His bosses at the publicly funded Wakefield and District Housing (WDH) have demanded he remove the eight inch long cross made from woven palm leaves that sits on his dashboard. The organisation claims the cross may cause offence but says it strongly promotes "inclusive" policies and allows employees to wear religious symbols at work.
Images from here.
It has provided stalls at gay pride events, held "diversity days" for travellers, and has allowed other staff to display photographs of Che Guevera, the revolutionary leader, in their office. Mr Atkinson, who is a regular worshipper at church, said: “I have worked in the coal mines and served in the Army in Northern Ireland and I have never suffered such stress.
“The treatment of Christians in this country is becoming diabolical. It is political correctness taken to the extreme. I have never been so full of resolve. I am determined to stand up for my rights. If they sack me, so be it. But I am standing up for my faith.” Wakefield District Housing said: “We do not allow employees to display any personal representations in our vehicles, although they are free to do so upon their person.”
9 comments:
The company policy stated at the end is reasonable and fair. Mr Atkinson seems to be an idiot with a persecution complex. Fire him if that's what he wants.
If he's being that much of a brat about what seems like a fairly open-minded policy ("provided stalls at gay pride events".. blimey!) they may be better off without him.
I have to agree with him. It's not affecting his work, so it shouldn't make any difference whatsoever; he should be allowed to keep it in the van.
Mark, of course it's not affecting his work, it's affecting the public image of the company. If a company, tries not to be seen as promoting any particular religion, it's best the company cars are not decorated with religious symbols of any kind. Replace the cross with the Islamic crescent or a Buddha statue and even the sincerest Christians like Mr Atkinson might get the point.
I'm sorry, Insolitus, but I have to disagree. Nobody seeing that van would confuse the palm cross as being something which was put there by the employer; it's clearly not part of the van, therefore must have been put there by the driver. In no way could their allowing this to happen be construed as promoting any particular religion. Quite the opposite, I would infer that the company encourages equality, understanding and promotes a healthy respect of all beliefs.
In my opinion, what does negatively affect the public image of the company is their refusal to let him display it.
As for your last comment, for all I care, you could replace the Cross with the Islamic Crescent, or a Buddha, or any other religious icon, and it wouldn't make any difference. This would still be a story about a heavy-handed employer trying to prevent someone from expressing their faith.
Equating gay pride with Christianity is silly. One deals with the way you were born, physically. The other deals with what you believe (and try to force others to believe, if history is any indication).
This is a publicly funded company. Keep religion out of it. If you can't get through the day without shoving your religious paraphernalia in other people's faces, perhaps you shouldn't be working with the public at all.
It's my turn to disagree, Mark. If I didn't know anything about the company, I couldn't say for certain the cross wasn't put there by the employer. I could imagine a small company owned by very devout people doing something like that. If seeing this particular van was my first ever contact with the company, the religious symbol would certainly affect my first impression, both consciously and rationally as well as on the emotional level.
Plus, L makes a good point of the company being publicly funded. That should be reason enough to keep religion out of it's operation.
It's a small palm cross on a dashboard - hardly splashed across the side or front of the van. I doubt anything would have been said about it if it was a buddha or islamic crescent. Who on earth is going to be "offended" by it anyway? Oh, let me guess...the majority of the posters here.
You misunderstand at least me, Anonymous. I am not offended by the cross. If I am offended by anything at all, it is the sense of entitlement shown by Mr Atkinson. The company has a clear policy of no personalizing the insides of company cars, but he thinks there should be an exeption for his religion and therefore the rule doesn't doesn't affect him.
Plus, as I said, a company van marked as a Christian (or as any other type of religion) would make me not want to use the services of the said company. Not because I was offended, but because it would seem divisive and unwelcoming from my perspective.
Post a Comment