We've touched on this subject recently, but [url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-16596605here's a case that's arisen north of the border[/url that has huge ramifications, potentially.

It seems to me that, the minutes the plaintiffs used a phrase like "feticide", well of course the council said it wasn't guilty.

But it begs the question – yet again – of exactly how much leeway should be given to people who are in jobs where some aspect of their work conflicts with their personal, religious beliefs.

Would you take a job where such a conflict might occur?

How much should the employer do to take into account your beliefs?

It should be said that 'beliefs' should be taken to mean any beliefs, religious or otherwise – but does it, in practise? Or is this another example of religious belief being held to be particularly important?

Would Ms Doogan and Mrs Wood be happy then, if they found themselves involved in an accident, to find that a colleague, who happened to be a Jehova's Witness, decided that to give them a transfusion would be "against god's will"?

Its the same as anything else. If you take a job where you know you're going to have to do something you don't like, you have the right to go and do something else.

I would happily convert to Hare Krishna if it got me a job!

Obviously I'd rule out becoming a Muslim if the job was to live the good life for a couple of years (funded and provided by fanatics) in return for blowing myself up in any location of my bosses choice.

The bottom line is that every place you go has their own rules and regulations so religious people should respect them. In return Atheist won't go in places of worship and start doing things that disrespects the worshippers. Works both ways!

Indeed, I dare say their nursing skills could be put to good use elsewhere, they would have to take a pay cut mind.

Well, if you believe in Human Rights Legislation then you should support them.

The fact people still believe this mumbo jumbo staggers me, my Aunty who is a trained bio-chemist, extremely intelligent and fantastically well off and yet is a proper religious nut, i look at her and wonder how it managed to infect such a seemingly intelligent brain?

It's just one proof that brainwashing, especially from an early age, is a viciously effective tool.

Maybe it's BECAUSE she's intelligent? Strikes me that most people who VIGOROUSLY criticise religion are uninspirational, low-grade, slovenly people. Just an observation. By contrast most religious people seem to engender respect by virtue of their inner strength and have strong self-discipline, which often helps them succeed in adversity - whether in life, business, sport, or whatever. Indeed, I firmly believe that some of the greatest sportsmemn (including boxers and RL players - think Murphy and Karalius) only acheived greatness an their edge in adversity through their faith.

Nice put down, but i do quite well for myself actually and so do many people i know who don't believe in religion.

But do people like you?

Well on the basis of what people think of you ...

Go on, then. I'll have a bite:



It's because she's intelligent that she ignores all of the available evidence in favour of a belief supported by none? Really? That's your position?



Most people who vigorously criticise religion do so because of the insidious influence it has over our lives. If everyone who held these ridiculous beliefs did so in the comfort of their own homes, without it spilling over into public life, most would accept that.



The only people religious people 'engender respect' from by virtue of their religion is other religious people. That aside, there are many, many religious people who are bigoted and intolerant, and many who are willing to fight and kill in the name of their 'God'. Hardly qualities worth admiring.



Right, so their belief in an imaginary all-powerful entity helped them to be great, rather than the fact that they were just really good at sports.

Okay – for the sake of this thread, let's please try not to let it slip into a debate about the existence or otherwise of a god.

Let's take as a starting point that some people have a religious belief – and are perfectly entitled to do so.

The issue, I think – and which this case illustrates – is just how much any religious faith should be allowed to influence life in the public realm.

How much, for instance, should an employer go out of their way to accommodate a religious person's beliefs/feelings? In this case, arrangements had been made by the employer. It seems that, according to the women, they simply weren't enough.

There have been situations of doctors refusing to refer a woman to another doctor when the issue in question is a possible abortion. There have been cases of pharmacists refusing to give morning-after pills to women. And of course, there was the Lillian Ladele case where she effectively demanded to be discriminated in favour of – and her colleagues against – by getting special dispensation in her job as a registrar.

As I said, the employer in this case seems to have tried to sort out a situation that would help the women. The same has happened in the private sector, where shop workers who object to alcohol for religious reasons have been given dispensation from having to deal with it (at a till, for instance).

But how far should employers go; why do people with religious sensibilities expect different treatment and why, indeed, do people with religious sensibilities get different treatment when non-religious sensibilities would probably not be treated in the same manner?

They could always point to smokers getting fag breaks but onanists are not allowed w[ia[/ink breaks

I think the existence of a god is central to the issue - or at least the lack of available evidence is. If, for example, a doctor refused to treat someone with ginger hair because they thought it would make them ginger too, they'd be told that the evidence does not support such a position and that they should do their job or face the consequences. But when they refuse to perform certain procedures because of another belief that is held in the face of all the evidence, it ends up in the courts.



They shouldn't go out of their way at all, in my opinion. Would a restaurant owner allow a vegan waiter to refuse to serve his customers meat, fish, dairy, eggs or any other animal product? The waiter could at least argue that his beliefs are based on preventing actual suffering to animals and back this up with evidence. Yet he'd be told that if he didn't want to serve animal products, he should find work in a different industry.



This harks back to a similar question you posed the other day, and it still baffles me. We're close to discovering (or ruling out) the Higgs Boson and either confirming the standard model of physics, or starting work on a totally new one. I read the other day that scientists managed to store a bit of data on 12 atoms. 12 bloody atoms - I can't even imagine it! We have technology where we can communicate with people on the other side of the world, face to face, and at the touch of a button. We can see stars being born, and dying, at distant points of the universe and detect planets orbiting stars hundreds of millions of light years away.

I can't fathom why, in these otherwise enlightened times, anyone still believes in the made up stories of first century goat herds, let alone why belief in these stories is held in such high regard.

Even a believer should realise that intelligence is not a requirement for faith.


The most well-known critic of religion at the moment in the UK is arguably Richard Dawkins ... are you seriously saying that he is "uninspirational, low-grade, slovenly .. "? ... seriously?
It may be "just an observation" but please try and think things through before posting such ridiculous knee-jerk tripe.


"Most" religious people?
Many so-called Christians I have met have been selfish, greedy and cynical rather than being "Good Samaritans" as Jesus recommended.
The ones who do inspire respect are those who actually stand by their beliefs and actually do forgive, I would suggest that most "Christians" are more in favour of revenge than forgiveness, i.e. they more readily accept the "eye for an eye" of the old testament rather than the "turn the other cheek" of Jesus's sermon.
Yes, there are a few sportsmen who may well have given themselves an edge through their resolve and belief ... but they are very much in the minority, otherwise there wouldn't be a person on the planet who is starving or lacking clean water.

There are few things more distasteful than so-called "Christians" parading their beliefs and basking in their percieved superiority whilst doing absolutelyfucckall to help those less fortunate.

As Mintball states -some people have a religious belief – and are perfectly entitled to do so.
But you do pose a rather interesting point,



I once prayed to God to save my younger brother, he was a bad lad on the way to oblivion, at the age of ten he was selling glue in the school playground. Stealing money from home, setting places on fire etc. I told God that if he saved my brother he could anything to me, he could even take my life whenever he wanted.
My brother led a happy life, successful and trouble free life. Gods work?

Two years ago today I lay in Hull Intensive Care Unit with a fifty fifty chance of surviving the night and if I did survive I would never walk again. The resident priest, vicar or whatever came to my bed and asked me if I wanted him to say a prayer and make my peace with God. I was surprised to hear myself say yes, he prayed at my bed for what seemed at the time like hours.
Today I am driving to the gym, swimming, sauna and a walk round town doing a bit of shopping. Gods work?
I don’t really think so but when people are in times of desperation, confusion and fear is it any wonder they put their faith in “The Almighty” their intangible last hope?

My brain tells me that is all a set of folk stories and a way of controlling the people. My heart is confused.

Your post sums up the unknown quite brillantly. We all believe in something be it our family, god, allah, jehovah, money , man utd etc etc etc.

Then maybe your heart should think about all those people who do have relatives that end up in trouble (or worse), despite the fact that they pray for them. Maybe your heart should consider the fact that, if there is a god, it is he who put you in intensive care in the first place. It is he who gives people cancer, multiple sclerosis and AIDS. It is he who buries people alive under mudslides or buildings so that they can die slowly and painfully of their injuries, or perhaps of starvation. It is he who ensures that there is insufficient food for everyone to eat, so that tens of thousands of people die every day from starvation. If he were omnipotent and benevolent, he would surely stop such atrocities.

Also, what makes you arrogant enough to think that, of all the 7 billion people on the Earth, you are so special that God takes time out of murdering African babies to answer [iyour[/i prayers when so many others go unanswered? Are you that great, that you deserve to live more than the cancer patient, the starving baby, or the earthquake victim? And don't tell me it's all 'part of his plan' or that he 'works in mysterious ways', either.

It always surprises me that the USA, where separation of church and state is enshrined in their constitution, is quite happy to elect, time and time again, presidents who are more than happy to openly admit to praying for guidance before making important decisions.

I think Peggy's post very well paints a picture that is probably very widespread – and I don't think it's 'selfish', just indicative of human ego.

As I've said before – I don't have a problem with people believing whatever they want to. My problem is when they try to foist that on others and/or claim special treatment.

It struck me a few minutes ago to think that, since we've had legalised abortion in this country since the 1960s, why have there not been a glut of such cases since then? But then again, why is it only in relatively recent years that we have started to see exactly such cases, from across the religious spectrum?

What's more surprising is that their God always tells them to do what they wanted to do anyway. You never hear them say,

"Well, I was going to lay waste to another middle-eastern country, but God stepped in and told me not to."

Many would dispute that – and claim it works a different way or at least that the founding father didn't intend it to mean what others would today claim. See all the malarky about crosses and nativity scenes in and outside public buildings etc etc.

[url=http://cranston.patch.com/articles/ahlquist-fight-over-mural-despite-harrassment-threats-worth-itHats off to this girl, I say.[/url