Here we go again...

MrPudding

I happened to be in the shop and spotted the headline. Honest.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1377684/Electrician-Colin-Atkinson-faces-sack-Christian-cross-van-dashboard.html

Poor little persecuted christians, and so close to easter as well. Do those evil secularists have no shame...?

MrP

ShooterSF

While I think publicly funded companies should not display religious symbols I would think he should simply have to switch to wearing a cross. However their "equality and diversity" manager seems like a dick. How she can condone staff wearing a burka in company colours seems a bit hypocritical. I also don't think political posters like that of Che Guevara should be on display in a publicly funded business either...

Shenshen

ShooterSF wrote: »

While I think publicly funded companies should not display religious symbols I would think he should simply have to switch to wearing a cross. However their "equality and diversity" manager seems like a dick. How she can condone staff wearing a burka in company colours seems a bit hypocritical. I also don't think political posters like that of Che Guevara should be on display in a publicly funded business either...

^^ This, pretty much.
As far as I'm concerned, he should be able to have a cross in his car, where he can see it. From that picture, though, it looks as if he's got it in a place where everybody BUT him can see it. I can sort of understand that the company may not be too pleased about that. There's a bit of a difference between having a cross dangling from the rear mirror, and having one placed like an announcement on the dashboard.

The Mad Hatter

ShooterSF wrote: »

While I think publicly funded companies should not display religious symbols I would think he should simply have to switch to wearing a cross. However their "equality and diversity" manager seems like a dick. How she can condone staff wearing a burka in company colours seems a bit hypocritical. I also don't think political posters like that of Che Guevara should be on display in a publicly funded business either...

It's the Mail. Frankly, I wouldn't believe any of that unless it came from a creditable source.

ShooterSF

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

It's the Mail. Frankly, I wouldn't believe any of that unless it came from a creditable source.

Part of me does think there's a side to this we're not seeing as the mail clearly has it's agendas. Also there was a lot of crap about his sick wife that has zero to do with the issue. Then again that's why I don't like newspapers, they never stick to the facts of the issue.

AhSureTisGrand

Typical Daily Mail headlines:

ARE THE GAYS GIVING OUR CHILDREN CANCER?

IS CANCER GIVING OUR CHILDREN THE GHEY?

krudler

ShooterSF wrote: »

Part of me does think there's a side to this we're not seeing as the mail clearly has it's agendas. Also there was a lot of crap about his sick wife that has zero to do with the issue. Then again that's why I don't like newspapers, they never stick to the facts of the issue.

facts dont sell newspapers, hysteria, ignorant statements and distracting the simple minded fools who buy them to begin with do.

Galvasean

I don't see what the problem with a guy having a cross on his car is.
That said, I'd like to read up more on the issue since the Daily Mail tend to be a bit hysterical and rarely tell the full story about this sort of thing. I recall the uproar they generated about that nurse who was sacked for wearing her cross necklace at work. It seemed like a genuine complaint until you read further into it. Turns out she had been repeatedly told not to have the necklace dangling outside her uniform (it's a health and safety rule, nothing to do with religion) and ignored the warnings.
So I think I'll be forgiven for not taking the Daily Mail's word on it.

sponsoredwalk

ShooterSF wrote: »

I also don't think political posters like that of Che Guevara should be on display in a publicly funded business either...

Why not?

Frankly I despise any sort of authoritarian rules by bosses/managers
relating to clothing/designated uniform/shoes/appearance etc... &
find it completely unjustifiable but it's pretty obvious that this rag is
purposely misinterpreting the situation (i.e. the policy of one manager)
to paint a picture of a war on christianity.

Had a skull & cross bones been displayed I doubt we'd read such a
sympathetic story, more likely we'd read about satanism's rising
ranks & how those exact skull and cross bones are responsible for
that christian anti-gay couple not being allowed to adopt or something...

Still, I hope the guy challenges them and wins.

ShooterSF

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Why not?

If it was a private business then go for it. Hell I was one of the worst for breaking appearance rules in my jobs but state funded business should not show any allegiance to a political or religious belief in my opinion.

Hivemind187

Personally, I think people need to remember to draw a line of distinction between the company displaying symbols and an employee displaying symbols. The cab of a van is not exactly a public access area (or at least it shouldnt be) and for guys on the road it counts as their desk. How many people have crosses or stars or lucky-doo-dads in their cubicles?

If it were a bumper sticker or a set of blinged out "pope rims" then it would be a different story.

Overkill by middle management types. Hype by the Daily Mail. Yawn by me as a verdict.

Zillah

Am I the only one who thinks that article is at least three times as long as it should be?

Hivemind187

Zillah wrote: »

Am I the only one who thinks that article is at least three times as long as it should be?

Lol. I thought that myself. Then I remembered it was the daily mail which has a certain quota of hysteria it must cram into every issue. I suspect they were short of ethnic minorities and peasants to villify.

oldrnwisr

Because I'm in a video posting mood at the moment I thought that I would share this little sentiment regarding the credibility of the story in the OP:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTu7GLfrmUI

I love this song, especially since it reminds me of Italia '90.

Galvasean

Zillah wrote: »

Am I the only one who thinks that article is at least three times as long as it should be?

If the article is long people won't read the full thing and naturally assume that it was full of useful content.

legspin

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eBT6OSr1TI.

How does one embed vids here?

Improbable

legspin wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eBT6OSr1TI.

How does one embed vids here?

You just do the youtube and /youtube tags. In the middle, put the 11 alphanumerical code.

like so:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eBT6OSr1TI

legspin

Thank you.

Zombrex

What probably happened

Manager - Hi Colin. Would you mind taking down that cross from your dash board. Thanks

Colin - HOW DARE YOU!

Manager - Er, sorry Colin, but we don't want to give the impression that you are evangelising while on the job.

Colin - YOU ARE DISCRIMINATING AGAINST MY RIGHTS!

Manager - Er, again sorry Colin but you are public employee and that is a public van. You have stuck a religious symbol in a prominent position in your van, and while you serve the public while representing the council you should remain neutral in terms of these matters lest you appear to be evangelising on the job.

Colin -I'M GOING TO THE DAILY MAIL WITH THIS, THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS!

The rest of the world to Daily Mail reading Christians, stop being muppets.

sponsoredwalk

ShooterSF wrote: »

If it was a private business then go for it. Hell I was one of the worst for breaking appearance rules in my jobs but state funded business should not show any allegiance to a political or religious belief in my opinion.

As was I But I just don't understand what is so bad about Sandra
having a poster of action man in her cubicle, or Timmy having a michelin
man air freshener in his car, or bobby having a piece of spaghetti
signifying the FSM placed over his insurance disk. None of these are bad
but if you put a cross up somehow it's interpreted as preaching or
something Doesn't make any sense, this is not like hanging a cross in
a courtroom it's about a guy feeling comfortable in his workspace in a
supposedly liberal society.

If someone interprets a cross or the michelin man or a death metal
t-shirt as preaching or is offended by it, appealing to the lowest common
denominator (i.e. appeasing them for not being able to think through a
difficult line of thought) isn't going to solve any problems it's simply
sweeping huge societal issues under the rug.

Also, if a cross is interpreted as company allegiance to christianity then the michelin
man should be interpreted as company allegiance to michelin SCA corporation
(if we were playing that tired old game of consistency) and as such it
should also be banned, along with all signs of model of car the company
uses for fear of showing biases to ford motors (or god forbid remind
someone of ford's dark, nazi-linked history and thereby offend someone).
If I wear a t-shirt by nike what right-minded person interpets that as some
kind of allegiance to nike (or me condoning sweatshop conditions)? This is
pure nonsense.

It may be company policy but it's entirely unjustifiable & I hope the
guy challenges their ridiculous procedures & forces them to change,
that's how progress is made - by rocking the boat.

Still, none of this excuses the sham-journalism in that article :pac:

Kepti

Zillah wrote: »

Am I the only one who thinks that article is at least three times as long as it should be?

All daily mail articles are longer than they should be.

philologos

MrPudding wrote: »

I happened to be in the shop and spotted the headline. Honest.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1377684/Electrician-Colin-Atkinson-faces-sack-Christian-cross-van-dashboard.html

Poor little persecuted christians, and so close to easter as well. Do those evil secularists have no shame...?

MrP

This is daft honestly. Daft on the part of the company. If someone gets offended at a palm cross they just need to get over it :pac:

Zillah

Jakkass wrote: »

This is daft honestly. Daft on the part of the company. If someone gets offended at a palm cross they just need to get over it :pac:

How would you feel if a Dublin Bus driver put Koranic verses in full view at the front?

philologos

Zillah wrote: »

How would you feel if a Dublin Bus driver put Koranic verses in full view at the front?

I'd be totally OK with that. Dublin Bus doesn't really seem to have a strict policy of no religious symbols, particularly not in advertising.

In fact I have been in a taxi whereby the taxi driver had the Bible on his dash. I got into a conversation about his faith (he was a Seventh Day Adventist).

The only ones that seem to get offended at things like this are atheists, and as far as I see it there is no reason for this offense. It isn't like the van driver is putting a huge banner on the side of this truck.

I like the fact in a free society people can express their faith and engage others about it.

swampgas

Jakkass wrote: »

I'd be totally OK with that. Dublin Bus doesn't really seem to have a strict policy of no religious symbols, particularly not in advertising.

In fact I have been in a taxi whereby the taxi driver had the Bible on his dash. I got into a conversation about his faith (he was a Seventh Day Adventist).

The only ones that seem to get offended at things like this are atheists, and as far as I see it there is no reason for this offense. It isn't like the van driver is putting a huge banner on the side of this truck.

I like the fact in a free society people can express their faith and engage others about it.

Just curious - would you be okay with a bus driver or taxi driver who put a big sign saying "There is no God - get over it" in the front window?

Personally I don't think anyone should flaunt their religion or lack thereof in a public space. It's just rude.

philologos

swampgas wrote: »

Just curious - would you be okay with a bus driver or taxi driver who put a big sign saying "There is no God - get over it" in the front window?

A big sign would be taking that liberty too far. If one had The God Delusion or some other atheist book on the dash because they would like to read it, I would consider that perfectly OK. Just as I wouldn't say that putting a huge banner saying "There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his messenger" on the dash. Having a Qur'an, a Bible, or small religious / philosophical symbols on the dash IMO is fine.

If a cross makes you more comfortable in your space, go for it just be reasonable about exercising such liberties. I think Christians should try to be on the same page as their employers in respect to their work, and I think God would want us to try and get our employers on our side rather than being against us in the workplace.

swampgas wrote: »

Personally I don't think anyone should flaunt their religion or lack thereof in a public space. It's just rude.

I disagree with you. It isn't always rude. Personally I express my faith to non-believers publically if it comes up in a conversation. What did you do this weekend for example. Church inevitably comes up. If a conversation leads to a faith based subject then yeah I'll discuss it, and most people I have discussed with have done so on their own impetus rather than mine.

I don't see why I should have to hide my faith from others.

Personally I found the Bible on the taxi drivers dash as an opportunity to ask him about what he believed and it was a civil and enjoyable conversation. What's wrong with that?

Zillah

Jakkass wrote: »

I like the fact in a free society people can express their faith and engage others about it.

As long as they do it in a personal fashion, then sure, go nuts. Wear a cross, tattoo your face for all I care. But the state should not show favouritism for any religion, and that includes prominently displaying symbols on vehicles of a public coporation.

swampgas

Jakkass wrote: »

I disagree with you. It isn't always rude. Personally I express my faith to non-believers publically if it comes up in a conversation. What did you do this weekend for example. Church inevitably comes up. If a conversation leads to a faith based subject then yeah I'll discuss it, and most people I have discussed with have done so on their own impetus rather than mine.

I don't see why I should have to hide my faith from others.

Personally I found the Bible on the taxi drivers dash as an opportunity to ask him about what he believed and it was a civil and enjoyable conversation. What's wrong with that?

In my experience it is unusual for someone to put a bible in a visible location - their office desk, or their (public) taxi, unless they are trying to make a statement of some kind. It's almost like a challenge - I dare you to question my right to put my bible here. Or maybe, an invitation to a bit of proselytising. That's what is rude about it - it is being a little pushy.

I'd be happier with a sign in the cab that said "Driver is happy to discuss religion" without specifying which one.

I have noticed that the person with the bible rarely wants to hear my take on why atheism makes more sense than theism. Seems to be a one way street that.

philologos

swampgas wrote: »

In my experience it is unusual for someone to put a bible in a visible location - their office desk, or their (public) taxi, unless they are trying to make a statement of some kind. It's almost like a challenge - I dare you to question my right to put my bible here. Or maybe, an invitation to a bit of proselytising. That's what is rude about it - it is being a little pushy.

I don't see how it is. The Bible on the dash doesn't say anything. By the by, personally I bring one with me wherever I go. The exception being work, due to the fact that I work in a place where it wouldn't be good to leave a Bible around.

In university and in any other context I bring a Bible with me. I think if the taxi driver would like to read the Bible at any other stage during his shift I don't see why that should concern me (leaving aside the fact that I believe reading the Bible is great, and that God uses the Bible to change lives).

swampgas wrote: »

I'd be happier with a sign in the cab that said "Driver is happy to discuss religion" without specifying which one.

Just because there is a Bible on the dash doesn't mean that you have to talk to them about this. In fact if the driver decided that he didn't want to talk about the Bible or his faith I would have stopped. I was genuinely curious and we only started talking because I asked him about it.

swampgas wrote: »

I have noticed that the person with the bible rarely wants to hear my take on why atheism makes more sense than theism. Seems to be a one way street that.

If that is true that's a sad reflection. Personally I would like people to do this in real life, because I would be really surprised if there was anything that suggested that atheism made better sense than Christianity.

swampgas

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't see how it is. The Bible on the dash doesn't say anything.

Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. Often it is there quite intentionally. It would be very easy to put the bible in the glove box when it's not being read.

By the by, personally I bring one with me wherever I go. The exception being work, due to the fact that I work in a place where it wouldn't be good to leave a Bible around.

In university and in any other context I bring a Bible with me. I think if the taxi driver would like to read the Bible at any other stage during his shift I don't see why that should concern me (leaving aside the fact that I believe reading the Bible is great, and that God uses the Bible to change lives).

And just because you feel the bible is wonderful doesn't mean that other people would be comfortable discussing it.

Most people when confronted with someone eager to discuss the bible are trapped by their own good manners and refuse to tell the bible-pusher they really not interested.

Just because there is a Bible on the dash doesn't mean that you have to talk to them about this. In fact if the driver decided that he didn't want to talk about the Bible or his faith I would have stopped. I was genuinely curious and we only started talking because I asked him about it.

Fair enough.

If that is true that's a sad reflection. Personally I would like people to do this in real life, because I would be really surprised if there was anything that suggested that atheism made better sense than Christianity.

I have no problem discussing god, religion and atheism in an appropriate forum - that's why I'm posting here, where people want to discuss these things. But when rubbing along with fellow strangers in public, it's easier for most people to avoid discussing contentious issues - I wouldn't want to discuss abortion or politics with every cabbie I met either.

CerebralCortex

Jakkass wrote: »

....because I would be really surprised if there was anything that suggested that atheism made better sense than Christianity.

How many times dude? Logic, reason and rationality! :rolleyes:

philologos

swampgas wrote: »

Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. Often it is there quite intentionally. It would be very easy to put the bible in the glove box when it's not being read.

I don't see why he should have to. I personally couldn't care if it was a Qur'an or a Vedas. Indeed, I probably would have asked him about it still. You can just ignore it if you don't want to talk about it.

swampgas wrote: »

And just because you feel the bible is wonderful doesn't mean that other people would be comfortable discussing it.

I started the conversation. It wouldn't have happened otherwise. That's very simple. If you don't want to talk about it, just ignore it.

swampgas wrote: »

Most people when confronted with someone eager to discuss the bible are trapped by their own good manners and refuse to tell the bible-pusher they really not interested.

Nobody was pushing the Bible. I asked him about it. Please take note of the detail I've given you of what happened. Having a Bible out isn't pushing it.

swampgas wrote: »

I have no problem discussing god, religion and atheism in an appropriate forum - that's why I'm posting here, where people want to discuss these things. But when rubbing along with fellow strangers in public, it's easier for most people to avoid discussing contentious issues - I wouldn't want to discuss abortion or politics with every cabbie I met either.

Interesting, so it was inappropriate for me to have asked him even though he was perfectly eager to share this with me?

CerebralCortex wrote: »

How many times dude? Logic, reason and rationality! :rolleyes:

How many times dude? bad answer :pac:

Claiming that something is logical, or reasonable doesn't mean that it is.

Zillah

Jakkass wrote: »

Claiming that something is logical, or reasonable doesn't mean that it is.

Being rational is what makes it rational.

CerebralCortex

Jakkass wrote: »

How many times dude? bad answer :pac:

Claiming that something is logical, or reasonable doesn't mean that it is.

Of course, I'm not the arbiter of what is logical, but I do know how to follow it. Rationality as an art deeply interests me and claims need to stand up to it before I accept them.

philologos

Zillah wrote: »

Being rational is what makes it rational.

I agree with you. I just happen to think that atheism is irrational. It may be best to stick to the actual topic?

I know you think Christianity is irrational.
You know I think atheism is irrational.

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

I know you think Christianity is irrational.
You know I think atheism is irrational.

You're mixing up "irrational" with "counter-factual". Atheism and agnosticism are quite rational positions to adopt, but may or may not be counter-factual.

Christianity has evolved, particularly amongst the more recently-evolved variation(s) that you accept, to be factually undisprovable. And once certain axioms are taken as true, can appear superficially "rational" too.

philologos

You're entitled to think what you like of atheism. Personally I think it is fundamentally unreasonable at least right now in my life.

CerebralCortex

Jakkass wrote: »

You're entitled to think what you like of atheism. Personally I think it is fundamentally unreasonable at least right now in my life.

Fundamentaly unreasonable to say that theism fails to answer important questions, a little bit harsh no?

philologos

I'm much more interested in sticking by the topic for this one. If a more suitable thread arises and this comes up again I'll continue this. I think it is pretty pointless to bang on about how "irrational" the other is being when we know clearly already that this is the case on both sides of the Christianity - atheism debate.

Dades

If I saw a plain looking cross like this on the dashboard of some form of 'company vehicle' there no way in hell I'd conclude that company were endorsing any form of religion. It's clearly something the driver stuck in his cabin.



Maybe if his job involved health services or something with any vague relations to faith or religion it would be prudent to ask him to removed, but to tell an electrician he can't throw a cross up there is just overkill. Yeah, if all their drivers started hanging up beads and Korans and 8-armed-elephants then make a call on it - otherwise - unnecessary drama, imo.

robindch

Dades wrote: »

If I saw a plain looking cross like this on the dashboard of some form of 'company vehicle' there no way in hell I'd conclude that company were endorsing any form of religion. It's clearly something the driver stuck in his cabin.

Well, yes, but how would you feel if, say, some guy clamping your car had Sinn Fein stickers on his van?

Or is it better simply to agree just to leave contentious topics out of one's professional life?

Dades

robindch wrote: »

Well, yes, but how would you feel if, say, some guy clamping your car had Sinn Fein stickers on his van?

Unless he claimed to be clamping me for being a lapsed republican then I don't think I'd feel any different.
I'm still down €80 or whatever it is these days!

robindch wrote: »

Or is it better simply to agree just to leave contentious topics out of one's professional life?

It appears we differ on what constitutes both contentious and what constitutes being part of someone's professional life.

I cannot see how him being a happy-clapper makes any difference to the electrician service he is offering.
He's hardly going to hotwire my fusebox to burn my heathen house down.

robindch

Dades wrote: »

I cannot see how him being a happy-clapper makes any difference to the electrician service he is offering.

Doesn't make much difference to the service, but it does make a difference to the way in which he's offering it.

In my work, I spend a fair amount of time in countries that are, let's say, less willing to tolerate atheists than Ireland is. I keep my views on religion (and politics, mostly) to myself and these are almost universally respected. I think it's a matter of simple professional courtesy for other professionals to do the same.

That said, I can't say I'm too worried about what this guy is doing, though I read somewhere that his employer will allow him to wear religious symbols on his clothes. Just not on his the company car which isn't his. Seems a reasonable compromise to me, though it doesn't surprise me that -- like the NHS nurse a couple of years back -- he appears to have decided to play the "persecuted-christian" card for all it's worth.

Dades

robindch wrote: »

Doesn't make much difference to the service, but it does make a difference to the way in which he's offering it.

No really seeing that one. You're not flagging a mobile electrical service down like a cab, so I suspect his company's services are offered and organised over the phone or online, and actually carried out in a premises with a toolbox!

While the whole persecution thing had been 'Daily Mailed', I wonder what's the point in giving someone the stick they can use to beat themselves with?

Zombrex

Dades wrote: »

If I saw a plain looking cross like this on the dashboard of some form of 'company vehicle' there no way in hell I'd conclude that company were endorsing any form of religion. It's clearly something the driver stuck in his cabin.



Maybe if his job involved health services or something with any vague relations to faith or religion it would be prudent to ask him to removed, but to tell an electrician he can't throw a cross up there is just overkill. Yeah, if all their drivers started hanging up beads and Korans and 8-armed-elephants then make a call on it - otherwise - unnecessary drama, imo.

While that may seem reasonable at first glance, it has to be kept in mind that determining what isn't actually over kill is a political and social mind field.

Colin had his cross on his dashboard, why can't I have my SF sticker. Billy had his SF sticker why can't I have my Out of Euro Now sticker. Mark has is out of Euro Now sticker why can't I have End Abortions sticker etc

Saying well Colin is allowed represent his beliefs but your beliefs are a bit too nuts so we are going to stop you from doing it is something public bodies cannot do. It is, literally, all or nothing, secular state bodies cannot assess whether any particular belief is more worthy of inclusion than another other particular belief. Jakkass himself demonstrates this. Obviously he wouldn't be ok with a sticker on the dash saying that Christianity is a false religion and that theism is brainwashing.

There is really no purpose of this cross except to evangelize. It is not placed in a private position for the driver to see, it is place for everyone else to see. How small it is is rather irrelevant to the principle at work here.

philologos

Wicknight - have you heard at many people who have dropped to their knees at the sight of a palm cross on a dashboard, because I certainly haven't.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

Wicknight - have you heard at many people who have dropped to their knees at the sight of a palm cross on a dashboard, because I certainly haven't.

Have you heard of people who have converted at the sight of an atheism poster calling Christians morons? Because I certainly haven't.

robindch

Dades wrote: »

I wonder what's the point in giving someone the stick they can use to beat themselves with?

Well, as wicknight points out, it's a policy nightmare. If you allow one person to start sticking religious or political emblems on company property, where do you stop?

How would a christian fundamentalist feel if somebody showed up with some satanic symbols stuck to the company van? Would he/she feel comfortable, or would she run off to the Daily Mail to whinge that the housing services people were in the pay of Satan? The Daily Mail would blow a gasket, only this time, for exactly the opposite reason.

twinQuins

I've already posted about this, my feelings are thus - the company doesn't want their name associated with the personal statements of their employees which, I think, is reasonable.
It's been quoted from the Telegraph article that employees are allowed wear personal religious effects on their person which I think is a nice compromise.

If a self-employed taxi driver does so well that's fine, he has no one but himself to answer to and if he wants to tell others he's Christian I don't care but this manufactured outrage has got to stop.

mikhail

robindch wrote: »

Well, as wicknight points out, it's a policy nightmare. If you allow one person to start sticking religious or political emblems on company property, where do you stop?

There's the rub: if you're running such a company, you don't want to annoy anyone really. Probably it's easiest to just blanket ban political or religious logos, symbols or slogans. That said, the cross in this case is pretty anodyne.

Really, I can't blame the company - they're in a slightly awkward situation.

On the other hand, I have no time for the man willing to embarrass his employers to retain the right to proselytise from his company van, nor for the newspaper willing to make a mountain out of a molehill to sell papers.

Dades

Given this incident is isolated I still feel action was unnecessary. I don't see the problem with making a common sense decision to outlaw the practice when religious iconography becomes an actual issue - i.e where there's a multitude of faiths (or Satanists) or whatever being paraded around in their vehicles.

It seems the "ban everything in case it becomes an issue" attitude has actually created an issue of persecution that would not have been relevant had there been more that one person involved.