Veils

[rjfan]

That was the point I was trying to put across to you..that it is religious to them...hence my earlier thought on it inviting moderates into the fray. obviously people need to be identified-especially in gov. buildings. as far as the GTFO idea. You know as well as I that some people are thinking that. this doesnt make it right of course. I think we can both agree that is complete PC gone to shit.
"In a tree by the brook, theres a songbird who sings sometimes all of our thoughts are misgiven." Robert Plant......have you seen the bridge..Im just trying to find the bridge...Wheres that confounded bridge???

[Busyman™]

That was the point I was trying to put across to you..that it is religious to them...hence my earlier thought on it inviting moderates into the fray. obviously people need to be identified-especially in gov. buildings. as far as the GTFO idea. You know as well as I that some people are thinking that. this doesnt make it right of course. I think we can both agree that is complete PC gone to shit.
"In a tree by the brook, theres a songbird who sings sometimes all of our thoughts are misgiven." Robert Plant......have you seen the bridge..Im just trying to find the bridge...Wheres that confounded bridge???

Ok PC bullshit, we agree on that.

However, you said

there will be the claims of discrimination againts a religion..and indeed that is what it is.

and I disagree. The distinction between wearing a cross and covering one's identity is huge.

For instance, if hats are disallowed then that includes a baseball cap, yarmulke, or turban.

[rjfan]

Women covering their features is a very important religious practice for those who practice it. You can say it is in the interest of security that they dont..but for them it is discriminting againts their religious practice. They see it as a religious issue. And they are using EVERYTHING they can to incite so-called anti-muslim practice.

[Biggles]

The desk check in woman for BA did know that jewelry was not allowed with the uniform. She seemed to make it a point of principle that she worn her necklace outside her scarf when asked to have it under the scarf.

Likewise the veil is not a specific requirement of Islam. Very few Muslim women wear it. It is actually more a cultural thing specific to certain cultures in N Africa and the ME and not Islam as a whole. Recently some young Muslim women have taken to wearing it to show support for the anti-western sentiment that is prevalent in certain parts of the community. It is therefore a political statement just as say an anti-globalisation protestor might wear a ski-mask to not simply to hide his or her identity but to create a look. The school- teacher in question was certainly pretty mouthy in her interview the other night and one gets the impression that she is getting plenty of suport from people who want to stir up trouble and disaffection.

One should be free to follow whatever religion one likes - just without being a pain in the ass to everybody else who is not the slightest bit interested in said religion.

[rjfan]

I didnt know if she had been informed of the rule. what would you consider being a pain in the ass...someone who openly defends their religion...or is it ok to be religious as long as you dont have to be subjucted to it....this of course is not what the free practice of religion is about....i said in an earlier post a while back that the practice of religion has turned on its head and become acceptable not because you have the right to do it..but only if I dont have to be exposed to it...it is a very slippery slope indeed.

[bigboab]

The desk check in woman for BA did know that jewelry was not allowed with the uniform. She seemed to make it a point of principle that she worn her necklace outside her scarf when asked to have it under the scarf.

Likewise the veil is not a specific requirement of Islam. Very few Muslim women wear it. It is actually more a cultural thing specific to certain cultures in N Africa and the ME and not Islam as a whole. Recently some young Muslim women have taken to wearing it to show support for the anti-western sentiment that is prevalent in certain parts of the community. It is therefore a political statement just as say an anti-globalisation protestor might wear a ski-mask to not simply to hide his or her identity but to create a look. The school- teacher in question was certainly pretty mouthy in her interview the other night and one gets the impression that she is getting plenty of suport from people who want to stir up trouble and disaffection.

One should be free to follow whatever religion one likes - just without being a pain in the ass to everybody else who is not the slightest bit interested in said religion.

Well said that man.

When my sister was Saudi with her husband she was 'forced' to cover herself according to the local interpretation of Islamic law. When in their country we have to obey their laws.

I think the Government of the day should have stood their ground on the motorcycle crash helmet controversy. Sikhs should have been made to wear them according to the law. You never know, it might have stopped all this 'veil thing' from cropping up.

[JPaul]

I think the Government of the day should have stood their ground on the motorcycle crash helmet controversy. Sikhs should have been made to wear them according to the law. You never know, it might have stopped all this 'veil thing' from cropping up.

Absolutely, totally agree, one law for all without fear or favour.

If you find that you cannot comply with the law no problem, just don't ride the bike. You have my total support in wearing whatever you want

Same with the veil, like I said I 100% support a persons right to wear it if it means so much to them. However that also means that they cannot go into situations where there identity must be confirmed.

You have the right to wear what you wan't. I have the right to deny you access to my bank, or school etc. Or do some people think that they are the only ones with rights.

FFS they'll want to take daggers into schools next because it's a "religious belief".

[Busyman™]

Women covering their features is a very important religious practice for those who practice it. You can say it is in the interest of security that they dont..but for them it is discriminting againts their religious practice. They see it as a religious issue. And they are using EVERYTHING they can to incite so-called anti-muslim practice.

So what? It could be there religious practice to walk around nude. It doesn't give them carte blanche to do it.

[Biggles]

I didnt know if she had been informed of the rule. what would you consider being a pain in the ass...someone who openly defends their religion...or is it ok to be religious as long as you dont have to be subjucted to it....this of course is not what the free practice of religion is about....i said in an earlier post a while back that the practice of religion has turned on its head and become acceptable not because you have the right to do it..but only if I dont have to be exposed to it...it is a very slippery slope indeed.

European employment laws are quite strict. An employer cannot suspend someone because they are of a particular religion. She was asked to put it under the scarf and she refused. This is classed as failure to follow a reasonable request with regards BA dress code. She has chosen to make an issue, rightly or wrongly, about wearing religious symbols (or any other symbol for that matter).

Personally I doubt if she has much chance of winning her case as the BA rules about jewellery are clear. The rules about things around your neck at the workplace are largely health and safety issues rather than any attempt to suppress freedom of expresion.

People are free to worship and to defend their religion. They are free to come and knock on my door (the JWs do). I am free to switch the lights out and pretend I am not in (although in my view they are verging on being a pain in the ass). It really depends what one means by being free to subject other people to your religion means. Wearing a cross is not subjecting anyone to anything neither is a Sally Army brass band playing Christmas Carols in the street. Being collared by some nut on the street insisting that I will burn in hell unless I believe exactly what he believes is stepping over the line imho as is being harangued for walking away. I believe the Westboro Baptist mob that protest at soldiers funerals step over the line. Were their rights infringed when people prevailed upon not to do likewise at the Amish girls funerals?

I think there is a line rather than a slope and in the case of the veil it causes practical difficulties that mean that it is bound to run up against problems in a modern society. The veil severely limits vision. This could cause difficulties driving a car for example - not a problem in Saudi Arabia because woman are not allowed to drive cars (quite sensible if they are all wearing veils). What would happen if we forbid women to drive cars if they are wearing a veil? Actually, I wonder how a lot of Muslim women would feel if we said they had to abide by Saudi gender laws.

[Busyman™]

I didnt know if she had been informed of the rule. what would you consider being a pain in the ass...someone who openly defends their religion...or is it ok to be religious as long as you dont have to be subjucted to it....this of course is not what the free practice of religion is about....i said in an earlier post a while back that the practice of religion has turned on its head and become acceptable not because you have the right to do it..but only if I dont have to be exposed to it...it is a very slippery slope indeed.

European employment laws are quite strict. An employer cannot suspend someone because they are of a particular religion. She was asked to put it under the scarf and she refused. This is classed as failure to follow a reasonable request with regards BA dress code. She has chosen to make an issue, rightly or wrongly, about wearing religious symbols (or any other symbol for that matter).

Personally I doubt if she has much chance of winning her case as the BA rules about jewellery are clear. The rules about things around your neck at the workplace are largely health and safety issues rather than any attempt to suppress freedom of expresion.

People are free to worship and to defend their religion. They are free to come and knock on my door (the JWs do). I am free to switch the lights out and pretend I am not in (although in my view they are verging on being a pain in the ass). It really depends what one means by being free to subject other people to your religion means. Wearing a cross is not subjecting anyone to anything neither is a Sally Army brass band playing Christmas Carols in the street. Being collared by some nut on the street insisting that I will burn in hell unless I believe exactly what he believes is stepping over the line imho as is being harangued for walking away. I believe the Westboro Baptist mob that protest at soldiers funerals step over the line. Were their rights infringed when people prevailed upon not to do likewise at the Amish girls funerals?

I think there is a line rather than a slope and in the case of the veil it causes practical difficulties that mean that it is bound to run up against problems in a modern society. The veil severely limits vision. This could cause difficulties driving a car for example - not a problem in Saudi Arabia because woman are not allowed to drive cars (quite sensible if they are all wearing veils). What would happen if we forbid women to drive cars if they are wearing a veil? Actually, I wonder how a lot of Muslim women would feel if we said they had to abide by Saudi gender laws.

So I couldn't wear my platinum bling in the same circumstance?

It sounds like this lady needs a pint of

STFU! and GTFO!

She doesn't get a special "I can wear this card" 'cause she makes religious symbol claims. She lost her job for being symbolminded.

She can clutch her cross on the street.