All In A Day's Reporting

The UK Daily Mail reports British hospital management took a nurse off 'frontline' duty because she refused to hide her faith. No surprise that she's Christian:

A Christian nurse was taken off frontline duties after she refused to take off a necklace bearing a cross.

Management claimed it was for patient safety:

The hospital trust said today that necklaces were banned as there was a small risk that confused patients could grab them and cause injury.

and:

The policy was nothing to do with the cross itself which could be worn inside (not outside) her lapel

because:

"...the Trust considers the wearing of a necklace to be a risk, albeit small, within a clinical setting because patients, particularly those who may be confused, do sometimes grab for items when being moved."

so:

"If a member of staff asked if they could wear a crucifix pinned on their uniform lapel this would not comply with the same policy for the same reasons but it would be acceptable to wear it if pinned inside their uniform lapel or pocket."

In other words, the display of the crucifix is the offence as logic suggests a patient may be injured grabbing at a lapel with a crucifix on the inside as equally as grabbing at a lapel with a crucifix on the outside.

Better hide your opinions too. The same edition of the Daily Mail reports:

A Christian couple have been charged with a criminal offence after taking part in what they regarded as a reasonable discussion about religion with guests at their hotel.

Ben and Sharon Vogelenzang were arrested after a Muslim woman complained to police that she had been offended by their comments. They have been charged under public order laws with using ‘threatening, abusive or insulting words’ that were ‘religiously aggravated’.

The couple, whose trial has been set for December, face a fine of up to £5,000 and a criminal record if they are convicted.

Their offence was to state historical facts in the course of a discussion somebody else started:

It is understood that they suggested that Mohammed, the founder of Islam, was a warlord and that traditional Muslim dress for women was a form of bondage.

Meanwhile, yet again in the same edition of the Daily Mail, non-Muslims are instructed in matters of respect and consideration:

Home Office staff were officially warned not to eat in front of their fasting Muslim colleagues during Ramadan – in case it made them feel hungry. The advice came in a taxpayer-funded internal document listing do’s and don’ts during the Muslim holy month, which ends this weekend.

In unsurprising developments, a Muslim group takes offence at attempts not to cause offence:

The Muslim Public Affairs Committee, which claims to be fighting a ‘political jihad against Islamophobia’, attacked the document. It said: ‘It is designed to create more hatred in the hearts of non-Muslims.

Damned if you do, and damned if you don't.

-- Nick