British Christians don't have right to wear cross to work

The British government believes that Christians do not have the right to wear a crucifix at work because the wearing the cross is not a “requirement of the faith.”

US report

UK comments
Rev Dr Peter Mullen: By calling the cross ‘religious decoration’, the Archbishop of Canterbury is helping secularists. Whose side is he on?

Andrew Brown: Religious symbolism depends on the intended message – courts are increasingly ruling on questions of theology.

I believe that the current immorality, unethical behaviour, avarice and false philosophies used to justify such actions by the majority of governments; politics and theology are on a collision course. And so begins the persecution of the faithful!

Keep the faith, keep praying and God bless

I would advise British Christians, of all denominations,
to come together, form a NATIONAL ORGANIZATION,
and publicly announce that they are going to deliberately, willfully,
brazenly, and emphatically DISOBEY any command to remove their
crosses or crucifixes from around their necks and will PRAY AGAINST
(imprecatory prayers are NOT SINFUL, no matter what anybody says)
those who are pushing these disgusting, blasphemous measures.

Are British Jews being told that they cannot wear their Stars of David on necklaces to work? Are Muslims being told that they cannot wear Muslim paraphernalia?
I seriously doubt it.

Stand up, Christians, and let them know, the apostates (for the English are all
nominal Christians, and hence those pushing these things are APOSTATES and
thus worthy of opprobrium) that you will NOT obey this, NOT knuckle under, and
will NOT idly sit back and tolerate being PUNISHED – by ANYONE – for RIGHTFULLY REFUSING to obey. And that you will fight back by every means necessary,
by ANY means available, and with NO HOLDS BARRED.

ONLY THEN will the infidels and the apostates back off:
When they KNOW that YOU mean business and that their attacks on God and faith
are going to COST THEM VERY DEARLY. Then and only then, will they back off,
because FORCEFULNESS is the ONLY LANGUAGE these wicked people understand.

To amplify what I just said above (no matter who might disapprove of it, I don’t care one whit):

The Jewish people learned the hard way that you CANNOT sit back and tolerate abusive laws. It took the massacre of SIX MILLION OF THEM by their enemies, for them to finally stand up, band together, and let the world know that, COME HELL OR HIGH WATER,
they are NEVER AGAIN going to even ALLOW such a persecution to even BEGIN to start. Literally, NEVER AGAIN.
And believe you me, when the Jewish folks say NEVER AGAIN, they MEAN "NEVER " AGAIN and that they will prevent it from even beginning to develop by ANY and EVERY MEANS necessary and available and will not tolerate ANY OPPOSITION to their self defense.

It is high time that Chirstians, way past high time, that Christians stood up to our APOSTATE societies and said — and MEANT ---- the same thing: NEVER AGAIN.
Not ONCE more. Not even tolerate them THINKING about THINKING ABOUT doing such things to Christians. NEVER, NEVER, NEVER again.

But then again, we can’t even get 55% of Catholics to STOP knowingly and willfully and deliberately VOTING FOR these horrible apostates, so I think my sane plea is going to fall on mostly deaf ears.

I’m not exactly sure the reason for the British Airways policy - in seriousness it may be motivated by the number of non-Western fliers who have something against Christians or just would rather not be around them. At the same time, if you’re from a Muslim country that bans all expressions of Christianity and you’re on a flight owned by a company operating out of an environment that allows freedom of religious expression, and are landing in an airport where freedom of religious expression takes every and all conceivable forms, you shouldn’t expect to be outraged to see a Cross across the collar any more than businesswomen who visit Dubai should expect to stick mostly in the Corniche, the part of town that caters to international travelers.

There are two appalling notes here.

  1. That the employer (British Airways) doesn’t allow Christian employees to wear Christian symbols of faith.
  2. That the British government fails to protect the freedom of religious expression of those employees.

The fundamental question is one of whether freedom of religion restricts the individual to the expectation of performing only what is absolutely necessary according to the strictures of his or her faith, or whether freedom of religion truly means that government shall not interfere unduly with an individual’s observance of his or her faith. Carrying a Rosary is not a requirement of the Catholic faith, but it is a very commonly-practiced tenet. If Rosaries were declared gang signs (as some American high schools have done), then would the School be always justified in searching for and seizing Rosaries? I’d hope they’d have more common sense than to take one from a student in the middle of lunchtime prayers but I fear this is not the case.

At my work, all discussion of religion and display of religious symbols is forbidden. It seems strict, but it actually contributes to a rather peaceful work environment, and in all truth it’s not enforced unless someone complains (which, to my knowledge, has only happened once when an evangelical Christian placed a rather inflammatory Chick tract on the desk of a Muslim colleague). As such, my crucifix and Lenten prayer remain on the wall of my cube above my Bible and a devotional, undisturbed, and I freely say a Jesus Rosary on afternoon walks around our campus. Technically, what I’m doing is a violation of work rules, but no one, technically, cares.

Jaypeeto04 said:-

(for the English are all
nominal Christians,

Rather a sweeping statement don’t you think. Even if we agreed that Anglicans (whom you appear to mean via your comments about the English been apostates) were all ‘nominal Christians’ which would be a rather er, difficult contention to make we’d still have the issue of there been many English Catholic to contend with. Let’s not let natural concern at the application of double standards regarding the visible display of religious identity lead us into making such dubious statements.

I’d oppose any religious group been forbidden to wear items or clothing etc. that are part of their faith. Whether Muslim, Christian, Jewish or otherwise.

I wasn’t making a dubious statement when I called
the English “Nominal Christians.”
With the exception of Muslim and other nonChristian immigrants,
the vast majority of the English have at least been baptized,
whether they are members (at least nominally) of the Church of England,
or of the vaious smaller evangelical protestant groups, or the Church of Scotland,
or what have you…

Most have heard the basics, even if they have not been thoroughly and systematically taught the finer points of theology.

The same holds true of the vast, vast, vast majority of citizens of the United States,
except for the small Jewish communities and the nonChristian immigrants, namely,
the most Americans are at-least-nominal, Christians, and thus the widespread American support for evil things is APOSTASY, and not invincible ignorance, like the pagans of the ancient Roman Empire were largely Invicibly Ignorant when they opposed and persecuted the Christian faith.

Christians, even nominal Christians, are much more culpable than those who have no
first-hand experience with the Christian faith whatsoever. We have FAAAAAAAAAAAAAR less of an excuse for our dissent, apostasy, and disobedience.

We can’t even get 55% of American Catholics to STOP knowingly and deliberately voting for ProAbortion, Pro-Gay-Marriage, Pro-A Host of OTHER SINs, politicians, even claiming to be Catholic politicians while supporting such heinous evils.

A lot of us Brits are actually Catholic too ha ha! Presently, however, I really do have an ominous sense of some form of insidious agenda against the Catholic Church in Britain (if not internationally). I’ll just have to keep my Rosary close by.

God bless

Take your case to the European Court of Human Rights.

Seriously, perhaps the government shouldn’t be forcing you not to wear the cross openly. It is also a cultural symbol. Wearing a cultural symbol or a religious one is not a sign of bigotry.

Are they also going to force Sikhs not to wear their turbans?

Why didn’t either the article cited or the person posting it here title it accurately?

Like “British Airways Employees Fined for Wearing Crosses at Work”?

That title cited in the article and here is inaccurate and misleading in my opinion. Typical sensationalistic propaganda rife with an unstated agenda.

I’m sure if they kept their crosses inside their uniforms while at WORK serving passengers of so many different religious beliefs, it would not have been an issue.

No-one’s going to get hired as a receptionist at an international hotel when they flaunt their religious symbols in people’s faces, regardless of whether they’re crosses, stars of david, or gang related tattoos. Duh!


Personal liberty. I would think it’s correct for the human being to wear a religious item. The religious item is worn in Europe or internationally in regions where these are permitted. It may be a problem if the plane was landing in Saudi Arabia but when over neutral or tolerant countries why shouldn’t they?

That title cited in the article and here is inaccurate and misleading in my opinion. Typical sensationalistic propaganda rife with an unstated agenda.

It’s still frightening. I mean it’s work and not slavery. There is a dress code but it should not extend to something as fundamental as the right to identify with one’s conscience. Of course if the air hostess attempted proselyting, that would be a no-no. She can do that in her off hours.

I’m sure if they kept their crosses inside their uniforms while at WORK serving passengers of so many different religious beliefs, it would not have been an issue.

Why should they? And why is it offensive to show what religion one belongs to?

Air hostesses on Emirates and Qatar Air also dress modestly and wear veils. Is that wrong too or is it OK? It’s obviously a religious company policy. The Muslim owners of these airlines don’t want to project an immodest appearance for religious reasons. Surely a horny atheist passenger should object for he should have the right to see cleavage and thighs?

No-one’s going to get hired as a receptionist at an international hotel when they flaunt their religious symbols in people’s faces, regardless of whether they’re crosses, stars of david, or gang related tattoos. Duh!

Flaunt? I think you’re point is sensationalistic too. I can imagine wearing huge crosses and so on, but a cross of reasonable size and proportions should be fine. Again they will not ban Seikhs from wearing turbans, and that is far more offensive to Muslims for example than the cross, since Christians are at least “People of the Book”.

So discretion, humility and modesty need not be practiced by Christians, Jews, Moslems or Atheists, even at work for an employer, in your opinion?


A further point is, how do you know that British Airways did not enact this policy for the safety of their employees?

Lots of people flying around the world these days hold vendettas against various religions, including Christianity unfortunately.


The employee is not part of the equipment. The employee is a human being, a person. They have an inherent right to have certain personal liberties. Of course these should not impact others negatively and should be reasonable. A religious symbol of standard size should not detract from modesty, discretion and humility. I don’t see how.

In fact, in allowing standardised religious symbols, BA is showing that it sees its employees as more than service robots or pieces of equipment. They are human beings with a degree of individual identity. These are European values.

The way BA treats its employees also projects on my perception of the way BA will treat me. If BA treats their employees as slaves, I bet, their execs probably have a pretty low opinion of passengers too.

There are probably more misogynists and homosexual haters than anti-Christians, at least on airlines. BA does not protect their women or effeminate members of cabin crew from such.

In places where threats are made, certain temporary policy changes can always be made. But blanket bans on expression of conscience I think are too personal and reek to me of the days of serfdom and slavery.

Is proudly displaying your gangland tattoos at work an expression of conscience to be protected in your opinion friend?


Well let’s look at this. Gangland tattoos, are usually pretty negative things, right? Gangs usually gang up on others :). They have pretty much negative across the board. It’s not that gangs are just organisations of people which help each other. They all do bad things at some level or another, such as beat up the opposition or commit crime. Belonging to a gang means one is loyal to the gang above everything else and can be called upon by the gang to commit crime. The gang usually sees honour in breaking the law. The gang considers loyalty to it to be above the secular law. Most reasonable people will find fault with gangs.

Wearing a cross means one subscribes to the the belief system of over 2 billion people. A belief system which shaped and still shapes most of the world. A belief system which even when stripped of its supernatural aspect is respected by most - you had Gandhi speaking positively about Jesus Christ, Dalai Lama, atheists, Buddhists, Communists etc. Most people in this world when presented with the Christ’s teachings will have a positive response to most of them. Muslims also respect Christ in a religious sense as a prophet. It is obvious that most non-Christians don’t fear for their safety when walking through a sea of Christians but most will get apprehensive when surrounded by a group of LA gangsters or the Yakuza. Right? :slight_smile: Christianity does not consider itself to be above the secular law, at least for the non-controversial aspects of the law such as policing against murder, theft, robbery, rape, etc. Christiants by the large recognize and respect legitimate authority. Gangs do not.

Secondly, as mentioned previously, the airline can standardise the religious depiction. You wear a cross right? Well it has to be certain dimensions. It can’t be a tacky brass thing covering half your chest. There is nothing wrong with that and that does not detract from employees self identifying with Christianity. This is what the employee is. A tattoo I guess requires you to wear no sleeves or expose your chest. I gather that could be a problem for other reasons. I gather that a gangster may not even be hired by a company because they are afraid he will break the law.

That is a mischaracterization of what happened. Displaying it was a violation of the airline’s dress code policy and she was given the option to either cover it or take it off. Sikhs were allowed to wear the Kara because it is a required tenant of their religion as is the case with the hijab for Muslims. Christians are not required by their religion to display a crucifix for all the world to see and because it is not a requirement of the religion she is not entitled to a religious exemption.

It is a requirement of Christians not to be embarrassed by their faith. It is also a requirement of Christians to put their faith first. A Christian who feels compelled to wear a cross, I don’t personally, should have that right to wear one. Again, it should be standardised at work to avoid problems not related to freedom of religion and conscience. Since it is possible in a democratic society to force one’s individual rights on oppressive, exploiters - British Airways - this should be winnable. BA is being bigoted and hateful here. They are being the equivalent of homophobes or Islamophobes. They are “Christophobes”.

Re: Requirements.
The cross requirement is not a requirement of mainstream denominations, but it’s not to say that it can’t be, since it’s not any government’s job to regulate what is and what isn’t a religious tenet. Christianity is a very broad religion. Protestant denominations, especially the newer ones also lack a central authority which decides what is and what is not a requirement.

This should be taken to the European Court of Human Rights and Britain should be forced by Brussels to permit the cross for whoever chooses to wear it. European Parliament can also chime in. Concerned Christians should also petition their MEPs.

She was never denied her right to wear it. She was told that it would have to be covered if she wanted to wear it.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit