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  
•       •       •

14311 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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
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 34 of 284 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