their employers' very reason offers, which is probably why they lost their legal cases.
ReplyDeleteNow they are taking their false claims of persecution to a bigger audience.
The point of course is if one religion can display their symbol then all religions can, so the safest thing for a government or business or school to do is to ban all displays.
ReplyDeleteMy brother has been whining for about 30 years about the banning of pubic prayer in schools. I have been challenging him to come up with a prayer that would be acceptable to all faiths....and I am still waiting.
There are conflating rights. The right of the women to wear their chosen faith's symbol and the right of everybody else to not be constantly proselytized about something they don't believe and may actually find offensive.
Kind of like the Catholic church being offended by birth control and whining separation of church and state and then turning around and forcing their beliefs onto non Catholic employees, and actually all American women if they can, to behave under duress in ways that conflict with those women's faiths.
One faith should not be allowed to coerce another's beliefs.
In both cases the double standard and IOKITRDI mentality is staggering.
It doesn't hurt anyone if someone else wears a cross, or a crescent, or a wrench. In fact, this is free speech at its finest. If you are offended by what someone wears, then you are a fashion gestapo, and a busy-body, which is probably redundant on numerous levels.
ReplyDeleteIf it does not hurt or involve anyone else, you ought to be free to do it.
Wow. Reading these comments is enlightening. Some of the people from all sides are calling the other sides intolerant and nuts. Yes, that includes the atheists. Personally, the part I find offensive is painting everyone of a group (ie: Christians, Wiccans, Atheists) with the same brush. There are good and bad in every group. You have to evaluate each person on their own merits. Yes, I'm a Christian, but I don't wear religious jewelry(it always breaks) or jam my faith down anyone's throat. It's offensive to do that. I also am not so arrogant as to think that God only spoke to Christians and only Christians go to heaven. If there is a hell, I know for sure that there will be many so-called Christians there. So don't assume that all Christians resemble the Santorum/Palin nutjobs. All we have to do is respect one another and give everyone space and peace to live their own lives. It would be a much better world. I, for one, am very glad that we are so diverse. I know good, kind, compassionate people who fit in all of the groups I mentioned. I would never put them down because they aren't "Christian."
ReplyDeleteI've worked for companies with uniform and dress codes. If someone feels the need to wear a cross, they still can under their shirts or blouses.
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with you, but if they want to fire someone, anyone, they can do it at will or give another lame reason to fire someone.
I wonder how far this can go, though. Folks have tattoos with religious iconography that's visible while clothed- can they demand it be removed?
Haven't read the comments, so forgive the redundancy if it was posted already.
Another instance of members of the world's largest religion claiming persecution. I am on the side of the employers, in this case. The employers did not violate these people's human rights. No one is saying they cannot practice their religion. Wearing a religious symbol on the job does not fall into the realm of "worship".
ReplyDeleteUntil recently, my attitude toward religious believers, even the hard-core fundies, was "live and let live." After all, everyone believes in something. Probably even a few months ago, I would have said the same in regard to this case. "Let the women wear the jewelry. What harm does it do?"
But the incessant parade of sanctimonious, repressive, authoritarian hypocrites--the ones that Jesus talked about when he said "This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far away from me" (Matt. 15:8)--has worn away my patience and tolerance of others' kooky religious beliefs. Because for these oh-so-public expounders of the in-your-face Christianity, tolerance of and co-existence with others who believe differently has no place in their world. Yes, I do believe the preaching of the GOP right-wing fundies like Santorum, Palin, Bachman, et al. has caused me to view religion more critically than I used to.
Certainly, I support freedom of/freedom from religion as guaranteed in the First Amendment. But for the Christian Taliban, it is not enough that the US Constitution protects their religious freedom. Their quest is to ensure that only their religion, Christianity (the special, Taliban-esque brand that denigrates women, girls, and nature and requires complete obedience) is allowed. This has become obvious to me with the recent birth control debate and the fact that Santorum, who would have been considered way on the fringe when I was growing up (60s/70s--just 40-some years ago), has a media platform and receptive audience for his nonsense.
So, my message to all the Christians who protest that they are not like this and are unfairly lumped in with the Christian Taliban is this: Take back your religion! Show the world that the fundamentalists do not represent the true intent of Christianity. Get in the public eye and show us all the good you are doing (in the way Mr. Rogers did... through his actions, not by loudly proclaiming his beliefs). Otherwise, I see only more polarization ahead of us, between the religious right and rationalists who reject religion altogether.
-Anne in CO
Another instance of members of the world's largest religion claiming persecution. I am on the side of the employers, in this case. The employers did not violate these people's human rights. No one is saying they cannot practice their religion. Wearing a religious symbol on the job does not constitute "worship".
ReplyDeleteUntil recently, my attitude toward religious believers, even the hard-core fundies, was "live and let live." After all, everyone believes in something. Probably even a few months ago, I would have said the same in regard to this case. "Let the women wear the jewelry. What harm does it do?"
But the incessant parade of sanctimonious, repressive, authoritarian hypocrites--the ones that Jesus talked about when he said "This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far away from me" (Matt. 15:8)--has worn away my patience and tolerance of others' kooky religious beliefs. Because for these oh-so-public expounders of the in-your-face Christianity, tolerance of and co-existence with others who believe differently has no place in their world. Yes, I do believe the preaching of the GOP right-wing fundies like Santorum, Palin, Bachman, et al. has caused me to view religion much more critically than I used to.
Certainly, I support freedom of/freedom from religion as guaranteed in the First Amendment. But for the Christian Taliban, it is not enough that the US Constitution protects their religious freedom. Their quest is to ensure that only their religion, Christianity (the special brand that denigrates women, girls, and nature and requires complete obedience) is allowed. This has become obvious to me with the recent birth control debate and the fact that Santorum, who would have been considered way on the fringe when I was growing up (60s/70s--just 40-some years ago), has a wide-open media platform and receptive audience for his nonsense.
So, my message to all the Christians who protest that they are not like this and are unfairly lumped in with the Christian Taliban is this: Take back your religion! Show the world that the fundamentalists do not represent the true intent of Christianity. Get in the public eye and show us all the good you are doing (in the way Mr. Rogers did... through his actions, not by loudly proclaiming his beliefs). Publicly repudiate fundamentalist positions that contradict Jesus's teachings of love and acceptance of "thy neighbor" and his strong stand against religious hypocrisy and using the church for monetary gain. Otherwise, I see only more polarization ahead, between the religious right and rationalists who reject religion altogether.
-Anne in CO