Christian teacher lost her job after being told praying for sick girl ‘was bullying’
Thanks to Davey Crockett
Distraught: Olive Jones said her dismissal ‘was like a bad dream that had come true’
A devout Christian teacher has lost her job after discussing her faith with a mother and her sick child and offering to pray for them.
Olive Jones, a 54-year-old mother of two, who taught maths to children too ill to attend school, was dismissed following a complaint from the girl’s mother. She was visiting the home of the child when she spoke about her belief in miracles and asked whether she could say a prayer, but when the mother indicated they were not believers she did not go ahead.
Related links:
- The state now decides who is a Jew
- Why is my council tax funding a school linked to Islamists?
- Atheist bigotry hiding behind ‘health and safety’. How typically British
- Michigan Bus Officials Apologize to Muslim Woman – Jihad Watch
- “The Israeli Defense Forces murder people because they don’t like their political style…”
Mrs Jones was then called in by her managers who, she says, told her that sharing her faith with a child could be deemed to be bullying and informed her that her services were no longer required.
Her dismissal has outraged Christian groups, who say new equality regulations are driving Christianity to the margins of society.
They said the case echoed that of community nurse Caroline Petrie, who was suspended last December after offering to pray for a patient but who was later reinstated after a national outcry.
Coincidentally, Mrs Petrie lives nearby and has been a friend of Mrs Jones for some years. Mrs Jones, whose youngest son is a Royal Marine who has served in Afghanistan, said she was merely trying to offer comfort and encouragement and only later realised her words had caused distress, for which she is apologetic.
The softly spoken teacher, who has more than 20 years’ experience, said she was ‘devastated’ by the decision to end her employment, which she said was ‘completely disproportionate’.
She said she had been made to feel like a ‘criminal’, and claimed that Christians were being persecuted because of ‘political correctness’.
Read more: Daily Mail
{ 11 comments… read them below or add one }
It looks like the Christians in the UK are heading the way of the Copts, except at a much more accelerated rate. This is what happens when you allow marxist loons and islamists to form an (uneasy) alliance, and set up camp in parliament. It’s all downhill from there, except, if by some divine intervention the people are allowed enough free-thought and people power to reclaim the politics of the land.
If you look deep enough into left wing politics, it is all about mind control, subversion of (Western) morals, and intimidation. No wonder the islamists are so happy to jump on the bandwagon. And I thought muslims/leftists were opposed to capitalism, and yet they capitalize on the sickness that has been allowed to spread throughout the minds and hearts of Western men and women for decade upon decade?
I wish i’d been born a century or two earlier….
Fire the pig that dismissed her – and I feel a state execution is more than warranted here. Find out the name of the creep – then write letters to newspaper and politicians and more importantly to the pubic giving its name and what it did. Drive it out of the employment system – it has abused its rights. Mrs Jones has done nothing wrong – her managers on the other hand deserve to be whipped in public.
Wasn’t there a bus-driver recently who was forbidden from wearing his cross?
If somebody’s got a link, please sent it in!
I found this story from Jan. 2007 JihadWatch of a girl who was banned from wearing her cross in school.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2007/01/british-girl-banned-from-wearing-cross-at-school.html
A British schoolgirl has been barred from wearing a crucifix necklace in class, the Daily Mail reported Saturday.
Samantha Devine, a 13-year-old Roman Catholic, was told by teachers in Gillingham, south-east England, that it breached health and safety rules, the paper added.
Her family reportedly says it will fight the decision and has accused the school of discriminating against Christians because Sikh and Muslim pupils can wear religious symbols.
She was suspended, she has not lost her job. If she agrees not to promote her religious beliefs and practices during her work as a part-time maths teacher with children then there is no doubt that she can keep her job. Otherwise the school has an obligation to stop employing her. The result would the same if the teacher were misusing her position as teacher to promote atheism to her students.
This mother that filed the complaint will regret this for Eternity come her judgement date with Her Creator!!
But this act of kindness will be another Crown for Mrs Jones!
God Bless you Mrs Jones!
Explicit Atheist,
If a person considers someone praying for you (and from the report that is all she did – she did not try to indoctrinate any person) then that person has problems. The fact that the mother made a complaint means that the mother is probably a muslim or from a another religious minority – it is difficult to be certain with information at hand but for several reasons it does seem seem likely that a muslim stench is present. However the response of the managerial team WAS overboard, and DOES deserve the harshest possible condemnation.
North Somerset councillor Jeremy Blatchford, who is in charge of education, told the Evening Post Mrs Jones had not been sacked. He said “Religion is a very personal issue. She may well have asked if they wanted her to pray for the child, and if she then walked away when they said no, I see no problem with this. And if she then goes on to pray in her own personal time, then that’s fine.” I agree with Mr. Blatchford, although he is fudging some with the “she may well have asked if they” since the teacher admitted she addressed the prayer question directly to the child, which was inappropriate.
The teacher discussed Christianity with the girl and her mother, speaking of her belief in heaven. If the teacher had instead discussed atheism with the girl and her mother, speaking of her belief that there is no heaven, would it have been outrageous for the parents to complain? If this had not been the first such complaint about that teacher, would it have been outrageous for the school to suspend the teacher following the new complaint until a prompt investigation into what happened was conducted?
Actually, the parents should NOT have complained. And the parents could have politely said “Thank you – but we are not interested”. So did the teacher try to push her beliefs on the parent and child ? This is not clear – and seems unlikely – she merely spoke about her beliefs. If she did not attempt to preach, then she did nothing wrong and Blatchford should be packed of to the Scrubs. Speaking about what you believe is NOT preaching. If she did try and force her opinions onto the parent and child then different outcomes should be pursued – but it appears she simply spoke of her belief to the child. The appropriate response is “WE ARE NOT INTERESTED” at which point that part of the conversation should cease. The very fact that this was taken up later by the parent, after the conversation was concluded, sends out the foul and disgusting whiff of mohammedism. If this lady is to be so treated, then I wonder why the islamists of the islamic roadshow, who grabbed a minor and tried to convert him without any permission from his parents, were not jailed.
She initiated an unsolicited discussion of her beliefs and her interpretation of an experience she had as a miracle that she presented as evidence for her beliefs. Families are entitled to privacy, they have no obligation to reveal or share their beliefs or even their attitudes about the teacher’s beliefs with a teacher who is invited into their house for the purpose of teaching maths. This teacher, by asking the student if it was OK if she prayer for her, in effect pressured the parents to respond on behalf of their child. We can all agree that the teacher’s intention is good, but what the teacher did still wasn’t fair to the family and at that point the parents were justified in complaining. Now maybe the school over-reacted to the complaint, or maybe not, we don’t know if there is a history of complaints regarding this teacher sharing her enthusiasm for her beliefs with students, but the complaint is reasonable.
The teacher’s assertion that she has free speech rights in this context, as if she can be paid to teach maths and instead spend some of that time elaborating on her beliefs on socialism, capitalism, the Labor party, and any other beliefs she holds with enthusiasm is bizarre, as is the teacher’s insistence that it is the family’s responsibility to stop her from pursuing such discussion. It is the teacher’s responsibility to refrain from sharing her beliefs with the student and the student’s family while she is functioning as an employee. The family arguably has a similar responsibility not to discuss their beliefs with the teacher while the teacher is officially on duty and it would likewise not be the teacher’s failure if the family inappropriately spends some of that time discussing their beliefs instead of letting their child learn mathematics.
On more than one occasion the teacher initiated unsolicited discussions of her beliefs and her interpretation of an experience she had as a miracle that she presented as evidence for her beliefs. Families are entitled to privacy, they have no obligation to reveal or share their beliefs or even their attitudes about the teacher’s beliefs with a teacher who is invited into their house for the purpose of teaching maths. This teacher, by asking the student if it was OK if she prayer for her, in effect pressured the parents to respond on behalf of their child. We can all agree that the teacher’s intention is good, but what the teacher did still wasn’t fair to the family and at that point the parents were justified in complaining. Now maybe the school over-reacted to the complaint, or maybe not, we don’t know if there is a history of complaints regarding this teacher sharing her enthusiasm for her beliefs with students, but the complaint is reasonable.
The teacher’s assertion that she has free speech rights in this context, as if she can be paid to teach maths and instead spend some of that time elaborating on her beliefs on socialism, capitalism, the Labor party, and any other beliefs she holds with enthusiasm is bizarre, as is the teacher’s insistence that it is the family’s responsibility to stop her from pursuing such discussion. It is the teacher’s responsibility to refrain from sharing her beliefs with the student and the student’s family while she is functioning as an employee. The family arguably has a similar responsibility not to discuss their beliefs with the teacher while the teacher is officially on duty and it would likewise not be the teacher’s failure if the family inappropriately spends some of that time discussing their beliefs instead of letting their child learn mathematics.