Christians take 'fight' to Europe

[Spursalot]

The cases involve British Airways check-in clerk Nadia Eweida, nurse Shirley Chaplin, relationship counsellor Gary McFarlane and registrar Lilian Ladele:

1) Ms Eweida, a Pentecostal Christian from Twickenham, south-west London, was sent home by her employer British Airways in 2006 after refusing to remove a necklace with a cross

2) Devon-based nurse Mrs Chaplin was moved to a desk job by Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Trust Hospital for similar reasons

3) Mr McFarlane, a Bristol counsellor, was sacked by Relate after saying he had a conscientious objection to giving relationship advice to gay people

4) Ms Ladele was disciplined after she refused to conduct same-sex civil partnership ceremonies in north London


Please no simple religious hatred or anything, i'd more like to know peoples views on them.


In my opinion, Cases 1 and 2 seem a little odd. They do not in fact have anything to do with being christian. It is their own choice to decide to wear a cross, their religion does not demand it or anything, so are they not just cases of people wearing jewellery to work when they have been told not to? It's not as if they would be seen as being any less christian for taking them off whilst they work.


I can fully understand cases 3 and 4. In case 4 it should be easy enough to not force someone who's religion is against it to conduct same-sex civil partnerships. As long as she had declared she was not ok doing it before being given the job, then it would be no harm, no foul. In case 3 i would assume the same applies. If the 'conscientious objection' had been given prior to hiring i would agree that the sacking is unfair. However if it has been given after then it does create difficulties as you are not able to do the job that you have been hired to do.


Keep it civil..

 

[Rock Strongo]

Now surely nurse Shirley Chaplin is taking the tinkle, no?

 

[ArcspacE]

Now surely nurse Shirley Chaplin is taking the tinkle, no?

Very good!

 

[Robbo]

The cases involve British Airways check-in clerk Nadia Eweida, nurse Shirley Chaplin, relationship counsellor Gary McFarlane and registrar Lilian Ladele:

1) Ms Eweida, a Pentecostal Christian from Twickenham, south-west London, was sent home by her employer British Airways in 2006 after refusing to remove a necklace with a cross

2) Devon-based nurse Mrs Chaplin was moved to a desk job by Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Trust Hospital for similar reasons

3) Mr McFarlane, a Bristol counsellor, was sacked by Relate after saying he had a conscientious objection to giving relationship advice to gay people

4) Ms Ladele was disciplined after she refused to conduct same-sex civil partnership ceremonies in north London


Please no simple religious hatred or anything, i'd more like to know peoples views on them.


In my opinion, Cases 1 and 2 seem a little odd. They do not in fact have anything to do with being christian. It is their own choice to decide to wear a cross, their religion does not demand it or anything, so are they not just cases of people wearing jewellery to work when they have been told not to? It's not as if they would be seen as being any less christian for taking them off whilst they work.


I can fully understand cases 3 and 4. In case 4 it should be easy enough to not force someone who's religion is against it to conduct same-sex civil partnerships. As long as she had declared she was not ok doing it before being given the job, then it would be no harm, no foul. In case 3 i would assume the same applies. If the 'conscientious objection' had been given prior to hiring i would agree that the sacking is unfair. However if it has been given after then it does create difficulties as you are not able to do the job that you have been hired to do.


Keep it civil..

1) & 2) If the job requires everyone not to wear necklaces, then there should be no exception to that rule. Religious reasons included. If they were asked to remove the necklaces because they had crosses hanging from them, it's a completely different matter.

3) & 4) If your personal beliefs prevents you from doing the job you are paid to do, then you should not be doing that job. If your beliefs means you, can't touch dead people, don't become a coroner. If your belief means you can't use a gun, don't become a police officer. If your personal beliefs means you can't speak to anyone of the opposite sex, don't become a teacher. For me, this is simple, and has nothing to do with religion: If you are not prepared to perform all the tasks required of you in a job, you should not be in that job.

Civil enough? 8-[

 

[jts1882]

Agree with the above comments, although I wonder if all these case couldn't have been solved with a little common sense and give and take.

1 & 2. I'd ask if they were given the option of wearing the cross and necklace under the clothing. Then everyone should be happy. If they insist on the overt display then they are doing more than following their religious beliefs.

3 & 4. If you start making exceptions, where do you draw the line? What about refusing to give contraceptive advice to unmarried people or refusing to give civil partnerships to mixed religion relationships.

4. Civil marriages are available so everyone allowed to can get married. By having the option it allows the churches to make decisions on who they allow to be married in church. Forcing the Catholic Church to marry gay couples would be a very different matter. The whole point of the civil marriage is to separate religious and civil matters.

 

[braineclipse]

1) Seems somewhat unreasonable, although probably not unlawful to me. It was a blanket ban on necklaces within their uniform policy, can't see how that's unlawful. From what I can see here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/8512215.stm BA have later changed their policies and this would now be allowed. "It introduced an amended policy in 2007 which permitted staff to display a faith or charity symbol with the uniform."

2) Totally reasonable. According to this article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-18317112 she was offered to wear the necklace underneath her clothes, but refused. "It said she was offered several alternative ways to wear her cross, including having it under her uniform, but she chose not to accept them." In my opinion for a healthcare provider to demand that employees don't wear jewelry outside their uniforms for health and safety reasons seems completely rational and reasonable.

3) Not a leg to stand on. Completely reasonable by the employer from what I can understand.

4) Not a leg to stand on. Completely reasonable by the employer from what I can understand.

 

[richiespur]

1) Ms Eweida, a Pentecostal Christian from Twickenham, south-west London, was sent home by her employer British Airways in 2006 after refusing to remove a necklace with a swastika

2) Devon-based nurse Mrs Chaplin was moved to a desk job by Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Trust Hospital for similar reasons

3) Mr McFarlane, a Bristol counsellor, was sacked by Relate after saying he had a conscientious objection to giving relationship advice to Jewish people

4) Ms Ladele was disciplined after she refused to conduct Jewish civil partnership ceremonies in north London

Replace the highlighted bits with prejudice and/or bigotry of your choice and see if any of these 'stands' seem reasonable. No reasonable person would agree, as they most definately are not.

 

[braineclipse]

Replace the highlighted bits with prejudice and/or bigotry of your choice and see if any of these 'stands' seem reasonable. No reasonable person would agree, as they most definately are not.

There is a very significant difference between a cross and a swastika.

(I'm an atheist and could probably describe myself as an anti-theist too.)

 

[richiespur]

There is a very significant difference between a cross and a swastika.

I agree there is, but my point being that when you start to make an exception for one set of 'beliefs', where do you stop? If a 'rule' is relaxed there will always be someone taking it to the extreme which the example of the swastika would certainly represent. My example was purely to highlight that one set of beliefs should not set a precedent for all.

(I'm an atheist and could probably describe myself as an anti-theist too.)

as would I, me I mean - I don't know you!

 

[braineclipse]

I agree there is, but my point being that when you start to make an exception for one set of 'beliefs', where do you stop? If a 'rule' is relaxed there will always be someone taking it to the extreme which the example of the swastika would certainly represent. My example was purely to highlight that one set of beliefs should not set a precedent for all.

I understand your point, bit of a slippery slope argument though.

By changing their policy as they did to allow for "a faith or charity symbol" they have found a reasonable way to exclude things like swastikas that obviously shouldn't be allowed while allowing the more traditional religious symbols whilst attempting to not discriminate against anyone unjustly. I think most people would be hard pressed to accept that a swastika was a faith or charity symbol.

They could potentially run into problems with some symbols that could fall under that definition, but they've worded their policy quite well I think and found a reasonable middle-ground.

 

[Gordinho]

There is a very significant difference between a cross and a swastika.

(I'm an atheist and could probably describe myself as an anti-theist too.)

You have to be a bit of a tit to take offence to the swastika.

 

[braineclipse]

You have to be a bit of a tit to take offence to the swastika.

Why exactly?

In my opinion people have the right to be offended by anything that offends them. What people shouldn't have a right to is to not be offended.

Also 'being offended' shouldn't count as anything more than it is, a statement of emotion and opinion. It shouldn't carry any weight towards what is allowed or accepted in a society. If the only argumentation against something is that it offends someone then there is no argumentation.

 

[Spursman]

Havent looked into the case but people are too easily offended. If the Muslims can get away with wearing hijab from head to toe and not even seeing their face one bit then i think other people in England should do what they want! British Airways obviously have a uniform policy but common sense needs to happen.

 

[braineclipse]

Havent looked into the case but people are too easily offended. If the Muslims can get away with wearing hijab from head to toe and not even seeing their face one bit then i think other people in England should do what they want! British Airways obviously have a uniform policy but common sense needs to happen.

You're comparing very different situations.

Of course Muslims should be allowed to wear clothes that cover their entire body if they so wish. And of course people are allowed to wear necklaces with crosses.

A Muslim (or non-Muslim) wouldn't be allowed to wear that clothing when working for a company that required that person to wear a uniform. Similarly a person wasn't allowed to wear a necklace with a cross when that uniform policy said that the employees weren't allowed to wear necklaces.

Common sense did happen, they changed their uniform policy.

 

[jts1882]

I understand your point, bit of a slippery slope argument though.

By changing their policy as they did to allow for "a faith or charity symbol" they have found a reasonable way to exclude things like swastikas that obviously shouldn't be allowed while allowing the more traditional religious symbols whilst attempting to not discriminate against anyone unjustly. I think most people would be hard pressed to accept that a swastika was a faith or charity symbol.

They could potentially run into problems with some symbols that could fall under that definition, but they've worded their policy quite well I think and found a reasonable middle-ground.

What about the swastika as a hindu or jainist symbol?

I agree that slippery slope arguments are not really arguments at all, but if you allow some artifacts a line has to be drawn somewhere. Its fairly easy to say that some things like the nazi swastika are unacceptable and some like the Christian cross are acceptable but there are more difficult examples. While it would be nice to think we could ask people to show common sense, one can understand why companies opt for strict uniform rules to avoid ambiguity.

 

[braineclipse]

What about the swastika as a hindu or jainist symbol?

I agree that slippery slope arguments are not really arguments at all, but if you allow some artifacts a line has to be drawn somewhere. Its fairly easy to say that some things like the nazi swastika are unacceptable and some like the Christian cross are acceptable but there are more difficult examples. While it would be nice to think we could ask people to show common sense, one can understand why companies opt for strict uniform rules to avoid ambiguity.

I think we pretty much agree...

On the swastika. Well, it was a symbol in many ancient cultures. It's a pretty simple shape after all. I understand that the nazis weren't the first to use it, but culturally they made it entirely theirs. Especially in the west I would suggest that people should avoid it, doesn't really matter what culture you feel it represents it will not come off that way. It's unfortunate perhaps, but that's just the way the world is.

It's like if someone found that the root origins to the word **** was some term of endearment in some ancient culture. You still shouldn't throw it in casually in conversations with strangers unless you're actually trying to provoke a reaction and then try to seem smart afterwards. And in that case you're probably a bit of a ....

 

[Boonie]

 

[Boonie]

“Lots of Christians wear crosses around their necks … you really think when Jesus comes back, he ever wants to see a fudging cross?”

― Bill Hicks, Relentless

 

[lurker of old]

I am not religious, emphatically do not believe in GHod, but I find it outrageous - seriously outrageous - that an employer can decide to prevent Christians from wearing visible crosses. We allow Sikhs to wear Turbans and carry daggers. Of course Muslim women can wear headscarves if they choose. Jews can wear skullcaps. Christianity helped give this country its unique culture - a culture which is admired throughout the world. To say that a nurse can't wear a cross around her neck - a visible cross- is just outrageous: I am quite sure she views her vocation and her faith as mutually supportive and I'm near speechless at the thought that this kind of freedom is being denied.

 

[braineclipse]

I am not religious, emphatically do not believe in GHod, but I find it outrageous - seriously outrageous - that an employer can decide to prevent Christians from wearing visible crosses. We allow Sikhs to wear Turbans and carry daggers. Of course Muslim women can wear headscarves if they choose. Jews can wear skullcaps. Christianity helped give this country its unique culture - a culture which is admired throughout the world. To say that a nurse can't wear a cross around her neck - a visible cross- is just outrageous: I am quite sure she views her vocation and her faith as mutually supportive and I'm near speechless at the thought that this kind of freedom is being denied.

"We" as in "society" and "an employer". These are completely different things. What relevance does it have to a uniform policy at a workplace that the society allows people in general to wear whatever they want to?

Is it really so strange for a hospital to have a no jewelry or no visible jewelry policy? Seems perfectly rational to me.

She was even offered that she could continue wearing the necklace as long as she wore it inside her uniform, but that wasn't good enough for her. So she was moved to a desk job when she refused to follow the policy put in place.

The problem (in my opinion) is that religious people are so used to preferential treatment that it's somehow expected that you don't have to follow a policy because a necklace has a cross on it.

On a slightly larger scale, I also disagree about culture. Christianity certainly has put it's mark on both European and British culture (I'm Norwegian btw). However, what made European culture great (again) was when in the Renaissance, Enlightenment and later periods society moved forward and distanced itself from religion. If not for that we would still be in the middle ages.