tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5057848876106210255.post1799655673025364948..comments2023-07-03T11:58:26.947+01:00Comments on Friendly Humanist: Sacked for being Christian?Timothy Millshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00373801153623991221noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5057848876106210255.post-45891548166103600302009-02-26T00:03:00.000+00:002009-02-26T00:03:00.000+00:00Couple of comments -"But just because one is disci...Couple of comments -<BR/><BR/>"But just because one is disciplined at work and hold X beliefs does not mean that the workplace discriminates against X beliefs." Not sure what relevance this has, considering they in both cases the discipline strikes directly at the expression of X beliefs?<BR/><BR/>Re offering to pray for someone - still not convinced that this counts as "promoting" your religion (does offering you an acupuncture session for your bad back "promote" acupuncture? rather than simply make it available as an option to be taken up or not as desired?), but even if you do construe it at promotion of religion, y'all seem to talk as if this is automatically a heinous and dreadful thing. And naturally i'm not seeing why.<BR/><BR/>Also not sure if there's a bit of a misconception about the function of prayer. It's never been part of orthodox christian practice to pray and do nothing else. (Hence, cute poster image attacks a parody of prayerfulness.) So I could run a tutorial lasting a full hour of nothing but working through exam questions etc, and still want to pray: prayer is not a substitute for using other practical means to the end. So again it's hard for me to understand why someone is automatically castigated for being unprofessional simply for wanting to pray along with all the other activities they undertake. <BR/><BR/>A final ps - the Christian Institute is about the sanest and most professional lobby groups that I can think of who promote orthodox evangelical Christian beliefs. In my experience they tend not to spin things, other than in the sense of "spin" that equates to "making the case". You might not agree with the stance they take (altho on questions of freedom of speech, eg, i expect you'd find a lot of common ground) or find their, naturally Christian, underlying principles palatable, but i wouldn't be ashamed of recognising them as a perfectly respectable organisation.cathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02161002101062247249noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5057848876106210255.post-45246884892870175422009-02-25T13:29:00.000+00:002009-02-25T13:29:00.000+00:00Almost made a new post on this, but I think it's b...Almost made a new post on this, but I think it's basically just more of the same. Cath has put a comment on her <A HREF="http://ninetysixandten.wordpress.com/2009/02/04/praying-for-your-patients/" REL="nofollow">original post</A> pointing to this <A HREF="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/4590870/Primary-school-receptionist-facing-sack-after-daughter-talks-about-Jesus-to-classmate.html" REL="nofollow">Telegraph article</A> in which a school worker, Jennie Cain, claims she faces disciplinary action because (a) her daughter was discussing religion with a friend, and (b) she (Mrs. Cain) send a private e-mail to some church members asking them to pray about the matter.<BR/><BR/>The Telegraph article paints a grim picture of religious discrimination. I've no doubt the Daily Mail does an even more gleeful job of crying persecution on behalf of a downtrodden Christianity. But a quick Google search throws up <A HREF="http://www.thisisexeter.co.uk/news/Parents-head-s-stance-storm-hell-comment/article-698637-detail/article.html" REL="nofollow">this article</A> from a news source more local to Mrs. Cain. It paints a different picture, in which the child was using hell as a threat to the other child.<BR/><BR/>The reason for the disciplinary action is not made obvious, so it's possible someone in the school may have over-reacted. But it really looks like the Caroline Petrie case: disciplinary action against a staff member for inappropriate conduct is being spun into religious discrimination by the staff member and by the Christian Institute (which seems to be providing legal aid for both cases).<BR/><BR/>There is certainly some anti-Christian sentiment in the world. Just as there is anti-atheist sentiment, anti-Muslim sentiment, and so on. But just because one is disciplined at work and hold X beliefs does not mean that the workplace discriminates against X beliefs. The bar for demonstrating proof of such discrimination should be higher than "the Christian Institute is able to distort and spin this incident as religious persecution".Timothy Millshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00373801153623991221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5057848876106210255.post-59460671615931902792009-02-09T20:38:00.000+00:002009-02-09T20:38:00.000+00:00I'd like to reiterate that she's being asked to fo...I'd like to reiterate that she's being asked to follow the same guidelines that everyone else has to follow. To claim that you're being discriminated against in such circumstances is nothing short of blind.<BR/><BR/>Why can't she just pray for them, and not mention it? Do prayers only work if you've asked permission to pray? Clearly through praying she is not looking out for the welfare of her patients as she claims, but is trying to promote her faith in the public sphere.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5057848876106210255.post-89125922263663651252009-02-08T00:27:00.000+00:002009-02-08T00:27:00.000+00:00Thanks for the reply, Cath.As far as (i), I think ...Thanks for the reply, Cath.<BR/><BR/>As far as (i), I think it really depends on the context. Health care professionals hold a very real sort of power over their patients, and in any power relationship extra sensitivity may be prudent when it comes to deeply personal issues like religion.<BR/><BR/>As for (ii), if that's the case then you have a point: this would be inconsistency on the part of NHS guidelines. Perhaps they're trying to have the best of both worlds - make pleasant sounds about 'holistic' health, while bending over backwards not to offend anyone. Nobody has the right not to be offended (a fact that seems lost on some of those reacting to the humanist bus ads - see <A HREF="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7813812.stm" REL="nofollow">here</A> and <A HREF="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/07/atheist-bus-advertising-spain" REL="nofollow">here</A>).<BR/><BR/>Would I be nettled if you offered to pray for me at my viva? No. I would accept it as an honest expression of well-wishing, and you shouldn't fear reprisal for making the offer. If, on the other hand, you were tutoring me before an exam and offered to spend part of the tutorial in a prayer rather than covering material, we would have a problem. (Even then, we would ideally be able to solve it in person rather than escalating it.)<BR/><BR/>This is an issue that requires balance. Religious observance as a required part of the running of public institutions is unacceptable, be it in schools, hospitals, or government. On the other hand, to ban people from expressing their identity and beliefs simply for fear of offending someone is an excessive infringement of liberty.<BR/><BR/>Mrs. Petrie's case falls somewhere between these two extremes. It does sound like the NHS trust is trying to over-PC themselves.<BR/><BR/>On the other hand, this statement from an article <A HREF="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/4537452/Nurse-Caroline-Petrie-I-will-continue-praying-for-patients.html" REL="nofollow">yesterday</A> makes it hard for me to feel sorry for her:<BR/><BR/>"If they said 'please don't ask patients to pray' then I am sorry, I can't promise that, so where do we go from there?"<BR/><BR/>She wants to be able to ask patients to pray? This sounds like she is not simply trying to express her beliefs through her work; she wants to use her work as an opportunity to proselytize. If that is the case (and I realize I may be reading more into the quote than she meant), then she goes too far and sanctions are appropriate.<BR/><BR/>(Also in that article, we learn that she has been reinstated. An ambiguous result, as she sounds like she plans to carry on as she has done, and the trust maintains that she must wait for patients to initiate by requesting prayer.)Timothy Millshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00373801153623991221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5057848876106210255.post-51854725432227834412009-02-07T16:06:00.000+00:002009-02-07T16:06:00.000+00:00But, (i) offering "unsolicited prayer" is not a pr...But, (i) offering "unsolicited prayer" is not a promotion of your religion; and (ii) the NHS explicitly encourages its staff to attend to the spiritual wellbeing of patients.<BR/><BR/>The efficacy of prayer is not at issue. Nor is it a question of whether some instantiation of Christanity ought to be nationally privileged. <BR/><BR/>It's a case of whether Christians still have the freedom to act as Christians in the public sphere as well as in private. <BR/><BR/>Would you really be nettled if I offered to pray for you at your viva? Would it count as harrassment? Should you mention to my supervisor that the offer was made, in case someone might get offended?cathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02161002101062247249noreply@blogger.com