Crucify me.

Running a bit behind, but still courting controversy. I'm going to wade into the debate over PDRAs. Public Displays of Religious Affiliation.

You see, I really don't mind what you believe.

I'm actually having trouble finding anything in English stating that women must wear the niqab, but maybe you think that men will only judge a woman by her body, and so women are better to cover themselves from head to foot. (Just don't say that it's the eyes you judge people by).

Perhaps the truth is that eating meat on a Friday is forbidden. Or that in fact it's eating shellfish such as lobsters, oysters, shrimp, clams or crabs that will see you facing an eternity in hell.

Maybe each one of us is followed around by hundreds of spirits of alien life forms that were killed in a nuclear blast after being captured and frozen flown through space to volcanoes. No, really..

You can believe exactly what you want, but don't tell me that I'm wrong to believe something completely different.

Similarly, you should ideally not go around shouting your belief or lack thereof from the rooftops. That would be distasteful.

So a member of British Airways staff believes that she is the victim of racial discrimination as she's not allowed to wear her cross at work. Actually, that's not true. She IS allowed to wear it at work, as long as it is underneath her uniform. So there goes the argument that BA are vampires..

BA has said " "British Airways does recognise that uniformed employees may wish to wear jewellery including religious symbols. These items can be worn, underneath the uniform." They make an exception for Sikh turbans and Muslim hijabs, (and presumably for Jewish Yarmulke (or Kippah)) as these can't be covered up. Actually, a yarmulke could be covered up with a hat, unlike a turban.

Nadia Eweida argues that since Sikhs and Muslims can wear a visible sign of their faith, well then she should be able to as well.

Is it me, or is this as childish as arguing that since men do it, then she should be allowed to P standing up?

You see, I think she has a flaw in her argument. Now, I'm no expert on religious teachings, nor on the contents of the bible in whichever language you might choose to follow it, but I don't remember any rule saying 'thou shalt wear a cross'. In fact, a number of groups that follow a Christian path think that wearing a replica of a torture instrument is a bit, well, weird.


Disciplinary action from an employer for wearing a cross isn't in fact new.


Brenda Nichol, of Indiana County was suspended on April 8, 2003, for wearing a cross to work and not being willing to either remove it or tuck it in. In June of the same year, she won the first round in her federal court battle yesterday when a judge said her employer must reinstate her. It seems her argument was that not displaying the cross was equal to "denying Christ"

In the end, she seems to have won her job back, as the school's lawyers and her own came to some sort of agreement.

Well, I'm sure that was an effective use of court time.

There is a difference in the cases. Nadia Ewelda is saying that, as with others, she is wearing something that demonstrates her faith, while Brenda argued that covering it or not wearing it denied hers.

I have to wonder if wearing a cross makes someone a Christian? Does not wearing one make someone not a Christian? In the vast majority of cases, crosses are not a demonstration of faith, they're jewellery.

Don't believe me?

Well, try treasurebox, and look under jewellery - gothic chic.

Or knock yourself out at icedoutgear.com - (Google 'bling') and check out hip-hop combos.

Of course, speaking from experience I know that crosses are popular in Japan, a country where a massive 1% of the population are Christian


Yeah, I'm a hardened cynic.