Not Ashamed campaign - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 37 Old 11-29-2010, 01:05 PM - Thread Starter
 
Bluegoat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 2,619
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Thought this was interesting.  I can't imagine it resonating in the US, but I can see why it might in the UK.

 


 I like the mind to be a dustbin of scraps of brilliant fabric, odd gems, worthless but fascinating curiosities, tinsel, quaint bits of carving, and a reasonable amount of healthy dirt.
Bluegoat is offline  
#2 of 37 Old 11-29-2010, 08:06 PM
 
lilyka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Sioux Falls, SD
Posts: 18,301
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)

Why do you think it would not resonate with people in the us?


The truest answer to violence is love. The truest answer to death is life. The only prevention for violence is for the heart to have no violence within it.  We cannot prevent evil through any system devised by mankind. But we can grapple with evil and defeat it, but only with love—real love.

lilyka is offline  
#3 of 37 Old 11-29-2010, 08:14 PM
2xy
 
2xy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,162
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Probably because the U.S. isn't a theocracy, and the campaign claims that "only Jesus Christ can provide a solid foundation and a robust fabric for our nation."

2xy is offline  
#4 of 37 Old 11-30-2010, 04:44 AM
 
Purple Sage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,201
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by lilyka View Post

Why do you think it would not resonate with people in the us?


 

I was wondering this, too.  Maybe because we think stories like these can't happen here? 

 

Bluegoat, that is indeed interesting.  Thanks for posting.

Purple Sage is offline  
#5 of 37 Old 11-30-2010, 08:41 AM
 
Trigger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: upstate NY
Posts: 296
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by 2xy View Post

Probably because the U.S. isn't a theocracy, and the campaign claims that "only Jesus Christ can provide a solid foundation and a robust fabric for our nation."


Not to mention that the US wasn't founded on Christianity anyway, as many assume.
 


I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ. 

 Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi 

Trigger is offline  
#6 of 37 Old 11-30-2010, 01:27 PM - Thread Starter
 
Bluegoat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 2,619
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Sage View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by lilyka View Post

Why do you think it would not resonate with people in the us?


 

I was wondering this, too.  Maybe because we think stories like these can't happen here? 

 

Bluegoat, that is indeed interesting.  Thanks for posting.


Yes, this.  When you get fired for offering to pray for someone, that might be inclined to stir people to take some kind of action.  This kind of thing seems to be not uncommon in the UK and maybe even Europe.  I would be surprised to see it in Canada, and in the US it would surprise me too - in some places it is probably harder to be a non-Christian in the US.


 I like the mind to be a dustbin of scraps of brilliant fabric, odd gems, worthless but fascinating curiosities, tinsel, quaint bits of carving, and a reasonable amount of healthy dirt.
Bluegoat is offline  
#7 of 37 Old 11-30-2010, 01:28 PM - Thread Starter
 
Bluegoat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 2,619
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by 2xy View Post

Probably because the U.S. isn't a theocracy, and the campaign claims that "only Jesus Christ can provide a solid foundation and a robust fabric for our nation."



I don't think that necessarily implies a theocracy, though it wouldn't exclude one.  It would be perfectly possible for this to work, logically, with a separated church and state.


 I like the mind to be a dustbin of scraps of brilliant fabric, odd gems, worthless but fascinating curiosities, tinsel, quaint bits of carving, and a reasonable amount of healthy dirt.
Bluegoat is offline  
#8 of 37 Old 12-05-2010, 12:05 PM
 
Imogen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: England
Posts: 2,389
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

The other side of the coin suggests ~

 

http://www.humanism.org.uk/news/view/710

 

 

Quote:

campaign launched today which says Christians have been barred from involvement in public life and are discriminated against in the UK has been heavily criticised by humanists and Christians as misleading and having no evidence to support them. 
 
Mr Copson continued, ‘It is chauvinist and historically illiterate to ignore the vast pre-Christian and non-Christian contributions to the development of our culture, our common values and our positive social norms. Many British people today are the non-Christian children of non-Christian parents and non-Christian grandparents, with no connection to Christianity or in many cases, to any religion. There is no way that they should be excluded from British culture because of that fact.’
Imogen is offline  
#9 of 37 Old 12-05-2010, 02:17 PM - Thread Starter
 
Bluegoat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 2,619
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Imogen View Post

The other side of the coin suggests ~

 

http://www.humanism.org.uk/news/view/710

 

 

Quote:

campaign launched today which says Christians have been barred from involvement in public life and are discriminated against in the UK has been heavily criticised by humanists and Christians as misleading and having no evidence to support them. 
 
Mr Copson continued, ‘It is chauvinist and historically illiterate to ignore the vast pre-Christian and non-Christian contributions to the development of our culture, our common values and our positive social norms. Many British people today are the non-Christian children of non-Christian parents and non-Christian grandparents, with no connection to Christianity or in many cases, to any religion. There is no way that they should be excluded from British culture because of that fact.’


It's not clear to me how these two paragraphs are connected?  Is ther any more context - where did the quote come from?

 

Ooops - somehow I missed the link, sorry!

 

It seems a bit weak - I rather wish there was some more specific response to the campaigns claims.  Also, as far as I'm aware with the schools issue, the preference given to Christian parents is in Christian schools, which are state funded in the UK along with other religious schools (and nonreligious ones too.)

 

As far as the second paragraph quoted above, it doesn't seem much to the point at all.

 

I think they are missing who the campaign is mainly aimed at, which is Christians.  I find myself wondering if anyone would be interested in or object to the same message being given to members of other religious groups.


 I like the mind to be a dustbin of scraps of brilliant fabric, odd gems, worthless but fascinating curiosities, tinsel, quaint bits of carving, and a reasonable amount of healthy dirt.
Bluegoat is offline  
#10 of 37 Old 12-05-2010, 05:10 PM
 
mommy2maya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: SE PA
Posts: 1,377
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Can you further your thoughts on this?  Because it is my understanding that the US was most certainly founded on Christianity.  Yes, the first settlers came here to escape religious persecution, but their idea of religious freedom was to not have to practice the same type of christianity as the king.  
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trigger View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by 2xy View Post

Probably because the U.S. isn't a theocracy, and the campaign claims that "only Jesus Christ can provide a solid foundation and a robust fabric for our nation."


Not to mention that the US wasn't founded on Christianity anyway, as many assume.
 



mommy2maya is offline  
#11 of 37 Old 12-05-2010, 09:12 PM
 
Trigger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: upstate NY
Posts: 296
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by mommy2maya View Post

Can you further your thoughts on this?  Because it is my understanding that the US was most certainly founded on Christianity.  Yes, the first settlers came here to escape religious persecution, but their idea of religious freedom was to not have to practice the same type of christianity as the king.  
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trigger View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by 2xy View Post

Probably because the U.S. isn't a theocracy, and the campaign claims that "only Jesus Christ can provide a solid foundation and a robust fabric for our nation."


Not to mention that the US wasn't founded on Christianity anyway, as many assume.
 


 

 

Many of the founding fathers were deists.  Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin in particular were vocal opponents of organized religion.


I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ. 

 Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi 

Trigger is offline  
#12 of 37 Old 12-06-2010, 06:05 AM - Thread Starter
 
Bluegoat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 2,619
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


I think a lot depends on what you mean by "founded on".  As Trigger said, many of the American founding Fathers weren't really Christians.  Also, separation of Church and State was an important principle for many early settlers, though that was, it could be argued, a principle most held on religious grounds, having it's origins in the Anabaptist movement.  But that principle is actually in the founding documents I believe, so in a sense overt religiosity is barred as a principle for American life.  And of course because a lot of the early settlers were Christians, I think you can trace a lot of modern American values at least in part to their views - particularly the views of those Anabaptists and people who were trying to escape religious persecution.  As an outsider, I look at a lot of the fundamentalist sects and see much the same attitude that I read about when I am looking at early American history. 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mommy2maya View Post

Can you further your thoughts on this?  Because it is my understanding that the US was most certainly founded on Christianity.  Yes, the first settlers came here to escape religious persecution, but their idea of religious freedom was to not have to practice the same type of christianity as the king.  
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trigger View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by 2xy View Post

Probably because the U.S. isn't a theocracy, and the campaign claims that "only Jesus Christ can provide a solid foundation and a robust fabric for our nation."


Not to mention that the US wasn't founded on Christianity anyway, as many assume.
 


 

 I like the mind to be a dustbin of scraps of brilliant fabric, odd gems, worthless but fascinating curiosities, tinsel, quaint bits of carving, and a reasonable amount of healthy dirt.
Bluegoat is offline  
#13 of 37 Old 12-06-2010, 01:17 PM
 
Smokering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 8,610
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)

 

Quote:

I think a lot depends on what you mean by "founded on".  As Trigger said, many of the American founding Fathers weren't really Christians.  Also, separation of Church and State was an important principle for many early settlers, though that was, it could be argued, a principle most held on religious grounds, having it's origins in the Anabaptist movement.  But that principle is actually in the founding documents I believe, so in a sense overt religiosity is barred as a principle for American life.

I often wonder what the guys who instituted freedom of religion in America would think if they could see America with all its religions today. I mean, obviously the colonists didn't extend "freedom of religion" to the (alleged) "witches" at Salem. I assume by "freedom of religion" they meant something more like "freedom of denomination within Christianity" (possibly even "within Protestantism"? Not sure about a Catholic presence in the early days of America). So it's possible they'd be horrified to see Islam, Buddhism, Wicca etc all over the country, despite their theoretically broad-minded statements. Which doesn't mean that freedom of religion as it's practiced today is a bad thing, at all, it just seems... hermeneutically unconstitutional, as it were.

 

ETA:

 

Quote:
Maybe because we think stories like these can't happen here?

Some of those seemed a bit dubious to me. I mean, without more information it's hard to really call it discrimination. "The biblical way to bring up children" could mean spanking, which some agencies would be against regardless of which religion endorsed it. Wearing a promise ring might have been against the school dress code (maybe no jewellery was allowed at all), in which case taking it off would have hardly been a betrayal of Jesus - I mean, they were hardly forcing the girl to have sex with the quarterback! Wearing a cross at work - don't nurses usually have pretty strict no-jewellery rules? I know some are only allowed to wear wedding rings, no engagement rings. Again, if that were the case, it would have just been petulant and entitled of the woman to want to wear her jewellery because it was religiously significant. I mean, there's NO command in the BIble that "thou must wear a cross 24/7" - it's a personal preference.

 

It's just a bit hard to get up in arms about things like this when Christians are being ACTUALLY killed and tortured for their faith in other parts of the world. I heard just the other week of a convert from Islam who saw his wife and children shot because he converted - makes "I don't get to wear my jewellery to work" seem just a tad less ghastly, doesn't it?

KempsMama likes this.

If decomposition persists please see your necromancer.

Smokering is offline  
#14 of 37 Old 12-06-2010, 07:01 PM
 
Purple Sage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,201
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Smokering, I did not mean to imply that the examples on the website were "ghastly." I simply was stating that Americans expect to be able to openly express our religion in harmless ways such as the stories described without facing those kinds of consequences.
Purple Sage is offline  
#15 of 37 Old 12-06-2010, 07:42 PM
 
NicaG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Northern NJ
Posts: 1,733
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

One reason I don't think this campaign would resonate in the US is that "shame" is not a concept that is considered, promoted, admitted to, etc. etc. in any context, particularly a religious context.

 

Actually, the more I think about it....this campaign might appeal to mainline Protestants in the US, who often seem dually embarrassed by conservative Evangelicals and secular society's perception of Christians. I guess if the opposite of shame is pride, mainline Protestants seem to lack pride in their own tradition, their own worldview, their own faith.  Interesting campaign.


lady.gif mama to H. 4/05 and A. 9/08 and baby C. 10/11

NicaG is offline  
#16 of 37 Old 12-06-2010, 08:37 PM
 
Liquesce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Mayberry
Posts: 4,963
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Smokering View Post

I often wonder what the guys who instituted freedom of religion in America would think if they could see America with all its religions today. I mean, obviously the colonists didn't extend "freedom of religion" to the (alleged) "witches" at Salem. I assume by "freedom of religion" they meant something more like "freedom of denomination within Christianity" (possibly even "within Protestantism"? Not sure about a Catholic presence in the early days of America). So it's possible they'd be horrified to see Islam, Buddhism, Wicca etc all over the country, despite their theoretically broad-minded statements. Which doesn't mean that freedom of religion as it's practiced today is a bad thing, at all, it just seems... hermeneutically unconstitutional, as it were.


In general, the founders were not vague fools who need continual reinterpretation and clarification -- they were, in their writing and speech, generally quite clear about their personal feelings, legal intentions, and where the two did and did not overlap.  Various bigotries have been sanctioned by American law from the start, however that their concluding vision was in part one of religion -- not denomination, but religion -- not being a grounds for affecting a citizen's legal standing was quite clear.  Use of the example of extending tolerance even to the mere "Musselman" was common enough.  The failing, really, wasn't one of intentions so much one of the system being set up such that regional laws which contradict the overriding principle must be formally challenged, which counts on either the strength of oppressed people to force the issue or, alternately, the inclination of others in a more privileged position to follow through with taking up the issue at all.

Liquesce is offline  
#17 of 37 Old 12-06-2010, 09:04 PM
 
Smokering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 8,610
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)

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?

 

Quote:
Smokering, I did not mean to imply that the examples on the website were "ghastly." I simply was stating that Americans expect to be able to openly express our religion in harmless ways such as the stories described without facing those kinds of consequences.

Well, one of the "consequences" was simply that the woman had to take off her necklace. She chose to make an issue of it, even though it wasn't an issue of being asked to do something against her religious beliefs. (In other words, it wasn't akin to asking a Muslim to remove hijab or something. I doubt any Christian could conscientiously state that it would be a sin not to wear a religious necklace at work.) I'd be very interested to hear the other side of that story. Same with the promise ring issue. I suspect that both things went against a dress code, which technically isn't a "harmless" expression of religion, but an expectation of special treatment.

 

Now, if you can get me some proof that other nurses at that hospital were allowed to wear non-religious pendants, or that other students at the school were allowed to wear similar non-celibacy-related rings, then sure, it's an issue. But perhaps I'm a bit cynical - I'm familiar with a particular Christian mindset that cries "persecution!" every time its ears are sullied with a secular Christmas carol, and it's a bit pathetic.

 

As for the "biblical views on raising a child" thing - again, according to the agencies involved, it might well not be seen as a harmless expression of religion, but as child abuse. Heck, most of MDC looks at spanking that way.


If decomposition persists please see your necromancer.

Smokering is offline  
#18 of 37 Old 12-06-2010, 09:58 PM
JMJ
 
JMJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,301
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I looked up the "biblical views on raising a child" cases, and all the ones I found appear to be holding the belief that a child should be raised by a married man and woman and refusing to be involved in adoption cases involving homosexual partners.  I dug for a while with the same concern, but discipline is not the issue here.  Apparently both religion and sexual orientation are protected by UK law from discrimination, and difficulties arise when people's religious beliefs prohibit them from acting as if homosexual and heterosexual relationships are the same.

JMJ is offline  
#19 of 37 Old 12-07-2010, 05:15 AM
 
Purple Sage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,201
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Smokering View Post

 

Quote:
Smokering, I did not mean to imply that the examples on the website were "ghastly." I simply was stating that Americans expect to be able to openly express our religion in harmless ways such as the stories described without facing those kinds of consequences.

Well, one of the "consequences" was simply that the woman had to take off her necklace. She chose to make an issue of it, even though it wasn't an issue of being asked to do something against her religious beliefs. (In other words, it wasn't akin to asking a Muslim to remove hijab or something. I doubt any Christian could conscientiously state that it would be a sin not to wear a religious necklace at work.) I'd be very interested to hear the other side of that story. Same with the promise ring issue. I suspect that both things went against a dress code, which technically isn't a "harmless" expression of religion, but an expectation of special treatment.

 

Now, if you can get me some proof that other nurses at that hospital were allowed to wear non-religious pendants, or that other students at the school were allowed to wear similar non-celibacy-related rings, then sure, it's an issue. But perhaps I'm a bit cynical - I'm familiar with a particular Christian mindset that cries "persecution!" every time its ears are sullied with a secular Christmas carol, and it's a bit pathetic.

 

As for the "biblical views on raising a child" thing - again, according to the agencies involved, it might well not be seen as a harmless expression of religion, but as child abuse. Heck, most of MDC looks at spanking that way.



I would be interested in seeing more details of those cases also.  But to be clear, all I am saying is that some Americans have been known to sue over lesser issues than the 'right' to wear a piece of religious jewelry, and that's just the way it is here.  Americans are very protective of their right to express themselves, no matter how serious or petty the issue seems to others.  I'm not saying I agree with certain cases or not since I don't know all the details, but I am stating a fact about American culture.

Purple Sage is offline  
#20 of 37 Old 12-07-2010, 06:03 AM - Thread Starter
 
Bluegoat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 2,619
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Smokering View Post

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?

No, I don't think witchcraft was understood as a religion.  When they said someone was practising witchcraft, they meant the person was communing with the devil or evil spirits for nefarious purposes.  This is still the belief in witch burnings today.  What the peope are really doing is a different story (and a lot of such accusations may simply be constructed for some person's personal benifit.)  It could be practising a pagan religion, or just being odd ???  As far as I know there probably were not actual people dealing with evil spirits in the American cases.
 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by NicaG View Post

One reason I don't think this campaign would resonate in the US is that "shame" is not a concept that is considered, promoted, admitted to, etc. etc. in any context, particularly a religious context.

 

Actually, the more I think about it....this campaign might appeal to mainline Protestants in the US, who often seem dually embarrassed by conservative Evangelicals and secular society's perception of Christians. I guess if the opposite of shame is pride, mainline Protestants seem to lack pride in their own tradition, their own worldview, their own faith.  Interesting campaign.


This is where I can see it being a reasonable campaign.  There are a lot of people like you mention, who are embarrased to admit their religious beliefs publicly.  I think this is probably more common in the UK here Christians are more of a minority.

 





I would be interested in seeing more details of those cases also.  But to be clear, all I am saying is that some Americans have been known to sue over lesser issues than the 'right' to wear a piece of religious jewelry, and that's just the way it is here.  Americans are very protective of their right to express themselves, no matter how serious or petty the issue seems to others.  I'm not saying I agree with certain cases or not since I don't know all the details, but I am stating a fact about American culture.

 

 

 

It's really hard to know what to make of them.  The difficulty with homosexual cases seems likely to be a problem for a lot of people.  I don't know so much about the UK, but in France people are not allowed to wear any religious symbol to school, because it is supposed to be a secular institution.  So it isn't an impossible thing to imagine.




 I like the mind to be a dustbin of scraps of brilliant fabric, odd gems, worthless but fascinating curiosities, tinsel, quaint bits of carving, and a reasonable amount of healthy dirt.
Bluegoat is offline  
#21 of 37 Old 12-07-2010, 06:25 AM - Thread Starter
 
Bluegoat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 2,619
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

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.


 I like the mind to be a dustbin of scraps of brilliant fabric, odd gems, worthless but fascinating curiosities, tinsel, quaint bits of carving, and a reasonable amount of healthy dirt.
Bluegoat is offline  
#22 of 37 Old 12-07-2010, 10:57 AM
 
Shami's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Fairborn, Ohio
Posts: 1,270
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

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.


DH, and Me plus baby girl (10/07)
Shami is offline  
#23 of 37 Old 12-07-2010, 11:12 AM - Thread Starter
 
Bluegoat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 2,619
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Shami View Post

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 like the mind to be a dustbin of scraps of brilliant fabric, odd gems, worthless but fascinating curiosities, tinsel, quaint bits of carving, and a reasonable amount of healthy dirt.
Bluegoat is offline  
#24 of 37 Old 12-07-2010, 11:51 AM
 
rhianna813's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oregon's green valley
Posts: 863
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

 

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

Ravensong13 likes this.
rhianna813 is offline  
#25 of 37 Old 12-07-2010, 11:52 AM
 
Shami's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Fairborn, Ohio
Posts: 1,270
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluegoat View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by Shami View Post

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.


DH, and Me plus baby girl (10/07)
Shami is offline  
#26 of 37 Old 12-07-2010, 12:05 PM - Thread Starter
 
Bluegoat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 2,619
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Shami View Post


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluegoat View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by Shami View Post

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.


 I like the mind to be a dustbin of scraps of brilliant fabric, odd gems, worthless but fascinating curiosities, tinsel, quaint bits of carving, and a reasonable amount of healthy dirt.
Bluegoat is offline  
#27 of 37 Old 12-07-2010, 12:44 PM
 
Shami's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Fairborn, Ohio
Posts: 1,270
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluegoat View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by Shami View Post


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluegoat View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by Shami View Post

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.


DH, and Me plus baby girl (10/07)
Shami is offline  
#28 of 37 Old 12-07-2010, 03:28 PM
 
Smokering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 8,610
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)

 

Quote:
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.


If decomposition persists please see your necromancer.

Smokering is offline  
#29 of 37 Old 12-07-2010, 04:38 PM
 
GoBecGo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,596
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Smokering View Post

 

Quote:
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.

GoBecGo is offline  
#30 of 37 Old 12-07-2010, 06:30 PM
 
Liquesce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Mayberry
Posts: 4,963
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Smokering View Post

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.

Liquesce is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off