BA's handling of the cross wearing Nadia Eweida has raised several questions about their personnel procedures, and it has perhaps turned into a PR disaster.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the situation I wonder whether it doesn't raise questions for Christians about what it is we are asking for, - and whether this really is the kind of case which Archbishops and others should be supporting. Can I emphasise that this is not to question Nadia Eweida's sincerity - everything I have heard and read from her seems to speak of a deep and genuine conviction and she comes across as a person of admirable integrity.
My questions for the wider Church are:
1. Are we arguing for parity with other faiths in the right to express religious convictions in the workplace OR we resorting to the idea that England/Britain is a Christian country and therefore we have higher right (which it has to be admitted we might have neglected in recent decades) to display our symbols?
2. I have to question the similarity which is being claimed between a cross necklace, and the veil or turban of other faiths. The latter two can claim a religious heritage which a cross necklace cannot - ie in no sense is it widely accepted by the mainstream Christian denominations that the wearing of a cross is an obligation - or if a freely chosen option is a recognised practice.
3. A cross necklace is also a much wider choice of simply jewelry for people who would eschew any religious conviction - so BA might legitimately ask what test might apply in order for granting permission to wear such an item of jewelry on the basis of religious conviction.
4. I really do wonder whether attempts to ban the cross or other Christian symbols or words by the loony PC fringe of local Government ( banning "Christmas" etc) in order to avoid "offence" to other faiths [and leaders of other faith communities often deny that any such offence is taken and the wiser ones can see the writing on the wall from the more avidly secularist of the decision makers] - does tend to lull the Church back into a Christendom type mindset where all we can say is "this is a Christian country and we should be allowed maintain our "heritage"." ( - often with reference to entirely spurious 75% of people who claimed to be " Christian" at the last census while neatly forgetting that 34% of respondents didn't answer that religious question at all!)
I guess the basic question is what kind of place do we as Christians want in society - one earned by our involvement and "witnessed" to by who we are - or one demanded from a position of authority and on the basis of a dubious interpretation of what we mean by "Christian country".