My growing worries about the secular movement

rowlandbrowner

Im worrying that the secular movement is being intertwined with certain agendas, namely those of Daily Mail readers, and what has been called “islamaphobia”. I was convinced that the pejorative term “islamaphobia” wasn’t a genuine pc effort to stop people from being exploited based on their ethnic background, but another perversion of political correctness to scare off secular criticisms and keep religious privilege (see also: religious hatred bill in the UK). But i'm now rethinking this, as I am finding that groups like the National Secular Society who I’ve been at times a member and supporter of, are citing articles from right-wing news papers, and making criticisms of things that are not examples of state backed religious privilege but simply of people with different cultural backgrounds

I’ll offer an example.

If a muslim who works in Dunnes as a cashier is asked to do shifts behind the counter in the off licence, but says that she is not to handle alcohol, and is therefore excused from working the shifts while non-Muslim cashiers must.

Is this an employer empathising accordingly with their employees, or religious privilege “gone mad”.

I’m unsure of which, and afraid of backing groups that are – intentionally or not – promoting covert racism.

Zillah

rowlandbrowner wrote: »

Is this an employer empathising accordingly with their employees, or religious privilege “gone mad”.

I'd fire him for refusing to do his job.

Or maybe work a way around it if I couldn't afford to fire people. Anyway, Islam forbids the drinking of alcohol, I don't think its forbidden to briefly lay hands on a glass bottle inside of which is alcohol.

I’m unsure of which, and afraid of backing groups that are – intentionally or not – promoting covert racism.

Racism...?

I won't give people special treatment because they have an excuse that involves magic and spirits. I don't care if they're Inuit or Pakistani, they do the same job as anyone else even if a magic book tells them not to.

Fallen Seraph

To be fair, in the specific example, you really could just but the person some slack and let them not work in the off-licence. Like if someone came to you and said "My dad's an alcoholic, I'd really prefer not to work on the off-licence" it'd be pretty uncool to fire them.

I'd be strongly of the opinion that that's just plain old being considerate.

Pompey Magnus

If I went for a job and told the employer during the interview that there are parts of the position which don't suit me so I will refuse to do them if he asks then I could quite rightly expect not to get the job. I don't see why anyone should get special treatment. If they don't want to touch alcohol then I am 100% behind their right not to, just don't go for a job where you may have to. By the way, technically they don't actually handle alcohol, all they would be touching is glass or aluminium.

I don't see how it could be classed as racism, firstly Islam is not a race and secondly the only way discrimination will enter the equation is if they actually are let off handling alcohol. This will lead to one section of the workforce being forced into doing work which another section doesn't have to do, therefore they are being discriminated against because they are Christian, atheist or Jewish and not a Muslim.

OK-Cancel-Apply

There are worrying amounts of anti-Islamic attitudes around the western world at the moment. Not surprising, seeing as the US and UK are waging an illegal war in the middle east, and are on the verge of starting a new one. We Irish should have more sympathy for demonised ethnic/religious groups if you ask me, especially when that 'demonisation' is used as a means for legitimising their subjugation.

Plus I'm worried (as the OP is) about ordinary people helping to legitimise right-wing tabloid rhetoric by buying into it, and allowing them room to push it even further. I occasionally check to see what the gutter publications are using as headlines, and more often than not, they are talking about Muslims or immigrants. I felt ill recently when I saw a headline that read "in 50 years there will be no whites in London" - talk about racist scaremongering. And it is my honest opinion that most people who bitch about Muslims doing this, that or the other are simply using the term 'Muslim' as a cover to vent their hatred for 'brown-skinned' Middle Eastern people. That's why it angers me when I see the rest of society (good people) jumping on the anti-Islam band wagon.

We, as atheists will always debate theists and shoot down their ridiculous arguments, but I believe we should be mindful of the current political climate too.

Crucifix

For the example given I'd say it should be at the discretion of the employer. What if they'd been hired in an off licence or a pub? If someone can't do the job then they can't do the job.

sdep

rowlandbrowner wrote: »

Im worrying that the secular movement is being intertwined with certain agendas, namely those of Daily Mail readers, and what has been called “islamaphobia”. I was convinced that the pejorative term “islamaphobia” wasn’t a genuine pc effort to stop people from being exploited based on their ethnic background, but another perversion of political correctness to scare off secular criticisms and keep religious privilege (see also: religious hatred bill in the UK). But i'm now rethinking this, as I am finding that groups like the National Secular Society who I’ve been at times a member and supporter of, are citing articles from right-wing news papers, and making criticisms of things that are not examples of state backed religious privilege but simply of people with different cultural backgrounds

I’ll offer an example.

If a muslim who works in Dunnes as a cashier is asked to do shifts behind the counter in the off licence, but says that she is not to handle alcohol, and is therefore excused from working the shifts while non-Muslim cashiers must.

Is this an employer empathising accordingly with their employees, or religious privilege “gone mad”.

I’m unsure of which, and afraid of backing groups that are – intentionally or not – promoting covert racism.

I agree that secularism should, as you say, be about preventing 'state backed religious privilege', not about infringing people's rights to pursue their religion in freedom.

To take your example, I would oppose the enactment of a religiously-inspired law that would stop me drinking claret. However, I don't insist on everyone who works in a supermarket having to sell me a bottle. As long as my right is not outlawed, that's all I want.

Zombrex

rowlandbrowner wrote: »

Im worrying that the secular movement is being intertwined with certain agendas, namely those of Daily Mail readers, and what has been called “islamaphobia”. I was convinced that the pejorative term “islamaphobia” wasn’t a genuine pc effort to stop people from being exploited based on their ethnic background, but another perversion of political correctness to scare off secular criticisms and keep religious privilege (see also: religious hatred bill in the UK). But i'm now rethinking this, as I am finding that groups like the National Secular Society who I’ve been at times a member and supporter of, are citing articles from right-wing news papers, and making criticisms of things that are not examples of state backed religious privilege but simply of people with different cultural backgrounds

I’ll offer an example.

If a muslim who works in Dunnes as a cashier is asked to do shifts behind the counter in the off licence, but says that she is not to handle alcohol, and is therefore excused from working the shifts while non-Muslim cashiers must.

Is this an employer empathising accordingly with their employees, or religious privilege “gone mad”.

I’m unsure of which, and afraid of backing groups that are – intentionally or not – promoting covert racism.

If it is in the job description of the non-Muslim to work with alcohol he doesn't have much grounds to complain if the employer tells the Muslim worker than he doesn't have to do that job, for what ever reason. It is not discrimination against the non-Muslim.

For example, a few years ago a company I worked for hired a developer who basically said he wasn't working on a specific project. My employer still decided to hire this guy, and it was agreed that he wouldn't work on the project. The rest of us had to, probably because we were not as valuable to the company as this programmer was. I wouldn't have grounds for discrimination because I had to still do my job description where this guy got the company to say he didn't have to to the same work as me. That is up to the company.

There was a classic example in one of the free papers here recently of a woman hairdresser suing a hair salon owner who didn't hire her, claiming discrimination. The candidate was a devout Muslim who refused to show her own hair. The prospective employer said that was not acceptable as her clients expect to see that the person cutting their hair has a fashionable / smart / whatever hairstyle herself.

The question was: why was the employer, who only had one other employee, forced to defend herself and pay for a lawyer, take time from work etc because of what another person's beliefs were.

The prospective hairdresser had already been turned down for about 20 other jobs.

Re selling alcohol, I have noticed a few cashiers wearing a glove to handle stuff, as there is no distinction between an off licence and the rest of the shop here, not sure if it is related though.

There was also a suggestion that staff who did not approve of alcohol would be able to step aside if there was a transaction involving it, nothing came of it.

Zillah

sdep wrote: »

To take your example, I would oppose the enactment of a religiously-inspired law that would stop me drinking claret. However, I don't insist on everyone who works in a supermarket having to sell me a bottle. As long as my right is not outlawed, that's all I want.

You're being a little short sighted here.

Myself and Omarr both get a job at Dunnes. We sign the same contract, we get paid the same wage. One day my boss comes in and says "I need one of you to work the Off License on Saturday night". Neither of us want to work this shift, but we're both obliged to according to our contract. Omarr says "I can't do it, I'm a Muslim" and I get landed with it.

Every time this situation comes up I get the shift. Omarr is being shown preference over me because of his religion. Which is discrimination. Why do you support discrimination based on religion?

sdep

Zillah wrote: »

You're being a little short sighted here.

Myself and Omarr both get a job at Dunnes. We sign the same contract, we get paid the same wage. One day my boss comes in and says "I need one of you to work the Off License on Saturday night". Neither of us want to work this shift, but we're both obliged to according to our contract. Omarr says "I can't do it, I'm a Muslim" and I get landed with it.

Every time this situation comes up I get the shift. Omarr is being shown preference over me because of his religion. Which is discrimination. Why do you support discrimination based on religion?

Well, I don't. If you sign an enforcible contract that explicitly requires you to work a particular day, then you have to do it. If at the outset you say that your religion prevents you, and you negotiate a different contract, then you don't.

Pompey Magnus

sdep wrote: »

Well, I don't. If you sign an enforcible contract that explicitly requires you to work a particular day, then you have to do it. If at the outset you say that your religion prevents you, and you negotiate a different contract, then you don't.

But the question is if a non-Muslim attempted to get a contract in which they were guaranteed no alcohol based duties would they succeed? I doubt it. If this is the case then there would be discrimination against non-Muslims.

jtsuited

ok just to point out. racism is when you discriminate based on someone's race. Islam is not a race. It is a religion. "Muslim" does not describe somebody's race.

It describes their religious faith.

If I was the employer, I would fire the person.

Ridiculous. An example of how respect for people's religious beliefs is used to defend the illogical and downright ridiculous.

If I was an employee and refused to handle certain goods because of an ethical problem I saw in doing so, I would expect to not be given the time of day. Even though I may have a logical argument as to why i didn't want to handle the goods.

sdep

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

But the question is if a non-Muslim attempted to get a contract in which they were guaranteed no alcohol based duties would they succeed? I doubt it. If this is the case then there would be discrimination against non-Muslims.

I couldn't really comment on such a hypothetical situation. I'll just note that employers have discretion in the working arrangements they make with their staff. These may relate, for example, to particular religious holidays and rules on food and alcohol. Ultimately, though, employers have the right not to make concessions in these areas if they would adversely affect their business, and I'd suspect that the balance generally lies more with the employer.

irishconvert

rowlandbrowner wrote: »

If a muslim who works in Dunnes as a cashier is asked to do shifts behind the counter in the off licence, but says that she is not to handle alcohol, and is therefore excused from working the shifts while non-Muslim cashiers must.

Is this an employer empathising accordingly with their employees, or religious privilege “gone mad”.

In this case I don't think it is a big deal for the employer to allow the Muslim worker to opt out of doing the shift in the off-licence. There are many other jobs the Muslim could do while working in Dunnes and I don't see any great problem with asking a non-Muslim staff member to do the off-licence shift instead. The problem here for the Muslim is that it is against Islamic beliefs to consume alcohol, to sell alcohol or to profit from the sale of alcohol. It is nothing to do with physically handling the alcohol as some previous posters seem to think. So in this case a Muslim working in the off licence would be directly profiting from the sale of this alcohol which is considered a big sin.

irishconvert

Deleted User wrote: »

There was a classic example in one of the free papers here recently of a woman hairdresser suing a hair salon owner who didn't hire her, claiming discrimination. The candidate was a devout Muslim who refused to show her own hair. The prospective employer said that was not acceptable as her clients expect to see that the person cutting their hair has a fashionable / smart / whatever hairstyle herself.

The question was: why was the employer, who only had one other employee, forced to defend herself and pay for a lawyer, take time from work etc because of what another person's beliefs were.

The prospective hairdresser had already been turned down for about 20 other jobs.

If you have a quick look around on some of the Muslim forums you'll find that most think she's is wrong to do this...http://forum.mpacuk.org/showthread.php?t=32474

irishconvert

Zillah wrote: »

You're being a little short sighted here.

Myself and Omarr both get a job at Dunnes. We sign the same contract, we get paid the same wage. One day my boss comes in and says "I need one of you to work the Off License on Saturday night". Neither of us want to work this shift, but we're both obliged to according to our contract. Omarr says "I can't do it, I'm a Muslim" and I get landed with it.

Every time this situation comes up I get the shift. Omarr is being shown preference over me because of his religion. Which is discrimination. Why do you support discrimination based on religion?

I don't understand how he is being shown a preference. He will probably be sent to stack shelves, mop the floors or work on a grocery till instead. How is that preferential to working the off licence?

Bduffman

irishconvert wrote: »

The problem here for the Muslim is that it is against Islamic beliefs to consume alcohol, to sell alcohol or to profit from the sale of alcohol. It is nothing to do with physically handling the alcohol as some previous posters seem to think. So in this case a Muslim working in the off licence would be directly profiting from the sale of this alcohol which is considered a big sin.

If thats true then surely they shouldn't even work for a company that profits from alcohol? If someone chooses to work for such a company surely they have to abide by the companys rules? If I refused to carry out work for my employer for any reason other than religion I would rightly be disciplined - why does religion get priority over everything else. (My attitude would be the same towards any religion by the way before anyone accuses me of discrimination)

Zombrex

Zillah wrote: »

You're being a little short sighted here.

Myself and Omarr both get a job at Dunnes. We sign the same contract, we get paid the same wage. One day my boss comes in and says "I need one of you to work the Off License on Saturday night". Neither of us want to work this shift, but we're both obliged to according to our contract. Omarr says "I can't do it, I'm a Muslim" and I get landed with it.

Every time this situation comes up I get the shift. Omarr is being shown preference over me because of his religion. Which is discrimination. Why do you support discrimination based on religion?

That isn't discrimination. You are being required to do the job you have signed on to do.

Your employer could have equally decided that you will always do the Saturday night shift in the off license because Omarr is an idiot that he wouldn't trust with the shop. Or he could be an alcoholic and the boss doesn't trust him with the drink. But you wouldn't get very far saying you are being discriminated against because you aren't an idiot or an alcoholic.

Its perfectly fine to fire Omarr's ass because he refuses to work the shift BTW. At the end of the day it comes down to the employer. You do the job you signed up to do. If your employer said that you wouldn't be always working the Saturday shift and you find you are you have grounds, but that has nothing to do with the reason why you are always working that shift.

Dades

irishconvert wrote: »

I don't understand how he is being shown a preference. He will probably be sent to stack shelves, mop the floors or work on a grocery till instead. How is that preferential to working the off licence?

If the off-license shifts were the same times as other shifts, I'd agree with you. But the off-license shift is a late one, on nights when non-Muslims (i.e. drinkers) would prefer to be customers rather than cashiers!

I do find the difference between "not profiting from the sale", and working for a shop that sells huge amounts of cheap booze somewhat vague. You don't profit any less from the selling of alchohol by sweeping the floor, than you do by taking cash in the off-license. You're still paid by the hour.

Though I think I'm agnostic on this issue!

Pompey Magnus

Wicknight wrote:

That isn't discrimination. You are being required to do the job you have signed on to do.

Your employer could have equally decided that you will always do the Saturday night shift in the off license because Omarr is an idiot that he wouldn't trust with the shop. Or he could be an alcoholic and the boss doesn't trust him with the drink. But you wouldn't get very far saying you are being discriminated against because you aren't an idiot or an alcoholic.

When you start letting faith into the workplace where will you draw the line? Would you feel it is alright for a Catholic doctor to decide not to prescibe the pill to a woman because of what the book of Genesis has to say about God's desire for humans to have large families? The alcohol question is a pretty minor one but would set a precedent for ridiculous ancient religious teachings being encouraged in the workplace.

Zombrex

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

When you start letting faith into the workplace where will you draw the line?

You draw the line at actual discrimination.

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Would you feel it is alright for a Catholic doctor to decide not to prescibe the pill to a woman because of what the book of Genesis has to say about God's desire for humans to have large families?

No, because that is actual discrimination. The patient is being discriminated against because of her beliefs. She has a right to get the pill, the doctor doesn't have a right to not give it too her on the grounds that she wants it.

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

The alcohol question is a pretty minor one but would set a precedent for ridiculous ancient religious teachings being encouraged in the workplace.

The issue is that the boss can decide who works the Saturday shift, and they all have to do it if called upon to do it. The Muslim guy has to do it if called upon to do it, but if the boss decides someone else, for what ever reason, that is not discrimination.

When I worked in a video store I was often put on to work the morning shift because the boss simply didn't trust the other guy to actually get up in time to open the shop. I could have complained that this was unfair, but working the morning shift was part of my job description, so on what grounds did I have to complain? If my boss decided I worked that shift I worked that shift. It wasn't over time, I got other shifts off when the lazy guy had to work. I wasn't working more hours than anyone else. I wasn't being discriminated against because I wasn't lazy.

Pompey Magnus

Wicknight wrote: »

The issue is that the boss can decide who works the Saturday shift, and they all have to do it if called upon to do it. The Muslim guy has to do it if called upon to do it, but if the boss decides someone else, for what ever reason, that is not discrimination.

I remember someone telling me that they worked on a building site and whenever there was particularly heavy or dirty work that needed to be done the foreman would also get the Polish workers to do it and if he saw an Irish lad doing heavy lifting he would tell him not to bother and to go get one of "madras" (dogs) to do it. This heavy work was in the Polish workers job description but is still in my mind absolutely a case of the foreman unfairly discriminating between Irish and Polish employees.

PDN

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

I remember someone telling me that they worked on a building site and whenever there was particularly heavy or dirty work that needed to be done the foreman would also get the Polish workers to do it and if he saw an Irish lad doing heavy lifting he would tell him not to bother and to go get one of "madras" (dogs) to do it. This heavy work was in the Polish workers job description but is still in my mind absolutely a case of the foreman unfairly discriminating between Irish and Polish employees.

Depeche Mode, knowing you to be an admirer of Voltaire, I thought you might appreciate his preference for discrimination when it came to hiring employees: "I want my attorney, my tailor, my servants, even my wife to believe in God, and I think I shall then be robbed and cuckolded less often." Voltaire.

Zillah

Wicknight wrote: »

When I worked in a video store I was often put on to work the morning shift because the boss simply didn't trust the other guy to actually get up in time to open the shop. I could have complained that this was unfair, but working the morning shift was part of my job description, so on what grounds did I have to complain? If my boss decided I worked that shift I worked that shift. It wasn't over time, I got other shifts off when the lazy guy had to work. I wasn't working more hours than anyone else. I wasn't being discriminated against because I wasn't lazy.

Lets us assume that working said shift was undesireable. If not, let us use an identical scenario that differs only in that the morning shift was undesireable. Both you and the lazy guy are obliged to work this shift if asked, due to your contracts. If you always were assigned to this shift and the other person wasn't, then you are being unfairly treated. I don't know if its legally considered such, but I would certainly make the argument that the only fair solution would be that your employer should split undesireable activities equally, even to the detriment of the business. If certain employees are consistently unable to perform their duties adequately they should be fired.

In the case of the Muslim the argument is much stronger. He's avoiding the undesireable shift, not due to inability or preference on the part of the employer, but because he doesn't want to. No one wants to work the late night off license position, but his desires are being given priority because they happen to involve magical mumbo jumbo.

Pompey Magnus

PDN wrote: »

Depeche Mode, knowing you to be an admirer of Voltaire, I thought you might appreciate his preference for discrimination when it came to hiring employees: "I want my attorney, my tailor, my servants, even my wife to believe in God, and I think I shall then be robbed and cuckolded less often." Voltaire.

Well played .

Obni

Is this really a question of religious belief?
Is there any real difference in the following cases?
Case A: Person A (is religious) finds an element of their jobs (handling alcohol) objectionable (on religious grounds), and requests to be re-assigned.
Case B: Person B (is vegan) finds an element of their jobs (handling meat) objectionable (on ethical grounds), and requests to be re-assigned.
Case C: Person C (is a member of Amnesty International) finds an element of their jobs (handling products sourced under brutal regimes) objectionable (on political grounds), and requests to be re-assigned.
Case Person D (is not in a particular pigeon-hole) finds an element of their jobs (handling Playboy magazine) objectionable (on moral grounds), and requests to be re-assigned.

the_syco

Deleted User wrote: »

There was a classic example in one of the free papers here recently of a woman hairdresser suing a hair salon owner who didn't hire her, claiming discrimination. The candidate was a devout Muslim who refused to show her own hair. The prospective employer said that was not acceptable as her clients expect to see that the person cutting their hair has a fashionable / smart / whatever hairstyle herself.

The article said 25 other places also turned her down. The funny thing is, she would not be able to wash guys hair, as that would've been against her religion.

She then tries to double the amount as she received hate mail after the saloon owner discussed it in public. Pity she forgot about when she sold her story to the newspapers:rolleyes:

=-=

Would you want a tattoo from a tattoo artist who has no tattoos?

=-=

IMO, it's too totally different viewpoints clashing that is the major problem, and one of them won't change their views, as it'd be against their religon to "obey hygiene rules brought in to stop the spread of deadly superbugs".

Zillah

Obni wrote: »

Is this really a question of religious belief?
Is there any real difference in the following cases?
Case A: Person A (is religious) finds an element of their jobs (handling alcohol) objectionable (on religious grounds), and requests to be re-assigned.
Case B: Person B (is vegan) finds an element of their jobs (handling meat) objectionable (on ethical grounds), and requests to be re-assigned.
Case C: Person C (is a member of Amnesty International) finds an element of their jobs (handling products sourced under brutal regimes) objectionable (on political grounds), and requests to be re-assigned.
Case Person D (is not in a particular pigeon-hole) finds an element of their jobs (handling Playboy magazine) objectionable (on moral grounds), and requests to be re-assigned.

This is a good post.

The reason religion is an issue is that the religious motivation is being given priority.

Obni

Zillah wrote: »

The reason religion is an issue is that the religious motivation is being given priority.

Well if the management's response to case B, C, & D is "Get on with it, or you're fired!", but case A get's special treatment, then yes, it is a problem.

the_syco

the_syco wrote: »

The article said 25 other places also turned her down. The funny thing is, she would not be able to wash guys hair, as that would've been against her religion.

She then tries to double the amount as she received hate mail after the saloon owner discussed it in public. Pity she forgot about when she sold her story to the newspapers:rolleyes:

=-=

Would you want a tattoo from a tattoo artist who has no tattoos?

=-=

IMO, it's too totally different viewpoints clashing that is the major problem, and one of them won't change their views, as it'd be against their religon to "obey hygiene rules brought in to stop the spread of deadly superbugs".

Just for the record I didn't read this in the Daily Mail, I have never bought that paper in my life.

irishconvert

irishconvert wrote: »

If you have a quick look around on some of the Muslim forums you'll find that most think she's is wrong to do this...http://forum.mpacuk.org/showthread.php?t=32474

That's great but it doesn't stop this woman threatening someone's business / livelihood because of what her holy book says.

djpbarry

Obni wrote: »

Is this really a question of religious belief?
Is there any real difference in the following cases?
Case A: Person A (is religious) finds an element of their jobs (handling alcohol) objectionable (on religious grounds), and requests to be re-assigned.
Case B: Person B (is vegan) finds an element of their jobs (handling meat) objectionable (on ethical grounds), and requests to be re-assigned.
Case C: Person C (is a member of Amnesty International) finds an element of their jobs (handling products sourced under brutal regimes) objectionable (on political grounds), and requests to be re-assigned.
Case Person D (is not in a particular pigeon-hole) finds an element of their jobs (handling Playboy magazine) objectionable (on moral grounds), and requests to be re-assigned.

Exactly what I was thinking myself. People object to aspects of their jobs all the time, for a variety of reasons. I think a bit of common sense should prevail in these situations.

Just on the point of Islam and alcohol; my understanding is that alcohol is not banned outright. Muslim doctors, for example, would have to handle alcohol on a regular basis.

Zillah

djpbarry wrote: »

Just on the point of Islam and alcohol; my understanding is that alcohol is not banned outright. Muslim doctors, for example, would have to handle alcohol on a regular basis.

They have to be given the Muslim equivalent of an indulgence. A figure with sufficient authority can give a dispensation of sorts, such as allowing a person to drink something containing alcohol purely for medicinal reasons.

robindch

Zillah wrote: »

A figure with sufficient authority can give a dispensation of sorts

Which reminds me of a persistent story that I've come across in many countries in the Middle East -- that some brothels have their own islamic holyman who's paid to perform a brief marriage ceremony on entry (so to speak) and an equally quick divorce on exit.

Can't speak from personal experience on this, but where there's a human will, somehow, a religious way involving money always seems to present itself.

rowlandbrowner

At its basic level, these examples are nothing more than an employee asking an employer for something we should all enjoy in our workplace, and that’s simply a bit of understanding.
If an employer/manager wants to tailor somebody’s job to meet with whatever religious, moral and other forms of ideals they have then that’s nothing more than a managerial decision, and in most cases, it would mean that a similar decision would be taken to help others in similar situations, hence nobody gets favouritism.

The trouble with some of these cases is that they are usually hijacked by special interest groups for their own agenda, namely right-wing groups, religious institutions and newspaper scare mongering. And now it seems the secularists...

Secularism is about freedom of and from religion, it doesn’t mean we should deny Religious people the same understanding that, say, a vegetarian would be offered at a dinner party,
We should not threat people with religious beliefs as social lepers, it that’s what the secular movement is striving for then I want no part of it.

On the other hand I will say that, at the individual level, people must understand that employers don’t have to agree to threat them any differently because of their religious beliefs. We have all at one point had to comprise our morals and ideals to make a living.

Dades

rowlandbrowner wrote: »

At its basic level, these examples are nothing more than an employee asking an employer for something we should all enjoy in our workplace, and that’s simply a bit of understanding.

Well in truth, it's not the employer that has the problem - it's the fellow employee that gets lumped with the late shifts while the employee with the beliefs goes home to his family.

Though how much inconvenience in the case is question is anyone's guess I suspect.