You think America is the only country with ignorant religious right wing whiners? Think again! Jolly old England has its share of simpering godbots, such as the very British-named David Pryce-Jones over at NRO, who wrote a recent blog entry called:
Now we know that hyperbole knows no cultural boundaries.
Nadia Eweida and Shirley Chaplin are Christians who have had their lives made miserable for their faith.
Miserable! Oh, what unspeakable misery befell them? Were they imprisoned and enslaved for their faith, forced into hard labor under the threat of electrical shocks to their godly genitals?
Nadia Eweida wore a silver cross on a chain round her neck, until her employers, British Airways, suspended her for it.
Oh, well, that’s a bit of a letdown, especially since (SPOILER) in the next paragraph you’ll mention the fact that she sued them for it and won. Where exactly does the slavery come in?
Shirley Chaplin, a nurse, for 30 years had a crucifix on a necklace over her uniform, and the management of the Royal Devon National Health Hospital ordered her to remove it, on the absurd grounds of health and safety. A patient, they said, might have an accident pulling it.
Still not seeing any slavery. Also, you left out the part where her employer tried to reach a compromise:
The hospital previously said Mrs Chaplin been offered several alternative ways to wear her cross, but had chosen not to accept them.
So now we have hyperbole and lying by omission. Not to mention the fact that a nurse having something dangling off her neck while she’s close to a patient really could be a health hazard. But Mr. Pryce-Jones conveniently ignores this, because symbols are more important than actual human beings. The religious right really is the same no matter what country you’re from. They fetishize the symbols of their cult the same way everywhere, it seems.
At the same moment, Gary McFarlane, a marriage counselor, and Lillian Ladele, a registrar, have also given offence on account of their Christian conscience. Neither had any objection to homosexuality as such, but Mr. McFarlane asked to be excused from counseling same-sex couples, and Miss Ladele from marrying them. Both were fired.
How exactly is that slavery? They refused to do their job, so they got fired. Simple as that. Replace the term “same-sex” with “interracial” or “immigrant” and tell me if you still think it was wrong to fire them. Wait, on second thought, don’t. Your answer would probably make me even more depressed about humanity’s prospects for the future.
Legal proceedings finished in front of seven judges, none of them British, in the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
Believe it or not, this is where the slavery comes in… Eventually.
This court found in favor only of Miss Eweida; BA had interfered with her right to express her religion.
Second sentence of the second paragraph, and Pryce-Jones is already undermining the point he was trying to make. Cheerio, Guvnah!
Rejecting the claims of the three other defendants, the court is giving priority to political correctness over freedom of religious conscience.
Ah, there’s that favorite dog whistle word of the American religious right: Political Correctness. By juxtaposing this sentence with the one before it, it becomes obvious what “political correctness” means to these blabbering simpletons: If the courts rule in favor of the Christian, it’s “her right to express her religion”; if the courts rule against a Christian or in favor of a non-Christian, it’s “political correctness.”
But, no, it’s not political correctness. You seem to have forgotten the part where they refused to do their jobs. “Jesus says so” is not a good excuse for failing to meet your duties at work. If it were, I’d pretend-convert immediately.
Many sad aspects come together. The childish conformity of those taking these decisions to ban religious symbolism on behalf of BA and that Royal Devon hospital is unimaginable.
“Childish conformity” coming from a religious wanker is a real laugh riot. But I think someone must have spiked your crumpets, because there’s nothing childish about saying you have to do your job. Refusing to do one’s job because of evil, dirty fags, however….
One prejudice is being utilized to suppress another prejudice.
Well, at least you admit that religious belief is prejudice. That’s progress, right?
Freedom of worship is compromised.
No, it’s not.
Christianity is further marginalized.
You say that like it’s a bad thing.
Not a single churchman has come forward to defend these Christians…
Gee, I wonder why. Maybe it’s because the clergy don’t want to be associated with people who use God as an excuse to be lazy at work. Or maybe it’s because the church will only intervene if the church has something to gain from it, which in these cases they clearly don’t.
or if there is one, then he is doing it so discreetly that the mainstream media do not report him.
“Mainstream media”! I love playing Bible-humper Bingo!
Saddest of all, foreign judges now decide the behavior and beliefs of British people. Those same British people once used to sing that they never never never would be slaves.
Slavery! Finally! I thought we’d never actually get to the point of your fucking blog post.
But I fail to see how the European Court is the same thing as slavery. It’s not like any of these people were put in chains and forced to pick cotton in some bumfucked nowheresville in southern Mississippi. One of them even won her case! How is that slavery?
Obviously it’s nothing of the sort. In reality, this is just naked xenophobia and nationalism. It’s slavery because the people who made the decision weren’t British. Which is to say, it’s the same old bullshit you see from the extreme right wing here in this country, just gussied up in British pomposity. How do you say “Them durn foreigners!” in Pommy Limey Git speak?
And of course, we have one more big whopper of a lie by omission at work here. From the court docket:
Application nos. 48420/10 and 59842/10
by Nadia EWEIDA and Shirley CHAPLIN
against the United Kingdom
lodged on 10 August and 29 September 2010
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The first applicant, Ms Nadia Eweida, is a British national who was born in 1951 and lives in Twickenham. She is represented before the Court by Mr T. Elli of Aughton Ainsworth, a firm of solicitors practising in Manchester. The second applicant, Ms S. Chaplin, is a British national who was born in 1955 and who lives in Exeter. She is represented before the Court by Ms L. Blaxall of the Christian Legal Centre, London and Mr P. Diamond, a barrister practising in Cambridge.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
Yup. They applied to the European court themselves. No one forced them to go before this court. They did so all on their own. So let’s get this straight: People applying, of their own free will, to a Human Rights court, and one of them even winning her case? That’s “slavery.” But people being denied basic services like counseling or a marriage license on the grounds that they’re queer fag homos? That’s “religious expression.”
Basically, “slavery” means Christians not getting to determine other people’s lives. And “political correctness” means non-Christians might actually getting their own way every now and then. Sound familiar? There really is no difference between the religious right in America and its slimey manifestation in any other country. The only way they know how to “express” themselves is by sanctimoniously interfering with other people’s lives. If they can’t deny services to gay people, then they feel enslaved. If they can’t pose a health risk to others by flaunting their silly god-trinkets around, then they feel enslaved. Even when they win their case and are allowed to show off their stupid Jesus junk, they’re still enslaved because the guys who awarded them a victory were of a different nationality! And one of them might have spoken French or something! Oh, the humanity!
Well, Mr. Pryce-Jones, all I can tell you is I have little sympathy for a “slave” who has the benefit of a Human Rights court, whose only complaint is that he/she didn’t want to do his/her job if gay people were involved, and who entered this relationship entirely of his/her free will. I do, however, have sympathy for the poor European judges who had to listen to what must have been a seemingly endless parade of hair-brained, bigoted excuses for why one’s professional duties cease to be in effect in the presence of homos. That must have been almost as excruciating as reading the NRO. Almost.