Christians Under Attack?

[Chil1234]

Therapist Loses Case

I'm very pleased that the law is being upheld and not being reinterpreted just to accommodate individual religious belief. However, some christians are claiming that their religion is now under attack and they are being sidelined to the point of persecution.

Should christians & other religious people be allowed to argue that their beliefs make them a special case, or should everyone be treated equally?

There's a certain type of Christian which is basically self-obsessed whinyarses who have to keep stuffing their idiotic superstitions in everyone else's lives. These are the people who complain about being 'persecuted' when what they mean is 'not given special treatment and not allowed to persecute other people'.

Christians are only under attack if they interpret "being required, as everyone else is, to follow the law" as an attack.

Saying that certain laws don't apply to particular religions is a very slippery slope. Not least because you immediately run into the issue of deciding what's a legitimate religion and what is just an excuse for bigotry.

Even as a non-believer, I can see that there does seem to be a double standard, and in some cases, perhaps, Christians are legitimate in feeling ignored. However, I don't believe there is any religious requirement to wear jewelry to show one is a Christian, so perhaps that school was acting reasonably, even if it does seem unfair and upsetting.

The term 'persecuted' has been used, but it would be better for Christians to stop using that term, and leave it for the truly persecuted, whose lives are being threatened elsewhere in the world.

Unfortunate that SolidGoldBrass does not appear to acknowledge those who don't feel as she suggests, and as for "not allowed to persecute other people" (do you really think that?) - I'd suggest not bothering to argue that point at all, it looks as if it was posted to provoke hostility not discuss with any degree of balance or understanding.

Councils certainly seem to have "bent over" too far and perhaps no longer have adequate perspective, especially if their 'faith' advisors have been drawn mainly from non- Christian groups, which might be the case.

After my morning walk, I caught the last 15+ minutes of "Sunday" on Radio 4 before 8am (not a regular listener, you understand!), and it carried two interesting discussions, one with political parties on their policies for schools wrt religion, the second on this "persecution" complaint too.

I'm a CHristian (help, must get off MN and get dcs ready for church!!!!!) and I don't feel persecuted at all.

However, I have some pretty fundamentalist friends and they do. recently, an American preacher was arrested in Glasgow for preaching in the street against homosexuality. Good thing too, no-one could have disagreed abotu him being a bigot! This is the least biased link I can find. I wish there was another word for it ....

I would have been interested to see if the ruling would have been the same had the gentleman been a Muslim. If yes, then fine; if not, then Christians have a point. If this is the case, then presumably Muslims should wear the same uniform as everyone else in hospitals (arms bared to the elbow) and should sell alcohol in supermarkets.

There does seem as NWG says to be a double standard, and as Christianity is the established religion in the UK, one can see why this feeling may arise.

The organisation he worked for made it quite clear that they provided counselling equally to all couples, of whatever category. If he had a problem with that, he shouldn't have taken the job in the first place. I don't think it is in any way persecution to be expected to do what you were paid for when you took the job. I would hope that Relate would deal the same way with anyone who refused to see unmarried couples, or mixed-race couples, or ayone else just because they disapproved of them.

The problem is that christianity has been used to justify homophobia for a rather long time. Even though everything Christ taught was supremely against bigotry and self righteousness. Funny that.

I agree with the outcome, why go into a field like that if you feel so strongly about it? He could have gone into a different branch of therapy like bereavement. HE put HIMSELF in that position IYKWIM

I also don't think christian nurses should be allowed to refuse to participate in TOPs. Why go into obs and gynae if its going to be an issue with you?, there are so many many many other branches of nursing.

Also in the case of the nurse who was disciplined for "praying" for her service users, she was telling people she "would pray for them" in very unusual contexts - one of the women who complained found it very odd because she was not seriously ill and it was completely out of context and unsolicited - didn't relate to their conversation at all, was just out of the blue. It was blown out of proportion, I'm sure many palliative care nurses partake in discussions about faith with their service users and may even join them in a prayer if invited without any fear of discipline.

Actually, I am surprised that any counselling organisation took this fuckwit on in the first place. People who can;t keep their ridiculous superstitons to themselves shouldn't be employed in areas where they may have to deal with distressed and vulnerable individuals.
Of course this isn't an argument for prohibiting those who are daft enough to believe in gods, fairies, pixies or homeopathy from having sensitive jobs - but if they are not smart enough to appreciate that peddling your particular brand of superstitious crap to someone who may be an adherent of a different superstition is insensitive, intrusive and rude, then they are not suitable for counselling/caring work.

It does seem a little strange that the issue did not come up during his interview, if he feels so strongly about it that it would affect whether he could do all parts of the job - you'd think he might have mentioned that it gave him a problem at that stage. Certainly if I was going for a job where I felt I'd not be able to do part of the standard tasks because of my beliefs, then I would say so up front and check whether that could be accomodated or not. If not, I'd be honest and say "This is not the job for me, and I'm not the person for this job".

I don't think he was actually "peddling" his Christianity to the couples he counselled though SGB, just wanting to be given special treatment because he had those views. Which he wasn't, and rightly so!

Actually priests 'deal' with distressed and vulnerable individuals all the time SGB. And without them a an awful lot of distressed and vulnerable people would be a lot worse off, there being no one else out there to care for them. But don't let that complicate your soundbite or anything.

Pofaced: But distressed people who seek help from a priest are generally aware that it's a priest they are dealing with and are likely to be adherents of the same myth system, therefore they will be expecting at least some reference to whichever imaginary being they prefer to commune with. THe problem arises when an individual who is dealing with all different types of vulnerable people lets his/her particular brand of superstition spill into the job.

Christians have been under attack for 2000 years.

MmeBlueberry, to be fair I think the Christians had things more their own way between the dark ages and the enlightenment.

Christians under attack? Pull the other one.

I agree with AMumInScotland. I am a bit bewildered as to how he could have missed this part of the job when he applied for it.

Well good priests don't really give a flying fuck what religion you are and are not interested in converting people.

But yes agree a homophobic counsellor really should not be doing couples counselling and rather strange he was hired in the first place.

Christians under attack?

About time!

btw the ability to feel sorry for yourself is not usually considered one of the Christian cardinal virtues

besides, does anyone suppose that different treatment would have been meted out to a Muslim who refused to do his job for the same reasons

which of course is equally possible

I'm glad the law was upheld too. I'd have been disgusted, but not surprised if it had not.

As for Muslims refusing to obey the hygiene rules in hospitals or taking a job in a supermarket, but refusing to serve customers who buy alcohol, that is wrong too and should be stopped.

The funny thing is that it's almost certainly because of the Christian influence that they are allowed to get away with it. We are told over and over that "faith must be respected" and that's where it leads.