Problem: Working on a Sunday

Jester Minute

I applied recently to a position with a leading retailer via their online system. You were asked what days and times you were available. I indicated that I wouldn't be available to work Sundays. I don't like working on Sundays. I believe that Christians should, whenever possible, avoid Sunday work. Of course there are exceptions, including the professional and financial reasons.

However, it highlights a problem for Christians and a subtle discrimination trap they may fall into. If you don't indicate that you have a problem with Sunday working on the application, you can't very will bring it up as an issue later, but if you do reveal that you have a problem with Sunday working on the application, then you leave yourself open to discrimination, since employers may want someone who is flexible and has no issue with Sunday working. Of course, I am flexible - if the store was short of staff I would be willing to work the odd Sunday, but not as a rule. Shouldn't there be provision for that preference, based on religious reasons and observance?

I was invited for interview, and I did a good interview and the interviewer was visibly impressed and commented as such. However, I haven't heard back from them, despite being told I would hear back by last Friday. So I am wondering.

But I am mainly interested in your thoughts and opinions on Sunday working for Christians, as well as the little trap which I have highlighted above. Is there any way around it?

Fanny Cradock

Jester Minute wrote: »

I believe that Christians should, whenever possible, avoid Sunday work.

Why?

Jester Minute

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Why?

The Sabbath is a day of rest. Whilst there is no absolute prohibition against work on Sundays, it is preferable, whenever possible that Christians do not work on a Sunday and are able to fulfil their obligations and meet their own spiritual, family, and other needs.

Check out what the Catechism has to say on the matter:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c1a3.htm

A day of grace and rest from work

2184 Just as God "rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had done,"121 human life has a rhythm of work and rest. The institution of the Lord's Day helps everyone enjoy adequate rest and leisure to cultivate their familial, cultural, social, and religious lives.122

2185 On Sundays and other holy days of obligation, the faithful are to refrain from engaging in work or activities that hinder the worship owed to God, the joy proper to the Lord's Day, the performance of the works of mercy, and the appropriate relaxation of mind and body.123 Family needs or important social service can legitimately excuse from the obligation of Sunday rest. The faithful should see to it that legitimate excuses do not lead to habits prejudicial to religion, family life, and health.

The charity of truth seeks holy leisure- the necessity of charity accepts just work.124

2186 Those Christians who have leisure should be mindful of their brethren who have the same needs and the same rights, yet cannot rest from work because of poverty and misery. Sunday is traditionally consecrated by Christian piety to good works and humble service of the sick, the infirm, and the elderly. Christians will also sanctify Sunday by devoting time and care to their families and relatives, often difficult to do on other days of the week. Sunday is a time for reflection, silence, cultivation of the mind, and meditation which furthers the growth of the Christian interior life.

2187 Sanctifying Sundays and holy days requires a common effort. Every Christian should avoid making unnecessary demands on others that would hinder them from observing the Lord's Day. Traditional activities (sport, restaurants, etc.), and social necessities (public services, etc.), require some people to work on Sundays, but everyone should still take care to set aside sufficient time for leisure. With temperance and charity the faithful will see to it that they avoid the excesses and violence sometimes associated with popular leisure activities. In spite of economic constraints, public authorities should ensure citizens a time intended for rest and divine worship. Employers have a similar obligation toward their employees.

2188 In respecting religious liberty and the common good of all, Christians should seek recognition of Sundays and the Church's holy days as legal holidays. They have to give everyone a public example of prayer, respect, and joy and defend their traditions as a precious contribution to the spiritual life of society. If a country's legislation or other reasons require work on Sunday, the day should nevertheless be lived as the day of our deliverance which lets us share in this "festal gathering," this "assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven."125

and also:

IN BRIEF

2189 "Observe the sabbath day, to keep it holy" (Deut 5:12). "The seventh day is a sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the Lord" (Ex 31:15).

2190 The sabbath, which represented the completion of the first creation, has been replaced by Sunday which recalls the new creation inaugurated by the Resurrection of Christ.

2191 The Church celebrates the day of Christ's Resurrection on the "eighth day," Sunday, which is rightly called the Lord's Day (cf. SC 106).

2192 "Sunday . . . is to be observed as the foremost holy day of obligation in the universal Church" (CIC, can. 1246 # 1). "On Sundays and other holy days of obligation the faithful are bound to participate in the Mass" (CIC, can. 1247).

2193 "On Sundays and other holy days of obligation the faithful are bound . . . to abstain from those labors and business concerns which impede the worship to be rendered to God, the joy which is proper to the Lord's Day, or the proper relaxation of mind and body" (CIC, can. 1247).

2194 The institution of Sunday helps all "to be allowed sufficient rest and leisure to cultivate their amilial, cultural, social, and religious lives" (GS 67 # 3).

2195 Every Christian should avoid making unnecessary demands on others that would hinder them from observing the Lord's Day.

But I am not so much interested in a debate about Sunday work or reasons for or against - more so the problem that I have highlighted above in terms of recruitment.

As I said, I don't like working on Sundays. It feels wrong to me and I want no part in the commercialisation of Sundays. The question is, is there provision for this in employment or not, and if not, why not? And also, are Christians at risk of discrimination in recruitment because of their religious convictions?




_

wolfsbane

Jester Minute wrote: »

I applied recently to a position with a leading retailer via their online system. You were asked what days and times you were available. I indicated that I wouldn't be available to work Sundays. I don't like working on Sundays. I believe that Christians should, whenever possible, avoid Sunday work. Of course there are exceptions, including the professional and financial reasons.

However, it highlights a problem for Christians and a subtle discrimination trap they may fall into. If you don't indicate that you have a problem with Sunday working on the application, you can't very will bring it up as an issue later, but if you do reveal that you have a problem with Sunday working on the application, then you leave yourself open to discrimination, since employers may want someone who is flexible and has no issue with Sunday working. Of course, I am flexible - if the store was short of staff I would be willing to work the odd Sunday, but not as a rule. Shouldn't there be provision for that preference, based on religious reasons and observance?

I was invited for interview, and I did a good interview and the interviewer was visibly impressed and commented as such. However, I haven't heard back from them, despite being told I would hear back by last Friday. So I am wondering.

But I am mainly interested in your thoughts and opinions on Sunday working for Christians, as well as the little trap which I have highlighted above. Is there any way around it?

I share your approach. I don't hold Sunday as the Sabbath, but it is the Lord's Day, the day the Christians in the NT met together for worship. They would not have had a day off like we mostly do on Sunday, so they had to meet before or after work, and we could get to that stage too. But when we have the liberty to meet at socially convenient hours, we should make the best of it and not let it slip away unopposed.

As to discrimination job-wise, it depends on what laws you have in your State. As far as I'm aware in the U.K., some protection exists for those who prefer not to work on Sunday. I can't see that lasting, however, with the atheist agenda growing.
_________________________________________________________________
John 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

Jester Minute

wolfsbane wrote: »

I share your approach. I don't hold Sunday as the Sabbath, but it is the Lord's Day, the day the Christians in the NT met together for worship. They would not have had a day off like we mostly do on Sunday, so they had to meet before or after work, and we could get to that stage too. But when we have the liberty to meet at socially convenient hours, we should make the best of it and not let it slip away unopposed.

As to discrimination job-wise, it depends on what laws you have in your State. As far as I'm aware in the U.K., some protection exists for those who prefer not to work on Sunday. I can't see that lasting, however, with the atheist agenda growing.
_________________________________________________________________
John 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

Whilst there might be a 'law', in practise, it could be meaningless in practise, since a potential employer can see your preference and ditch your application into the bin. There's no way round this, as I see it. If you don't state your preference during the application, you can't mention it later. So what do you do?

wolfsbane

Jester Minute wrote: »

Whilst there might be a 'law', in practise, it could be meaningless in practise, since a potential employer can see your preference and ditch your application into the bin. There's no way round this, as I see it. If you don't state your preference during the application, you can't mention it later. So what do you do?

Publish and be damned! binned!

__________________________________________________________________
Matthew 10:32 “Therefore whoever confesses Me before men, him I will also confess before My Father who is in heaven.

28064212

How is it different for any one who doesn't want to work on a given day (or days)? Plenty of people have differing commitments, some of them strict ones. From an employer's point of view: the reason for not being available is completely irrelevant. It might be because they play a sport and they have a game on Sunday, it might be because they need to visit their family, it might be their religion. The reason doesn't matter to the employer

Jester Minute

wolfsbane wrote: »

Publish and be damned! binned!

__________________________________________________________________
Matthew 10:32 “Therefore whoever confesses Me before men, him I will also confess before My Father who is in heaven.

Seems a bit unsatisfactory. I will let y'all know if I am successful despite my preference for not working Sundays. But I believe I have highlighted a problem and one that should be addressed. We can already see that a law does not actually protect religious minorities*. It used to be that shops didn't open on Sundays, but that's all changed now. How it could be addressed I'm not sure.

* Pertaining to Sunday working in the UK, adoption of kids by Christian couples unwilling to condone homosexuality, medical professionals forced to assist with abortions, pharmacists sacked because they won't dispense contraception and abortifacients and so on.

Jester Minute

28064212 wrote: »

How is it different for any one who doesn't want to work on a given day (or days)? Plenty of people have differing commitments, some of them strict ones. From an employer's point of view: the reason for not being available is completely irrelevant. It might be because they play a sport and they have a game on Sunday, it might be because they need to visit their family, it might be their religion. The reason doesn't matter to the employer

Christians have good reason for not wanting to work SUnday. it is my own personal religious conviction that I shouldn't work Sundays. My Catholic faith doesn't issue strong directives either way. If you read the Catechism quotes above you'll see that. The question is, should I be compelled to work Sundays against my strongly held religious convictions?

Allowances are already made for other religions, including for Sikhs who wear the turban no matter what they are doing and carry the little dagger on their belt, but Christians can't even wear a cross on an aeroplane!

28064212

Jester Minute wrote: »

Christians have good reason for not wanting to work SUnday. it is my own personal religious conviction that I shouldn't work Sundays. My Catholic faith doesn't issue strong directives either way. If you read the Catechism quotes above you'll see that. The question is, should I be compelled to work Sundays against my strongly held religious convictions?

No-one can compel you to work Sundays. However, an employer can hold it against you if it's a necessary part of the job (or even if it just makes you a less attractive option for the position).

Say I have an elderly mother with a kidney problem, needs to be taken for dialysis every Sunday. It's a day-long round-trip and I'm her only mode of transport. Obviously, I will never be available on Sundays. Should I be able to hide that from an employer who specifically asks that I be available on weekends? Should you be treated any differently to me because your reason is religious?

Puck

I don't think Christians should expect special treatment and have their desire for Sundays off be treated any different than anyone else who would like a certain day off from work as a rule. We need to get out of the mindset that the world should co-operate with and validate our faith. Ask for Sundays off if you want it, but don't expect any special treatment because your reason is a religious one.

Jester Minute

Puck wrote: »

I don't think Christians should expect special treatment and have their desire for Sundays off be treated any different than anyone else who would like a certain day off from work as a rule. We need to get out of the mindset that the world should co-operate with and validate our faith. Ask for Sundays off if you want it, but don't expect any special treatment because your reason is a religious one.

We can't expect such things in a post-Christian, and increasingly anti-Christian Europe. That is one reason perhaps for the introduction of Saturday evening vigil Masses.

The good news is, I got the job - even with my indicated preference for no Sunday work!

Jester Minute

Jester Minute wrote: »

Christians have good reason for not wanting to work SUnday. it is my own personal religious conviction that I shouldn't work Sundays. My Catholic faith doesn't issue strong directives either way. If you read the Catechism quotes above you'll see that. The question is, should I be compelled to work Sundays against my strongly held religious convictions?

If getting up before noon is strongly against my religious convictions, would I have a similar case?

I am not trying to be a dick, I am just curious: you can believe whatever you want, but why are you deserving of special treatment? If you don't want to work Sundays, get a weekday job; there are still plenty of them out there (I have one, for example).

If Jehovah's Witness doctors refused to perform blood transfusions or atheists refuses to work in shopping centres around Christmas because they'd be exposed to so much Christianity, they'd be both laughed at and unemployed. Thankfully, I don't know any atheists who'd be so childish (I'm not calling you childish, but the character of my extreme analogy is).

Edit: just read your last post. Sincere congrats on getting the job!

Jester Minute

Jester Minute wrote: »

Christians have good reason for not wanting to work SUnday. it is my own personal religious conviction that I shouldn't work Sundays.

Plenty of people have good reason not to work on a particular day. You aren't special.

Congrats on the job.

Jester Minute

Jester Minute wrote: »

We can't expect such things in a post-Christian, and increasingly anti-Christian Europe.

Which parallel universe has an anti christian europe?
One group of you throwing stats at us about christianity growing to show it's not even remotely dying out, and the other group claiming it's "anti christian" when you decide you don't want to work on a certain day.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_by_country <- THAT number does not look "anti christian" to me.

wolfsbane wrote: »

As to discrimination job-wise, it depends on what laws you have in your State. As far as I'm aware in the U.K., some protection exists for those who prefer not to work on Sunday. I can't see that lasting, however, with the atheist agenda growing.

Way to forget the secular theists.

philologos

bluewolf wrote: »

Way to forget the secular theists.

That's a paradox.
secular - of or relating to the doctrine that rejects religion and religious considerations
theist - one who believes in the existence of a god or gods

Perhaps you mean theists who support governmental secularism.

Jakkass

Jakkass wrote: »

That's a paradox.
secular - of or relating to the doctrine that rejects religion and religious considerations
theist - one who believes in the existence of a god or gods

Perhaps you mean theists who support governmental secularism.

Call me lazy :pac:

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

That's a paradox.
secular - of or relating to the doctrine that rejects religion and religious considerations
theist - one who believes in the existence of a god or gods

Perhaps you mean theists who support governmental secularism.

Well technically secular means "of the age", and was used to distinguish between temporal Earthly concerns (taxes, or poor people for example) as opposed to infinite Godly concerns (salvation, mass etc).

So it is not so much a rejection of religion, but a separation between Earthly temporal concerns and religious concerns such as salvation. For example religious leaders may talk about secular work that religious people should do such as feeding the poor that doesn't directly relate to issues such as salvation.

A secular government is only concerned with secular issues, where as a theist himself can be concerned with secular issues and religious issues. Working on Sunday is a religious concern, not a secular one. A secular government therefore will not recognize specific religious notions over any other notions.

So they may have a notion like you cannot require someone to work more than 5 days a week for health reasons (a secular reason) they aren't going to have a notion that you can't have someone work on Sunday's because it displeases God (a Godly reason) privilege.

The painting (by others not you) of a secular government not stopping employers from having positions that require work on Sunday as anti-Christian is rather inaccurate. A secular government is simply not concerning itself with Godly issues.

Fanny Cradock

It seems to me that the meaning of the word secular has shifted and it is now synonymous with atheism - at least with certain folks.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

It seems to me that the meaning of the word secular has shifted and it is now synonymous with atheism - at least with certain folks.

Possibly, in my experience those folks seem to be theists who don't like secular governments that much though. The occasional gentle reminder that secularism is actually a theistic idea is always useful :pac:

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

Possibly, in my experience those folks seem to be theists who don't like secular governments that much though. The occasional gentle reminder that secularism is actually a theistic idea is always useful :pac:

That might well be true. I've certainly encountered a number of Christians who equate secularism with atheism. Of course, at this stage we probably need to ask what one means by secularism. Because I've also encountered atheists (the evangelical kind) who also seem to think that secularism means that religion is put out of the public square.

philologos

Saying that a person is secular, is rather different than saying that someone is an advocate of a secular government with the recognition that secularism is meant to affirm freedom of religion. I'd support the latter but I'm certainly not a secular person.

Secular government, pluralist society, whatever people decide is most reasonable people. All need to be distinguished from each other.

Wicknight: It appears something got lost in translation.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

Wicknight: It appears something got lost in translation.

My post was more in response to this bit "of or relating to the doctrine that rejects religion and religious considerations"

Secular doesn't mean to reject religion. It means to concern yourself with non-religious areas. A theist can do this as well when they are say voting or building a car.

Ultimately it comes down to how someone views the separation between Godly aspects of life and Earthly aspects of life.

A secular government would concern itself only with Earthly issues, even though the individuals who make up the government may be theists. It is not an atheist government, it is not rejecting religion.

I agree that a secular person is some what vague notion. Taken literally it means someone who only concerns themselves with Earthly issues. In the context of Christianity that would imply the person isn't a Christian.

philologos

Blame Google - type "define secular" in there.

There is a difference between claiming that a person is a secular person, and that they support secularism at a State governance level. Likewise there is a difference between a pluralism and a secular society. (Pluralism being a society where people have different beliefs, Secular society being a society where people are broadly irreligious). At least that is how I would distinguish them. A secular government being one where legislation is created based on merit. People can have opinions as to what is most merited, but ultimately what is most reasonable to those in the chamber of representatives will be decided upon.

We can very very easily use these terms inappropriately, as such clarification is always needed.

Ultimately it comes down to how someone views the separation between Godly aspects of life and Earthly aspects of life.

I don't believe there is a separation. God to Christians is Lord over the earth.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

Blame Google - type "define secular" in there.

My only point is secular != atheism.

That seems to be a anti-secular straw man, oh no, the atheists want to oppress us! sort of thing (not saying you are doing that, I'm referring to Wolfsbane's post).

philologos

I've never said it was. I'm saying there is an incompatibility between saying someone is a secular person, and being a theist. I'm personally not a secular person in any function, as in all activities I hold to a belief in God.

Your example here:

Secular doesn't mean to reject religion. It means to concern yourself with non-religious areas. A theist can do this as well when they are say voting or building a car.

is interesting, but to a Christian all things are to be done to God's glory including these surely? (from a Scriptural view) - Again, could make for an interesting discussion.

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

My only point is secular != atheism.

That seems to be a anti-secular straw man, oh no, the atheists want to oppress us! sort of thing (not saying you are doing that, I'm referring to Wolfsbane's post).

In fairness to Wolfsbane, he was talking about the "atheist agenda" and not, as far as I could see, specifically secularism. Wolfsbane might need to expand on what he means by this - for my part, I think it is a gross simplification to talk about the "atheist agenda" - but perhaps that is best left to another thread.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

I've never said it was.

Like I said I was referring to this

secular - of or relating to the doctrine that rejects religion and religious considerations

Atheism is a rejection of religion and religious considerations. Secularism isn't necessarily. You don't have to reject religion to hold to secular opinions.

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm saying there is an incompatibility between saying someone is a secular person, and being a theist. I'm personally not a secular person in any function, as in all activities I hold to a belief in God.

Again it is not about not holding a belief in God (there is a double negative in there somewhere :P)

The term secular was used since the Middle Ages by Christians to refer to aspects of society that did not relate to the infinite issues of God.

For example whether or not it is a fire hazard to park your car in front of a hospital is a secular question. That doesn't mean a theist has no opinion on it.

I'm reminded of the Simpsons quote

Homer: Uh, this isn't going to be about Jesus, is it?
Lovejoy: All things are about Jesus, Homer ... except this.

philologos

Wicknight - It's rather simple. The way I am seeing it is a secular person is entirely different than an advocate for State level secularism. Wholly different. Secular living on an individual level, is completely contrary to that of a life inspired by Christ.

I draw lines between
1. Individual
2. Societal
3. Governmental

The only kind of secularism I advocate is the final one.

I am in no way shape or form a person who would advocate secular living on an individual level (as it can in no way shape or form be compatible with a Christ-inspired life), or a secular society (rather than a pluralism).

Call it the Jakkass philosophy of the secular.

Edit: By the by, secular was used in the Middle Ages for teaching staff in the universities who were priests but who did not subscribe to any of the religious orders such as the Dominicans, or the Augustinians for example. Cropped up in the auld Medieval Philosophy course. Of course we're dealing with secular in the modern.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

Wicknight - It's rather simple. The way I am seeing it is a secular person is entirely different than an advocate for State level secularism. Wholly different. Secular living on an individual level, is completely contrary to that of a life inspired by Christ.

I draw lines between
1. Individual
2. Societal
3. Governmental

The only kind of secularism I advocate is the final one.

I'm not disputing that. I'm disputing the notion that to concern yourself with a secular issues (should I buy the DVD player with the HDMI cable or just the RGB cable? What dog food do I buy if my dog has worms? Where is the best place to put that plant?) mean to reject religion.

A secular government is not rejecting religion. It is merely limiting itself to what it is concerned with.

If that isn't what you meant, my objection is cheerfully withdrawn :P

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

A secular government is not rejecting religion. It is merely limiting itself to what it is concerned with.

I haven't said this once - Read my posts please!

All I'm saying is that one is not a secular person in any respect if they believe in a god or gods. Even when one is performing an activity not to do with ones religion such as getting a HDMI cable, or programming Java in Eclipse (except if the software is Christian oriented or in order to fulfil God's purposes in some other way). I still actively believe in God while doing all these things. Therefore I am not a "secular person".

That's surely not that difficult to understand?

Dewdropdeb

Back to the original topic...

Discrimination based on religion is illegal in Ireland. Period.
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/enforcement_and_redress/equality_tribunal.html

But this situation could be interpreted in many ways. First of all, they don't know from an application that you don't want to work Sundays because of religious reasons, so even if that was a reason for rejection, you wouldn't have any basis to report them.

Personally I wouldn't have put anything down and just gone into the job. My husband works in retail management and he basically makes sure he has two saturdays and two sundays off each month. We do Saturday night mass on the weeks he has to work Sunday. And he's not even Catholic!

Most managers will work something out with you and once inside the job you can say you have religious reasons for needing this time and THEN if there's an issue you have a breach of equality laws. You bet your ass if it was a Muslim asking, there'd be no problem at all. :rolleyes:

Aside: If it was a large German retailer tho... believe me, you're better off! PM for details. :mad:

PDN

Dewdropdeb wrote: »

Back to the original topic...

Discrimination based on religion is illegal in Ireland. Period.
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/enforcement_and_redress/equality_tribunal.html

But this situation could be interpreted in many ways. First of all, they don't know from an application that you don't want to work Sundays because of religious reasons, so even if that was a reason for rejection, you wouldn't have any basis to report them.

Personally I wouldn't have put anything down and just gone into the job. My husband works in retail management and he basically makes sure he has two saturdays and two sundays off each month. We do Saturday night mass on the weeks he has to work Sunday. And he's not even Catholic!

Most managers will work something out with you and once inside the job you can say you have religious reasons for needing this time and THEN if there's an issue you have a breach of equality laws. You bet your ass if it was a Muslim asking, there'd be no problem at all. :rolleyes:

Aside: If it was a large German retailer tho... believe me, you're better off! PM for details. :mad:

I think there's a fundamental misunderstanding in this thread about what constitutes discrimination and equality.

Giving special privileges in the workplace based on religious affiliation is not equality. Nor is it discrimination to say to a Christian, "You are expected to work the same days, shifts and hours as non-Christians."

If Christians want to arrange their hours around their church activities then they deserve the same flexibility that would be extended to anyone who is trying to arrange their working hours around secular activities. So the person who wants to avoid working Sundays so they can attend chuch should receive the same measure of cooperation (no more and no less) than a worker who wants Sundays off so they can play GAA.

Of course, to avoid discrimination, this policy needs to be equally extended to all, be they Christians, Jews, Muslims or non-believers.

There seems to be an attitude among some Christians that says, "We should get special perks and exemptions because of our faith, and if we don't then we're being discriminated against!" This attitude of crying wolf IMHO is very damaging as it makes it difficult to highlight cases of genuine discrimination when they do occur.

Btw, many of our church members have discovered that the best approach to this problem is to be the most diligent and conscientious workers they can be. When this happens they are appreciated more by their employers and their managers/employers are inclined to be more flexible in arranging their hours - not because they deserve special privileges as Christians, but because it makes good business sense to keep your most productive workers happy.

Fanny Cradock

PDN wrote: »

There seems to be an attitude among some Christians that says, "We should get special perks and exemptions because of our faith, and if we don't then we're being discriminated against!" This attitude of crying wolf IMHO is very damaging as it makes it difficult to highlight cases of genuine discrimination when they do occur.

Yes, that does seem to be an all too evident response within some Christian circles. While not agreeing with it, I think it is a very understandable reaction. Societal values have changed and not everyone likes change, especially if the result is a decline in the status once enjoyed. Christianity no longer receives the special privileges that it once did in this country, and while I think that is largely a good thing, not everyone agrees.

While there are Christians who are happy to cry wolf when they are denied privilege, I've also noticed their worrying voice of their counterparts - those who believe that Christians undergo no discrimination because of their faith, or if they do it isn't that bad and maybe, just maybe, it's something they deserve a little.

Jester Minute

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Yes, that does seem to be an all too evident response within some Christian circles. While not agreeing with it, I think it is a very understandable reaction. Societal values have changed and not everyone likes change, especially if the result is a decline in the status once enjoyed. Christianity no longer receives the special privileges that it once did in this country, and while I think that is largely a good thing, not everyone agrees.

While there are Christians who are happy to cry wolf when they are denied privilege, I've also noticed their worrying voice of their counterparts - those who believe that Christians undergo no discrimination because of their faith, or if they do it isn't that bad and maybe, just maybe, it's something they deserve a little.

All this tip-toeing about gets on my nerves, whether it be this issue, or the issue about Crucifixes or any other. It's all PC/liberal-garbage and I have zero time for it. Don't even start me. If Christians want privilege, they are going to have to take it. That may take some cunning or whatever, so be it.

Fanny Cradock

Jester Minute wrote: »

All this tip-toeing about gets on my nerves, whether it be this issue, or the issue about Crucifixes or any other. It's all PC/liberal-garbage and I have zero time for it. Don't even start me. If Christians want privilege, they are going to have to take it. That may take some cunning or whatever, so be it.

Sorry. What?

Jester Minute

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Sorry. What?

Just what I said. You might like to thank me.

28064212

Jester Minute wrote: »

All this tip-toeing about gets on my nerves, whether it be this issue, or the issue about Crucifixes or any other. It's all PC/liberal-garbage and I have zero time for it. Don't even start me. If Christians want privilege, they are going to have to take it. That may take some cunning or whatever, so be it.

So what are you for exactly? Special privileges for all religions? For Christian religions? Or just Catholicism?

You started this thread about a "subtle discrimination" trap, now you want special privileges?

Fanny Cradock

Jester Minute wrote: »

Just what I said. You might like to thank me.

Why would I thank you when I don't understand what you are saying?

homer911

PDN wrote: »

Btw, many of our church members have discovered that the best approach to this problem is to be the most diligent and conscientious workers they can be. When this happens they are appreciated more by their employers and their managers/employers are inclined to be more flexible in arranging their hours - not because they deserve special privileges as Christians, but because it makes good business sense to keep your most productive workers happy.

Protestant Christian Work Ethic?

(Thats crossed out, in case you cant tell)

Improbable

Ignoring Jester's somewhat religious superiority argument, I'd just like to ask this. Of those people who think that religious reasons to not work on a Sunday are valid, does this only extend to christianity or to all religions? And is it only for religion that such a concession should be made or for any other given reason as well?

philologos

Improbable wrote: »

Ignoring Jester's somewhat religious superiority argument, I'd just like to ask this. Of those people who think that religious reasons to not work on a Sunday are valid, does this only extend to christianity or to all religions? And is it only for religion that such a concession should be made or for any other given reason as well?

Reasons not to work on Sunday or to have a day off during the week are also valid even on a secular level.

I think PDN's answer is excellent. Christians are called to serve their employers to the best of their ability, and to serve them as they would the Lord. I aspire to this, but it is obvious that I fall short from time to time. Generally at work I have most Sundays in the year off, but from time to time I am rostered to do them. Do I just seek them off all the time, or do I work the odd Sunday? - The answer is I'd try to work the odd Sunday in order to serve my employer.

The Christian views of Sabbath allow me to do this also.

Just because one holds a position doesn't mean ones employer has to oblige them. If an employer needs people to do Sunday work, and if the applicant won't do it, then of course the employer is going to look to the person who says that they can do it. This isn't discrimination, this is an employer trying to find the best employee for a job description.

Edit: I think the desire for Christians to seek extra privilege in their societies is contrary to the Gospel. Indeed, the desire for Christians to enforce Christian doctrine in law expresses doubt that God is really Lord over all creation. In doubting this, we resort to imposing our beliefs and trying to rule on behalf of God which will never work.

georgieporgy

Jester Minute wrote: »

All this tip-toeing about gets on my nerves, whether it be this issue, or the issue about Crucifixes or any other. It's all PC/liberal-garbage and I have zero time for it. Don't even start me. If Christians want privilege, they are going to have to take it. That may take some cunning or whatever, so be it.

I can't remember the exact biblical quote offhand, but didn't Jesus say "you have to be as cunning as foxes" somewhere? Help me out please , anybody who is more fluent in Scripture.

wolfsbane

Fanny Cradock said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wicknight
My only point is secular != atheism.

That seems to be a anti-secular straw man, oh no, the atheists want to oppress us! sort of thing (not saying you are doing that, I'm referring to Wolfsbane's post).
In fairness to Wolfsbane, he was talking about the "atheist agenda" and not, as far as I could see, specifically secularism. Wolfsbane might need to expand on what he means by this - for my part, I think it is a gross simplification to talk about the "atheist agenda" - but perhaps that is best left to another thread.

Here's my words:
As far as I'm aware in the U.K., some protection exists for those who prefer not to work on Sunday. I can't see that lasting, however, with the atheist agenda growing.

All I'm saying there is that residual elements of our Christian national heritage are likely to disappear altogether, as that is part of the atheist agenda. Far more serious departures from Christian practices are already with us - the rehabilitation of homosexuality, fornication, adultery, drunkenness, for example. We haven't reached the preaching of the gospel being banned and its adherents sent to re-education camps or psychiatric wards, but we're getting there.

I find Sunday as a normal rest day a great convenience and would be sad to see it go - but it's not a big deal. It will not stop me from meeting with God's people in NT fashion.
_________________________________________________________________
1 Timothy 2:1 Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, 2 for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence.

wolfsbane

georgieporgy wrote: »

I can't remember the exact biblical quote offhand, but didn't Jesus say "you have to be as cunning as foxes" somewhere? Help me out please , anybody who is more fluent in Scripture.

This might be what you are after:
Matthew 10:16 “Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves. Therefore be wise as serpents and harmless as doves.

Seems rather different from Jester's suggestion. The urge for power led to the RCC, so he is not being inconsistent with his Church, but it just shows how man's tradition has overthrown the commandments of God.

The follow-on passage shows clearly that Christ's Church will be the persecuted, not the persecutor:
Matthew 10:17 But beware of men, for they will deliver you up to councils and scourge you in their synagogues. 18 You will be brought before governors and kings for My sake, as a testimony to them and to the Gentiles. 19 But when they deliver you up, do not worry about how or what you should speak. For it will be given to you in that hour what you should speak; 20 for it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you.
21 “Now brother will deliver up brother to death, and a father his child; and children will rise up against parents and cause them to be put to death. 22 And you will be hated by all for My name’s sake. But he who endures to the end will be saved. 23 When they persecute you in this city, flee to another. For assuredly, I say to you, you will not have gone through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.
24 “A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master. 25 It is enough for a disciple that he be like his teacher, and a servant like his master. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more will they call those of his household! 26 Therefore do not fear them. For there is nothing covered that will not be revealed, and hidden that will not be known.



_________________________________________________________________
1 Timothy 2:1 Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, 2 for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence.

Jester Minute

Jakkass wrote: »

Reasons not to work on Sunday or to have a day off during the week are also valid even on a secular level.

I think PDN's answer is excellent. Christians are called to serve their employers to the best of their ability, and to serve them as they would the Lord. I aspire to this, but it is obvious that I fall short from time to time. Generally at work I have most Sundays in the year off, but from time to time I am rostered to do them. Do I just seek them off all the time, or do I work the odd Sunday? - The answer is I'd try to work the odd Sunday in order to serve my employer.

The Christian views of Sabbath allow me to do this also.

Just because one holds a position doesn't mean ones employer has to oblige them. If an employer needs people to do Sunday work, and if the applicant won't do it, then of course the employer is going to look to the person who says that they can do it. This isn't discrimination, this is an employer trying to find the best employee for a job description.

Edit: I think the desire for Christians to seek extra privilege in their societies is contrary to the Gospel. Indeed, the desire for Christians to enforce Christian doctrine in law expresses doubt that God is really Lord over all creation. In doubting this, we resort to imposing our beliefs and trying to rule on behalf of God which will never work.

That view is a protestant view. It's not a very well thought out position though

The Catholic view is different. The Church/state division is an invention of the enlightenment crowd.

Read this: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14250c.htm

This section is particularly relevant to the current discussion:

The goal of the State is the temporal happiness of man, and its proximate purpose the preservation of external juridical order and the provision of a reasonable abundance of means of human development in the interests of its citizens and their posterity. Man himself however, as we have said, has a further goal of perfect happiness to be realized only after death, and consequently a proximate purpose to earn in this life his title to the same. In the pursuit of this latter purpose, speaking in the abstract, he had a natural right to constitute a social organization taking over the worship of God as a charge peculiarly its own. In the concrete however, i.e., as a matter of fact, God by positive law has vacated this natural right and established a universal society (the Church) for Divine worship and the securing of perfect happiness in the hereafter. God, furthermore, has appointed for man a destiny which cannot be attained by mere natural means, and consequently God has conceded to man additional means commensurate with this ultimate purpose, putting these means at the disposal of man through the ministration of the Church. Finally, He has determined the form of external public worship to be rendered, centring it about a sacrifice, the efficacy of which is from itself, being, as it is, a repetition of the Sacrifice of Calvary. The goal, then, of the Church is the perfect supernatural happiness of man; its proximate purpose, to safeguard the internal moral order of right and wrong; and its external manifestation, to care for Divine worship and minister to man the supernatural means of grace. The State, then, exists to help man to temporal happiness the Church, to eternal. Of these two purposes the latter is more ultimate, man's greater good, while the former is not necessary for the acquisition of the latter.

The protestant world view is secular, an unnatural separation of Church and state, and that's exactly what the National Secular Society and their ilk are pushing for - an entirely secular society with no privilege or exemption for Christians, which means no Sundays off work and no right to refuse to participate in abortion.

Christians must be free to worship according to their faith. The most perfect and pleasing worship of God is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, but other non-Catholic Christians should be free to worship God according to their lights and conscience and that has been permitted up to this point in time. If a Christian wants to abstain from unnecessary work on a Sunday, that is laudable, and UK law currently protects this choice.

georgieporgy

thanks Wolfbane. that's the quote I was thinking of all right.

I think elsewhere there was a "cunning fox" slur levelled at the pharasees? I'm going to have to dust off my bible more often.

philologos

Jester Minute wrote: »

The protestant world view is secular, an unnatural separation of Church and state, and that's exactly what the National Secular Society and their ilk are pushing for - an entirely secular society with no privilege or exemption for Christians, which means no Sundays off work and no right to refuse to participate in abortion.

Personally I would advocate conscientious objection in terms of abortions, in fact I would see this as human rights issue. This is a separate issue.

Carrying on. There is no point in using the term "Christian" if Christian just means the same as the world. Living in a pluralism is the best situation for Christianity, because it is the best way we can show everyone how unique Christianity is.

You yourself have said that the RCC is going to be a more streamlined smaller, less nominal organisation. In order to have this happen, the society around it is going to have to be a pluralism.

I believe Christians should have the right to say that they won't work on Sundays, as I would respect the right of anyone else to seek a day off. That said, it is still up to the employer to decide whether or not he will hire you over someone who is fully willing to work on Sundays.

It's nothing to do with the National Secular Society, its to do with what is best for Christianity. If you look to the early church, they did the same, they appealed to their rulers from time to time and they encouraged obedience, but they remained separate. The leaders of the church advised on disputes between people in the church without going to the state courts, and so on.

Christianity is better off separate from the State. It always had been. From Constantine onwards the trend of Christians wanting to control everything has been more bad than good for Christianity.

wolfsbane

Jester Minute said:

The Catholic view is different. The Church/state division is an invention of the enlightenment crowd.

Read this: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14250c.htm

This section is particularly relevant to the current discussion:

Quote:
The goal of the State is the temporal happiness of man, and its proximate purpose the preservation of external juridical order and the provision of a reasonable abundance of means of human development in the interests of its citizens and their posterity. Man himself however, as we have said, has a further goal of perfect happiness to be realized only after death, and consequently a proximate purpose to earn in this life his title to the same. In the pursuit of this latter purpose, speaking in the abstract, he had a natural right to constitute a social organization taking over the worship of God as a charge peculiarly its own. In the concrete however, i.e., as a matter of fact, God by positive law has vacated this natural right and established a universal society (the Church) for Divine worship and the securing of perfect happiness in the hereafter. God, furthermore, has appointed for man a destiny which cannot be attained by mere natural means, and consequently God has conceded to man additional means commensurate with this ultimate purpose, putting these means at the disposal of man through the ministration of the Church. Finally, He has determined the form of external public worship to be rendered, centring it about a sacrifice, the efficacy of which is from itself, being, as it is, a repetition of the Sacrifice of Calvary. The goal, then, of the Church is the perfect supernatural happiness of man; its proximate purpose, to safeguard the internal moral order of right and wrong; and its external manifestation, to care for Divine worship and minister to man the supernatural means of grace. The State, then, exists to help man to temporal happiness the Church, to eternal. Of these two purposes the latter is more ultimate, man's greater good, while the former is not necessary for the acquisition of the latter.

I'm sorry, my friend, I must be missing something. The above quote seems to say the Church and State are separate, each looking after its own role. That the Church does not provide law and order, the State does not provide the gospel. A Baptist like me thinks that is just as it should be.

The protestant world view is secular, an unnatural separation of Church and state, and that's exactly what the National Secular Society and their ilk are pushing for - an entirely secular society with no privilege or exemption for Christians, which means no Sundays off work and no right to refuse to participate in abortion.

Christians must be free to worship according to their faith.

But separation of Church and State does not entail imposition of atheist values on society; it can do, but it is not a necessary outcome. Civil and religious liberty can be part of a secular State. It is the shift from merely secular to atheist that produces the restrictions on freedom.

The most perfect and pleasing worship of God is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, but other non-Catholic Christians should be free to worship God according to their lights and conscience and that has been permitted up to this point in time.

Historically both the Catholic and Protestant Churches were not interested in civil and religious liberty for all - only themselves. Thankfully, the Reformation continued in the Protestant Church and a lot of its Roman baggage was dropped. Most Reformed Christians today would not believe it was the State's duty to punish heretics or enforce church attendance, etc.

If a Christian wants to abstain from unnecessary work on a Sunday, that is laudable, and UK law currently protects this choice.

It indeed should be a matter of civil and religious liberty for any self-respecting secular State.
_________________________________________________________________
Acts 18:12 When Gallio was proconsul of Achaia, the Jews with one accord rose up against Paul and brought him to the judgment seat, 13 saying, “This fellow persuades men to worship God contrary to the law.”
14 And when Paul was about to open his mouth, Gallio said to the Jews, “If it were a matter of wrongdoing or wicked crimes, O Jews, there would be reason why I should bear with you. 15 But if it is a question of words and names and your own law, look to it yourselves; for I do not want to be a judge of such matters.” 16 And he drove them from the judgment seat.

Jester Minute

Jakkass wrote: »

Personally I would advocate conscientious objection in terms of abortions, in fact I would see this as human rights issue. This is a separate issue.

Carrying on. There is no point in using the term "Christian" if Christian just means the same as the world. Living in a pluralism is the best situation for Christianity, because it is the best way we can show everyone how unique Christianity is.

You yourself have said that the RCC is going to be a more streamlined smaller, less nominal organisation. In order to have this happen, the society around it is going to have to be a pluralism.

I believe Christians should have the right to say that they won't work on Sundays, as I would respect the right of anyone else to seek a day off. That said, it is still up to the employer to decide whether or not he will hire you over someone who is fully willing to work on Sundays.

It's nothing to do with the National Secular Society, its to do with what is best for Christianity. If you look to the early church, they did the same, they appealed to their rulers from time to time and they encouraged obedience, but they remained separate. The leaders of the church advised on disputes between people in the church without going to the state courts, and so on.

Christianity is better off separate from the State. It always had been. From Constantine onwards the trend of Christians wanting to control everything has been more bad than good for Christianity.

The position you espouse sounds very like the absolute liberalism which the NSS is working towards.

Absolute Liberalism

Absolute Liberalism is the most extreme. Having its source in the principles of the French Revolution and beginning with those who denied the existence of God, it naturally takes the position that the State prescinds from God: the State, it says, is atheistic. Undertaking, with the elimination of revelation and the Divine Positive Law, to get back to purely natural principles, it accepted from Rousseau and the Utilitarians the principle that all right comes from the State, all authority from the consentient wills of the people of the State. The position logically followed that the Church has no rights--not even the right to existence--save such as are conceded to it by the civil power. Hence it is not a perfect society, but a creature of the State, upon which it depends in all things, and upon which it must be directly subordinate, if it is to be allowed to exist at all.

Christians have a duty to order society, wherever possible, according to Christian principals. If Christians are involved in politics, then their faith must colour everything they do. Alas, that doesn't often happen.

The Catholic Church has an absolute and supreme right..

...to preach the Gospel everywhere, willing or nilling any state authority, and so to secure the rights of its members among the subjects of any civil polity whatever. The Church has the right to govern her subjects wherever found, declaring for them moral right and wrong, restricting any such use of their rights as might jeopardize their eternal welfare, conferring purely ecclesiastical rights, acquiring and holding property herself, and empowering her subordinate associations to do the same--all within the limits of the requirements of her triple purpose, as laid down by the Divine Positive Law, of preserving the internal order of faith and morals and its external manifestation, of providing adequate means of sanctification for her members, and of caring for Divine worship, and over all bound by the eternal principles of integrity and justice declared in the natural and positive Law of God.
In all purely temporal subject-matter, so long as it remains such, the jurisdiction of the State over its own subjects stands not only supreme, but, as far as the Church is concerned, alone. Purely temporal matter is that which has a necessary relation of help or hindrance to man's temporal happiness, the ultimate end of civil society or the State, in such wise that it is at the same time indifferent in itself as a help or hindrance to man's eternal happiness.

The Catholic State is the ideal It is a state where temporal affairs are arranged in the best way according to Christian principals. The Second Vatican Council (imho) recognised that the age of the Catholic State is basically over and that we need to do things a little differently in this modern period we currently live in. But the Catholic State remains the ideal. The ideal is that a country is won over by the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the citizens then order society in the very best way to attain heaven whilst living in the world.

The age of the catholic State may be over for now, but I still dream of the day when we shall see The United Catholic Kingdom of Britain and Ireland, with the old wounds long healed and all the citizens (individually and collectively) won over to the Gospel of Jesus Christ!

wolfsbane

georgieporgy wrote: »

thanks Wolfbane. that's the quote I was thinking of all right.

I think elsewhere there was a "cunning fox" slur levelled at the pharasees? I'm going to have to dust off my bible more often.

Maybe this of Herod?
Luke 13:31 On that very day some Pharisees came, saying to Him, “Get out and depart from here, for Herod wants to kill You.”
32 And He said to them, “Go, tell that fox, ‘Behold, I cast out demons and perform cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I shall be perfected.’ 33 Nevertheless I must journey today, tomorrow, and the day following; for it cannot be that a prophet should perish outside of Jerusalem.

_________________________________________________________________
Malachi 3:6 Then those who feared the LORD spoke to one another,
And the LORD listened and heard them;
So a book of remembrance was written before Him
For those who fear the LORD
And who meditate on His name.
17 “ They shall be Mine,” says the LORD of hosts,

“ On the day that I make them My jewels.
And I will spare them
As a man spares his own son who serves him.”