Another nurse faces termination for being a Christian in public

Story from the Telegraph. (H/T Pursuing Holiness via ECM and Andrew)

Excerpt:

Shirley Chaplin, a committed Christian, has been told by her employers that she must hide or remove the cross or remain out of the hospital wards.

Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital told her that she cannot wear the one-inch tall silver cross openly around her neck, because it breaches their uniform policy and poses a risk to patients.

While the Trust has banned the crucifix in its wards, it makes concessions for other faiths, including allowing Muslim nurses to wear headscarves on duty.

She has been warned by her employers that she will be suspended if she does not comply with their request. There are fears that this would lead to her dismissal.

Mrs Chaplin, 54, says she has been shocked and distressed by the threat, which means she must choose between her faith and her job.

The London Times article that Laura linked to has a re-cap of the previous discrimination.

Excerpt:

Chaplin is being advised by Paul Diamond, a human rights barrister specialising in the law of religious liberty. He also advised Caroline Petrie, a nurse who was suspended in February this year at a hospital in Weston-Super-Mare for offering to pray for a patient. She was later reinstated.

In 2007, Nadia Eweida, a British Airways worker, appealed unsuccessfully to a tribunal against the airline’s decision to ban her from wearing her cross pendant in public.

Here is my previous post on the UK stewardess who was fired for refusing to dress as a Muslim as well as the Christian couple that was arrested for debating their faith with a Muslim. Here in the United States, the fascists at the ACLU had two Christians arrested for praying in a church.

Analysis

In my opinion, a non-Christian who interferes with a Christian’s ability to act out their fatih in public has done something diabolical. Worse than murder, in my opinion. It is hard enough to be a Christian without being intimidated and coerced by people who are willing to use the coercive power of the state to suppress the religious freedom of Christians.

What a non-Christian is doing is to force their non-Christian religion onto the Christian. The non-Christian basically wants to avoid feeling bad for not being a Christian, so they suppress the Christian’s religious faith, which requires public witnessing, in order to avoid feeling badly about not being a Christian themselves. They are elevating their own feelings above the Christian’s inalienable rights to religious liberty, free speech and free expression of religion.

But it is actually much, much worse than that. The result of suppressing a Christian’s public expression of their faith is that some other people who might have seen that public witness of authentic Christianity and spoken to that witness lose their opportunity to talk to the Christian. Not only that, but the Christian is also negatively impacted. You can’t take away someone’s human rights based on hurt feelings!

A lot of feminized multi-cultural postmodern relativist universalist “Christians” think that suppressing public Christianity is actually good. They have redefined Biblical Christianity so that the new goal is for everyone to have happy feelings now and to go to Heaven regardless of their beliefs. They think that divisions and exclusive claims to salvation make people feel badly. What are hurt feelings compared to Heaven and Hell?

So this is a serious, serious crime against Christ, one that I highly recommend my non-Christians readers avoid.

Share

14 thoughts on “Another nurse faces termination for being a Christian in public”

  1. I’m sorry, but there is no need to wear a cross. Being told not to wear a logo or symbol does not interfere with one’s Christian beliefs, so there is no choice between faith and job. This woman needs to get a reality check. This is something I really get tired of hearing about.

    I understand wearing the cross silently tells others that you are a Christian. I personally wear a cross or fish pendant very often, but if my boss told me not to wear it I wouldn’t suddenly feel unable to practice my faith in public. If you are a Christian, it shouldn’t take the wearing of a symbol for people to know it!

      1. You misunderstood my point. The claim is that she has to choose between her faith and her job. Not wearing a cross is not choosing between faith and job. It’s choosing between wearing a symbol of the faith and the job. You don’t give up any part of your faith by removing the symbol.

        There are machinists who are not allowed to wear jewelry on the job, including wedding rings. They don’t thereby choose between their marriage and their job – they choose between wearing a symbol of that marriage or their job. I’ve never known one to fight for the right to wear the ring.

        Granted, the reason for the cross issue is one of intolerance (at least it appears to be), but employers do have a right to decide dress codes.

    1. Well, a crucifix is not mere symbol or a logo, please!!! A crucifix is my way of showing off, “See, my God died for me!!”. It might obviously not be the only way to profess my Christianity, but she chose her’s and who are we to deny her right to express her faith, which doesn’t harm any one!! Now seriously, how can wearing a crucifix harm a patient?? Seriously, that’s so lame! I have a lot of doctors and nurses in my family and trust me all of them wear a crucifix. It’s an ornament in your hand which you need to be careful of while attending to a patient, not the one on one’s neck!!

      1. Whether or not the cross can harm a patient is irrelevant. If the boss doesn’t want you to wear a cross and it isn’t hurting you, then obey the boss. It is not a violation of one’s faith to take a cross off.

  2. “They have redefined Biblical Christianity so that the new goal is for everyone to have happy feelings now and to go to Heaven regardless of their beliefs. ”

    Satan was always a deciever, and a murderer.

  3. Well… by reading this report and your comments… I think there’s another issue here, and it’s not religious intolerance…

    “it breaches their uniform policy and poses a risk to PATIENTS.”

    Depending on her nurse speciality it could REALLY be a risk. Imagine a nurse in an operating room with a one inch cross hanging over her neck! I wouldn’t want to be operated by her! and I’m not religiously biassed! Cant she hide it while at work?! she doesn’t have to take it of… those kinds of objects are microbiological risks.

    But I’m just talking, I don’t know the details of this case… still it’s hard to believe that this kind of intolerance happens in developed and democratic countries like the UK.

  4. What about the woman who was allowed to wear a headscarf? Wouldn’t that be more of a risk to patients then an easily cleaned and easily sterilized cross? Aren’t there plenty of doctors who wear turbans? The Sikh dagger?

    Yes, employers have the right to dictate dress codes, but they do not have the right to be unreasonable. If the dress code is no religious symbols, then headscarves, etc. would have to be forbidden, too.

    1. I am sympathetic with the needs for employers to be able to do what they want, but I agree with you. And what could the reason for discriminating against the stewardess who wants to wear a cross be?

  5. I am aware that such intensive action against religious symbols started first during French Revolution (they created ministry of atheization),and this approach was later inherited by the Soviet Union and other countries of former Eastern Europe. Actions against religious symbols continue in Western countries (French laicite, Brintish nonsense, American atheists fighting Christmas etc.). The only solution is to multiply private institution and let people chose. For example religious parents should be able to send their children to a school where religion is not offensive to anybydy. I strongly support school vouchers which would permit atheist parents to send their children to atheist schools and religious parents to religious schools. Atheist patients could be sent to any hospital, but if they object religiously motivated hospitals they should be sent to atheist hospitals (they also exist under the name “secular”). I want democratic solutions to freedom of speech and freedom of expression.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s