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 Christian Institute are behind most of the stories you read in the press. They have, to date, been spectularily bad in convincing anyone but the Daily Fail and the Torygraph so far.

'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.'

Exactly. It makes you wonder doesn't it? Who are they hiring to fight their cases? How much are they spending on their cases?

If Mr Loophole can get drivers off of their speeding fines, do you really think that top minds can't find any flaws in the crucifixes are a "health and safety" risk argument? Why don't they just call on the Chief Medical Officer of a country with a better record on preventing infection which does not ask any nurse to go to A&E to have her wedding ring cut off if she cannot remove it to conform with the policy to prevent infection?

'One worker was made to attend the trust's own A&E department to have her ring cut off when she was unable to remove it.

The nurses have been told a written warning will follow if they are found wearing the rings at work again.

But, despite the risk to their jobs, many staff at Bradford Royal Infirmary say they will not take their ring off.

One nurse, who has worked for the trust for almost 30 years and worn her wedding ring at work for more than 20 years said all compromise suggestions, such as taping over the ring, had been rejected.

"We take infection control measures extremely seriously. We always wear latex gloves and hand hygiene is second nature to us," she said.

"There is no proof these rings pass or breed infection more than plain wedding bands but they still insist we take them off.'

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

Lying for Jesus is still lying, as we say on teh interwebz!

I usually consider myself a rather pleasant person, but fundamentalist believers really seem to stoop to any level if it furthers their agenda. It's infuriating.

I recently miscarried. One of DH's co-workers suggested that I'd have an easier time dealing with my loss if only I "accepted Jesus". I told her to fuck off!

Probably I was persecuting her right there and then.

I think you are losing the plot of the oringinal thread Claig - this isn't about "elf n safety gawn maaad" it's about religious discrimination??

Maybe the top legal minds in the country have got more important things to worry about than whether or not a nurse should be allowed to wear jewellery?

The thread has moved on, gin.

'Maybe the top legal minds in the country have got more important things to worry about than whether or not a nurse should be allowed to wear jewellery?'

Those minds are for hire. They have a cab system or whatever it is called and they work for clients who pay for their services.

but if they think the case is a load of rubbish then they are unlikely to take it on and ruin their reputations.

Re thread having moved on - you seem to have managed to do that pretty singlehandedly - well done!

Thanks

I'm still hopeful someone may be able to explain what the term 'sexual ethics' means.

The wedding ring story also has a religious elelment in it, with a reverend being quoted wanting to see evidence and also interestingly the union also wanted to see evidence. Can't find any followup articles to see what happened in the end.

"I won't take my ring off because it has deep personal and religious significance for me - I am a sincere and loyal wife."
She added: "hey seem to have started with our department first - we are the guinea pigs for this and we want to make people aware of what is going on because we see this as discrimination.

"Infection levels are on the decline without this measure and we don't understand why we are being treated like this.

"It is having such an impact on our psychological health - you wouldn't believe the tears we have cried over this.'
The Rev Canon Ralph Crowe, a chaplain at a local hospital in Bradford, said: "This is an emotive issue and should be dealt with sensitively and realistically.

"I do understand the need in the operating room to be very careful. However, these nurses are married women who believe marriage is for life and that a ring is an outward sign of that.

"What they don't want to do is go around the hospital in their daily life without a ring on. Whatever religion we are it means a great deal to us."
He said it was now important to establish the facts of the matter.
He said: "It is for the people who are pushing this to provide the burden of proof - to say this is a distinct hazard to health.

"In any event, it needs to be dealt with much more sensitively than by disciplinary action."

Jim Bell, regional officer for the union Unison said: "As a responsible trade union we obviously understand the trust's intention to minimise infection risk to patients.

"But as far as this matter is concerned we would want to see the scientific evidence that demonstrates that bevelled rings are any more susceptible than plain rings.

Written warnings in some hospitals for wearing a cross and in some hospitals for wearing a bevelled wedding ring. Are there written warnings for not making sure that elderly patients are fed and are not dehydrated?

www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2052627/Annette-Townend-pays-1k-undercover-nurses-save-NHS-condemned-mother.html

The hearing will also deal with the case of a relationship counsellor who lost his job after refusing to give sex therapy to gay couples from the link in OPs post. I assume this would be a case of sexual ethics.

Carey has a point and and I think it is valid. In the bible it states that you shalt not sodomise. It's simple, it's transparent and there is no room for misinterpretation. If the counsellor is a christian he should be able to pass this case to a collegue. If it were a Muslim women being asked to unwrap herself to undertake a certain aspect of her job, I'm sure some allowances would be made that respected her cultural and religious belief.

For what it is worth, I am not a Christian because to be so, would effectively mean that I would have to adhere to the teachings of the religion. What never fails to amaze me is that Christianity is the only religion that comes not only under attack from outside but from within itself.

minimathsmouse sorry, but I have to disagree with you. When you apply for a job, the application usually includes a comprehensive list of all the duties that job will involve. This man knew what he was applying for and then tried to pick and choose his caseload. That is not acceptable in any profession. If we start allowing it for relationship counsellors, can we allow it for say, psychiatric nurses, allowing them not to accept gay clients on their caseload?

No-one is asking this relationship counsellor to have gay sex.

FWIW I think there are issues around Muslim women in full veils too - headscarves are fine by me, niqab/burqas are not, because we live in a society which runs on face to face interaction, not face to veil. When you take a job, you accept the strictures that come with that job.

I wonder what the no compromise gran on the Catherine tate Show would have to say about the written warnings? Something like 'Worra f** liberty"

But it's people like that gran who maintain our liberties.

Someone upthread commented that this particular type of whinyarse Christians are like MRAs - what they call 'discrimination against them' is actually equal treatment: they are just losing the special privileges they feel entitled to.

And the Christian Legal Institute is basically Fathers 4 Justice with a cross on: irrational screaming bucketheads who are good at getting press coverage but turn into epic fails when their 'cases' are actually examined. F4J members usually turn out to have been violent to their partners, hence the partners keeping them at a distance; whinyarse Christians usually turn out to have been irrational, unreasonable, bad at their jobs and a total pest to their colleagues so that their managers were delighted they suddenly forced an issue enough to resign over it.

FWIW I think there are issues around Muslim women in full veils too - headscarves are fine by me that's just it though, it's fine by you but It's fine by me if a muslim women WANTS to cover herself. Although I do think the Niqab/burqa issue is cultural rather than religious. Whats the difference though, should we respect religion but not culture or is culture more important?
because we live in a society which runs on face to face interaction so we live in a western culture that dictates we look into each others faces when we interact. Should that trump another's cultural beliefs!

'should we respect religion but not culture or is culture more important?'

Wow, what a brilliant question. I don't think I've ever heard that asked before, but I think that is what is being played out. I think the powerful have answered that for us, because religion seems to be increasingly undermined.

I have to say, I would imagine the relationship counsellor would struggle to find many clients who fit a precisely biblical definition of acceptable relationships in order to counsel (or is that the point?). Wives not obeying husbands, people having sex outside marriage, etc. And the aspects of the relationship are surely emotional rather than purely sexual? (Or is that the point too?) And returning once again to the theme of what if your particular belief was that mixed race relationships were wrong, should you be allowed to refuse counselling on those grounds too?

I think that there has to be a line and if you take a job in the public sphere and interact with the public then you have to accept the law of the land and cannot be allowed to discriminate against any members of the public and any of your religious beliefs have to come second to your duty to the public. Basically you have to accept the law of the land.

Tribpot that's a really interesting question, I wonder what would happen in a counselling session with a christian sex counsellor might be told to get on your knees and pray

I

You can challenge teh law in court and you can even appel to the European Court of Human Rights, but if you lose then that is tough, you have to accept the law. But rules are not laws and of course you are free to challenge them and campaign and if necessary go to court to challenge what you think are unjust rules. But when teh law has decided, then you have to accept the law.

Actually other religions don't seem to throw up these anomalies anyway. Jewish couples would speak to the Rabbi. Highly unlikely that an orthodox would choose to speak to a christian or secular counsellor about marriage or relationships. Relationships are seen to be central to their religious life.

On the question of culture vs religion I have only one point to make: In the 90s in the Netherlands (which is where I'm from) there was a case of a Muslim man who was in court for beating his wife. It as very severe - she ended up in hospital and was left with permanent injuries.

His defence was that in his culture, beating your wife was acceptable.

He was jailed for a long time, and the judges made it very clear to him that by choosing to live in the Netherlands, he had to abide by its laws and its cultural norms.

When you choose to live in a country where there is a prevailing culture (in the case of the UK of face to face interaction) you must accept that when in the public sphere, or go elsewhere.

Hully you what?

Biut pointy, that Muslim man was breaking the law, so his culture is irrelevant.

But I don't think face to face interaction is a law, so that is not a legal matter but one of opinion.