Brits seek to force Christians to live hyphenated lives

Status
Not open for further replies.

PhilA

Puritan Board Sophomore
I wonder, do they also forbid Muslim women from wearing their hajib, while not jewelry it is a symbol of their religious beliefs. I know, I know, they claim not all Christians wear a cross, and it's not a mandate in the Bible..but they are still 'expressing' their faith in the work place.

And these things show more of the discrimination...I wonder if two homosexuals went to a Mosque to be 'joined together' if the Muslims would be sued if they were taken to court for not performing the ceremony.

The human rights challenge also includes the cases of a Relate therapist sacked for saying he might not be comfortable giving sex counselling to homosexual couples and a Christian registrar who wishes not to conduct civil partnership ceremonies.

Lillian Ladele, a registrar in Islington, was disciplined after she refused to conduct same-sex civil partnership ceremonies on religious grounds.

In a similar case, Gary McFarlane, a Bristol marriage counsellor, was sacked because his employer, who was suspicious because of his open Christianity, learned that he had privately expressed his reluctance to give “sex therapy” to homosexual couples.
There was a case brought by a muslim schoolgirl who wanted to wear a particular type of religious clothing and the school would not accommodate her. She claimed her right to religious freedom was being denied. She lost because it was recognised that she could readily attend another school which would accommodate her dress/beliefs.

I am not defending muslims or the law. I am just providing an answer to the point you raise. I believe this case was sited in the recent ECHR case.
 

Miss Marple

Puritan Board Junior
Bobbie, not all Muslims wear a hijab, either. There are plenty, I'd venture to guess hundreds of thousands, of Muslim women who don't.

So I don't think Muslims should be allowed to wear a hijab on the job if Christian women can't wear a cross necklace.
 

PhilA

Puritan Board Sophomore
James Eadie QC, acting for the government, told the European court that the refusal to allow an NHS nurse and a British Airways worker to visibly wear a crucifix at work “did not prevent either of them practicing religion in private”, which would be protected by human rights law.
This is an interesting debate.."they are free to practice their religion in private' --basically in the privacy of their own home, thus, lets look to the logical conclusion of this..Private would not mean a gathering of the Saints together in a building to worship together--that is considered 'public' worship, so we must ask at which point in the near future will this begin to take effect? No worshipping in public places at all as it has in many other countries around the globe.[/QUOTE]

I have not yet been able to verify the context of what was said or indeed if the quotes made by the journalist were made by Eadie. From what I have seen so far he appears to be arguing from case law and and the word "private" is used as a contrast to worrk-place. I repeat again, Eadie is not arguing for a change he is arguing to maintain the position for the last few years.
 

PhilA

Puritan Board Sophomore
I still cannot find a transcript of proceedings at the ECrtHR on 4th September. However I have found video coverage of the proceedings. I have been through Eadie’s submission on behalf of the UK Government 3 or 4 times. I am struggling to find the quotes that have been attributed to him by the press. Call me old fashioned but when I see quotation marks used as they were in the press article, I expect to find the exact statements from the individual concerned. I can find some of the key phrases and words used. Some of these appear to be either specific references to previous ECrtHR cases or in some instances Eadie is himself quoting verbatim from past cases.

The video can easily be found on the ECHR website and you can select which part of proceedings you want to watch, It is only approx. 43 mins long but it is not easy to follow. Eadie is having to condense his whole submission into a precise time slot (I think 45 mins) set by the Chamber, and he is siting substantial amounts of case law.

If you do watch and you do find the exact quotations please let me know. It would not be the first time I have missed the obvious.
 

PhilA

Puritan Board Sophomore
So I don't think Muslims should be allowed to wear a hijab on the job if Christian women can't wear a cross necklace.
I agree with you wholeheartedly on this point. Would you accept the principle in reverse? That is if Christian women can wear a cross necklace should Muslim women be allowed to wear the hijab?

Interestingly I have found that Turkey, a Muslim country, has banned the hijab in public schools, universities or government buildings. I think the same goes for Tunisia.
 

mvdm

Puritan Board Junior
I still cannot find a transcript of proceedings at the ECrtHR on 4th September. However I have found video coverage of the proceedings. I have been through Eadie’s submission on behalf of the UK Government 3 or 4 times.
I poked around the ECHR site and could not find any transcript either. You mention you found video coverage. Could you provide me a direct link to where you found that so I could watch it? Thanks.
 

Miss Marple

Puritan Board Junior
Phil, I think it should be one way or another.

As long as safety rules are enforced.

Not "niqab ok, cross necklace banned."
 

JohnGill

Puritan Board Senior
I cannot get very worked up about this (and other similar cases). In my opinion this has very little (if anything) to do with faith and is more to do with the wearing of jewellery. The British press loves to whip up a frenzy about these things.

This is not persecution.
Further down in the article it covers Christians being fired for not wanting to perform same-sex marriages because of their faith and a man being fired for comments he made about his faith while not at work. It's not just the jewelry issue.

From the article:

In a similar case, Gary McFarlane, a Bristol marriage counsellor, was sacked because his employer, who was suspicious because of his open Christianity, learned that he had privately expressed his reluctance to give “sex therapy” to homosexual couples.
 

PhilA

Puritan Board Sophomore
I cannot get very worked up about this (and other similar cases). In my opinion this has very little (if anything) to do with faith and is more to do with the wearing of jewellery. The British press loves to whip up a frenzy about these things.

This is not persecution.
Further down in the article it covers Christians being fired for not wanting to perform same-sex marriages because of their faith and a man being fired for comments he made about his faith while not at work. It's not just the jewelry issue.

From the article:

In a similar case, Gary McFarlane, a Bristol marriage counsellor, was sacked because his employer, who was suspicious because of his open Christianity, learned that he had privately expressed his reluctance to give “sex therapy” to homosexual couples.
My comment “(and other similar cases)” was meant to convey the fact that there were four similar cases heard together at Strasbourg on 4th September. My apologies if I did not make that clear.

Nadia Eweida and Shirley Chaplin relate to the employees breaching their employers’ code of practise on jewellery (Eweida) and health and safety (Chaplin). Lillian Ladele and Gary McFarlane relate to employees failing to meet the requirements of their employers’ anti-discrimination policies.

There are many employments that I do not think I could do as a Christian. I would not work for example in a bar/club/casino or a job that requires me to work on a Sunday e.g. most retail outlets (I am not referring to emergency workers etc.). I don’t think I would work as a Registrar as the huge numbers of divorcees getting re-married would cause me difficulty. I don’t think I would work as a relationship/sex therapist giving counselling to the unmarried.

My personal view is that I have a great deal of sympathy in the Ladele case. From the detail of the case that I have seen I think that if she had taken action against her employer for harassment/bullying she would have won.
 

ZackF

Puritan Board Graduate
Phil, perhaps you are correct about the nefarious motive you ascribe to the employees who brought suit. But the point is we do not have to guess as to what the government lawyer is intending, where he makes it plain:

“There is a difference between the professional sphere where your religious freedoms necessarily abut onto and confront other interests and the private sphere. The employees concerned could indeed pursue all the generally recognised manifestations of their religion outside the work sphere.”

If wearing a cross is considered "militant Christianity" worthy of government telling us to keep faith privatized, then we are in deeper trouble than I imagined.
Mark

The statement from the "Government lawyer" is what you would expect from a lawyer in any similar case. The Government is defending the rule of law not the specific position. This case has been through the full British legal system and it failed as it had no merit. The individual has appealed to a "higher court" in Europe. It was the Government intervention and that of the state church (quite ironic really) that forced the private company it a full reversal and permitting the wearing of the jewellery. The Government and the state church supported the individual wearing the jewellery.
I think we might agree. Some people have a persecution complex. Just be a man about it. I see it as a dress code issue and ultimately a private property matter. If the appropriate company agent wants to require crosses it is within his domain. The opposite is permissible too. If my boss wanted me to wear a burka or miniskirt to work or go in my birthday suit, I would just go work elsewhere.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top