And another thing…

Deary, deary me, Tom. You should stop taking what your Tory friends say for gospel and listen more to your fellow Labourites. May I suggest you read this post from Bob Piper (have your humble pie ready!)

If this was less shouty it could have been the best example so far of a defence of Christian prayer in schools

Would it be bullying for an atheist nurse to explain to a Christian child that there is no God, and there are no miracles?

*from a left leaning perspective, I should add

Thank you! Well said! Traditional old-fashioned lefty in many respects and would prefer Old Labour back, but who also like MPs of all parties to stick up for the main faith of this country and do away with the PC nonsense which is offensive to us Christians!

dutch: “Would it be bullying for an atheist nurse to explain to a Christian child that there is no God, and there are no miracles?”

It would certainly be very crass and insensitive. Perhaps you would think it okay to tell a young child that there’s no Santa Claus?

Yes A /very Public Sociologist it does seem entirely reasonable.

Tory Councils aren’t all the Dully Maul, Sir Iain Dale and Tom sometimes like to imagine. vide West Sussex CC and the promo video for their Courses on making better use of your mobile phone.

I suppose it is all a bit scarier as the election hoves into 3D view.

Boris Johnson will likely go into hiding after the panto season is finished.

I can imagine that an offer to pray for someone might cause offence, just as the sales of those chastity rings were not entirely all they seemed.

I see the ‘Christian Legal Centre’ is mentioned which (as if the story being featured in the Daily Heils wasn’t bad enough) might cast doubt on its veracity. The “Christian” Institute are full of stories of this ilk, but there is a good reason why their cases (including one this week) get thrown out of court. Lying and distorting in order to validate the ‘prejudice is good if it’s in God’s name” position doesn’t seem very ‘Christian’ to me. And is tellling a sick child/mother to try believing in miracles – *irrespective* of what Deity is being called on – not bad manners and/or very unprofessional at best?

Don’t apologise Tom, you were spot on. I left this on Bob’s blog:

Bob I never leave abusive comments on blogs, but I’m very close to it now. If you read the article properly you will find that she was in fact sacked and that only changed when her lawyers became involved. The management back-peddled when they realised they had gone too far. From the article:

Mrs Jones was then called in by her managers who, she says, told her that sharing her faith with a child could be deemed to be bullying and informed her that her services were no longer required

‘Karen then said I had been an exemplary maths teacher, but my services were no longer required. As I had no contract, they could tell me to go just like that.

‘They also told me that had I been on a contract, I could be facing disciplinary proceedings. But they never told me the grounds for that.’

Bob, your post is an embarrassment.

Tom – yes, it would. But is it so dissimilar to a Christian nurse (someone in authority) to sit down with a non-Christian child and essentially tell them that their belief system is wrong?

In May 2007, I had a severe leg infection which UCLH thought was necrotisis fascitis. I almost died. Three weeks later, I had a pulmonary embolism and for a few minutes no longer existed. I woke in intensive care and the nurse, a hindi, said she would pray for me.

For several hours, I drifted in and out of consciousness and all I knew and cared about was her prayers. I was too far gone to pray.

About 5.00 am, my heart stopped. I heard the moniter, watched as doctors and nurses brought me back from the edge.

I slept.

And woke to find her praying. I could have kissed her had I the strength.

(the ‘Yes it would’ refers to it being crass and insensitive, rather than the father Christmas bit.)

Dear Tom It is refreshing to hear someone in Parliament defending Christian Freedom’s. I must admit I would be interested to know what “Our pal” Harriet Harman would say on this matter?.
One thing I have noticed about real Christianity over the years is the fact that when attacked,or discriminated against we don’t go trying to change the Law and screaming Blue murder. We don’t have mass demonstrations calling for “Fatwa’s”on individuals. On the whole we respond as our Lord taught us: “Love your enemy”. “Do good to those who persecute you”. Do not be overcome by evil but overcome evil with good (Rom12:21) Jesus said that if we followed him properly we WOULD be persecuted. So It should come as no surprise that we will suffer Hate etc. Jesus also said “If they hated me, they will hate you also. The “World” will make it as difficult as possible for us to follow him because it hate’s him. Thank you Tom and may the Lord bless you and your family during this time of celebration that God did,and does care enough to send us a Savior.. Max

Tom I wouldn’t be so quick to eat humble pie. If you read the council’s response “Olive Jones has worked as a supply teacher…” Past tense you see.

Now if they’d said “Olive Jones works…”.

Welcome to the UK’s new religion Equality and Diversity.

Don’t apologise. In teaching a suspension that doesn’t result in dismissal can be a career killer, particularly for a supply teacher.

Apart from getting the “detail” (or even the correct broad-brush) to rights, the point-of-departure in this posting is way out of line.

Why should “left-wing blogs” be bothered to denounce each and every example of gross inanity? Some things are self-evicently mad, bad and dangerous to know —starting with the frothings of the “Mail” (and frequently including the sheer weirdness of the likes of Iain Dale).

“I trust lots of left-wing bloggers (including Bob) will come out in support of this woman…” hmmm – not a very splendid idea given that none of them are likely to know anything at all about the detail of this case.

Were you ever a journalist? Never let the boring old details get in the way of a swift leap to conclusions eh? One can always stick a correction in at the bottom of page 29 a few weeks later…

I’ve also been caught out before by taking the Daily Mail as gospel, so it’s worth being extra careful with them. I like to double-check via searching on Google News.

What this case does show, yet again, is the fear the average jobsworth now has of defending, or even tolerating, anything Christian, or traditionally British, for that matter.

Political correctness is the Devil’s work and we are really starting to see the evidence. I’ve just watched the Christian Institute’s promo DVD and your comrade Jim Dobbin (chairman of the all-party Pro Life Group) calls on all Christians to take more interest in what’s going on. I guess he is referring to politicians too.

Thumbs up for AVPS and for the ever-vigilant subRosa for looking for the devil in the detail.

“Christians are instructed by Jesus Christ to evangelise on His behalf. If non-Christians – and yes, that includes Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Seikhs and buddhists as well as atheists – feel offended by this form of outreach, well that’s a pity, but they’ll just have to deal with it as best they can.”

I believe you mean proselytise, not evangelise. And no, I won’t “deal with it”; I’m culturally jewish, intellectually atheist and have been threatened and abused for both those positions, almost entirely by Christians who at some point tell me I’m going to hell.

I’m certain that’s exactly what Jesus would have done, and wants all Christians to do, right?

The exhortation to proselytise is nothing more than an excuse for violence and discrimination.

In full agreement with Steve Green – no contract, no need to go through a disciplinary procedure.

As well as highlighting the disproportionate harshness that Christians face in an increasingly secular society, this case overwhelmingly shows that decent people, who work via an employment agency or via some other form of non-contracted work, deserve to have the same rights as contract staff, especially in disciplinary and dismissal matters.

Sacked or under investigation, in the circumstances, the difference is minimal. It’s another example of the hypersensitive over-reaction. For years, I’ve defended ‘political correctness’, when people would shout about it ‘going mad’, as plain good manners, but I always knew there *were* those who took caution to excess. I’ve experienced it myself, having had my name ‘removed’ from a local trust’s membership for using the phrase ‘Zanu Labour’ on a message board. It’s racist, apparently, and I thought it was just boring lefty cant, like ‘Tony Bliar’. A pox on all busybodies.

Ha ha! In your face christians!

(Just a joke, of course, which the blog author clearly thinks makes everything OK)

Why the investigation? Should have told the complainant to shove it.

It’s not professional to bring your religion into your work. It’s as simple as that. I can’t see what the fuss is about.

I genuinely now think some of you people are bonkers.

This teacher was teaching a child too sick to go to school. That’s probably quite sick and we don’t know what the prognosis is.

So this teacher who was engaged to teach the child maths starts talking to the child about miracles in connection with health?

Good grief that is totally inappropriate, a gross intrusion, and highly unprofessional.

This dismissal was sound.

Offering to pray for somebody else should never ever be misconstrued as bullying. It devalues the currency of that particular term. However, despite a) being a Christian and b) being a teacher I have my reservations over this woman’s conduct. What, for example, is wrong simply for praying for the sick child? What was the purpose of her telling the child/parents that the child was being prayed for? Was there an attempt at proselytising here? If there was then it’s quite right that the incident be investigated as it should be be if she were proselytising for atheism, Sikhism, Hinduism, Buddhism and Islam.
The woman has been employed by the council to teach the girl Maths.

Can anyone cite an example where a muslim teacher has tried to impose their religion upon a non muslim child?

I won’t wait because you won’t be able to as it doesn’t happen.

Religion is for the private sphere.

You cannot if you are employed (in any way) by the state use your position as a teacher, or in the other case, as a nurse to try and use your contact with vulnerable people to proletyse your religion.

The Labour Party are quite keen on that position and it’s one area where I agree with them.

Let’s put this in context shall we?

This bit of the West Country is somewhere I know far too well for comfort. I lived in Bristol for 15 years before coming to Scotland. Mercy me, what a difference!

Anyway, this is the place where Avon and Somerset police binned applications from white people. This is the place where Bristol City Council objected to the Downs being cleared of foliage lest it curtail the rights of Gay Cruisers – a bit of crass stupidity that Stonewall demanded it be totally disassociated from – and where someone in the same village was sacked for offering to pray for a sick person.

Schadenfreude was not invented in Germany, it was invented in Bristol, whose citizens are the nastiest people on Earth.

Here is the deal: you cannot leave a shop in East Lothian if you inadvertantly forget your BOGOF. They will run down the street and grab you and tell you that you have missed the special offer. In Bristol, they will have a right old laugh that you have forgotten to get your BOGOF and spend the rest of the day telling all the other customers what a twit you are.

West Country people are shits.

Utter, total shits. It surprises me not that all these stories come from the same area, an area where they have taken on 20,000 failed asylum seekers, but give comfort and succour to animal rights terrorists.

It is Bristol where an infant in a pushchair was maimed, in the next road from me, by some maniac who loves little furry creatures.

My fifteen years in Bristol was the lowest point of my life so far. You cannot trust them, you cannot expect mercy if you upset them. They survive by being nasty.

So it’s not about Christians at all, it is about using whatever means they can to spoil someone else’s day.

My instant reaction when reading this was to think too right she should have been disciplined for sheer bloody stupidity. Of course I don’t know the full story any more than anyone else does but that was my instant reaction.

What on earth would a sick kid think if someone told them that they believed in miracles and would pray for them? That it will take a miracle for them to get well again?

If a child is that seriously ill it is for their parents to decide how to handle it, not a visiting teacher.

“It’s not professional to bring your religion into your work.”

It’s one of the most common misunderstandings of the word “professional” to think that it means “keeping your opinions or your personal convictions to yourself”.

Actually, it is close to being the opposite. Professionalism actually requires an ethos, a set of beliefs.

For Chriatians praying for somebody is something you often do because you care abour them, and the only way to avoid this sort of situation is simply to avoid employing Christians or avoid employing teachers who care. Employing Christians but expecting them to behave as if they weren’t Christian is not a solution.

Given my last comment, I should probably add that I have blogged about professionalism here:

http://teachingbattleground.wordpress.com/2007/09/22/professionalism/

the (supply) teacher in question is simply under investigation – the normal procedure when a complaint is made.

But why is the teacher even under investigation? It seems to me that this is a complete waste of time and taxpayer’s money. Have they got nothing better to do?

‘Observer’ above seems to think it’s proselytising to offer to pray for someone. No, it isn’t. Proselytising is what’s done when people try to convert other people to their own faith.

What if the teacher had offered to make them a cup of tea? Would they have had cause to complain about that?

I know. What if the sympathetic teacher has pulled out a packet of Marlboro and said, “Here. Have one of these.” Now that would be really unconscionable, wouldn’t it?

No wonder the Archbishop of Canterbury is complaining that Christianity is being denormalised.

[...] the family), and indeed, she was free to do what the Heil said she did and accept the consequences.Tom Harris, MP and Ian Dale have further thoughts on the matter.Tags:christianity, education, politics, [...]

Would you accept a bit o religion from Sarah Palin? Or one of Osama’s admirers? Would you like your child to be made that offer when he/she was at a a low ebb?

I lived In Bristol for a few years and a friend recently retired from 25 years as a teacher there. Some people find the worst everywhere. We didn’t.

An honest Christian would have prayed for the child and either have not mentioned it, especially if their antennae told them that was best, or have said, with a smile: “I’ll be praying for you.”

The latter would have been less likely to cause offence and more likely to engage an interested child positively.

I wonder if they are any longer short of supply teachers of the type in question? If they aren’t it is no wonder they took an anti line. Temps are subject to supply and demand I have noticed.

While the case – at least as presented – seems a bit nutty, your last paragraph (before the update) was, I hope, written under the “red mist” you mentioned. Taken at face value, as if Christians have some inalienable right to evangelize whomever and whenever they want, it is quite a troubling sentiment.

Should a teacher, at a position of authority, and without presence of parents, evangelize his pupils? Should a Math teacher (after he/she finished teaching the curriculum, of course) attempt to steer school-children to his view of the right path?

This is a problem, by the way, not just to non-Christians. Different denominations have different opinions on what it means to “evangelize”. I doubt many C of E parents would appreciate their children coming home saying that their teacher told them that ignoring the pope is wrong and sinful (and Catholic parents probably won’t like their child saying the teacher said that following the pope was unchristian).

Considering the various different options of evangelizing (the Book of Mormon, anyone?), do you think a parent should check the religion and denomination of every one of his children’s teachers, so he’ll know the theologies he needs to give counter-arguments for?

We are talking, after all, about public services, given by the state. Many people can’t afford a substitute, and claiming that any Christian (of any denomination, presumably) can evangelize a captive audience (in the case of schools – also an easily influenced audience) is a terrible prospect.
(I haven’t even begun considering the effects of an evangelizing teacher who considers – as some might – a child’s family to be sinful – gay parents, etc.)

Do notice I am not claiming the teacher in the Daily Mail story did anything like this, nor am I saying that evangelizing should not be a part of a Christian person’s life. I am saying that the statement regarding evangelizing as always acceptable is untrue – the state should, in certain circumstances, limit it.

However, Tom, there is a fair point to criticise the milieu created over the last 12 years.

Why did the family in question feel the need to file a formal complaint rather than telling the teacher to p*ss off?

Why did the council feel the need to take it seriously and pursue a formal proceedure rather than just using commons sense and telling her not to do it again? And why didn’t they tell her the first time there was a complaint?

Why did the Christian lobby feel the need to play the victim?

Wouldn’t have happened under the last Tory government!

So twice in three consecutive lessons at someone’s home she brought her religion into, and had previously been warned after upsetting another girl three years ago. Hardly an innocent martyr.

Sup with the Daily Mail and you need a very long spoon.

http://tabloid-watch.blogspot.com/2009/12/who-are-zealots.html

It’s turned into an interesting thread. We have some of the usual comments that are just so stupid, you’d think the teacher had offered to slit the girl’s throat, rather than show her a kindness.

Then there are comments form the ‘libertarian’-minded who see what a crass case this is and realise that if Christians can’t be free, then nobody can (hello, slow-learning ‘atheists’ at the back!).

It’s amazing how many people think it’s okay to grass someone up when a crime hasn’t been committed.

Some of the comments, like the one from ‘Omer,’ give the impression that there is something inherently wrong with one human being going up to another to speak to them. Just because *you’re* scared (for some reason known to yourself), doesn’t mean others don’t want to hear of how the pain of their sins and weight of their guilt can be dealt with.

Maybe you could listen to what they have to say, seeing as they have compassion in trying to reach out to you.

Omer’s other points are all ‘what ifs’. My teacher in primary 6 and 7 was a Christian, but she could talk about it without appearing mad or getting reported.

This was 1973-75, so before the country had been de-Christianised in order to homogenise society for easier inclusion into the new global hegemony being prepared in the name of saving the planet.

Never would have thought I’d find myself agreeing with Quietzapple, but like Tom, I’m having a volte face, only in the other direction (in that Tom apparently still thinks Christians should catch a break and I don’t).

To be fair to myself, there was always something a little off about the teacher telling the child she’d be praying for her (him?), but it didn’t seem that much of a violation. In retrospect, and given the repeated nature of the incidents, it’s like a teacher making several remarks about ginger-haired kids. When do you say, ‘right, enough’s enough’?

So I don’t know what the blogs should say, but I consider myself fairly leftwing, and I say, whether you’re Christian, Muslim, Hindu or any other religion, not in front of the children, please.

We don’t yet know the religious beliefs of the family in question. Apparently this teacher gave “testimonies”, so it was a little more than merely offering to pray it was stronger evangelism. I can think of some houses where that wouldn’t go down well. I’d be upset if it was happening when the parents were not there, especially if the parents’ religion was one that would be considered sinful by the child if the child does convert.

For the Christians here – consider a Buddhist teacher telling your child how attachment to ideas like Heaven is a negative trait, or a Muslim teacher….

To truly judge this case we need all the information, which presumably the investigation will flesh out. From what I’ve read so far it seems that an investigation is needed.

Have you guys actually READ this story? Or are you just so keen to comment on the issues you think it raises that you aren’t interested in the facts as reported? (albeit by the Daily Mail so we don’t know how true they are).

The child’s mother specifically asked that Mrs Jones should NOT talk to her daughter about miracles and God and passed those concerns on to the people she thought were her employers. It would appear from the story that these concerns were not passed on as the mother spoke to the health authority rather than the education authority – that will obviously be a factor in any disciplinary hearing.

Nevertheless from the mother’s point of view what happened is that the teacher on her next visit again raised the issue of miracles, saying that she believed God had “saved her life” and offered to pray for her sick daughter, all of this in her daughter’s presence.

I understand perfectly why that mother complained. I would have complained too and so, I imagine, would a great many parents. It was completely inappropriate behaviour which potentially could have caused the child to believe that she was so sick it would take a miracle from God to save her.

How anyone can think that is acceptable behaviour from a supply teacher is simply beyond me.

If as a Christian she wanted to pray for her pupil there was absolutely nothing to stop her doing that quietly, in her own time. So it’s not about whether she is allowed to pray or be a Christian or anything like that. It’s about her overstepping the mark in her professional capacity.

I’ve covered my back with a leftwing blog entry on the sacking of a supply teacher: Tom Harris, the sacked Christian teacher, violence and bullying

Stewart, people talking to other people is great. People talking to other people who can’t go anywhere else, and to people over whom they have authority is quite different.

The “…doesn’t mean others don’t want to hear of how the pain of their sins and weight of their guilt can be dealt with” is fine when you’re an adult. I don’t think a Muslim / Jewish / Hindu / whatever kid should hear from a teacher that he and his family can “deal” with “the pain of sins” by believing in Jesus, nor that a C of E kid learn “his guilt can be dealt with” if only he obeyed the pope, etc.

The Oxford Dictionary defines “evangelize” as “convert or seek to convert (someone) to Christianity” – presumably, each denomination seeks to convert to its own particular brand of Christianity. One can only say to that, thanks, but not in the classroom. You want to evangelize – do it to people who will listen to you on the merit of what you say, not because they have to be there, or because you’re in charge of them.

(and no, I don’t think any person talking about his beliefs and faith is “evangelizing”, but the original blog post did talk specifically about evangelizing in the last paragraph, which I still do hope was written in a state of rage, and not after careful consideration…)

…proselytising for atheism… Not entirely sure that’s possible.

The teacher had been warned about her unprofessional behaviour before. I’m sure her supervisors will give her a written warning this time which will hopefully get the message through that her prayers are her own business and have nothing to do with her professional life.

Omer: “the original blog post did talk specifically about evangelizing in the last paragraph, which I still do hope was written in a state of rage, and not after careful consideration…”

Why would that have had to be written in a state of rage? Christians are called to spread the Word about Christ to all non-Christians. Of course, some will object to the bare-faced cheek of someone with different views from theirs trying to convince them to change their mind. This is perfectly acceptable in politics, but, for some reason, unacceptable when it comes to matters of religion.

As it happens, and as I’ve said many times before, I’ve always been a rubbish Christian, and haven’t proselytised for many years. Nevertheless, I accept that the obligation to Christians stands, and I see no reason why other people’s discomfort with the notion should dissuade them from doing so.

Indy, a nice comment.

People’s outrage on issues like this tend to be because of the headline rather than the facts.

Surely you can understand that any form of evangelising is completely inappropriate in the context of a teacher dealing with a sick child?

PS: evangelising is not perfectly acceptable when it comes to politics either. Any teacher who attempted to use their position to influence their pupils’ political views would be in big trouble pretty quickly.

THANKYOU, Tom, for articulating what many Christians with Labour sympathies only wish they could articulate but are often too afraid to.

Actually, I think that the entire point is that the Council should never have accepted this complaint in the first place. What are they playing at? The complaint itself is prima facie frivilous.

When you consider what has happened to children and vulnerable adults when they have been in the clutches of various branches of our all-singing and all-dancing State – pace Victoria Climbié and Baby P, among countless others – I should have thought that councils have got better things to do than investigate a woman for offering to pray for a sick child.

No doubt the higher echelons of North Somerset Council aided and abetted by the LGA, the DCSF and Harriet Harman will spend lots of other people’s money on an internal investigation which will find themselves to have acted rightly – and then the courts will get involved. And all for what? Equality and diversity? Self-justification?

No wonder people do not trust the powers-that-be any more when they see them persecute the well-intentional if possibly slightly off the wall while letting those who really do need to be fingered by Plod get away with murder/GBH/fraud/burglary, etc. I am sure that Equality and Diversity lawyers and those who sit in town halls running and ruining our lives are laughing all the way to the publicly-owned and funded bank over this, while the rest of us have to get on with shrugging our shoulders and musing on the sheer helplessness which we feel in the face of the increasing ridiculousness of the British State.

This is the zenith of control freakery – you are now no longer allowed to think or believe certain things – and what you do think or believe has to be regulated.

Happy Winterval.

Omer,

The woman asked to *pray*, that’s all. What is your problem: fear or prejudice?

@Paul,

“…proselytise for atheism… Not entirely sure that’s possible.”

Look at Ariane Sherine’s “There’s probably no God” bus ad campaign, ably helped by Dawkins. I started reading “The God Delusion” and he openly admits to writing the book to bring people to atheism.

As I told you before, ‘atheism’ is also a belief system (as well as an unbelief system!).

@Andy Chambers,

If her faith had “nothing to do with her professional life,” maybe she would be an uncaring and ineffective teacher. As I asked Omer: what’s your problem: fear or prejudice?

Some people aren’t going to leave their faith in a cupboard at home just in case people who obviously have ‘issues’ get offended.

Tom talked about a Pavlovian response. I believe this is being displayed on this thread by several people. How many hours of TV do you watch? The BBC is admittedly anti-Christian. How much of this has seeped into your consciousness without you realising?

You indicated (in the update) that there was a “red mist” over your eyes at some point, hence the rage allusion.
As I wrote in my first comment (the one that wasn’t a response to Stewart Cowan), I have no particular problem with people evangelizing – I did object to what seemed to be a declaration of an inalienable right for Christians to evangelize whomever and whenever they want. An example of circumstances where the state is right to limit evangelical activity is in the classroom.

It isn’t related to religion, necessarily. Taking your own example, no one claims everyone is free to promote their political party whenever and wherever they like. You wouldn’t accept (I hope…) a teacher who told her students voting Labour was wrong (or sinful…), nor, for that matter, a teacher who told students that their parents are cruel if they are not vegetarians. It is generally accepted, I believe, that a classroom should not be used to promote the personal ideals of a particular teacher.

I don’t think this is some unique concept, and I hope most evangelizing Christians understand that it isn’t “discomfort” that people feel if a teacher tries to evangelize his students. It is wrong to take a “captive audience” (as that is what the classroom is), with a limited capability of critical thinking (depending on class age) and to use a position of authority to promote one person’s particular brand of Christianity. This is despite the fact that the teacher may feel it his Christian duty to do so.

Do you really think an evangelizing Christian teacher should not be dissuaded from proselytizing in the classroom, even if he believes it to be his Christian obligation? I surly do hope you agree that despite the teacher’s beliefs, his evangelical activity should find a different venue, outside the classroom.

She should have sacrificed a goat.

This “obligation” to push your beliefs on others is something you have taken on yourself and you are entirely responsible for it. A teacher is employed to teach not to convert people to a religion. If people appear to act inappropriately at work don’t be surprised if employers look into it. So what is your complaint here then Tom?

You should thank yourselves lucky that the nonreligious generally leave you to your beliefs and don’t complain about this compulsive religion-pushing. You should be astounded at our moderation.

I’d hope that most “left wingers” would
(i) expect the Mail on Sunday to have omitted half the details – which it seems they did; and
(ii) point out that it’s not discrimination against Christians if any other proselytisers would be treated the same way. And, guess what, if a Muslim/Jehovah’s/Satanist teacher had come round to my home and urged my child to convert, after I’d previously complained and they previously been warned for this conduct, then yes, I expect they’d be treated the same way. They’d probably be treated the same way if they urged the child’s parents to vote Labour/Tory/Lib Dem to improve their health care.

It’s not a question of discrimination. It’s a question of Mail printing half-truths to fit their agenda, and a person who seems unable to respect other people’s homes.

So on your last point: sure, Christians should be free to proselytise if they wish. But if that’s incompatible with their jobs, then they’d need to choose.

I hope I have attended to everyone’s comments above. My apologies if I have missed someone else making the point I am about to attempt to make.

I do not see that the teacher concerned can in any way be guilty of proselytising or evangelism or disrepsecting the beliefs or absence of beliefs of others. It is her beliefs and intentions which are being disrespected. Her belief is that the best way for her to express her earnest best wishes and compassion is to say that she will pray. It is her way of expressing her concern. It is that which should be respected. Whether you believe in prayer, God, or anything else is quite irrelvant. It is the good will of this teacher, expressing that good will according to her own best light, whether we see the same light or not, which has to be respected.

Ah. When someone makes the glib remark: “Oh, it’s the Daily Heil!” or uses some similar point, the rest of us know we can safely can ignore the remainder of their comment as their political thought processes passed their use by date in about 1978.

Stewart, as you’ll notice in my comments, I have specifically said that at least according to what the Daily Mail presented, I think she acted OK. I wrote regarding the larger issue – as it appeared in the blog post – of whether one should evangelize whenever and whomever they want (i.e., I said the classroom is one example of a place where evangelizing should be limited).

‘Christians are called to spread the Word about Christ to all non-Christians. Of course, some will object to the bare-faced cheek of someone with different views from theirs trying to convince them to change their mind. This is perfectly acceptable in politics, but, for some reason, unacceptable when it comes to matters of religion.’

Christians, generally, may be expected to spread the ‘Word’, but there are exceptions. In much the way that that Muslim woman (and I’m not sure whether she was a teacher or a teaching assistant) was not permitted to wear her veil in a classroom, because it interfered with her job, this supply teacher’s religious ‘requirements’ interfered with her job. The job should have come first. If the family had been Christian and/or asked for prayers, that would have been a different story.

In the olden days this story wouldn’t have made even the Daily Mail: the teacher would have offered to pray, the mother would have said no thanks and that would have been the end of it. This Government, however, has created a monstrous society where people would rather that someone else break their arm than that they suffer a broken finger nail. They don’t care what the repercussions of a formal complaint are as long as they can sanctimoniously and publicly exercise their right to be offended and the mother in this case is taking full advantage of the Government’s equality ideology which, in practice, is anti-Christian.

I, personally, feel very uncomfortable when Christians try to convert me (and, for some reason, I seem to attract their efforts) but I loathe militant atheism which seems to me to be every bit as intolerant as the worst religious bigotry and seems intent on removing public expression of Christian faith. Someone on Cranmer’s thread on this case has quoted Keith Porteous Wood of the National Secular Society as saying that the view that Olive Jones’ behaviour was inappropriate has nothing to do with religious freedom, that Christians have the right to practise their faith in their own homes. This is eerily reminiscent of ASH and their ilk who said at the introduction of the smoking ban that people have the right to smoke as long as it’s not in public (sorry, Tom). Both ASH and the National Secular Society and their followers would be happier if the offending groups became invisible in society. Live and let live is an alien notion to them, to this Government and sadly, to increasing numbers of the population.

Jay: Why “sorry, Tom”?

@Jay I loathe militant atheism which seems to me to be every bit as intolerant as the worst religious bigotry

Yeah, those damn atheist with their books and words and legal challenges. Direct 1:1 comparison with the suicide bombers, children mutilators, abortion doctor killers, African child witch killers, honour killers, etc etc.

An adult in a position of power and trust tells a sick child that because of the way her parents have brought her up she will suffer for eternity in hell unless she accepts the teacher’s religion.

Seems like a pretty open and shut case to me.

Praying, the addressing of oneself to one or more invisible dead persons,seems to me a moderately harmless form of mental illness.

The danger surely begins when one believes oneself to have received a reply.

And on the other side of the coin, an educational establishment takes severe action against a parent for inappropriate remarks…

http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co.uk/gloucestershireheadlines/Single-mum-excluded-Facebook-comments/article-1635779-detail/article.html#StartComments

@Tom Harris 9.14am – for, yet again, raising the issue of the smoking ban…

@Paul 9.47 & 10.16 – there are many Christians who would abhor the behaviour you’ve highlighted. I’d differentiate between the establishment of the Church and the Christian faith.

Do you know that Olive Jones took that line? The impression I had was that she simply offered to pray (on the basis of her own experience of ‘Divine intervention’). She might have couched this in a gentle way.

A parent has every right to express concerns over the actions of a teacher. Whether the teacher was being inappropriate depends entirely on the facts.

Bear in mind that there is a difference between ‘I will say a prayer for you’ or ‘I find my belief in God comforting’ and ‘let’s pray together’. The first are supportive, the latter is to involve someone in a religious practice. That is, I think, far less acceptable.

Again could I direct Jay et al back to the substance of the story? The mother had already asked that the teacher did not bring up the issue of miracles and God. It would appear that this was not passed on to the teacher but from the mother’s perspective she had already made her concerns clear and when the teacher repeated the behaviour she objected to she made a formal complaint which is now beimg investigated.

Kerry McCarthy has a post up about the parents’ “side” of this story.

Do you still feel it would be wise to “come out in support of this woman in the run-up to the internal investigation”?

What is particularly wrong about this woman’s behaviour from a Christian perspective is not the proselytising in itself (evangelism done sensitively and appropriately is God’s will, although some reports suggest this was particularly insensitively done) but the abuse of a position of trust.

Also, the “Christians are persecuted by political correctness” meme is nonsense and designed to create a siege mentality, which I find completely unnecessary and unhelpful. It also feeds into the BNP’s narrative about a lost culture, and if just for that reason alone, Christians should be very careful before promoting it.

The Dully Maul (entirely appropriate description of what the “Daily Mail” actually does) is part of the media organised to drag British politics to the right.

Online Guido Fawkes is a figurehead with similar aims it seems to me. Recently he tweeted to the effect that it is reasonable to risk killing, as battery does, to prevent burglary:

“Victims of burglary should be legally allowed to use lethal force on their property. It is mad that battering a burglar gets you jail-time.” – from his Twitter persona.

If the average view is right wing tory, and the BNP and UKIP are significant strands of opinion the billionaires expect not to be taxed much, you bet.

However it is necessary to be very careful to refuse to agree with anything these outlets pronounce.

The Key is to play a bigger role in forming the agenda, to seize the initiative from them on the BBC, and other key sectors.

Labour people can do that, but it may take more discipline than has so far been evident.

There are good hopes that the British public rather like the results of Labour Government however, so the future is there for us to nurture, win for progress should be our watchword.

I just wanted to add that…

The idea that children are just sponges waiting to soak up everything they hear with no rational thought of their own is daft. When I was much younger I did some sunday school teaching… and even in that context, there were plenty of children just there for the fun and games and activities, who listened to what they were told, but still making their minds up. I would further expect that the way a child has been bought up at home will probably have much more to do with their beliefs and ideas, than some newly recieved information from elsewhere- it will be in the context of what they already know that they will come from a position of being receptive, undecided or opposed to what they are told.

The second thing I would like to mention, is that usually I have found in the past that if people know someone is of a particular faith, they will often ask questions, and then you are free to answer them. There is no need to be pushy, people are much less likely to be offended, and if they are you can just remind them that they asked the question! I think it was St Francis of Assisi who said “preach the gospel, and if necessary use words.”

In my experience, often when people have discovered something, been healed (yes it does happen) or discovered a sense of forgiveness and love through their new faith, whatever, they are suddenly very keen to share that with anyone they can.

Thing is, in our culture its not normal to do things that way. A personal experience of “I was healed of X, I went to the Dr, they did a scan and the tumor was gone” kind of thing, well, you’d share it with friends who already knew about the problem in the first place. To randomly tell strangers defies social etiquette. One might… upon finding someone who is also sick say something like, “I was sick too, I was in the same hospital.” Or even as much as “I was sick too, but I was healed” but after that, if the person isn’t interested- they will say “that’s nice” or change the subject and you go with it. As many people have mentioned, there is nothing to stop someone praying without telling anyone.

But… a lot of people do get very caught up in their furvour and desire to spread the joy that they feel to the world. Courtesy and manners take a back seat next to the vital message they have to convey. Unfortunately sometimes this means that the medium destroys the message.

Oooh, and just another point. Certainly within most mainstream Christian denominations… whilst people would appreciate discourse on the pope, I don’t think many people would object to someone from another Christian denomination praying for them or a member of their family. Even though I have sometimes felt rattled by some of the language… and even their take on theology by Christian friends of my parents who have prayed for me, I still appreciate the sentiment.

So I’m not sure what I’m saying… just some random points to throw in there.

Kids will make up their own minds regardless of how much you try to cocoon them from anything and everything

There’s no need to be pushy. I don’t see a problem with letting people know you are of a particular faith, and whatever comes up naturally in conversation or answering questions.

Etiquette and good manners apply whether you have a religious reason for having a really important message or not! If someone makes it clear they are not interested, it does the person of faith more credit to drop the subject. (I only wish some athiests were so polite! But that’s no excuse…)