Defending Christianity

[miserableoldgit]

I know that this is from The Mail, but I found this an interesting read as it is written by a Muslim :-

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1264399/What-Britain-come-takes-Muslim-like-defend-Christianity.html

[Give it to Ron]

I like this article as you say even though its in the Mail.

The PC brigade in this country have gone mad scared that they will cause offence to a minority group and forgetting the foundations this country is built on which is democracy.

Banning a crucifix, celebrating Christmas, hanging a Union Jack and St Georges flag etc are just a few examples where the PC nutjobs are running scared.

How many complaints do they actually get from Muslims or Jews or Hindustanipunkawallas about schools celebrating a nativity play yet many schools now do not have one - not many I would bet.

 

Interesting paragraph about the burkah...I was on a tube in London at the weekend and a girl got on wearing one...it made me uneasy...why...probably because I have read the Mail for too long?

[Ash]

Cripes! We've being saying for ages we're being persecuted and now even the muzzies agree with us!

[Robsk II]

I've never once seen a parade of the PC brigade. Liberal use of such a stupid term cheapens any argument, in my opinion. It's a convenient label to create enemies that aren't there, and to avoid discussing any actual issues on the table whilst propogating a false self-image of 'the typical brit'.

 

Of course banning these sorts of things are often silly, but they are the actions of individuals who don't understand what they are on about. It's an ignorant few pen-pushers with daft ideas and a lack of awareness about equality and diversity making mad decisions on weak bases scared in the face of a culture obsessed with scandal and litigation.

 

I also have only honestly heard of a very, very few cases where things have actually been banned in as stupid a way as this, yet some would have us believe this happens all the time, nationwide. Simply not true. As GITR says, how many complaints do people actually get? Very few, I'd think, and half the time it's a half story. In cases of provocation, where symbolism is used to oppress other people (it can and does happen before anyone says otherwise), perhaps common sense has sometimes prevailed and the 'aggrieved' thugs have written to papers. I don't know. I do know, though, that this issue is grossly over-represented.

[norwaysaint]

I like this article as you say even though its in the Mail.

The PC brigade in this country have gone mad scared that they will cause offence to a minority group and forgetting the foundations this country is built on which is democracy.

Banning a crucifix, celebrating Christmas, hanging a Union Jack and St Georges flag etc are just a few examples where the PC nutjobs are running scared.

How many complaints do they actually get from Muslims or Jews or Hindustanipunkawallas about schools celebrating a nativity play yet many schools now do not have one - not many I would bet.

 

Interesting paragraph about the burkah...I was on a tube in London at the weekend and a girl got on wearing one...it made me uneasy...why...probably because I have read the Mail for too long?

 

Eh? In what way are any of those things even vaguely politically correct? Doesn't being politically correct simply mean not discriminating on unfair grounds?

If you don't really understand what PC means, don't just throw it around as a blanket insult for anything you don't agree with.

Somebody making a badly informed and ignorant administrative decision has got nothing to do with being politically correct.

People even use the phrase "PC gone mad" or PC brigade when talking about health and safety decisions these days. Where's the connection there? That's like blaming racists for traffic congestion.

[miserableoldgit]

I've never once seen a parade of the PC brigade. Liberal use of such a stupid term cheapens any argument, in my opinion. It's a convenient label to create enemies that aren't there, and to avoid discussing any actual issues on the table whilst propogating a false self-image of 'the typical brit'.

 

Of course banning these sorts of things are often silly, but they are the actions of individuals who don't understand what they are on about. It's an ignorant few pen-pushers with daft ideas and a lack of awareness about equality and diversity making mad decisions on weak bases scared in the face of a culture obsessed with scandal and litigation.

 

I also have only honestly heard of a very, very few cases where things have actually been banned in as stupid a way as this, yet some would have us believe this happens all the time, nationwide. Simply not true. As GITR says, how many complaints do people actually get? Very few, I'd think, and half the time it's a half story. In cases of provocation, where symbolism is used to oppress other people (it can and does happen before anyone says otherwise), perhaps common sense has sometimes prevailed and the 'aggrieved' thugs have written to papers. I don't know. I do know, though, that this issue is grossly over-represented.

I generally agree with you, but just a few points. Firstly, why do those particular individuals and pen pushers act the way they do and how do they come to their decisions? There has to be some influence on them to programme them to make the the decisions that they do. Secondly, if we were allowed to exercise common sense in most walks of life in modern Britain, it would be a far better place to live. Lastly, whilst you are probably right that the issue is over-represented, it doesn`t hide the fact that there is some truth in these stories. They may be "over-egged" but they are generally not made up. It is how they are perceived that is the problem.

[Robsk II]

Quite right on all points.

 

First, I guess it's down to social education, in short, and council initiatives / guidelines failing to met with sensible interpretation. I'm pretty sure those people are just not fit to make those decisions, and perhaps this is a wider flaw. Not many people do get a real 'education' about issues like this, as it's an area of decision-making that's relatively new. Again, coupled with the fear councils have of offending (because they have an obligation to be representative, to consult, to celebrate equality and diversity, etc etc), this is a potent mix.

 

Second - I agree. A problem with this is that common sense suggests it should be a common trait. I can't say I believe it is, partially because it can only be applied within the context of each individual. More individuals lack information to make decent sense of things than have enough (if you can ever have enough).

 

Finally - yes, there is some truth in them, and it's a shame. yet there is also some truth in stories of crazy benefits payouts to people who shouldn't get them (immigrants, asylum seekers and native residents included) - but this does not, in my view, excuse the silly reactions peopole have and the fact that some base their wider views on very specific, isolated cases. Mistakes get made, and things do get reported in half truths at times, or to sell copty - but perspective is needed, and many seem not to understand this. That's when perception becomes probelmatic.

[Barry the Badger]

To take an isolated case. My cousin is a primary school teacher. They have stopped doing 'nativity' plays for fear of upsetting non-christian parents/pupils.

 

But....As far as he knows, this was not in response to any complaints at all from non-christian parents, but more of a precautionary measure to avoid potential problems.

 

I find it hard to judge, not being particularly religious myself, but it does seem that a lot of the time there is a tendancy to create an issue where there really isn't one.

[Give it to Ron]

Eh? In what way are any of those things even vaguely politically correct? Doesn't being politically correct simply mean not discriminating on unfair grounds?

If you don't really understand what PC means, don't just throw it around as a blanket insult for anything you don't agree with.

Somebody making a badly informed and ignorant administrative decision has got nothing to do with being politically correct.

People even use the phrase "PC gone mad" or PC brigade when talking about health and safety decisions these days. Where's the connection there? That's like blaming racists for traffic congestion.

 

Wearing a crucifix to show her faith in Christianity....or did you not understand the article or what politically correct means here??

Its nothing to do with h&s thats an excuse... I will highlight the bit from the article to explain my stance more and help you get where I am coming from.

 

But what is sickening about this case is the PC brigade's outrageous hypocrisy.

 

For in the public sector, normally so hypersensitive to allegations of prejudice against ethnic minorities, it is unimaginable that bureaucrats would wade in with the same bullying ferocity against a Muslim or Hindu nurse who wanted to wear a symbol of her faith in the workplace.

 

Indeed, there have recently been several cases of education officials allowing Sikh pupils to carry their ritual daggers, while banning Christians from wearing crosses.

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1264399/What-Britain-come-takes-Muslim-like-defend-Christianity.html#ixzz0kVQ36PQF

[so22saint]

To quote Frankie Boyle from his Reading show last night, all religion is just autistic people from 2000 years ago talking ******** and having it written down.

 

"You cannot eat anything but Fish on a Friday!"

"hang on, let me write that down, it's brilliant"...

[Thedelldays]

To quote Frankie Boyle from his Reading show last night, all religion is just autistic people from 2000 years ago talking ******** and having it written down.

 

"You cannot eat anything but Fish on a Friday!"

"hang on, let me write that down, it's brilliant"...

am going to see him in plymouth tonight

[benjii]

There's nothing like basing an argument on a false premise is there....

 

That nurse was banned from hanging something on her neck whilst performing front-line (ie on ward) duties dealing with patients with mental health deterioration in some cases. It was assessed that hanging something round your neck in those circumstances presented a health hazard. When she wasn't carrying out clinical functions on the ward she was allowed to wear the chain. The fact that it was a religious symbol was irrelevant. She was told she was welcome to wear the religious symbol on her person but not have it hung round her neck when interracting with the patients in a clinical capacity.

Edited 8 April, 2010 by benjii

[Thedelldays]

religion is a load of bollix....christianity, muslim all of it..

 

I would rather people not get all wound up by religion..the fact people still slughter each other in the name of religion is pathetic

[Crab Lungs]

religion is a load of bollix....christianity, muslim all of it..

 

I would rather people not get all wound up by religion..the fact people still slughter each other in the name of religion is pathetic

 

So true.

 

It was an archaic way of 'keeping order' in ancient civilizations. Some could say it still is.

[miserableoldgit]

There's nothing like basing an argument on a false premise is there....

 

That nurse was banned from hanging something on her neck whilst performing front-line (ie on ward) duties dealing with patients with mental health deterioration in some cases. It was assessed that hanging something round your neck in those circumstances presented a health hazard. When she wasn't carrying out clinical functions on the ward she was allowed to wear the chain. The fact that it was a religious symbol was irrelevant. She was told she was welcome to wear the religious symbol on her person but not have it hung round her neck when interracting with the patients.

http://www.personneltoday.com/articles/2010/02/12/54101/christian-british-airways-crucifix-worker-loses-discrimination-appeal-against-airline.html

[benjii]

As one of the commentators on the article has succinctly put it:

 

She was asked to remove a necklace, not a religious symbol. She could have pinned it to her clothing but refused to compromise. The Sikhs in the same Trust have complied with not wearing the Kara (bracelet) on the wrist and the Muslim staff have complied with only wearing tight fitting Sports Hijabs, but we are all up in arms over a Christian woman who would rather wear a necklace dangling outside her uniform than care for her patients. Surely more Pharisee than Samaritan?

[Give it to Ron]

As one of the commentators on the article has succinctly put it:

 

She was asked to remove a necklace, not a religious symbol. She could have pinned it to her clothing but refused to compromise. The Sikhs in the same Trust have complied with not wearing the Kara (bracelet) on the wrist and the Muslim staff have complied with only wearing tight fitting Sports Hijabs, but we are all up in arms over a Christian woman who would rather wear a necklace dangling outside her uniform than care for her patients. Surely more Pharisee than Samaritan?

 

Unbelievably, in Ms Chaplin's case, they claimed that there was a risk that a patient might grab her crucifix necklace.

 

That might have been valid if she had worked with small children, but Ms Chaplin cares for elderly patients.

 

In this environment, can a crucifix really pose a health hazard?

 

The evidence suggests not. After all, she has already worn her crucifix for 30 years without the slightest problem.

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1264399/What-Britain-come-takes-Muslim-like-defend-Christianity.html#ixzz0kVWVe1Fv

 

 

So she has worn it for 30 years with no problem yet all of a sudden there is??? Why??

[benjii]

http://www.personneltoday.com/articles/2010/02/12/54101/christian-british-airways-crucifix-worker-loses-discrimination-appeal-against-airline.html

 

Sounds liks much the same sort of thing really? Ie. it was the jewellery itslef that was the issue, not the religious belief. I'm not aware of any Christian teaching that makes the wearing of a cross on a chain a requirement of the faith.

 

I'm no supporter of religion and I'm no supporter of disproportionately draconian codes and policies drawn up for no good reason but when you read a report of a case like this, unless it's from a legal update which discusses the issues of the particular case and the points in question, it is likely that you will not get a fair picture of what is going on.

[benjii]

Unbelievably, in Ms Chaplin's case, they claimed that there was a risk that a patient might grab her crucifix necklace.

 

That might have been valid if she had worked with small children, but Ms Chaplin cares for elderly patients.

 

In this environment, can a crucifix really pose a health hazard?

 

The evidence suggests not. After all, she has already worn her crucifix for 30 years without the slightest problem.

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1264399/What-Britain-come-takes-Muslim-like-defend-Christianity.html#ixzz0kVWVe1Fv

 

 

So she has worn it for 30 years with no problem yet all of a sudden there is??? Why??

 

Because it was decided to introduce a uniform policy that prohibited the wearing of loose jewellery when dealing with patients. Maybe someone else did have a problem. The "30 years with no problem" argument is clearly facile in the extreme anyway; it's like saying, "I've been drink driving for years and never crashed, so why should I stop now?". The law can't discriminate like that and must apply to all. Likewise, employers would have policies applicable to all, precisely to avoid suggestions of bias or discrimination. Employers have responsibilities and they are no doubt trying to discharge theirs. Maybe their policy is wrong and over-the-top, maybe not. Either way it has nothing to do with religion.

 

As an aside, I have no idea why the Daily Mail believes a small child to pose more of a threat than a confused elderly person anyway? Very odd.

Edited 8 April, 2010 by benjii

[Give it to Ron]

religion is a load of bollix....christianity, muslim all of it..

 

I would rather people not get all wound up by religion..the fact people still slughter each other in the name of religion is pathetic

 

I do not agree with you here but accept that you are entitled to that opinion - its what is lacking here is tolerance and understanding.

I have seen what faith can do and to the comfort it brings to people.

I would never ever feel that I should preach this as I do not believe I am a good enough christian myself to do that.

I attend....occasionally.... a methodist church as my wife is a methodist as were her parents and her dad a very good lay Preacher.

 

A Hindu friend of mine once said that 'God' has many faces and appears to each religion in that guise....I thought it was an interesting comment.

 

Slaughtering each other for oil is just as bad IMO.

[Give it to Ron]

Because it was decided to introduce a uniform policy that prohibited the wearing of loose jewellery when dealing with patients. Maybe someone else did have a problem. The "30 years with no problem" argument is clearly facile in the extreme anyway; it's like saying, "I've been drink driving for years and never crashed, so why should I stop now?". The law can't discriminate like that and must apply to all. Likewise, employers would have policies applicable to all, precisely to avoid suggestions of bias or discrimination. Employers have responsibilities and they are no doubt trying to discharge theirs. Maybe their policy is wrong and over-the-top, maybe not. Either way it has nothing to do with religion.

 

As an aside, I have no idea why the Daily Mail believes a small child to pose more of a threat than a confused elderly person anyway? Very odd.

 

Funnily enought though they haven't banned ties...they are loose and could do far worse damage than a crucifix thats is why I find that religion orientated!!

I have seen what elderley patients with dementia can do and agree that is an odd statement.

[so22saint]

am going to see him in plymouth tonight

 

He was brilliant, and apart from the first 3 or 4 minutes as he found his feet, his support act was excellent as well.

 

There was the traditional Boyle mid show lull as he tried to push the boundaries, and he *really* offended somebody in the front row with a joke, but as I have an extremely sick sense of humour I thought it was all good stuff.

[norwaysaint]

Wearing a crucifix to show her faith in Christianity....or did you not understand the article or what politically correct means here??

Its nothing to do with h&s thats an excuse... I will highlight the bit from the article to explain my stance more and help you get where I am coming from.

 

But what is sickening about this case is the PC brigade's outrageous hypocrisy.

 

For in the public sector, normally so hypersensitive to allegations of prejudice against ethnic minorities, it is unimaginable that bureaucrats would wade in with the same bullying ferocity against a Muslim or Hindu nurse who wanted to wear a symbol of her faith in the workplace.

 

Indeed, there have recently been several cases of education officials allowing Sikh pupils to carry their ritual daggers, while banning Christians from wearing crosses.

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1264399/What-Britain-come-takes-Muslim-like-defend-Christianity.html#ixzz0kVQ36PQF

 

...and my point is that, despite what you've swallowed from the Daily Mail, those decisions have nothing to do with being politically correct. They do not have any foundations in the political correctness at all.

 

Somebody in a Daily Mail article blames a stupid decision on political correctness and we immediately get people repeating that this is all the work of the mythical "PC brigade" who, just like the Daily Mail, don't really get what that concept means at all.

 

To be politically correct would absolutely NOT stop somebody wearing a symbol of their faith. Therefore this has nothing to do with being PC, therefore it's pretty daft of the original person to use that phrase and for other people to start parroting it.

The very opening sentence proves ignorance, because if you are indeed being politically correct, then you cannot by definition be hypocritical at the same time, as that would automatically make you politically incorrect, showing unfair discrimination.

This would be the work of the lesser mentioned non-PC brigade.

[benjii]

Funnily enought though they haven't banned ties...they are loose and could do far worse damage than a crucifix thats is why I find that religion orientated!!

I have seen what elderley patients with dementia can do and agree that is an odd statement.

 

If true, then I agree that is funny, although I doubt that many of the nurses turn up in a shirt and tie!

[JackFrost]

Oh religion, what a minefield.

 

Regarding people who are banned from wearing crucifixes, if it for some reason of health and safety then it should definitely be enforced. It depends on the individual situation of course but a lot of the people who are taking legal action against their employers about a crucifix etc. I'm sorry but I can't help thinking they should go to North Korea or Saudi Arabia or Uzbekistan and find out what "Religious Discrimination" is really like.

 

The two biggest dangers to offending religions regarding such matters are the PC brigade and certain aspects of the media (The Mail for example) who print absurd stories about Christmas having to be renamed and offices banning Christmas decorations.

 

I was talking to a Muslim friend of mine about similar matters recently. He, and in his opinion the vast majority of Muslims, are not offended by Christmas decorations, cards etc.etc. anymore than the average person. If he received a christmas card he'd receive it with gratitude and probably send one back.

 

What he IS offended by is the banning process of christmas decorations etc. in the name of "political correctness" or "not wanting to offend minorities" as it just contributes to alienation.

 

He (and in his opinion the majority of Muslims) aren't offended by Christmas/Christian/other religious symbols, he is offended by them being banned in the deeply flawed opinion of them offending minorities/religions.

 

I'm sure that is the case for most people of all religions.

[Thedelldays]

He was brilliant, and apart from the first 3 or 4 minutes as he found his feet, his support act was excellent as well.

 

There was the traditional Boyle mid show lull as he tried to push the boundaries, and he *really* offended somebody in the front row with a joke, but as I have an extremely sick sense of humour I thought it was all good stuff.

yep...he was very VERY funny...well worth going

 

his support act (a canadian guy with long hair) was also pretty good

[solentstars]

...and my point is that, despite what you've swallowed from the Daily Mail, those decisions have nothing to do with being politically correct. They do not have any foundations in the political correctness at all.

 

Somebody in a Daily Mail article blames a stupid decision on political correctness and we immediately get people repeating that this is all the work of the mythical "PC brigade" who, just like the Daily Mail, don't really get what that concept means at all.

 

To be politically correct would absolutely NOT stop somebody wearing a symbol of their faith. Therefore this has nothing to do with being PC, therefore it's pretty daft of the original person to use that phrase and for other people to start parroting it.

The very opening sentence proves ignorance, because if you are indeed being politically correct, then you cannot by definition be hypocritical at the same time, as that would automatically make you politically incorrect, showing unfair discrimination.

This would be the work of the lesser mentioned non-PC brigade.

good post ,all that christian nonsense.

i remember going to school listening to all that crap .

i thought schools had to teach you about education and you went to church if you needed religion.

i thought our original religion was paganism.

thank god we are godless country

[benjii]

yep...he was very VERY funny...well worth going

 

his support act (a canadian guy with long hair) was also pretty good

 

He was brilliant, and apart from the first 3 or 4 minutes as he found his feet, his support act was excellent as well.

 

There was the traditional Boyle mid show lull as he tried to push the boundaries, and he *really* offended somebody in the front row with a joke, but as I have an extremely sick sense of humour I thought it was all good stuff.

 

Was the stuff about Down's funny?