Christians being discriminated against...

[Snorbs]

...says Lord Carey of Clifton, a man who was elevated to the House of Lords because he is a Christian.

He wrote to the European Court of Human Rights because he feels that Christians in the UK are being "vilified" by the British courts, as evidenced by the (very small) number of people who have been sacked for ignoring their employment contracts expressing their faith. He goes on:

In a country where Christians ... are in fear of reprisal or even arrest for expressing their views on sexual ethics, something is very wrong.

Or, to put it more succinctly, "How dare you suggest we should follow the law about not discriminating against gay people".

The Archbishop of Canterbury spoke well about the BA jewellery issue, and it suggests it boils down to intolerance. BA of course rescinded the ban.

?If BA is really saying or implying that the wearing of a cross in public is a source of offence, then I regard that as deeply offensive and, in a society where religious liberty and the expression of religious commitment is free, I regard it as something really quite serious.?

?If they?re saying that it?s to do with matters of health and safety, I would question whether that is a sensible kind of regulation, whether in fact there really is a problem here, and I would ask them to look very seriously at this, given the enormous reaction of dismay that?s been caused in the Christian community.?

I really don't see why you are castigating me.

The "ministers" who are propounding this are Government ministers, not church ones. And if you look at the full text of the Archbishop's sermon (not press commentary on it) he is talking about it being wrong to cheapen religious symbols into decoration, not that it is decoration only.

The quotation I supplied above is his on the record statement about the offensiveness of bans.

Going back to the start of this:

"Start letting people choose not to provide services to someone because of their sexual orientation or because of their faith, and you open the door to all the bad things we've managed to get rid of in recent decades."

I completely agree. It is unfortunately a small minority (as always) that you get, such as this Lord Carey idiot, that will force employers, like myself, in to a position to inadvertently discriminate against Christians. Employers don't want to recruit individuals who will not be flexible and reasonable enough to work with all walks of life. Essentially, if people went round with a badge saying "I'm Racist and hate black people", would you employ them....highly unlikely....therefore the more Christians (admittedly, the minority) that stay in this primitive mindset about gay relationships and not catch up with the times, the more damage they will do to their fellow Christians who don't share the same views....it is unfortunate, but the label of "Christian" will continue to be tarnished by these out of date 'cult laws' that are blindly followed and constantly hitting the headlines.

As seeker says, Christianity is the target of more discussion and satire in the UK than other religions because it holds a position of very special privilege.

To complain about Christianity getting more stick than other religions is like complaining that the Tories are being discriminated against because more satire is being written about the Conservative Party than the Green Party.

Do hospitals have the same 'health and safety rules' about crosses in France, Spain, Poland and Italy? Did Florence Nightingale wear a cross?

What was the logic in the BA cross case? Was it "health and safety" or something else? Do Air France, Alltalia and other European airlines have the same rules about crosses as BA?

Are other European countries not as "progressive" as us?

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1194886/Devout-Christian-nurse-quits-hospital-job-crucifix-ban.html

''One plain ring/band is permitted on the ring finger.'

Is it more likely for a nurse's or doctors hand and ring to come into contact with a patient than a cross around their neck? Is the ring more of a "health and safety" hazard than a cross arounf the neck?

claig - you do realise that Florence Nightingale was an administrator rather than a nurse? And hygiene practices at the time of the Crimean War are hardly the gold standard for infetion control in the 21st Century....

Claig, there are several possible explanations for a ring being allowed where a necklace isn't: firstly, a necklace would not get washed on a regular basis. A plain wedding band would likely be washed when the staff member washes their hands. This would aid infection control and help the patients.

Another interpretation is that, during their working day, nurses and doctors are (sadly) dealing with people who mean them harm. If they are wearing a necklace, it could be grabbed by someone who wants to assault them. This protects the staff member.

Hospitals are full of equipment of various kinds, and a necklace (if long enough) could get caught on it and damage the staff member or the equipment.

I note from the article that the ban applies to all staff. Wearing a crucifix is not a requirement of being a Christian - it's a preference. Therefore, in my opinion, asking a Christian not to wear their cross at work is not discriminatory.

'claig - you do realise that Florence Nightingale was an administrator rather than a nurse? And hygiene practices at the time of the Crimean War are hardly the gold standard for infetion control in the 21st Century....'

But what about other advanced European countries with health systems that come higher in world rankings than ours? Do they have the same "health and safety" rules as us in the 21st century?

I struggle to believe that Christians are marginalised and discriminated against in this country, when the British head of state is also head of the established church, and when my daughter is expected to engage in daily worship of a broadly Christian nature at her state-funded non-faith primary school.

But pretending that Christians are being persecuted is a good way to moan about political correctness and tolerance for other faith groups while maintaining a semblance of being reasonable and open-minded.

'If they are wearing a necklace, it could be grabbed by someone who wants to assault them. This protects the staff member.

Hospitals are full of equipment of various kinds, and a necklace (if long enough) could get caught on it and damage the staff member or the equipment.'

Yes, that figures, it's always for our own good, so they tell us.

Does anyone know in what year this new thinking about the "health and safety" hazards of crosses became policy? When was the epiphany and under which government did it become policy?

According to this article, the NHS Trust's problem with Helen Slatter's crucifix was two-fold. First, it represented an infection risk. A plain ring or band is easy to clean as it has no crevices that can harbor bacteria. A crucifix, with a figure of Jesus on it and on a chain necklace, is pretty much made out of crevices. Second the NHS Trust was concerned that a patient might grab the chain and so cause harm to Ms Slatter (and also make the Trust liable for damages).

Blanket rules like that are put in place so that managers don't have to be put in the position of trying to decide which person's particular item of jewellery is acceptable and which isn't. There's a rule, it's part of your contract of employment, it applies to everyone, you can choose to follow it, you can choose to follow it while embarking on a respectful and professional campaign to get the rule changed if you think it wrong, or you can choose to flout it. Ms Slatter decided to flout it.

It's an interesting case though. The NHS Trust in question offered a compromise whereby she could keep it in her pocket while at work, just not around her neck. Apparently that wasn't good enough because... well, actually, I have no idea why that wasn't good enough.

'Miss Slatter has worked as a phlebologist, which involves collecting blood samples from patients across the wards, at the hospital for five years.
She was shocked when hospital management told her in May that she needed to remove her cross.
The nurse refused to comply with the request, claiming management at the hospital were making her choose between her faith and her job.
But Miss Slatter was brought before a disciplinary committee and warned necklaces were banned for all staff members.
She claimed her crucifix had never been mentioned before in her time at the hospital.
Miss Slatter is now considering legal action.
She said: 'I still find it hard to believe everything that has happened.'

''In all honesty, I'm not sure if I'd want to work somewhere where I had been treated like this anyway.'

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1194886/Devout-Christian-nurse-quits-hospital-job-crucifix-ban.html

What is teh cost to the country and patients to lose a trained phlebologist?
But "computer says no". She finds it hard to believe what happened. Do you? I don't.

'There's a rule'.
Of course there is a rule and "computer says no" too, what else would you expect?

'Apparently that wasn't good enough because... well, actually, I have no idea why that wasn't good enough.'

Because she has beliefs and views that she holds dearly, because she is principled and not "progressive" enough.

What I find hard to believe is that she genuinely thought she was being discriminated against when she was asked to remove her necklace, despite knowing that all necklaces were banned.

Now, if crosses were the only necklaces that were banned, I guess she would have a case...

What is teh cost to the country and patients to lose a trained phlebologist?

But she didn't have to choose between her job and her faith, did she? She just had to keep her cross in her pocket instead of wearing it round her neck.

At the end of the day, if she decided to quit her job in order to make a rather spurious political statement, I agree that's a waste, but people can and do choose to quit their careers for all manner of reasons.

"Computer says no" classes a cross as a necklace. "Computer says no" does not understand faith, faith does not compute, it blows the circuits, it is just a "necklace" to "computer says no" and has no symbolic meaning at all. So a good phlebologist working for patients has had to go - "computer said no".

It is a necklace. Wearing a cross around your neck is not a requirement of Christianity.

Why couldn't she have kept it in her pocket as suggested?