"If you reread the post, you'll see that Dawkins attacked Ms. Eweida for claiming that Christians weren't allowed to work at British Airways. He's right – that is a stupid statement, utterly unsupported by the facts."

I think Bradford makes a good point. Someone being forbidden from carrying a symbol of her religious belief could be excused for thinking that her religious belief is a problem for her employers.

But imagine this situation: A person's employer is forcing her to comply with some stupid work policy. In response, that person makes an argument that you think is wrong. Assuming that you agree that the work policy is stupid, wouldn't your first choice be to let the bad argument slide and criticize the policy? After all, a stupid work policy is going to hassle that employee every day, whereas bad arguments against it cause no harm to anyone.

I think it's reasonable to assume that Dawkins supports the British Airways' policy against crosses. Going one step further, he probably considers it an entirely appropriate way to combat the spread of the religious mind virus.

"Imagine if, instead of being a Christian, Ms. Eweida had been a dedicated and evangelistic member of Greenpeace, insisting on her right to advertise her views by wearing a Greenpeace button on her uniform."

As Mike also points out, a button with a message on it is different from a symbol on a necklace. To make the examples more similar, how about a necklace with a small peace sign?

I think it more significant that she could no longer wear her little cross because its about being "sensitive to various cultures, religions and political allegiances."

For the record, I prefer the laissez-faire approach to employee dress codes. I have no objection to Eweida being allowed to wear a cross, but I do object to the double standard that allows a cross but forbids a Greenpeace button.

Well, you could make a case that a button is different from a piece of jewelry. For example, do you think a little silver cross on a necklace is the same as a button that says, "Are you Saved?" But I'm like you "“ I don't care if they are wearing jewelry or buttons as long as they do their job.

BA's position was quite consistent: They believed that employees should be allowed to wear symbols of their religious beliefs. They also believed that uniformed employees should not display those symbols openly.

Ms Eweida had worn the cross many times, but it became an issue after she attended a British Airways diversity training course, learning to be sensitive to various cultures, religions and political allegiances. The next day she was told she must remove her cross and her protests were dismissed.

What sense does it make to instruct in the need to be sensitive to other cultures and religions on the one hand while behaving with insensitivity towards Christianity on the other? This is really not surprising though because diversity advocates mean everyone but Christians. They don't phrase it that way because it is not PC but actions speak louder than words. BTW, why would employee status obviate the need for sensitivity? This makes sense only to a Dawkinite.

You managed to omit the most important part of that sentence (highlighted in bold below):

British Airways policy does not permit a cross to be visible, but allows Muslims and Sikhs to wear turbans, the hijab and religious bangles because, the airline says, they cannot be concealed.

Thus there was no "politically correct" privileging of Islam and Sikhism over Christianity.

BA's position was quite consistent: They believed that employees should be allowed to wear symbols of their religious beliefs. They also believed that uniformed employees should not display those symbols openly. Where the two principles conflicted, the first took precedence: thus turbans, hijabs, and bangles, which could not be concealed, were allowed to be worn openly; Eweida's cross, which could be concealed, was not.

Of course, to get back to my earlier point, none of this should have been an issue at all. Religious beliefs do not deserve a special respect above and beyond that bestowed upon other equally sincere, strongly held, but non-religious beliefs. Had that been the case here, then BA could have consistently forbidden religious symbols, political symbols, LiveStrong wristbands, etc., for uniformed employees. Alternatively, they could have allowed all of those things (to the extent they were consistent with job performance and safety). As it was, the pressure to allow the wearing of religious symbols first forced them to cave in on the issue of turbans, hijabs, and bangles, and then inevitably on crosses as well.

For the record, I prefer the laissez-faire approach to employee dress codes. I have no objection to Eweida being allowed to wear a cross, but I do object to the double standard that allows a cross but forbids a Greenpeace button.

Again I ask:
Why do religious beliefs deserve special treatment which is not bestowed upon other beliefs held with equal seriousness and conviction?

British Airways policy does not permit a cross to be visible, but allows Muslims and Sikhs to wear turbans, the hijab and religious bangles"¦.Ms Eweida had worn the cross many times, but it became an issue after she attended a British Airways diversity training course, learning to be sensitive to various cultures, religions and political allegiances. The next day she was told she must remove her cross and her protests were dismissed.

Politicians are fair game in the UK and the USA but if an individual of an ethnic minority had been denied the right to wear something representative of that group, those denying the individual would be lucky to escape with mere job termination. Civil rights violations and a lawsuit would be likely consequences- at least on the US side of the Atlantic.

If you reread the post, you'll see that Dawkins attacked Ms. Eweida for claiming that Christians weren't allowed to work at British Airways. He's right — that is a stupid statement, utterly unsupported by the facts.

A news story confirms that she believes this:

She said last night: 'If they are going to review the policy and allow Christians their place in the workforce then that is a big relief'.

I wonder how her Christian colleagues at BA feel about her implication that they are not true Christians.

This whole fracas is a perfect illustration of the special and undeserved deference accorded to religion in our society. Imagine if, instead of being a Christian, Ms. Eweida had been a dedicated and evangelistic member of Greenpeace, insisting on her right to advertise her views by wearing a Greenpeace button on her uniform. Or a Labor party member, wearing a small, gilded portrait of Tony Blair. Does anyone believe that there would have been a public outcry over this?

Why do religious beliefs deserve special treatment which is not bestowed upon other beliefs held with equal seriousness and conviction?

Is that the role of a scientist? To enthuse people?

If you have not published research since the Thatcher Administration then perhaps so.