According to the UK Timesonline (on April 7th) Shirley Chaplin was offfered "a series of compromises" when she was told she could no longer wear her crucifix necklace while at work (she is a nurse at the Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital). "Managers suggested that she pin it to her uniform or wear it on her identity lanyard."The Timesonline would have us believe that Ms. Chaplin is some kind of intractable troublemaker who refused to listen to reason and accept the reasonable "compromises" that were generously offered to her, and that she is just making an issue out of something that could have been easily resolved if she were being rational.
However, on March 30th the Daily Mail had reported that it was the other way around: Ms. Chaplin offered to pin the crucifix to her uniform, and her superiors refused this suggestion! On April 4th the Daily Mail repeated and elaborated on this version of the story. In both cases the Daily Mail provided direct quotes from Chaplin.
An anonymous blog entry at the British Humanist Society website, from April 7th, states that "Ms Chaplin refused the choice of wearing the crucifix in another way, such as pinning it to her uniform."
So what is the truth of the matter?
Well, according to The Guardian (on April 6th), BBC.com (on April 7th), and also the April 12th HR Magazine (a trade journal for "Human Relations" professionals) Chaplin's bosses actually suggested that she pin the crucifix inside her uniform!
Bottom line: when trying to sort out the truth in conflicting media reports, look for (1) consistency in how a story is reported over several days, (2) specificity, direct quotes, named sources, (3) verification from independent media sources.
Also, think about what your own default positions are. For example: do you by default tend to believe the boss or the worker being disciplined? Also: do you by default defend freedom of religion even when it's a religion you don't like?
That picture is so creepy. (If you say his name three times, will he appear?)
ReplyDeleteUnless Shirley Chaplin was making patients uncomfortable, I don't see why a cross would be a problem.
I swear I did not go looking for creepy pics of Dawkins! I was looking at the British Humanist Society website, and this pic just jumped right out at me.
ReplyDeleteWhat is even creepier than any one picture of Dawkins, is his love affair with himself and his visage:
http://richarddawkins.net/
His website is actually much better than it used to be in terms of the total number of pictures of His Dawkinsness it has.
Yeah, it is.
ReplyDeleteI'm somewhat pleased that he offended his celebrity cult a few months ago. The cult of Dawkins, even if Dawkins thinks it doesn't exist, is still scary even WITH the drama reduction.
There is a difference between being an atheist and being a belligerent ass. Unfortunately, Dawkins is encouraging people to go for the latter rather than the former. We also don't need atheists going on Atheist Pride parades, evangelizing on subway boards, or stealing the language of the LGBT movement. Can't they just donate money to humanitarian causes through secular charities?