University Christian Group in Legal Action

Last month I wrote this article on so-called religious persecution: http://thenewconstitution.wordpress.com/2007/01/01/religious-persecution/. At the time, a BBC newsreader had just, allegedly, been stopped from wearing a cross on her necklace on air. Jack Straw had revealed that asks his constituents to remove face veils when they come to his surgeries. A British Airways worker was sacked for wearing a cross. A number of University Christian Unions had been suspended by their respective guilds because of apparent exclusivity. It seemed like freedom of religious expression was being eroded before our very eyes.

A media frenzy was whipped up; people took sides in the “should women be allowed to wear a full veil” debate, and much airtime was devoted to the issue. For what it is worth, I consider it of little importance what the newspaper columnists think of Jack Straw’s remarks. The simple fact remains that of all of the women Jack Straw says he asked to remove their veils, none of them complained to the media. It was his comments that caused all of the attention.

And if a newsreader wants to display a cross, why shouldn’t they?

The swimming club would hardly function if everybody attending was afraid of water.

I comment on this today following the news that the Exeter University Evangelical Christian Union has launched legal proceedings against the guild. They had their bank accounts frozen and were suspended from the guild because they only allowed membership to those who signed a statement of belief that Jesus Christ is their Saviour. Committee members are expected to agree to a slightly more comprehensive statement of belief.

This is simply common sense. It is only natural that the Christian Union wants its members to be Christian. Anyone can attend their meetings, but if you want to play an active part in the Union, it is only sensible to presume that you would be willing to sign up to their beliefs. Likewise, if you join the politics society it is only natural to assume that you are interested in politics. The swimming club would hardly function if everybody attending was afraid of water.

As such, the actions of the guild begin to look like active discrimination. The CU is merely trying to exercise their right to be run by those who believe in the common cause of Evangelical Christianity. Any non-Christian who wants to join up should expect suspicion: why would somebody want to join an organisation that they fundamentally disagreed with? Their intentions are unlikely to be positive.

Surely it must be acknowledged that a Christian Union deserves the right to be run by Christians? Just as a Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, etc. society should be run by those who have its best interests at heart. What I want to know is why the University guild wants to deny them the right. It seems to me that the only logical explanation is that they wish to undermine the Christian Union. If this is the case, then open discussion with the Union would be a far more sensible course of action. They should be attending the CU’s meeting, not stopping them taking place!

—
I suppose I should add that I write this as an Evangelical Christian, although that is hardly relevant.

Food Label War

A war seems to be breaking out between retailers, food manufacturers, and the government, over food labelling. It has had much coverage in the newspapers, and was featured on Newsnight.  The BBC has a good article on the story here, so I will sum it up briefly.

Sainsbury’s, Asda, Waitrose, Co-Op and Marks and Spencer are following the Food Standards Agency’s new guidelines for labelling food. Known as the “traffic light” system, labels are shown in green, amber, or red according to how bad they are for you.

Tesco, Somerfield, Morrison’s, and many junk-food manufacturers are instead using a system showing what percentage of guideline daily amounts (GDA) of fat, salt, calories, etc. are contained within the food.

For example, a chocolate bar might contain a lot of fat. The government want to tell consumers the food is bad, using a red symbol. Tesco, etc. want to tell you how much fat is actually in the chocolate bar, and allow you to make an educated guess as to how much rubbish you are eating.

Clearly identified nutrition information on packets of food is almost unanimously welcomed, so what’s all the fuss about? Well, Cadbury want to sell chocolate bars, so showing a bright red icon on the front of a wrapper that effectively says “eat me and you will have a heart attack” is not their idea of positive government intervention. Thus, along with Tesco and others, they have launched a system that actually informs consumers, not scared them into not buying their product.

showing a bright red icon on the front of a wrapper that effectively says “eat me and you will have a heart attack” is not their idea of positive government intervention.

For the government’s part, it seems clear that they hate the idea of educating consumers, and would rather see them scared, so have opted for a “traffic light system”.

Tesco are launching a multi-million pound advertising campaign to tell people how informative their packaging is, which will be hit with a counter-campaign from the opposing retailers soon. And for what benefit? Both systems are better than none, and neither one is perfect. Each has its benefits; simplicity is preferred by the traffic light system, whereas information is given by the GDA labels.

Has nobody thought of combining the two systems? Hundreds of column inches, millions of pounds in advertising campaigns and hours spent on TV arguing about the benefits and failures of both systems would have been much better spent making a system that everyone can agree on! In about 5 minutes I have managed to combine the systems with information given on the BBC website. I honestly do wonder why the government don’t recommend a combined system. The mind boggles!