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".

pontythings, I agree with you, that people should not be allowed to discriminate against gay people.

I don't agree with all of Lord Carey of Clifton's points of view, but I think he has a point about some of them.

I believe that in a tolerant, free society that an employee of an airline should be able to wear a cross or any other religious symbol of another religion.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1059535/Nurses-face-SACK-refuse-remove-wedding-rings-new-hygiene-campaign.html

How many years was she wearing the necklace (visibly) and how long ago was she told she had to remove it? If she had been wearing it for years and nobody had raised it as an issue I think she was justified in saying that she was being discriminated in some way.

What ever other poster might think, the fact is that we are a Christian country and the majority of us are christians but we do tolerate other religions, so christian have every right to have their individual and collective beliefs respected. We bend over backwards imo to make sure that people of other religions are not discomforted. For example we accept that some women will wear the head veil or the full veil even though it is optional religious dress.

It's a difficult balance because if you legislate for gay rights you then remove the right of Christians to express the belief (written in the Bible) that gay sex is wrong. For example is it intolerance for guest house owners who are Christians not to let gay couples stay and sleep in the same room? Or is it their right to have freedom of religious expression?

I don't know, but maybe some nurses know. Are any 'administrators' working in hospitals where elderly people die of dehydration sacked?

So claig we are in agreement - I think you are getting a bit of unwarranted stick here, to be honest. As I've said, I'm an atheist and I have no problem with anyone wearing visible expressions of their faith. Given what I've said above I can see the argument for banning necklaces in hospital wards but in non-clinical environments I just don't see the point.

Karas, turbans, crucifixes, triskeles, ankhs - it's all the same to me. Which is why I think Lord Carey is wrong to include all these cases in his submission to the ECHR instead of just the ones about the cross. The fact that he seems to support the cases of the people who are unwilling to do the whole of their job makes me view him with considerable suspicion and leads me to think that he is not the best person to make this submission as his motives are dodgy. He has strong and in my opinion very wrong views on homosexuality.

mirry2, this is from the article

'Miss Slatter has worked as a phlebologist, which involves collecting blood samples from patients across the wards, at the hospital for five years.'

'She claimed her crucifix had never been mentioned before in her time at the hospital.'

It was probably a new policy.

Princess if you allow religious belief to take precedence over the law then you are creating a theocracy - and we all know how well those are working in Islamic countries.

The Christian couple with the B&B are not a good case because a B&B is a business, meant to make money. As soon as you decide to run a business from your home, you are subject to the laws of the land, which demand that everyone be treated equally in terms of delivering the service you have chosen to provide.

Gay people are not demanding preferential treatment, they are simply demanding to be treated the same as everyone else - that is not 'gay rights', that is equality.

If you have a problem with that, don't put yourself in a position where your faith conflicts with your job. Where religious expression means people are treated less favourably than others, religious expression has to take a step back. No-one is forcing anyone to choose a career that brings faith into conflict with society.

I'm not a fan of Lord Carey of Clifton. I think he should have stood up many times before about many other things.

I am also beginning to think that if the Church was to fund lawyers to argue the case for these nurses who want to wear crucifixes based on scientific evidence, and calling on world-renowned scientific experts, and looking at the practice across Europe and WHO recommendations etc. that the case for the nurses might possibly be won.

But it seems that instead he is talking about "human rights", possibly because he wants to bring other issues into it rather than just the cases of the nurses who have been dismissed.

claig I would be interested to see whether the rise in violence against hospital staff has contributed to the creation of this new policy. Phlebotomy is a very front line job, I would imagine this lady might well end up in situations where she would be dealing with drunkenness and violence as well as acute mental illness in crisis. My personal experience would lead me to decide that personal safety has to come first - I've seen things kick off, it's scary.

The DH guidance was published in 2010 after an earlier 'evidence base for developing local policy' document was published in 2007. Thus it seems credible that the hospital implemented policy in 2010 after a three year national consultation. The policy is about jewellery, not religious symbols. Christians do indeed every right to have their individual and collective beliefs respected.

But there will always be times where one belief cannot be reconciled with another. If I own a B&B but disapprove of unmarried people having sex (which the Bible also says is a sin), can I turn couples away unless they prove they are married? What if I believe that mixed race sex is wrong? Or that fat people shouldn't have sex? I am entitled to my individual beliefs but in operating a business in this country I have to abide by the equality laws of this country.

The thing about patients strangling nurses by grabbing their crucifixes could also easily be solved.

Many years ago, when I used to wear a crucifix, if anyone had yanked it, teh hook at the back would have snapped in an instant. Surely they could agree to wear crucifixes like that rather than gangster rap bling like chains which don't snap when yanked.

"So claig we are in agreement - I think you are getting a bit of unwarranted stick here, to be honest. As I've said, I'm an atheist and I have no problem with anyone wearing visible expressions of their faith. Given what I've said above I can see the argument for banning necklaces in hospital wards but in non-clinical environments I just don't see the point."

Neither have I. My problem is with the demands to make crucifixes a special case. They are a necklace like any other.. If necklaces are allowed then so should crucifixes. If necklaces aren't allowed, then crucifixes shouldn't be either.

'My problem is with the demands to make crucifixes a special case'

Can you not put yourself in the shoes of the phlebologist? Do you think she would have been prepared to lose a job in which she had worked for 5 years just over a necklace? Her cross meant much more to her than a necklace, and for that she was prepared to lose her livelihood, in a job where she had worked for 5 years helping the public.

I would have taken the cross off, because it wasn't worth the hassle. I'll do what "computer says". But to her it meant much more than that.

And don't forget that many of our liberties were gained by people with religious faith, not doing what "computer said". There was a time when they were burning these martyrs at the stake, and the United States itself was founded by the Pilgrims.

But claig if a rule of no necklaces of any kind was introduced then this wasn't about the crucifix at all. I'm with seeker on this one. That doesn't mean I think the change of rule was a sensible one - I am not in a position to know one way or the other - but if it was a blanket rule then the phlebotomist had to obey it.

I also can't admire her for giving up a job over this, there are plenty of other ways for a person to express their faith which are more useful than wearing a cross - volunteering and befriending spring to mind.

As the King James has it:

Yea, a man may say, You have faith, and I have works: show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.

This lady has her priorities wrong, no sympathy from me.

pointything - that's no argument because you coud say that about any faith. People who wear turbans, for example, could express their faith in other more useful ways. Would you expect them to remove them rather than leave their jobs. The whole point of religious emblems is that they are symbolic of faith and so hugely meaningful to the person wearing them. they are not an item of jewelery although I know some people wear them as such.

'but if it was a blanket rule then the phlebotomist had to obey it.'

Agree, and she did obey it. She didn't go back to work and she didn't like the thought of a place of work which treated her like that after 5 years' service.

But where on earth are our beloved unions, do they not support their members over issues like this? Did they offer legal advice? She is entitled to challenge it, and if she was rich as Croesus and could afford the high and mighty in their chambers, I bet she could fight a good case. But she is not so fortunate. So will Lord Carey help, will top lawyers be brought in?

'This lady has her priorities wrong, no sympathy from me.'

I do admire her, and I would admire any member of any other faith who held similarly strong views, because I admire people with principles (even if I may disagree with them) and who are prepared to stand by them. It makes a change from Bliars and liars and ultimately our freedom depends on people who demonstrate, who petition, who make stands and who believe in principles. Most of us are not like that, we sway with the wind and do what "computer says", but there are some admirable people who forsake comfort for principle.

It's a bit like that Voltaire quote which goes something like
"I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it"

Mirry I have as I have said above no problem at all with people wearing emblems of their faith - but if no-one is allowed to wear a necklace of any kind then that is the rule. I have no opinion on the rightness or wrongness of it, I don't have enough information as to why it was implemented.

There is however a difference between crucifixes and turbans - the Sikh faith requires men to wear a turban, Christianity does not require the wearing of a visible cross, to do so is a personal choice. Having said that, I would agree that where a blanket no-turban rule were in place in a workplace (for whatever reason) then that would have to be obeyed - or challenged. I'm not against challenging blanket rules, BTW, and I would like to see all rules of this kind be removed unless they are evidence-based.

To come back to the point of breakable necklaces as made by claig - I agree in principle that if everyone wore the kind of necklace that broke at the slightest pull that would be fine. However, I can see a situation where a staff member wears something that is not easily breakable, gets badly hurt because of it and then sues the hospital. It would be a nightmare, and given our litigation culture I can see why a hospital might not want to risk getting into that situation at all and therefore issue a blanket ban on all necklaces.

'I can see a situation where a staff member wears something that is not easily breakable, gets badly hurt because of it and then sues the hospital.'

I agree with that and am not a lawyer, but if the few nurses who wish to wear crosses were made to sign a disclaimer or whatever it is called, to say that they do not have the right to sue if that happens, wouldn't that be a compromise for that issue.

The Church is rich, I am sure they could hire top lawyers. But will they and do they? I don't know. Are some of their proclamations just for show?

Yep, agree with the disclaimers as long as they were watertight.

But claig when did churches of any description ever spend any of their money for the common man/woman?

'But claig when did churches of any description ever spend any of their money for the common man/woman?'

Exactly right. Remember how we were told what they charge visitors to enter St. Paul's? I have my doubts whether they will help nurses, they probably have bigger fish to fry.

"Can you not put yourself in the shoes of the phlebologist? Do you think she would have been prepared to lose a job in which she had worked for 5 years just over a necklace? Her cross meant much more to her than a necklace, and for that she was prepared to lose her livelihood, in a job where she had worked for 5 years helping the public. "

She might, if she was going to be one of the Christain Legal Centre's test cases.

I agree, maybe some Christian group is intending or was intending to help her. I don't know. But I rarely read about any of their successes in the papers, so I don't know how good they are in their advocacy or lobbying etc.

They did support her. You haven't read of any their successes in the paper because they haven't had any- they have lost every case they've taken on.