Daily Archives: April 10, 2010

No crucifix – but burka is Okay! Religious discrimination in politically (un)-correct England.

BBC news tells us that a Christian nurse Shirley Chaplin from Exeter lost a discrimination claim against her employers and is moved to a desk job after refusing to remove her crucifix at work, which she had been carrying for over 30 years!

While at the same time other employed people can wear a burka within the health care, Shirley has to remove her religious symbol because of health issues. That’s how far the corrosion of foundational values and praxis can go in our so-called Christian nations. The overwhelming pressure in the West to try to appease and please every person’s right in regard to freedom of press, speech and religion creates over-sensitivity towards people from other cultures and religions while rejecting our own roots (almost like a false guilt trip).  If a decision like this would have been made in the context of a Muslim believer or for that sake any other (non-Christian) person, it would have caused a landslide of reactions and demonstrations causing a reversal of the decision. But, since this is only one of those “weirdo’s” uh, Christians, it is acceptable and only right to do so… or?

What do you think about this?

John

Advertisements

Corrosion in subtle ways or just plain lust for power?

In today’s column Göran Skytte writes about Maria Wetterstrand, spokeswoman of the Greens and how she might be Sahlin’s (Social Democrats) worst friend. A few weeks ago Skytte wrote an earlier article in the same spirit just a few weeks ago. The stakes are high in this regard since both parties work together as partners against the other (right wing) coalition.

Different sources (here, here and in a long interview in Fokus) are mentioned as a foundation on which to state that Wetterstrand has the dream to break the power monopoly of the Social Democratic party.

Corrosion in subtle ways?

If the dream is to crush that monopoly, the question is asked why she is gone into as coalition with them? I don’t know the motives at heart of this issue, maybe the strategic drive of the Greens is so strong that a conscious approach this way will allow a long-term bit by bit infiltration through relationship where basic values and viewpoints are being corroded in subtle ways.

This might seem a long shot, but at the same time we see how different other structures and organizations have used and are using similar strategies to reach their long-term goals; think of how Muslim influence has grown questioning and corroding many of the main values we believe in; among them democracy!

Lust for power?

Maybe the lust for power (which the Greens expect through coalition with SD) makes one blind for the things one truly believes in? Let’s face it many people and organizations have paid heavy dues to be able to join in the corridors of the powerful and mighty, the Greens might show to have that same inclination?!

There is nothing new under the sun! Power corrupts and the willingness to compromise to obtain ones futile ambitions is unlimited. We need people who stand for what they value and believe and who are true to their promises. Unfortunately I don’t expect to find that among power driven politicians – the survival of the fittest seems to continue to be their slogan!

That’s the Way I see it!

John