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 282
    More: Dumbass, muslims, England, hijabs, headscarfs, religious discrimination  
•       •       •

14313 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»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
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
 
Displayed 50 of 282 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report