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".

Of course I'd love to be a martyr, but British society doesn't seem very ready to oblige

Seriously, where is this discrimination people whitter on about? And since when was self-pity one of the cardinal virtues?

What actually are 'sexual ethics'? (Genuine question). When I first read the phrase my reaction was to think that someone (Carey?) was suggesting that for people to be gay was an ethical choice they themselves had to make. Presumably not, unless you are both gay and a follower of a faith that proscribes homosexuality, since now you have an ethical dilemma about being true to your faith vs true to your nature.

I assume therefore it must be ethics related to beliefs about sex and sexuality in general - if it extends from the registrar not wishing to marry gay couples to the pharmacist not wishing to dispense the morning after pill (or presumably sell condoms, not that these are ethically equivalent for many people of faith, I think?).

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2116878/Danger-doctors-ignoring-sanctions-practising-powerless-GMC-fails-police-bans.html

'Danger doctors are ignoring sanctions and still practising as powerless GMC fails to police its bans'

But, hey, if they were wearing crosses, it would probably be different. It's about 'health and safety'.

'claig - you do realise that Florence Nightingale was an administrator rather than a nurse?'

I think Florence Nightingale was a nurse and not just an 'administrator'. I think it is 'administrators' who make policy that lead to some nurses losing their jobs.

Let's remember one of the greatest figures in the history of this country and wonder if 'administrators' would let her practise today.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florence_Nightingale

'the annual International Nurses Day is celebrated around the world on her birthday'

What a woman, what a country.

Administrator, some served with Florence Nightingale on the Crimean front, some were privileged to know Florence Nightingale, Florence Nightingale was a friend to the wounded. Florence Nightingale was no 'administratior'.

I think this is an interesting subject, but I have been on mumsnet so long that I know that claig enjoys playing the role of the extreme right wing of the Daily Mail readership and because she/he is only playing a role, the debate becomes meaningless. Shame.

'the debate becomes meaningless'

there is no debate if there is no alternative view. The Daily Mail is not extreme right wing, it is the second highest selling paper in the country and the world's leading online paper, so is probably more representative of the people than you.

No, I said that the persona you adopt on mumsnet represents the extremist right wing end of theDaily Mail readership, not that the Daily Mail readers as a generality were extreme right wingers.

But you are wrong, because I don't "adopt a persona", I just happen to have different views to you.

But, as is your wont, you can only attack other posters who don't share your erroneous views.

I can see you grinning as you type. Nobody who says that modern day nurses should be allowed to wear crucifixes because Florence Nighingale did can't possibly be being serious.

You need to reign your imagination in, because I am not grinning, I am saddened to see you yet again attacking a poster and not a view.

I am questioning why the rule exists and if it exists in other European countries and why dangerous doctors are still practising but a phlebologist has lost her job due to wishing to wear a cross. I am referring to the most famous nurse in history and remembering that she was called to her vocation by God, and wondering what she would think of cases of nurses losing their jobs for wearing crosses today.

I think this is about liberties, beliefs and convictions and that is why Lord Carey of Clifton has written to the European Court of Human Rights.

But to you, none of that is serious.

Crosses versus rings phlebotomist should wear gloves!

I can only google and that is hit and miss. I think there may be some nurses or people who have had experience in foreign hospitals and European airlines reading the forum who know on which government site to find these statistics, because annything I find can only be hit and miss.

I am not being aggressive. I don't attack other posters' views. I am only asking questions and presenting a different view.

'if you're genuinely interested why not look them up'

that's why I link to journalists' reports in newspapers because they have usually done some research of figures and facts and know where to look to find them. I would like to see some figures and know about foreign laws but I don't know where to find the information.

Ok. To be serious. She did not lose her job because she was wearing a cross. She lost her job because she refused to remove a necklace.

Wearing a crucifix is not a a tenet of Christian faith.

There has been a massive crackdown on jewellery wearing in hospitals- wrist watches are also banned- because of the spread of MRSA. Actually, Florence Nightingale, who was a stickler for infection control, would probably have been all in favour of the ban.

I am asking the question, because if it is the case that other European hospitals do not have these 'health and safety' rules and if there infection rates for MRSA etc. are lower than ours, then I think it throws into question the 'health and safety' explanation for the rule's existence.

But if they are all doing the same, then the 'health and safety' basis would make more sense.

But there is then the question of rings on hands, and also a new question arises, what about crosses on patients, would these also be health hazards to other patients?

Claig: No you buckethead because patients do not generally touch other patients, whereas each HCP touches a load of different patients in the course of a working day.

HCPs wear gloves, which is why plain, flat wedding bands aren't a problem.

Patients wearing jewellery isn't a problem because A) another patient or a nurse is unlikely to grab them by the necklace and try to strangle them and B) they are unlikely to move round gtom bed to bed and ward to ward, bending over other patients open wounds and potentially spearing infection.

'She did not lose her job because she was wearing a cross. She lost her job because she refused to remove a necklace.'

So if she had a pin badge of a cross on her uniform, would she also lose her job? As duchesse mentioned, what about doctors' and nurses' pens, are they also not a health hazard and what about metal bed posts and all teh meatl equipement in the ward?

A) another patient or a nurse is unlikely to grab them by the necklace and try to strangle them

Does anyone know where to find statistics of how many nurses this happens to? A trained phlebologist is no longer working with patients because she wanted to continue wearing her cross. What is the cost-benefit analysis?

The answer to the cross pin question is "I don't know- presumably if there is a no jewellery rule then yes" . the answer to the pen question is "I assume that pens aren't generally held over open wounds" and the answer to the metal bed question is "eh?"

B) they are unlikely to move round gtom bed to bed and ward to ward, bending over other patients open wounds and potentially spearing infection.

but don't they go to the toilet and maybe not wash their hands and touch their bandages and then touch their cross and then hold a nurse's hand?