Thursday, April 15, 2010

The UK versus "traditional Christian values"

Hospital hypocrisy

The National Health Service (NHS) is being accused of hypocrisy after it relaxed rules on hygiene to let Muslim staff wear long sleeves (in violation of established health and safety codes) and Sikhs display their religious symbols only days after Christian nurse Shirley Chaplin (54) lost her discrimination claim against the Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital Trust which banned her from wearing the innocuous cross she had been wearing throughout her 30-year long nursing career.

Muslim nurses CAN cover up... but Christian colleagues can't wear crucifixes
By Jonathan Petre, Daily Mail, 12th April 2010

NHS RULES RELAXED FOR MUSLIMS AS CRUCIFIX IS BANNED
By Jo Willey, Express, 12 April 2010

Muslims vs police

The Telegraph reports: "The Metropolitan Police has quietly sanctioned the throwing of shoes by Muslim protesters on the grounds that it is 'a symbolic' political gesture rather than a criminal act of violence."

So while throwing a bottle is criminal violence; and while a non-Islamic shoe-throw is criminal violence; shoe-throwing done by a Muslim is an act of "ritual protest".

As the Times online noted, Scotland Yard's willingness to bow to Islamic sensitivities and accept that Muslims are entitled to throw shoes in ritual protest "could have the unintended consequence of politicians or the police being hit. . .

"The concession has already been taken up enthusiastically by Muslim demonstrators, who pelted Downing Street with shoes in protest at the Israeli bombing of Gaza last year.

"Dozens of ski-boots and clogs were also hurled at the US consulate in Edinburgh in a related protest, in which three policemen sustained minor injuries."

Afterwards the protestors allegedly joked that the police "didn’t realise we were going to throw the shoes so hard."

Sam Leith commented in the London Evening Standard, that this decision essentially means that Muslim shoe-throwing is to be "regarded not as an act of violence but as a protected form of speech."

With tongue in cheek, Leith queries the Muslim's right to throw Ski boots and clogs. "Did the Prophet, blessings be upon him, also take a special interest in ice-skates, toe-capped Doc Martens and spiked golf shoes?" As far as Leith is concerned, the rule should remain: "Your freedom to swing your arm . . . ends where it meets my nose."

Insult doesn’t need to come with injuries
By Sam Leith, London Evening Standard, 10 April 2010

Met allows Islamic protesters to throw shoes
By David Leppard, Times online, 11 April 2010

Muslim protesters 'will be allowed to throw their shoes'
Telegraph, 12 Apr 2010

The police encourage Muslims to throw shoes at them? Just what community relations needed. blogs Telegraph, 12 April 2010
By Douglas Murray who writes: "In the meantime, I should announce that I feel passionately angered by all this. So I would be very interested to know from Scotland Yard whether or not I will be arrested if I decide to track down Lindsey German, Aquib Salim, Judge Denniss and co and invite them to smell my shoes. I think the police would probably look on my shoe-print on their foreheads as assault, don’t you? And probably a hate crime to boot.

"What a nuisance it is not being a Muslim in this society."

Bishops vs judges

Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, and other senior leaders within the Church of England are urging that senior judges who are biased against Christianity should be barred from ruling in religious rights cases.

Lord Carey has prepared a witness statement for Mr McFarlane (48) from Bristol, who is appealing against an employment tribunal ruling that supported his sacking for refusing to give sex therapy to homosexual couples. Similarly, Lillian Ladele was found to have broken the law by refusing to conduct civil partnerships. Late last year the Court of Appeal ruled that a homosexual's right not to be discriminated against by anyone, trumps a Christian's right to conscientious objection.

The religious rights of Christians are treated with disrespect
Telegraph, 28 March 2010

Labour Lord slams Govt anti-Christian attitude
Christian Institute, 9 April 2010

Church leaders are heading for showdown with top judges over bias against Christians
By Andrew Alderson, Chief Reporter, Telegraph, 11 Apr 2010

Judges are biased against Christianity, say senior Church figures
Christian Concern for our Nation, 12th April 2010

'Anti-Christian' judges should be banned from religious cases, says Lord Carey
By Laura Clark, Daily Mail, 12th April 2010

Thank God for Lord Carey
By Melanie Phillips, Daily Mail, 12 April 2010

While Lord Carey and the bishops have indeed identified a problem, this proposition however, can only raise another question. If cases pertaining to Christian faith and expression are to be heard by judges who have an understanding of Christianity and are sympathetic to Christianity or at least not biased against it, will Muslims have the same right to have cases impacting alleged Muslim rights heard by judges of their choice -- judges who have studied Islam and are sympathetic towards it or at least not biased against it?

UK vs traditional Christian values

The Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali, the former Bishop of Rochester, is appealing for all new immigrants to be integrated and willing to accept and adapt to traditional British values, which have been largely derived from the Judaeo-Christian tradition.

Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali: immigrants should accept Britain’s Christian values
By Martin Beckford, Telegraph, 14 Jan 2010

While the Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali has indeed identified a problem, his proposition can only raise another question. Does the UK itself actually wish to preserve its "traditional Christian values"? For, in order to transition or evolve from a Christian British society into a post-Christian multi-cultural society, the old order must, of necessity, pass away. The question is: Is this really what the British want?

See:
The secret plot to destroy Britain’s identity
By Melanie Phillips, Daily Mail, 24 February 2010