Veils

[JPaul]

Let me explain my position with regard to people wearing veils. I absolutely, without question, support any woman or man's right to wear a veil. It's nobody's business but their own.

I also support the right of a bank to say that they cannot enter that bank whilst wearing a veil. I support the right of schools and parents to say that you cannot teach wearing a veil. I support the right of airports to say that you cannot board a plane wearing a veil. I support the right of the Police to say that you can't drive wearing a veil, or enter a dispertion zone wearing a veil.

In essence I totally support anyone's right to disguise themselves, whilst at the same time supporting other people's right to exclude them from sensitive situations.

Seems fair to me. I will respect other people's beliefs, I expect no less from them.

[Biggles]

Let me explain my position with regard to people wearing veils. I absolutely, without question, support any woman or man's right to wear a veil. It's nobody's business but their own.

I also support the right of a bank to say that they cannot enter that bank whilst wearing a veil. I support the right of schools and parents to say that you cannot teach wearing a veil. I support the right of airports to say that you cannot board a plane wearing a veil. I support the right of the Police to say that you can't drive wearing a veil, or enter a dispertion zone wearing a veil.

In essence I totally support anyone's right to disguise themselves, whilst at the same time supporting other people's right to exclude them from sensitive situations.

Seems fair to me. I will respect other people's beliefs, I expect no less from them.



Can't argue with that.

The recent case is interesting in that the young lady went for an interview sans veil and then turned up for the job with. If a nudist interviewed in a suit and then turned up alfresco (as it were) one could imagine the employer might be dismayed.

Personally I believe a lot of the recent difficulties have been caused by political activists rather than the deeply religious - although I appreciate that young hotheads rarely are able to tell the difference.

[rjfan]

I agree you certainly cant tell someone what they can and cannot wear in public..other than the obvious(birthday suit). the thing that concerns me is that this may indeed bring moderate Muslims into the fray. there will be the claims of discrimination againts a religion..and indeed that is what it is. what is to be said of the flight attendant(i forget where it was) who was not allowed to wear a cross because the airline used the excuse of We dont allow jewelry to be worn.
Rules are rules and the lady certainly has to follow them-if at the time of her hiring she was made aware that this was indeed a rule. perhaps by subjugating
symbols of christianity we feel that we wil not Upset the Religion of Peace. There are a million and one instances of rediculous PC behavior. its funny how in this country the 1st amendment right to practice religion has turned againt Actually being able to practice it and more of the right of the non-believer(as it were) to not have to be exposed to it.

[ilw]

I agree you certainly cant tell someone what they can and cannot wear in public..other than the obvious(birthday suit).
i think nudism should be allowed. I honestly don't see why we allow people to wear what they like and not allow them to be in the nip.
Once nudism is ok, then we can move onto allowing sex in public.

[lynx]

Once nudism is ok, then we can move onto allowing sex in public.What about the cigarette afterwards, would there be an exemption?

[j2k4]

Once nudism is ok, then we can move onto allowing sex in public.What about the cigarette afterwards, would there be an exemption?

Public sex sans dessert, then...how fair is that? :dabs:

[j2k4]

Let me explain my position with regard to people wearing veils. I absolutely, without question, support any woman or man's right to wear a veil. It's nobody's business but their own.

I also support the right of a bank to say that they cannot enter that bank whilst wearing a veil. I support the right of schools and parents to say that you cannot teach wearing a veil. I support the right of airports to say that you cannot board a plane wearing a veil. I support the right of the Police to say that you can't drive wearing a veil, or enter a dispertion zone wearing a veil.

In essence I totally support anyone's right to disguise themselves, whilst at the same time supporting other people's right to exclude them from sensitive situations.

Seems fair to me. I will respect other people's beliefs, I expect no less from them.

Here's the point, JP:

Your view is entirely too sane and reasonable, that is to say, however, that it is in no way politic.

It leaves no space for effective rebuttal, refutation, nor ignorance, and is therefore shite, you see?

Political axiom:

Effective arguments produce no fertilizer, and are therefore useless.

[Busyman™]

I agree you certainly cant tell someone what they can and cannot wear in public..other than the obvious(birthday suit). the thing that concerns me is that this may indeed bring moderate Muslims into the fray. there will be the claims of discrimination againts a religion..and indeed that is what it is. what is to be said of the flight attendant(i forget where it was) who was not allowed to wear a cross because the airline used the excuse of We dont allow jewelry to be worn.
Rules are rules and the lady certainly has to follow them-if at the time of her hiring she was made aware that this was indeed a rule. perhaps by subjugating
symbols of christianity we feel that we wil not Upset the Religion of Peace. There are a million and one instances of rediculous PC behavior. its funny how in this country the 1st amendment right to practice religion has turned againt Actually being able to practice it and more of the right of the non-believer(as it were) to not have to be exposed to it.

You might have missed the point.

It has nothing to do with religion or jewelry. It comes down to a disguise.

I am allowed to wear my winter face mask

http://us.st11.yimg.com/us.st.yimg.com/I/maskstore_1910_4614774

outside but it is inappropriate in most places.

If I don't wanna show my identity, a place has the right to tell me to fuck off.

[rjfan]

If youre buying the disguise bit, then more power to you. if it isnt about religion than why would any muslim object?

[Busyman™]

If youre buying the disguise bit, then more power to you. if it isnt about religion than why would any muslim object?

To them it's about religion. Again, my winter mask has no religious connotation.

I don't see the same happening with Sikhs. All hats would have to be banned.

Put it this way. Do you think that a woman could go into a government building veiled? What about after she properly identified herself to get in?

Think about it. Do you think people are thinking, "That women's a Muslim. She's has to GTFO!"

No her frigging face is covered. "Who the hell is she?" (or he actually)

[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

:angry: :01: STFU! and GTFO! :01: :angry:

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.

[Biggles]

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

:angry: :01: STFU! and GTFO! :01: :angry:

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.

Not exactly as I would have worded it but that is the gist of my piece yes. :shifty:

[JPaul]

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

It sounds like this lady needs a pint of

:angry: :01: STFU! and GTFO! :01: :angry:

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.

Not exactly as I would have worded it but that is the gist of my piece yes. :shifty:

:lol:

Really :O