MeinRS6: FloydA: [i105.photobucket.com image 400x289]

Sorry folks, but no amount of religious magic can protect you when your jewelry gets stuck in the lathe and pulls you in face-first.

And if you answer phones at an office?

Every job in England involves a lathe. It's kind of their thing.

If there's a dress code that does not allow for the display of jewelry of any sort, I have no problems with this. I work in a factory and you're only allowed to wear plain, unadorned wedding bands, no necklaces, bracelets or piercings. They can contaminate the product (which is food) and get caught on machinery (which can injure or even kill you).

If, however they allow jewelry but specifically ban religious jewelry, there might be a case there. It could be argued, however, that religious iconography on jewelry might cause friction in the workplace. Of course, I'm not up on british law regarding this, so I can't really say for sure what might happen.

GoldSpider: MeinRS6: I know that Left and Right can mean different things in different countries, but you're going to have to clarify that one for me. I supposed they could be muslims, but islam is not part of conservative political thought.

How do I know you don't know what "conservative" means?

He thinks it means a laundry list of modern, American right wing positions.

You may think they're cute, but they're highly offensive to those of us who have been crucified.

A Bloody Disaster: heh... Any notion of "human rights" are entirely artificial and consequently malleable. I want some fried chicken.

Any rights with a qualification are generally privileges.

Human Rights, Civil Rights, Voting Rights, Employment Rights, Reproductive Rights (ahem)

You have to the right to do whatever you can conceive and accomplish through your own efforts. Each of the above requires cooperation of others, and often this cooperation is compulsory.

Human Rights is a tautology. Of course you have human rights. You're a human. Humans have rights simply because they're humans. The need for this circular calssification is that the idea of Rights has become so muddied with privileges and entitlements.

Of course, Human Rights itself is now a catchall for everything from clean water to rubbers for indigents to cable TV.

GoldSpider: How do I know you don't know what "conservative" means?

Back in the 80s, it caused a bit of kerfuffle amongst American conservatives when the hardline communists in the Soviet Union, the ones who opposed glasnost, were called 'conservatives' by the popular press. They ain't no conservatives, them's commies, or some such.

jso2897: GoldSpider: MeinRS6: I know that Left and Right can mean different things in different countries, but you're going to have to clarify that one for me. I supposed they could be muslims, but islam is not part of conservative political thought.

How do I know you don't know what "conservative" means?

He thinks it means a laundry list of modern, American right wing positions.

Well, the Christianists feel left out. Problem is, except for the Catholics and Greek Orthodox requiring that women cover their heads in a church, the Christians have no dress codes. They are not required to cover their faces (if female) like some sects of Islam, or to wear turbans, like Sikhs, or forelocks like Orthodox Jews.
Unless they belong to some heretofore unheard of sect that demands that it's adherents wear and publicly display the Cross, they would have no case under American law - of course, they aren't under American law, so who knows.

MeinRS6: Do you want there to be no limits on that idea or perhaps some limits? Reasonable limits?

Of course there are limits: employers must compete for employees. Too stringent restrictions at your work place means people will seek work elsewhere or you must offer excessive wages to compensate. There is no need for laws or courts on this issue.

I see no reason any business should have to tolerate any form of religious dress. The employee can believe anything they like in their spare time. When they're on the job they should expect very few concessions.

letrole: Human Rights is a tautology

I'm unsure of this statement. Actually, I find it ridiculous... it presupposes a moral or ethical structure in the world. Theoretically this is an absolute failure... but really, even in practice we humans have never established any legitimate system of order. There are only the conveniences of manners because it makes life more pleasant.

"Human rights" are as ridiculous as the rights for the fried chicken that I'm soon going to eat.

MeinRS6: kronicfeld: MeinRS6: And if you answer phones at an office?

Employers don't have the right to dictate their employees' appearances in the office?

Do you want there to be no limits on that idea or perhaps some limits? Reasonable limits?

Having solved all other problems, this is what they are going after now? People wearing a cross on a necklace?

The employer is wrong, and so are you. It's not that hard to understand.

It's a flight attendant (or something) and a nurse, there's little reason a cross couldn't be worn (I can KINDA see the nurse, because jewelry has a number of issues in the medical profession) but dollars-to-donuts the employer just doesn't want overt faith expressions for advertising reasons. This is wrong, but the UK doesn't actually have religious freedom enshrined in the constitution so they're getting away with it. They are also the conservative government, because the word "conservative" doesn't mean what you think it means, but in your whiny persecution-complex world YES, it is sort of anti-christian bias.

Sucks, but I'm as worked up about it as I am the outlawing of running actual footage of parliament on The Daily Show.

/For the Christians? No, for those who spend endless time trying to denounce Christ and God. I am perfectly fine with your non-belief, but please know you cannot override my belief or any other Christian. Do I get riled up? Not at all. In Christ, I have found peace and security in something much better and much more meaningful than myself or anything else on this earth. I do not think I am anything better than anyone else on this earth, either. I wake up each day utterly thankful that I was given the chance to do so yet again. And in doing so, I praise God happily. That is solely my experience, and I do not expect it to change anyone else's life or affect the way the wind blows. I spent far too many years miserable without God to know the difference in how life was and how life is now. I much prefer the life I have now, and I stand up firmly for it.

//I showed respect, wonder how much I will get back?

I'm OK with the wearing of religious symbols.

In fact, I'd make it compulsory - so that normal people are warned that they are in the presence of an idiot.

I see atheists are once again trying to legislate their pagan religion and force the rest of the population to worship at their elemental alter.

Miracle Whip: No, for those who spend endless time trying to denounce Christ and God.

The number of people actually doing that are fare fewer than you want to believe.

AbbeySomeone: It's the cross they eyed bear since you went away subby.

Somacandra: FTFA: The Strasbourg case hinges on whether human rights laws protect the right to wear a cross or crucifix at work under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It states: "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance."

Seems pretty cut and dried to me. I hope the British government loses the case. The Tories are on the wrong side of freedom here. The petitioners are a British Airways worker and a nurse. Don't see any special reason they aren't protected by the Human Rights code.

There COULD be a reason for the nurse. My dusty memories of working hospital night shifts say that jewelry is a problem in the medical industry. Rings get shiat (figuratively and literally) under them which is a vector for infection across the ward, pins can be grabbed and used by delirious patients (that's just about all of them after sundown) to stick you, themselves, and anything else in the area, and anything around your neck is potentially trouble. That means crosses on necklaces and pins are potential hazards.

This is probably NOT the actual reason or even common policy (hell, I think it was Johns Hopkins REQUIRES all its doctors to wear ties, all of which tested positive for MRSA on a random sweep) but I'm playing devil's advocate here. It was also a while ago.

austin_millbarge: And FWIW, the govt in Britain is conservative, not liberal.

Furthermore, liberals in the UK are a centrist party, not the batshiat farked up boogey man that Republicans frequently imagine are converting everyone into homosexual socialists.

Hence the reason they are part of the coalition government with the conservatives because while they differ in many ways they also share a lot of common ground.

Benevolent Misanthrope: Well, they've already said people have no right to display the swastika ... Not even Buddhists. I don't see why there's a problem with the Christian cross being banned, too.

It's not even close. Government saying no [symbol] anywhere is not like employers saying no [symbol] at my work place.

The morbid custom, by some Christians, of wearing a graphic depiction of the ghastly suffering of their lord, serves as a graphic proof of the absence of any love in their hearts.

If a mother loses her child in a car accident does she keep a picture of his body, mangled or perhaps still writhing in agony as a keepsake around her neck?

Apparently, this sadistic practice serves as a re-assurance that Christ will keep suffering, thus perpetually absorbing the reactions of the unabated sinning of his "followers".

The UK has made an exception to the strict uniform policy in order to allow Muslims, Jews and Sikhs to dress as require by their faith, with certain articles of clothing or ornamentation commanded by their holy men or deity.

OTOH I suspect these Xian women in the lawsuit against BA just want to obnoxiously shove their jesus beliefs in the face of non-Xian employees and customers.

Gary McFarlane, a relationship counsellor, was sacked by Relate for refusing to give sex therapy to homosexual couples.

I would not want to sit next to this guy at the pub after a few (British few, meaning 20 to 30 lagers). Talk about bitter.

in my office, you may not wear clothing suggesting you belong to one faith or another, no matter what religion it is... religious jewelry is frowned upon....

I'm surprised that Christmas is still a federal holiday here.....

The important thing is that MeinRS6 was able to make this thread all about himself by posting increasingly idiotic things.

letrole: Human Rights is a tautology

A Bloody Disaster: I'm unsure of this statement. Actually, I find it ridiculous... it presupposes a moral or ethical structure in the world. Theoretically this is an absolute failure... but really, even in practice we humans have never established any legitimate system of order. There are only the conveniences of manners because it makes life more pleasant.

Unless there is an ultimate right and wrong, then everything around you is just physics. There would be no difference between a lion tackling a gazelle on the savanna, and a mugger blowing your brains out for your wallet. Predator and Prey.

It's pointless to discuss high-minded ideas such as Rights if you cannot "presuppose a moral or ethical structure in the world". Why is it acceptable for the lion, but not the mugger? Both are animals, stalking other animals. Both have needs for sustenance.

Until you go find some sort of moral or ethical structure, and go find it now, you can't condemn or condone either the lion or the mugger.

Nanny States will do this kinda shiat

GAT_00: So the proper thing to do is to ban everything, or ban nothing. Anything in between is discrimination, saying one religion is better than the other.

Please RTFA. This is not about a ban. This is one employer making rules about his workplace.

From the article: "The Christian women bringing the case ... claim that they were discriminated against when their employers barred them from wearing the symbols. They want the European Court to rule that this breached their human right to manifest their religion."

They want the government to interfere so that they can "manifest" while they work. Well, they do their manifesting someplace else.

letrole: Until you go find some sort of moral or ethical structure

Is it so wrong that I enjoy raping dolphins? I can afford the boat, the snorkel and I'm pretty sure they like it. Dolphin sex is best sex.

Proper safety equipment is important.

Sorry libs, but if you want to work at MY small business you have to follow my rules. No tattoos, no t-shirts, and no gaudy jewelry. Precious snowflakes are so entitled these days.

separation of church and state, keep your church out of m state jobs.

piperTom: GAT_00: So the proper thing to do is to ban everything, or ban nothing. Anything in between is discrimination, saying one religion is better than the other.

Please RTFA. This is not about a ban. This is one employer making rules about his workplace.

From the article: "The Christian women bringing the case ... claim that they were discriminated against when their employers barred them from wearing the symbols. They want the European Court to rule that this breached their human right to manifest their religion."

They want the government to interfere so that they can "manifest" while they work. Well, they do their manifesting someplace else.

It feels weird and wrong to be on the side of the job creators.

A Bloody Disaster: letrole: Until you go find some sort of moral or ethical structure
Is it so wrong that I enjoy raping dolphins? I can afford the boat, the snorkel and I'm pretty sure they like it. Dolphin sex is best sex.

Beats me. I'm not into dolphins. I prefer jackasses. My method is providing them with childish moral quandries, and then I watch them fark themselves.

swaniefrmreddeer: Christians only wear the cross to silently prothlesize. If an employer doesn't want to present that message, they have every right to ban them at work.

Some wear them for protection.

PsiChi: swaniefrmreddeer: Christians only wear the cross to silently prothlesize. If an employer doesn't want to present that message, they have every right to ban them at work.

Some wear them for protection.


Like an IUD?


;-)

And Obama wants the European governments to be an example of what the US should do and be...um...NO THANKS, CHAPS!!!

FloydA: cman: cman: These kinds of issues really do bother me because I have no idea which side I should take.

For instance, when I was in Iraq, our Chaplain was a rabbi. His religion dictates that, on the sabbath, he is to not have certain physical actions like work. In late 2004, the mortar attacks were getting real hot, so the base commander ordered everyone everywhere on the base wear armor when outside.

Our rabbi was not happy, but there was nothing he could really do. His religion clashed with his job and with a potential life saving procedure. What does someone do?

Addendum: why he could not wear the armor was due to its weight. It weighed too much and was considered "work"


If God makes you choose between working on your day off and getting blown the f**k up, it's safe to conclude that God is farking with you.

Seriously, which would piss off God more? Doing a little bit of extra lifting on the Sabbath or committing negligent suicide?

The "astronaut" that gave us those rules doesn't give a flying f*ck if you're blown up or not. Just set another lamb on the barbie and GTFO (read your Bible)!

Honest Bender: YES! All religion should be banned!

That's something I cannot and will never agree to.
It's wrong.

lordaction: I see atheists are once again trying to legislate their pagan religion and force the rest of the population to worship at their elemental alter.

[i.minus.com image 640x497]

LOL WUT?

As long as your wearing of the cross or crucifix does not endanger the employee (working with certain heavy machinery, etc) they should be allowed to wear it.

People are taking political correctness to insane extremes. There is a small but vocal element who want to ban religion (and religious symbols) outright. These hard core "haters" miss the message of "freedom of religion". They assume it means freedom FROM religion.

I wonder how many people defending the British government's decision also think that school dress codes are regressive and employers who refuse to hire those with tattoos and "bizarre" piercings are narrow-minded.

Seriously, it's just a damn cross necklace. Let them have their Jew on a stick.

If this thread had a baby, it would be a ten foot tall corky that lives under a bridge in a van down by the river.

PsiChi: FloydA: cman: cman: These kinds of issues really do bother me because I have no idea which side I should take.

For instance, when I was in Iraq, our Chaplain was a rabbi. His religion dictates that, on the sabbath, he is to not have certain physical actions like work. In late 2004, the mortar attacks were getting real hot, so the base commander ordered everyone everywhere on the base wear armor when outside.

Our rabbi was not happy, but there was nothing he could really do. His religion clashed with his job and with a potential life saving procedure. What does someone do?

Addendum: why he could not wear the armor was due to its weight. It weighed too much and was considered "work"


If God makes you choose between working on your day off and getting blown the f**k up, it's safe to conclude that God is farking with you.

Seriously, which would piss off God more? Doing a little bit of extra lifting on the Sabbath or committing negligent suicide?

The "astronaut" that gave us those rules doesn't give a flying f*ck if you're blown up or not. Just set another lamb on the barbie and GTFO (read your Bible)!

[maskofreason.files.wordpress.com image 400x323]


I'm not saying you're right...

But you're right.

piperTom: They want the government to interfere so that they can "manifest" while they work. Well, they do their manifesting someplace else.

Here's the thing - if I told one of my employees to stop wearing a turban, hijab or kippah, the government would come down on me like a ton of bricks. Pretty sure I'd get the same thing if I told a muslim that he couldn't go and have a break for prayers.

Now, people are saying that there's no mention of the cross in the Bible. But, there's also no mention of the hijab in the Koran, either. And please don't tell me that a headscarf isn't "displaying your beauty". I can still tell if you've got a pretty face and a smoking hot body.

The main thing is this: no politician or government body is going to screw around with muslims or sikhs because they'll get accused of being a backward racist like they won't with a christian. I don't say this as a christian (I'm an aetheist), but because I believe in equal treatment (I also want the bishops kicking out of the House of Lords and the disestablishment of the Church of England).

Miracle Whip: //I showed respect, wonder how much I will get back?

If the rest of them were like you we wouldn't be having this issue. It's all about OMFG LOOK AT ME IM BEING PERSECUTED ELEVENTY!!11!! that's what makes this whole thing difficult.

sadly, you are in the minority

FloydA: [i105.photobucket.com image 400x289]

Sorry folks, but no amount of religious magic can protect you when your jewelry gets stuck in the lathe and pulls you in face-first.

when i was working at the machine shop it was: no watches, no rings, no long sleeves. necklaces had to be tucked in, and easily pulled off.


but this is just discrimination. i guess that means no sikh knives or turbans, no star of david, no shimaghs, no head scarves, or any religious emblem. cause they are being fair right?

keep the state out of the church, out of our bedrooms and off our bodies. just cause you don't believe my religion doesn't mean you have the right to tell me i can't wear a symbol of it.

dnrtfa