This time it’s former UK attorney general Dominic Grieve, in the Telegraph, with a candlestick.
Britain is at risk of being “sanitised” of faith because an “aggressive form of secularism” in workplaces and public bodies is forcing Christians to hide their beliefs, a former attorney general has warned.
What an arrestingly fresh and novel thought!
Dominic Grieve said he found it “quite extraordinary” that people were being sacked or disciplined for expressing their beliefs at work.
So do I! But they aren’t. So I don’t. I find it “quite extraordinary” that political talkers keep telling whoppers about this. People don’t get sacked just for “expressing their beliefs at work.” They get sacked for, for instance, refusing to do the work at work. They get disciplined for insisting on wearing dangling jewelry when there are safety rules forbidding it.
He described Christianity as a “powerful force for good” in modern Britain and warned that Christians should not be “intimidated” and “excluded” for their beliefs.
Quite right! They shouldn’t. And they’re not.
On the other hand people who don’t share their beliefs shouldn’t be intimidated and excluded either. That includes atheists, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs – shall I go on?
He said that politicians and public figures should not be afraid of “doing God” and that they have a duty to explain how their beliefs inform their decisions.
The “appalling” scenes in Iraq, which have seen Islamic extremists behead and crucify religious minorities including Christians, showed that it was “more important than ever” for people to express their religious beliefs, he said.
What??? What about people whose religious beliefs are, precisely, that religious minorities, including Christians, should have their heads cut off? Does the schewpid man not realize that religious beliefs are what motivate and/or justify the beheadings and crucifixions in Iraq?
Connect the dots, dude.
I’m not telling or even advising others on what to do in this situation out of common courtesy and the fact that I’m confused about it myself. But people at work often talk about religion to me. Well, Christians do. A Muslim once told me about his pilgrimage to Mecca, a couple other Muslims mentioned in passing that they were Muslims, a Hindu put up a picture of a Hindu god and a Wiccan told someone else about Wicca after they had asked and I got drawn into the conversation.
The Christians who tell me about how I need the Holy Spirit, advise me to pray, write down their favorite Bible verses and give them to me and in one case (a Catholic, obviously) tell me that someone with my knowledge of history should understand that Jesus founded the Catholic Church and that I could benefit from conversion, Mass and the intercession of the saints.
The problem is that despite how off-putting this is, they are mostly decent people who care about me and whom I have worked with for a long time. The proselytizing is mixed with actual good advice, emotional support and concern. It started during a bad couple of years where my depression and panic attacks got noticeably bad, I was having a lot of problems in my life, I got addicted to prescription medication, was suicidal and ended up hospitalized.
I was really touched by how supportive and understanding people were, except that at least half the time religion got brought into it. Now a couple of years later if I’m feeling down or worried about something I’m still likely to hear some kind of sermon. But at the same time, I’m glad that they aren’t the type of people to not want to be around someone with mental health problems or to be generally cold and unfeeling like I hear many office mates are.
But it gets weird because since my personal feelings for them wouldn’t let me file a complaint or anything, I’m sort of stuck with it. I wouldn’t even mind if it wasn’t so common. I have a hard time thinking of the right words to explain to them why religious advice bothers me without endangering ties of friendship which mean a lot to me and turning them into a bunch if strangers who only talk about work. And it’s not like they’re a bunch of stiff prudes who don’t joke around or go out for drinks, either.
That does sound awkward. I guess I would say err on the side of not hurting their feelings, since they’ve been kind and helpful to you. But maybe you could say something along the lines of “I really appreciate your support in the past and now, but I’m truly not at all religious, so that part of it…”
I’m not sure what to say after that. Doesn’t work? Makes me feel uncomfortable? Is wasted on me?
It’s awkward.
How about a nervous awkward laugh whenever it happens? Body language? Changing the subject? Squirming?
All rather passive-aggressive, but sometimes passive-aggressive is the only option.
Thanks, those suggestions make sense.
There’s no need for aggression, passive or otherwise; blunt, assertive honesty works fine.
[OT + meta]
Ed above:
!
Perhaps because I live and work in Australia, but I can’t imagine the circumstances where this would be an issue arising &mash; and I’m well into my fourth decade of participating in the workplace.
(Not to mention that a friendship that’s reliant on appeasement seems kind of sad to me)
John @ 5 – Ed just explained in detail why it wouldn’t work just fine!
Yes it is kind of sad, but some people are so conditioned to see Christian talk in inappropriate settings as so normal and wholesome it would be like taking offense at a smiley face or “have a nice day”.
But come to think of it, they don’t do that with anyone who is clearly a member of a non-Christian religion or a particularly obvious atheist(like extreme Dawkins enthusiasts among the younger generation). It’s not like I pretend to be a Christian, but maybe there’s an assumption that “regular” secular people, agnostics, mild atheists, etc. are sort of inactive members of the majority culture.
Maybe I’ll start asking how they know it’s true or say that I don’t get prayer but find meditation helpful.
they are mostly decent people who care about me
Sounds more like they’re thinking of themselves. If they cared about you, wouldn’t they ask you if you’d rather avoid the topic, then remember your answer, and act accordingly?
Maybe I’ll start asking how they know it’s true or say that I don’t get prayer but find meditation helpful.
One dodge I’ve seen used a fair bit is the old “I don’t follow organized religion” – which is deliciously ambiguous around the head-feint “organized” …
John Morales
Most of my work situations have been small groups.
Blunt, assertive honesty would be harmful to ‘the team’ getting the job done.
Avoidance of the topic has worked so far.
.
My most recent gig included a coworker whose reading included pamphlets with topics such as “Quantum Faith” and “How Jesus Disproved Physics”.
We talked about the weather and outboard motors and how good the food was.
worked quite well
Ophelia Benson @7, I know.
I guess I was trying to express that there are different circumstances and different temperaments.
—
[meta]
Ed, I feel I should probably should add that I do appreciate your thoughtful response.
Thanks, John.
Chigau, the names of those pamphlets are hilarious! They remind me of this weird writer I tried to read who is actually an accomplished physicist, but also very religious and has ….fanciful would be a polite term …..ways of “reconciling” Chrstianity with physics.
This involves imagining God as an artificial intelligence from the future who gained (will gain?) all knowledge and thus all power and then went back back to every point in time to create and maintain the universe in some kind of temporal paradox out of a poorly thought out science fiction movie.
Jesus was somehow the incarnation of this “God”(Terminator Jesus?) and his miracles are explained through what sounded to me like Star Trek talk like generating a force field to walk on water and altering the subatomic structure in the atoms in water to make it wine.
He was Protestant, but became Catholic,(lucky them!)so Mary eventually got the dubious honor of being included in this nonsense and transubstanciation got its most creative defense ever.
[OT]
Ed @13, heh.
Keywords: Omega Point, orthogenesis.
Thanks! Frank Tipler was the one I was thinking about.
Just for the record, these are the sorts of persecution which Christians face daily in the UK.
http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2014/08/church-school-allocation-angers-non-religious-parents
http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2014/08/nss-raise-concerns-over-new-faith-school-linked-to-witch-hunting-bishop
They are being asked, now and again, to justify their behaviour in a social or administrative (but not a theological) context. Oh, noes!
Christians like to play “we’re being persecuted” and the persecution often consists of not being able to coerce others into obeying their dogma. Being sued for refusing to provide business services to LGBTs is not persecution.
“Does the schewpid man not realize that religious beliefs are what motivate and/or justify the beheadings and crucifixions in Iraq?”
Of course he does – but there are extra votes in pandering to christians. Anti-islam is taken as a given of course.
I’d love to hear how Dominic Grieve’s Christian beliefs justify his government’s welfare and austerity policies, because all the evidence suggests their effects are the very antithesis of “Love thy neighbour” and “That which you do unto the least of those among you, you do unto me.” Indeed just six months ago the same paper which today published Grieve’s piece reported:
Personally I’d prefer my politicians to base their policy decisions on evidence and reality, but if he insists on “doing God” he needs to explain how his government’s actions have run so counter to the tenets of his professed creed.