Not Ashamed campaign - Page 2

[Bluegoat]

I found some articles about some of the incidents:

UK nurse fired for praying for a patient

Christian nurse under fire over wearing cross to meet hospital officials

'Chastity ring' girl loses case

The nurse in the first instance won her case I believe.  The other two were "uniform" issues.  There seems to be disagreement because exceptions are made for "required" religious things like turbans, and then "optional" religious symbols like crosses.

I'm not sure what I think of that - technically, it's correct - OTOH - it seems a bit legalistic I guess.  In the case of nurses, nuns have been nurses for ages wearing crosses without being strangled on a regular basis, and it seems over the top in a lot of nursing positions - I can totally see it in an ER, but not in a maternity ward you know?  It seems so easy to make it work.  When I was in the army, turbans, hijabs, etc were accommodated, as was long hair for natives, and anyone could wear a chain with a small religious symbol on it - even the nurses.  In a dangerous situation those things could be changed (a Sikh who couldn't wear a gas mask in a situation where it might really be needed might have to shave for example) but they were pretty darn reasonable about identifying those.

I can see how people would feel they were living in a climate where they just had to keep their religion totally private.

[Shami]

Christians are called to recognize authorities on earth and 'follow the laws of the land'.  I wish people would stop crying discrimination at the drop of a hat and just follow the rules.  Whatever religion one is affiliated with should not trump the laws of the land or rules/standards of a company that has hired the person to perform duties in a particular way.  If you want to change the laws, that is fine.  Become an activist and change the laws, but stop being so sensitive.

It seems like in the interest of freedom of religion it has gone over the line to mean freedom to 'do as I wish' regardless of the law.  Here is another one that irked me and it's not because of their religious affiliation.  I just think folks should follow the rules.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1577426/Female-Muslim-medics-disobey-hygiene-rules.html

If something is so important to you,  go find another job.

[Bluegoat]

Originally Posted by Shami 

Christians are called to recognize authorities on earth and 'follow the laws of the land'.  I wish people would stop crying discrimination at the drop of a hat and just follow the rules.  Whatever religion one is affiliated with should not trump the laws of the land or rules/standards of a company that has hired the person to perform duties in a particular way.  If you want to change the laws, that is fine.  Become an activist and change the laws, but stop being so sensitive.

It seems like in the interest of freedom of religion it has gone over the line to mean freedom to 'do as I wish' regardless of the law.  Here is another one that irked me and it's not because of their religious affiliation.  I just think folks should follow the rules.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1577426/Female-Muslim-medics-disobey-hygiene-rules.html

If something is so important to you,  go find another job.

It should be totally possible to deal with this.  There are whole countries full of Muslim doctors who manage not to kill their patients.  Or long gloves, or let the women scrub in first ... there are all kinds of things that might work.  People just need to stop being so adversarial.

[rhianna813]

All religions share the same types of discrimination. Such as wearing religious jewelry and clothing, praying, religious observance. IMO Christianity is least discriminated against religion. Back in 1950’s a nurse could easily wear a cross on her uniform but someone of a different faith wore the same – it would have stood out and not been socially accepted. Christianity has been the mainstream faith of the US (and western countries in general) for some time now and I think to the point where it over rode being a faith and became more of a “oh you’re one of us” social position. This is probably the same in other parts of the world, with different religions.

What Christians are now experiencing is what other religions have been dealing with for a long time. The lack of overall acceptance by the majority has led to more strict social and political “rules”. I think there has been an attitude of taking away everyone’s choice rather than sharing it.

And now the Christians are feeling the heat.

Rhianna

[Shami]

Originally Posted by Bluegoat 

Originally Posted by Shami 

Christians are called to recognize authorities on earth and 'follow the laws of the land'.  I wish people would stop crying discrimination at the drop of a hat and just follow the rules.  Whatever religion one is affiliated with should not trump the laws of the land or rules/standards of a company that has hired the person to perform duties in a particular way.  If you want to change the laws, that is fine.  Become an activist and change the laws, but stop being so sensitive.

It seems like in the interest of freedom of religion it has gone over the line to mean freedom to 'do as I wish' regardless of the law.  Here is another one that irked me and it's not because of their religious affiliation.  I just think folks should follow the rules.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1577426/Female-Muslim-medics-disobey-hygiene-rules.html

If something is so important to you,  go find another job.

It should be totally possible to deal with this.  There are whole countries full of Muslim doctors who manage not to kill their patients.  Or long gloves, or let the women scrub in first ... there are all kinds of things that might work.  People just need to stop being so adversarial.

I don't view this as being adversarial.  Why should private companies, or government jobs have to change procedure or dress codes to meet the standard of a particular religion?  Agreed it would be nice if we could accommodate everyone, but we can't.  So, where do you draw the line?  I don't like being extremely legal about matters, but sometimes we can't function with gray areas.  We have to have it spelled out in black and white.

[Bluegoat]

Originally Posted by Shami 

Originally Posted by Bluegoat 

Originally Posted by Shami 

Christians are called to recognize authorities on earth and 'follow the laws of the land'.  I wish people would stop crying discrimination at the drop of a hat and just follow the rules.  Whatever religion one is affiliated with should not trump the laws of the land or rules/standards of a company that has hired the person to perform duties in a particular way.  If you want to change the laws, that is fine.  Become an activist and change the laws, but stop being so sensitive.

It seems like in the interest of freedom of religion it has gone over the line to mean freedom to 'do as I wish' regardless of the law.  Here is another one that irked me and it's not because of their religious affiliation.  I just think folks should follow the rules.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1577426/Female-Muslim-medics-disobey-hygiene-rules.html

If something is so important to you,  go find another job.

It should be totally possible to deal with this.  There are whole countries full of Muslim doctors who manage not to kill their patients.  Or long gloves, or let the women scrub in first ... there are all kinds of things that might work.  People just need to stop being so adversarial.

I don't view this as being adversarial.  Why should private companies, or government jobs have to change procedure or dress codes to meet the standard of a particular religion?  Agreed it would be nice if we could accommodate everyone, but we can't.  So, where do you draw the line?  I don't like being extremely legal about matters, but sometimes we can't function with gray areas.  We have to have it spelled out in black and white.

What makes you think it is always impossible?  As for why?  Because it is the polite thing to do.

[Shami]

Originally Posted by Bluegoat 

Originally Posted by Shami 

Originally Posted by Bluegoat 

Originally Posted by Shami 

Christians are called to recognize authorities on earth and 'follow the laws of the land'.  I wish people would stop crying discrimination at the drop of a hat and just follow the rules.  Whatever religion one is affiliated with should not trump the laws of the land or rules/standards of a company that has hired the person to perform duties in a particular way.  If you want to change the laws, that is fine.  Become an activist and change the laws, but stop being so sensitive.

It seems like in the interest of freedom of religion it has gone over the line to mean freedom to 'do as I wish' regardless of the law.  Here is another one that irked me and it's not because of their religious affiliation.  I just think folks should follow the rules.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1577426/Female-Muslim-medics-disobey-hygiene-rules.html

If something is so important to you,  go find another job.

It should be totally possible to deal with this.  There are whole countries full of Muslim doctors who manage not to kill their patients.  Or long gloves, or let the women scrub in first ... there are all kinds of things that might work.  People just need to stop being so adversarial.

I don't view this as being adversarial.  Why should private companies, or government jobs have to change procedure or dress codes to meet the standard of a particular religion?  Agreed it would be nice if we could accommodate everyone, but we can't.  So, where do you draw the line?  I don't like being extremely legal about matters, but sometimes we can't function with gray areas.  We have to have it spelled out in black and white.

What makes you think it is always impossible?  As for why?  Because it is the polite thing to do.

Polite or political?  This mindset that others must bend the procedures because of a religious practice can become quite the slippery slope.  I am not against being an activist or changing laws for the betterment of society.  My annoyance with this stems from the fact that I live in a country where you can file frivolous law suits, and it's just out of hand.

[Smokering]

I'm not sure what I think of that - technically, it's correct - OTOH - it seems a bit legalistic I guess.  In the case of nurses, nuns have been nurses for ages wearing crosses without being strangled on a regular basis, and it seems over the top in a lot of nursing positions - I can totally see it in an ER, but not in a maternity ward you know?  It seems so easy to make it work.

Oh, I agree. And I think it's totally ridiculous and power-trippy not to let kids wear jewellery to school - unless they have a circlet so tight it's compressing their brain, or rings so bulky they can't write, what on earth does it have to do with their education? But then, I have severe problems with the whole school system anyway and plan to homeschool, so take that as you will. :p

I do think, though, that it's dishonest of the Not Ashamed website to present those cases as they did. It WAS a question of dress codes, as I suspected. If the website had been a generic "more freedom, less silly rules" one, then sure. But painting this as being anti-religion is dubious. It casts doubts on legitimate cases of discrimination, and just doesn't seem intellectually honest.

[GoBecGo]

Originally Posted by Smokering 

I'm not sure what I think of that - technically, it's correct - OTOH - it seems a bit legalistic I guess.  In the case of nurses, nuns have been nurses for ages wearing crosses without being strangled on a regular basis, and it seems over the top in a lot of nursing positions - I can totally see it in an ER, but not in a maternity ward you know?  It seems so easy to make it work.

Oh, I agree. And I think it's totally ridiculous and power-trippy not to let kids wear jewellery to school - unless they have a circlet so tight it's compressing their brain, or rings so bulky they can't write, what on earth does it have to do with their education? But then, I have severe problems with the whole school system anyway and plan to homeschool, so take that as you will. :p

I do think, though, that it's dishonest of the Not Ashamed website to present those cases as they did. It WAS a question of dress codes, as I suspected. If the website had been a generic "more freedom, less silly rules" one, then sure. But painting this as being anti-religion is dubious. It casts doubts on legitimate cases of discrimination, and just doesn't seem intellectually honest.

The case of the teacher fired for offering to pray - if you google about you will find she actually pressed the child to pray and mentioned her religion to the child on many many occasions, and eventually one day also asked the mother to pray and the mother finally had enough and made a complaint.  The website makes it sound like she once offered a prayer and was hung out to dry for it.  Not true.  This kind of interests me because i'm in the UK.  I personally agree that the problem for Christianity is that it is no longer the dominant faith, and it's not a nice position, or at least not as nice as when it WAS the dominant faith.  I am an atheist, and i dislike this campaign and it's "poor us" attitude.  I kind of think, you know, in the UK you are allowed to openly practice your faith, does it really matter if your "trappings" (like jewellery) aren't appropriate in EVERY setting?  *I* wasn't allowed to wear jewellery to school, for the sake of uniformity, which aided discipline (and it really did help when everyone was in uniform, which meant the teachers could spend more time teaching and less policing).  I wasn't being persecuted or having my right to faith taken from me.  Why does it suddenly become incredibly important if it's a cross instead of a locket or a gem?  As others have stated, it's not as if the Bible says one MUST wear a piece of jewellery.

[Liquesce]

Originally Posted by Smokering 

Liquesce: So you think the witch-burning thing was more of a regional aberrancy, which the founders would not have intended/permitted? Or was witchcraft not recognised as a religion in its own right, but rather a perversion or corruption of Christianity?

The people who actually conceptualized the whole relationship of the state to religion didn't, insofar as I know, tend to participate in the prosecution of witches.  But also insofar as I know prosecuting/executing witches in the colonies wasn't so much religious persecution as it was a hysteria which had very little to do with the actual beliefs and practices of the accused.  And I very much doubt they were in favor of hysterical accusation of any sort.

As for how they would feel about the development of Wiccanism ... well, if I had to guess, I would guess that they would consider it the same fraudulent lunacy that a great many contemporary people do.  But I also doubt it would exactly shake their vision to the core.

Edited by Liquesce - 12/7/10 at 9:37pm

[scottishmommy]

Originally Posted by Smokering 

Liquesce: So you think the witch-burning thing was more of a regional aberrancy, which the founders would not have intended/permitted? Or was witchcraft not recognised as a religion in its own right, but rather a perversion or corruption of Christianity?

The Salem witch trials occurred nearly a century before the drafting of the constitution, when we were still a British colony. One of the reasons the founding fathers established separation of church and state was to avoid another witch trial. When the church and the courts are one in the same you run into problems! We don't believe that secular courts should be allowed to punish people for their religious beliefs (or lack thereof).
I personally find it odd when Christians get up in arms about this sort of thing. Jesus told us we would be ridiciculed if we follow him, so if anything we should be expecting it and relieved when it happens. I mean, do we believe Him or not? Not a day goes by when someone doesn't make fun of my religion to my face(I'm Catholic). I always take it as a sign that Jesus was telling us the truth! Take up your cross and quit complaining people!

[Liquesce]

Just remembered The Witch Trial at Mount Holly, and wanted to come back to add it to my last post. 

[Bluegoat]

Originally Posted by Liquesce 

Just remembered The Witch Trial at Mount Holly, and wanted to come back to add it to my last post. 

Ha!

This reminds me of my grandfather.  He was a journalist and worked for a small city paper.  He used to write in angry letters to the editor under fake names to lambaste his own articles.

[Liquesce]

Originally Posted by Bluegoat 

Originally Posted by Liquesce 

Just remembered The Witch Trial at Mount Holly, and wanted to come back to add it to my last post. 

Ha!

This reminds me of my grandfather.  He was a journalist and worked for a small city paper.  He used to write in angry letters to the editor under fake names to lambaste his own articles.

:D  Nothing sells like controversy.

[mamabadger]

Originally Posted by scottishmommy 


... I personally find it odd when Christians get up in arms about this sort of thing. Jesus told us we would be ridiciculed if we follow him, so if anything we should be expecting it and relieved when it happens. I mean, do we believe Him or not? Not a day goes by when someone doesn't make fun of my religion to my face(I'm Catholic). I always take it as a sign that Jesus was telling us the truth! Take up your cross and quit complaining people!

I agree with this 100%. It is to be expected; the times and places in which Christianity was generally respected should be considered the aberrations, not the norm.

I only draw the line at anything which makes it impossible to practice a religion, even in private. I will also respond to deliberate distortion of facts about Christianity where appropriate. However, I do not really expect the situation to improve. 

[CherryBomb]

Originally Posted by rhianna813 

IMO Christianity is least discriminated against religion.

What Christians are now experiencing is what other religions have been dealing with for a long time.

That's a VERY Western-centric viewpoint.  It might surprise you to learn that there are countries TODAY where Christians are murdered because of their religion.  And uh, have you ever read any history of the first century Christians?  Thousands of Christians were slaughtered by various Roman emperors (not to mention Persia).  This crap that Christians have always been the persecutors and never the persecuted is just flat out false.  Virtually every religion has and does play both roles at some point or another.

[GoBecGo]

Originally Posted by CherryBomb 

Originally Posted by rhianna813 

IMO Christianity is least discriminated against religion.

What Christians are now experiencing is what other religions have been dealing with for a long time.

That's a VERY Western-centric viewpoint.  It might surprise you to learn that there are countries TODAY where Christians are murdered because of their religion.  And uh, have you ever read any history of the first century Christians?  Thousands of Christians were slaughtered by various Roman emperors (not to mention Persia).  This crap that Christians have always been the persecutors and never the persecuted is just flat out false.  Virtually every religion has and does play both roles at some point or another.

To be fair though, the Not Ashamed campaign is originating in the UK, and there aren't Christians being murdered HERE because of their religion.  The "persecution" is more in the form of lack of interest from others and refusal to make room for it.  I do wonder if the main issue is that many sorts of Christianity ask those who are Faithful to spread the word, and increasingly people just don't want to hear it?