Soldato
- Joined
- 2 May 2011
- Posts
- 12,286
- Location
- Woking
Very good point man.
Wearing a cross is a crime in England??
- Thread starter yannis76
- Start date
Very good point man.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2010
- Posts
- 10,263
- Location
- UK
good, because the prophet Jesus did not die on a cross nor does the silly notation he died for all our sins make sense.
Ban it!
Ban it!
Is this really an issue? does anyone here work in a job where the dress code prohibits a cross?
Just because the government says that people don't have a right to wear a cross as it is not a requirement of religion doesn't mean that suddenly all employers will start banning it in the dress code. With the exception where loose items of clothing can be a safety hazard (such as when working with machinery) do many employers even care?
Just because the government says that people don't have a right to wear a cross as it is not a requirement of religion doesn't mean that suddenly all employers will start banning it in the dress code. With the exception where loose items of clothing can be a safety hazard (such as when working with machinery) do many employers even care?
oh pipe down will you, other people are entitled to their notions of faith, not just you.
Utterly selfish person you are........
No, no it isn't.
People will still be able to wear a crucifix under their clothes, they just won't be able to wear them loose.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
Right so if I created a new religion called Christianity 2 that did specifically require it's followers to wear the cross that would work then? Or is there some kind of time limit where only religions over 1000 years old get these special get out clauses?
Besides that argument doesn't really work because most of religion is interpretation. You can get one Muslim claiming the Burkha is a requirement of Islam and another saying it isn't.
Christianity dictates you should kill anyone working in a Sunday, could a Christian get off of murder on the basis that killing Sunday workers is explicitly dictated in the Bible? If not then why should Sikhs be able top by-pass motoring and offensive weapon laws just because their religion tells them to?
Probably. There was an Austrian guy who got his driving license picture with a colander on his head because he argued it was a religious piece of clothing of Pastafarianism.
They don't bypass any laws, the law allows them to. Those are two very different things.
You really are misunderstanding this case quite impressively. You just seem to be looking for things to get angry about.
There is no inequality here, there are just two different circumstances which are, oddly enough, treated differently.
Last edited:
I'd rather they banned you.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
There is an 'exemption' in the law, I'm not going to argue semantics whether that is the same as being allowed to 'by-pass' it but to me it's the same thing
No I'm not, the error you are making is assuming everything I'm saying relates specifically to this case when I'm talking about how different religions are treated GENERALLY within both the law and by employers.
There is no specific requirement in Islam to wear a headscarf but can you honestly see a company banning them and there not being uproar?
This is not true, the Koran only advises that women (and men for that matter) dress 'modestly', no where does it specify the head scarf is a specific requirement.
http://muslimvoices.org/hijab-muslim-dress/
Last edited:
estebanrey let me make this very clear for you.
Not every religion is the same, some religions put requirements on their followers such as icons or actions which conflict with some areas of law or other enforceable areas such as dress codes.
These religions, due to anti discrimination laws, are given leeway regarding certain things. This includes things like Turbans, the Kirban or a Headscarf (which I will again point out is interpreted from the Hadith and considered a requirement by a pretty large number of Muslims).
The reason Christianity is not given leeway for things like this is because they don't HAVE any requirements which conflict with laws or dress codes which they ACTIVELY FOLLOW (your Sunday working thing is completely irrelevant for this reason) that are even up for interpretation.
The disparity is not between how different religions are treated but between the religions themselves which results in the way they are treated.
Anyway I'm ending my part in this discussion as I get the impression you are just looking for ways to argue.
Not every religion is the same, some religions put requirements on their followers such as icons or actions which conflict with some areas of law or other enforceable areas such as dress codes.
These religions, due to anti discrimination laws, are given leeway regarding certain things. This includes things like Turbans, the Kirban or a Headscarf (which I will again point out is interpreted from the Hadith and considered a requirement by a pretty large number of Muslims).
The reason Christianity is not given leeway for things like this is because they don't HAVE any requirements which conflict with laws or dress codes which they ACTIVELY FOLLOW (your Sunday working thing is completely irrelevant for this reason) that are even up for interpretation.
The disparity is not between how different religions are treated but between the religions themselves which results in the way they are treated.
Anyway I'm ending my part in this discussion as I get the impression you are just looking for ways to argue.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
And as I said there is nothing written in the Koran about wearing a headscarf, the link I posted from a Islamic website even concedes this is a debating point amongst Muslims so if there isn't consensus how can you claim it's a definitive requirement from the Hadith?
Just because a bunch of Imams get together and decide in their opinion women should wear a head scarf that shouldn't be enough, IMO, to claim there is clear right for Muslim women to wear a head scarf at work whilst at the same time introducing silly restrictions on Christians.
If a few priests got together and just decided that Christians should display the cross, would that fly with employers? I suspect not and yet that is no different to the headscarf issue.
I don't have any figures for Europe but only 43% of American female muslims wear the Hijab, so it's not that high.
How can it be regarded as a requirement then if the majority don't wear it?
I also wonder what percentage of Christians wear the cross.
How can it be regarded as a requirement then if the majority don't wear it?
I also wonder what percentage of Christians wear the cross.
estebanrey is your issue that other religions get stuff allowed that you don't? well in that case either re-write your religion to force the requirement of a cross, or if you are happy with your religion the way it is then why do you care because the cross isn't a requirement so it shouldn't have any specific legal rights anyway.
That is how the ECtHR interprets it as present as I understand it, but I submit it is a poor judgment. Generally speaking, religious law is subservient to the law of England & Wales. It may be, for example, legal under Islamic law to take more than one wife. Under English law bigamy is prohibited, so English law takes precedence. Voodoo sacrifice is similarly subservient to the common law on murder. These are somewhat throwaway examples, I confess, but I think you will take my point. Generally, religious practices are legal in this country so long as they are compatible with the laws of England. If there is an incompatibility, then no matter how devoutly-held the belief, English law prevails. The standard is objective from the point of view of English law; it is not subjective from the point of view of the religious person or his religious text.
So, I think these carve-outs for religious dress are an anomaly and have to be justifiable. My view is that some leeway on religious dress should be part of our law, but the current situation is heavily politicised and based on bad law. By basing specific carve-outs on a subjective (how the affected individual interprets his own religious text) rather than objective (English law) standard, some faiths and people end up being unfairly favoured over others. It would be better if everyone were permitted a limited amount of 'religious expression' in their dress, but this would also be problematic for a legal draftsman. Another solution would be to permit laissez-faire for employers and let forward-thinking employers take the talented religious employees their competitors turned away, but this could also be a problem in view of the unbalanced employer/employee relationship.
There are, sadly, no easy solutions, but I think there must be a better solution and method of judging appropriate amount of religious expression in dress codes than the status quo.
Common sense would be to remove the turban and wear a suitable crash helmet for the duration of the motorcycle ride. Rarely does religion follow common sense, though.