Monday, 24 October 2011

When is religion not religion?

Why, when it's religion of course.

If you don't like foxhunting and are an animal rights activist who will get some of your employers' mates arrested and charged, you are allowed to declare the gross unfairness of your subsequent sacking.

The 43-year-old has been permitted to take his claim to an employment tribunal after a judge’s landmark ruling said his views on fox hunting should be placed on the same legal footing as religious beliefs. 

If you are a Christian whose response to the idea of gay marriage is 'I don't like it', but you take no action and suggest no action to prevent it happening, then you are an evil homophobe who must be expelled from polite people's company.

So if all beliefs are to receive the same consideration as religious beliefs, that must mean that all beliefs
receive... consideration at all.

It doesn't work that way though. Religious beliefs only count as religious beliefs if they are approved beliefs. Non-approved beliefs are no longer counted as religious beliefs even if they stem from religion.

My head hurts. I think I'm going to have a little lie down.


banned said...

Workers within the public sector had this coming and many of them approved all the PC nonsense that preceded it.

Whatever Cameron says pretending that gayers can be "married" the rest of us know it to be nonsense since it is entirely a matter for the Church and not the State.
What do you suppose the Mosque has to say on the subject? Blimey, imagine Elton converting and getting himself three more man-wives.

Leg-iron said...

Banned - that's a good point. The public sector workers said nothing about the rest of the PC implementation, and now it's starting to bite them too.

I'd say the same for the animal activist though. All that morally Righteous sabotage cannot be done without consequence, whether it's justified or not.

What these two cases show is that one set of beliefs is held as justifiable and another set is not and that's enforced by the establishment. We can't have both.

Ralph Musgrave said...

“Religious beliefs only count as religious beliefs if they are approved beliefs.” Which begs the question: how does one get one’s beliefs “approved”? One way is to employ violence or threats of violence.

The high minded and morally principled decision by the UK press not to publish the Danish cartoons had nothing to do with high mindedness or morality: it was down to the fact that sundry journalists and paper editors didn’t want their throats slit.

Threaten politically correct wankers with violence, and they’ll run a mile – while trumpeting their morally principled reasons for running.

Chalcedon said...

Like it or not foxhunting with dogs is illegal. He brought this to the attention of the police. He would be held up as an upright citizen normally. Because this guy's employer has mates who are criminals he sacked the guy. This was wrong IMO. However, deeply held views about the lives of animals cannot be counted akin to religious belief by any sane individual.

Robert the Biker said...

Hunting with dogs is illegal only if you go about it the 'wrong' way; many of the big hunts still go for a ride but they do it in such a way as to keep just inside a stupid and biased law brought about by animal fascists and their class hating stooges in parliament.
This blokes mates were done by an obnoxious little shit who was sacked for being a fingering cunt. You can't have a happy works with a fngering cunt in it, because they are always lokking round for ways to finger YOU.

Leg-iron said...

Chalcedon - yes, he acted within the law. Then he went on TV and the Internet to tell the world how he had brought down the evil rich.

The first part - okay. The second - if you work for people who move in circles that are likely to include foxhunting fans, then bragging might not be conducive to career enhancement.

It's not too far from being the one who grassed up your boss for smoking in his office, really. Yes, it's the law, but bragging about it is a certain P45 and nobody could expect otherwise.

In the other case, the guy stated he didn't agree with gay marriage on the basis of his religious beliefs. Considering who he worked for, that was an ill-advised thing to make public but he didn't advocate doing anything about it. He merely stated his opinion.

In both cases, it looks like someone sacked for their opinion but in once case there is support for appeal because the man's beliefs are 'religious', the other is an evil homophobe.

If we're going to have laws, even stupid ones, let's at least have consitency.

Chalcedon said...

@Robert the Biker.....I have no love for foxes. I live in a rural location and know how destructive they can be. I didn't know he was gloating about this publically. But since he was an animal rights person I'm not surprised.

@LI; I can see the difference. Hadn't realised the gloating publically bit

Anonymous said...

It is a curious thought, but if a person makes a comment in the office that he (or she) considers homosexuality to be wrong, but does not condemn those who indulge, but then is sacked by his (or her) homosexual employer, then the employer's position is protected by law. However, if a person makes a comment that he (or she) considers fox-hunting to be wrong, and boasts of taking extreme measures to prevent others indulging in their pleasure, then is sacked by his (or her) fox-hunting employer, then the employer is in the wrong. It is this dichotomy in law that is so, so wrong.


opinions powered by