Church care homes could be forced to remove crucifixes from their walls in case they offend “atheist cleaners” under the new Equality Bill, Catholic bishops have warned.
The way the bill is written means non-Christians could sue for harassment if church authorities do not remove religious imagery, according to Monsignor Andrew Summersgill, general secretary of the Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales.
He said the bill, currently being examined by Parliament’s Equality Bill Committee, could have a “chilling effect” on religious expression.
Under the terms of the bill, harassment is defined as “unwanted conduct with the purpose or effect of violating a person’s dignity, or of creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading or offensive environment”.
Bishops are concerned that religious authorities could be left in an impossible legal position, because under the bill it would be up to the employer to prove that displaying such an image did not amount to harassment or an employee.
Telegraph (Thanks Houdinia)
"
can’t help but find that amusing.
“Bishops are concerned that religious authorities could be left in an impossible legal position” O the irony…
What’s next you’d wonder. Why not take a non atheist cleaner then?
If you really have such a problem with a crucifix on a wall or such … you’ll probably have trouble with more places to work at.
Well, as far as I’m concerned as an ex-cleaner they can put what they like on the wall as long as I’m not expected to say prayers, kneel in front of it or go to mass. As I already said on another thread, I’ve cleaned a multifaith prayer room in spite of my atheism. I simply treated it as a paypacket, not a deeply held conviction. Perhaps if they started sacrificing goats there, that might have been a problem (how do you get bloodstains out of a nylon carpet?)!
If it’s in my own room however, I get to choose the decor. Them’s the rules. If you don’t like cleaning cruxifixes because it offends your sensibilities, get a cleaning stint somewhere else. That’s common sense.
This all reminds me of the South Park non-denomination specific Christmas, where every religious and atheist lobby group vetoes each other’s Yuletide customs for the school nativity and they end up presenting a lame interpretive dance piece with music by Philip Glass!
I wish I worked in a church-run care home, I’d take ‘em to the cleaners. See what I did there?
Well a display of a man dying on one of the most brutal forms of execusion isn’t really something I decorate a work place with and I can see why people wouldn’t like it!
On the other hand what harm is it doing? It’s a form of worship which they have every right to do.
That’s the most rediculous thing ever! did they not get that it might be religious being a religious care home?!?! Maybe the Christian people in the home are offended my their atheism! some people have gone seriosly gone wrong in the mind tank.
Personally if I was likely to be offended by religious iconography (I’m not BTW), then I’d choose not to get a job where I would be subjected to it.
I guess the only time that a cleaner be unsuspectingly subjected to such images is if they work for a contract cleaner and need to cover for a regular cleaner off work for some reason.
Lets be honest though, the vast majority of atheists would just shrug it off 99.99% of the time for ‘normal’ religious stuff.
Could a catholic cleaner sue for being forced subjected to secular iconography? Should I take down my Richard Dawkins (all hail RD!!!) statue before the cleaner comes round?
Oh, for God’s sake…
x
I’m an atheist and I’m all for secularism, but this is stupid. If you’re working in their place they have every right to put the nazi symbol in the wall if they want to.
Care homes for religious people cater to religious people – if you don’t like it, maybe work somewhere else more secular. Same way if you are a vegetarian, don’t work in a butchers.
“This all reminds me of the South Park non-denomination specific Christmas, where every religious and atheist lobby group vetoes each other’s Yuletide customs for the school nativity and they end up presenting a lame interpretive dance piece with music by Philip Glass!”
Yes yes. It does.
Julián Rodriguez Orihuela, bravo!!
DISGUSTING! Another bill that chips away at our freedom of expression.
well it’s likely either a poorly worded law, or an incorrect, reactionary, interpretation of that law. neither would suprise me.
Another example of someone going out of their way to be offended.
I think the law needs to settle on what expression is. If slaughtering people is an expression of faith, then the law should say, “No, killing is always murder.” I think the law is a bit lenient when it comes to what defines terrorism, but suing over a crucifix is a definite violation of expression. Weird things like crucifixes and prayer altars sometimes turn people on, but that’s just their map of the territory. It generally doesn’t hurt anyone except the dignity of the rest of us who will get lumped together with them in historic hindsight. The law tends to be a product of business, not philosophy or anthropology. Until that changes, I’ll see you in court.
If I, an atheist, saw a crucifx I imagine that this would instantly cause me to turn to dust.
This would create an unfair amount of mess for the cleaners to clear up.