Duke Amachree a Christian Homelessness Prevention Officer for Wandsworth Borough Council has lost his case for gross misconduct and religious discrimination
Breaking news and I suspect this will swiftly become the ‘Christian persecution’ hot potato and the new front in the ‘war’…..
Christian Concern for our Nation:
Duke, a father of two and committed Christian, had worked for Wandsworth Council for 18 years and had an unblemished record. Yet, as a result of the comments he made in one 45 minute housing interview, he was subject to 6 months of investigations and three interviews with the Council. His solicitor was even told by the Council that saying “God bless” to a client would require an investigation if the client complained.
Gross misconduct usually covers such behaviour as violence in the workplace, theft or other such serious conduct. Yet the client herself expressly stated that she did not want Duke to be dismissed for what he had said and Duke had never been told that such small talk in a housing interview was prohibited. The Council have always accepted that Duke’s motivation in speaking to the client was purely one of compassion.
Duke, backed by the Christian Legal Centre, took his case to the tribunal where it was argued that the Council’s decision to dismiss him was grossly disproportionate and unfair, and that they had discriminated against him on the basis of his religion.
Despite the evidence that was presented to the tribunal, they decided that the Council’s response was reasonable. Duke and his legal team intend to appeal the decision.
Andrea Minichiello Williams, founder and director of the Christian Legal Centre said “We are stunned that the tribunal failed to recognise the draconian way in which Mr Amachree was treated and we are dismayed that they found that Mr Amachree had not been discriminated against on the grounds of his faith. This decision will send yet more shock waves through the Christian community when they realise that a couple of comments encouraging faith in God can lead to a person being dismissed for gross misconduct.”
Mr Amachree said “I am devastated by the outcome. This is a sad day for Christians who simply want to live out their faith in the workplace without fear. But my heartfelt thanks goes to the Christian Legal Centre and those who have stood by me from the beginning and I know they will continue to support me.”
An evangelical Christian council worker who was dismissed for gross misconduct has lost his claim of religious discrimination. The British Humanist Association has welcomed the judgment as a sane response to ill-founded and illegitimate claims of persecution of Christians in the workplace.
The tribunal found that Duke Amachree, whose case was supported by the Christian Legal Centre, a Christian lobby group, was ‘fairly dismissed’ from his job as a Homelessness Prevention Officer with Wandsworth Borough Council. The council dismissed him following a complaint from a service user who was distressed when, after she revealed that she had an incurable disease, Mr Amachree used the opportunity to evangelise for his religion in the course of his job and encouraged her to ‘put her faith in god’.
Andrew Copson, BHA Chief Executive, welcomed the judgment, saying, ‘When we take on jobs of service to others, we need to understand that our own prejudices and preferences come second to the needs of those we are employed to help and serve. The law has very properly upheld that principle today.’
He went on, to express the BHA’s concern about the growing prominence of cases such as Mr Amachree’s: ‘The growing trend for political Christian groups to bring nuisance cases of alleged discrimination is highly alarming. Even when the courts find – as they invariably have – no evidence of discrimination, these lobby groups, instead of accepting this, go on to claim instead that the whole system of law discriminates against them and that the whole of the law should shift to accommodate their prejudices. Theocratic arguments like this, advanced in the name of equality for Christians, need to be exposed for what they are.’
Tags: Christian Persecution, Christianity, Law Moral Ethical, News
August 11th, 2010 at 1:55 pm
G*d bless you all with extreme prejudice, particularly Sophie who thinks I am xenophobic and a misanthrope.
August 11th, 2010 at 2:12 pm
I find it sad that someone should be sacked after 18 years of employment.
Was the offence grave enough to warrant dismissal? We can’t really know as it happened after many internal hearings.
It was certainly serious, a vulnerable client in a subordinate role was badgered in a way I should have found very threatening. She was ill and about to become homeless. Perhaps the offence should be considered equivalent to sexual harassment of a juniour colleague.
If this was a first offence and Mr Anachree apologised and agreed not to repeat it, then dismissal seems harsh.
On the other hand, if Mr Anachree didn’t believe he had misbehaved, he might well have been thought likely to re-offend and the sanction seems more appropriate.
August 11th, 2010 at 2:20 pm
@cnocspeireag I’m going to be frank here, but it was alleged in a previous case that the Christian legal group behind the case would not allow for reasonable negotiations but insited on going to tribunal / court.
I didn’t put this paragraph in but it might be very telling:
Did you notice this bit especially:
Duke had breached confidentiality by publicising his case…
Could it be that the very involvement of a Christian legal group, their publicity drive and lack of willingnes to negotiate, might influence the outcome?
I’m only speculating, but from my analysis of previous cases, I have noted Christian legal groups operating in a manner that could only be described as counter-productive to the outcome.
August 11th, 2010 at 2:24 pm
@ cnocspeireag: I suspect that there was a great deal more to it than this. Few employers would go to these lengths after 18 years unless the issues were grave. I suspect it comes down, yet again, to the involvement of the unpleasant Christian Legal Centre stirring things up.
There’s an article on Ekklesia which tells us something the CLC fails to – that Duke Amachree’s most serious offence was giving personal and confidential details of the client who complained to the Daily Mail (which he did via the CLC). That would get you the sack in most jobs.
Ekklesia writes: This was in fact after the involvement of the Christian Legal Centre (CLC) began. The day after they issued their press release, the Daily Mail reported the story. At this point Amachree had only been suspended, pending an investigation.
This seems to follow a pattern we have observed in other similar cases. There we have talked to the parties involved where discrimination against Christians has been alleged, and the involvement of campaign groups has seemed to have entrenched positions and made matters worse, not better.
The council statement continued: “It is also categorically untrue to suggest that this is about a member of staff saying ‘God bless’ or that the council has a policy banning employees from making references to God in the workplace.”
August 11th, 2010 at 2:27 pm
@Sophie, very interesting stuff.
There has to be more to this story…otherwise it simply doesn’t make any sense….
August 11th, 2010 at 2:27 pm
There’s a rather good local article here: http://www.wandsworthguardian.co.uk/yoursay/yourneighbourhood/4492669.Why_Wandsworth_was_right_to_sack_evangelical_council_worker/
August 11th, 2010 at 2:30 pm
“Theocratic arguments like this, advanced in the name of equality for Christians, need to be exposed for what they are.”
Indeed. If Mr Amachree had been a muslim and behaved in a similar way then presumably the fundamentalist Christians would have been glad he was sacked. The problem here is that they are dominionists. They don’t want to get people to behave their way by preaching the gospel and hoping that some end up agreeing with them, but by using the law to enforcement of their will on others.
Of course, in doing so they are just following the example of Jesus who, as we all know, spent most of his time in legal argument before the Sanhedrin, campaigning for more enforcement of the ten commandments and against equal rights for Samaritans. In fact, had it not been for his wealthy donors the enforcement of his will on the general public then he might never have got as far as 12 disciples.
By the way, the new cause celbre is actually the one about Marie Stopes International providing free abortions for staff. Although it turns out not to be news and part of a clause which gives them access to all the organisations services free of charge.
August 11th, 2010 at 2:41 pm
Was this case a State secret, did they not want us to know that there are homeless people with incurable diseases.
Gross misconduct (notwithstanding this being employment law) is a serious charge/offence in legal parlance.
August 11th, 2010 at 2:42 pm
Gross misconduct (notwithstanding this being employment law) is a serious charge/offence in legal parlance.
Yes it Goy and that’s why this case doesn’t make sense on the face of it….
August 11th, 2010 at 2:56 pm
I think that Duke Amarchree had possibly been allowed to work fairly unsupervised by his line manger for many years and was perhaps not fully aware of appropriate boundaries in discussing his personal faith with clients. At the same time he may also have been a victim of the Christian Legal Centre using his case to make some sort of political point. The CLC should certainly have advised him not to speak to the Daily Mail or any other newspaper and reminded him about the importance of client confidentiality. However, if as is suggested in one comment, it was they who passed the confidential information to the press surely they should take the blame and not Mr Amarchee?
August 11th, 2010 at 3:03 pm
@ Annie: Judging by their performance in other cases (our webmaster keeps an eye out for the little rascals) the CLC appears to be more interested in its public profile than the fate of those it represents.
From the CLC’s pov a sacked victim is better news than a happy compromise. A compromise would suggest that Christians may not be quite as persecuted as the CLC would have us believe.
August 11th, 2010 at 3:04 pm
This is not about gagging Christians, it’s about principles. I’d be saying the same if a Muslim, Jew, Sikh, atheist or anyone else tried to impose their religious or political beliefs on others in this way.
inshallah = Gross misconduct
Government and local councils have spent billions promoting islam and the Stalinist politics of equality, note the anti-christan stance of the community correspondent Stephen Evans
G:)d bless you all with extreme prejudice.
August 11th, 2010 at 3:10 pm
@ webmaster: I imagine it’s the breach of confidence that sealed the deal. If, as a public servant, you have private confidential information about people (in this case the woman’s housing status and her serious ill-health – doesn’t get much more personal) and breach this confidence to, of all things, a national newspaper, you will get sacked. It’s gross misconduct.
August 11th, 2010 at 3:10 pm
Any client confidentiality breach would have been after the fact and should have been the subject of a separate charge or case.
August 11th, 2010 at 4:14 pm
It gets worse, check this comment out from the BBC:
Wandsworth Council said Ms X complained that she faced a “30 minute barrage” from the advisor during which she was also told not to bother with doctors.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-10935390
Oh dear….
August 11th, 2010 at 6:51 pm
“30 minute barrage” – maybe he was ab-libbing his way through the interview as he did not want to lie about her real housing prospects given the disaster that is social housing policy is in the UK.
August 11th, 2010 at 7:25 pm
Couple of statements just received:
And….
August 11th, 2010 at 10:44 pm
There is no corroborated evidence that Mr. Amachree has “imposed” anything, let alone ‘imposed his faith’ on anyone. What we are witnessing here is firstly prejudice on the part of the council, secondly, the outworking of contemporary inappropriate ‘moral values’, that seek to tell us that no one should express personal views even if it is genuinely of potential benefit to the listener and thirdly, an inappropriate response to the so called, ‘offence’.
This situation actually highlights the preposterous social climate that we have drifted into, where the callousness of a clinical institution places the ‘value’ of sterile, unengaged relations that leave clients bereft of real values they could benefit from, above contemporary misguided principles they have adopted and which were created to pacify the irreligious and the assumed ‘offended of a different persuasion’.
We are not party to all the details of this case, but this is nothing unusual. However, what we do know of this case, is that the council has handled this situation extremely badly, or it would never have even seen the light of day. There should have been no need for such inappropriate drastic response by the council in the first place. Had this been handled appropriately, by the council concerned, it would have been dealt with quietly, by asking Mr. Armachree to be more careful when speaking to clients, not dismissing him, which clearly shows an unbridled prejudice against him.
As for the clients description of a ’30 minute barrage’, any person who has a genuinely and deeply held opinion or faith, can be interpreted as offering a ‘barrage’, and misinterpreted by the listener. There is nothing unusual about this. In fact it takes two people to create that kind of discussion or ‘barrage’, not just one. If the customer did not agree or like Mr.Armachree’s concern for her, which in this case it is clear that his genuine and sincere concern for her as a person was paramount (not forcing someone to agree with his faith or beliefs), then she is of course able to disagree and is free to adopt her own beliefs. It was not necessary for any complaint to be brought in this situation, especially given Mr. Armachree’s kindness and sincerity towards her, in him wanting her to have real answers to her predicament. In respect of her attending doctors, I don’t think it is appropriate for someone to be told not to visit a doctor, but this may be a misinterpretation of what was actually said or intended.
Mr.Armachree is owed a sincere apology by the council and by those who have sought to act against him in this regard. He should be entitled to compensation from the council.
August 11th, 2010 at 10:55 pm
It went to court and he lost. Are you suggesting the court was part of a conspiracy? The case was about a breach of confidentiality rather than religion.
August 11th, 2010 at 11:06 pm
In this situation, it is also likely, that the engagement of this conversation between Mr.Armachree and the client was entered into freely by both of them. After all, a little thought about this conversation, leads to the obvious conclusion that Mr.Armachree was addressing some expressed needs that the client had told him about her condition and situation. It would be very unusual indeed for this conversation to have arisen without the client freely engaging in it, because conversations are not usually ‘one way’, or one person being informed about a personal situation without the other person telling them about it. If I have a discussion with someone, regardless of the context or place, even if I disagree with the other person’s view or advice, I am not going to make a complaint about it, because I am mature enough to dismiss it, or have an alternative view. The fact that a ‘complaint’ was made in the first place, is not an appropriate response to someone trying to help her, but be that as it may, the council should never have taken this line of action. If any modification of Mr.Armachree’s discussion with clients was warranted, then the advice should have been to judge more carefully whether the content was irritating or not to the listener, wherever this occurred.
August 11th, 2010 at 11:08 pm
David Booth
- How on Earth can you state categorically that Amachree is owed an apology and compensation without knowledge of the full facts of the case.
Let’s assume for the sake of argument that the facts have been reported accurately in that he did subject this very sick woman, who just wanted housing advice, to a religious tirade – including that she should not bother with doctors.
If he had tried that with me I would have been very angry. He is employed as a professional advisor on housing matters. It is not his role to preach, and his behaviour was totally unacceptable.
And then to add insult to injury he was complicit in revealing her name to the media. Inexcusable!
Do you still feel the same way about this?
August 11th, 2010 at 11:25 pm
Gordon,
It may be that you had the benefit of attending the court session, whilst I didn’t, in which case, you would know more about the case being about a ‘breach of confidentiality’ as you claim. The first breach of confidentiality occurred when the client took the conversation that was intended to be confidential between 2 people only, and then relayed it to a third party in the form of some kind of complaint. The second breach of confidentiality occurred as a result of the complaint being brought against Mr.Armachree who then apparently felt he needed help in defending himself against the unwarranted complaint. The council handled this badly and inappropriately because this whole scenario had no need to be anything other than having a few quiet words with Mr.Armachree to ask him to be more careful not to offend anyone unintentionally. Instead it became a national issue, because of the unreasonable action by the council.
Losing a case in a court or tribunal, is not necessarily the same as being ‘in the wrong’, or ‘not having a valid case’, in this case against his employer’s actions. Courts and tribunals often get it wrong, as in this case.
As for ‘conspiracy’, I’m not party to any conspiracies and neither do I sign up to conspiracy theories. There’s no ‘conspiracy’ here. What is happening with the actions, attitudes and verdict by the council and the court, is naturally a microcosm of the misguided contemporary values that our society at large has embraced or rather drifted into. This does not result in ‘conspiracies’, but it does result in prejudice.
August 11th, 2010 at 11:28 pm
David Booth, you seem to live in a universe orthogonal to reality. No, it’s totally obvious that the client had not become involved in a discussion ‘entered into freely by both of them’. She was simply being bullied.
I was for many years a Sunday school teacher. I gave up when I eventually realised that I was dealing with people who lied as a first option. It hurt, because I really believed at the time. On balance, I’m glad I woke up.
August 11th, 2010 at 11:52 pm
Jim,
I’m not at all convinced that there is any hidden or secret facts to this case, that warrant his dismissal – in fact, I think it is rather unlikely. I’m sure Mr.Armachree and the Christian Legal Center would not have brought this case, had there been any considered belief that Mr.Armachree had done anything seriously wrong.
It is very unlikely that he did ‘subject the client to a religious tirade’. Only an unbalanced nutcase is going to subject someone to what you describe as a ‘religious tirade’ and considering he had been working for the council for 18 years, it is extremely unlikely that he is a ‘nutcase’. I don’t think there was any mention of preaching either in the discussion. Neither is there anything wrong with preaching. You are told to preach the gospel to everyone, not hide it. However, in so doing, a Christian should speak according to the needs of the individual. It is clear to me, if not to you, that Mr.Armachree was seeking not only to offer housing advice, but to go the extra mile and really try to help this woman, where lesser people without real concern would have ignored her need. Therefore, his behaviour was not ‘totally unacceptable’, it was actually very caring of him. However, as we all know, conversations do get out of hand and that is almost always the product of 2 people, and not just one. I believe in freedom of speech, not gagging. Christian faith should never be ‘private’ – this is what has stunted the gospel in our nation for a considerable period of time. I think Christians should always be careful not to offend anyone unintentionally, as may have happened in this case, but for my money, if I am really in need of help and I go to get housing advice, but get extra care and concern about problems I have, I would be grateful, not go making a complaint. Employers should also recognise the added value that individuals have when they are able to offer skills, knowledge and even spiritual help, over and above the normal professional skills they offer.
I’m afraid, I don’t go along with the crowd here, that all seem to want to condemn my brother Mr.Armachree. I see no reason at all for condemnation towards him.
August 11th, 2010 at 11:54 pm
webmaster, yes I had seen the reference to the plaintiff having broken confidentiality.
This was part of the reason for my final paragraph. We can’t know, but it wouldn’t be unreasonable to assume that Mr.Armachree was encouraged to pretend he had done nothing wrong.
Far be it from me to suggest that I should refrain from comment in case of threats from a group of lawyers with morals lower than pond slime. I could not think of any such group. Nor could I refer to any court which brings British justice into ill repute.
August 12th, 2010 at 12:03 am
cnocspeireag
I don’t agree, I’m afraid.
It is extremely unlikely that she was being bullied, because there is no previous indications from Mr. Armachree’s 18 year record with the council that he was a ‘bully’. Furthermore, why would he suddenly become a ‘bully’ when a woman has shared with him her personal situation about her illness….no, I think some people need to wake up here and get to grips with this scenario honestly, instead of joining the ‘lets bully Mr.Armachree train’, which is what is happening here, because he has acted in good faith and had the guts to do so, to help a person in need.
I’m sorry to hear about your personal situation regarding your former beliefs and role in Christian teaching, but without a real conversion, meeting the power of Christ, people do fall away from Christianity. I received the Lord at 24 years old, and within the space of 1 hour, I was radically changed from an atheist, to someone filled with the Joy, Love and Peace that only Christ can give. I have never regreted Christ and can never, ever deny the power of God in my life, despite having been severely tested in life.
My support however remains for Mr.Armachree, though I would probably advise him myself to be more careful, not to unintentionally upset anyone.
August 12th, 2010 at 12:05 am
Mr Booth, I’m sorry you are so deluded.
August 12th, 2010 at 12:18 am
cnocspeireag
I don’t think so. Your perspective may be different from mine, but I’m not calling you ‘deluded’, even if I may believe that you don’t have a proper perspective on things. You’ll just have to accept that other people may have a different opinion from yourself. Also, if you think about your comment that you were ‘formally a Sunday School teacher’ and that you “I gave up when I eventually realised that I was dealing with people who lied as a first option. It hurt, because I really believed at the time. On balance, I’m glad I woke up.”….this does suggest that you may be prejudiced against Christians, if you have the distorted belief that we are people that ‘lied as a first option’. When you say you ‘believed at the time’, it suggests that now you don’t ‘believe’ and obviously, as you have said these things you clearly have suspicions against Christians that are colouring your judgement of them, regardless of the facts. This is why you have taken one extreme position that Mr.Armachree was a ‘bully’, whereas , I as a Christian who understands the Christian heart to serve the Lord, realise that Mr Armachree was not a bully, but sincerely aimed to serve by genuinely trying to help the lady.
However, your comment that I am ‘deluded’ because I take the perspective of trust and giving the benefit of doubt to my brother Mr.Armachree, has a ring of anger about it from you. I therefore learn that you ‘dont’ believe’ and that you are ‘angry’….it is not hard to see therefore why you would be against a Christian who acts out his faith.
August 12th, 2010 at 7:29 am
David, I did not need to be in court. The law works by a few people (judges) being set aside to look at all the evidence and make a decision on our behalf. The person can appeal against the decision if they wish.
As an ex employer and someone who is still involved in hiring and firing I can tell you that it is almost impossible to dismiss someone these days. There needs to be a considerable internal investigative process. I know of one case where someone was on long term sick for six months, came back for a day and then back off for another six months (on full pay) and there was nothing could be done about it legally.
In any case why are these cases only happening now? As I have said before the way British evangelical Christians behave has changed a massive amount in the past 20 years.
August 12th, 2010 at 9:07 am
Mr Booth, I apologise for calling you deluded, it was uncalled for.
August 12th, 2010 at 9:35 am
@ David Booth: What Gordon says is spot on. Sacking people isn’t easy. Modern legislation is tough and public service employers have to follow even stricter standards. You can’t be dismissed on a whim. Something major has to have happened.
Then the dismissal went to tribunal, an independent court where all the facts are examined impartially and both sides heard. Duke Amachree only knew about this unfortunate woman’s health because of her housing issues. He abused his position and then breached her privacy.
Perhaps you don’t realise how offensive Evangelicals can be. As a Christian, I will cross the road – and have changed churches – to get away from Evangelicals. They really seem to have no idea how rude and inappropriate they are. There’s no dialogue. Just a rant.
More seriously, I’ve had a teenage boy practically living with us for a couple of years because his mum simply would not stop praying at him. She’s a lovely woman, but I couldn’t live with her either.
She’s well-meaning, and I expect Duke Amachree was too. This doesn’t alter the fact that their arrogance and behaviour is intolerable to others and, in his case, earned him the sack.
I’d recommend you familiarise yourself with the work of the CLC. They specialise in creating false victims and claiming unfounded persecution. Their clients always lose.
August 12th, 2010 at 9:55 am
Isn’t this the truth…
The Christian think-tank Ekklesia, which has also been critical of the way campaigning groups are keen to exploit cases like this, has argued that in situations involving sensitivity over religion or belief, a strategy of mediation and conciliation rather than litigation would be far more effective for all concerned.
http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/12833
August 12th, 2010 at 9:57 am
Litigation is an American thing, like so many evangelical activities these days.
August 12th, 2010 at 10:12 am
I agree with you Stuart. This was the point I was making earlier – this situation need never have come to our attention, if the council had had the wisdom to handle it properly. The situation arose because of the incompetance of the council to handle it appropriately. Instead of Mr. Armachree being advised to moderate his communications to avoid unintentionally offending anyone, the council gave a knee jerk reaction motivated by the contemporary hysterical phobia about anyone expressing real values or views in a professional context. However, it is more than possible that there is a current attitude that Christian values in particular should not be expressed to anyone.
On balance, I will support Mr.Armachree’s position, on the basis of trust in a fellow brother, until I hear incontrovertible evidence that warrants his dismissal. I have heard nothing so far which in my opinion warrants a man to lose his livelihood, his mortgage, home or to make him bankrupt, by implication. I have only heard about one lady client’s complaint of something he said with the best of intentions.
August 12th, 2010 at 10:41 am
“there is a current attitude that Christian values in particular should not be expressed to anyone.” Really? Where is your evidence for this? I think there is some evidence that religious beliefs should not be expressed in public, but Christian values? I say that as someone who works for an organisation whose mission statement is “to inspire, empower and support people of all ages, cultures and abilities as an expression of compassionate Christian values”. I can honestly say I have never met any opposition to this from any government body or local authority. In fact today our MP is visiting me after lunch. There has never been any opposition from any member of the public either to us expressing those Christian values in public. In all my time here I have only ever had one complaint and that was from an evangelical Christian!
August 12th, 2010 at 10:50 am
@ David Booth: Are you not reading anyone else’s posts? I ask because Gordon has explained very carefully that the Council did deal with the situation properly. The evidence for this is compelling.
Duke Amachree was initially suspended. Following an internal investigation and disciplinary hearing he was dismissed. He then appealed to the council. When this failed he took his case to an employment tribunal. The tribunal listened to both sides, and the hearing took place during June and July. This was no kneejerk decision.
Mr Amachree and his colleagues normally spent 15-20 minutes with clients. The time spent with the woman who complained was 45. My husband died of a terminal illness. If someone had used his job and my need to tell me what he told her I would have been absolutely furious. Remember that people applying for help with homelessness are extremely vulnerable and desperate to gain approval from workers. The last thing they want to do is antagonise someone who can help them. It’s a job in which it’s easy to abuse power. She must have been distraught to report this.
Unlike a criminal trial, not all the evidence presented in employment tribunals appears in the press. This is to protect the individuals involved. However having been part of such a tribunal I can tell you that it is a rigorous process and its findings are similarly cautious.
@ cnocspeireag: David Booth isn’t deluded but I understand your frustration. He’s not absorbing any evidence that doesn’t fit his conclusions.
August 12th, 2010 at 12:09 pm
What is interesting about this case is how there are very conflicting stories of what actually happened in the interview (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-10935390). The Christian Legal Centre reports on its website that Mr Amachree was sacked ‘for mentioning God in the workplace’ whereas the BBC website states the woman concerned suffered a ‘30 minute barrage’. Hence we are left to ponder the words of Pilate ‘What is truth?’. Before my time in fieldwork social work and my present academic career, I was a manager in social care and as someone has already noted above, it is VERY difficult in England to get someone sacked. I have tried to have several staff sacked for what I saw a gross negligence – being abusive to an elderly female resident and sleeping on night duty – both staff ended up cautioned, despite my own desire as their manager to dismiss them – the law was on their side. Hence I can only conclude that the case against Mr Amachree was a serious one indeed and far more than just mentioning ‘God in the work place’. Indeed I have worked for several inner London councils (all, like Wandsworth, Tory led) and each has had well advertised Christian groups and used council facilities for prayer groups in lunch hours, so it’s inconceivable to me that this is just a case of not wanting ‘God in the workplace’. Such an accusation is the old trick of ‘folk devils and moral panics’ initiated when the truth is probably a little more mundane and a little less in Mr Amachree’s favour.
It is sad in our present age, that here in the UK at least, there is appearing a problem of Christian organisations and the Christian media presenting Christianity as either the ‘saviour of society’ or a ‘victim of society’. I would suggest the reporting of the Amachree tribunal is a case of the latter…
See http://problemwithrelgion.blogspot.com/2010/08/another-victory-for-common-sense.html for my own take on this subject.
Regards:
Steven
August 12th, 2010 at 1:03 pm
Sophie,
Thank you for explaining your point of view. I respect your opinion, but am not at all convinced by it. The problem here is that none of us were actually party to what occurred in the interview room and therefore we have only the interpretations by others, which may or may not be reasonable or accurate. I should point out that the process of suspension, appeal, tribunal etc, should only be a last resort and for the most serious cases of misconduct, not misused against somone who was trying to sincerely help someone. It does appear in this discussion that a number of people are making the assumption that because the council took its action, that it was, or must have been reasonable to do so, or that Mr.Armachree must have been involved in some “unknown, unannounced other misdemeanors” and not least that Mr.Armachree ‘must’ have been very ‘offensive’ or upsetting. None of these assumptions is being verified as true and therefore it isn’t appropriate to be making these judgements against Mr.Armachree and certainly not without inviting him to defend himself against such accusations. Not least, the fact that this case went to suspension, legal action and tribunal, demonstrates that the council concerned has grossly mishandled the situation and in the process lost a faithful worker of some 18 years service to both his employers and to the general public.
Sophie, I’m genuinely sorry to hear about your husband and hope that you are now well advanced in the healing process, which as you know can take some years. My wife died when I was just 36 and it took me several years to feel almost ‘normal’ again. She did receive help and advice from people, but it didn’t seem to prevent her death. However, I am very grateful for all who tried to offer help and advice to her and do not feel anger towards anyone about it.
I am well aware of the vulnerability of homeless people, having worked in that area previously in a Christian context, providing homes for homeless, and various groups of people, offering care to them to become re-established in a new home with a ‘new start’. You make the assumption: “She must have been distraught to report this.” – but this is only an assumption and it may or may not be correct at all.
All of this has been interpreted and quite possibly misinterpreted. Until I hear irrefutable evidence to the contrary, I will not be making a judgement against Mr.Armachree.
August 12th, 2010 at 1:15 pm
None of us was there when the Peter Sutcliffe murdered all those women yet we choose to accept the ruling of the court that he did kill them.
I don’t see any discrimination against Christians in my daily life, but I do see people upset by uninvited religious proselytising of any kind. Even when I was at my most fundamentalist I used to hate having to cross the road in London where there were people preaching on traffic islands. They always seemed to shout at me the loudest.
August 12th, 2010 at 1:17 pm
@ David Booth: Thanks for the reply. As you are not convinced by any of the facts I’ll leave it here. There’s simply no reasoning with you. Facts don’t impinge. I suspect that in the flesh you may be as hard to tolerate as Duke Amachree clearly was.
August 12th, 2010 at 1:24 pm
The other day I came into work and the local episcopal priest was celebrating communion for people with dementia and their families in one of our halls that has a glass wall to the corridor. To me that was a far more powerful witness than anything done by the Christian Legal Centre recently. I think we all need to remember that the majority of Christians are of this caring and considerate kind.
August 12th, 2010 at 1:34 pm
Yes, Gordon I do agree. Most of us in the mainstream denominations, live out our faith quietly. In my own church proselytising is deemed as quite wrong, we prefer St. Francis of Assisi approach.
“Preach the Gospel at all times, use words if necessary”
August 12th, 2010 at 1:46 pm
Gordon,
I think it is reasonable to accept the verdict against Peter Sutcliffe, because this is properly corroborated by evidence collected. However, in the case of Mr.Armachree, the case is based upon one person’s complaint and we all know that there are many invalid or unreasonable complaints amongst the valid ones. In this case, it is a subjective complaint in that the lady chose to take a confidential discussion out of the interview room and form a complaint with it, even though Mr. Armachree was concerned enough about the lady to go out of his way to try to help her. Honestly, my view of this situation is that after 18 years of working, Mr. Armachree was experienced enough to know what is reasonable in trying to help someone. However, any conversation can ‘go wrong’ or become unconstructive and in almost any conversation, one party can decide to take offence at something the other person has said. We were not in the room at the time and therefore we have only the lady’s interpreted complaint and the council’s response to it. Conversations that go wrong in this context should not warrant suspension and dismissal. Counselling Mr.Armachree to moderate his conversations would have been the appropriate response.
As for your comment about ‘proselytising’ – this is not an option for a Christian. Christ commands the gospel to be preached to all. I’d also remind you that the Cross is said in scripture to be an ‘offence’, because it convicts people of their sin. Any Christian who is not ‘proselytising’ or leading others to Christ, is disobeying Christ’s command.
However, the way in which a Christian approaches sharing the great news or leading other to the joy and love of God, that we enjoy, should always be by asking God to lead us by the Holy Spirit in our words and actions. As such, this is normally by demonstrating acts of kindness, the Love of God and caring for our neighbour and sharing the Words of Christ to them. This does not normally upset anyone, but may annoy someone who is angry with God or who resents the faith. As for those who raise their voices in the street, to make others aware of Christ, the gospel and the rights of God to demand towards his creation, I thank God for them. They have their place and the rights to freedom of speech must be protected in any democracy, unless it is to incite violence or intended to harm others. If one of them shouts the gospel or repentance to me, I will never be offended, because repentance for a Christian should be a daily practice.
Coming back to the interview room, however, it clearly is a place where the interviewer’s first priority is to provide professional advice and help. Mr. Armachree’s obvious concern for the lady interviewed, should not be despised, but all such conversations should be done with sensitivity. None of use here are perfect! All of us make mistakes, yet how many of us are being sacked for them? How easily we condemn and judge others, even when in this case we are making judgements about a man’s whose sincerity and convictions are not in question!
August 12th, 2010 at 1:59 pm
Sophie,
No, not at all. People that know me do not find me hard at all – quite the opposite. However, ‘assumptions’ are not facts, but there are a lot of assumptions being made here, judging a brother in Christ and I can’t subscribe to that. Christ commanded us not to judge others in this way. When you have facts you can make judgements, but not on the basis of assumptions. I do not want to be judged for pronouncing wrong judgements on others because of assumptions I am making. Therefore I reserve judgement and give Mr. Armachree the kindness of the benefit of any doubt.
August 12th, 2010 at 2:11 pm
Proselytising is not the same as being threatening and nasty to other people which is how a lot of what passes for evangelism can come across.
August 12th, 2010 at 3:17 pm
There’s a comment on the story in the Wandsworth local paper. Someone who, from his remarks, seems to have been present at the hearing writes:
The hearing heard compelling and overwhelming evidence that the staff member gave wholly inappropriate, unprofessional and unacceptable advice to a member of the public, which caused great upset and distress.
The complainant was in fact subjected to a 30-minute ‘barrage’ from Mr Amachree who told her that the only reason she was ill was that she did not believe in God.
Furthermore, after the member of the public had complained about his conduct, the staff member disclosed sensitive personal information about that person to the media.
MrAmachree’s lucky she didn’t punch him on the nose. Too ill, I guess.
August 12th, 2010 at 3:41 pm
…and perhaps the article helped to sell many more newspapers! but again here we are looking at a journalist’s report that is clearly biased against Mr.Armachree and his Christian faith, rather than factual reporting. Indeed the reporter then proceeds to attempt to impose his own views on the reader, intimating that his view is more correct than the views of religious people.
Mr.Armachree’s reported words, actually reveal that he was deeply concerned about the woman and that she was in need of help.
“By his own admission he suggested to the woman, who came to him seeking housing advice, that she should put her faith in God and that ‘sometimes the doctors don’t have all of the answers’. He went on to suggest that she should believe in ‘miracles’.
Mr Amachree is free to believe whatever superstitious mumbo jumbo he wants to, but he should not be entitled to peddle such beliefs whilst being paid by Wandsworth Council to give professional housing advice. ”
The whole tone of this article is negative in attitude towards Mr.Armachree, from the start of it to its end.
The reporter then makes this claim:
“I’d be saying the same if a Muslim, Jew, Sikh, atheist or anyone else tried to impose their religious or political beliefs on others in this way.” – however, please let us see some of his similarly scathing attacks on muslims, for instance. This would be very interesting! Are there any?
August 12th, 2010 at 3:49 pm
Why is it always Muslims that Christians have a thing about?
I am concerned that a lot of what passes for theological distrust is actually just racism. My reason for thinking that is that a lot of the same Christians who are uber-concerned about Islam also go on about immigration rather a lot. Its quite concerning that they feel the need to bolster their (quite proper) concerns about immigration with the faith “issue” that the country is (allegedly) threatened by Islam.
I keep having to pinch myself to see if this is all a dream. Christianity was not like this 20 years ago – honest.
August 12th, 2010 at 3:54 pm
As any professional with tell you, the first duty and priority is to stay within your professional boundaries.
I do realise that within evangelical circles, that is it taught that everyone who is not ‘born again’ (whatever that means to them) is going to hell. However, religious convictions are still not justifiable grounds to breach professional boundaries. I believe that we are bound by our duty of care and professionalism. This must come first, this is how we honour our Lord. We may well be called to give an apologetic for our faith, but this is when we are asked and invited. We are not called to preach at people at inappropiate times, particuarly in a secular environment wearing our professional ‘hat’ (unless of course your professional ‘hat’ is ordained clergy!).
Having said that I do feel sorry for Mr Amachree, it seems that he is yet another person, of a growing list used by this ‘christian’ (?) legal team to play political power games in trying to bolster their claim that christians are being discriminated against. Yet the irony is that really it is the fundies evangelicals that are the ones doing the discriminating.
I am all for free of speech, however, there is a time for everything, and should be reserved for one’s own free time, not whilst on professional duty representing one’s employer and their code of practice.
August 12th, 2010 at 3:58 pm
Gordon,
No, the question is more about hypocrisy.
August 12th, 2010 at 4:12 pm
David Booth: If you had read the link I provided properly you’d have seen that the quote provided was not from the article but from the readers comments below. The writer appears to have attended the tribunal. The article itself wasn’t a news report. It was an opinion piece, but you don’t seem to perceive the difference.
Not reading what other people write is clearly a habit with you. I can’t think why you bother engaging in debate. It’s really not your thing.
August 12th, 2010 at 4:35 pm
There is no stipulation or scriptural injunction in the NT about whom or where a follower of Christ can or cannot preach. A believer is expected however to honour their employer and those in authority as well as to be a witness of the love of God, wherever they are. There is no ‘call’ in the Bible, not to tell the gospel, show the love of God, to anyone at all. It is also depriving the spiritually hungry, to desist from sharing the bread of life with someone who is clearly in hungry and we will be called to account for that by the Employer of employers.
August 12th, 2010 at 4:37 pm
Sophie – personal attacks again?
August 12th, 2010 at 5:07 pm
I find it odd, reading through the above that with some commenters there is little comprehension of how difficult it is to have some dismissed in the United Kingdom – especially when that person works in the public sector! There would have had to have been good, solid, concrete, unambiguous reasons for Mr Amachree’s dismissal. This belief that he is the poor victim of an ungodly society, eager to condemn someone’s Christian faith is, as far as I am concerned, part of the victim mentality (aka Inverted Pride) of many Christians at present.
If The Christian Legal Centre takes this case to the High Court, then it is likely, once a ruling is given, the legal debate will appear on-line and we can see for ourselves just why Amachree was dismissed. In the meantime, going for the ‘Christianity as victim’ model of understanding this situation, is, to my mind, nothing but wishful thinking (but then isn’t a lot of what passes for religion these days?).
As is always the case with these ‘poor Christian victim’ cases, the Christian media and lobbying organisations go out of their way to present the ‘victim’ as some guileless soul, who has fallen foul of an ungodly world. Let’s remember Mr Amachree had been in post 18 years, no doubt he would know the council’s policies very well. He was in a PAID position to enact those policies. Yet he took it on himself, to think he knew better than both the council policies and medically trained staff in telling this woman ‘doctors don’t know everything…’.
Personally I don’t think this was enough to get him dismissed. There is something else, something we are not being told about at present. I do wish those wanting to believe Mr Amachree has been unfairly treated, that it is damn near impossible to dismiss someone in the UK, unless they have committed some serious breach of contract or gross misconduct. ‘Poor Evangelical Christian’ probably hides a multitude of issues that contributed to his dismissal. Sympathy, if it is due anywhere, is with the woman who had to endure someone else’s religious beliefs, when she was in a position of little power and all she wanted was help with her housing issues. But her plight seems lost to some who enter into debate about this issue.
August 12th, 2010 at 5:44 pm
I can’t speak for others, but as far as I am concerned, I don’t have a ‘victim mentality’ about this case. For me it is important not to condemn others and not to judge others on the basis of hearsay and assumptions. If the discussion was about the woman concerned in this case, then we would be discussing her housing needs and all offering to help her. However, the topic is predominantly about the interviewer, Mr Armachree. From the snippet of speech reportedly from Mr. Armachree, it is evident that his primary concern was not himself, or his faith, but for the woman’s condition and needs. That this evidently became a conversation between two people that became unconstructive in some way, should not be grounds for dismissal, you are right. All that was needed here was for Mr. Armachree to have been counselled to keep to the business in hand and to moderate his conversations.
Again, I don’t think we can place any weight on assumptions that there must have been some ‘hidden misdemeanors’, other then what was reported here. If there was some real misconduct other than what was reported then let us see it and perhaps I and others will agree with the dismissal. On the basis of what has been reported in the media, this has not only been mishandled by the council, who should have had the wisdom and experience to have pre-empted the possibility of disciplinary action, by offering appropriate counsel to Mr. Armachree, but dismissal should be reserved for those employees whose lack of care towards their clients, leads to the client’s real harm, such as abuse, suicide etc. What disciplinary punishment will the employer give to those whose lack of care results indirectly to a client’s death? Whereas, here we are only talking about a conversation that a client didn’t like or felt in some way offended about. Therefore, this is not a measured disciplinary outcome and the council has made a mess of this case.
August 13th, 2010 at 12:06 am
Mr Booth. Is there not a certain irony that in the same post that you ask us not to condemn Amachree based puerly on what we know, you then proceed to do just that to the members of the council involved? If you knew that they were also devout Christians would that change your view?
August 13th, 2010 at 10:05 am
Jim,
No. I said on the basis of what has been made known via the media, this outcome was mishandled, even if they were Christian council employers.
August 13th, 2010 at 10:45 am
@ Steven Underwood: There’s snippets in various news reports from which I infer the clinching issue for the tribunal was that Mr Amachree not only didn’t agree that his conduct was unacceptable but that he wouldn’t undertake not to do it again.
From the Council’s pov, allowing someone with such a history to continue in post would not only be bad policy but would also leave the Council open to legal action. The woman concerned didn’t sue but if he did the same to another client the Council would be liable.
The idea that forcing your personal beliefs on unwilling or even protesting listeners is so pressing a religious duty that it overrides courtesy or legitimacy is not uncommon among extremists of various faiths.
As David Booth wrote earlier, in reply to Gordon’s comment on uninvited proselytising:
“As for your comment about ‘proselytising’ – this is not an option for a Christian. Christ commands the gospel to be preached to all… Any Christian who is not ‘proselytising’ or leading others to Christ, is disobeying Christ’s command.”
If this was the attitude with which Duke Amachree confronted the tribunal its decision was inevitable. If Mr Amachree plans to continue on this course he’d be better suited to a non-secular role among like-minded souls or, at the very least, one in which he doesn’t deal with the public. No one dealing with a secular organisation should find themselves subject to this sort of intrusion and annoyance.
August 13th, 2010 at 11:42 am
Mr Booth,
Thank you for your comments, though I think you are blinded by the need for Christians/Christianity to be ever the victim. I think you need to realise dismissing someone is VERY difficult in the UK – particularly those in public sector employment. Let us also remember that, yes, Mr Amachree was showing concerning for his client, but that was what he was paid to do. It is unfortunate he decided to suggest God was the answer to his client’s housing problems instead of getting on with the task in hand. If Mr Amachree worked for the council full time he would spend 35-37½ hours a week in the work place – making allowances for sleep, this would leave him another 84 hours a week when he would free to broadcast his religious views to the world outside of work.
Indeed, even in the work place, if he had just said something along the lines of ‘I think God helps’ and left it at that, I don’t think there would be any problem. From the reports given it sounds as if the woman was harassed. There is clearly something very wrong about targeting vulnerable people, when they are not in a position power themselves, but dependent upon the good will of a council officer.
I have long experience of working in public and voluntary sector – working for several Christian charities. I have found non-Evangelical staff much easier to manage because 1) They tend to get on with the job they are paid to do and don’t think they are doing anything special – whereas Evangelicals and many Christians per se often present themselves as ‘goodly’ souls and seek to exploit the kudos or symbolic capital they gain from the work; 2) The non-Christian staff were, in the main, less likely to lie or cheat – many of my Christian staff would bore me with their Christian credentials and then go off sick, while at the same time working agency at another residential home; 3) The non-Christian staff were not drunk on the pride of ‘specialness’ that is the malady of many of our pious brethren – thinking they have some inherent right to ‘special’ treatment. The latter seems to be evident in some of the posts above… I will let you decide as to who is displaying this overt desire for ‘special treatment’ and ‘special understanding’.
I will leave you with one last thought, Mr Booth, since we are discussing social welfare, in the context of local government. And that is, secular, liberal welfare states have brought about a far greater fulfilment of the social morality that is supposed to be the property of Christian government! A hundred years ago the churches may have been fuller and the Bible well-known (particularly among the middle-classes, the ones with power) and yet social morality was sorely lacking in Britain. The working class were badly treated and women had few rights. Hence it seems, secular, liberal democracy has come up with the goods of a more caring and equal society than centuries of Christian government. Indeed, if we look across the Herring Pond to the most overtly Christian Western nation, the US, we see far more social problems (high divorce, high teenage pregnancy (esp. in the Bible Belt) violent crime etc.) yet church attendance is 50% whereas it is only 7% in many northern European secular democracy. Hence it would seem the best means of ensuring the hungry are fed and the homeless housed is by the secular welfare state.
I am sure Mr Amachree and his like (for I was like him myself at one time) can find nice Christian charities where they can do their bit (often – and ironically – only surviving by government support rather than Christian will!). But to lecture vulnerable people about God in a work situation – no, it is in effect I kind of stealing – the theft of one’s employer’s time. But I doubt the ‘devout’ will see it like this, but then they never do…
Regards:
S.
http://problemwithrelgion.blogspot.com/
August 13th, 2010 at 12:25 pm
Before further misinterpretations arise, I say it again – It is Christ’s command to preach the gospel to all. If you are a Christian follower/believer of Christ, it is not an option. This has nothing to do with any Christian persuasion or background. It is universally applicable across all Christian Churches.
Secondly, no ‘proselytising’ is ever ‘invited’. This is why those whose mouths are closed in respect of sharing the gospel, must bear some responsibility for our nation’s spiritual decline. Christian faith can never be ‘private’ or ‘privatised’. It was never privatised in the New Testament or throughout history and if it had been, not one of us here would ever have heard of Christ.
Also a further misconception here: proselytising is not about “forcing your personal beliefs on unwilling or even protesting listeners”. This really tells me that such a view can only come from people who have no interest in proselytising or finding out what is involved in obeying Christ command to proselytise.
However, as I have previously stated, in the professional context, the primary duty of an employee, is to honour their employer with exercising their duties. I agree that no one should be subjected to offensive forcing of speech of any kind. It is impolite and inconsiderate, to continue an unwanted conversation. However anyone who has had a conversation with someone about any subject whatsoever, knows, that a conversation can ‘go wrong’ and become unconstructive in some way and can in some cases lead to upset in one or both parties. I agree that the this particular setting was not the most appropriate for this type of discussion, but again, I draw attention to the fact that this situation may well have arisen because of Mr.Armachree’s perception of this woman’s need and in all probability, her sharing of this with him, hence the ensuing discussion. It appears to me from what has been reported, that Mr.Armachree was motivated only by empathy for this lady’s situation and needs, nothing else. The fact that it all went wrong, is unfortunate, but there is absolutely no indication of Mr.Armachree intending to hurt, harm or upset anyone. Therefore the action that the council took was out of proportion to the problem that had occurred.
Again I ask, what disciplinary punishment would the council do, in the case of another employee, whose lack of care and concern for this lady had resulted in her abuse or death outside of the council offices? Would it be the same discipline, because if it would be, then this is not a measured response, since the offence would be much graver?
The council’s action should have been to council Mr.Armachree to moderate his conduct and conversations and try to keep to the business in hand, not to suspend him or dismiss him, for trying to help someone that no one else apparently, had the convictions of conscience to help.
Perhaps some of those who complain about ‘intrusion or annoyance’, have indeed found themselves annoying others, if they were honest with themselves! How easy it is to judge and condemn others!
August 13th, 2010 at 1:05 pm
David Booth said:
“As for your comment about ‘proselytising’ – this is not an option for a Christian. Christ commands the gospel to be preached to all… Any Christian who is not ‘proselytising’ or leading others to Christ, is disobeying Christ’s command.”
David, Christ commanded us to go and make disciples, teaching them to follow the commandments of Christ. Which is summed up in two. Love the Lord your God, with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength. And love neighbour as yourself.
The Church (East and West) and her people do NOT proselytise. The Church evangelises. I think you make not be fully aware of the differences between evangelising and proselytising.
Evangelism, means telling or spreading good news. The four gospels of the New Testament is the good news about Jesus Christ.Telling others about what God has done in Jesus Christ, found in the Gospels, is evangelism.
Proselytism, on the other hand, means “bringing people in”, causing them to change their beliefs, their opinions or their religion. In proselytism there is a strong element of telling people how bad or wrong their present beliefs are. Telling people that their beliefs are wicked or wrong is not the “good news “.
August 13th, 2010 at 1:24 pm
Phoebe,
I agree, “Telling people that their beliefs are wicked or wrong is not the “good news”. However, if you are heard to be sharing the good news of Christ’s love for someone, in a muslim country, you will be accused of proselytising, even without saying they are ‘wrong’ or ‘bad’. No such distinction will be considered. It really depends upon your conception of the term. It isn’t necessary to tell someone they are ‘wicked’ or ‘wrong’ in their beliefs, even if they are, to proselytise. You could equally be accused today of telling someone they are ‘wrong’ or ‘wicked’ (even if they were, which is besides the point), by being involved in Evangelism. Such are some of the accusations already mentioned on this page by previous commentors. Whatever word you use for this, Christ instructed us to preach the gospel to all, yet even the word ‘preach’ is today considered to be a ‘dirty word’. When we have eliminated all the words used for Christian activity because they are unpopular, we may have to invent others to replace them!
August 13th, 2010 at 2:08 pm
@ Steven Underwood: What a very powerful and well-argued post. I have to admit that when you write:
“…secular, liberal welfare states have brought about a far greater fulfillment of the social morality that is supposed to be the property of Christian government! …it seems, secular, liberal democracy has come up with the goods of a more caring and equal society than centuries of Christian government. Indeed, if we look across the Herring Pond to the most overtly Christian Western nation, the US, we see far more social problems (high divorce, high teenage pregnancy (esp. in the Bible Belt) violent crime etc.) yet church attendance is 50% whereas it is only 7% in many northern European secular democracy. Hence it would seem the best means of ensuring the hungry are fed and the homeless housed is by the secular welfare state. ”
I can’t argue with a word, a sorry reflection from a Christian perspective, though I would argue that Bible Belt values are a long way from the Gospel they claim to follow, being a mixture of judgmental prurience, sugar-coated selfishness and gross materialism.
Again and again I see humanist values far outperforming Christian ones in action and effect. And attitudes like those expressed by David Booth help no one. Quite the opposite. On the basis of what’s been said here, David’s defining characteristics are a total absence of humility plus blindness to the rights of others. He and Duke Amachree seem peas from the same pod: happy to create bad feeling, hurt and religious strife so long as they feel self-righteous in their “specialness”.
It’s depressing. This sort of religious certainty is blind to its own motivations and careless of the harm it does. When other Christians avoid them like the plague, one has to wonder how many hesitant or uncertain people this sort of Christian drives away from the church?
@ David Booth: If you worked for me and tried any of that, I’d sack you. Preach on your own time and to volunteers. Feel free to consider yourself martyred, though others might describe it more bluntly.
August 13th, 2010 at 2:10 pm
Steven,
Regarding your assumption: “I think you are blinded by the need for Christians/Christianity to be ever the victim” – you are entitled to your opinion, but no more so than I am. My concern is first about the potential injustice that has occurred here, irrespective of Mr.Armachree’s beliefs, secondly the inappropriate response by the council and thirdly by the judgemental responses and accusations that are going on here about a man whose only intention was to help someone and who is not here to defend himself.
I think you are blinded by the concept of Christians thinking of themselves as ‘victims’. I don’t think of myself as a victim at all. When you have the joy of salvation, in your life, you do not think of yourself as a ‘victim’, but as someone who has received undeserved Grace, for which you are thankful and which you also know that you have a duty to share with others.
Your assumed interpretation of the situation with Mr.Armachree is not the only one. You could be right – but again you equally be totally wrong! The point is here that you were not there and we only have the result of a complaint and therefore you cannot say with any assurance whatsoever, that this was a case of ‘harassment’, yet you make the negative assumption that this was the case. The reason for this, by your own admission is that you “I was like him myself at one time” no longer see yourself as Mr.Armachree’s brother in Christ, but estranged from him. If a person distances themselves from Christ, they will also become distanced from their brothers in Christ (read the letters of John).
By the way, I too have this experience: “I have long experience of working in public and voluntary sector – working for several Christian charities”, but with very different conclusions. Dishonesty is pervasive today particularly in worldy, self centered and non Christian environments. Try working in finance in any such organisation and it won’t be long before you will be asked to make corrupt invoices and falsities! If this is your view: “The non-Christian staff were, in the main, less likely to lie or cheat”, then I suspect you are rather more gullible than you think!
As for “non-Christian staff were not drunk on the pride of ‘specialness’ that is the malady of many of our pious brethren – thinking they have some inherent right to ‘special’ treatment.” – this a product of twisted thinking, typical of those with a bee in their bonnet about Christianity and the resulting prejudicial steriotyping.
If I may say so, your comment about ‘liberal welfare state and the church, over the preceding century, is very short sighted. If you had a real informed insight into this, you would realise that the welfare state is an extension of the social gospel of the Victorian age, which was introduced by the church. It is quite possible that had the church not been prominent in the Victorian age and earlier, that we would not have had a state that cared for the underprivileged or those in need. However, whilst the state has adopted some of the social gospel of the church, it has failed to provide the spiritual and moral needs of our society, hence the decline in individual responsibility, birthrates and real communities of caring for our neighbours instead of our own front door.
August 13th, 2010 at 2:20 pm
Hi David,
If you are in any country and are trying to get a muslim to change his religion, or his beliefs, regardless of whether you denounce his own religion as bad or not, this is still proselytising. I have noticed that it seems to be fundamental evangelical christians are the only ones that are thrown out of muslim countries for proselytising.
I would also say that the word ‘preach’ means to deliver a sermon, culturally it means to lecture someone in a tedious and derogative manner… the “do as ‘what I think’ the bible says” gospel.
However, as far as I understood that the original meaning of ‘preach’, meant friendly gossip, to chat light-heartedly . There is a huge different between sharing with someone what one believes, and telling someone what they should believe.
August 13th, 2010 at 2:30 pm
@ David Booth: “… However, whilst the state has adopted some of the social gospel of the church, it has failed to provide the spiritual and moral needs of our society, hence the decline in individual responsibility, birthrates and real communities of caring for our neighbours instead of our own front door.”
What on earth has meeting spiritual and moral needs got to do with the birthrate? The birthrate drops in inverse proportion to women’s education and civil rights. Given the chance, women choose to bear fewer or no children, which is exactly what the world needs.
August 13th, 2010 at 3:17 pm
Sophie,
That may be your opinion, but it isn’t mine, I’m afraid.
Children are the blessing of the Lord. Lower birthrates indicate less blessing. Don’t worry yourself about this, I know you will not understand this at all.
August 13th, 2010 at 3:26 pm
@ David Booth: I understand all too well the patronising voice of those whose bodies will not be required to do the work.
Best I don’t worry my little female head, eh?
August 13th, 2010 at 3:43 pm
Sophie, you need to have lots of kids to keep up with the Muslims. I have three kids and people stopped babysitting for us after two.
August 13th, 2010 at 3:55 pm
@ Gordon: Keeping up with the Muslims, eh? Is this where the expression “human race” comes from?
Seriously though, as soon as some patriarchal type starts recommending relentless childbearing I consign him and his ugly beliefs to the mental scrapheap. It’s a bit of litmus test for me.
August 13th, 2010 at 4:38 pm
Sophie,
Christ never consigns anyone to the scrap heap, which is a good job for all of us, even you. Who knows, perhaps you will be blessed? However, I knew that you wouldn’t have a clue what I was referring to and so I wasn’t going to explain this to you, but rather left you to your own sinicism. It wasn’t because of wanting to patronise you, but rather that your previous comments have given me a picture of your type of understanding in life and where you’re at, you will not appreciate this truth.
August 13th, 2010 at 4:46 pm
@ Sophie, I was only joking, but it is an argument I have heard twice recently. Very odd. People stopped having big families when the infant mortality rate dropped and the need to have children to help round the farm or house reduced. Contraception is a good thing.
August 13th, 2010 at 4:50 pm
..and I’m fully expecting the next comment to say ‘Euthanasia is great – lets all do it!’
August 13th, 2010 at 5:13 pm
@ David Booth: Even me? What a weird idea of Christianity you have… It’s hard to take you seriously, especially with the spelling… Sinicism? Sometimes it’s hard to tell the real people from the trolls.
As for euthanasia, are you volunteering? It must have its attractions. There’s always a chance might get to heaven quicker. Bet they’re not running it properly without you. And no more living people either. We must be such a nuisance to someone as all-knowing and righteous as you.
August 13th, 2010 at 5:13 pm
Sophie,
Just noticed your nasty little comment:
“@ David Booth: If you worked for me and tried any of that, I’d sack you. Preach on your own time and to volunteers. Feel free to consider yourself martyred, though others might describe it more bluntly.”
I’m sorry, but I don’t have any vacancies at present but can keep you on the list, but have you tried the job center? Tescos have some shelf stacking jobs going where management skills, consideration or courtesy are not required.
August 13th, 2010 at 5:42 pm
With all this talk of family planning nit would be remiss of me not to post this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0kJHQpvgB8
August 13th, 2010 at 6:01 pm
Thank you, Gordon. I needed that.
August 13th, 2010 at 6:23 pm
@ David Booth: I wasn’t suggesting you apply for a shelf-stacking job, though I take on board your surprisingly accurate assessment of your social skills. I just meant that, speaking as an employer, I’d sack you if – as your post suggested – you proselytised on my time.
I think most companies would – Wandsworth Council had very little option in the circs. It’d be impossible to run an organisation in which any or all of your staff felt obliged to inflict their personal and, in your case, rather unpleasant religious beliefs on random customers or passing members of the public. Considering how beliefs vary among Christians alone, it would probably end in murder. Definitely in the courts.
I think we’ve exhausted this topic. You think I should be pregnant and I think you’re a crank. Let’s leave it at that.
August 13th, 2010 at 7:05 pm
David,
You said: “Dishonesty is pervasive today particularly in worldy, self centered and non Christian environments. Try working in finance in any such organisation and it won’t be long before you will be asked to make corrupt invoices and falsities!”
You are so wrong! I have worked in the Banking and Finance industry in many roles for many years, and I can honestly say that “making corrupt invoices and falsities” would be an instant sacking offence.
And there is no reputable evidence of which I am aware that finds that dishonesty is more pervasive now than in the past.
This makes me question more closely some of your other assertions.
August 13th, 2010 at 11:05 pm
Sophie,
I wish you well with your search for employment. Do try Tesco’s, they do sometimes take on the long term unemployed, so there is always a chance for you, even considering your lack of ‘skills’ I mentioned previously. Who knows, one day, you may be in the position to be an employer, but for now, may I suggest that you take the first step on the ladder to apply. It is always better to be realistic and apply for that first post, than trying to pretend to us, that you are something you’re not. Best wishes with your job search.
August 13th, 2010 at 11:06 pm
Jim,
wake up – it happens every day!
August 14th, 2010 at 8:49 am
In my experience dishonesty is not really any less prevalent among Christians than non Christians, but the motivation for dishonesty by Christians tends to be less about personal gain and more about improving the reputation of their faith. Here are a few examples:
1. I don’t drink, but its just because I don’t like the taste of it or what it does to me. As a young ministerial student I was told that this would make life very difficult for me so could I not just say I was a total abstainer for religious reasons? “No” I said, “that would be a lie”. Yet my superintendent did not see it that way. Apparently it would have helped people’s faith to see me being strong in mine even if it was a lie.
2. Woman in my church went to have tests for cancer. The church prayed. The tests were negative. This was declared widely as a miracle, when the truth was she just didn’t have cancer in the first place.
3. Number of conversions or the success of evangelistic campaigns overstated by including all the attendees or all the people who went forward at altar calls.
I suppose a lot of this is just “bigging up” the faith, but its still dishonest and a bit demeaning really.
Having said this I do accept that dishonesty amongst non Christians is almost the norm. I am always amazed by the insignificant things people lie about.
August 14th, 2010 at 9:04 am
David – Yet again you make an assertion with no evidence to back it up. How do you “know that it happens every day? If it is in the public sphere that menas it is not condoned by employers and the culprit is punished. If it is not in the public sphere then it is something about which you can only speculate. Either way you cannot say with any certainty that employees will be asked to “make false invoices and falsities” by their employers.
My point is that just as you have done with the Amachree case, you make assumptions with little firm evidence and then defend them as if you had.
You ask me to wake up. I think I am very aware of the real World. I struggle more with the World of faith, which demands that one take an assumption and live as though it were fact.
August 14th, 2010 at 1:41 pm
@ David Booth: Ad hominem attacks always scrape the bottom of the barrel. Online, where you can’t know anything about other people’s RL, they can also make you look totally ridiculous.
My attacks on you have been based solely on what you say here. I have no idea what you do in RL and don’t care.
I’ve owned a small company for over a decade. We’re not wealthy but until my husband died I was the main breadwinner. Now I support myself and two teenagers. I’ve never employed more than a handful of people, but I am an employer. I’m a graduate with additional professional qualifications, and I mentioned, in another debate, my past in national journalism. I’ve had three books published.
Your insults would be more effective if they held even a grain of truth or seemed vaguely probable. Surely you must have realised that anyone who writes as fluently as I do is highly unlikely to be unemployed? Or that if I were I would be seeking work based on the skills I demonstrate here? (I’m principally a writer.)
My media background is pretty obvious from my postings, spelling and grammar. I was recently approached by another site which, on the strength of my posts here and elsewhere, has invited me to write opinion pieces, which I used to do for Reuters.
My point about sacking you is that Mr Amachree refuses to accept that preaching at work is unacceptable, and you agree with him. According to your beliefs, evangelising is a duty that overrides all others.
This is the attitude that made him an impossible employee. Can you imagine a workplace in which everyone felt under the same obligation? In which you personally had to deal with the Methodists on the train, 30 minutes on Islam over coffee, and another 30 minutes on Calvinism at lunch? How many rows would there be? How much business would get done? There are very good reasons people don’t talk about religion in secular settings. Most adults already have a belief system and uninvited proselytising is likely to cause conflict and annoyance. You seem totally unconcerned about the distress caused to the victim in this case while my view is that she was shamefully bullied by this intrusive extremist.
If an employee of mine pushed their personal religious beliefs at my clients I would eventually have to dismiss them and would consider this entirely justified. Mr Amachree has no one but himself to blame, and neither would you if you followed the same path.
August 14th, 2010 at 2:02 pm
@ Sophie, I work for a Christian organisation and we don’t talk about religion in the workplace either. For the simple reason that the range of beliefs is so great (from Catholic through quite fundamentalist protestant to liberal Anglican and then me) that it would just cause rows.
I used to run a business with about 15 employees. Probably David does not have the wisdom that comes from having to deal with workplace relationships. We send more time with colleagues than our spouse (if we have one). Work is rather like a family or a polygamous marriage depending on your viewpoint.
More about me here:
My personal blog
My business web site
August 14th, 2010 at 4:25 pm
@ Gordon: I must admit I got the giggles imagining a workplace in which each employee was trying to convert everyone else… Monty Python would have done it well.
Thanks for the links. I share your concern over fundamentalist Christians. Their version is almost a completely new religion. If they took over the church here (highly unlikely, thank God) I seriously think I’d feel forced to become a Humanist with a secret God habit.
“In many ways interaction with fundamentalist Christians is like interfaith dialogue because what they believe is very far from the historical beliefs of the Christian church. For example, fundamentalism tends to be unjust and confrontational which is quite different to most Christian’s understanding of the teachings and example of Jesus.”
Absolutely. The weird thing is that people with these sort of beliefs never seem to notice how offensive they are, Duke Amachree being a case in point. The evangelical mum of the boy I’ve had to take under my wing is intolerable. She rants, she goes off into long talks with Jesus in public… My son once timed one of her prayers at 43 minutes. Her topic was the wickedness of her son and mine, both total sweeties.
My son and his mates were rough-housing one evening and this lad went home with his boxers ripped up the back having been given a wedgy. His mum rang me to alert me to the evidence she’d found of gay orgies…
OK, it’s funny. But it’s a pig to live with, and her expectation that people all round her are engaged in big-time depravity is typical of Evangelicals. They see evil where none exists. As for Creationism and Biblical inerrancy… I don’t know where to start. It’s scary and ridiculous at the same time.
August 14th, 2010 at 4:58 pm
You have to laugh otherwise you would cry.
August 14th, 2010 at 7:34 pm
Here’s the full report from the NSS Newsletter. I think it makes the case against Amachree pretty clear, and exposes selective reporting:
An employment tribunal has ruled that a Christian housing advisor, who used his position at Wandsworth Council to evangelise, was not unfairly dismissed from his job.
Giving judgment in Amachree v Wandsworth Borough Council, Judge Phillips said the complaint followed an interview with a housing client, Ms X, who later wrote to the council and complained.
Ms X said she had been left “very upset” after Amachree gave her “a half-hour lecture on the fact there was no such thing as an incurable illness, doctors should never be trusted, that my problem was that I did not have God or faith in my life so therefore was ill as a result”.
Ms X added: “I have nothing against anyone having a religion but I do not expect this barrage at a housing interview. Also I am concerned that this person does not offend someone more seriously, or tell someone with cancer not to believe in doctors etc. which is downright dangerous. This is not appropriate conduct and I think you should know what goes on.”
Judge Phillips said he was not persuaded that Amachree was treated differently from (i.e. more harshly than) anyone else in a similar situation. He said an appropriate comparator (i.e. the equivalent situation against which Amachree’s claimed disadvantage should be compared) would be someone who, in the course of contact with service users, inappropriately promoted any religious belief or strong personal view.
“We did not believe the respondent treated the claimant, as a Christian, more severely for talking about healing that they would have treated a non-Christian having an equivalent discussion about non-religious healing,” he said.
Judge Phillips said there was a practice that council officers should only discuss relevant matters at an interview, but no evidence of any narrower policy based purely around religion. Judge Phillips rejected further claims of unfair and wrongful dismissal.
Andrea Minichiello Williams of the Christian Legal Centre said “We are stunned that the tribunal failed to recognise the draconian way in which Mr Amachree was treated and we are dismayed that they found that Mr Amachree had not been discriminated against on the grounds of his faith. This decision will send yet more shock waves through the Christian community when they realise that a couple of comments encouraging faith in God can lead to a person being dismissed for gross misconduct.” The CLC is said to be considering an appeal.
Mr Amachree said: “I am devastated by the outcome. This is a sad day for Christians who simply want to live out their faith in the workplace without fear. But my heartfelt thanks go to the Christian Legal Centre and those who have stood by me from the beginning and I know they will continue to support me.”
Terry Sanderson, President of the National Secular Society, said: “When are these Christians going to get the message that if they work for a public body that serves the whole community they cannot use that position to promote their own particular faith? Mr Amachree had privileged contact with the public to give them specific advice about housing. That’s all. The fact that he decided to extend that to include aggressive evangelisation is simply not acceptable. As he discovered, not everyone shares his faith and not everyone wants to. His insensitivity deeply upset someone who had come to the council for information about housing, not to be told that she was ill because she didn’t believe what Mr Amachree believes. Perhaps the fundamentalist groups that are encouraging these cases will now please stop wasting public money in attempts to gain special privileges at work for Christians.”
A spokesman for Wandsworth Council said: “We’re delighted that the tribunal has found in our favour, supported the common sense and wholly reasonable way we handled this case and rejected the totally spurious and misleading claims that were made against us.”
The Christian press reacted in the usual disingenuous manner by leaving out the important details and claiming in the headline to their story that Mr Amachree has been fired for “mentioning God in the workplace”.
August 15th, 2010 at 12:30 pm
@ Jim: Thanks for that. The thing that strikes me is that even after he’s lost the case Duke Amachree still thinks it’s about “Christians who want to live out their faith in the workplace without fear.” He’s learnt nothing. He still has no insight into why his behaviour was intolerable.
The distressing thing is what Terry Sanderson says about Christians. He’s justified, but it seems very sad that people like Duke Amachree and organisations like the unsavoury CLC are giving us a bad name. OK, Terry Sanderson does say the problem stems from “fundamentalist groups” but it reflects on all Christians to a certain extent.
The intolerance and aggression of this form of Christianity reminds me more of radical Islam than the loving faith I was brought up in.