UK Christian whiners fail in their quest to get Sundays off

Post Reply New Topic

Every business management course that I have ever taken.


Wrong. Business is all about making profit in exchange for goods and services. Even the so-called "Non-Profits" accumulate wealth in some way, shape, or form.

Look lady, you can either make a profit or accommodate your employees. While there are some reasonable compromises must be made in between these two extremes, those compromises should focus on the health, safety, and security of the employees in the workplace while not discriminating against anyone on the basis of their race, sex, creed, religion, color, national origin, age, disability, family history, genetic disposition, military history, or sexual orientation. I am not saying that some accommodations should not be made to for privacy (e.g., gender-specific bathrooms), for handicapped employees (i.e., ramps, lighting, et cetera), or for the employees' peace-of-mind (e.g., harassment issues) for example; what I am saying is that employment is a privilege, and that employees should learn to treat it as such.

If employees can not accommodate their employers over work-related issues, then maybe those employees do not deserve the privilege of being employed.

Fnord, everything a human does is about conscience because that's what makes us human. Even though most humans make me want to be in a class of my own, I still say they are capable with the right guidance so why not give it to them?

I'm in two minds on this one, does secular society really have any greater right to enforce its lack of belief onto theists any more than theists have a right to enforce their beliefs unto others?

I think there should be an onus on employers to make special exceptions in much the same way they are obliged to make certain exceptions for disabled employees.

Religion aside, i think that unless agreed otherwise, every worker should have a right to two contiguous days off at the weekend anyway.

If you want to dictate what an employer should do for its employees, then join a labor union.

Just don't expect the employer to treat you with any real respect.

I think exploitative or discriminative practices by employers should be reprimanded at a legislative level. But then I'm not a conservative.

Exactly. All thomas81's proposals will mean is higher costs for everyone, and more people losing out. In a recession, this is good for no-one.

He might well want to live in a country where to buy in a supermarket, say, a 500ml bottle of Coke is £3 a normal tin of baked beans is nearly £2, or a sandwich is £4 - where wine isn't even sold in supermarkets any more and where cigarettes have been essentially outlawed and the market given over lock, stock and barrel to criminal and terrorist filth - in order to cover the cost of paralysing welfare state and employment legislation and where the supermarkets close on the weekends and don't open past 5pm on weekdays due to employment law. Most people don't want that. Most people want things as cheaply and as conveniently as possible. The sort of country that thomas81 might like is Norway (complete with an almost Islamically anti-Israel local media), and most of the people who are able to in Norway buy their goods in Sweden or Denmark (not cheap places either by a long chalk!) due to the astronomical price of everything in the country.

He also makes the error of confusing secularism with atheism. Secularism isn't about a lack of belief, it's about recognising that people need to come together in all different environments and work together without religion overtly influencing people and dividing them. Some of the greatest religious reformers have been secularists.



Is religion a disability? A person can keep their religion or political beliefs to themselves or adapt (I'm not sure you'd be keen if you were served in Aldi by a big, menacing-looking bloke with an uncovered loyalist tattoo). They can almost never do that for their disability. As far as I am concerned, religion should have as little leeway in the workplace as possible. If you want to be religious, go to church, a synagogue, a mosque or whatever. Keep work a neutral place.

I agree in as so far as religion and the workplace should be kept seperate in as much as they should not be biased towards one faith or the other, however I take issue when the workplace begins to take precedence over rights in the personal domain, which i think is what happens when it becomes an affront to ones personal beliefs or prevents one from following the rules of ones religion. It screams lack of respect to the individual and not the hallmark of a nation that makes me proud to call myself a citizen. Which really is the rub of the problem with the conservative mentality, the rights of the employer trump all.

I may not agree with ones faith but i will argue to the death for ones right to believe in it and follow it. That applies to all by the way, I do not care if you pray to the cross, star of david, crescent, ganesh, shiva or buddha.

It doesnt even have to be about working hours. Many people in the secular domain find the practice of religious ritually killed animals barbaric. Would it be just as acceptible to you for a jewish employee to be forced to eat non-kosher food at his workplace canteen just to appease the sensibilities and convenience of gentile colleages and kitchen staff?

I was going to use a muslim-halal analogy but i already know what your response would have been.

Last edited by thomas81 on 31 Dec 2012, 5:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Why even bring that up? What relevance does it have which side of the Israel-Palestine divide the Norwegian media falls on?

Given that you claimed the Guardian is rabidly pro-Palestine and therefore ran by anti-Semites, I'll take your opinion with a pinch of salt.

Precisely, i thought this thread was about christianity.

Tequila seems to use every opportunity to slip in the Israeli victim card whenever I reply, purely and solely because of my sympathy for the Palestinians.

As a religious person I want my religious holidays off but I've yet to be allowed to do this in previous jobs, yet Muslims and other faiths (excluding Paganism [not taken seriously] and Christianity [considered a default faith and seemingly not covered by a respect for multi-culturalism]) have been allowed religious holidays off - religious equality perhaps should be upheld as a legal requirement in this sense...and when it comes to religious holidays these should be taken out of allotted holidays rather than religious folks getting extra days off.

In the above situation; religious holidays - as long as a person requests in advance or have someone cover their shift I'd argue that an employer should do all they can to allow you the time off - although this shouldn't be a legal requirement. In the case of Sundays then if a person can find someone to cover shifts then great, employers should do all they can to allow this, but not legally required....

If you are of the belief that you shouldn't work on a Sunday, then here is an idea; don't work a job that requires you to work on a Sunday.

Thanks to the economic climate, not everyone has that luxury when jobs are as rare as hens teeth. Often its a case of do the job or go back to the welfare office. The rights of the individual are only set to be rolled back due to large exploitative companies thriving in anti competitive economic circumstances.

What I'm trying to say is that the religious person will get extra rights that non-religious people (or people of other faiths) will not have. IMO, we want to limit this as much as possible, and keep workplaces as secular as possible, otherwise we're going to end up with endless petty sectarian religious arguments about who can do what, and why have they got that when I can't have that, and so on. I've got no problem at all with an employer choosing to let a Christian or Jewish or Muslim worker have Saturday or Sunday off if everyone is happy with the arrangement (including those who have to fill in for them) and no one is being put out. I just think that allowing the religious to demand dispensations that would be refused if a non-religious person made an identical request is the wrong way to go and is opening us up for further, avoidable, religious arguments and conflict.

What I'm trying to say is, essentially, that religious beliefs shouldn't be treated any more or less seriously than political or any other beliefs. They're a private matter to be pursued outside work. The idea is to keep the workplace environment as 'clean' of religious arguments as possible and not be forced to take a position.

So, I'm in favour of it as long as it's truly voluntary for everyone. No demands from any side, and the employer can call them in on a Sunday as well if necessary.



First point: as I said, the religious should not get any special privileges that non-religious people would get, in the main. If a Christian can demand and win the right to a particular day off (given that many Christians in Britain, me included, have a rather, erm, tenuous link to Christianity), why can't everyone choose that day? It would be unworkable and you can't sack 'em because that would be religious discrimination.

Second point: you're an Irish nationalist/republican. You don't want to be a British citizen in the first place, so it's sort of irrelevant. Let me know when you become a convert to Unionism and we'll talk.



Erm... no they don't. The employee can choose not to work there or make arrangements with their sky fairy. It's a free country (by Allah and by Jove, you don't hear that said much in this country any more) and there should be a free job market too. That said, I have spoken out against abuses by employers - and they do exist, and it's absolutely right that exploitation is pulled up on. You know, like demanding that employees work for free, or spying on them, or not employing people who smoke or drink in their spare time, or the absolute calumny of workfare (I never supported such an inhumane system, and it might surprise you to know that most genuinely liberal conservatives, classical liberals and libertarians I talk to online didn't either). Things like that.

And I am a conservative (and a national conservative, and a classical liberal, and various other things), but I often find that I don't hold with a lot of the positions of a lot of the more reactionary conservatives. They're as alien and threatening to me as the delusional left.



Me too - but not in work time (or, for example, any greater time than would be given to non-religious people - so Muslims can go pray in the smoke breaks if they like), and I won't respect those beliefs if they are violent, divisive, hateful or triumphalist, or if by following them they are putting other people in danger or making other people feel threatened. I respect people's right to hold a belief, but I don't have to respect the belief. There are some beliefs that are only worthy and deserving of mockery, ridicule and scorn.

As far as is possible, religion should be kept out of work (or accommodated within constraints that give no unfair advantage to a set group). You're there to do a job, not to assuage your god. Sorry about that.



Does it apply to environmentalists and troofers?



True, and yes I do find it barbaric (especially some of the Muslim varieties, although some of the ways that it's done is less barbaric than others). Do you consider it OK that, for example, halal-slaughtered food is forced on people in schools and hospitals, for example, without their knowledge or consent? I can understand that in a Muslim school that halal meat would be served (just as I would understand if kosher food were served at a Jewish school), but I wouldn't want either forced upon me in a secular setting. I'll go vegetarian if I don't like the halal/kosher food - you can't kill a lettuce in a kosher way. In fact, no, I'll have the felafel and hummus salad wrap.



That would never happen, for several reasons. I'll number them:

1. The Jewish person does not necessarily have to eat in the canteen in the first place.
2. There would almost always be a vegetarian option available - I often go vegetarian when in halal-only restaurants. The food is pretty good, so I'm not complaining.
3. They could take a packed lunch, which will often be better than what is eaten in the canteen.

And so on. If all these options were closed off and no ground was being given, I suppose there could be a case for religious intolerance/discrimination. If it was a Muslim, I'd back him, too. Just as I would back non-Muslims who have halal meat forced on them. However, I would tell any Muslim or Jew who didn't want to even be in the same room as someone eating the food of the goyim/kuffar to grow the feckin' hell up.



No you don't and you should have done. I would have said that such a thing would be a disgusting act of religious prejudice and intolerance and would reflect very badly on the people that forced the Muslim to eat non-halal and I would be absolutely livid at the people that did it and genuinely upset at his treatment. My beef is with Islam, not with Muslims that mind their own business.

People of other faiths will nearly always have analogous preferences. I believe all of the abrahamic faiths have a sabbath of some description. It is the perogitive of atheists if they choose to have a celebratory special day or not.

I see no reason why the preferences of the religious cannot be respected while mantaining a secular workplace. As long as they are not choosing to proselyte to staff, management or customers I do not see what business it is to employers to say they cannot abstain from work on given days due to religious reasons.


It only needs to be a problem if the employer insists on making it one. If they have a multicultural, multi faith staff i see no reason why John can't work Friday, Abdul can work Saturday and Jacob can work Sunday. Such differences can be turned into strengths.


Actually, for your information I am merely loosely sympathetic to Irish republicanism due to no small part my experiences of the troubles and the backward knuckledragging mentality of the Unionists whom you speak of. If you ask me, the union is between the wrong nations. The celtic nations should club together and let England bugger off.

I am a European Federalist first, a British Republican second (as in I want to see the British monarchy abolished) and a Scottish seperatist thirdly. I am originally Scottish, but that is for another thread.



Not sure why you picked up on the barbarism of halal meat specifically. You do realise the only true difference between Kosher and halal is that one is performed by a Rabbi, the other is performed by an Immam, right?
Depends. What guarantee is there that the vegetables were not cooked in the same juices as the meat? Does the employee have sanitary or practical conditions to store a pack lunch? Not all workplaces are generous enough to provide lockers/fridges/common areas etc. As far as I'm aware in the UK there is no specific legal obligation for workplace catering services to provide non-meat options.

We should have 2 days off a week.

Well, it's not like you can gather up all the atheists and say, "Hey you lot, pick a day that you want to not work!", unless you're referring to individuals. Although, I would say it's kind of silly and immature for someone to demand to have a certain day off, instead of just the same number of days off, if they had no reason for it other than wanting the exact same thing. Sounds like a small child wanting something just because his sibling has it.

I think Tequila is actually in favor of something like that, he just is against people demanding it. Maybe I misunderstood him, though.

Uh, not quite. An animal can be slaughtered by a follower of any of the Abrahamic religions and the meat will still be halal. Plus, I think for Kosher there's more rules about exactly what kind of knife to use or something like that. But you got it right as far as it pertains to Tequila's point, AFAIK.



This is reasonable, but it's not necessarily that respect for Christianity isn't part of multiculturalism; it's also just logical that if 9 out of 10 employees want the day off work for Christmas, they're less likely to get it than the 10th employee is to get a day off for Eid. Also Paganism is really hard to accommodate even if you want to, there's too many different sorts of pagans with too many different practices and beliefs to predict. And yes, of course everyone should still get the same number of days off.

Yeah, I agree with that too. I don't really think there's anyone here who doesn't?

Overall, I don't think people should compromise their religion for the sake of a job. But I also think employers shouldn't be forced to compromise their business for the sake of someone else's religion. And no one on either side should try to spite the other, that's just ridiculous.

Let's just say that the Scandinavian media is known for its hysterical anti-Israel coverage. I mentioned that because it's just one more reason that would make Norway such an attractive place to live in. For me, though, it looks cold, grey, dull, very expensive and nanny state to the nth degree.



Pro-Palestine (or pro-Palestinian) || = || Anti-Israel

I'd like you to have a read of this quote by Palestinian, Mudar Zahran, writing in the Hudson Institute, which is a U.S. conservative not-for-profit think tank. He said:



You might also want to read the writings of Egyptian peace activist Maikel Nabil, who has been visiting Israel and the disputed territories. His story is an interesting one (he is an Egyptian who spent ten months in an jail for making the error of criticising the country's military after it took power in early 2011. He was released in January 2012, after a massive Twitter campaign captured the support of millions worldwide, and after his 130-day hunger strike – Nabil was subjected to beatings, torture and other cruel forms of abuse. He runs a blog, where he sets out his stall for peace. He wrote about his essentially pro-Israel sympathies whilst he was languishing in jail and his article can be read here. He has a genuine interest both in the fates of the Israelis and Palestinians - a genuine love for both sets of people, rather than a hatred for one or the other.

You might want to have a look at this also:



Whoops. Must be the Zionists to blame again.

I myself am pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian. Peace would be an amazing thing in the Middle East. It would be good for nearly everyone involved - not only for the Palestinians in the West Bank and in Gaza, but also for Israel and for other Arab countries as well. It would have to be carefully negotiated, and would of course require genuine (and painful) concessions on both sides, but most Israelis are happy to make those concessions if it would bring about peace. There would have to be equal rights enshrined in law and in practice in the disputed territories, so that Jews can carry on living in the West Bank and Arabs (who are making up a sizeable minority of the population by now) can live together in peace and harmony.

The Guardian has a malign obsession with Israel. Did you know that, in 2010 and 2011, it was the sixth most reported-on country in the entire world? A country of, what, seven million people, and it's getting that much coverage? Even as there are far, far more immediately pressing issues in the Arab world, like in Libya or Syria - where hundreds of people a day are being massacred, the Guardian barely reports on these issues, instead picking over relatively minor stories from Israel. Yes, Israel does have its problems (if you read Israeli blogs, they'll discuss them with you) and it has used excessive and unwarranted force in its conflicts from time to time (phosphorus anyone)? But that's true of almost every single country in the world, and we don't try to pretend that they shouldn't have the right to exist if there is a demos of people there that want it to exist and can sustain itself.

And as for examples of the Guardian's anti-Semitism: that's without, oh, I don't know, the repeated column spaces/opinion pieces given to Hamas representatives in the paper, or the repeated accusations of anti-Semitism (which weren't denied, and which the paper didn't seem too concerned about - actually, not denied, and once actually admitted), or the lies fed to the Guardian from the Palestinian terrorist groups that get printed without even the most basic fact-checking, or the lies about the State of Israel's founding, or cartoons that so blatantly and knowingly use anti-Semitic stereotypes that they could come from many Arab newspapers, or the repeated denial of many Guardian columnists of Israel's right to exist (and, in one instance I can think of, denying Israel's right to defend itself whilst supporting Hamas' "right" to attack Israel).

A prosperous, liberal, free Gaza and the West Bank would be a sight to behold; a place at peace with its neighbours, and with a burgeoning tourist trade (that strip is a prime piece of land and it's an appalling shame that it's going to waste as it is as a result of an endless, stupid, pointless 'war' being waged by militants). The Palestinian people themselves would become far richer and happier as a result - all sanctions would simply disappear almost overnight, and Israel would no doubt spend quite a bit of money on them if they thought it would work. Remember that it's in the interest of Israel as well - a modern, democratic, liberal, civilised country - that peace is attained. The entire region would become even richer overnight and tourists would flood in.

I just cannot see that happening though. Ordinary Palestinians have been used and abused by their criminal and terrorist leadership for many, many decades, and have been used in a war of annihilation. They have been disgracefully told that the end of Israel is just around the corner, so they go off to blow themselves up in order to hasten its demise as they are told, day after day, week after week and month after month (it's all over the Internet, for Christ's sake - you literally can't miss the kind of poison that is spread about Israel) that being a "shahid" - or what we would call blowing yourself up for religiously fascistic reasons.

I think the Guardian and other newspapers like it are helping to feed the insane delusions of the Palestinians, and that this is neither good nor healthy for no-one in the end.

Right, I think that's probably enough on that particular subject for the time being.



Erm, you still haven't answered my question. Why should what the religious think get preference? I don't expect what I think as a non-religious person to get preference, I just want the workplace to be neutral. In essence, I want religion to be a non-issue. I wouldn't try to say to a Muslim that they should be forced to work over Eid, or to a person of Christian/atheistic heritage that they should be forced to work over Christmas. Hang on, though - that's actually a good point. Would a Muslim be forced to work Eid in the same way that many Christians be forced to work over Christmas? I wonder what the reaction is.

I agree that a person of non-Western heritage should be able to substitute Christmas for Eid or Diwali if they wish, and I can't see any problem with that. I do think though - and I'm not necessarily on about the Abrahamic faiths here - that there could feasibly be religions that are impossible to accommodate in a regular framework due to the amount of demands placed on the believer, and therefore on the employer. If a religion demanded a three-week holiday in early to mid December, would it have to be accommodated? For example.



Why shouldn't the non-religious get the same rights as the religious? The religious will end up with advantages that non-religious people are refused. That cannot be right and will lead to accusations of favouritism.

And us atheists/agnostics don't have a special day. If an employer wants to mandate Saturdays and/or Sundays off for everyone, I can't see a problem with that. I have a problem with a particular group insisting on that privilege if it would be refused to others, or an employer being forced into making such a concession. At the end of the day, it only means higher costs for everyone else, and people of other religions and none having to take up the slack.

As I say, I'm pretty much with Cei on the matter - work shouldn't be about pandering to the religious (or pandering to the non-religious), and it shouldn't be about making people feel better about their god.



It's the idea of it being insisted upon that I object to, as I can easily see it leading to problems if it's a small minority of people (usually the most boring, whiny Christians or Muslims) insisting on privileges that would be denied to others.



Sneaking admiration?



A pity that Soviet federalism was consigned to history, you mean? Well, I suppose European federalism is the next best thing.

I have no problem with Germany, Austria, Belgium, Luxembourg and those sorts of countries clubbing together permanently if they wish. I just want my country to have no part in that. I don'r want to be in a political union with Paraguay, just as I have no desire to be in a political union run by a Portuguese greaseball and a low-grade bank clerk. I'm not interested in running other people's countries or "having a voice in Europe", I'm interested in my country, thank you very much. Other people's countries are very nice, but other people can run them.



They could, you know, ask. I often ask what is on the menu. It may well be possible for them to go home as well, if they live nearby, or buy a sandwich from a supermarket.



I don't know; you'd have to ask them.



I'm sure they'd provide a vegetarian option if enough people demanded it. They wouldn't want to fall foul of a discrimination lawsuit, which is something I'd back them up on. (Incidentally, my Dad's local football club doesn't provide a non-meat option with regards to sandwiches and soups; I have actually suggested that they should and been brushed off.)



But there is equally no law stating that someone must eat in the canteen. Given that we are a tolerant country in general, I'm sure that a decent compromise would be found that is equitable and fair to everyone. If that wasn't forthcoming, I'd support the applicant(s) in their quest to change the situation.



To be fair to you, after having read up on this a little whilst responding to your post, I can't find a massive difference so I'll happily concede that point in the absence of decent evidence. I'm more bothered about the idea that this sort of meat is given to people who would reject it if they had a choice. The same way that an observant Jew wouldn't be happy if he had a cheeseburger plonked down in front of him, or if a pint of best British bitter was bought for a properly observant Muslim.



I'm more against the principle of people being able to demand a day off, rather than employer and employee coming to some sort of arrangement. It's more the essence of the thing, and I would wonder if there would be more of that sort of privilege-seeking to come.



That's it, Cei. I don't mind the idea of Jews, Christians or Muslims having the day off if everyone agrees, can negotiate and no-one is put out. I just resent the idea that a religious person could have the day off even if it inconvenienced other people, who might have plans of their own once in a while. Consider it give and take, if you like.

As for your other points Cei that I shamefully haven't answered: can that wait a little while? I think this post is probably long enough! Oh, and a Happy New Year to you.