Well, that's absolutely fascinating, and not entirely surprising either... Definitely one to watch for the future.

Great summary and thanks for pointing out she was a bank nurse and that she therefore could not have been suspended - I missed that.

That's a fantastic bit of investigative reporting you've done here. And I'm going to be keeping my eyes open for this "Christian Legal Centre" in the future, oh yes.

Thank you, and thanks for subscribing to my twitter :) Hope you have a better day tomorrow...

Indeed. Confusingly one health official calls it a "suspension", but I feel the papers gave the impression that it was the suspension of an employee, rather than simply a decision not to use a particular agency worker.

To quote someone else (not sure who):

You would have hoped that a Christian organisation with a determined effort to promote 'truth' might have been a bit more, erm.... truthful ... in their press releases.

T

Well there does seem to be a pattern in these cases, which I may blog further on soon, where the stories are presented in a way that is not actually untrue, but distorts or omits certain details. A number of reports suggested for example that the airline worker mentioned above was "banned" from wearing her crucifix, when in fact they simply required that any jewellery be worn out of sight - i.e., she was perfectly welcome to wear it as long as it was under her blouse.

I can’t seem to grasp the point of your blog item, Martin. Would you think it noteworthy if a person who felt discriminated against because he was gay retained legal counsel from a gay rights organization? No? Then what is noteworthy about a Christian who feels discriminated against retaining counsel from a Christian rights organization?

Also, quite frankly, this nurse has a point. According to the article, the nurse asked if the patient wanted her to pray for her, the patient declined the offer, apparently without taking offense, and the matter, at least as far as the patient was concerned, was closed. As the nurse reportedly carried out her required duties, I fail to see what the issue is here. I am an atheist. However, if a caregiver asked if I would appreciate a prayer, I would not be in the least offended, provided the question wasn’t insistent, as apparently it wasn’t in this case. A society with rules on what to believe and what not to believe, to the point that to merely ask a sincere question (never mind express an opinion!) is met with censure, is a sick society indeed.

And what of the other links you provide? I carefully read the article on Gary McFarlane, and failed to find any reference or even an implication that Mr. McFarlane had refused to do his job, as you claim. Indeed, I suspect that this was a case where his employer disagreed with his advice, which is a very different matter, isn’t it?

As for the airline worker who was told by BA she couldn’t openly display a tiny cross at her neck, how come BA allows a Sikh woman to openly display a Kara bangle on her wrist? What’s with that?

Publicly displaying a statue of Jesus with an erection as thick as his hand? Personally, I’m against censorship, but I can well understand a devout Christian being offended. Indeed, I suspect that offence was the artist’s intent. It is after all, a well-established genre. Maybe not a bad idea, but it’s hardly shocking or devious that a Christian might feel moved to challenge it! You say that the woman had never seen it. Oh? Not even a photograph? And if she had, what does it matter where she lives?

Finally, the Christian policeman: He sought advice from the CLC what action to take. At the time of your link the CLC had not taken a position. So I ask again, what’s your point? Just what is this "lot more going on behind the scenes?" other than that Christians are fundraising and seeking legal advice from a newish organization dedicated to their interests? I don't have a problem with that. Do you?

Carl, the point of the post is very clear - the CLC are a new fundamentalist lobbying group who seek (by their own admission) to challenge laws that they feel are incompatible with their own fundamentalist beliefs. They are currently waging a very successful PR campaign in the press, as well as gaining the ear of certain MPs. As somebody who is firmly in favour of rational, evidence-based policy, this concerns me, and many others.

Nobody in these stories has been "discriminated against". Offering prayer is not part of this nurse's professional duties, and she had been previously warned not to do it. Gary MacFarlane refused to do his job, which was to provide counselling services to the community including homosexuals. A Christian might challenge an art exhibition, but blapshemy laws are simply not acceptable in the 21st century. As for the BA incident, their perfectly reasonable explanation of their uniform policy is outlined in the link.

Personally, I find the idea of religious discrimination flawed to begin with. Religion is a choice, a personal belief, and while people should be free to believe what they wish, I see no reason why they should have the right to have their beliefs respected.

Martin, I really don’t know what to make of your argument that you find the “idea” of religious discrimination flawed to begin with. I know for instance, that you don’t condone putting people to death for their religion, be it Baha’i, Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Jewish or Wiccan, but it has happened, and in some cases continues to happen, nonetheless. I certainly don’t respect religious beliefs in and of themselves and have indeed argued vehemently against them, but we must be free to express whatever beliefs we have. That is a key component of freedom. In this particular case, if I carry out my professional duties for an individual and then politely ask, once, if she would like me to pray for her, that is an example of freedom of expression. To effectively outlaw a mere question on the grounds that it is allegedly “unprofessional” is a direct circumscription of that freedom, and in this particular case, praying for a person of faith may well have a powerful salutary effect (the placebo effect), as you surely know. So knowing that, do you still think it should be disallowed? Do you consider physicians who encourage prayer for its placebo effect should be branded “unprofessional”, or do you perhaps want to climb inside their heads and determine their religious convictions first?

I agree that there shouldn’t be blasphemy laws. That said, anybody should feel free to challenge whatever laws they want. Let the matter be resolved in the crucible of reason.

I disagree that BA’s explanation is “perfectly reasonable”. By allowing Kara bangles, etc. to be openly displayed, it has established a clear precedent. Either religious accoutrements may be displayed or they may not. Supposing this woman had displayed the same cross on a bracelet? Would BA have allowed that? No? Why not?

And Gary McFarlane didn’t “refuse to do his job” as you claim. He’d never even been asked to counsel homosexual couples. He merely sought an accommodation for his religion. If you think for a moment, that’s the proper course of action. I strongly disagree with Mr. McFarlane’s views on homosexuality. That’s why he shouldn’t be counseling homosexuals. Counseling in direct opposition to one’s heartfelt personal beliefs would be a travesty, wouldn’t it? So why, exactly was he wrong in seeking an accommodation before the situation arose?

Oh, and yes. Mr. McFarlane won his wrongful dismissal case. I’m glad. Had Mr. McFarlane insisted on foisting his religious beliefs on homosexuals seeking counseling I would feel differently, but under the circumstances, he did the right thing in seeking a reasonable accommodation, and it was ludicrous to fire him for it.

" I know for instance, that you don’t condone putting people to death for their religion"

I don't condone putting people to death full stop - this has nothing to do with my views on religious discrimination.

"...we must be free to express whatever beliefs we have. That is a key component of freedom."

Nobody is preventing anyone from expressing their beliefs. The nurse in question is perfectly free to express her beliefs in her own time. However, at work she is a representative of a hospital, and to use her position as a religious platform is unprofessional. She is there to do her job.

"I disagree that BA’s explanation is “perfectly reasonable”. By allowing
Kara bangles, etc. to be openly displayed, it has established a clear
precedent."

No it hasn't - you keep talking about Kara bangles, but you don't seem to understand what they are, or why BA's policy on this is perfectly consistent. There is an obvious and fundamental difference.

"anybody should feel free to challenge whatever laws they want"

And anybody should feel free to point out the activities of lobbyists...

"He merely sought an accommodation for his religion."

Fantastic. So a local service that has a very limited budget is supposed to employ two people to do one job, because one of them has - after being employed - decided that he only wants to counsel certain people. It is a ridiculous state of affairs, and I'm sorry that he won his case.

I'm sorry to see this type of agency starting up in England. I was thinking of moving there if it starts to get too (much more) ridiculous here in the US.

On a separate note, this issue does highlight the inequality between regular employees and agency workers, a shift that's been happening for a long time now across the board, in drives to fill gaps and push staff costs down. Suppose, for argument's sake, that the complaint against her was completely spurious, she has still suffered what for all intents and purposes is a suspension, and will most probably be losing wages as a result. If you're an employee you can be suspended on full pay, and in that sense are quite rightly innocent until proven guilty, whereas agency workers can be victim to a "simple decision not to use them" and are guilty until proven innocent.

That's a very good point, and I totally agree. If this case hadn't been hijacked by the Christian lobby, and if journalists in the press were actually doing their jobs, then there could currently be a very interesting debate going on about the way in which businesses have been able to use a growing temporary workforce as a way of exploiting a wide range off loopholes in employment law... A huge number of temporary workers are earning below the minimum wage, for example.

While I believe her behaviour was unacceptable, and while I have little sympathy for somebody who faces disciplinary action for repeating an action they've been warned once about, it is disturbing that a nurse can be suspended without pay on (allegedly) the basis of one letter.

Okay, I don't want to drag this out. My reference to historical and ongoing murder for one’s religious beliefs was merely to point out that turning a blind eye to the idea of religious discrimination--the polar opposite of actual discrimination--is an extreme position permitting all manner of mischief. It implies an “anything goes” mentality, be it denial of employment or club membership or whatever, because of one’s religion, that I know you don’t personally ascribe to, but, unfortunately, many others do.

That said, I fully agree that an employer should not have to endure hardship in order to accommodate an employee’s religion.

In Mr. McFarlane’s case, there is not a shred of evidence to support your claim that a local service that has a very limited budget is supposed to employ two people to do one job, because one of them has - after being employed - decided that he only wants to counsel certain people. The facts are that twelve staff members signed a petition to have Mr. McFarlane removed because he tried to make an accommodation rather than specifically give homosexual couples sexual counseling (yes, the issue was that narrow), something that, despite being employed there since 2003, he had never been asked to do. If the situation arose, Mr. McFarlane should have been permitted to trade a case with another counselor. Where's the hardship?

Yes Martin, I know what Kara bangle is. It is an often ornate religious bracelet worn by Sikh women, which BA apparently permits despite the fact that it is not hidden. In this case ,if BA wouldn’t permit wearing a bracelet with a cross, why not? And if it would, why can she wear a cross on a bracelet, but not on a necklace? See the problem? It’s rank religious discrimination.

I continue to believe that asking a person if they’d like a prayer is not only permissible but desirable for the reasons I stated, so we’ll just have to disagree.

I fully agree that anybody should feel free to point out the activities of lobbyists, but that is only a secondary point in your article. Most of it concerns several “high profile” cases which you imply are unworthy of serious legal consideration. Indeed, you mock them, as is your wont. However, once one considers the facts we see that there are indeed serious questions of legal rights here.

- Arrived via Crippen -

The point on the 'bank' nurse and suspension etc -
Even tho I think this was a ludicrous event and to remove her from service was overboard - this was the second event she was pulled up on; so she obviously wasn't listening to her line management.

As a bank nurse - she would be employed by the PCT and could not work anywhere else.

However, as an agency nurse, she would be sub-contracted at a huge rate (often 1½ to twice the normal nursing wage - x3 opn public holidays) and could work elsewhere over Wintermas.

The employer sets the terms of employment and the policies and protocols. If she is not permitted to bestow her Christian virtues or offer prayer to her patients - she is free to choose to work elsewhere.

Personally I see no harm in making singular offers of a spiritual nature and think this over-PC nonsense has got to stop. However, these are the rules of the times and until someone challenges the PC brigade, they will continue.

As far as I'm concerned, Christian faith is part of the cultural identity. Next they will tell us we can't support England as they get knocked out the World Cup in case we offend the other team.

"As a bank nurse - she would be employed by the PCT and could not work anywhere else" ... unless she had another contractual arrangement with another employer.

I pretty much agree with your assessment. I don't think there's much harm in what she did per se. I don't think this case is that interesting at all, frankly. What concerned me more was the way that it reached the press, and the agendas of the groups who sought to turn a minor incident into a national PR stunt.

As to the point about whether it is OK to offer to pray for someone or not. Consider the research that was done on prayers given for people recovering from heart surgery, where those who knew they were being prayed for did statistically worse than those who weren't, one could accuse her of trying to cause harm to her patients :) The supposed reason for the worse outcome was that those who knew they were being prayed for assumed they were worse than they really were, else why the need for prayers, even though the research was explained beforehand which should have removed this worry.

Can you provide a link for thta research, John? I'd like to read it, if possible.

Never mind. I found it.

http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2006/04.06/05-prayer.html

I hope further research is done on this. Countless studies have shown the power of the placebo effect, which is nothing more than the power of a positive outlook in aiding the healing process, and vice versa. As one would expect that there would be a placebo effect from prayer on a religious person, I suspect there was a flaw in the experiment's approach that the prayer recipients felt stressed, with raised adrenaline levels. Even the experimenters admit that more research needs doing.

Regardless of the efficacy or otherwise of prayer, this is why I object to disciplining a health professional for offering to pray for the patient, in a situation where, as here, the patient can merely decline the offer: Provided the health-care provider carries out all her professional duties, what right does the state have in telling the health-care provider that she is disallowed from asking the patient if she wants to be prayed for? Martin says that he has no respect for religious belief. Neither do I. However, I fully respect a person's right to his beliefs, and his right to live by them, provided they do no harm. I absolutely cringe when I hear the argument that the State should have the power to ban a mere question! The patient didn't even complain, for crying out loud. And what if she had? Should the state ban the wearing of hijabs for care-givers on the basis of a complaint? Wearing a hijab harms nobody, and neither does asking a person if they wish to receive a prayer, a single study notwithstanding.

I think the relevant point to make here is that it's not just about being permitted to display symbols on your person which represent your beliefs. It's about having the freedom to wear those symbols for which it could reasonably be argued your beliefs _require_ you to wear.(Grammar's probably a bit dodgy in that sentence - sorry). So, turbans, bangles, hijabs, etc., are allowed because otherwise someone whose (mainstream!) religion required them to wear these items would not be able to freely practise their religion while working at BA. However, I am not aware of any version of Christianity which _requtires_ believers to not only wear a miniature execution device, but also to wear it so that everyone can see it.

It’s an interesting distinction that you draw, particularly as I think I see an implication that this gives BA’s position some sort of validity. Well, if you want to argue that BA should recognize the dictates the leaders of organized religion impose on their followers, but not individual religious expression, then go ahead. I suspect there are few who agree with you.

By the way, describing the Christian cross as a ‘miniature execution device”, while correct, is a red herring, as the ban applies equally for the Star of David, etc. Resorting to tabloid shock tactics undermines your argument, weak as it is.

You're shifting goalposts here. You originally tried to argue that BA were being inconsistent, and therefore discriminating against the lady in question. BA have made it clear, as did the person above, that there is a distinction made, and that their position is perfectly consistent - the require that people of all faiths strictly adhere to uniform policy, with exceptions only made for items with are required by that person's faith. You may choose to disagree with this - that's your right - but you can't really accuse BA of being inconsistent, neither can you call it discrimination (indeed, this is why the lady in question lost her case).

Personally, I think BA's policy is actually pretty reasonable - clearly they could make an argument that they should ban all such items, and I'm sure others would argue for much more liberal rules, but they have to draw the line somewhere.

Martin, it’s still my position that BA is inconsistent. No shifting of goalposts! You are arguing that because BA consistently applies its discriminatory policy, it is “consistent”. Okey-dokey, then.

As far as having to draw the line somewhere, how about stating that they will allow personnel to display any religious symbol, as long as it is not a safety hazard? That would be truly consistent, wouldn’t it? I mean what possible justification can BA have for finding the wearing of a turban perfectly okay, but not the displaying of a small cross, Star of David, etc. at the neck? The former is acceptable because it’s a decree from a religious dictatorship, but the latter is unacceptable because it’s a personal expression of belief? Really? Are you telling me you support such “logic”?

It strikes me that we both stand up for rights, but you stand up for corporate rights, and I stand up for human rights.

A bank nurse what a coincidence

It looks like our banks can do with a lot of nursing at the moment. And praying for - they do need as well. I wonder what would have happened if the nurse would have offered the poor patient a bottle of Deeside water.
From the nurse point of view I would have just offered the primary care trust to pray for them that they will eventually see sense. The same is for the likes of Jerry Springer or other "artists" who make fun or others people’s religions. Jesus endured worse than their pitiful blasphemy.

Now I can understand that it worries a lot of people that there is such thing as a Christian Legal Centre. After all it goes completely against the Christian doctrine as we are supposed to hold out the other cheek. Let alone lobbying for a religion, this dirty deed should be reserved for dubious commercial activities.

Considering that these days we get lawyers specialised in all sorts of things that mean business for them I do not find their existence at all surprising. If they know their business well, the better for them, and with the craze of political correctness I can see them thriving as well.

According to the article, the nurse asked if the patient wanted her to pray for her, the patient declined the offer, apparently without taking offense, and the matter, at least as far as the patient was concerned, was closed. As the nurse reportedly carried out her required duties, I fail to see what the issue is here. I am an atheist.
However, if a caregiver asked if I would appreciate a prayer, I would not be in the least offended, provided the question wasn’t insistent, as apparently it wasn’t in this case. A society with rules on what to believe and what not to believe, to the point that to merely ask a sincere question is met with censure, is a sick society indeed.

Exactly what I was trying to say, only you said it so much better than I did!