Archive for Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Scottish Politics Discussion Forum / Messageboard - Dedicated to online discussion about Scottish Politics and an Independent Scotland, as well as Scottish Society today. We also have a section dedicated to Banter, Sport and Recommended Sites.
 

See your forums statistics


       Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Forum Index -> Scottish News, Life and Society
SLG

Police officers face religion survey

That's really funny - a stained glass ceiling Laughing . Interesting to see the results though. I would think there's more of a problem with ethnic minority representation which must be close to zero.

Quote:
Police officers face religion survey to test claims of bias
MICHAEL HOWIE

SCOTLAND'S 15,000 police officers will be asked to declare their religion as part of a national audit amid claims that Catholics are being denied promotion by a "stained glass ceiling".

The survey also seeks information on sexuality and gender, after concern that minority groups are grossly under-represented in the upper echelons of the police service.

Members of the Catholic Church have previously called for the move to tackle alleged sectarianism within the police's ranks. The audit has been launched to establish how accurately the police service is representing the communities they serve.

The Executive has pledged to stamp out sectarianism, dubbed "Scotland's shame" by the justice minister, Cathy Jamieson. But despite this, little is known about the extent to which religious discrimination exists within public bodies.

A spokesman for the Catholic Church last night welcomed the move. "At the moment we don't know whether there is a problem within the police service. This will bring some much-needed transparency," he said.

A Church source added: "I'm aware of anecdotal evidence that a 'stained glass ceiling' exists in the police service. I know Catholics in the police who have not been able to get beyond the rank of sergeant because they were Catholic, and were not Masons."

The officer leading the project yesterday said he hoped the project would address the police's "huge image problem".

Chief Superintendent George Denholm, of Lothian and Borders Police,

said: "This is about finding out how recruits from different backgrounds are getting on in the police service. We want to sell ourselves to the public and employ the best people.

"There's a huge image problem. People's perception of who we are is totally different than they want the police service to be.

"Questions have been raised by the Catholic Church who say people serving in the police service are hitting a 'stained glass ceiling', stopping Catholic members of the police force being promoted. That there is some sort of Masonic conspiracy."

He denied such accusations but admitted representation in the police could be improved. "I think we are doing particularly well but maybe there is a risk that problems will be exposed. However, I think we have far more to be proud of than to keep secret."

Inequality within the police service with regards to race and gender has already been clearly established. About 1 per cent the police service is from a black or ethnic minority background - compared with about 2 per cent of the population. A recent survey found women make up 20 per cent of Scotland's 10,000 police constables but only 9 per cent of higher ranks.

Monsignor Joseph Creegan, of the Catholic Church's Dunkeld diocese, said he believed sectarianism was once rife in the police service. But he said this was no longer a major problem and claimed the audit was taking political correctness too far.

He said: "With the best will in the world, it's impossible to get an exact replica of society in any organisation. They should be getting the best person for the job. I think asking everyone if they are Church of Scotland or Roman Catholic is going too far."

But Mr Denholm insisted accusation that the voluntary survey was "political correctness gone mad" were wide of the mark.

"If you don't measure things like gender, religion and sexual orientation, how do you know whether initiatives to promoted more representation in the police service are working?" he said.


http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=820012006
azzuri

I agree wholeheatredly with Mr. Creegan:

Quote:
He said: "With the best will in the world, it's impossible to get an exact replica of society in any organisation. They should be getting the best person for the job. I think asking everyone if they are Church of Scotland or Roman Catholic is going too far."
SLG

I agree with that as well. It should be expected that there will be some difference from the distribution in general society. It could be more than what you would expect by chance though. I don't see the harm in studying the results as long as the results are handled with care. It is also more than just the CoS/Catholic issue. They've just jumped on that for the headline.
Theresa

Does Scotland have a significant number of Catholics? Or is it mostly Protestant (of one kind or another) along with a generous sprinkling of secularists? (This is kind of the U.S. profile)
SLG

You probably want to check the sources (although they sound about right to me), I got them from wikipedia. According to the 2001 census, 42% of Scots associate themselves with (rather than are members of) the CoS and 16% with the Scottish Catholic Church and 28% of no religion. When I filled in the census in 2001 I said CoS although I now wish I hadn't. I think that the SCC and CoS abuse these figures to give more weight to their bodies than they deserve. IMO there are significant minorities that are CoS or SCC while the vast majority in my experience are neither. Many might regard themselves as being associated with one or another church, but most are not linked to a church to any great extent and live their lives in a secular manner.
Theresa

Thank you, SLG.
parkhead_rfb

SLG wrote:
When I filled in the census in 2001 I said CoS .


proddy b****rd Laughing
wisnaeme

azzuri wrote:
I agree wholeheatredly with Mr. Creegan:

Quote:
He said: "With the best will in the world, it's impossible to get an exact replica of society in any organisation. They should be getting the best person for the job. I think asking everyone if they are Church of Scotland or Roman Catholic is going too far."




Aye,richt enough.Yon heid yins jist wanna waste ra trees wa printin sich keech in ra rags jist tae pour ra salt intae ra healing wound an keep guid folk birling round in circles awa frae mair important happenings an issues. Divide an rule? Aye richt enough an ah kin see richt through ra creatures,sa ah kin.It's jist tae cause mischief,so it is.An ither thing ah've noticed in ra rags is yer new,proposed law wae regard tae yer heid shed o justice's illness an his replacement.Weel jist remember this,if this new proposed emergency law kin be used wance,it micht be used agin tae get rid o somebody in ra future that's nae tae thur liking.Aye,ra unionists are changing ra rules tae suit themselves agin an at ra same time tryin tae confuse folk an steer them awae frae whit thur really up tae.

.
Morph

isnt this a modern version of the old Glasgow trick of asking what school you went to when being interviewed?
Aventinian

You seem to get that with a lot of job applications these days "for our equality programme, please state your race/religion/nationality etc in these convenient wee boxes here:"

Must take all the fun out of trying to guess it.

Although in reality, most organisations have some method of hiding this information from the people interviewing or hiring staff.
SLG

The reason they ask that, is so that they can compile figures as are being proposed here. It makes everything transparent. It is IMO a good thing, so long as the results are not abused to make headlines and it is not required that the make up of employees exactly mirrors society.
Morph

Do employers have quotas for minorities in any way?
parkhead_rfb

Morph wrote:
isnt this a modern version of the old Glasgow trick of asking what school you went to when being interviewed?


I refuse to write the name of my school in application forms.
Cado

This one throws me a little. I'm all for collecting data as a form of transparency however no-one goes around with their 'religion' stamped on their forehead.

I generally work on the principal of 'don't ask, don't tell', or if pushed - Budhist!

Many aspects of the 'equality' drive concern me - I think it has allowed to much manipulation to occur under the guise of 'equality'. The problem with 'equality' is that it is ultimatly a subjective concept as to what is 'equal' - people have different views on how it can be acheived. ie when it comes to wages I generally beleive in the free market - thus when there is a difference between one group and another I would be inclined to explain to the first group that they seek jobs/skills in this particular discipline - rather than it be used by Government as an example of delibrate discrimination.

since it is subjective (IMO) it ultimately falls to the government to correct the 'discrimination' - in effect it permits the government (in principal) th ability to favour one group over the other - where previously no such mechanism existed.

Religious discrimination has (till now) generally gone hand in hand with racial discrimination - since its usualy a 'visible' characteristic. - Indigenous religions present no distinguishing features - no-one can tell what you do or don't beleive in simply by looking at you.

The Executive in Scotland (and Scotland in general) has been making positive efforts to stamp out sectarianism - simply by preventing the subject to come up for discussion almost. By simply not speaking about it - but heavly critising those who do try and 'stoke' things I think progress has been made.

By bringing back to the fore like this I am really concerned that the Executive will go out of its way to bring scotlands only real divide back to the front again.

Getting to the punchline - I'm concerned that Labour is prehaps trying to use the sectarian issue as a desperate means of shoring up its vote.

The Labour party over decades have been keen to exploit differences for their own political gain - differences in wealth, class, north/south, race, gender, religion - I feel in doing so it actually creates splits in society - splits that it can then use politically to its advantage.

For Scotland to progress this is one split that MUST be buried, in a country our size we cannot afford to have such a significant split - I think its the only decernable 'dividing' issue i our society. Beyond that = our demographics are broadly quite similar.

I now define myself as 'non-aligned Christian' (or word to that effect) simply as my own way of saying that I don't want to be aprt of this centuries old difference.

Finishing off - we cannot let Labour start trying to desperatly create splits for them to potentially exploit/use - secondly for those who want to move beyond this we can't claim to have an allegience to any specific church - rather just claim to be Christian.

I'm not certain Labour is trying to create splits - I'm just a bit suspicious at the timing - only 10 months or so to the elections - I suspicious of the fact that everything they do from now on will be setting the scene for the election.
RadgeJougal

Erm, don't people change their religion?

And how many times do you need to go to church to be an RC/Protestant?
Aventinian

RadgeJougal wrote:
Erm, don't people change their religion?


Not often.

Quote:
And how many times do you need to go to church to be an RC/Protestant?


Well, pretty much damn near zero. It's asking your religion, not your church membership or whatever.
Cado

If its like the usual government questionairres - it'll have every single recognised 'religion' in the UK. This extends to every conceivable Christian denomination - I think even the KKK are listed.

This is how a sailor in the RN managed to get protection for his personnal conviction in being a Satanist!!

RadgeJougal has a point in that most of us usually define the 'religious' as those who go to church - however such are things unfortunatly that many of us - if pushed - are expected to claim to be part on one christian denomination or the other.

So I now claim no alignement - it irritates that traditionalists! But its also my way of sticking two fingers up to them who expect me to claim allegiance to one view or the other in 2006. And as you may have gathered - I definitly have my own view on things.
wisnaeme

Cado wrote:


So I now claim no alignement - it irritates that traditionalists! But its also my way of sticking two fingers up to them who expect me to claim allegiance to one view or the other in 2006. And as you may have gathered - I definitly have my own view on things.


PDT_Aliboronz_15
Aye,aboot richt. ye kin put me doon as cynically sceptical. Smile

.
RadgeJougal

Aventinian wrote:
RadgeJougal wrote:
Erm, don't people change their religion?


Not often.

Quote:
And how many times do you need to go to church to be an RC/Protestant?


Well, pretty much damn near zero. It's asking your religion, not your church membership or whatever.


This is complete keich. If you don't go to a church or belong to it, you aren't part of that religion!
azzuri

RadgeJougal wrote:
Aventinian wrote:
RadgeJougal wrote:
Erm, don't people change their religion?


Not often.

Quote:
And how many times do you need to go to church to be an RC/Protestant?


Well, pretty much damn near zero. It's asking your religion, not your church membership or whatever.


This is complete keich. If you don't go to a church or belong to it, you aren't part of that religion!


That's what I'd say too, but I doubt that's the thought of wider society. I'm sure many people who don't attend church regularly (or at all) when asked their religion would give the one they are 'born' into or raised on.
Aventinian

There is nothing in the Bible, for example, that says that a Christian need attend church. Yuo can claim to be one, yet never bother to show up - indeed, the census figures would demonstrate that the vast majority of Christians don't - the only requirement is that you believe in God and Jesus as his son.
SLG

Come on Aventinian. Just because there is no text in the bible ruling it out doesn't make it ok. What is the bible definition of a Christian then? I wonder how many who said they were Christian in the census actually meet that criteria. As I've said before, I wrote CoS in the census, but I doubt many 'practicing' Christians would describe me as such. It's more of a cultural statement than a religious one. There is a big difference IMO between practicing Chrisitians and nominal Christians and it is important to distinguish between the two.
azzuri

Doesn't the bible also say that it's ok for a man to own slaves, and that the slaves should be obedient to their masters at all time?
Aventinian

SLG wrote:
Come on Aventinian. Just because there is no text in the bible ruling it out doesn't make it ok. What is the bible definition of a Christian then? I wonder how many who said they were Christian in the census actually meet that criteria. As I've said before, I wrote CoS in the census, but I doubt many 'practicing' Christians would describe me as such. It's more of a cultural statement than a religious one. There is a big difference IMO between practicing Chrisitians and nominal Christians and it is important to distinguish between the two.


To an extent. I wouldn't say I was a member of any particular church or denomination if I wasn't a member of it, or at least baptised within it. However I do believe a person can be Christian without necessarily seeking church membership - I would say this is a different position from, say, Buddhism, where scripture does effectively insist on associating with people who hold Buddhist beliefs.

If you want an absolute definition of who I would say could be considered a Christian I would say it is anyone who believes in a creator-God who had a son, Jesus - who was both man and God at the same time and who can redeem them from sin.

I don't think the Bible has a definition like that, perhaps the bit (John 3:16 I think) about giving his only son so that those who believe in him shall not perish but have ever lasting life is perhaps the closest it will come - those are the ones who are Christians.

azzuri wrote:
Doesn't the bible also say that it's ok for a man to own slaves, and that the slaves should be obedient to their masters at all time?


True, but the Bible is not infallible. There are plenty of cultural references within it which must be waded through to find religious absolutes - hence the need for church 'constitutions' like the Westminster Confession with the CofS or the 39 Articles with the CofE.
SLG

Well you have your opinion on what a Christian is, but there is no authority to oversee that. Who is in a position to say what Christianity is outwith an associated church? And are the different versions of the Bible and different practices not backed by the different sects? If I am allowed to be Christian by following my own unique interpretation of the Bible, one that is at odds with every other Christian, am I still a Christian?

TBH, I agree that folk should be able to call themselves whatever they want. In this case I really do think that the organised churches abuse these figures to increase there own importance. Despite being a nominal Christian who should be writing that in the census, at the next one I won't.
azzuri

SLG wrote:
Well you have your opinion on what a Christian is, but there is no authority to oversee that. Who is in a position to say what Christianity is outwith an associated church? And are the different versions of the Bible and different practices not backed by the different sects? If I am allowed to be Christian by following my own unique interpretation of the Bible, one that is at odds with every other Christian, am I still a Christian?


Ah, the old rule of definition. I agree wholeheartedly SLG - it only highlights how ridiculous organised religion is.

I've had many arguments about this with people who believe themselves catholics even though they use contraception and would be happy to have an abortion. These people, like Aventinian above, argue it from an 'ethnicity' standpoint.

It is by attaching this 'ethnicity' or cultural tag to religion which causes sectarianism and racism in the modern world - I think it's ridiculous, and incredibly hypocritical for Aventinian to confirm himself a 'semi-Christian' in ethnic or cultural terms but rejecting the religion itself.

I'd imagine someone who rejects nations but clings onto an even more antiquated religious 'culture' must find themselves in a very hypocritical position.

And for this person to then criticise us for wanting an Independent Scotland along regional lines and not 'ethnic' or 'cultural' ones beggars belief.
Aventinian

SLG wrote:
Well you have your opinion on what a Christian is, but there is no authority to oversee that. Who is in a position to say what Christianity is outwith an associated church? And are the different versions of the Bible and different practices not backed by the different sects? If I am allowed to be Christian by following my own unique interpretation of the Bible, one that is at odds with every other Christian, am I still a Christian?


There may be no direct authority for my opinion, but I'm not just plucking it out of the sky. This is what a number of authorities and sources have led me to believe.

There are a number of different practices and I am trying to find a common ground - for example, I don't think anyone could ever consider Islam to be Christian, even though they believe in Christ as a prophet of God and believe he will return to earth. However what I do believe is Christian is a belief that not only did Christ exist, but he was the son of God and had a certain divinity almost independent of the other elements of the trinity.

The Bible (or rather in this case, the New Testament), as I have said, is not an absolute fundamental to Christianity - very few sects hold it as infallible. So to derive some sort of obscure sub-religion from it would, IMO, not be necessarily Christian.

Quote:
TBH, I agree that folk should be able to call themselves whatever they want. In this case I really do think that the organised churches abuse these figures to increase there own importance. Despite being a nominal Christian who should be writing that in the census, at the next one I won't.


Well I certainly wouldn't interfere with anyone's right to adopt the label. Christianity isn't some sort of trademark to be banded about and everyone can have different views on what it is. However I am giving my view on what I consider Christian and I would consider whether a particular group falls under that label in my own mind rather than simply believing what they believe of themselves. I believe every Christian - or indeed, anyone interested in theology - must make their own independent assessments on such matters.

azzuri wrote:
Ah, the old rule of definition. I agree wholeheartedly SLG - it only highlights how ridiculous organised religion is.

I've had many arguments about this with people who believe themselves catholics even though they use contraception and would be happy to have an abortion. These people, like Aventinian above, argue it from an 'ethnicity' standpoint.


I'd be quick to highlight the difference between Catholic and Roman Catholic. The Church of England correctly believes itself to be the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. The Church of Scotland also believes itself to be essentially 'catholic' - the word simply means Universal. So strictly speaking, they are Catholic...

The Roman Church has never lent its ultimate papal authority to prohibit such things - and up until the start of the last century, almost every church (including the CofE and CofS) prohibited it. However times do change and in theory, so could the RC opinion. However it depends on one elderly man in the Vatican - which does seem slightly unpleasant, but it's what Roman Catholics sign up to.

This is why I believe I said before than you cannot identify with one particular sect of a religion culturally. But I think you can culturally be Christian. For all those athiests and agnostics out there, I ask: will you be celebrating Christmas this year?

Quote:
It is by attaching this 'ethnicity' or cultural tag to religion which causes sectarianism and racism in the modern world - I think it's ridiculous, and incredibly hypocritical for Aventinian to confirm himself a 'semi-Christian' in ethnic or cultural terms but rejecting the religion itself.

I'd imagine someone who rejects nations but clings onto an even more antiquated religious 'culture' must find themselves in a very hypocritical position.

And for this person to then criticise us for wanting an Independent Scotland along regional lines and not 'ethnic' or 'cultural' ones beggars belief.


I have never rejected nations. I partake in Scottishness and I am a Scottish person. My culture, in its entirety (including both national identity, religion, ethnicity, race) is absolutely irrelevant to my political views.

It is a belief that culture is a legitimate business of the state that causes the negatives you have mentioned above.
azzuri

Catholic/Roman Catholic = Tomato/Tomato (US Pronunciation)

Smile

You knew what I meant!
Cado

Religion in the West is largly (or so it would seem to me) to be disappearing - however I think the community associations/names will remain for a long while.

Churches are essentially (IMO) nothing more than 'institutions' - each with there own different slany on things - thats how they evolved in any case. Religion was the power and politics of the past - we are still divided based on political (though seen as relgious) differences of hundreds of years ago - not too dis-similar to many peoples/families longstanding political/football loyalties of today (my grandfather voted....)

Most of the apparant theological differences (IMO) stem from political differences - the beleifs were altered by those i a position of influence in order to prevent others from being able to think outside that.

ie during the reformation much of the Presbyterian theology was based on individual interpretation of the bible - guided by the community elders, also that there should be no leaders and that the head of the church was god himself - this prevented any form of leadership existing (unlike the Roman church/Anglican church) and thus made it pretty hard for any one person to dominate it or steer it.

This is all IMO by the way.

THe thrust of all this is simply that if you take into account the political differences, remove them, we're basically left with Christain Churches - the idea of one being right and the other wrong is nuts - they're just different institutions that have formed to counter each others desire to take politics out of religion - though in so doing create another religion - rather than just a grouping of those who 'dropped' out.

Non church goes are just modern day 'protest-ents'.

I still think of myself as Christian - and generally look to both (though often with suspicion if I feel they' are playing politics) - I know which group I'm meant to be from - but hate this concept that I'm expected to 'take sides'.

what'll happen in time IMO - is that attendence will drop but a core of commited beleivers will continue to attend - the rest of us will just witness it from distance.
RadgeJougal

Aventinian wrote:
There is nothing in the Bible, for example, that says that a Christian need attend church. Yuo can claim to be one, yet never bother to show up - indeed, the census figures would demonstrate that the vast majority of Christians don't - the only requirement is that you believe in God and Jesus as his son.


Depends on your definition of church. The Bible's definition claims the church as the communion of believers. Therefore, if you don't believe, you aren't in the church! I think many of these so called "Protestants" and "Catholics", don't actually believe at all, therefore calling themselves such is nonsense. RC is used as shorthand for some kind of Irish background very often in this country.
Aventinian

Yes, I suppose that is pretty much true.
wisnaeme

RadgeJougal wrote:
Aventinian wrote:
There is nothing in the Bible, for example, that says that a Christian need attend church. Yuo can claim to be one, yet never bother to show up - indeed, the census figures would demonstrate that the vast majority of Christians don't - the only requirement is that you believe in God and Jesus as his son.


Depends on your definition of church. The Bible's definition claims the church as the communion of believers. Therefore, if you don't believe, you aren't in the church! I think many of these so called "Protestants" and "Catholics", don't actually believe at all, therefore calling themselves such is nonsense. RC is used as shorthand for some kind of Irish background very often in this country.


Ma mither was a direct descendant o wan o them high heid yins ( white settler ), wae wan o them plantations in Ulster an originally frae Ayrshire as wis ra some o them Hamiltons but thur were nae verra friendly wae them. Herself used tae hae a wee picture o a man on a white horse hangin on ra wall, bitter Orange so they were. Ma da came frae a lang line o folk wae did a lot o praying on thur knees. Wan half o ma relations wid cross ra road rather than speak tae ra ither half.Ah wus piggy in ra middle, nither wan nor ra ither an ah got skelpit frae baith traditions as a wean sa ah say a pox on baith yer hooses, Fer maist o yon folk bigotry an "believin" is only an excuse. Tradition is is it? Tradition ma erse. Ah think we kin dae with out yon pretendy "christians" fer wan things fer sure,yon folk hae anither agenda an motives fer nae practicing whit's preached in ra ten comandments.

.

.
Theresa

Aventinian wrote:
Quote:
There is nothing in the Bible, for example, that says that a Christian need attend church. Yuo can claim to be one, yet never bother to show up - indeed, the census figures would demonstrate that the vast majority of Christians don't - the only requirement is that you believe in God and Jesus as his son.


Well, yes, there are many of those folks running around. We also have others who take their life of faith seriously -- and I'm NOT talking about the right-wing fundamentalists, here. For these "faith folks", there's a verse that's important to them. It's found in Hebrews 10:24, 25:

"And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works, not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is, but exhorting one another . . ."

The actual word "church" isn't mentioned. Rather, a derivation of the idea of "going to church" (or chapel, if you prefer), is implicit in the "assembling of ourselves together."

Historically, the early Christians assembled themselves on Sunday, which in ancient times was a work day. (The Jewish celebration of Sabbath on Saturday still held dominance.) So, it took some real dedication to get up extra early, go to the catacombs for a brief service, and then scoot off to the office. And, periodically, the persecutions that ensued from being a Christian meant a very real threat of death.

Many Christians have lost that sense of church history, and there's no real threat except in places like China or the Middle Eastern countries for claiming to be a Christian. The believers have become non-believers. Or, in your very succinct term, "semi-Christians."

       Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Forum Index -> Scottish News, Life and Society
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum
Our Scotland Hit Counter 'Top Scottish Websites' - www.our-scotland.org Scottish Top Site - Topsites Top 100 Scottish Websites Our Scotland Forums Critical Acclaim ~ Politically Progressive Top Sites Tartan Army Topsites View Site Stats Our Scotland Blog Scottish Politics Scottish Lads