Brooching The Topic of Religion

The jizya is bad enough without our imposing it on ourselves. This is Britain, but it is yet another example of the West's rejection of the principle of equal treatment under law. (See previous post.) Over the weekend, a British nurse lost her bid to be able to continue wearing the modest crucifix she's worn around her neck for 30 years. NHS says it's a safety hazard. She's allowed to wear it as a brooch instead, so it's not exactly suppressing Christianity. But look who gets an exception.

Non-Muslim staff in direct contact with patients must keep their arms bare to the elbow for important hygiene reasons — to make sure their sleeves do not become contaminated and so they can wash their hands thoroughly on ward rounds.
Their Muslim female counterparts, however, have been given a special dispensation by the Department of Health. Because some Muslims consider nudity of the female forearm to be immodest, Muslim doctors and nurses are to be issued with disposable sleeves, elasticated at wrist and elbow, to cover up the erogenous zone that lies between. This is absurd, unfair, wasteful and yet another example, as Chaplin and her episcopal supporters (and I) all feel, of the bias in favour of a vociferous religious minority.

The columnist's view is tough toenails for the Muslims. I disagree: the system seems to have come up with a reasonable accomodation, which is what tolerant people do. (Although I think the NHS was right to forbid doctors from veiling their faces with patients.) What I object to is the double-standard. We bend over backwards to accomodate Muslims. Christians must bend or else. Intended or not, this is a way of saying --with the authority of the state-- that some are more equal than others. The law is a teacher and transmits attitudes and modes of thinking with minor regulations.

Curtsy: ninme