Non Christians need not apply.

[Bloomdido]

Thanks.

 

Personally I'd save the price of a stamp and not bother though - as has been pointed out they are well within the law and will probably just bin your application.

 

I will word my covering letter in such a way as to make them believe that I believe without actually saying that I do believe.

[andygardener]

I will word my covering letter in such a way as to make them believe that I believe without actually saying that I do believe.

 

A challenge even for one as adept at such things as Sir Humphrey. Futile however in the end as they insist on active membership of a local church which your sig suggests is somewhat unlikely?

[Bloomdido]

A challenge even for one as adept at such things as Sir Humphrey. Futile however in the end as they insist on active membership of a local church which your sig suggests is somewhat unlikely?

 

My oldest two kids went to church more than once. My step-daughter was at a good catherlic school until this year. I even got my boy a place there but he didn't want to go. The wife used to go to church regularly. I can cram.

[quisquose]

This organisation might be treading on dodgy ground imho.

 

A church is allowed to discriminate against non-Christian when seeking to fill the role of vicar obviously, but I'm pretty sure the church lost a case recently when attempting to discriminate in the non-relevant role of cleaner.

 

What is a relevant role is probably subject to test in court which I don't think has happened, except for that cleaner example, but I do recall that the subjective nature of this led to Harriet Harman answering some specific questions in the House Of Commons last year:

 

http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/004213.html

 

The Government’s policy is clear and has not changed. Our view remains that religious organisations employing people should comply with the law that applies to all other employers, whether that is the requirement to have written contracts, pay sick pay or the minimum wage, or the requirement not to sack people unfairly or discriminate against them. However, our position has always been that for specifically religious work—as a vicar, priest, rabbi or imam—religious organisations would be exempt from non-discrimination law. A religious organisation cannot discriminate against gay people or women when it hires a bookkeeper, but it can when choosing a minister of religion.

 

If a church is not allowed to discriminate against a bookkeeper, then I fail to see why a faith organisation can discriminate against a person applying for a marketing position.

[Harleyman]

I have seen a spiffing job for "Head of Communications and Marketing" for a Sheffield based faith group which pays rather well too. All well and good until I get to the first point on the person specification;

 

Essential

1. A committed Christian actively involved in a local church with an understanding of the breadth of evangelism undertaken by Church Army and a commitment to it.[/indent

]

 

I find this a challenge to my professional integrity, that I need to be part of their club to do the job properly. Can Stonewall opt out of recruiting people not actively involved in being Gay? Can childrens' charities only employ people actively involved in raising children?

 

I presume they are acting legally and within some 'special case for faith' loophole.

 

I see this qualification requirement as being no different than one requiring any other kind of qualification to fill a job opening.

 

Since this is a job that will involve a lot of communication and marketing then obviously a person of faith and with the experience that goes with it would be the best candidate

[harvey19]

Seems to me that they are being open and honest in adverting for the type of person they think can do the job best.

If they are paying the wages what is wrong with that ?

[Agent Orange]

This organisation might be treading on dodgy ground imho.

 

A church is allowed to discriminate against non-Christian when seeking to fill the role of vicar obviously, but I'm pretty sure the church lost a case recently when attempting to discriminate in the non-relevant role of cleaner.

 

What is a relevant role is probably subject to test in court which I don't think has happened, except for that cleaner example, but I do recall that the subjective nature of this led to Harriet Harman answering some specific questions in the House Of Commons last year:

 

http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/004213.html

 

 

 

 

If a church is not allowed to discriminate against a bookkeeper, then I fail to see why a faith organisation can discriminate against a person applying for a marketing position.

 

 

I suppose it's not relevant in the case of the cleaner, as belief has no bearing on that person's ability to do the job. Whereas, belief or lack of has a major bearing on someone's ability to do the job of promoting religion.

 

Anyhow, the OP's at it again. Last time, it was those evil christians trying to convert his children.

[Fareast]

Could it lead to this ?

 

' Spokesperson required for Help the Homeless. Must have slept rough for minimum of 2 years. Experience of aggressive begging and raw alcohol an advantage. Hang around in town somewhere tomorrow for interview. No time-wasters or cowboys !! '

[HeadingNorth]

Could it lead to this ?

 

' Spokesperson required for Help the Homeless. Must have slept rough for minimum of 2 years. Experience of aggressive begging and raw alcohol an advantage. Hang around in town somewhere tomorrow for interview. No time-wasters or cowboys !! '

 

You don't need to have personal experience of homelessness in order to believe it's a bad thing; but I think most reasonable people would agree, you do actually need to be a Christian, in order to be committed to converting people to Christianity.

[quisquose]

You don't need to have personal experience of homelessness in order to believe it's a bad thing; but I think most reasonable people would agree, you do actually need to be a Christian, in order to be committed to converting people to Christianity.

 

The line is grey and untested, but again here is what Harriet Harman said in the House Of Commons last year:

 

The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. We never sought to, or indeed even unintentionally, propose non-discrimination laws covering bishops, rabbis, archbishops or priests. In the 2003 non-discrimination employment regulations, we explicitly allowed for an exemption for those involved in religious ministry, so I am sorry that he has taken the opportunity to spread a misapprehension. There was never an intention—and nor is there an intention—to apply the provisions to those involved in religious ministry. However, if a church, synagogue or mosque is hiring a cleaner, bookkeeper or finance officer, it will have to comply with the normal, non-discrimination provisions of employment, like all others.

 

So it depends on the role. Call it Evangelising Minister With Responsibility For Communications & Marketing and I'd say fine. As it stands, nobody is ever going to test it anyway.

 

Actual vacancies here.

 

I note that the IT vacancy does not stipulate "Christian", but is worded in such a way that it will be. So I guess they are quite careful in their wording generally.

 

It does highlight the comfy nature of some of these jobs though, and what a job protection racket the whole religion business is.