Muslim Long Sleeves and Sikh Bangles Allowed, Christian Crucifix Banned


Oh so similar in double standards to the older cases Christian Chastity Ring Banned, Hindu Tuberculosis Bull Allowed and BBC Execs: Okay to Throw Bible in Trash But Not Koran.

Via The Jawa Report, from Daily Mail UK:

Muslim nurses CAN cover up… but Christian colleagues can’t wear crucifixes

Muslim doctors and nurses are to be allowed to wear long sleeves for religious reasons – despite the risk of spreading deadly superbugs.

The Department of Health will allow female Muslim staff to opt out of a strict NHS dress code to cover their arms and protect their modesty.

But campaigners warn that the NHS is putting lives at risk because guidance that all staff should be ‘bare below the elbow’ was introduced after long sleeves were blamed for spreading MRSA.

The change has been brought in after some female Muslims objected to being forced to bare their arms on wards. The Department of Health has also relaxed its no jewellery rule to let Sikhs wear their Kara bangles as long as they can be pushed up to the elbow when dealing with patients.

The policy is in stark contrast to the treatment of nurse Shirley Chaplin who last week lost her discrimination battle against Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital Trust which claimed the cross she wore round her neck was a ‘hazard’ in case it scratched patients.

Last night she accused the NHS of ‘double standards.’ She added: ‘What can you say? It seems that life is stacked up against Christians these days.’

No kidding, Nurse Chaplin.

Got that? Potential health hazards by Muslims and Sikhs allowed, extremely improbable to cause any injury whatsoever item for Christian banned.

I say, equal standards for all – if you’re going to ban one religion’s symbols, ban them all! If you want to protect one religion’s feelings, protect them all!

25 Responses to “Muslim Long Sleeves and Sikh Bangles Allowed, Christian Crucifix Banned”

  1. Robert Says:

    Scott, you should be thrilled and honored to be persecuted! It’s the Christian Way! Stop and think…what would Jesus do in this situation? Why, he would turn the other cheek so if they ban your crucifix then give them your rosary! Ooops! That’s a Catholic thing…but aren’t they Christians as well?

    Snarky? Couldn’t help myself after a lifetime of observing those odd duck Christians.

  2. Scott Thong Says:

    As Richard Dawkins said, enjoy yourselves once all the Christians are gone and replaced by them other guys…

  3. Zack T Says:

    Funny that non-believers always like to use a teaching which they do not believe in and enforce them upon the believers, when usually they have very minimal contextual understanding of what they’re talking about.

    It is true that Jesus taught to ‘turn the other cheek’ (I’m assuming everyone knows what I meant; Matthew 5:39).
    But we need to look at the context here. Jesus was addressing the matter of the law “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”, which was being taught by the pharisees of the time to a personal/private level, meaning they were using it as an excuse to say it’s alright to take revenge on any personal level, pretty much.

    But Jesus was correcting the teaching to say that we should not retaliate in anger or frustration to take revenge with our own hands, as it is taught in the scriptures to “give place unto (God’s) wrath” (Romans 12:19), for we as Christians should trust in God’s justice to settle the injustice/unfairness of man’s action/decision.
    Jesus is not condoning the act of self-defense or defending your household, and neither is He teaching that it is not right to do so.

    In this case, the act of banning our wearing of the crucifix can be seen as an attack to our “Christian family”, cause it’s forcing not just this one but all Christians (working in the medical industry) to not openly express their religious belief/obligation.
    Notice that the examples Jesus gave was of one person, not of a whole group…
    “If a man slaps YOU, turn the other cheek.”
    “if anyone sues YOU and take away your tunic, give him your cloak too.”
    “If anyone compels YOU to go a mile, go with him two.”
    It’s all about one person… not Christians as a whole.
    He doesn’t give an example like:
    “If a man stabs all in your whole family, let him stab you too.”
    or
    “If a man steals all from your children, let him steal all from you too.”

    So, using the ‘turn your other cheek’ teaching on this situation is taking it out of context.
    There is nothing wrong with self-defense or defending our household.
    It teaches that we are to not retaliate with evil but with good (cause violence only begets violence),
    and we should not seek personal vengeance by our own hands, but seek God’s eternal and perfect justice (for who are we to be judge? and who is righteous to judge sin but the Lord?).

    We need to pray for our persecuted brethren and as Jesus taught, love our enemies and pray for them, “for they do not know what they are doing”.

  4. Scott Thong Says:

    Good exegesis, but you probably know already that they aren’t hear to listen to any sermonizing. Case in point.

    PS. Chuck Norris turns the other cheek. To hit you with a spinning back kick.

    Gotta motivational posterize that one some day.

  5. Simon Thong Says:

    Agreed, Zack T, a good job on the exegesis. I tend to be very strict on interpretation and application of scripture. When I lectured in NT studies and Theology, my demands were stringent, to say the least. Outsiders, including atheists, tend to play fast and loose with scripture, which makes it hard to take their comments on scripture seriously.

  6. Ron Says:

    The lady with the crucifix pendant must have missed this rule:

    “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.”

    However, that’s beside the point.

    I’m fairly certain the terms of employment are/were communicated during the hiring process. A policy which prohibits long-sleeved garments and jewelry exists for good reason. Hospital staff are hired to administer professional medical care, not proselytize their religious beliefs. Those who feel such a policy is too onerous must decide which is more important to them: their religious convictions, or their livelihood.

  7. Zack T Says:

    Ron, are you a Muslim, by any chance? Cause that’s exactly how some Muslims quote the verse, and that’s why, I’ve heard, Prophet Muhammad ripped to pieces a curtain with animal drawings on it…

    Naturally, your knowledge of the bible is rather limited, and it is forgivable..
    But I remind you, your ignorance will be accountable by God when His day of judgment comes.

    The verse you quoted, though nicely quoted, is incomplete, and once again, being taken out of context.

    “You shall not make yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.” Deut 20:4 (That’s your quote, now to complete it)
    “You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God………” Deut 20:5

    As the passage shows, it is a sin if you have ‘graven images’ AND worship them.
    She has a ‘graven image’ of the cross, but as far as biblical Christian practices go, we never worship the cross, but instead hold it as a symbol and remembrance of what Christ has done for us on the cross.

    And in response to your latter statement, is it safe to infer that you’re agreeing with us that it is not right that only the Christians are prohibited their cross necklace, while the Muslims are allowed to break that policy by wearing long-sleeves or jewelery for the Sikhs?
    Hallelujah, the guy came to our side! (Period.)

    Think about it, as Scott pointed out, the risk of ‘scratching a patient’ by a necklace is beyond reasonable and measurable possibility, when worn around the neck; as compared to long sleeves that is known to spread diseases, and bangles that are around the arms (which, you must know, is rather active in the work place).

  8. Vinsant Says:

    Zack, Zack. So many words – Less is more🙂 Get your own blog, dude.

    Oh, hey Scott. Longtimereaderfirsttimecommenter – just commenting to ‘help’ my man Z. I’ve always wondered if I could point out to people the fact that Christians get alot of unnecessary flak, and use it as a point for the gospel – There’s your proof! The world has no issue with you, they have an issue with the light that shows our sinfulness! REPENT!

  9. Scott Thong Says:

    And as I recall Zack, God Himself told Moses to make the bronze snake as a way for snake-bitten complainers to show their faith. Unfortunately, in generations to come it was worshiped as an idol.

    Try taking these on:

    https://scottthong.wordpress.com/2009/12/28/intriguing-questions-about-the-bible/

  10. Simon Thong Says:

    Ron is everything and nothing as long as he can sabotage your faith..but he is never an a-atheist.

  11. Scott Thong Says:

    Well Ron, as socialist Britain proves time and time again, not working for a living provides an excellent livelihood.

  12. Zack T Says:

    Yes, Scott. That did happened, and one of God’s prophets (I forgot who) came and destroyed it and rebuked the people for idolizing God’s gift and not God Himself.

  13. Ron Says:

    Muslims aren’t the only ones who interpret the passage that way. The Torah states:

    4. Not to make figures for decoration, even if they are not worshipped, as it is written “ye shall not make with Me–gods of silver.”

    http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/e0002.htm

    The Bible sustains that view In Deuteronomy 4:

    “15 You saw no form of any kind the day the LORD spoke to you at Horeb out of the fire. Therefore watch yourselves very carefully, 16 so that you do not become corrupt and make for yourselves an idol, an image of any shape, whether formed like a man or a woman, 17 or like any animal on earth or any bird that flies in the air, 18 or like any creature that moves along the ground or any fish in the waters below.”

    From a Christian perspective, there are a large number of protestant denominations which support that interpretation as well. Some even consider posing for photographs to be a violation of the biblical law. In fact, a group of Hutterites in Canada recently vowed to reject court-ordered driver’s licence photos. According to their spokesman: “Our religion is more important — just to obey God’s commands and rule and regulations more than man.”

    As for Ms. Chaplin, her complaint is without merit. No one is ‘persecuting’ her or asking her to renounce her faith; she’s simply being asked to adhere to her profession’s dress code while on duty.

    And yes, the rules should be enforced without exception.

  14. Zack T Says:

    Hmm.. Funny you stopped your quotation at Deuteronomy 4:18…

    Deuteronomy 4:19
    “And beware lest you raise your eyes to heaven, and when you see the sun and the moon and the stars, all the host of heaven, you be drawn away and bow down to them and serve them, things that the Lord your God has allotted to all the peoples under the whole heaven.”

    once again you were ‘nitpicking’…

    “From a Christian perspective’? Or is it ‘from a number of people’s perspective / understanding’? Funny statement.
    A large number of protestant denominations? Well, I sure would like to know them, cause I don’t know any of this ‘large number of protestant denominations’ that believes so..
    Hutterites? Well, sorry, Wikipedia couldn’t tell me much about these bunch, and their teachings regarding ‘photos’…. So I’ll just take your word for it.

    And even IF there is a ‘large number of protestant denominations’ that believes so, what does it proof?
    Is majority the measure of a fact/truth? (The earth was once flat)
    Or is majority the measure of one particular group’s believe system? (One sentence in a book can lead to plenty of interpretation by a few people)

    Even IF there are those who believe that we canNOT even make pictures of animals, etc, so what?
    Paul has already responded to that in his epistle to Romans:
    Romans 14:6 “The one who observes the day (Sabbath), observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats (whether with meat or vegan), eats in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God.”

    If this ‘large number of protestant denominations’ chose to believe that they should not have any images of anything under the heaven… then so be it. They’re doing this to honor God.
    God doesn’t judge people based on what they do or did… but judges people based on their heart/motives of doing the deed.

    And your statement, regarding Ms Chaplin, is rather unfair. Maybe Christians should hold the position that if we do not wear the cross necklace, we’d be considered wearing ‘indecently’, like how Muslim women must not expose their skin (much). Then maybe the law will not bother us.
    Was she ‘asked’ to adhere to the profession dress code, or ‘demanded’ aka forced to?
    If she is forced to suppress her right of religious freedom, why were the Muslims allowed to wear long sleeves or the Sikh their bangles?
    While the Sikhs can pull up their bangles, the Muslims women cannot roll up their sleeves (otherwise they’d just wear short sleeves in the first place).
    So, why can’t Christians who wear the cross necklace just be allowed to… I don’t know…. .say…. not let it be exposed but tuck it under their shirts when handling a patient (like the Sikh’s bangle)?
    Or all together be allowed to wear their necklaces and risk the (minimal) health hazard, like the Muslim women and their long sleeves?

  15. Zack T Says:

    Oh.. btw, I checked out the link you gave…
    I looked up some of the verses quoted… And a few of them had nothing to do with what the statement was.. Most of them were misquoted (the ones I looked up).

    And once again, most of them were ‘nitpicked’ quotes from the bible. Not taking the verse into context.
    Like the ‘do not bow to them’ one. The very same verse mentions ‘worship them’.

    So, sorry, but that link is not a strong support for your argument.. =/

  16. Ron Says:

    Yeah, I guess your right. After all, what would Jewish Torah Scholars know about Judaic law and their divine covenants?

    Deuteronomy 4:15-18 was a complete thought. God warned the Israelites that because he appeared without form they were to avoid trying to create any likeness of him. Verse 19 simply expands that concept further by prohibiting the worship of anything God created.

    As for what protestant sects think, ask them for an opinion about the Catholic practice of kneeling before statues of Mary and the saints. In case you’ve forgotten, Luther and Calvin were adamantly opposed to most religious iconography. Luther later softened his stance to allow paintings. Modern evangelicals and fundamentalists abstain from the use of religious imagery and frown heavily upon members who wear cross pendants and earrings. Jehovah’s Witnesses take it a step further and excommunicate members who refrain from doing so.

    And my stance on Ms. Chaplin’s complaint is quite fair. She was hired to do a specific task and follow the guidelines set by her employer. After hours, she can wear whatever she likes… or nothing at all.

  17. Simon Thong Says:

    The issue is not “What would Jewish Torah scholars know about Judaic law and their divine covenants?” It is, if I understand Zack T correctly, “What would you, Ron, know about such matters?”

    I know many evangelicals and fundamentalists and they don’t frown on members who wear cross pendants and earrings.

  18. Scott Thong Says:

    And your statement, regarding Ms Chaplin, is rather unfair. Maybe Christians should hold the position that if we do not wear the cross necklace, we’d be considered wearing ‘indecently’, like how Muslim women must not expose their skin (much). Then maybe the law will not bother us. – Zack T

    I was thinking that one of the following would be more effective in convincing liberals:

    1) Sue for discrimination, like the other religions probably threatened to.

    2) Stress that Christianity is actually an exotic, minority, foreign religion founded and practised mainly by non-Caucasians, in order to appeal to their sense of multicultural non-discriminating fairness.

    3) Cut off some noggins.

  19. Scott Thong Says:

    Modern evangelicals and fundamentalists abstain from the use of religious imagery and frown heavily upon members who wear cross pendants and earrings. – Ron

    Oh noes!!!!!1! I am teh non-mainstream church!

  20. Ron Says:

    lolz. Well at least you have a sense of humour and haven’t ripped the ‘fun’ out of fundies.

  21. mohd Says:

    The issue is not “What would Jewish Torah scholars know about Judaic law and their divine covenants?” It is, if I understand Zack T correctly, “What would you, Ron, know about such matters?”

    heeheehee

  22. Simon Thong Says:

    and why the teeheehee, the sniggering, mohd?

  23. Scott Thong Says:

    lolz. Well at least you have a sense of humour and haven’t ripped the ‘fun’ out of fundies. – Ron

    I also occasionally provide the ‘mental’ part of it.

  24. Ron Says:

    True dat.

    From an atheist’s perspective all religions are considered mental, but fundies appear to have taken the concept to a whole new level.

  25. carol bias Says:

    For many cross is a symbol of Almighty, and they do not want to experiment with it and are happy, keeping it in the traditional style. This Divine pendant is a live example of beauty in simplicity.

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


%d bloggers like this: