Wearing a cross is a crime in England??

[pingwing]

Common sense is also to create a legal situation where if the turban can't come off, create an exemption for it to stay on provided they pay a different insurance agreement that covers the what if it all goes wrong without a helmet (which is what I think the case is now).

So the reality of a Sikh male riding a motorbike is quite rare, not because they are prohibited to by the law, but because it's relatively impractical to pay for insurance based on not being able to take sensible safety precautions. Generally this is an acceptable compromise for religious groups because if it is really necessary then it can be done.

 

[Amnesia]

I've always wondered what Jesus would say if he came down & saw everybody wearing his torture device ?

It's why he won't come back/

 

[wannabedamned]

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!

lol, I'm sure the dons are watching your post history. Its so obvious you're trying to be a troll. Problem is... You suck at it.

 

[jmc007]

I've always wondered what Jesus would say if he came down & saw everybody wearing his torture device ?

Re-wonder. Bill Hicks would be first to famously, openly wonder it.

*Edit. Oops video contains swearing. Removed.

 

[Mason-]

Christians do not have a right to wear a cross or crucifix openly at work, the Government is to argue in a landmark court case.

So put it under your clothes.

If religion matters to you, you won't need to show off the fact you're religious.

 

[Deific]

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?

Although a sikh would not be exempt from law for stoning an adulterer.

 

[craptakular]

What we need is a good crusade.

 

[MrMoonX]

so much fail, the article says if your employer has a uniform code saying you cant wear a cross its fine, basically!

wear does it say its illegal, im confused

 

[Dabbles]

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.

Common sense would be to not ride a motorbike at all if you aren't prepared to wear a helmet.

 

[Derek W]

Lolreligion

 

[RDM]

I am allowed to belittle other peoples faith but get all uppity if anyone belittles mine!

Allah Ahkbar!

Fixed that for you....

 

[Basher]

It is a bit silly though that Sikh's can bypass a law that applies to everyone else like not having to wear a helmet on a motorbike whilst Christians can't even wear a silly necklace to work. I think Sikhs can also legally carry a sword (well officially it's a knife) about too but I might be wrong on that.

Indeed. But they can't get into Olympic venues with it.

 

[elmarko]

I've always wondered what Jesus would say if he came down & saw everybody wearing his torture device ?

- I've always thought this.

Personally, I have no desire to belong to any club which has a main symbol of a guy being nailed to a piece of wood.

Join my club, it's my symbol is of a women getting naile.... oh wait, that one doesn't work - .

 

[Castiel]

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.

You need to read what Fenris is actually writing, rather than what you think he is.....he is refering to the aHadith, not the Qu'ran....Islamic Tradition and Belief is not only predicated by the Qu'ran, much of it is derived and informed by the Sunnah, and many Muslims do believe that the Sunnah informs and requires the wearing of the Headscarf....these interpretations are supported by the Sunnah and the Fiqh which depending on the Juris followed is binding on the individual.

Islam is not a single unified religion, it is dependent not on a single doctrine but various Schools and Branches informed by different interpretations, validity and acceptance of Hadith along with different schools of jurisprudence within those Branches. Islam is an evolving religion predicated by the Ulema. (a little reminiscent of the way our secular law works, as a mixture of stated legislation and case law)

Islamic tradition is largely dictated to by the separate Ulema in each Islamic community or Ummah.

The Qu'ran actually allows significant independent individual interpretation of Islamic Law called Ijtihad.


It is not a simple as saying 'it's not written explicitly in the Qu'ran so you are wrong'.....

 

[ubersonic]

They are treated equally, any religion which requires it's follows to wear an item or dress a specific way are permitted to do just that.

Christianity has no such requirements.

One of the women in the article is a Coptic Christian, they are not required to wear a cross in public but they are supposed to. The thing is the "requirement" thing is just a UK thing, the European human rights thing protects "manifestations" of a persons religion and I don't think anybody can argue that wearing a cross is not a normal manifestation of Christianity.

 

[estebanrey]

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.

I'm an athiest.

I do however think that Christianity is treated less favorably than other religions. I care about equality and I don't see that at the moment.

Either employers should allow the cross to be worn and the head scarf or niether. From where I'm sitting it just looks like political correctness and 'white guilt' is informing the law which I don't like.

Same goes for the media, they'll make jokes about Chrsitians or Jesus all the time which is fair enough but they'd never do the same stuff about Muslims or Muhammad because they're too **** scared of the reaction it'll get.

Summed up brilliantly here by Bill Maher (seems the US has the same problem)

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.

Brilliant Post.

You need to read what Fenris is actually writing, rather than what you think he is.....he is refering to the aHadith, not the Qu'ran....Islamic Tradition and Belief is not only predicated by the Qu'ran, much of it is derived and informed by the Sunnah, and many Muslims do believe that the Sunnah informs and requires the wearing of the Headscarf....these interpretations are supported by the Sunnah and the Fiqh which depending on the Juris followed is binding on the individual.


It is not a simple as saying 'it's not written explicitly in the Qu'ran so you are wrong'.....

I heard what he said, I just disagree with his reasoning. I quoted from an Islamic website, nothing to do with what I "think" but what Muslims themselves are saying. A slightly better source than Fenris wouldn't you say?

For many people, when they think of Muslim dress, they think of the headscarf. Or, hijab, as it’s come to be known. There is some debate in the Muslim world over whether or not the headscarf is required of women – but what is required by the Qur’an is that both men and women dress modestly. That they not draw unwanted attention to themselves and that they set themselves apart from others in the way they dress.

Some debate = no consensus. If there is no consensus then you cannot claim it is a religious right. As stated in the West wearing the head scarf amongst Muslims isn't done by the majority so how can you say something is religious requirement when less than half of the people in that religion practice it.

 

[Castiel]

I heard what he said, I just disagree with his reasoning. I quoted from an Islamic website, nothing to do with what I "think" but what Muslims themselves are saying. A slightly better source than Fenris wouldn't you say?

With respect you do not have the knowledge of Islam to disagree with his reasoning, and an Islamic website doesn't equate to 'truth' either as Islamic Traditions are not settled by consensus.

The point is that while some Muslim do not believe that the headscarf is required, others do and fiqh is such that both interpretations can be accepted as required dependent on the Juris accepted by the individual.

Some debate = no consensus. If there is no consensus then you cannot claim it is a religious right. As stated in the West wearing the head scarf amongst Muslims isn't done by the majority so how can you say something is religious requirement when less than half of the people in that religion practice it.

Islam is not a religion predicated by consensus...it has no unified theology. It is dependent on many criteria, some of which I mentioned in my last post.

Essentially what Fenris stated is true, and some Muslims believe that wearing a headscarf is required by their interpretation of the laws set out in the Sunnah and ruled upon by their ulema and informed by their cultural norms and the practical manifestation of the requirement set out in the Qu'ran and Sunnah......which incidently is what the website you quoted said.

 

[bitslice]

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!

I'm sure this comes under the "being offensive to other religions" forum rule?
Not sure wether to report it or to publicly define your idiot status

Post #51 says this better though

 

[dirtychinchilla]

I'm sure this comes under the "being offensive to other religions" forum rule?

Not sure wether to report it or to publicly define your idiot status

Why? We can disagree with anything we want to.

 

[estebanrey]

With respect you do not have the knowledge of Islam to disagree with his reasoning, and an Islamic website doesn't equate to 'truth' either as Islamic Traditions are not settled by consensus.

The point is that while some Muslim do not believe that the headscarf is required, others do and fiqh is such that both interpretations can be accepted as required dependent on the Juris accepted by the individual.

Islam is not a religion predicated by consensus...it has no unified theology. It is dependent on many criteria, some of which I mentioned in my last post.

Essentially what Fenris stated is true, and some Muslims believe that wearing a headscarf is required by their interpretation of the laws set out in the Sunnah and ruled upon by their ulema and informed by their cultural norms and the practical manifestation of the requirement set out in the Qu'ran and Sunnah......which incidently is what the website you quoted said.

None of which adds to the actual debate I was having with Fenris which was about justifying the headscarf for employees whilst banning the cross.

I'm fully aware SOME Muslims think the head scarf is required so I don't know why you've bothered to essentially just write the same thing as I've already said.

My point here is that some Christians, even if it's only the two women in the article, believe they need to wear the cross so how can you justify the Muslims right to the headscarf and overrule the Christians when there is no consensus on either issue from either religion?

At what percentage of your followers having to believe they need to do X does X become part of company policy, that is what I'm getting at here.