Wearing Crosses at Work Banned

[draco664]

Interestingly enough : not over here. We're technically a theocracy.

That's a pretty long bow to draw.

Our head of state is also the head of the church

A state of affairs created deliberately to prevent the Church from interfering with the government's important work (specifically, the important efforts to let King Henry dip into Miss Boleyn without all that pesky adultery stuff).

At its essence, local British politics were being influenced by Rome, at the behest of other states.

You could make the case that Henry's libido was the catalyst for the first real effort at separating state and church...

: and there's a minimum quota of bishops in the House of Lords.

Not for long, there are reforms afoot for the Lords. They've already been effectively sidelined by NuLab.

[Zod]

Whether you like it or not, the government must be secular in nature
.

Interestingly enough : not over here. We're technically a theocracy. Our head of state is also the head of the church : and there's a minimum quota of bishops in the House of Lords.

I can't see anthing in the article saying that "Wearing Crosses at Work Banned" : it sounds more like it's the employer's choice.

[SongsOfDragons]

It's also known as the Fyfolt Cross, a rare heraldic charge - it looks as if part of each end has been cut off. It's on the heraldry for the Chamberlyne family, so it is on the pub sign for the Chamberlyne arms. I learnt quickly in heraldry that each tincture, ordinary and charge can mean a whole multitude of things, usually what the armiger wants rather than any standard norm.

[/heraldry nut]

[Nyoibo]

There is not "nazi" way for the swastika, unless it's a black swastika in a white circle on a red background it's not a nazi symbol, the swastika is a geometric design that's been arounf since at least 10,000 bc.

[HYHYBT]

I've seen lists like those. One problem is that just because a symbol *has* been used by somebody, somewhere, to mean something doesn't make that a fair assumption to make when you see someone else with it... nor is it reasonable to abandon a symbol entirely for all purposes just because someone, somewhere, did that. I was shocked to find that (supposedly) the number 88 means Hitler. It was particularly annoying in that that number was in my general-purpose email address at the time among other uses (because that number is a model of Oldsmobile I'm fond of.) But it would be silly to avoid a *number* just because someone found a way to tie it to an evil man. Numbers have all sorts of uses.

[PepperElf]

As for jewelry: if you are going to ban people from wearing items containing religious symbolism, why allow other jewelry?

Meh. you said it better than i did.

then again, why draw the line at *religion* when there are so many other symbols out there, many of which you might not recognize?

This ... somewhat happened to me, but instead of jewelry it was tattoos.

It was a navy training brief about hate-symbols in tattoos (be they racism, religious intolerance, or gang-related).

I was really taken by surprise cos ... i'd seen many of these tats on sailors already. The only one i remember specifically was the spider-web tat on the elbow, which apparently was suppose to signify doing time for killing a minority.

I'm pretty sure the sailor I met hadn't killed anyone but... I wonder if he knew about that before he got inked.


back to begin more on topic... the point is, many symbols mean more than we might realize.

[PepperElf]

Either one. They should be treated the same as other jewelry, should they not?

Actually no. They are both swastikas yes, but that doesn't mean they're the same symbol.


Saying they're the same is a bit like saying this star is the same thing as this star. they're both 5-pointed stars but one is rather military-ish and the other is a Wiccan symbol.


So as to yes or no... it depends on if the swastika is a nazi one or a hindu one. Why the difference?

One symbolizes a political party and the other symbolizes shakti ("sacred symbol of auspiciousness" according to wiki).


therefore only the religious symbol is protected under discrimination laws. flashing around the nazi party flag however can be interpreted as racial harassment - so allowing it brings the company to a position where it's actually violating discrimination laws.


and - i'm not quoting it but it was said that some would mistake one for the other.
that's possible. hell i met people dumb enough to confuse the Star of David with the Wiccan star cos apparently they couldn't tell the difference between 5 and 6. (sesame street failed for them I guess).

But that doesn't mean their lack of education should be used as a deciding factor on what is and isn't allowed.



which is why i go back to my original point... slightly rephrased perhaps.

if you don't want someone wearing religious jewelry at work, ban ALL jewelry. If you single out religion you're making up rules based on creed - even if it's against all creeds.

[HYHYBT]

Also particularly stupid (not that you can expect otherwise from such people.) Isn't the hood for anonymity?

As for jewelry: if you are going to ban people from wearing items containing religious symbolism, why allow other jewelry? What is the reasoning behind banning the religious symbols in the first place? If it's because they might offend Miss Snowflake, are there really no non-religious symbols that might possibly offend someone (or even are designed for the purpose?) If it's because you hallucinate yourself into believing that an employee's wearing a cross or pentacle or whatever represents your business as supporting that, then again, why draw the line at *religion* when there are so many other symbols out there, many of which you might not recognize?

[Duelist925]

But the average person would not be able to distinguish between them. If you wore a Hindi swastika on a pendant, many people will think you're just dressing up a Nazi swastika.

Very true, but a case could be made for it to be allowed in an enclosed work environment (office, or the like) If people were educated about its signifigance.

The sight might get some double takes as well. A hindu, and thus most likely of middle eastern decent, man or woman wearing a swastika...

In and of itself, still protected free speech, actually. It's when it's directly used to oppress people, the protection can vanish, but free speech protections are nearly absolute, and "speech we don't like" or "speech that makes us uncomfortable" isn't among the exceptions.

Oh, its definately free speech and protected as such, but I meant more "wearable in the workplace". Sorry if I wasn't clear.

A klan member is certainly allowed to wear his hood if he wants. But if he wears it to work...his ass is probably out the door. "Creating a hostile working environment" Could be an easily cited reason why.

[Nekojin]

That covers the government, but in civilian life, you don't have nearly the same protections.

Naturally.

[Andara Bledin]

In and of itself, still protected free speech, actually. It's when it's directly used to oppress people, the protection can vanish, but free speech protections are nearly absolute, and "speech we don't like" or "speech that makes us uncomfortable" isn't among the exceptions.

That covers the government, but in civilian life, you don't have nearly the same protections.

^-.-^

[Nekojin]

The swastika as used in buddhism, hindu, etc, yes. The reversed version, used to the nazi's, not so much.

The swatika in its original useage was a religious symbol, and this could be considered protected under the same anti discrimination laws that cover crosses, stars of david, etc.

But the average person would not be able to distinguish between them. If you wore a Hindi swastika on a pendant, many people will think you're just dressing up a Nazi swastika.

The swastika as used by the nazi party is more a symbol, of, well, the nazi regime, and thus a symbol of hatred and bigotry. It'd be akin to wearing a klan hood, or wearing a burning cross--not a religious symbol, but rather one of oppression, and thus, most likely not protected under most discrimination laws.

In and of itself, still protected free speech, actually. It's when it's directly used to oppress people, the protection can vanish, but free speech protections are nearly absolute, and "speech we don't like" or "speech that makes us uncomfortable" isn't among the exceptions.

[Hyena Dandy]

It is. It's completely abhorrent.

And having it implies that the store-owner (or what not) endorses that viewpoint. That is why I think it's also okay to ban religious jewelry that isn't obligated to be worn (at least ban it from being visible) because you should be able to say "I don't want to have any viewpoint in my store."

[Duelist925]

Either one. They should be treated the same as other jewelry, should they not?

The swastika as used in buddhism, hindu, etc, yes. The reversed version, used to the nazi's, not so much.

The swatika in its original useage was a religious symbol, and this could be considered protected under the same anti discrimination laws that cover crosses, stars of david, etc.

The swastika as used by the nazi party is more a symbol, of, well, the nazi regime, and thus a symbol of hatred and bigotry. It'd be akin to wearing a klan hood, or wearing a burning cross--not a religious symbol, but rather one of oppression, and thus, most likely not protected under most discrimination laws.

[Hyena Dandy]

depends. do you mean the nazi germany one, or the hindu symbol?

Either one. They should be treated the same as other jewelry, should they not?