If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Telegraph)   England: the legal reason we stop Christians from wearing crosses, but not Muslims from wearing hijabs is SHUT UP AND DO WHAT WE SAY   (blogs.telegraph.co.uk) divider line 284
    More: Dumbass, muslims, England, hijabs, headscarfs, religious discrimination  
•       •       •

14309 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Jan 2013 at 8:43 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



284 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-01-04 07:20:53 PM
I'm 100% okay with them wearing crosses. I'll even pass the hat to help buy the tools to help speed up the wearing process.
 
2013-01-04 07:25:48 PM
In imperial Rome, cross wears you!
 
2013-01-04 07:26:43 PM
A nine-year-old girl from south London has been forbidden from wearing her hijab
[...]
Which leads us to draw the inevitable comparison to
[...]
the Christian Baptist who was sacked for refusing to work

These two things do seem identical.
 
2013-01-04 07:34:43 PM
all religions and their associated practices are loony
 
2013-01-04 07:42:30 PM
Christians just jelly cause they don't have cool hats to wear like all the other religions. Maybe they could make the fez required wear?
 
2013-01-04 07:53:19 PM

KawaiiNot: Christians just jelly cause they don't have cool hats to wear like all the other religions. Maybe they could make the fez required wear?


Old Catholic women still wear doilies to mass sometimes.
 
2013-01-04 07:59:04 PM
Banning religious articles is asinine. Why they want to take headscarfs away is a misguided policy. If they want to liberate women, then they should give them opportunities to leave their abusive situation. You cannot force someone to be free. Many of these women feel that is their duty by god. shiat like this besoils ones conscience.
 
2013-01-04 08:22:57 PM
Well, the school is a public venue that can't discriminate against religion, whereas when you're an employee, a manager certainly has the leeway to tell you what you may or may not wear.

This is similar to Sarah Palin claiming FOX won't let her say whatever she wants, and claiming violation of her First Amendment rights.  When the government tells you to shut up. that's illegal.  When your boss tells you, you can shut up, or quit.
 
2013-01-04 08:26:06 PM
Please give the persecution bullshiat a rest for a while, Christians. No one believes you anymore, so peddle you lies somewhere else.
 
2013-01-04 08:30:07 PM

Vodka Zombie: Please give the persecution bullshiat a rest for a while, Christians. No one believes you anymore, so peddle you lies somewhere else.


DId you actually read the article?
 
2013-01-04 08:38:44 PM

cman: Vodka Zombie: Please give the persecution bullshiat a rest for a while, Christians. No one believes you anymore, so peddle you lies somewhere else.

DId you actually read the article?


Naah... I rarely ever read the articles here. It's safer that way.
 
2013-01-04 08:41:44 PM
Does Todd Starnes know about this?
 
2013-01-04 08:45:19 PM
Awww, is somebody pissing their pants over Muslims again? What a bunch of pansies.
 
2013-01-04 08:48:46 PM
muslim girls who don't wear their head scarfs are sluts. In a good way.
 
2013-01-04 08:49:22 PM

ultraholland: all religions and their associated practices are loony


The only difference between a religion and a cult is size.

/Mormons, Seventh-Day Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Scientologists, Catholics...
//If you're thinking the ol' Sesame Street game, why?
 
2013-01-04 08:52:28 PM
Wearing a headscarf or a cross is pretty benign. Trying to claim discrimination based on having to work on Sunday is stupid.
 
2013-01-04 08:52:50 PM

cman: If they want to liberate women,


point missed entirely. Nothing to do with women's lib. Everything to do with not allowing religious beliefs to interfere with non-segregation in the education system.

Want something to get annoyed at for real? The allowance for state-funded Roman-Catholic only schools. Now that's utterly disgusting, and completely unconstitutional. (yes, the UK has a constitution.)
 
2013-01-04 08:53:11 PM
Well, I would normally support the vilification of Christians as a matter of moral principle, in the case of religious clothing, adornments, etc, I kind of like being able to spot them.

You know to hold your wallet, guard your beer supply and keep a steady eye on your daughter. First thing you let the Christians around, next thing you know your daughter has run off and your dog is pregnant.
 
2013-01-04 08:53:59 PM

Relatively Obscure: A nine-year-old girl from south London has been forbidden from wearing her hijab
[...]
Which leads us to draw the inevitable comparison to
[...]
the Christian Baptist who was sacked for refusing to work

These two things do seem identical.


That article was the stupidest thing I've read on Fark today.  Stupider than any comment in any Fark thread today.  And that's saying something.
 
2013-01-04 08:54:44 PM

KawaiiNot: Christians just jelly cause they don't have cool hats to wear like all the other religions. Maybe they could make the fez required wear?


What about Catholics and the pope hat?
 
2013-01-04 08:54:48 PM

cman: Vodka Zombie: Please give the persecution bullshiat a rest for a while, Christians. No one believes you anymore, so peddle you lies somewhere else.

DId you actually read the article?


I did. Please explain to me how a Hijab, which is a requirement of the Muslim faith, is the same as a cross, which some people simply choose to wear.
 
2013-01-04 08:54:54 PM

Fart_Machine: Wearing a headscarf or a cross is pretty benign


Not to many people, it's not. Me included. Both are symbols of horrifying oppression.
 
2013-01-04 08:55:18 PM
True Christians wouldn't give a flying fark about wearing a symbol or otherwise proclaiming their theological status - they'd simply live the life, walk the walk and such. It's the self-rightous pious asslickers that screw up any belief system basically. Avoid zealots, they tend to be humorless, judgmental and hypocritical beyond reality.

/stopping going to church as of this week for these very reasons. My 'religion' is kindness and understanding. Labels be damned (literally).
 
2013-01-04 08:55:34 PM

Relatively Obscure: A nine-year-old girl from south London has been forbidden from wearing her hijab
[...]
Which leads us to draw the inevitable comparison to
[...]
the Christian Baptist who was sacked for refusing to work

These two things do seem identical.


Following up to this statement, to state I wholeheartedly agree. Maybe someone has an image macro to abbreviate this sentiment.
 
2013-01-04 08:55:43 PM

IlGreven: The only difference between a religion and a cult is


One follows an unseen super being, and the other follows a living person, or physical object found here on earth.
 
2013-01-04 08:55:52 PM

simsite9: Well, the school is a public venue that can't discriminate against religion, whereas when you're an employee, a manager certainly has the leeway to tell you what you may or may not wear.



Especially if you're a stripper.
 
2013-01-04 08:56:31 PM
I say we ban banning. That way if nothing can be banned, then everything is a go and people can just fight it out rumble style to settle their petty differences. As long as only fists and chains are allowed..

/but nobody better start a rumble without Dallas
 
2013-01-04 08:56:35 PM
The only practical solution to these race and cultural problems is to increase non-white immigration until whites are no longer a viable majority. Preferably even asked to assimilate into the culture of non-white immigrant populations. I congratulate the author of this article for "stepping up" but now he needs to "step back". While we may agree with his opinion, too long faces of his complexion have dominated the debate and historically as led to oppression and biased politics and sciences. Soon he will one day be a minority and no the true meaning of social justice.
 
2013-01-04 08:56:56 PM
Who will sponsor me?
 
2013-01-04 08:57:12 PM
Geez, I never realized what a raging persecution complex the Torrygraph has.
 
2013-01-04 08:57:15 PM
"I know it's hard for those of us who didn't grow up in strict Muslim families to understand why it's a sin for a child of nine to be bare headed in front of male teachers,"

After reading about The Yogurt Teacher in California, I'm thinking no, not that hard.

And that just sucks.
 
2013-01-04 08:57:45 PM

Fart_Machine: Trying to claim discrimination based on having to work on Sunday is stupid.


Unless you take the bible seriously, but don't really know what it says.

;)
 
2013-01-04 08:57:55 PM

Fart_Machine: Wearing a headscarf or a cross is pretty benign. Trying to claim discrimination based on having to work on Sunday is stupid.



Really? What about Shabbat for Jews?
 
2013-01-04 08:58:26 PM

Relatively Obscure: A nine-year-old girl from south London has been forbidden from wearing her hijab
[...]
Which leads us to draw the inevitable comparison to
[...]
the Christian Baptist who was sacked for refusing to work

These two things do seem identical.


This. (assuming sarcasm)

As usual, Christians feels discriminated because they can't impose their religion on someone else, while at the same time discriminating against another faith for doing something that affects no one else.
"What do you mean I can't put stone monuments carved with the ten commandments in front of the courthouse? You don't eat Skittles because gelatin is made with pork fat!"
 
2013-01-04 08:59:10 PM

Mattyb710: which is a requirement of the Muslim faith


Is it? Are there no muslim females that do not wear it?


It always comes down to sects.
 
2013-01-04 08:59:25 PM
I was in college with a little Pashtun girl who wore very pretty head scarfs all the time, even in the fabrication laboratory (it's what you call a machine shop on grant applications).

One day she stopped wearing her head scarfs in the fab lab. I found out that she'd had a near death experience when one had gotten sucked up by a grinding wheel.

So, when safety people tell you not to wear loose items around 10,000 rpm machinery it doesn't matter if your god tells you to do something. YOU DON'T HAVE LOOSE ITEMS AROUND ROTATING MACHINERY!
 
2013-01-04 08:59:51 PM

KawaiiNot: Christians just jelly cause they don't have cool hats to wear like all the other religions. Maybe they could make the fez required wear?


These Catholics in Spain have some cool hats...

upload.wikimedia.org
/ but it wouldn't go over too well here in the US...
 
2013-01-04 09:00:05 PM
People need to chill on the regulatin' what other people wear, BUT.

A girl going to her local school, wearing clothing mandated by her religious sect, is not the same as an adult going to the workplace with a jewelry affectation NOT mandated by her religious sect. The kid really doesn't have a lot of choice about where she goes to school, or about wearing the hijab, while the grownup Christian can work elsewhere or leave the plus sign at home with no consequences except to her widdle feewings.

I lean toward the Muslims here, despite being constantly offended by the unstated insinuation that I am a slavering rapist kept at bay only because they conceal their hair from me.
 
2013-01-04 09:00:38 PM

ChuDogg: The only practical solution to these race and cultural problems is to increase non-white immigration until whites are no longer a viable majority. Preferably even asked to assimilate into the culture of non-white immigrant populations. I congratulate the author of this article for "stepping up" but now he needs to "step back". While we may agree with his opinion, too long faces of his complexion have dominated the debate and historically as led to oppression and biased politics and sciences. Soon he will one day be a minority and no the true meaning of social justice.


Is this where a farklib™ suggests you move to Somalia?
 
2013-01-04 09:00:51 PM

Amos Quito: Really? What about Shabbat for Jews?


If their employer/state-funded school says "you can't do that here", then maybe they are in the wrong job/school.
 
2013-01-04 09:02:11 PM
lemurking.files.wordpress.com

Just try to fire Willy!
 
2013-01-04 09:03:41 PM

Indubitably: Who will sponsor me?


Look, I just want to live there, write, teach, and live, that's all. Live squared.
 
2013-01-04 09:03:49 PM

mbillips: the unstated insinuation that I am a slavering rapist kept at bay only because they conceal their hair from me.


They came up with this concept based on their excuse making needs for the realities of their own societal ills, not yours, bub.
 
2013-01-04 09:04:27 PM
What kind of loony world does the author live in? Here is the last paragraph:

It is possible, therefore, to mount a reasonable defence of banning [hijab] in school. Sacking a Christian employee for expressing her faith in a modest and personal fashion, however, is indefensible, and the Government's position on that issue is shameful.

The hijab is an integral part of the muslim faith for women, it all ties into how their women are inferior and need to be coddled and kept away from the lustful eyes of their fathers and brothers. Crosses are something Christians can wear to show they are intolerant of your religion and are more pious than you are. They are so much like jesus they need to have a little cross of their own to show they are bearing YOUR sins for YOU, you filthy non jesus lover.

Why would we compare a form of expressing your religion in a tacky little religious ornament to that of a cornerstone of the faith for women and muslims?
 
2013-01-04 09:04:49 PM

Indubitably: Indubitably: Who will sponsor me?

Look, I just want to live there, write, teach, and live, that's all. Live squared.


I need a Medici...

*)
 
2013-01-04 09:04:56 PM
Should I be allowed to go to school wearing my kirpan? It's the same thing making me wear it. My religion.
 
2013-01-04 09:05:29 PM

mbillips: A girl going to her local school, wearing clothing mandated by her religious sect, is not the same as an adult going to the workplace with a jewelry affectation NOT mandated by her religious sect.


There's no such thing as "Mandated", you are trying to draw a distinction between people freely expressing their love for their imaginary best friends.
 
2013-01-04 09:06:57 PM

ChuDogg: The only practical solution to these race and cultural problems is to increase non-white immigration until whites are no longer a viable majority. Preferably even asked to assimilate into the culture of non-white immigrant populations. I congratulate the author of this article for "stepping up" but now he needs to "step back". While we may agree with his opinion, too long faces of his complexion have dominated the debate and historically as led to oppression and biased politics and sciences. Soon he will one day be a minority and no the true meaning of social justice.



Diversity is our their strength.
 
2013-01-04 09:07:10 PM

Forbidden Doughnut: These Catholics in Spain have some cool hats...


Dunce caps.
 
2013-01-04 09:07:39 PM

mbillips: People need to chill on the regulatin' what other people wear, BUT.

A girl going to her local school, wearing clothing mandated by her religious sect, is not the same as an adult going to the workplace with a jewelry affectation NOT mandated by her religious sect. The kid really doesn't have a lot of choice about where she goes to school, or about wearing the hijab, while the grownup Christian can work elsewhere or leave the plus sign at home with no consequences except to her widdle feewings.

I lean toward the Muslims here, despite being constantly offended by the unstated insinuation that I am a slavering rapist kept at bay only because they conceal their hair from me.


It's mostly this, heavily weighted toward the fact that this is a 9-year old child. It's not like making HER take off the hijab is going to make HER PARENTS more tolerant or less slavishly devoted to their religion; and it might make it worse for the child at her home or in her community. If they are conservative enough, they could just yank her out of school completely and send her back to the Old Country where 9-year old girls are old enough to be wives.

Which is not to say that firing someone for their choice of jewelry isn't completely asinine; just that any Christian woman whose faith is so fragile she has to compare her situation to a young child's is probably not doing herself any favors.
 
2013-01-04 09:07:49 PM

uttertosh: cman: If they want to liberate women,

point missed entirely. Nothing to do with women's lib. Everything to do with not allowing religious beliefs to interfere with non-segregation in the education system.


May FSM have mercy on my immortal soul, but I think ((oh it hurts to say this)) cman actually has a point.  It's a bit hard to tell through the incoherent ravings, but I THINK TFA was trying to say that the difference between "allowing" a nine-year-old girl to wear a headscarf to school and allowing an adult to wear a cross is that, while both are symbols of the wearer's devotion to their religion, the headscarf is problematic inasmuch as it represents Islam's subjugation of women (or, if not actual subjugation, at least the double standard radical Islam has in terms of proper dress).

Unfortunately, just as he was getting around to saying this, his brain locked up and he started yammering about pedophilia, and whatever valid point he may or may not have been about to actually articulate got strangled by the resulting derpstorm.
 
2013-01-04 09:07:55 PM

Jaws_Victim: The hijab is an integral part of the muslim faith for women, it all ties into how their women are inferior and need to be coddled and kept away from the lustful eyes of their fathers and brothers. Crosses are something Christians can wear to show they are intolerant of your religion and are more pious than you are. They are so much like jesus they need to have a little cross of their own to show they are bearing YOUR sins for YOU, you filthy non jesus lover.


I like this analogy. Wear the hijab because in your culture men are one thin layer of cloth from raping you, wear the cross so everyone can know you are better than them.
 
2013-01-04 09:08:06 PM

ko_kyi: There's no such thing as "Mandated"


okokok Religious Commandment. -semantics
 
2013-01-04 09:08:50 PM

Mattyb710: cman: Vodka Zombie: Please give the persecution bullshiat a rest for a while, Christians. No one believes you anymore, so peddle you lies somewhere else.

DId you actually read the article?

I did. Please explain to me how a Hijab, which is a requirement of the Muslim faith, is the same as a cross, which some people simply choose to wear.


The author was defending the right of the child to wear the scarf
 
2013-01-04 09:08:50 PM

s2s2s2: One follows an unseen super being, and the other follows a living person, or physical object found here on earth.


In a cult, the people at the top know that it is a scam.
In a religion, those people have died off.
 
2013-01-04 09:09:53 PM
Oh, and Arab dudes? Trying to keep women from looking sexy by making them wear hijab, or even niqab? It's not working.

25.media.tumblr.com

1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-01-04 09:10:04 PM
Giving the kid a hard time at school is just going to make her have a hard time at home.
 
2013-01-04 09:10:29 PM

ko_kyi: I like this analogy. Wear the hijab because in your culture men are one thin layer of cloth from raping you, wear the cross so everyone can know you are better than them


The cross is to remind rapists their victim will have to forgive them.


/did someone just turn up the heat?
 
2013-01-04 09:11:12 PM
To bully
 
2013-01-04 09:12:42 PM

ciberido: uttertosh: cman: If they want to liberate women,

point missed entirely. Nothing to do with women's lib. Everything to do with not allowing religious beliefs to interfere with non-segregation in the education system.

May FSM have mercy on my immortal soul, but I think ((oh it hurts to say this)) cman actually has a point.  It's a bit hard to tell through the incoherent ravings, but I THINK TFA was trying to say that the difference between "allowing" a nine-year-old girl to wear a headscarf to school and allowing an adult to wear a cross is that, while both are symbols of the wearer's devotion to their religion, the headscarf is problematic inasmuch as it represents Islam's subjugation of women (or, if not actual subjugation, at least the double standard radical Islam has in terms of proper dress).

Unfortunately, just as he was getting around to saying this, his brain locked up and he started yammering about pedophilia, and whatever valid point he may or may not have been about to actually articulate got strangled by the resulting derpstorm.


Granted, but the real reason is to stop religious segregation-based bullying from disrupting lessons within state funded schools, in a state that mandates that both should remain separate. That's what it boils down to when the derp has evaporated.
 
2013-01-04 09:13:35 PM

0Icky0: In a cult, the people at the top know that it is a scam.
In a religion, those people have died off.


www.foundersofamerica.com
 
2013-01-04 09:13:58 PM
'cos white Christians are far more likely to experience prejudice than black Muslims

Just like we all banned Christmas
 
2013-01-04 09:14:12 PM

uttertosh: ciberido: uttertosh: cman: If they want to liberate women,

point missed entirely. Nothing to do with women's lib. Everything to do with not allowing religious beliefs to interfere with non-segregation in the education system.

May FSM have mercy on my immortal soul, but I think ((oh it hurts to say this)) cman actually has a point.  It's a bit hard to tell through the incoherent ravings, but I THINK TFA was trying to say that the difference between "allowing" a nine-year-old girl to wear a headscarf to school and allowing an adult to wear a cross is that, while both are symbols of the wearer's devotion to their religion, the headscarf is problematic inasmuch as it represents Islam's subjugation of women (or, if not actual subjugation, at least the double standard radical Islam has in terms of proper dress).

Unfortunately, just as he was getting around to saying this, his brain locked up and he started yammering about pedophilia, and whatever valid point he may or may not have been about to actually articulate got strangled by the resulting derpstorm.

Granted, but the real reason is to stop religious segregation-based bullying from disrupting lessons within state funded schools, in a state that mandates that both should remain separate. That's what it boils down to when the derp has evaporated.


To Quick
 
2013-01-04 09:15:28 PM

Indubitably: uttertosh: ciberido: uttertosh: cman: If they want to liberate women,

point missed entirely. Nothing to do with women's lib. Everything to do with not allowing religious beliefs to interfere with non-segregation in the education system.

May FSM have mercy on my immortal soul, but I think ((oh it hurts to say this)) cman actually has a point.  It's a bit hard to tell through the incoherent ravings, but I THINK TFA was trying to say that the difference between "allowing" a nine-year-old girl to wear a headscarf to school and allowing an adult to wear a cross is that, while both are symbols of the wearer's devotion to their religion, the headscarf is problematic inasmuch as it represents Islam's subjugation of women (or, if not actual subjugation, at least the double standard radical Islam has in terms of proper dress).

Unfortunately, just as he was getting around to saying this, his brain locked up and he started yammering about pedophilia, and whatever valid point he may or may not have been about to actually articulate got strangled by the resulting derpstorm.

Granted, but the real reason is to stop religious segregation-based bullying from disrupting lessons within state funded schools, in a state that mandates that both should remain separate. That's what it boils down to when the derp has evaporated.

To Quick


There canna be only one...

*snikt*
 
2013-01-04 09:15:43 PM
Wearing religious articles is benign. It should be allowed as long as there is no risk to safety. Working on Sundays? I've worked with people who wanted specific days of the week off for religious purposes. The test we used was impact on others; consequently, no accommodations were granted for days off on Saturday or Sunday. If you needed it off, you could find a trade or request leave.
 
2013-01-04 09:16:59 PM

jamspoon: Just like we all banned Christmas


Even most self identifying christians would be annoyed if someone walked up to them on the 25th and said "ARE YOU EXCITED ABOUT CELEBRATING THE BIRTH OF OUR LORD?!", but I get the snark. Keep up the good work.
 
2013-01-04 09:17:19 PM
When I was a waitress, Sunday was always the shiattiest day of the week to work. Extremely busy with post-church clientele who were very demanding and often inclined to leave religious tracts in lieu of tips.

Managers always asked in interviews if there were any days you couldn't work, and if you said Sunday, you wouldn't get the job.

And if you're that devoutly opposed to working on Sundays, shouldn't you be opposed to working for an employer who fails to keep the Sabbath holy by being open for business? Or maybe you just know that working on Sunday sucks and whipped out your handy dandy bullshiat excuse.
 
2013-01-04 09:18:07 PM

Jaws_Victim: The hijab is an integral part of the muslim faith for women, it all ties into how their women are inferior and need to be coddled and kept away from the lustful eyes of their fathers and brothers. Crosses are something Christians can wear to show they are intolerant of your religion and are more pious than you are. They are so much like jesus they need to have a little cross of their own to show they are bearing YOUR sins for YOU, you filthy non jesus lover.



Ah bullshiat.

I have worked with many Christians (especially Latin Americans) that wore crosses / crucifixes as reminders of their commitment to their faith - not to shove their religion down someone else's throat.

/Some were careful to make the sign of the cross whenever passing a cathedral.
 
2013-01-04 09:18:21 PM

Fart_Machine: Wearing a headscarf or a cross is pretty benign. Trying to claim discrimination based on having to work on Sunday is stupid.


Why is it stupid?  Not working on "the Sabbath" (which most Christians take to mean Sunday) is one of the Ten Commandments.  It's pretty fundamental to the religion.  In fact, Exodus commands that a "sabbath-breaker" be executed.  At one time it was against the law in more than one part of the USA to work on Sunday.  There are still laws in Germany even now against doing some things on Sunday.
 
2013-01-04 09:18:46 PM

Indubitably: To Quick

There canna be only one...

*snikt*



Sorry, Did I manage mangle your language again..? Oh, the humanitarians.
 
2013-01-04 09:19:05 PM
Wearing a hijab doesn't hurt anybody. It has no effect on any child's learning. Letting her wear it has exactly zero impact, so why not accommodate her religion?

Not being able to work on Sunday can be a problem for your employer; namely the fact that you aren't showing up and he has to get someone else to cover those hours.

As for the women who were told they can't wear crucifixes - well, the article conveniently didn't bother to say what their job was. If they were a janitor, it probably wouldn't be a problem. If they were a nurse then maybe it's a germ transfer hazard. Or if you're working in a industrial plant with moving equipment, then wearing a metal chain around your neck is a definite safety hazard.
 
2013-01-04 09:19:08 PM

Amos Quito: Fart_Machine: Wearing a headscarf or a cross is pretty benign. Trying to claim discrimination based on having to work on Sunday is stupid.


Really? What about Shabbat for Jews?


2.bp.blogspot.com

/obligatory

And no, it still isn't.
 
2013-01-04 09:20:00 PM
Take your jewelry off at work or deal with the consequences. Same for excess clothing. Or you know work for someone cool.
 
2013-01-04 09:20:53 PM

Karac: Wearing a hijab doesn't hurt anybody. It has no effect on any child's learning. Letting her wear it has exactly zero impact, so why not accommodate her religion?

Not being able to work on Sunday can be a problem for your employer; namely the fact that you aren't showing up and he has to get someone else to cover those hours.

As for the women who were told they can't wear crucifixes - well, the article conveniently didn't bother to say what their job was. If they were a janitor, it probably wouldn't be a problem. If they were a nurse then maybe it's a germ transfer hazard. Or if you're working in a industrial plant with moving equipment, then wearing a metal chain around your neck is a definite safety hazard.


Will you stop being so calm and reasonable? There are people freaking out around here! The whole issue is whether or not there's a god and people's stupid devotion to something that doesn't exist, not whether they should be allowed to wear an article of clothing!
 
2013-01-04 09:21:13 PM

mbillips: Oh, and Arab dudes? Trying to keep women from looking sexy by making them wear hijab, or even niqab? It's not working.

[25.media.tumblr.com image 466x677]

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 468x275]


Link
 
2013-01-04 09:21:39 PM

Karac: Letting her wear it has exactly zero impact,


you parked your unicorn in the MLP spot again.
 
2013-01-04 09:24:32 PM

s2s2s2: Mattyb710: which is a requirement of the Muslim faith

Is it? Are there no muslim females that do not wear it?


It always comes down to sects.


This. To say hijab is a requirement of Islam as a whole because some sects demand it is about as accurate as saying long hair on women is a requirement of Christianity as a whole because some sects demand it.
 
2013-01-04 09:24:42 PM

Jaws_Victim: What kind of loony world does the author live in? Here is the last paragraph:

It is possible, therefore, to mount a reasonable defence of banning [hijab] in school. Sacking a Christian employee for expressing her faith in a modest and personal fashion, however, is indefensible, and the Government's position on that issue is shameful.

The hijab is an integral part of the muslim faith for women,


No it isn't. It's a bunch of Arab bullshiat. Until recently, no Muslim women in India, Bangladesh or Indonesia covered their hair, and even now it's a small minority. That's about 40 percent of the Muslim world right there. It's just a Bedouin cultural thang; they were hiding their women when Muhammsd was gleam in Abdullah's eye.
 
2013-01-04 09:25:03 PM

Amos Quito: Jaws_Victim: The hijab is an integral part of the muslim faith for women, it all ties into how their women are inferior and need to be coddled and kept away from the lustful eyes of their fathers and brothers. Crosses are something Christians can wear to show they are intolerant of your religion and are more pious than you are. They are so much like jesus they need to have a little cross of their own to show they are bearing YOUR sins for YOU, you filthy non jesus lover.


Ah bullshiat.

I have worked with many Christians (especially Latin Americans) that wore crosses / crucifixes as reminders of their commitment to their faith - not to shove their religion down someone else's throat.

/Some were careful to make the sign of the cross whenever passing a cathedral.


I believe that is why Madonna wore a cross pretty frequently. Really helped her out too.
 
2013-01-04 09:25:46 PM

0Icky0: s2s2s2: One follows an unseen super being, and the other follows a living person, or physical object found here on earth.

In a cult, the people at the top know that it is a scam.
In a religion, those people have died off.


Hmmm. Never looked at that way. I like it.
 
2013-01-04 09:27:18 PM

ciberido: Fart_Machine: Wearing a headscarf or a cross is pretty benign. Trying to claim discrimination based on having to work on Sunday is stupid.

Why is it stupid?  Not working on "the Sabbath" (which most Christians take to mean Sunday) is one of the Ten Commandments.  It's pretty fundamental to the religion.  In fact, Exodus commands that a "sabbath-breaker" be executed.  At one time it was against the law in more than one part of the USA to work on Sunday.  There are still laws in Germany even now against doing some things on Sunday.


I've worked with plenty of Christians on a Sunday and none of them have been put to death or imprisoned. If it's a problem work for an employer who can accommodate your request.
 
2013-01-04 09:31:28 PM

s2s2s2: ko_kyi:


/did someone just turn up the heat?


s7.postimage.org

I don't know, I'm feeling pretty hot here.
 
2013-01-04 09:31:41 PM

Fart_Machine: I've worked with plenty of Christians on a Sunday and none of them have been put to death or imprisoned. If it's a problem work for an employer who can accommodate your request.


If it's a problem go to a school that can accommodate your request.
 
2013-01-04 09:31:59 PM

s2s2s2: Mattyb710: which is a requirement of the Muslim faith

Is it? Are there no muslim females that do not wear it?


It always comes down to sects.


collider.com

"What is wrong with be secty?"
 
2013-01-04 09:32:16 PM
This is clearly an actionable violation of all Britons 1st Amendment rights.
 
2013-01-04 09:32:36 PM

Fart_Machine: ciberido: Fart_Machine:

I've worked with plenty of Christians on a Sunday and none of them have been put to death or imprisoned. If it's a problem work for an employer who can accommodate your request.


Hiring

i.huffpost.com
 
2013-01-04 09:32:59 PM
Whar written constitution?

Whar?
 
2013-01-04 09:33:23 PM

ciberido: Not working on "the Sabbath" (which most Christians take to mean Sunday


Most Christians are also unaware of history.
 
2013-01-04 09:34:33 PM

uttertosh: Fart_Machine: I've worked with plenty of Christians on a Sunday and none of them have been put to death or imprisoned. If it's a problem work for an employer who can accommodate your request.

If it's a problem go to a school that can accommodate your request.


Well there you go. Schools aren't open on Sunday. Ta Da!
 
2013-01-04 09:35:25 PM

mbillips: Fart_Machine: ciberido: Fart_Machine:

I've worked with plenty of Christians on a Sunday and none of them have been put to death or imprisoned. If it's a problem work for an employer who can accommodate your request.

Hiring

[i.huffpost.com image 570x238]


Don't think they have any in the UK.
 
2013-01-04 09:35:29 PM

uttertosh: Indubitably: To Quick

There canna be only one...

*snikt*


Sorry, Did I manage mangle your language again..? Oh, the humanitarians.


No.

You just managed to steal it.

Credit and all.

Well-played.
 
2013-01-04 09:36:05 PM

Indubitably: uttertosh: Indubitably: To Quick

There canna be only one...

*snikt*


Sorry, Did I manage mangle your language again..? Oh, the humanitarians.

No.

You just managed to steal it.

Credit and all.

Well-played.


To school
 
2013-01-04 09:36:44 PM

Sergeant Grumbles: Relatively Obscure: A nine-year-old girl from south London has been forbidden from wearing her hijab
[...]
Which leads us to draw the inevitable comparison to
[...]
the Christian Baptist who was sacked for refusing to work

These two things do seem identical.

This. (assuming sarcasm)

As usual, Christians feels discriminated because they can't impose their religion on someone else, while at the same time discriminating against another faith for doing something that affects no one else.
"What do you mean I can't put stone monuments carved with the ten commandments in front of the courthouse? You don't eat Skittles because gelatin is made with pork fat!"


While not disagreeing with you in principle let's not compare apples with oranges.

In regards to religion tolerance I can say (and so can you if you're honest} 'Christian' nations are a LOT more tolerant of other religions than 'Muslim' nations are of non Islamic religions. I can guarantee you a Muslim in UK, US etc has 1000X more freedom to practice their faith despite ocasional derp from individuals than a say a Christian or Buddhist practicing the same in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and most other Muslim countries.
 
2013-01-04 09:39:48 PM
As long as there not trying to ram there faith down my throat. Let them wear what they want.
 
2013-01-04 09:45:59 PM

ciberido: Fart_Machine: Wearing a headscarf or a cross is pretty benign. Trying to claim discrimination based on having to work on Sunday is stupid.

Why is it stupid?  Not working on "the Sabbath" (which most Christians take to mean Sunday) is one of the Ten Commandments.  It's pretty fundamental to the religion.  In fact, Exodus commands that a "sabbath-breaker" be executed.  At one time it was against the law in more than one part of the USA to work on Sunday.  There are still laws in Germany even now against doing some things on Sunday.


Such an execution would be verbotten here in the United States. By any standard, it is a vicious violation of individual liberties. Further, someone else's religious beliefs should hold no more weight than my personal, non-religious beliefs. Imagining that one's values came from an imaginary sky god does not make them any more sacred than rationally-decided ones.

But that's not why wearing crosses is stupid (though it is stupid). Also not why wearing burkas is stupid (though it is stupid).
 
2013-01-04 09:48:25 PM
The fact is that wearing a cross to work, or arranging one's shifts so that one doesn't have to work on Sundays, is wholly benign and understandable.

So it's bad to prevent a kid from wearing a scarf in school, but it's ok to be able to dictate to your employer when you're going to work. Sweet deal.
 
2013-01-04 09:48:42 PM

Uranus Is Huge!: This is clearly an actionable violation of all Britons 1st Amendment rights.


Uranus Is Huge!: Whar written constitution?

Whar?


HAR CONSARUSHUNZ HAR ERMERGHERD.

stfu.
 
2013-01-04 09:49:07 PM
us.123rf.com

If you want to wear a cross wear, it like you mean it you pussies.
 
2013-01-04 09:49:37 PM

MisterTweak: I'm 100% okay with them wearing crosses. I'll even pass the hat to help buy the tools to help speed up the wearing process.


But is that gun-powdah activatid?
i29.photobucket.com
 
2013-01-04 09:51:12 PM

Fart_Machine: Well there you go. Schools aren't open on Sunday. Ta Da!


Sunday School is. Won't see many hijabs there, mind.
 
2013-01-04 09:51:43 PM

cman: Mattyb710: cman: Vodka Zombie: Please give the persecution bullshiat a rest for a while, Christians. No one believes you anymore, so peddle you lies somewhere else.

DId you actually read the article?

I did. Please explain to me how a Hijab, which is a requirement of the Muslim faith, is the same as a cross, which some people simply choose to wear.

The author was defending the right of the child to wear the scarf


Guess you read a different article.

FTFA: It is possible, therefore, to mount a reasonable defence of banning it in school. (in reference to the hijab) Sacking a Christian employee for expressing her faith in a modest and personal fashion, however, is indefensible, and the Government's position on that issue is shameful.

Read the article again, especially the last two paragraphs. This idiot is trying to draw some parallel between a hijab and a cross worn as a necklace. More than that he is saying that banning a hijab in school is slightly defensible where as banning the cross is not defensible at all.
 
2013-01-04 09:55:10 PM

stuffy: As long as there not trying to ram there faith down my throat. Let them wear whair what they want.


ftfy. pet peeve.
 
2013-01-04 09:56:38 PM
Has anyone mentioned yet that hijabs are really a cultural thing not exactly religious in origin?
 
2013-01-04 09:56:54 PM

uttertosh: Uranus Is Huge!: This is clearly an actionable violation of all Britons 1st Amendment rights.

Uranus Is Huge!: Whar written constitution?

Whar?

HAR CONSARUSHUNZ HAR ERMERGHERD.

stfu.


Did you read the contents of the link?
 
2013-01-04 10:00:01 PM

Mattyb710: cman: Mattyb710: cman: Vodka Zombie: Please give the persecution bullshiat a rest for a while, Christians. No one believes you anymore, so peddle you lies somewhere else.

DId you actually read the article?

I did. Please explain to me how a Hijab, which is a requirement of the Muslim faith, is the same as a cross, which some people simply choose to wear.

The author was defending the right of the child to wear the scarf

Guess you read a different article.

FTFA: It is possible, therefore, to mount a reasonable defence of banning it in school. (in reference to the hijab) Sacking a Christian employee for expressing her faith in a modest and personal fashion, however, is indefensible, and the Government's position on that issue is shameful.

Read the article again, especially the last two paragraphs. This idiot is trying to draw some parallel between a hijab and a cross worn as a necklace. More than that he is saying that banning a hijab in school is slightly defensible where as banning the cross is not defensible at all.


You are probably right
 
2013-01-04 10:00:38 PM

s2s2s2: IlGreven: The only difference between a religion and a cult is

One follows an unseen super being, and the other follows a living person, or physical object found here on earth.


So it is imaginary friends vs. real people. Were you trying to make cults sound better than religions??
 
2013-01-04 10:03:08 PM

Uranus Is Huge!: Did you read the contents of the link?


Well, it's obvious you didn't, so why bother telling you that it's a subject I've read at length about? You're from FLORIDA, I expect derp from you.
 
2013-01-04 10:03:11 PM
The government should look to the legal precedent established in the landmark case Apple vs. Orange.
 
2013-01-04 10:06:16 PM

Farking Canuck: Were you trying to

alltheragefaces.com
 
2013-01-04 10:08:03 PM

uttertosh: Uranus Is Huge!: Did you read the contents of the link?

Well, it's obvious you didn't, so why bother telling you that it's a subject I've read at length about? You're from FLORIDA, I expect derp from you.


From your link:

"Unlike many other nations, the UK has no single constitutional document. This is sometimes expressed by stating that it has an uncodified or "unwritten" constitution.[2] Much of the British constitution is embodied in written documents, within statutes, court judgments and treaties. The constitution has other unwritten sources, including parliamentary constitutional conventions (as laid out in Erskine May) and royal prerogatives."

I haven't lived in Florida for twenty years.

Lighten the fark up.
 
2013-01-04 10:08:50 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: The government should look to the legal precedent established in the landmark case Apple vs. Orange.


Keeping religion out of state funded schools, in order to minimize victimization. how's that comparison.? That's right, it's not a comparison, it's a constitutionally enforceable principal.

I eat oranges and apples together.
 
2013-01-04 10:10:34 PM
Why are there so many assholes on fark these days?
 
2013-01-04 10:11:11 PM
Let's see what the EU laws regarding this are:

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[...]

The freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

So no one, religious or otherwise, should have the right to alter how anyone else chooses to observe their religious decisions.
 
2013-01-04 10:11:18 PM

Uranus Is Huge!: Much of the British constitution is embodied in written documents


it's just not a powerpoint bullet list for ADhD children.
 
2013-01-04 10:11:21 PM

Fart_Machine: ciberido: Fart_Machine: Wearing a headscarf or a cross is pretty benign. Trying to claim discrimination based on having to work on Sunday is stupid.

Why is it stupid?  Not working on "the Sabbath" (which most Christians take to mean Sunday) is one of the Ten Commandments.  It's pretty fundamental to the religion.  In fact, Exodus commands that a "sabbath-breaker" be executed.  At one time it was against the law in more than one part of the USA to work on Sunday.  There are still laws in Germany even now against doing some things on Sunday.

I've worked with plenty of Christians on a Sunday and none of them have been put to death or imprisoned. If it's a problem work for an employer who can accommodate your request.


I bet you know plenty of Christians who eat shrimp and ham, too.  And they're all going to burn in hell right next to the homosexuals and sabbath-breakers.
 
2013-01-04 10:11:49 PM

Standard Deviant: Why are there so many assholes on fark these days?


Law of Averages.
 
2013-01-04 10:12:14 PM

s2s2s2: protection of public order


there you have it. done.
 
2013-01-04 10:12:25 PM

Standard Deviant: Why are there so many assholes on fark these days?


Because good snark takes skill. Posting 'STFU' or 'DIAF' does not.
 
2013-01-04 10:12:34 PM

Mattyb710: cman: Mattyb710: cman: Vodka Zombie: Please give the persecution bullshiat a rest for a while, Christians. No one believes you anymore, so peddle you lies somewhere else.

DId you actually read the article?

I did. Please explain to me how a Hijab, which is a requirement of the Muslim faith, is the same as a cross, which some people simply choose to wear.

The author was defending the right of the child to wear the scarf

Guess you read a different article.

FTFA: It is possible, therefore, to mount a reasonable defence of banning it in school. (in reference to the hijab) Sacking a Christian employee for expressing her faith in a modest and personal fashion, however, is indefensible, and the Government's position on that issue is shameful.

Read the article again, especially the last two paragraphs. This idiot is trying to draw some parallel between a hijab and a cross worn as a necklace. More than that he is saying that banning a hijab in school is slightly defensible where as banning the cross is not defensible at all.


The Torygraph has become a lot more derpy lately.
 
2013-01-04 10:13:58 PM

uttertosh: Uranus Is Huge!: Much of the British constitution is embodied in written documents

it's just not a powerpoint bullet list for ADhD children.


It was a joke. Unbunch your underpants. I could not care less about the state of the UK constitution.

I bow to your amazing intellect and insight.
 
2013-01-04 10:14:09 PM

ciberido: Fart_Machine: ciberido: Fart_Machine: Wearing a headscarf or a cross is pretty benign. Trying to claim discrimination based on having to work on Sunday is stupid.

Why is it stupid?  Not working on "the Sabbath" (which most Christians take to mean Sunday) is one of the Ten Commandments.  It's pretty fundamental to the religion.  In fact, Exodus commands that a "sabbath-breaker" be executed.  At one time it was against the law in more than one part of the USA to work on Sunday.  There are still laws in Germany even now against doing some things on Sunday.

I've worked with plenty of Christians on a Sunday and none of them have been put to death or imprisoned. If it's a problem work for an employer who can accommodate your request.

I bet you know plenty of Christians who eat shrimp and ham, too.  And they're all going to burn in hell right next to the homosexuals and sabbath-breakers.


Hell sounds like a pretty fun place then. If there's no bacon in Heaven then I don't want to go.
 
2013-01-04 10:15:57 PM

uttertosh: cman: If they want to liberate women,

point missed entirely. Nothing to do with women's lib. Everything to do with not allowing religious beliefs to interfere with non-segregation in the education system.

Want something to get annoyed at for real? The allowance for state-funded Roman-Catholic only schools. Now that's utterly disgusting, and completely unconstitutional. (yes, the UK has a constitution.)


Why doesnt anyone from the Witangemoot simplify the constitution by putting it down in a uniformed constitution? UK constitution is made up of various shiat, but there is no clarity.
 
2013-01-04 10:16:48 PM
Or how about, leaving all religious trinkets and costumes at home?
 
2013-01-04 10:18:59 PM

cman: Why doesnt anyone from the Witangemoot simplify the constitution by putting it down in a uniformed constitution? UK constitution is made up of various shiat, but there is no clarity.


uttertosh: it's just not a powerpoint bullet list for ADhD children.

 
2013-01-04 10:19:02 PM

Jaws_Victim: s2s2s2: ko_kyi:


/did someone just turn up the heat?

[s7.postimage.org image 500x375]

I don't know, I'm feeling pretty hot here.


Here's a fun fact: female suicide bombs are more effective than male ones (as measured in number of deaths per attack).  I forget the exact number but it's something like 29 kills per attack versus only 26 for male bombers.  Female bombers also usually assassinate specific targets rather than just go after random groups of people as male bombers do.

So yay women power or something.
 
2013-01-04 10:20:02 PM

s2s2s2: Let's see what the EU laws regarding this are:

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[...]

The freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

So no one, religious or otherwise, should have the right to alter how anyone else chooses to observe their religious decisions.



So my animal sacrifices are exempt from EU and national animal cruelty laws?
 
2013-01-04 10:20:04 PM

Bslim: Or how about, leaving all religious trinkets and costumes at home?


Is the correct answer! (and so concisely put, too!)

+1

/thread
 
2013-01-04 10:20:56 PM

bump: True Christians wouldn't give a flying fark about wearing a symbol or otherwise proclaiming their theological status - they'd simply live the life, walk the walk and such. It's the self-rightous pious asslickers that screw up any belief system basically. Avoid zealots, they tend to be humorless, judgmental and hypocritical beyond reality.

/stopping going to church as of this week for these very reasons. My 'religion' is kindness and understanding. Labels be damned (literally).


It's similar to all the politicians that where flag pins on thier lapels.
 
2013-01-04 10:21:37 PM
As an atheist I do not have any objection to a Christian innocently wearing a cross, a Jew wearing a Star of David, or a Muslim wearing a head-scarf or snood. Unless the intent is to provoke, evangelize or exclude, these are personal symbols and thus free speech. No real Christian doctrine or custom requires a Christian to wear a cross or any other symbol of Christianity except for clerics and religious orders (which are obliged to wear tonsure or certain other signs of Faith by the rules of the order or as a clerical uniform).

These are protected by religious tolerance. You can't make the Pope take off his dress, even in predominantly non-Catholic free country. Likewise, the signs of Faith such as the turban (Sikhs) or robes (Buddhists) are required by religious custom, law and doctrine and should not be prohibited by a religiously tolerant nation.

Other uses of religious symbols (such as their use with uniforms and in conditions where safety or public interest preclude them) are fair game. Since you do not have to wear a cross to be a Christian, it may be rightly prohibited where it is reasonable to do so. Christians and others should take off religious jewelry when operating a band saw, for example. If you must wear a helmet, it is not unreasonable to require that you remove your turban or wear it safely over or under the helmet as reason dictates.

I have no objection to a Sikh officer wearing a turban with the RCMP uniform. The RCMP dress uniform was stolen from the Bengal Lancers. They wore pillbox hats (and so did the RCMP during the Riel Rebellion) but turbans look great with jodphurs, riding boots and lances. I'm just saying.

I consider myself tolerant of many things and prepared to tolerate others. For example, many evangelical Christians dress like Laura Ingalls or insist on wearing hats in Church. Many of the more "liberated" Muslim countries allow women to simply cover their hair with snoods, scarves or wigs the way some Orthodox or Conservative Jewish women do. Same difference. I find that these Muslim women are cheerful, hard-working, good-natured and kindly. They are much like some of the nicer Christians, for example my late aunt, who although a member of a very nasty congregation, was a very nice person and belovèd of all, even her unbelieving scamp of a husband.

I do not believe that the more backwards and evil customs or doctrines of the various religiouns, denominations and sects should be tolerated. We must protect human life, dignity, justice and freedom to be a liberal democracy and a reasonably free and equitable society. We can do better than we do, but we don't have to be "politically correct" to the point of spiting ourselves and our own kind for the sake of not offending others.

BE PREPARED TO BE A GOOD CITIZEN AND A GOOD CANADIAN--petty details like holidays, clothing, symbols, diet, etc., are negotiable. You can even negotiate with God. Some of his rules are obviously meant for idiots, and if you cease to be an idiot, you are smart enough to embrace the spirit rather than the letter of the Law and Religion. As Saint Paul or some other letter-writer put it, the letter killeth and the spirit gives life.

Be good and love one another is half of the Law, as Jesus himself put it. But, as George Bernard Shaw added, do not do unto others as you would have them do unto you for their tastes may be different.

Consult the spirit, be prepared to ignore the exact wording. Some of God's messengers were clearly delusive psychotics. They may have misread some of the signals they were getting from Himself or the Devil or whereever.

Nine year old Muslim girls shouldn't have to adopt grown-up Muslim woman clothing. And little Christians may be forgiven their desire to wear a cross if they are not cruel and hateful little biatches or Evil Church Ladies in Waiting. I have purchased such items for my own nieces, because I thought they would be pleased with them. Maybe they don't care. I don't know. It is hazardous to buy jewelry for women. My Mother doesn't like bracelets, for example and wears only the amount of makeup that respectable middle and upper class Christian women wear, which is enough to work but not enough that you'd notice that it's being worn.

What would Jesus wear? I'm pretty sure it included a respectable wool prayer shawl without the broad and expensive purple and gold tassels that he criticized the Pharisees and Sadducees for wearing to show off their holiness and wealth respectively.
 
2013-01-04 10:22:18 PM
i just dont understand why people think it is a good idea mix cultures with such wildly different values. it just doesnt work.
 
2013-01-04 10:22:24 PM
If her parents are so afraid of the 'nasty old men' who might see her hair/face, why don't they enroll her in a strict Muslim school?
 
2013-01-04 10:22:27 PM
Hijabs?
img856.imageshack.us
 
2013-01-04 10:23:11 PM

uttertosh: Is the correct answer!


In what way? Oh, you think it's freedom FROM religion, like Sarah Palin thinks freedom of speech is freedom from other people's speech.
 
2013-01-04 10:24:13 PM

uttertosh: cman: Why doesnt anyone from the Witangemoot simplify the constitution by putting it down in a uniformed constitution? UK constitution is made up of various shiat, but there is no clarity.

uttertosh: it's just not a powerpoint bullet list for ADhD children.


Man, you are really fired up about the uncodified nature of the UK constitution. Can you explain why you feel the need to lash out at anyone the questions this unusual characteristic?
 
2013-01-04 10:24:16 PM

Fart_Machine: ciberido: Fart_Machine: ciberido: Fart_Machine: Wearing a headscarf or a cross is pretty benign. Trying to claim discrimination based on having to work on Sunday is stupid.

Why is it stupid?  Not working on "the Sabbath" (which most Christians take to mean Sunday) is one of the Ten Commandments.  It's pretty fundamental to the religion.  In fact, Exodus commands that a "sabbath-breaker" be executed.  At one time it was against the law in more than one part of the USA to work on Sunday.  There are still laws in Germany even now against doing some things on Sunday.

I've worked with plenty of Christians on a Sunday and none of them have been put to death or imprisoned. If it's a problem work for an employer who can accommodate your request.

I bet you know plenty of Christians who eat shrimp and ham, too.  And they're all going to burn in hell right next to the homosexuals and sabbath-breakers.

Hell sounds like a pretty fun place then. If there's no bacon in Heaven then I don't want to go.


Don't forget the cheeseburgers.  Mixing meat and dairy, after all.

Plus the nice clothes the people in Hell get to wear.  And since all the gay people will be in Hell, it's your best chance of getting a good haircut --- which would also put you in hell anyway.

I'm starting to think Heaven is going to be pretty lonely.
 
2013-01-04 10:27:16 PM

brantgoose: As an atheist


here we go

brantgoose: I do not have any objection to


You are too kind. So big of you.


But I pretty much totally agree with you.
 
2013-01-04 10:28:50 PM

Fart_Machine: ciberido: Fart_Machine: ciberido: Fart_Machine: Wearing a headscarf or a cross is pretty benign. Trying to claim discrimination based on having to work on Sunday is stupid.

Why is it stupid?  Not working on "the Sabbath" (which most Christians take to mean Sunday) is one of the Ten Commandments.  It's pretty fundamental to the religion.  In fact, Exodus commands that a "sabbath-breaker" be executed.  At one time it was against the law in more than one part of the USA to work on Sunday.  There are still laws in Germany even now against doing some things on Sunday.

I've worked with plenty of Christians on a Sunday and none of them have been put to death or imprisoned. If it's a problem work for an employer who can accommodate your request.

I bet you know plenty of Christians who eat shrimp and ham, too.  And they're all going to burn in hell right next to the homosexuals and sabbath-breakers.

Hell sounds like a pretty fun place then. If there's no bacon in Heaven then I don't want to go.


A Christian man lives an exemplary life and passes on to the Pearly Gates.
St. Peter bids him welcome and escorts him into Heaven.
He finds himself with God, St. Pete - and no one else.
Perplexed, he looks down from Heaven into the bowels of Hell, where millions of souls writhe to the sounds of a jammin' soul band.
He turns back to God and asks, "Could You at least get a band up here?"
God answers, "What, for three people?"
 
2013-01-04 10:34:53 PM

ultraholland: all religions and their associated practices are loony


All atheists suck ass. Rot in hell ya losers. And quit taking government handouts.
 
2013-01-04 10:37:21 PM
upload.wikimedia.org

What about that?

/not saying I agree with England, but there are worse extremes that we can go...
 
2013-01-04 10:41:28 PM

blue_2501: [upload.wikimedia.org image 150x153]

What about that?

/not saying I agree with England, but there are worse extremes that we can go...


/In America's past, with peoples who were not enemies, this symbol was NOT a crime. To appropriate, no? Minus the dots, too.
 
2013-01-04 10:48:08 PM
I don't see how there is a problem with this. Orthodox followers of religion are like children, and like children, sometimes the adults have to step in and put a stop to their childish behavior.
 
2013-01-04 10:55:30 PM

Relatively Obscure: A nine-year-old girl from south London has been forbidden from wearing her hijab
[...]
Which leads us to draw the inevitable comparison to
[...]
the Christian Baptist who was sacked for refusing to work

These two things do seem identical.

Dude you're being dishonest and you know it. The Baptist was discriminated against because she refused to work ON A SUNDAY. Convenient how you left that part out. Sunday has always been considered a day of rest by Christians and it's totally reasonable for a Christian to expect to have this day off. I'm an Atheist and can still comprehend that.
 
2013-01-04 11:00:11 PM
 
2013-01-04 11:07:50 PM

Not Australian: Hot Women in Headscarves


/why not?


I've got the weirdest boner right now.

/so I put a scarf over it
 
2013-01-04 11:13:45 PM

Fart_Machine: ciberido: Not working on "the Sabbath" (which most Christians take to mean Sunday

Most Christians are also unaware of history.


No, most aren't unaware of history. You won't be saying that again, is that clear?
 
2013-01-04 11:14:01 PM

ogle5431: Dude you're being dishonest and you know it. The Baptist was discriminated against because she refused to work ON A SUNDAY. Convenient how you left that part out. Sunday has always been considered a day of rest by Christians and it's totally reasonable for a Christian to expect to have this day off. I'm an Atheist and can still comprehend that.

 

I'm not being dishonest.  Those two things are not the same in any fashion.  At all.  The only thing I could add is that I don't give much of a fark about a private school banning headwear, either.
 
2013-01-04 11:21:14 PM

ChuDogg: The only practical solution to these race and cultural problems is to increase non-white immigration until whites are no longer a viable majority. Preferably even asked to assimilate into the culture of non-white immigrant populations. I congratulate the author of this article for "stepping up" but now he needs to "step back". While we may agree with his opinion, too long faces of his complexion have dominated the debate and historically as led to oppression and biased politics and sciences. Soon he will one day be a minority and no the true meaning of social justice.


Any whites who move to Saudi Arabia or Iran should expect to comply with the cultural mores of those countries. Likewise, any immigrants to England should be.....

Wait a minute. Aaaahhh you! You got me! 10/10!
 
2013-01-04 11:23:13 PM
Who would have a problem with somebody wearing a cross? I can't imagine an atheist would care. I suspect vampires.
 
2013-01-04 11:24:20 PM

ultraholland: all religions and their associated practices are loony


4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-01-04 11:26:11 PM

KawaiiNot: Christians just jelly cause they don't have cool hats to wear like all the other religions. Maybe they could make the fez required wear?


Jelly? This was covered recently in another Fark thread. You need to be killed. Seriously.

/I keep
//maybe
 
2013-01-04 11:26:16 PM

publikenemy: I say we ban banning. That way if nothing can be banned, then everything is a go and people can just fight it out rumble style to settle their petty differences. As long as only fists and chains are allowed..

/but nobody better start a rumble without Dallas


Stay gold
 
2013-01-04 11:26:47 PM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: KawaiiNot: Christians just jelly cause they don't have cool hats to wear like all the other religions. Maybe they could make the fez required wear?

Jelly? This was covered recently in another Fark thread. You need to be killed. Seriously.

/I keep keed
//maybe


er...
 
2013-01-04 11:29:07 PM
European Christians put about six million jews in ovens last century, in the name of "god and country." At the orders of a leader who declared himself to be following god's orders. I think christians can just shut the fark up and stop their god damn ceaseless whining.
 
2013-01-04 11:29:44 PM

simsite9: Well, the school is a public venue that can't discriminate against religion, whereas when you're an employee, a manager certainly has the leeway to tell you what you may or may not wear.

This is similar to Sarah Palin claiming FOX won't let her say whatever she wants, and claiming violation of her First Amendment rights.  When the government tells you to shut up. that's illegal.  When your boss tells you, you can shut up, or quit.


Damn! Not only did you not RTFA, but you didn't even read the first word of the thread title. This is in England. They don't HAVE a 1st Amendment. The DO have an official government religion.

You're an idiot.
 
2013-01-04 11:31:18 PM

Friction8r: All atheists suck ass. Rot in hell ya losers. And quit taking government handouts.


Now here's what I don't get. Liberals are the ones that push laws banning discrimination, and conservatives are the ones that fellate job-creators and the 'right to work'. Which is it, Republicans? Can you be fired for wearing a cross or not? Or is it only discrimination when you're the ones being discriminated against? How's it feel?
 
2013-01-04 11:31:18 PM

mbillips: People need to chill on the regulatin' what other people wear, BUT.

A girl going to her local school, wearing clothing mandated by her religious sect, is not the same as an adult going to the workplace with a jewelry affectation NOT mandated by her religious sect. The kid really doesn't have a lot of choice about where she goes to school, or about wearing the hijab, while the grownup Christian can work elsewhere or leave the plus sign at home with no consequences except to her widdle feewings.

I lean toward the Muslims here, despite being constantly offended by the unstated insinuation that I am a slavering rapist kept at bay only because they conceal their hair from me.


Islamic sects have vastly differing definitions of 'Hijab' that range from wearing a portable tent to wearing jeans and long sleeve shirts. Allowing any Muslim to set their own standard while determining standards for Christians based on a single court determined criteria is a terrible idea that ends up going straight to BNP recruitment drives.
 
2013-01-04 11:33:11 PM

cman: Vodka Zombie: Please give the persecution bullshiat a rest for a while, Christians. No one believes you anymore, so peddle you lies somewhere else.

DId you actually read the article?


He's a smart Atheist, so he doesn't need to. Something about osmosis and Silva Mind Control, or something...

4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-01-04 11:36:41 PM

sunlion: European Christians put about six million jews in ovens last century, in the name of "god and country." At the orders of a leader who declared himself to be following god's orders. I think christians can just shut the fark up and stop their god damn ceaseless whining.


This. We've been letting Christians shiat up western civilization long enough. Everything they touch turns to shiat. There is nothing a Christian can't pervert to evil.
 
2013-01-04 11:38:57 PM
I don't care to be smarter than anyone, actually.

I teach, you?
 
2013-01-04 11:40:52 PM

ghare: Awww, is somebody pissing their pants over Muslims again? What a bunch of pansies.


You know, historically, all revolutionary movements generally kill off their Useful Idiots that helped expedite the takeover, right after they take power. If/when that happens with radical Islam, I'll sit back and laugh and laugh and laugh.
 
2013-01-04 11:43:50 PM

uttertosh: cman: If they want to liberate women,

point missed entirely. Nothing to do with women's lib. Everything to do with not allowing religious beliefs to interfere with non-segregation in the education system.

Want something to get annoyed at for real? The allowance for state-funded Roman-Catholic only schools. Now that's utterly disgusting, and completely unconstitutional. (yes, the UK has a constitution.)


errr... no, they don't. Link
 
2013-01-04 11:44:38 PM

NormallyTechnos: Friction8r: All atheists suck ass. Rot in hell ya losers. And quit taking government handouts.

Now here's what I don't get. Liberals are the ones that push laws banning discrimination, and conservatives are the ones that fellate job-creators and the 'right to work'. Which is it, Republicans? Can you be fired for wearing a cross or not? Or is it only discrimination when you're the ones being discriminated against? How's it feel?


Wow! Thanks for that! I'm not ye on ignore by all the flaming, gutless libs. How does it feel to have your "social safety net" put our country 16 farking TRILLIoN dollars in debt, and create a system where the welfare sucking leaches would rather not work when they can take free money from a system you idiotic, naive and economically clueless libs have created in effort to crash a capitalist society?? The Lord helps those who help themselves!
 
2013-01-04 11:45:52 PM
Hijabs are not signs of oppression. If you really think that, you haven't studied Islam in any detail or talked to a Muslim women about them. Wearing a scarf is completely up to the woman. Men cannot force their wives or daughters to wear them. If he does, that's abuse. All too often, people see the abusive Muslim men and just assume that it's that way across the entire Muslim world.

I have a friend who covers and works as a mediator, and she's told a lot, "This is America, you don't have to wear that." Her response is, "I know I don't have to wear it, but I want to. Nuns wear a veil. Mary, the mother of Jesus, wore a veil. Why is it bad for me to wear it?"

I know many women who cover, and some who don't. A friend of my husband has a teenaged daughter who has decided not wear one. He and his wife are a little sad that that's what she's decided, but they're not going to force her or kick her out of their house or anything like that.
 
2013-01-04 11:47:05 PM
If an institution does not make allowances for Rastafarians to smoke dope then how do you expect them to react to any other religious bullshiat.
Oh, a religous hat? Bullshiat!
A religious necklace? Bullshiat!
A religious sandwich? farking Bullshiat!
 
2013-01-04 11:49:26 PM
Here's an idea: Why doesn't everyone mind their own business? Does what somebody wears on their body affect you? No? Then STFU.

If someone wears a certain piece of jewelry, does it affect what goes on in YOUR HEAD? No? Then shut up. If someone wears a scarf, does it affect what goes on in YOUR HEAD? Or if they prefer to work or not work on a certain day? Or have a picture of someone or something on their desk? Does it affect how YOU have to think? If not....

And if you're the one who wears the jewelry or the scarf or has the picture on your desk; here's an idea: Keep your mouth shut about it. You're wearing a scarf or a t-shaped object around your neck. Fine. I don't need to know any more about it than that. Does what I think about it affect anything in YOUR life? No? Then.....

And insofar as what people did to each other 1500 years ago, or 50, or even 5, again: Does that affect how you and I interact with each other on a daily basis, or how we make widgets or talk on the phone? If not, then....

Why is that such a hard concept for people to master? Wear your cross or your hijab if it makes you happy; I could care less. I'm going to have a naked picture of some guy on my desk and that will make me happy as long as you don't argue about it. I won't ask you to look at it. Do your job, I'll do mine. It does not matter that the Christians massacred the Moslems in the 3d Crusade or that the Nazis burned the Jews, at least not here and now in the office. Do your job and mind your business, okay?
 
2013-01-04 11:50:52 PM
It is a shame that the hijab has such a strong negative connotation (islam, oppression of women, and all that) because I think that they can be very fashionable, and even quite sexy. I, for one, would like to see more women wearing them. I am not saying that they should be worn every day, but they could be a nice addition to a woman's wardrobe.
 
2013-01-04 11:51:58 PM
So goes the cowing of Europe to the extremists.

rudyvrodriguez.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-01-04 11:53:40 PM

TheWhoppah: A religious sandwich? farking Bullshiat!


I'm gonna have to stop you right there. A well executed philly is a thing that will inspire faith. Don't get me started on the pepper steak sammich at the local diner. You don't know the divine until you've experienced the Elkins's Lodge pepper stake sauce.
 
2013-01-04 11:55:57 PM

Inhalien: So goes the cowing of Europe to the extremists.


Nice! The flaming libs absolutely salivate for the same thing to happen in America! Part of their modus operandi. And they want to take our guns??
 
2013-01-04 11:58:07 PM

bump: True Christians wouldn't give a flying fark about wearing a symbol or otherwise proclaiming their theological status - they'd simply live the life, walk the walk and such. It's the self-rightous pious asslickers that screw up any belief system basically. Avoid zealots, they tend to be humorless, judgmental and hypocritical beyond reality.

/stopping going to church as of this week for these very reasons. My 'religion' is kindness and understanding. Labels be damned (literally).


Pretty much this.

I've had a little rule that has held me in good stead for 40+ years: Never hire a contractor who has a Jesus Fish on his truck or clothing. They are almost invariably liars, cheats and thieves. They use their "devoutness" as a cover much as an anglerfish uses their pole as a lure.
2.bp.blogspot.com
People that wear their religion (or their politics) on their sleeve are not to be trusted.
An actual cool story:

The most honest and honorable man I ever knew totally avoided all talk of religion, even to the extent of not sharing what his beliefs were. Long ago I was involved in an 8 figure business deal and this guy, through a series of screw-ups by the attorneys on our end, ended up legally holding the "hammer." An overlooked loophole would have allowed him to have it all. He was aware of it - his attorney said so. But he went through the transaction fair and square. There was a mutually profitable relationship for the next decade.

About 5 years later (15 after the deal) I found out the guy had been a Satanist for the last 30 years....
 
2013-01-04 11:59:46 PM

Friction8r: How does it feel to have your "social safety net" put our country 16 farking TRILLIoN dollars in debt, and create a system where the welfare sucking leaches would rather not work when they can take free money from a system you idiotic, naive and economically clueless libs have created in effort to crash a capitalist society?? The Lord helps those who help themselves!


It's not the social safety net. Have you seen how much money we've been blowing on bullshiat wars, defense projects the military doesn't even want, and taking your shoes off at the airport? About $1.2 trillion dollars. Just last year.
 
2013-01-05 12:00:41 AM

ChuDogg: The only practical solution to these race and cultural problems is to increase non-white immigration until whites are no longer a viable majority. Preferably even asked to assimilate into the culture of non-white immigrant populations. I congratulate the author of this article for "stepping up" but now he needs to "step back". While we may agree with his opinion, too long faces of his complexion have dominated the debate and historically as led to oppression and biased politics and sciences. Soon he will one day be a minority and no the true meaning of social justice.


Or they could all just be put into camps and killed.....
 
2013-01-05 12:03:41 AM

mbillips: People need to chill on the regulatin' what other people wear, BUT.

A girl going to her local school, wearing clothing mandated by her religious sect, is not the same as an adult going to the workplace with a jewelry affectation NOT mandated by her religious sect. The kid really doesn't have a lot of choice about where she goes to school, or about wearing the hijab, while the grownup Christian can work elsewhere or leave the plus sign at home with no consequences except to her widdle feewings.

I lean toward the Muslims here, despite being constantly offended by the unstated insinuation that I am a slavering rapist kept at bay only because they conceal their hair from me.


Actually, I think the assumption (by Muslims) is that is the MUSLIM men who are the slavering rapists. That, and that the woman are all total sluts.
 
2013-01-05 12:04:36 AM

Mattyb710: cman: Vodka Zombie: Please give the persecution bullshiat a rest for a while, Christians. No one believes you anymore, so peddle you lies somewhere else.

DId you actually read the article?

I did. Please explain to me how a Hijab, which is a requirement of the Muslim faith, is the same as a cross, which some people simply choose to wear.


Millions and millions of muslim women don't wear the hijab. The only people who believe that it is a requirement of their faith are pro-Taliban.

I note from your Fark profile you live in Florida. I hope the FBI is monitoring this thread. You're a terrorist sympathiser.
 
2013-01-05 12:05:38 AM

Aussie_As: Mattyb710: cman: Vodka Zombie: Please give the persecution bullshiat a rest for a while, Christians. No one believes you anymore, so peddle you lies somewhere else.

DId you actually read the article?

I did. Please explain to me how a Hijab, which is a requirement of the Muslim faith, is the same as a cross, which some people simply choose to wear.

Millions and millions of muslim women don't wear the hijab. The only people who believe that it is a requirement of their faith are pro-Taliban.

I note from your Fark profile you live in Florida. I hope the FBI is monitoring this thread. You're a terrorist sympathiser.


*)
 
2013-01-05 12:07:23 AM
Hijabs are cultural, not religious. They existed before Islam, for most of the same reasons they exist today - modesty of the woman.

While crosses also existed before Christianity, they weren't worn as tawdry ornamentation, and as worn symbolism, they are inherently religious.

See? That's not so hard to understand.
 
2013-01-05 12:08:19 AM

Indubitably: Aussie_As: Mattyb710: cman: Vodka Zombie: Please give the persecution bullshiat a rest for a while, Christians. No one believes you anymore, so peddle you lies somewhere else.

DId you actually read the article?

I did. Please explain to me how a Hijab, which is a requirement of the Muslim faith, is the same as a cross, which some people simply choose to wear.

Millions and millions of muslim women don't wear the hijab. The only people who believe that it is a requirement of their faith are pro-Taliban.

I note from your Fark profile you live in Florida. I hope the FBI is monitoring this thread. You're a terrorist sympathiser.

*)


To deFBIilate any t-duh.

P.S. The FBI wouldn't touch me with a ten-foot pole, so please take my comment as jokingly jesting, see?
 
2013-01-05 12:09:18 AM

Indubitably: Indubitably: Aussie_As: Mattyb710: cman: Vodka Zombie: Please give the persecution bullshiat a rest for a while, Christians. No one believes you anymore, so peddle you lies somewhere else.

DId you actually read the article?

I did. Please explain to me how a Hijab, which is a requirement of the Muslim faith, is the same as a cross, which some people simply choose to wear.

Millions and millions of muslim women don't wear the hijab. The only people who believe that it is a requirement of their faith are pro-Taliban.

I note from your Fark profile you live in Florida. I hope the FBI is monitoring this thread. You're a terrorist sympathiser.

*)

To deFBIilate any t-duh.

P.S. The FBI wouldn't touch me with a ten-foot pole, so please take my comment as jokingly jesting, see?


P.P.S. To pariah
 
2013-01-05 12:09:36 AM
The only way to make everything 100% fair is to force all students to attend naked.
 
2013-01-05 12:10:43 AM
if the nazis were still around i wonder what they would think of radical islam ..... same enemy but i could see them going at each other
 
2013-01-05 12:11:46 AM
I worship JFK so I wear this necklace:
img3.etsystatic.com
 
2013-01-05 12:12:07 AM
Dated an Iranian girl in college - very quietly. She had cousins at the university.

She would take off the hijab as soon as we got out of town headed for my family's lake house for the weekend and not put it back on until Sunday evening when returning to school. Only reason she wore it was because if she did not, her cousins would either beat her up or call home and tell her folks. Then they would have sent someone over to take her home and they would have beaten her there. She hated the rules imposed under Islam, but did not dare speak out against them. She was very intelligent and wound up marrying a guy from Brazil where she could get escape beyond the reach of her family.

Do not assume all who weare the hijab like it.

But if a kid's family wants a kid to wear one to school, why not? Same with the crucifix jewelry - why not? Who the hell is it offending?
 
2013-01-05 12:12:23 AM

s2s2s2: 0Icky0: In a cult, the people at the top know that it is a scam.
In a religion, those people have died off.


Which makes some "religions" such as Scientology particularly fascinating. Scientology has already had its schism, with the hardliners (scammers) at the top retaining control of the Church. But a loose coalition of at least 40-50 groups around the country operate in an underground manner, proselytizing, and not charging the "new blood" for attaining various levels of "clear."
 
2013-01-05 12:15:31 AM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: He's a smart Atheist, so he doesn't need to. Something about osmosis and Silva Mind Control, or something...


You know ... every time you repeat that 'atheism is a religion' idiocy you prove we are smarter than you.

/do you really enjoy being considered as stupid as letrole?
 
2013-01-05 12:21:03 AM

Farking Canuck: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: He's a smart Atheist, so he doesn't need to. Something about osmosis and Silva Mind Control, or something...

You know ... every time you repeat that 'atheism is a religion' idiocy you prove we are smarter than you.

/do you really enjoy being considered as stupid as letrole?


I just presumed he was a letrole alt. Or a modmin.
 
2013-01-05 12:24:09 AM

MerelyFoolish: Dated an Iranian girl in college - very quietly. She had cousins at the university.

She would take off the hijab as soon as we got out of town headed for my family's lake house for the weekend and not put it back on until Sunday evening when returning to school. Only reason she wore it was because if she did not, her cousins would either beat her up or call home and tell her folks. Then they would have sent someone over to take her home and they would have beaten her there. She hated the rules imposed under Islam, but did not dare speak out against them. She was very intelligent and wound up marrying a guy from Brazil where she could get escape beyond the reach of her family.

Do not assume all who weare the hijab like it.

But if a kid's family wants a kid to wear one to school, why not? Same with the crucifix jewelry - why not? Who the hell is it offending?


Wait, so you admit some hijab-wearing women are pressured into it, you sympathise with the women involved, then you leave the decision up to the "kid's family wants a kid to wear one"? That's farked dude. It's not about what a family wants. It's about what the individual woman wants. You sound like you feel your ex-girlfriends cousins were right and she was wrong. That's appalling.
 
2013-01-05 12:27:46 AM

sunlion: European Christians put about six million jews in ovens last century, in the name of "god and country." At the orders of a leader who declared himself to be following god's orders. I think christians can just shut the fark up and stop their god damn ceaseless whining.


Lol. No hate like Anti-Christian hate.
 
2013-01-05 12:32:14 AM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: bump: True Christians wouldn't give a flying fark about wearing a symbol or otherwise proclaiming their theological status - they'd simply live the life, walk the walk and such. It's the self-rightous pious asslickers that screw up any belief system basically. Avoid zealots, they tend to be humorless, judgmental and hypocritical beyond reality.

/stopping going to church as of this week for these very reasons. My 'religion' is kindness and understanding. Labels be damned (literally).

Pretty much this.

I've had a little rule that has held me in good stead for 40+ years: Never hire a contractor who has a Jesus Fish on his truck or clothing. They are almost invariably liars, cheats and thieves. They use their "devoutness" as a cover much as an anglerfish uses their pole as a lure.

People that wear their religion (or their politics) on their sleeve are not to be trusted.
An actual cool story:

The most honest and honorable man I ever knew totally avoided all talk of religion, even to the extent of not sharing what his beliefs were. Long ago I was involved in an 8 figure business deal and this guy, through a series of screw-ups by the attorneys on our end, ended up legally holding the "hammer." An overlooked loophole would have allowed him to have it all. He was aware of it - his attorney said so. But he went through the transaction fair and square. There was a mutually profitable relationship for the next decade.

About 5 years later (15 after the deal) I found out the guy had been a Satanist for the last 30 years....


Oh, wow. You had me until the satanist thing.

No, no, that's not true. I knew you were full or shiat at "eight figures" combined with "loophole where he could have it all".
 
2013-01-05 12:34:29 AM

neongoats: sunlion: European Christians put about six million jews in ovens last century, in the name of "god and country." At the orders of a leader who declared himself to be following god's orders. I think christians can just shut the fark up and stop their god damn ceaseless whining.

This. We've been letting Christians shiat up western civilization long enough. Everything they touch turns to shiat. There is nothing a Christian can't pervert to evil.


Holy cripes, am I the only non-troll in this thread?!?

Goodnight.
 
2013-01-05 12:35:49 AM
Shhhh, don't rile up the filthy islamists, they'll cut off more heads.
 
2013-01-05 12:37:13 AM

Farking Canuck: He's a smart Atheist, so he doesn't need to. Something about osmosis and Silva Mind Control, or something...

You know ... every time you repeat that 'atheism is a religion' idiocy you prove we are smarter than you.

/do you really enjoy being considered as stupid as letrole?

Where did I say that? Please be specific.

(Do you always debate by putting words into other people's mouths?)
 
2013-01-05 12:40:29 AM

Debeo Summa Credo: sunlion: European Christians put about six million jews in ovens last century, in the name of "god and country." At the orders of a leader who declared himself to be following god's orders. I think christians can just shut the fark up and stop their god damn ceaseless whining.

Lol. No hate like Anti-Christian hate.


That's true, but no one loads Jews into ovens by the pitchfork-full like Christians. Except maybe the Khmer Rouge. The Romans had some smart ideas, like persecuting Christians and making them live in the sewers. They stopped and look what we got, a dark age filled with Christian barbarity, pogroms, genocides, witch hunts.
 
2013-01-05 12:48:46 AM

Debeo Summa Credo: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: bump: True Christians wouldn't give a flying fark about wearing a symbol or otherwise proclaiming their theological status - they'd simply live the life, walk the walk and such. It's the self-rightous pious asslickers that screw up any belief system basically. Avoid zealots, they tend to be humorless, judgmental and hypocritical beyond reality.

/stopping going to church as of this week for these very reasons. My 'religion' is kindness and understanding. Labels be damned (literally).

Pretty much this.

I've had a little rule that has held me in good stead for 40+ years: Never hire a contractor who has a Jesus Fish on his truck or clothing. They are almost invariably liars, cheats and thieves. They use their "devoutness" as a cover much as an anglerfish uses their pole as a lure.

People that wear their religion (or their politics) on their sleeve are not to be trusted.
An actual cool story:

The most honest and honorable man I ever knew totally avoided all talk of religion, even to the extent of not sharing what his beliefs were. Long ago I was involved in an 8 figure business deal and this guy, through a series of screw-ups by the attorneys on our end, ended up legally holding the "hammer." An overlooked loophole would have allowed him to have it all. He was aware of it - his attorney said so. But he went through the transaction fair and square. There was a mutually profitable relationship for the next decade.

About 5 years later (15 after the deal) I found out the guy had been a Satanist for the last 30 years....

Oh, wow. You had me until the satanist thing.

No, no, that's not true. I knew you were full or shiat at "eight figures" combined with "loophole where he could have it all".


Really? Why? An 8 figure range is 10 to 99 million. That's chickenfeed these days. It was pretty much chickenfeed 15 years ago. And, yes, "captains of industry" and hot shot lawyers occasionally fark up just like the rest of us. And, yes, because someone didn't due a due diligence search well enough, one certain patented process (among many) was not specifically included in the purchase document, which would have left "our" side with an essentially useless acquisition and the seller with the only thing of real value in the deal - that one patented process.

The guy called us up and told us his attorney would be by with a revised purchase document, which included the process.

So why do you have a problem with that?
 
2013-01-05 12:50:06 AM
All people should have the right to be wrong! If christians want to wear stupid jewelry glorifying a genocidal maniac, let them go for it! If muslim women want to wear ninja masks to glorify the same genocidal maniac, that's fine too! Both of their bibles (I.E. the same bible + or - 1 book) say that women are inferior anyway, so it really seems like christians should get behind the whole sexism thing a lot more.

/of course, we should all also have the right to call people out on their wrongness
 
2013-01-05 12:59:19 AM

neongoats: Debeo Summa Credo: sunlion: European Christians put about six million jews in ovens last century, in the name of "god and country." At the orders of a leader who declared himself to be following god's orders. I think christians can just shut the fark up and stop their god damn ceaseless whining.

Lol. No hate like Anti-Christian hate.

That's true, but no one loads Jews into ovens by the pitchfork-full like Christians. Except maybe the Khmer Rouge. The Romans had some smart ideas, like persecuting Christians and making them live in the sewers. They stopped and look what we got, a dark age filled with Christian barbarity, pogroms, genocides, witch hunts.


This seems true, although the ancient Egyptians appear to have given it a go. When it comes to any persecution of any religion, the only "atheist empire" which ever persecuted religious folk was the communists, who were blindly and (effectively) religiously following an ideology every bit as stupid as religion itself.

So, communism (which itself was more a religion than most political beliefs) excepted, I think religious people have nothing to fear of atheists. I really wish this applied the other way around. Sadly not in many parts of the planet.
 
2013-01-05 01:00:25 AM
This is not the same thing. While I personally think hijabs are silly, I understand that they are a form of modesty. That is very different than a symbol of faith. If you don't believe me, see how many schools in the West assign girls to the 'Skins' team in gym class. You will, however, see most schools telling everyone to take off their jewelry during gym class so god doesn't smite them.

While I actually support (and am lucky enough to live in a state where it's technically legal) women's right to go topless (sadly, aside from a few pregnant women nursing the promise of freedom is under used) I would not ever require a woman to remove her shirt to enter a building (although I have thought about instituting that rule in my bedroom! (Yuck, you have to walk through my bedroom to get to the bathroom. I think my mom was the last women in my bedroom. So much for that idea.)

Now, all that said, I'd adopt the same stance towards a Muslim woman who wanted to remove her hajab as I would a woman who wanted to remove her top in public. If it's somewhere where it's acceptable for a man to go topless, a woman should be able to also, and if it's somewhere where a man can go with his head uncovered, a Muslim woman should have that choice. I reserve the right to ask her to show me her head for a free t-shirt though. :)

The only caution I would interject, is that I do think, just like our topless laws, that the hijab is, ultimately more often a form of suppression than empowerment. While accepting it in legal practice, I do think it's something that shouldn't ever be enforced on someone who doesn't want to wear it. That practice is all to common in the Muslim world. Of course, we do the same thing with boobies, so let's not get preachy about it.
 
2013-01-05 01:06:44 AM

starsrift: they weren't worn as tawdry ornamentation, and as


you mean before Christians decided to ignore their Bible and worship the idol of the cross?
 
2013-01-05 01:09:11 AM

Aussie_As: MerelyFoolish: Dated an Iranian girl in college - very quietly. She had cousins at the university.

She would take off the hijab as soon as we got out of town headed for my family's lake house for the weekend and not put it back on until Sunday evening when returning to school. Only reason she wore it was because if she did not, her cousins would either beat her up or call home and tell her folks. Then they would have sent someone over to take her home and they would have beaten her there. She hated the rules imposed under Islam, but did not dare speak out against them. She was very intelligent and wound up marrying a guy from Brazil where she could get escape beyond the reach of her family.

Do not assume all who weare the hijab like it.

But if a kid's family wants a kid to wear one to school, why not? Same with the crucifix jewelry - why not? Who the hell is it offending?

Wait, so you admit some hijab-wearing women are pressured into it, you sympathise with the women involved, then you leave the decision up to the "kid's family wants a kid to wear one"? That's farked dude. It's not about what a family wants. It's about what the individual woman wants. You sound like you feel your ex-girlfriends cousins were right and she was wrong. That's appalling.



Well if it is a "kid" it is not a woman, but a girl. Children do not typically have the same rights as adults do. Now if you want to talk about the indoctrination into the religion then we could talk.
 
2013-01-05 01:14:43 AM
Because your job is not the same as being a student in a school. Now stfu about not being able to wear your gaudy jewelry and gbtw.
 
2013-01-05 01:19:21 AM

thaylin: Aussie_As: MerelyFoolish: Dated an Iranian girl in college - very quietly. She had cousins at the university.

She would take off the hijab as soon as we got out of town headed for my family's lake house for the weekend and not put it back on until Sunday evening when returning to school. Only reason she wore it was because if she did not, her cousins would either beat her up or call home and tell her folks. Then they would have sent someone over to take her home and they would have beaten her there. She hated the rules imposed under Islam, but did not dare speak out against them. She was very intelligent and wound up marrying a guy from Brazil where she could get escape beyond the reach of her family.

Do not assume all who weare the hijab like it.

But if a kid's family wants a kid to wear one to school, why not? Same with the crucifix jewelry - why not? Who the hell is it offending?

Wait, so you admit some hijab-wearing women are pressured into it, you sympathise with the women involved, then you leave the decision up to the "kid's family wants a kid to wear one"? That's farked dude. It's not about what a family wants. It's about what the individual woman wants. You sound like you feel your ex-girlfriends cousins were right and she was wrong. That's appalling.


Well if it is a "kid" it is not a woman, but a girl. Children do not typically have the same rights as adults do. Now if you want to talk about the indoctrination into the religion then we could talk.


thaylin: Aussie_As: MerelyFoolish: Dated an Iranian girl in college - very quietly. She had cousins at the university.

She would take off the hijab as soon as we got out of town headed for my family's lake house for the weekend and not put it back on until Sunday evening when returning to school. Only reason she wore it was because if she did not, her cousins would either beat her up or call home and tell her folks. Then they would have sent someone over to take her home and they would have beaten her there. She hated the rules imposed under Islam, but did not dare speak out against them. She was very intelligent and wound up marrying a guy from Brazil where she could get escape beyond the reach of her family.

Do not assume all who weare the hijab like it.

But if a kid's family wants a kid to wear one to school, why not? Same with the crucifix jewelry - why not? Who the hell is it offending?

Wait, so you admit some hijab-wearing women are pressured into it, you sympathise with the women involved, then you leave the decision up to the "kid's family wants a kid to wear one"? That's farked dude. It's not about what a family wants. It's about what the individual woman wants. You sound like you feel your ex-girlfriends cousins were right and she was wrong. That's appalling.


Well if it is a "kid" it is not a woman, but a girl. Children do not typically have the same rights as adults do. Now if you want to talk about the indoctrination into the religion then we could talk.


Girls don't wear hijabs. Young women do. Technically they're not adults hence my reference to kids, but they're certainly old enough to make their own decisions and have those decisions respected (except by lunatics who will never respect those decisions because of their own disgusting prejudices).

If you're old enough to wear a hijab, you're old enough to have a say in this. It's your right.
 
2013-01-05 01:21:16 AM

Aussie_As: MerelyFoolish: Dated an Iranian girl in college - very quietly. She had cousins at the university.

She would take off the hijab as soon as we got out of town headed for my family's lake house for the weekend and not put it back on until Sunday evening when returning to school. Only reason she wore it was because if she did not, her cousins would either beat her up or call home and tell her folks. Then they would have sent someone over to take her home and they would have beaten her there. She hated the rules imposed under Islam, but did not dare speak out against them. She was very intelligent and wound up marrying a guy from Brazil where she could get escape beyond the reach of her family.

Do not assume all who weare the hijab like it.

But if a kid's family wants a kid to wear one to school, why not? Same with the crucifix jewelry - why not? Who the hell is it offending?

Wait, so you admit some hijab-wearing women are pressured into it, you sympathise with the women involved, then you leave the decision up to the "kid's family wants a kid to wear one"? That's farked dude. It's not about what a family wants. It's about what the individual woman wants. You sound like you feel your ex-girlfriends cousins were right and she was wrong. That's appalling.


Did you miss the part about where she was doing it because she wanted to keep her family from sending her back home? She was doing it because she wanted to NOT be beaten by her cousins and NOT be shipped home to be married off to some old man with a couple other wives. She wasn't "wrong" she was doing what she thought was best, and he was supporting her in her decision.

I love people who seem to think an individual really can do what the individual wants and screw everyone else and there are zero repercussions. Like a Persian girl can just say "Nope, not gonna wear the hijab!" and her parents and cousins will say "Oh, OK, honey!" and that's it. She may have the RIGHT to do so, but social pressures and love/respect for one's family often outweigh the legal niceties. And anyone who thinks they somehow "should" needs to stop and think how many "rights" they've given up to keep their parents happy or prevent social opprobium. It's not as easy to cut ties to your family as people want to pretend they believe.
 
2013-01-05 01:21:49 AM

The My Little Pony Killer: Because your job is not the same as being a student in a school. Now stfu about not being able to wear your gaudy jewelry and gbtw.


I work from home. Most days I don't wear pants.
 
2013-01-05 01:29:13 AM

rohar: The My Little Pony Killer: Because your job is not the same as being a student in a school. Now stfu about not being able to wear your gaudy jewelry and gbtw.

I work from home. Most days I don't wear pants.


Are you one of the whiny women from TFA?
 
2013-01-05 01:31:24 AM

Aussie_As: If you're old enough to wear a hijab, you're old enough to have a say in this. It's your right.



That is your opinion, not a fact. I could turn it around and say if you are old enough to go to church you are old enough to have a say it in, its your right, but the fact of the matter it is not.

Also you replied to MerelyFoolish who said if a family wanted a girl to wear one, and decided to change the conversation to young women, hence where I corrected you.

We can debate the definition of young woman or girl, but the religion calls for that type of dress at puberty, and in are civilization you still tend to be labeled more girl then young woman at that age.
 
2013-01-05 01:40:24 AM

The My Little Pony Killer: rohar: The My Little Pony Killer: Because your job is not the same as being a student in a school. Now stfu about not being able to wear your gaudy jewelry and gbtw.

I work from home. Most days I don't wear pants.

Are you one of the whiny women from TFA?


Yup, that's me. The guy wearing no pants and a hijab. With a crucifix hanging off my pecker.
 
2013-01-05 01:40:28 AM

Gyrfalcon: Aussie_As: MerelyFoolish: Dated an Iranian girl in college - very quietly. She had cousins at the university.

She would take off the hijab as soon as we got out of town headed for my family's lake house for the weekend and not put it back on until Sunday evening when returning to school. Only reason she wore it was because if she did not, her cousins would either beat her up or call home and tell her folks. Then they would have sent someone over to take her home and they would have beaten her there. She hated the rules imposed under Islam, but did not dare speak out against them. She was very intelligent and wound up marrying a guy from Brazil where she could get escape beyond the reach of her family.

Do not assume all who weare the hijab like it.

But if a kid's family wants a kid to wear one to school, why not? Same with the crucifix jewelry - why not? Who the hell is it offending?

Wait, so you admit some hijab-wearing women are pressured into it, you sympathise with the women involved, then you leave the decision up to the "kid's family wants a kid to wear one"? That's farked dude. It's not about what a family wants. It's about what the individual woman wants. You sound like you feel your ex-girlfriends cousins were right and she was wrong. That's appalling.

Did you miss the part about where she was doing it because she wanted to keep her family from sending her back home? She was doing it because she wanted to NOT be beaten by her cousins and NOT be shipped home to be married off to some old man with a couple other wives. She wasn't "wrong" she was doing what she thought was best, and he was supporting her in her decision.

I love people who seem to think an individual really can do what the individual wants and screw everyone else and there are zero repercussions. Like a Persian girl can just say "Nope, not gonna wear the hijab!" and her parents and cousins will say "Oh, OK, honey!" and that's it. She may have the RIGHT to do so, but social pressures and lo ...


I think you are looking too much into his post, and not reading it though enough. He specifically said KID, not adult, young woman or even girl, which implies he is talking about k-8 graders, not college students.
 
2013-01-05 01:42:33 AM

Gyrfalcon: Aussie_As: MerelyFoolish: Dated an Iranian girl in college - very quietly. She had cousins at the university.

She would take off the hijab as soon as we got out of town headed for my family's lake house for the weekend and not put it back on until Sunday evening when returning to school. Only reason she wore it was because if she did not, her cousins would either beat her up or call home and tell her folks. Then they would have sent someone over to take her home and they would have beaten her there. She hated the rules imposed under Islam, but did not dare speak out against them. She was very intelligent and wound up marrying a guy from Brazil where she could get escape beyond the reach of her family.

Do not assume all who weare the hijab like it.

But if a kid's family wants a kid to wear one to school, why not? Same with the crucifix jewelry - why not? Who the hell is it offending?

Wait, so you admit some hijab-wearing women are pressured into it, you sympathise with the women involved, then you leave the decision up to the "kid's family wants a kid to wear one"? That's farked dude. It's not about what a family wants. It's about what the individual woman wants. You sound like you feel your ex-girlfriends cousins were right and she was wrong. That's appalling.

Did you miss the part about where she was doing it because she wanted to keep her family from sending her back home? She was doing it because she wanted to NOT be beaten by her cousins and NOT be shipped home to be married off to some old man with a couple other wives. She wasn't "wrong" she was doing what she thought was best, and he was supporting her in her decision.

I love people who seem to think an individual really can do what the individual wants and screw everyone else and there are zero repercussions. Like a Persian girl can just say "Nope, not gonna wear the hijab!" and her parents and cousins will say "Oh, OK, honey!" and that's it. She may have the RIGHT to do so, but social pressures and lo ...


You are an idiot. I said precisely NOTHING AT ALL about MerelyFoolish's ex-girlfriend. Re-read my post.

What I was criticising MeerlyFoolish for was saying, as he did, that the decision about whether a muslim female wears a hijab should be left to her family. He should have had more sympathy for that situation given his direct experience of it. Or do you believe she should have been forced to be miserable? If so, have you considered joining the Taliban?
 
2013-01-05 01:45:43 AM

thaylin: Aussie_As: If you're old enough to wear a hijab, you're old enough to have a say in this. It's your right.


That is your opinion, not a fact. I could turn it around and say if you are old enough to go to church you are old enough to have a say it in, its your right, but the fact of the matter it is not.

Also you replied to MerelyFoolish who said if a family wanted a girl to wear one, and decided to change the conversation to young women, hence where I corrected you.

We can debate the definition of young woman or girl, but the religion calls for that type of dress at puberty, and in are civilization you still tend to be labeled more girl then young woman at that age.


Millions and millions of muslim women don't wear the hijab. Why do Farkers keep claiming that "the religion calls for" hijabs? Please cite.
 
2013-01-05 01:51:12 AM

Aussie_As: aid if a family wanted a


Aussie_As: thaylin: Aussie_As: If you're old enough to wear a hijab, you're old enough to have a say in this. It's your right.


That is your opinion, not a fact. I could turn it around and say if you are old enough to go to church you are old enough to have a say it in, its your right, but the fact of the matter it is not.

Also you replied to MerelyFoolish who said if a family wanted a girl to wear one, and decided to change the conversation to young women, hence where I corrected you.

We can debate the definition of young woman or girl, but the religion calls for that type of dress at puberty, and in are civilization you still tend to be labeled more girl then young woman at that age.

Millions and millions of muslim women don't wear the hijab. Why do Farkers keep claiming that "the religion calls for" hijabs? Please cite.


I think you need some reading comprehension there bub. I said that type of dress, not specifically a hijab. The religion calls for people to dress modestly, and at the age of puberty they become responsible for their own appearance to ensure it it modest. A hijab is one type of dress that can allow them to dress modestly.
 
2013-01-05 01:56:39 AM

thaylin: Aussie_As: aid if a family wanted a

Aussie_As: thaylin: Aussie_As: If you're old enough to wear a hijab, you're old enough to have a say in this. It's your right.


That is your opinion, not a fact. I could turn it around and say if you are old enough to go to church you are old enough to have a say it in, its your right, but the fact of the matter it is not.

Also you replied to MerelyFoolish who said if a family wanted a girl to wear one, and decided to change the conversation to young women, hence where I corrected you.

We can debate the definition of young woman or girl, but the religion calls for that type of dress at puberty, and in are civilization you still tend to be labeled more girl then young woman at that age.

Millions and millions of muslim women don't wear the hijab. Why do Farkers keep claiming that "the religion calls for" hijabs? Please cite.

I think you need some reading comprehension there bub. I said that type of dress, not specifically a hijab. The religion calls for people to dress modestly, and at the age of puberty they become responsible for their own appearance to ensure it it modest. A hijab is one type of dress that can allow them to dress modestly.


Ah, my error. Please forgive me for presuming that in a thread about hijabs and in a reply to a post where you used a pronoun ("you replied to MerelyFoolish who said if a family wanted a girl to wear one") to refer to a hijab, and then you used a reference to "that type of dress" you were referring to a hijab.

But is it really me who needs some reading comprehension? Perhaps you need to reduce your use of pronouns and be more specific.
 
2013-01-05 02:03:35 AM

Aussie_As: thaylin: Aussie_As: aid if a family wanted a

Aussie_As: thaylin: Aussie_As: If you're old enough to wear a hijab, you're old enough to have a say in this. It's your right.


That is your opinion, not a fact. I could turn it around and say if you are old enough to go to church you are old enough to have a say it in, its your right, but the fact of the matter it is not.

Also you replied to MerelyFoolish who said if a family wanted a girl to wear one, and decided to change the conversation to young women, hence where I corrected you.

We can debate the definition of young woman or girl, but the religion calls for that type of dress at puberty, and in are civilization you still tend to be labeled more girl then young woman at that age.

Millions and millions of muslim women don't wear the hijab. Why do Farkers keep claiming that "the religion calls for" hijabs? Please cite.

I think you need some reading comprehension there bub. I said that type of dress, not specifically a hijab. The religion calls for people to dress modestly, and at the age of puberty they become responsible for their own appearance to ensure it it modest. A hijab is one type of dress that can allow them to dress modestly.

Ah, my error. Please forgive me for presuming that in a thread about hijabs and in a reply to a post where you used a pronoun ("you replied to MerelyFoolish who said if a family wanted a girl to wear one") to refer to a hijab, and then you used a reference to "that type of dress" you were referring to a hijab.

But is it really me who needs some reading comprehension? Perhaps you need to reduce your use of pronouns and be more specific.


I dont know, maybe the word TYPE, as in CATAGORY, not a specific item?

And you need to stop assuming you know what is in islam. How do you even know that wearing one is not required by any denomination of islam? If that religion is anything like Christianity there can be a billion and one different flavors.
 
2013-01-05 02:08:28 AM

thaylin: Aussie_As: thaylin: Aussie_As: ...

I dont know, maybe the word TYPE, as in CATAGORY, not a specific item?

And you need to stop assuming you know what is in islam. How do you even know that wearing one is not required by any denomination of islam? If that religion is anything like Christianity there can be a billion and one different flavors.


Yeah, it was more the 'that' before the 'type' which threw me. 'That' tends to mean something more specific than just 'type'.
 
2013-01-05 02:08:41 AM

s2s2s2: IlGreven: The only difference between a religion and a cult is

One follows an unseen super being, and the other follows a living person, or physical object found here on earth.


Most Protestant offshoots of Christianity follow living persons in addition to the unseen super being (Calvinism = John Calvin; Mormonism = Joseph Smith and Brigham Young; Jehovah's Witnesses = Charles Russell and Joe Rutherford, Adventism = William Miller, Methodism = John Wesley, Lutheran = Martin Luther, etc.) You could make arguments for JW's and Mormons being cults, but your definition puts Lutherism, Methodism, and Calvinism into cult status, too. Hell, even Christianity itself began by following a single living person, though they rolled a saving throw with the Nicene Creed, claiming that said living person was the unseen super being in disguise. Would you label all of Christendom a Cult, while labeling Scientology (which follows an unseen super being, as bespoken by a living person) a religion? If not, where's the line?

I reiterate: The only difference between a religion and a cult is size.
 
2013-01-05 02:18:46 AM

IlGreven: s2s2s2: IlGreven: The only difference between a religion and a cult is

One follows an unseen super being, and the other follows a living person, or physical object found here on earth.

Most Protestant offshoots of Christianity follow living persons in addition to the unseen super being (Calvinism = John Calvin; Mormonism = Joseph Smith and Brigham Young; Jehovah's Witnesses = Charles Russell and Joe Rutherford, Adventism = William Miller, Methodism = John Wesley, Lutheran = Martin Luther, etc.) You could make arguments for JW's and Mormons being cults, but your definition puts Lutherism, Methodism, and Calvinism into cult status, too. Hell, even Christianity itself began by following a single living person, though they rolled a saving throw with the Nicene Creed, claiming that said living person was the unseen super being in disguise. Would you label all of Christendom a Cult, while labeling Scientology (which follows an unseen super being, as bespoken by a living person) a religion? If not, where's the line?

I reiterate: The only difference between a religion and a cult is size.


And here was me thinking that the difference was that all religions are actually the proven "one true religion" while cults are just scams for profit :)
 
2013-01-05 02:21:31 AM

Aussie_As: It's not about what a family wants. It's about what the individual woman wants.


Says who? Who are you to decide what values should apply to those of a different culture? For some individuals it is about what the family wants.
 
2013-01-05 02:31:35 AM

Aussie_As: What I was criticising MeerlyFoolish for was saying, as he did, that the decision about whether a muslim female wears a hijab should be left to her family. He should have had more sympathy for that situation given his direct experience of it. Or do you believe she should have been forced to be miserable? If so, have you considered joining the Taliban?


So, when a 12 year old girl decides that she no longer wants to go to Sunday school at her catholic church but her parents insist that she continue to do so then they are just like members of the Taliban? Or what about a guy who was raised jewish but secretly renounced his faith as an adult but when he goes home he puts on his yamaka and goes through the motion of prayer because he is expected to do so by his parents? Should his parents join the Taliban?
 
2013-01-05 02:38:21 AM

IlGreven: I reiterate: The only difference between a religion and a cult is size.


Cults are generally exclusionary and impose rules on their adherents. Religions are generally open and invite adherents to take on their rules. To hear about some of these differences, talk to an ex-JW or ex-Scientologist whose still-cult-following family is forbidden to be with them.
 
2013-01-05 02:51:43 AM

ciberido: Fart_Machine: Wearing a headscarf or a cross is pretty benign. Trying to claim discrimination based on having to work on Sunday is stupid.

Why is it stupid?  Not working on "the Sabbath" (which most Christians take to mean Sunday) is one of the Ten Commandments.  It's pretty fundamental to the religion.  In fact, Exodus commands that a "sabbath-breaker" be executed.  At one time it was against the law in more than one part of the USA to work on Sunday.  There are still laws in Germany even now against doing some things on Sunday.


What is stupid is that all Christians realize that work must be done on Sunday in order for society to function. 99% of them don't believe that the 10 - 18 commandments mean they can't do work on Sunday. (depending on how you group them, Catholics and Baptists believe in two different sets of 10 commandments). You believe that people that go to work on Sunday are doomed to hell, but then call up Cox Cable to have them fix your cable on a Sunday, or call the heating repair man to fix your home's busted heater on a Sunday, or require the men who dump salt and shovel snow off our highways work on Sunday? You're a worthless scumbag and I have no sympathy for you or your stupid interpretation of your stupid contradictory religious mythological books.

If your religion requires that you make sacrifices, then make the sacrifices. Don't expect others to sacrifice for you. If you wan't your child to wear burqa to school, then make the sacrifice and send her to a Muslim school that allows such nonsense. If you want to take off some particular day of the week because voices from an invisible pink unicorn in the sky told you to, then make the sacrifice. Find a job that allows you that privilege or start your own business. When I own a business I have a right to make my employees work ONLY on Sundays and no other day if I want. If you don't like it, then don't apply here or find another place to work or suffer at home in poverty. It's not my problem. That's the sacrifice you make when you choose to believe in nonsense.
 
2013-01-05 03:06:26 AM
Just Another OC Homeless Guy

I saw a guy wearing that shirt at the 7-11 and I just let him go about his business; there's no good reason to acknowledge AWs.

but you should know that
 
2013-01-05 03:15:25 AM

ultraholland: all religions and their associated practices are loony


Yeah, but religious fashion doesn't really get in the way of anything. It's not like the kid is wearing something that covers her face and makes her unidentifiable, it's just a scarf that goes over her hair.

It's not sillier than the UK's own religiously-based requirements that girls wear a shirt even when engaged in athletic activities. It's just etiquette, banning it is sort of like banning everyone that speaks Spanish form being polite.
 
2013-01-05 03:45:01 AM

sunlion: European Christians put about six million jews in ovens last century, in the name of "god and country." At the orders of a leader who declared himself to be following god's orders. I think christians can just shut the fark up and stop their god damn ceaseless whining.


Yeah, because Naziism and Christianity are one and the same.

Does it hurt to be that stupid?
 
2013-01-05 03:51:02 AM

EmmaLou: Hijabs are not signs of oppression. If you really think that, you haven't studied Islam in any detail or talked to a Muslim women about them. Wearing a scarf is completely up to the woman. Men cannot force their wives or daughters to wear them. If he does, that's abuse.


If that were true, that would be great.

But it is, sadly, not at all true.
 
2013-01-05 03:59:42 AM
I don't have one bit of sympathy for this family or their brat. Here's the school in question.

http://www.croydon.gov.uk/education/schools-new/primary-schools/st-cy p rians-primary

If you open the link you'll see it's a Greek Orthodox school. This moslem family is pulling the kind of stunt farkers usually attack Christians for. They're putting their kid in a school run by people whose religious views don't match theirs. Then they're whining because the school doesn't bend over backwards to accommodate them.

If you want your kid to wear a body bag to school, don't put her in a Greek Orthodox school. Put her in a public school or better yet, a moslem school.
 
2013-01-05 04:00:29 AM

IlGreven: s2s2s2: IlGreven: The only difference between a religion and a cult is

One follows an unseen super being, and the other follows a living person, or physical object found here on earth.

Most Protestant offshoots of Christianity follow living persons in addition to the unseen super being (Calvinism = John Calvin; Mormonism = Joseph Smith and Brigham Young; Jehovah's Witnesses = Charles Russell and Joe Rutherford, Adventism = William Miller, Methodism = John Wesley, Lutheran = Martin Luther, etc.) You could make arguments for JW's and Mormons being cults, but your definition puts Lutherism, Methodism, and Calvinism into cult status, too. Hell, even Christianity itself began by following a single living person, though they rolled a saving throw with the Nicene Creed, claiming that said living person was the unseen super being in disguise. Would you label all of Christendom a Cult, while labeling Scientology (which follows an unseen super being, as bespoken by a living person) a religion? If not, where's the line?

I reiterate: The only difference between a religion and a cult is size.



I guess you're not really clear on that word "living."
 
2013-01-05 04:03:35 AM
www.jerrydodrill.com

Hahaha, hey guys, look at that girl's stupid hat!
 
2013-01-05 04:08:48 AM

Mock26: Aussie_As: It's not about what a family wants. It's about what the individual woman wants.

Says who? Who are you to decide what values should apply to those of a different culture? For some individuals it is about what the family wants.


If those individuals are happy with that then that's cool. Else it's farked. I make no apologies for supporting individual rights. If you want to call that cultural relativism then I plead guilty.

I'm not a parent but I've been a step-parent to four kids who were aged 2-7 when I moved in. They're now young adults (youngest is 16, all the others are over 18). We raised them to be good to others and understand their legal obligations. We never imposed rules about their dress, hairstyles or sexual behaviour other than advise them as to the laws about sex. Interestingly, my parents had a far more oppressive style and I reacted to this by rebelling. Our kids are neat and tidy by their own choice. Not always conservative though. Nor should they be.

Imposing rules on young family members inevitably, particularly in muslim culture, leads to patriarchy. The protests against rape in India currently going on are actually protests against ludicrous patriarchy (yes I know India is not majority muslim but the cultural values are very similar). Womens' rights are frequently oppressed in majority muslim countries, because of "family values".

Where do you draw the line? I know where I stand and I'm comfortable with this.
 
2013-01-05 04:10:39 AM
So I can walk into a bank wearing a mask if it is part of my religion?

Cool.
 
2013-01-05 04:16:26 AM

Mock26: Aussie_As: What I was criticising MeerlyFoolish for was saying, as he did, that the decision about whether a muslim female wears a hijab should be left to her family. He should have had more sympathy for that situation given his direct experience of it. Or do you believe she should have been forced to be miserable? If so, have you considered joining the Taliban?

So, when a 12 year old girl decides that she no longer wants to go to Sunday school at her catholic church but her parents insist that she continue to do so then they are just like members of the Taliban? Or what about a guy who was raised jewish but secretly renounced his faith as an adult but when he goes home he puts on his yamaka and goes through the motion of prayer because he is expected to do so by his parents? Should his parents join the Taliban?


No, they're not like members of the Taliban, they're just oppressive and their actions will most likely breed the precise opposite that their parents intend. The best Catholics are those who choose to be. The worst Catholics are those who (quite fairly) biatch to all and sundry that their religion was imposed on them by their stupid parents. If you're doing marketing for the Catholic church, what would you prefer?

As a step-parent of many years experience, and having been the child of a relatively oppressive mother (although my mother has accepted my life choices despite not approving of them and I congratulate her for at least that much) I firmly believe that parents don't own their kids, they can only support them. Parents who believe otherwise are generally in for a big disappointment.
 
2013-01-05 04:16:49 AM

Solid Muldoon: So I can walk into a bank wearing a mask if it is part of my religion?


Yes, usually?
 
2013-01-05 04:29:38 AM
Has anyone pointed out that the headline is bullshiat, and doesn't even reflect the article let alone the law?

There is no legal ban on wearing the cross in England. However, wearing the cross is not protected by law as it is not a required part of Christianity.
 
2013-01-05 04:31:16 AM

s2s2s2: Fart_Machine: Trying to claim discrimination based on having to work on Sunday is stupid.

Unless you take the bible seriously, but don't really know what it says.

;)


This.

Shabbat is on a Saturday!
 
2013-01-05 04:37:32 AM

PaLarkin: I don't have one bit of sympathy for this family or their brat. Here's the school in question.

http://www.croydon.gov.uk/education/schools-new/primary-schools/st-cy p rians-primary

If you open the link you'll see it's a Greek Orthodox school. This moslem family is pulling the kind of stunt farkers usually attack Christians for. They're putting their kid in a school run by people whose religious views don't match theirs. Then they're whining because the school doesn't bend over backwards to accommodate them.

If you want your kid to wear a body bag to school, don't put her in a Greek Orthodox school. Put her in a public school or better yet, a moslem school.


Excellent point and well made. I'll only disagree with one detail: in my experience the "modesty" standards of Greek orthodox and muslims are only different in the detail of the hijab. Any issues of skirt length, wearing makeup or visible cleavage would be dealt with identically in both cultures. Very different standards would apply in public education.

Nevertheless, your point that a Greek orthodox school should be able to set its own standards is very correct. You know what you're getting when you sign up to this joint.

/I also support students who rebel against these standards. If I could do my own private education all over, I'd have gotten myself expelled in no time flat. Fark that.
 
2013-01-05 05:27:02 AM
 
2013-01-05 05:38:20 AM

Relatively Obscure: Solid Muldoon: So I can walk into a bank wearing a mask if it is part of my religion?

Yes, usually?


Point Break 2: The Burkha Bandits.
 
2013-01-05 05:53:18 AM

Uranus Is Huge!: uttertosh: cman: Why doesnt anyone from the Witangemoot simplify the constitution by putting it down in a uniformed constitution? UK constitution is made up of various shiat, but there is no clarity.

uttertosh: it's just not a powerpoint bullet list for ADhD children.

Man, you are really fired up about the uncodified nature of the UK constitution. Can you explain why you feel the need to lash out at anyone the questions this unusual characteristic?


Maybe because way to many people simply assume that if a constitution is not in the same general format as the American one it is somehow invalid or inferior. I don't believe you're one of them since many of your posts seem to be fairly well thought out, but Poe's law, being what it is, means that your post (obviously intended to be tongue in cheek) will be taken seriously by some of the more cognitively challenged. That can get irritating...just sayin'
 
2013-01-05 06:20:56 AM

s2s2s2: In what way? Oh, you think it's freedom FROM religion, like Sarah Palin thinks freedom of speech is freedom from other people's speech.


huh? There is no place for religion in the STATE FUNDED education system (outside the RE class). No creationist science in the real science class, no morning assembly prayer, no crosses on the walls, no 'in god we trust', no ceremonial daggers, no hijabs, no hindi robes, no pagan animal sacrifices, no ouija boards, no satanic rites, no you're 'gay, so you're going to hell' (should I go on? really?)

If you let one get one, you have to allow every religion to practice their religion, as they see fit, during publicly funded education time, (eye of newt) warts and all.

Yes, the state that allows freedom of religion, that also separates itself from 'church' should in no way allow ANY form of religious expression in it's schools. It is neither the time, nor the place for this kind of activity.

If there is a problem, or conflict of interest, then maybe the church that 'mandates' certain things should start up, and fund it's own schools, that do allow. That'd be the proper use of the right to freedom of religion.

Uranus Is Huge!: Man, you are really fired up about the uncodified nature of the UK constitution. Can you explain why you feel the need to lash out at anyone the questions this unusual characteristic?


WHAR WRITTEN CONSTITUTION WHAR? That's why.

Their constitution is written. (FFS It's written in LAW) It's just not a children's book. (It's what got me reading on the subject in the first place)

look, I completely understand how baffling their constitution seems from an American perspective (you've been brought up with a constitution that looks a certain way), but just because their constitution isn't a neatly ordered, numbered, s.p.e.l.l.e.d. o.u.t. constitution like the one created by America, doesn't mean they don't have one.


Just Another OC Homeless Guy: errr... no, they don't. Link


So, you maintain that the UK has no constitution whatsoever? ok. Good luck with that.
 
2013-01-05 06:22:15 AM

Mike_1962: more cognitively challenged


....
 
2013-01-05 07:16:49 AM

Indubitably: Indubitably: Indubitably: Aussie_As: Mattyb710: cman: Vodka Zombie: Please give the persecution bullshiat a rest for a while, Christians. No one believes you anymore, so peddle you lies somewhere else.

DId you actually read the article?

I did. Please explain to me how a Hijab, which is a requirement of the Muslim faith, is the same as a cross, which some people simply choose to wear.

Millions and millions of muslim women don't wear the hijab. The only people who believe that it is a requirement of their faith are pro-Taliban.

I note from your Fark profile you live in Florida. I hope the FBI is monitoring this thread. You're a terrorist sympathiser.

*)

To deFBIilate any t-duh.

P.S. The FBI wouldn't touch me with a ten-foot pole, so please take my comment as jokingly jesting, see?

P.P.S. To pariah


I don't even.....

Anyway, when we read about an FBI agent that died of boredom then we'll know which one they assigned to watch me 24/7.
 
2013-01-05 07:21:17 AM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Farking Canuck: He's a smart Atheist, so he doesn't need to. Something about osmosis and Silva Mind Control, or something...

You know ... every time you repeat that 'atheism is a religion' idiocy you prove we are smarter than you.

/do you really enjoy being considered as stupid as letrole?
Where did I say that? Please be specific.

(Do you always debate by putting words into other people's mouths?)


Well to be specific it was in the image you posted that said

"Atheism
A religion people join to apppear smarter"

(I would have posted the one that made me APPEAR smarter, not apppear). You should not post anything that you do not wish to be commented on. Remembering what you post is very handy when people refer to it later...

/not surprised you let a loophole into an 8 figure deal if you don`t even remember what you post on FARK
 
2013-01-05 07:28:59 AM

cman: Banning religious articles is asinine.


Yet I always get grief for bringing Nagini, the Sacred Spitting Cobra, to my local supermarket...
 
2013-01-05 07:38:09 AM
False equivalence is false.
 
2013-01-05 07:49:30 AM
Nothing to add to this conversation, but...

"Does anybody know where I can get one of those necklaces with the 't'?"
"That would be a cross."
"Across from where?"
 
2013-01-05 08:39:37 AM

IlGreven: s2s2s2: IlGreven: The only difference between a religion and a cult is

One follows an unseen super being, and the other follows a living person, or physical object found here on earth.

Most Protestant offshoots of Christianity follow living persons in addition to the unseen super being (Calvinism = John Calvin; Mormonism = Joseph Smith and Brigham Young; Jehovah's Witnesses = Charles Russell and Joe Rutherford, Adventism = William Miller, Methodism = John Wesley, Lutheran = Martin Luther, etc.) You could make arguments for JW's and Mormons being cults, but your definition puts Lutherism, Methodism, and Calvinism into cult status, too. Hell, even Christianity itself began by following a single living person, though they rolled a saving throw with the Nicene Creed, claiming that said living person was the unseen super being in disguise. Would you label all of Christendom a Cult, while labeling Scientology (which follows an unseen super being, as bespoken by a living person) a religion? If not, where's the line?

I reiterate: The only difference between a religion and a cult is size.


Unless you avail yourself of a dictionary, and care what words mean.
 
2013-01-05 09:00:25 AM

uttertosh: huh? There is no place for religion in the STATE FUNDED education system


I don't think anyone has suggested the schools/state purchase these items, but the people who pay the state who pays the schools have every right to wear their shiat wherever they want. From the EU Convention on Human Rights(from which you cherry picked earlier):
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[...]

The freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.


You tell me how the security of the state is dependent upon removal of a scarf or a piece of jewelry. Please, so I can laugh at your nonsense some more. It IS your right! Of course, it is starting to look like the security and freedoms of others are under threat from you, and you should be silenced.
 
2013-01-05 09:05:29 AM

Fart_Machine: Wearing a headscarf or a cross is pretty benign. Trying to claim discrimination based on having to work on Sunday is stupid.


As stupid as claiming discrimination for having to work during Muslim prayer time.
 
2013-01-05 09:11:10 AM

Mattyb710: cman: Vodka Zombie: Please give the persecution bullshiat a rest for a while, Christians. No one believes you anymore, so peddle you lies somewhere else.

DId you actually read the article?

I did. Please explain to me how a Hijab, which is a requirement of the Muslim faith, is the same as a cross, which some people simply choose to wear.


That interpretation of Islam puts you in the same league as the Taliban.

The only requirement is modest dress. When you say the hijab is required you are siding with people that force women to wear it.
 
2013-01-05 09:29:24 AM

Mike_1962: Uranus Is Huge!: uttertosh: cman: Why doesnt anyone from the Witangemoot simplify the constitution by putting it down in a uniformed constitution? UK constitution is made up of various shiat, but there is no clarity.

uttertosh: it's just not a powerpoint bullet list for ADhD children.

Man, you are really fired up about the uncodified nature of the UK constitution. Can you explain why you feel the need to lash out at anyone the questions this unusual characteristic?

Maybe because way to many people simply assume that if a constitution is not in the same general format as the American one it is somehow invalid or inferior. I don't believe you're one of them since many of your posts seem to be fairly well thought out, but Poe's law, being what it is, means that your post (obviously intended to be tongue in cheek) will be taken seriously by some of the more cognitively challenged. That can get irritating...just sayin'


utterdouche is doing a great job of making all sorts of assumptions about me based on a very mild, very old description of the UK constitution. I am by no means a worshipper of the US constitution. One need only read through the Bill of Rights to see how antiquated some of its provisions are. From what I've read, our neighbors to the north have a better model for other countries to emulate.

And if some European made a crack about quartering soldiers, you wouldn't see me get all butthurt and start insulting him. I really don't get the misdirected rage.
 
2013-01-05 09:30:58 AM

s2s2s2: You tell me how the security of the state is dependent upon removal of a scarf or a piece of jewelry. Please, so I can laugh at your nonsense some more. It IS your right! Of course, it is starting to look like the security and freedoms of others are under threat from you, and you should be silenced


fine, ceremonial daggers for all.

If that person there gets to wear one to school, everyone can wear one to school. It's their right, yeah?

Don't you think?

It's called a uniform. One form for all. Not, 'I get special treatment above all others because Religion'. That's not what they're there for. We're talking equality here - another thing the EU is pretty vocal about. If it's just a head-covering, and so innocent, then why can't my son wear a hoodie in class, at all times, as his jedi teachings allow for. Why do you hate jedis? Biggot. My Rastafarian-jedi nephew should be allowed to bring in his lightsaberbong, too. Religious freedom. (smoking paraphernalia is not illegal in the uk)

See how it goes? School is one place that religious symbolism, regardless of faith, needs to kept out of.

Do you not see any benefit to this? No, after all it's just an innocent headscarf, right? Nothing disruptive about a headscarf. Why, even this morning I met the most polite headscarf. Let me pass by it without even as much as oppressing me. Headscarves, like jedi robes, and ceremonial daggers, are cool people. Just like crosses.
 
2013-01-05 09:34:32 AM

EmmaLou: Hijabs are not signs of oppression. If you really think that, you haven't studied Islam in any detail or talked to a Muslim women about them. Wearing a scarf is completely up to the woman. Men cannot force their wives or daughters to wear them. If he does, that's abuse. All too often, people see the abusive Muslim men and just assume that it's that way across the entire Muslim world.


Hahaha!!!!
 
2013-01-05 09:43:21 AM

IlGreven: The only difference between a religion and a cult is size.


i45.tinypic.com
 
2013-01-05 09:48:13 AM
Because a small piece of jewelry is exactly the same as hiding your face all day...
 
2013-01-05 10:04:00 AM
NO. That's it I've had enough.

I recant everything I've said.

Hijabs should be mandatory for everyone. Especially white, Christian, male teachers. And everyone must have their crucifixes on display at all times. Everyone must immediately convert to everyone else's faith, thus bringing everyone to a better understanding, and therefore tolerance, of one another's eccentricities. Especially the parts that conflict with what the others hold as the word of their Masters. Problem solved.

And the UK has no written constitution in any form. So, do what you like, Britons, there's no constitution holding you back from doing anything. You simultaneously have the right to to what you please, and have no rights at all. True Freedom. One Religion. One World.
/utterdouche, signing off.
 
2013-01-05 10:05:48 AM

uttertosh: NO. That's it I've had enough.

I recant everything I've said.

Hijabs should be mandatory for everyone. Especially white, Christian, male teachers. And everyone must have their crucifixes on display at all times. Everyone must immediately convert to everyone else's faith, thus bringing everyone to a better understanding, and therefore tolerance, of one another's eccentricities. Especially the parts that conflict with what the others hold as the word of their Masters. Problem solved.

And the UK has no written constitution in any form. So, do what you like, Britons, there's no constitution holding you back from doing anything. You simultaneously have the right to to what you please, and have no rights at all. True Freedom. One Religion. One World.
/utterdouche, signing off.


Damn and you finally had that strawman on the ropes.
 
2013-01-05 10:06:18 AM

uttertosh: s2s2s2: You tell me how the security of the state is dependent upon removal of a scarf or a piece of jewelry. Please, so I can laugh at your nonsense some more. It IS your right! Of course, it is starting to look like the security and freedoms of others are under threat from you, and you should be silenced

fine, ceremonial daggers for all.

If that person there gets to wear one to school, everyone can wear one to school. It's their right, yeah?

Don't you think?

It's called a uniform. One form for all. Not, 'I get special treatment above all others because Religion'. That's not what they're there for. We're talking equality here - another thing the EU is pretty vocal about. If it's just a head-covering, and so innocent, then why can't my son wear a hoodie in class, at all times, as his jedi teachings allow for. Why do you hate jedis? Biggot. My Rastafarian-jedi nephew should be allowed to bring in his lightsaberbong, too. Religious freedom. (smoking paraphernalia is not illegal in the uk)

See how it goes? School is one place that religious symbolism, regardless of faith, needs to kept out of.

Do you not see any benefit to this? No, after all it's just an innocent headscarf, right? Nothing disruptive about a headscarf. Why, even this morning I met the most polite headscarf. Let me pass by it without even as much as oppressing me. Headscarves, like jedi robes, and ceremonial daggers, are cool people. Just like crosses.


Oooooh. You're full of shiat on purpose. Carry on.
 
2013-01-05 10:06:26 AM

uttertosh: s2s2s2: In what way? Oh, you think it's freedom FROM religion, like Sarah Palin thinks freedom of speech is freedom from other people's speech.

huh? There is no place for religion in the STATE FUNDED education system (outside the RE class). No creationist science in the real science class, no morning assembly prayer, no crosses on the walls, no 'in god we trust', no ceremonial daggers, no hijabs, no hindi robes, no pagan animal sacrifices, no ouija boards, no satanic rites, no you're 'gay, so you're going to hell' (should I go on? really?)

If you let one get one, you have to allow every religion to practice their religion, as they see fit, during publicly funded education time, (eye of newt) warts and all.

Yes, the state that allows freedom of religion, that also separates itself from 'church' should in no way allow ANY form of religious expression in it's schools. It is neither the time, nor the place for this kind of activity.

If there is a problem, or conflict of interest, then maybe the church that 'mandates' certain things should start up, and fund it's own schools, that do allow. That'd be the proper use of the right to freedom of religion.

Uranus Is Huge!: Man, you are really fired up about the uncodified nature of the UK constitution. Can you explain why you feel the need to lash out at anyone the questions this unusual characteristic?

WHAR WRITTEN CONSTITUTION WHAR? That's why.

Their constitution is written. (FFS It's written in LAW) It's just not a children's book. (It's what got me reading on the subject in the first place)

look, I completely understand how baffling their constitution seems from an American perspective (you've been brought up with a constitution that looks a certain way), but just because their constitution isn't a neatly ordered, numbered, s.p.e.l.l.e.d. o.u.t. constitution like the one created by America, doesn't mean they don't have one.


Just Another OC Homeless Guy: errr... no, they don't. Link

So, you maintain that the UK has no constitution whatsoever? ok. Good luck with that.


Errr....... Words mean things. You should use them that way. OR you can just win every argument if you simply redefine the meanings of words to suit you own needs. As you do above above. The Brits have precedent, common law, and several key documents, such as the Magna Carta that define their rights, duties, and the limitations of the State. They do NOT have a Constitution, meaning, yes, a single document that codifies their rights, duties, and the limitations of the State.
 
2013-01-05 10:10:25 AM
It seems like these threads put the employer above all else.

Way to buy in to the corporitocracy, libs.
 
2013-01-05 10:12:20 AM

KawaiiNot: Christians just jelly cause they don't have cool hats to wear like all the other religions...


i1-news.softpedia-static.com
The veil or covering is actually used in many Christian groups.
 
2013-01-05 10:12:41 AM

dready zim: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Farking Canuck: He's a smart Atheist, so he doesn't need to. Something about osmosis and Silva Mind Control, or something...

You know ... every time you repeat that 'atheism is a religion' idiocy you prove we are smarter than you.

/do you really enjoy being considered as stupid as letrole?
Where did I say that? Please be specific.

(Do you always debate by putting words into other people's mouths?)

Well to be specific it was in the image you posted that said

"Atheism
A religion people join to apppear smarter"

(I would have posted the one that made me APPEAR smarter, not apppear). You should not post anything that you do not wish to be commented on. Remembering what you post is very handy when people refer to it later...

/not surprised you let a loophole into an 8 figure deal if you don`t even remember what you post on FARK


Good point, actually. I focus on the guy's expression in the photo, more than the shirt caption. But, yeah, point to you.

Of course atheism isn't a religion. It's just that some atheists ACT as if it were. (Maybe I should post the "You're not helping" Jpeg?) There's a really nifty book you (and everyone) should read called "The True Believer" by Eric Hoffer.

Wasn't me that missed the fact that that specific patent number was not listed in the purchase document. That was the lawyer for our side and our God-like CEO. As the Controller, I was just along for the ride.
 
2013-01-05 10:39:01 AM

Orange-Pippin: KawaiiNot: Christians just jelly cause they don't have

cool hats to wear like all the other religions...

[i1-news.softpedia-static.com image 500x304]
The veil or covering is actually used in many Christian groups.
 
2013-01-05 10:42:30 AM

mbillips: Oh, and Arab dudes? Trying to keep women from looking sexy by making them wear hijab, or even niqab? It's not working.

[25.media.tumblr.com image 466x677]

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 468x275]


Yeah, but "Arab dudes" also have issues with makeup.
 
2013-01-05 10:54:48 AM

Jaws_Victim: What kind of loony world does the author live in? Here is the last paragraph:

It is possible, therefore, to mount a reasonable defence of banning [hijab] in school. Sacking a Christian employee for expressing her faith in a modest and personal fashion, however, is indefensible, and the Government's position on that issue is shameful.

The hijab is an integral part of the muslim faith for women, it all ties into how their women are inferior and need to be coddled and kept away from the lustful eyes of their fathers and brothers. Crosses are something Christians can wear to show they are intolerant of your religion and are more pious than you are. They are so much like jesus they need to have a little cross of their own to show they are bearing YOUR sins for YOU, you filthy non jesus lover.

Why would we compare a form of expressing your religion in a tacky little religious ornament to that of a cornerstone of the faith for women and muslims?


Because the author is a moron?

/What do I win?
 
2013-01-05 10:58:38 AM

jamspoon: 'cos white Christians are far more likely to experience prejudice than black Muslims

Just like we all banned Christmas


You're still working on that, aren't you?
 
2013-01-05 10:59:18 AM
The double standard is simple: The Christians over there haven't been doing their fair share of brutally murdering people who disagree with them while their Muslims have no such qualms. Fear: It Works.
 
2013-01-05 11:09:01 AM

Maul555: Because a small piece of jewelry is exactly the same as hiding your face all day...


encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com


Wut?
 
2013-01-05 11:41:16 AM
I'm not comfortable with any crusade that tries to pit Christians versus Mohammedans.
 
2013-01-05 11:54:08 AM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: uttertosh: s2s2s2: In what way? Oh, you think it's freedom FROM religion, like Sarah Palin thinks freedom of speech is freedom from other people's speech.

huh? There is no place for religion in the STATE FUNDED education system (outside the RE class). No creationist science in the real science class, no morning assembly prayer, no crosses on the walls, no 'in god we trust', no ceremonial daggers, no hijabs, no hindi robes, no pagan animal sacrifices, no ouija boards, no satanic rites, no you're 'gay, so you're going to hell' (should I go on? really?)

If you let one get one, you have to allow every religion to practice their religion, as they see fit, during publicly funded education time, (eye of newt) warts and all.

Yes, the state that allows freedom of religion, that also separates itself from 'church' should in no way allow ANY form of religious expression in it's schools. It is neither the time, nor the place for this kind of activity.

If there is a problem, or conflict of interest, then maybe the church that 'mandates' certain things should start up, and fund it's own schools, that do allow. That'd be the proper use of the right to freedom of religion.

Uranus Is Huge!: Man, you are really fired up about the uncodified nature of the UK constitution. Can you explain why you feel the need to lash out at anyone the questions this unusual characteristic?

WHAR WRITTEN CONSTITUTION WHAR? That's why.

Their constitution is written. (FFS It's written in LAW) It's just not a children's book. (It's what got me reading on the subject in the first place)

look, I completely understand how baffling their constitution seems from an American perspective (you've been brought up with a constitution that looks a certain way), but just because their constitution isn't a neatly ordered, numbered, s.p.e.l.l.e.d. o.u.t. constitution like the one created by America, doesn't mean they don't have one.


Just Another OC Homeless Guy: errr... no, they don't. Link

So, you maintain that the UK has no constitution whatsoever? ok. Good luck with that.

Errr....... Words mean things. You should use them that way. OR you can just win every argument if you simply redefine the meanings of words to suit you own needs. As you do above above. The Brits have precedent, common law, and several key documents, such as the Magna Carta that define their rights, duties, and the limitations of the State. They do NOT have a Constitution, meaning, yes, a single document that codifies their rights, duties, and the limitations of the State.


Um, yeah, but constitution means "the way in which a thing is composed or made up". You are seeking to define it in terms of a single document which is what the US has. That's fine, but not exclusive. The UK has a constitution which is different in form from yours, but is no less valid.
 
2013-01-05 12:14:04 PM

Mike_1962: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: uttertosh: s2s2s2: In what way? Oh, you think it's freedom FROM religion, like Sarah Palin thinks freedom of speech is freedom from other people's speech.

huh? There is no place for religion in the STATE FUNDED education system (outside the RE class). No creationist science in the real science class, no morning assembly prayer, no crosses on the walls, no 'in god we trust', no ceremonial daggers, no hijabs, no hindi robes, no pagan animal sacrifices, no ouija boards, no satanic rites, no you're 'gay, so you're going to hell' (should I go on? really?)

If you let one get one, you have to allow every religion to practice their religion, as they see fit, during publicly funded education time, (eye of newt) warts and all.

Yes, the state that allows freedom of religion, that also separates itself from 'church' should in no way allow ANY form of religious expression in it's schools. It is neither the time, nor the place for this kind of activity.

If there is a problem, or conflict of interest, then maybe the church that 'mandates' certain things should start up, and fund it's own schools, that do allow. That'd be the proper use of the right to freedom of religion.

Uranus Is Huge!: Man, you are really fired up about the uncodified nature of the UK constitution. Can you explain why you feel the need to lash out at anyone the questions this unusual characteristic?

WHAR WRITTEN CONSTITUTION WHAR? That's why.

Their constitution is written. (FFS It's written in LAW) It's just not a children's book. (It's what got me reading on the subject in the first place)

look, I completely understand how baffling their constitution seems from an American perspective (you've been brought up with a constitution that looks a certain way), but just because their constitution isn't a neatly ordered, numbered, s.p.e.l.l.e.d. o.u.t. constitution like the one created by America, doesn't mean they don't have one.


Just Another OC Homeless Guy: errr... no, they d ...


I guess you're responding to the "words have meanings" part of that post.

Not once has anyone questioned the validity of the UK's constitution. Pointing out an unusual characteristic is not a criticism. The link provided earlier mentions its "unwritten" nature and devotes a section to it with quotes from legal scholars.

I don't recall any assertions regarding the superiority of the US constitution either.

I promise not to bring up this topic again. It is apparently a very sensitive subject for some people.
 
2013-01-05 12:42:12 PM
Religion fails at preventing violence or horny men no matter how hard it tries.
 
2013-01-05 01:23:49 PM

rohar: The My Little Pony Killer: rohar: The My Little Pony Killer: Because your job is not the same as being a student in a school. Now stfu about not being able to wear your gaudy jewelry and gbtw.

I work from home. Most days I don't wear pants.

Are you one of the whiny women from TFA?

Yup, that's me. The guy wearing no pants and a hijab. With a crucifix hanging off my pecker.


And who happens to also be a whiny woman.

/are you even trying?
 
2013-01-05 03:47:16 PM
many liberals aren't interested in what many people would term equitable outcomes; all human beings treated equally by the state when they find themselves in the similar or the same circumstances.
these liberals are usually looking at life through the prism of one of shoot of conflict theory or another, whether they know it or not, and as such they assign groups of people varying levels of historical burdens and disadvantages.
as they assume all people have varying levels of historical burden according to age, race, sexual orientation, class, and lack of penis, they therefore find what normal people would consider equal treatment under the law, the very bedrock of western justice, to also be the very definition of inequity.


that's why you often see some liberals that will take a quick look at any conflict, pick the side they think is historically oppressed, then argue for that group no matter how unjust the outcome actually is.
that's why you'll find these idiots arguing that its unfair to suppress religious Muslim dress but its reasonable to fire a Christian for wearing a cross.
that's why you find an idiot like sean penn calling for the UK do abandon its claim on the Falkland islands and hand its British subjects over to Argentina while claiming its sovereignty is somehow colonialism.
that's while you'll find them arguing with all seriousness that a domestic violence law that protects only those humans that were born with ovaries from said domestic violence is per se reasonable. I mean how could the law treat two 18-year-olds, one male, one female, equally with regards to domestic violence? that poor woman has been oppressed for 10,000 years and that man is living large on profits made from 300 years of oppression of less technologically sophisticated peoples! furthermore this woman is burdened with pregnancy and child rearing and the societal expectation that she won't abandon her children.

that's why they supported Israel up until the moment it won the 1967 war and wish them nothing but ill afterwards.
that's why they'll argue with a straight face that it is equal protection of the law when a state institution values the scores of a descendant of a chinese family that was taxed by the state of california for simply being chinese in america less than a student that has worse grades and is a brand new immigrant from the u.s. from a latin american country.
it's why they support race based affirmative action rather than a system that looks at wealth, the true measure of relative disadvantage in america.

these liberals are of course the first in our soceity to scream racism/sexism as a reflexive defense mechanism to criticism, but don't let that fool you. they want to be to avoid the equal protection of the law at all costs because they believe humans are inherently unequal and unequal treatment of the law is actually the treatment.
if you ever can't figure out why the are arguing for a fundamentally unfair system or outcome, its probably because they are looking at life through this distorted prism whose goal is the unequal treatment of peoples.
 
2013-01-05 05:50:45 PM
"It could be argued that the requirement for a headscarf for a nine-year-old does not have immediate sexual overtones, but is simply establishing a habit for later life."

Aisha was six (6) years old when her father married her to the prophet Muhammad and nine (9) years old when the prophet "went in unto her (as a husband does) for the first time." So don't be too sure that a 9 year old isn't a sex object.

The wonder is why they don't make 9 year old boys wear hijab too. Especially in Pashtunistan.
 
2013-01-05 10:30:18 PM
Yes, the Government of England, which funds its own church, is in league with the forces of fundamentalist Islam.
 
2013-01-06 12:26:22 AM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Farking Canuck: He's a smart Atheist, so he doesn't need to. Something about osmosis and Silva Mind Control, or something...

You know ... every time you repeat that 'atheism is a religion' idiocy you prove we are smarter than you.

/do you really enjoy being considered as stupid as letrole?
Where did I say that? Please be specific.

(Do you always debate by putting words into other people's mouths?)


Wow ... you've actually shown yourself to be more idiotic than letrole. No small accomplishment!!

You repeatedly post an image which states "Atheism: A religion people join to appear smarter". You posted it twice in this thread (like letrole, you appear incapable of original thoughts).

So no, I did not "put words into your mouth" ... I accurately paraphrased what you endlessly parrot.
 
2013-01-06 04:19:11 AM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: They do NOT have a Constitution, meaning, yes, a single document that codifies their rights, duties, and the limitations of the State.


wrong.

If that were true, then the UK has no constitution whatsoever. Is that something you still maintain?

Uranus Is Huge!: Not once has anyone questioned the validity of the UK's constitution. WHAR WRITTEN CONSTITUTION? WHAR? is not a criticism. The link provided earlier mentions that it's written in law and acts of parliament.(but that's just for pussies)

I don't recall any assertions regarding the superiority of the US constitution either. saying: This is clearly an actionable violation of all Britons 1st Amendment rights., inferring that the US constitution is somehow better, because it's all neatly laid out in one document.

I promise not to bring up this troll as hard as i see fit on this topic again. It is apparently I know fine well it is a very sensitive subject of interest and debate for some people, so I can Yank the chain of people who have actual studied knowledge on the subject


Let's see.

Troll the light fantastic, get called out on being wrong, then claim you were just joking a joke, then feigning shock as to why someone else who knows more than you, could possibly be upset at your trolling attempt, then rewording their username as an insult, followed by denial of intent.

yeah. u dun trold me gud. u got me mad. 10/10


/bravo. i suppose.
 
2013-01-06 04:23:55 AM

Mike_1962: Um, yeah, but constitution means "the way in which a thing is composed or made up". You are seeking to define it in terms of a single document which is what the US has. That's fine, but not exclusive. The UK has a constitution which is different in form from yours, but is no less valid.


this.
 
2013-01-06 07:10:07 AM

indylaw: Yes, the Government of England, which funds its own church, is in league with the forces of fundamentalist Islam.


Nobody claimed they are 'in league' but that doesn't mean they don't have glaring double standards that do support radical Islam.
 
2013-01-06 07:15:32 AM

uttertosh: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: They do NOT have a Constitution, meaning, yes, a single document that codifies their rights, duties, and the limitations of the State.

wrong.

If that were true, then the UK has no constitution whatsoever. Is that something you still maintain?

Uranus Is Huge!: Not once has anyone questioned the validity of the UK's constitution. WHAR WRITTEN CONSTITUTION? WHAR? is not a criticism. The link provided earlier mentions that it's written in law and acts of parliament.(but that's just for pussies)

I don't recall any assertions regarding the superiority of the US constitution either. saying: This is clearly an actionable violation of all Britons 1st Amendment rights., inferring that the US constitution is somehow better, because it's all neatly laid out in one document.

I promise not to bring up this troll as hard as i see fit on this topic again. It is apparently I know fine well it is a very sensitive subject of interest and debate for some people, so I can Yank the chain of people who have actual studied knowledge on the subject

Let's see.

Troll the light fantastic, get called out on being wrong, then claim you were just joking a joke, then feigning shock as to why someone else who knows more than you, could possibly be upset at your trolling attempt, then rewording their username as an insult, followed by denial of intent.

yeah. u dun trold me gud. u got me mad. 10/10


/bravo. i suppose.


Nope. Not touchy at all.
 
2013-01-06 12:25:08 PM

uttertosh: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: They do NOT have a Constitution, meaning, yes, a single document that codifies their rights, duties, and the limitations of the State.

wrong.

If that were true, then the UK has no constitution whatsoever. Is that something you still maintain?


In the accepted meaning, that I am aware of, of the word "Constitution," yes. They have a set of laws based on precedent and codified laws from many documents.

All I'm saying is that words have meanings. when you streeeeeetch them to include other concepts they become meaningless.

For example:

"Hey, Joe, I'd like you to meet my friend Leroy (nodding in the direction of some black guy across the room).
"No thanks, I'd rather not."
"Why not?"
"I just prefer not to be around blacks."
"HEY BRO, why the HATE?"

Well, no. Joe hasn't expressed actual hatred towards Leroy, he has expressed a preference for not being around them. That is NOT hate, and the sloppy usage of the word in this context denigrates the value of the word. Another example of this (based on another agenda than mere sloppiness) is the Left's habit of labeling everyone who expresses a dislike for Obama as a "racist."
 
2013-01-06 01:25:30 PM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: In the accepted meaning, that I am aware of


Read more. Get that awareness, please, it'll do you the world of good, and prevent complete wankers like me jumping on your case for not being right.
 
2013-01-06 01:26:10 PM

Uranus Is Huge!: touchy


it's spelled touché
 
2013-01-06 03:14:01 PM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Well, no. Joe hasn't expressed actual hatred towards Leroy,


It is the fact that 'Joe' is choosing not to meet someone explicitly because of the color of Leroy's skin, rather than the content of Leroy's character, that makes 'Joe' bigoted towards Leroy. Not because you ('Joe', if you prefer) wish to categorize the reason as something other than "hate".
 
2013-01-06 10:37:36 PM

MooseUpNorth: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Well, no. Joe hasn't expressed actual hatred towards Leroy,

It is the fact that 'Joe' is choosing not to meet someone explicitly because of the color of Leroy's skin, rather than the content of Leroy's character, that makes 'Joe' bigoted towards Leroy. Not because you ('Joe', if you prefer) wish to categorize the reason as something other than "hate".


thebreakthrough.org
 
2013-01-07 12:46:22 AM
If you're gunna allow goofy shiat from one religion, need to let the others have theirs too.
 
2013-01-07 07:04:55 PM
Writing that is hard to read is misunderstood, skipped, and/or unread. And that's that.

To wear this or that?

Choose.
 
Displayed 284 of 284 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report