麻豆社

We have a number of denominations here in the US that hold to the same teaching, but I've never thought about dress code issues for the operating room & how that might clash with wearing a dress or skirt.
Different cultures have differing views on what women's/men's garb consists of but it sounds to me as though a Christian midwife should be allowed to dress according to her conscience as long as it poses no risk to the patient.
In the not so distant past nurses always used to wear dresses.

That this case was brought is evidence of the length to which a religionist will go to bring religion into the workplace and to stir up anti-secular feeling. It is reassuring to read that her claim has been rejected, for where might it end? Recently, on the 麻豆社 website (Fact of the Day), it was stated that Adamites were religionists who believed that they should have the right not to wear clothes - well, would you like to perform brain surgery with the help of a naked team!

Dont know about the hermeneutics of trousers, but I do know that the hermeneutic of continuity is pants.

I suspect it's more to do with the religion of 'right-on' than any proper religion. Naturally, we allow Muslim women to wear hijabs, notwithstanding that Islam doesn't demand them, because Muslims are not Christians therefore it's 'right-on' to be 'tolerant' towards them. You will note that Newlach seemed to have no problem with that particular inconsistency. I have previously stated that there is the beginning of a very low-level hindrance of Christians in Europe in general, and in your country in particular. It's as yet a long way from persecution, of course, but it is targeted and quite deliberate; it is not in any way the by-product of any consistent philosophy. It is simply hatred being vented at a particular group of people because they don鈥檛 see things your way. Try to understand that you are not in any way special or novel. The Whig view of history is just a conceit and this kind of harassment is as old as time. It鈥檚 never worked before and it won鈥檛 work now.

Someone should remind her not to touch anything when she's having her period too. Or sit on anything.

I suspect she should refrain from pork, and someone check that her clothes aren't mixed fibers!

For some Christians it's August everyday.

I think Christianity can sit very easily with a certain kind of practical secularism, because there is no outward dress, jewellery, bling, concealed weapon, headgear, body mutilation etc requirement in being a follower of Jesus Christ. Therefore we should forget about what the Muslims can and can't do, as we are not in the same category.

If dress codes are required for certain jobs, then the only stipulation should be that they are reasonable in preserving the basic human dignity and well-being of the wearer, by which I mean that the clothing should not compromise someone's sexual modesty and should be adequate for protection against cold, heat etc. Other than that, the rule should be: if you are not prepared to abide by the dress code of the job you do, then perhaps you ought to consider another line of employment. In other words, choose between your legalistic religion and your job.

No true Christian should have any problem with this. If, for example, your employer tells you to take your cross necklace off, then take it off! It is not a requirement of the faith at all. In fact, here's an idea: why not actually display the meaning of the cross in your life and attitude rather than get obsessive about jewellery and trinkets? Or perhaps that's just too radical an idea.

Sometimes I think God's greatest enemy is religion.

LSV,

Good post, I would agree with you. I actually don't have a problem with religious symbols (like crosses etc) as long as they don't impact on the person doing the job (ie where they may pose a danger).

On the clothes thing again I agree - dress codes and uniforms have a purpose and should be adhered to. Employers cannot be expected to know and finance every religions peculiarities especially those which maybe only 2 out of a million may actually follow.

I sense however the Christian Legal Centre might be somewhere in the shadow here and this is more about "christian persecution" than trousers.

Dave, I'm afraid 'not having a problem' is not an option. If you don't have a problem with Christians, then you're clearly suspect. And LSV really ought to know better. As I said above, this is targeted, not incidental, and if you try to accomodate, they'll just change the goal posts. Might as well fight them as soon as it starts. As for dress code, it seems to me that it was only in the last twenty years or so that nurses even started wearing trousers; before then, skirts were mandatory, as they were for female employees in many private companies. How come the right to dress how you please was a feminist issue when the sisters wanted to wear trousers, but not when one of them wants to wear a skirt?

Casur1 (@ 9) -

And LSV really ought to know better.

I simply made the point that there are no 'outward' religious requirements in the Christian faith in terms of dress code (other than simple basic decency), jewellery etc. Perhaps you know of one?

So what is it that I should know better?

All this case is doing is fleecing money from the NHS (not very Christian, and something I feel particularly sensitive about given my recent health experience, which I mentioned on the Open Thread) and completely misrepresenting the Christian faith. As it happens, I do feel 'persecuted': not by the 'secularists', but persecuted by people like this woman who has brought this case!!

LSV makes some very good points. Also, the patients are the most important factor in the operating theatre, not her. Her duty within that sphere is to perform her job. How much NHS money is being wasted on litigation when it could be spent on patients who need the money better allocated. Given the current economic situation, she should feel blessed she has a job rather than running her employees through the courts. As Natman points out, does she adhere to all the other dress requirements stipulated in Leviticus or other parts of the Bible or only the ones that 'speak' to her?

How exactly does wearing the Gowns worn over & above the item in question link into her argument. Everyone in the operating theatre, male & female alike wear the same thing anyway !?

This is a cultural arguement. The Queen, as Supreme Governor of the Church of England has worn trousers. Joan of Arc dressed as a knight. And men wear gowns; not only in a hospital operating theatre but within the Legal profession and Religious organisations.

As Casur says, this has more to do with the religion of 'right on' rather than any proper religion. The superficiality of Religious dresscode as a tribal feather.

Public spaces really should be secular as it invites situations like these.

The fourth largest reported religion in England and Wales in the 2001 national census was Jedi - should Jedis be allowed to shuffle about hospitals wearing hooded cloaks and carrying light sabres?

I think it's interesting that nobody's actually addressed anything I've written; they've just said what they were intending to say. Where I work, there is, in fact, a livery worn. Female employees have a choice of uniform trousers or skirt if they prefer. Most choose trousers, but there appears to be no problem with skirts for those who wish them. In a country in which, as an example, the state has put itself to the trouble of creating a whole new category of marriage just for gay couples, one wonders what is motivating the authorities to use their office to prevent a midwife wearing clothing which was actually compulsory for her profession until quite recently. I find it hard to believe that there is not some element of prometheanism going on here, some attempt to use the power of government to manipulate society at the macro level. As the Japanese say, if a nails stands out, it must be hammered down.

Casur
"one wonders what is motivating the authorities to use their office to prevent a midwife wearing clothing which was actually compulsory for her profession until quite recently"

errr....Sterile scrubs for infection control?
Personally I miss Top Hats for surgeons.

There is nothing sinister going on with regard to the practices demanded of this nurse. Nursing and care procedures are constantly evaluated to improve outcomes for patients, and what was once 'correct' may not now be considered wise. One example I know about: there used to be certain recommended ways of moving disabled patients, which are now banned for good reason, due to the danger of back injury.

I cannot imagine that the NHS would pursue a policy of discrimination against an employee on the basis of 'religion' (whatever that wretched word means), if the practice the employee was demanding was irrelevant to patient well-being. But inevitably they will crack down if patient care is compromised.

There is no 'Alex Jones'-style conspiracy here. Just plain common sense medical priorities, methinks.

Casur1 #13

Your concerns have already been addressed by LSV in his first comments in #7

I think it's interesting that nobody's actually addressed anything I've written.

Like Peter, I think LSV has addressed the issue - whether you agree or not is another matter.

You think there is a deep anti Christian feeling bordering on hatred in Europe and the seeming disparity between how Christians and other religious adherents are treated is evidence of that. I think there is an altogether different explanation. As many of the godded on here never tire of telling us, Europe has a Christian heritage that still informs our culture for good and ill. Through the very act of being brought up in our culture we all, religious or not, know - to borrow an idea from Nagel - what it is like to be a Christian. So, when some fool - or someone with an agenda - comes along muttering about how we should follow Old Testament guff to the letter, we know it is not a mainstream Christian position.

Unfortunately, when an equivalent foolish or agenda driven Muslim or whatever comes along we are on less sure ground and a certain asymmetry arises. To the secularist, religious or not, the answer is simple - all religious pleading should be treated the same. No crosses, hijabs or Sikh daggers if they are inappropriate to the situation. Some countries, such as France, are more strict in this than others, such as the UK, with our genius for messy compromises that please no one.

But low level persecution of Christians? Come on.

I know. It's hard to think that what WE are doing could be regarded as even low-level persecution, isn't it? After all, WE'RE good people, aren't we, so we don't need to stop and look at our actions. Just take a look at the utterly ridiculous responses to my previous question. A skirt is less hygienic than trousers? What is remarkable is that people can actually convince themselves of such nonsense in order to square the circle of harrassment in their own minds. So much so, that even a believer like LSV (and I apologise in advance if I've misinterpreted him on this, but I get the impression he is at least sypathetic to the religious, if not religious himself) can imagine there is a compromise to be reached with such mentalities. You see, I can very easily imagine the NHS pursuing a policy of discrimination against employees of a certain religion since it is an arm of a government (and for this purpose, it makes absolutely no difference whether the government is Tory or Labour) which is actively de-Christianizing its society. Christianity is perceived as a 'white' religion, even where the specific adherant is black, Asian or whatever. For that purpose, it is therefore 'right-on' to have a pop at a Christian midwife for wishing to wear a skirt, an item of clothing which is surely no less hygienic than a turban. However, if you were to attempt to ban Sikhs from becoming doctors until they cut their hair and got rid of their turbans, the gates of 'tolerant society' hell would open. No, I'm sorry, but you're kidding yourselves on this one and your really need to wake up your ideas.

For the most part I agree with LSV.

I don't think the 'my religion [Christianity] does not permit me to wear trousers' argument is exegetically or hermeneutically defensible. But whether the question of Christian dress is maximally determined in the bible is not, it seems to me, the issue here.

The lady in question believes that a woman wearing trousers is forbidden in principle by the bible, and as such to wear trousers would be to violate her conscience. In the same way certain Muslims believe they are to dress in a particular way, and it is in respect of this belief that dress concessions are made.

The concern should be if the former is denied because she is a Christian or, if you like, not a Muslim, Hindu or something else.

If there are clinical reasons why trousers must be worn then I can't see that she has a case.

You see, I can very easily imagine... which is actively de-Christianizing its society.

And that is exactly what you are doing - imagining. Or do you have other examples of this de-Christianizing?

I think de-Christianizing society is a good thing.

It's not that I want christians to go away or I want them to stop believing it's just that I want a secular society which values no religion over any other or none.

Casur1, Is it perhaps possible that your persecution complex is actually a function of your sense that christianity is not that important to many people (including the government) and a feeling that your beliefs are not being given the special place you think they deserve. This frustrates many christians and in some cases makes them very vociferous (eg Stephen Green is (was) very rabid in this area).

A current scare tactic is that if we (the rest of the country) don't help preserve christian values (which we don't believe in) that we will be overrun by islam. This is a last gasp attempt to appeal to familiarity to stem the unknown and is well seen for what it is

Casur1

It interests me that you have moved from, 鈥淚t's as yet a long way from persecution, of course, but it is targeted and quite deliberate鈥� in #4 to, 鈥渓ow-level persecution鈥� in #18, but let's assume for a moment that you are correct.

What do you suggest the Christian鈥檚 response in circumstances of persecution should be?

For the sake of clarity I am a Christian, and am still of the opinion that LSV鈥檚 comments in #7 that I referred to earlier answer your concerns, directing us, if I might use theological language, from the 鈥榮hadows鈥�, to the 鈥榮ubstance鈥� of our faith.

In the context of this discussion, the words of an Orthodox Jew, Alan Hoffman, responding to John Allen's latest All Things Catholic article (see above) may be relevant;

"Judaism is not merely a faith or religion - its a people and a nation. The philosophy of faiths has some elasticity - the aspect of peoplehood and nationhood do not."

Secular-thinking folks tend to see Islam, in a similar way, more as a "people and a [group of] nation[s]", and thus tend to be more accommodating - more inclined to take their adherents seriously. Christianity is "only" a faith, so it tends to get shorter shrift.

In Old Testament times, men and women wore clothing that was superficially similar - long robes and wrapping garments were common for both sexes. Yet, the specific types of garments and the way in which they were worn made a clear distinction between the sexes, and this command instructs God鈥檚 people to respect those distinctions.


Some have taken this command to be the 鈥減roof-text鈥� against women wearing pants and some Christian groups command that women wear only dresses. Yet, this is not a command against women wearing a garment that in some ways might be common between men and women; it is a command against dressing in a manner which deliberately blurs the lines between the sexes.

Andrew

"If there are clinical reasons why trousers must be worn then I can't see that she has a case."

I take the view that whether or not a skirt is considered inappropriate on clinical grounds she should have to wear what her employer demands, provided that the employer demands nothing unreasonable. If both garments are equally "risky" I think an argument grounded in religion which seeks to change NHS policy should not hold sway. This is not to say that I would necessarily object to a person challenging a similar clause in a contact of employment - but the grounds for a challenge would not be religious.

The issue of Sikhs and crash helmets is interesting. There are good safety reasons for people to wear crash helmets, but Sikhs are exempt from wearing them on religious grounds. Could they not wear larger helmets over their turbans?

If there are clinical reasons why trousers must be worn then I can't see that she has a case.

Yep, was wondering that myself Andrew, and if there were any health and safety reasons for the trust insisting she wear trousers.

If there are, then she doesn't have grounds to object, religious or otherwise. If it's simply a case of the trust insisting on a certain dress code then she might very well have a case.

Surely, if this were the reason the NHS trust could make allowances ?

newlach

I take the view that whether or not a skirt is considered inappropriate on clinical grounds she should have to wear what her employer demands, provided that the employer demands nothing unreasonable

In general, I agree.

However, if exceptions are made then arbitrarily restricting the application of the principle would seem to be unfair. It would at least appear unfair to the person being denied.

If these were the circumstances then she might have a case.

There are no longer (thankfully) gender wear taboos. Industries often do have wardrobe restrictions for safety or even decorum reasons. Employees are expected to fit in or find work that suits their image.

I am sure looking forward to having sentient robots replace people in many jobs as they won't whine, will pay attention and most likely deliver better quality services.