Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

to think that this is religous discrimination.

151 replies

reallytired · 18/04/2011 11:36

It seems over the top to have an investigation and threats of disciplinary action.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bradford-west-yorkshire-13108578

If the company really objects to a palm cross then surely they could just ask him to remove it. Unless he has repeatly ignored reminders not to have personal artifacts in his van, then it seems a bit heavy handed.

I think the tenant who complained is just plain malicious. Its not as if a palm cross was hurting anyone.

Would this company allow a muslim electrician to carry a prayer mat in his van?

I think that this company need to do a spot check to see that EVERY van is clear of personal artifacts during the working day.

OP posts:
Blu · 18/04/2011 19:09

There is a difference between religious symbols and religious observance / obligation.
Plonking a raffia cross on your dashboard is NOT required of Christians by their god or church. afaik.

limitedperiodonly · 18/04/2011 19:12

Thanks This I agree with you that the involvement of the CLC in any story generally means there's a little bit more to it than's being reported.

The CLC are bigots who stir up hatred.

Ages ago I worked with a committed Christian who felt her faith excused any grossly offensive remarks she made because she was saving souls. I think she felt obliged to tell people how they had transgressed against Jesus and were going to hell less to help them earn brownie points from Jesus.

This woman was vile in countless ways. The worst was telling a Jewish woman whose dad had terminal cancer that if he and the whole family didn't convert to Christianity they'd all be damned.

But I part from condemning all people of faith because of a fellow colleague who was also a Christian and very young too.

He ripped her apart for that evil little stunt. The fact that he was a Christian had more impact on her than any of our Godless protests. He later retrained as a pastor. She continued to be a bigot but a quieter one.

If she'd have been disciplined I guess the CLC would have been all over it.

He never succeeded in making me believe and he didn't even try. But he's the reason that I like to think that most people of faith are good.

Some people aren't and it should be pointed out. Unfortunately, railing against any kind of religious expression regardless of context isn't helpful.

MikeOxstiff · 18/04/2011 19:12

Maisymoocow
Anyone showing a swastika or KKK cross really would be out of order. That's not a religious symbol but hatred against religion.

The Swastika is one of the oldest religious symbols around
Why should it be banned? it is used by Hindus

MaisyMooCow · 18/04/2011 19:14

As I said before, pardon my ignorance on the swastika and KKK as I know little of them. The only thing I know of the swastika is it's connection to the Nazi party and I really would not support any connection with them at all.

limitedperiodonly · 18/04/2011 19:15

Blu it was Palm Sunday yesterday. That's a pretty big deal for Christians in case you didn't know.

Not arguing with you about the context though. If the company don't want it and have warned him about it he shouldn't have displayed it.

Blu · 18/04/2011 19:17

Very good selection of links, ThisIsANiceCage.

The CLC specialise in misinformation - like the senseless stunt re the so-called fostering thing.

Droves of MNers play right into their hands, too!

limitedperiodonly · 18/04/2011 19:18

ps I'm aware that he may have been displaying the palm cross for some time.

I did snigger that the Daily Mail didn't appear to realise its significance either.

MaisyMooCow · 18/04/2011 19:18

Oh, and Mike I didn't say it should be banned.

Blu · 18/04/2011 19:22

Yes, thank you, LimitedPeriod, I was brought up in a Christian church, a grounding which I value, as it happens. A modest methodist chapel where people got on with thier own business, quietly offering practical help without any form of proseletising or evangelising and where this sort fuss and in-van grandstanding would have been abhored. And anyway, he says he 'always' has it in his van.

MikeOxstiff · 18/04/2011 19:23

MaisyMooCow
I have a Hindu friend and I went round her house during Diwali and she had swastikas chalked on her doorstep. I thought the local BNP had been round trying to run her out of town. banning it is a bit harsh

Blu · 18/04/2011 19:23

I mean, so I know when Palm Sunday is.

MikeOxstiff · 18/04/2011 19:26

MaisyMooCow
sorry my mistake

alemci · 18/04/2011 19:26

I think it is unfair. it is not hurting anybody and I do feel that christians are being victimised at times in GB.

My mum gave me a palm Sunday cross today and it is on my dashboard in the car. I know it is my own private car but I do feel sorry for this guy.

limitedperiodonly · 18/04/2011 19:29

Point taken blu and truly no offence meant if it was implied.

I'm from a Catholic family. People quite keen on smearing ash on their foreheads and displaying palm crosses.

I don't do it any more and don't believe. But I wouldn't call it grandstanding.

He may be trying to pick a fight and probably is. But not everyone is.

Blu · 18/04/2011 19:59

Limited: Smile
To be fair, I can understand one man thinking 'ooh, how lovely, I'll put a cross on the dash'. That's not grandstanding. And I could understand him being annoyed that some narky member of the public had complained - I would be irritated by that, because it really isn't offensive, and doesn't harm anyone. But once the company had said 'actually, mate, personal stuff displayed in the window isn't allowed' anything othre than 'OK, but a cross round my neck is OK, is it?' is probably grandstanding.

Catholics doing things with ashes is traditional, (I understand) but if Charlotte-Marie on the Bobbi Brown counter in Debenhams Oxford St turns up with ashes smeared on her forehead and declines to apply the cleanser when rquested by her line manager she could probably expect to be called into the office.

But then I'm prejudiced against catholics because my grandfather was suspicious of so much decorative iconography and used to sit in front of the series about the Borgias poisining everyone shouting 'Ha! Catholics!' in a rather unchristian manner, Methodist or not!

edam · 18/04/2011 20:15

I'm not terribly keen on the Roman church - Catholics are fine but I disapprove of an awful lot of what the church has done. Wouldn't dream of trying to stop an RC colleague having a picture of Mary or Jesus on his/her desk though. Or a palm cross. Or even a rosary - have vague memories of an old colleague who had one pinned onto her cubicle divider thingy. (Although I'd try to avoid looking at those 3D ones that show the sacred heart - eek.)

Equally wouldn't make a fuss about someone with a prayer mat, or any other religious item. As long as it stopped short of an A1 poster with huge lettering yelling 'you are all going to HELL!'.

SpringchickenGoldBrass · 18/04/2011 21:20

I think the point is that this muppet driver almost certainly had done or said far more than just having this item in his van. Because it always comes out with these CLC cases that the 'persecuted Christian' is a raving arsehole who has been annoying colleagues and clients for some time with a whole range of 'Look at MEEEEEEEEE! I'm a CHRISTIAN!' behaviour.IN some cases I think it's actually deliberate that they escalate until their employers can't ignore it any more.

mayorquimby · 18/04/2011 21:43

"Where the hell is the discrimination?"

Nobody has shown any example of discrimination yet. The one poster who was banging the discrimination drum the most, repeated themselves a few times while willfully missing the salient points of the story and has not posted on the thread since

ThisIsANiceCage · 18/04/2011 22:23

How peculiar. My first link is now redirecting to Christian Concern. Hmm

Here's that CLC link for the poor lil' Christian haranguing housing officer again: www.christianlegalcentre.com/view.php?id=783

And clickable www.christianlegalcentre.com/view.php?id=783

edam · 18/04/2011 23:23

yeah but Spring, shouldn't employers be dealing with The Problem, if there is one, rather than making a ridiculous fuss about a palm, or a crucifix, or whatever the object will be in the next news story?

SpringchickenGoldBrass · 19/04/2011 00:32

Edam: The employers probably did deal with the Problem and a specific object was probably only a minor factor in the complaint - until the CLC got involved, stirred the pot and spun the story.

LDNmummy · 19/04/2011 02:30

"This fucker's another superstitious racist who's been spoiling for a fight, just like that stupid cow who took on British Airways. He will have been increasing the extent to which he rubbed everyone's noses in his witless superstitions to the point that his employers could no longer ignore his attention-seeking, all so he and his supporters (that needledick loser Stephen Green is going to be mixed up in this somewhere) can go 'Waah, Christians are being persecuted, they don't treat the darkies like that, it;s Political Correctness Gorn Maaaaaaaad!'"

LMAO! Grin

CinnabarRed · 19/04/2011 09:29

I was talking to SIL about this story. SIL manages the remarkable feat of being both the most open minded, tolerant person I know, and a nun. I have absolutely no faith myself, so I'm always interested in her take on religious issues.

In her view:

  • There's no obligation for a Christian to openly wear a symbol of his faith (unlike, say, a Sikh who is obliged to wear a turban) so there is a clear distinction between wearing a crucifix and wearing other items of religious apparel
  • that said, the man in question would be allowed to wear a crucifix, so he isn't being discriminated against on those grounds
  • it's reasonable for a company to ban employees from displaying any personal items where they are visible to the public, including in company vans, provided that the rule is applied to all personal items (as seems to be the case here). If offices are not open to the public then they are clearly different from space which is visible to the public, and therefore it's not unreasonable to apply different rules to them (again, provided that any personal items are permitted, or none at all - that's not clear here).
  • the palm cross is a symbol of Christ's suffering, so from a Christian perspective it's deeply inappropriate to display one other than to commemorate Easter

For her, her faith is a quiet and deeply personal constant in her life and not one she feels any obligation to display, whether ostentiously or discreetly. If she isn't wearing her habit, you would never guess that she's a nun - she wears a crucifix and a ring on her wedding finger to symbolise that she's a bride of Christ, but it doesn't look any different from any other wedding ring.

She belongs to a teaching order (I'm glad it's not a missionary order) so she spends most of her days outside the convent teaching RE at secondary level. She says that she does display religious symbols at appropriate times of the year, but only as teaching aids and representing all faiths.

May I now?

CinnabarRed · 19/04/2011 09:31

Oh, she also agrees that using Che Guevara poster as a management aid just means that the manager is a knob, but not necessarily an religiously intolerant one.

mayorquimby · 19/04/2011 11:37

The Guevara poster is possibly the worst thing about this whole story. It's the most faux 'right on' symbol/poster in the world. Anyone displaying inevitably holds shallow and ill-informed semi-political views and think that they're anti-establishment. He's a manager for the fucking housing authority, he's hardly a revolutionary man of the people.