Jack Straw and the Muslims!

CiaranC

Wicknight wrote:

Does that hold for Catholic nuns and preists too?

Well, yeah, it does.

They obviously want to mark themselves out from the laiety.

Yes, lets decide legal/cultural policy and norms based on the reaction of babies

Babies arent the only ones who think grown women dressed head to toe in black with only a slit for their eyes is creepy and wierd.

Zombrex

CiaranC wrote:

Well, yeah, it does.

They obviously want to mark themselves out from the laiety.

And is that a bad thing? Should we not tolerate nuns and preists as they are attempting to identify themselves by their dress?

CiaranC

Should we not tolerate nuns and preists

I'll admit it, Ive a low tolerance of these swine also.

No sooner than we've shaken off the catholics, the PC brigade tell us we're supposed to start tolerating islamists now!

What next? Down with tolerance I say!

Conar

Wicknight I think most people here are talking about the face being covered.
I can't think of any nuns that have a full facial covering.

Sesshoumaru

Wicknight why do you keep talking about nuns and priests? I don't care how nuns and priests dress. They're a bit odd for sure, but they don't go around covering up their faces and that is what we are talking about here! Please start a seperate thread on nuns clothing if you want, but don't drag this thread off topic please.

HelterSkelter

Sessshoumaru, I've gathered that you don't like women wearing the veil but what do you think should be done about it? Do you think it should be banned or are you taking the Jack Straw approach where you would prefer if people didn't wear it but if they want to then it is their choice?

Sesshoumaru

Wicknight wrote:

Does that hold for Catholic nuns and preists too?

Well I don't recall anyone being born a priest or nun. That is something they choose when they become an adult. Although I would feel more comfortable if that choice was made after they had an entirely secular education.

Wicknight wrote:

That it is ok to express your religion through what you choose to wear? No?

What does having school girls taught by women who refuse to have sex and who cover up most of their bodies (ie nuns) teach young impressionable girls? That they should cover up their bodies and not have sex? Or what about the preists who also refuse to have sex, and who dress in all black? That boys should not have sex and that they should not dress in flamboyant colourful clothes?

I'm sure that is what the Catholic church hope having nuns teaching girls achieves, but it doesn't seem to work very well.

I don't want to repress peoples right to wear religous clothing. But it shouldn't be allowed in schools, workplaces or government offices. The state needs to be entirely secular or it just won't work. None of this faith school crap.

CiaranC

I don't want to repress peoples right to wear religous clothing. But it shouldn't be allowed in schools, workplaces or government offices. The state needs to be entirely secular or it just won't work. None of this faith school crap.

Agreed. A line has to be drawn.

Things were appalling in this country before people stopped tolerating religious zealots and their wacky ideas. No need to reverse that position now.

HelterSkelter

Sesshoumaru wrote:

Well I don't recall anyone being born a priest or nun. That is something they choose when they become an adult. Although I would feel more comfortable if that choice was made after they had an entirely secular education.



I don't want to repress peoples right to wear religous clothing. But it shouldn't be allowed in schools, workplaces or government offices. The state needs to be entirely secular or it just won't work. None of this faith school crap.

So what should be banned? Should Hijabs be allowed? What about Turbins? What about a cross & chain around the neck?

Sesshoumaru

HelterSkelter wrote:

Sessshoumaru, I've gathered that you don't like women wearing the veil but what do you think should be done about it? Do you think it should be banned or are you taking the Jack Straw approach where you would prefer if people didn't wear it but if they want to then it is their choice?

I'd take the Jack Straw approach. Try and educate them on why we believe its bad to wear the veil. But I would also ban it(and all other religous clothing) in schools, workplaces and government offices. Religion is/should be a personal thing for an individual.

Sesshoumaru

HelterSkelter wrote:

So what should be banned? Should Hijabs be allowed? What about Turbins? What about a cross & chain around the neck?

If they want to wear those out in the street, at home or while having a meal in a restaurant, sure I can tolerate it. Just not in the places I've mentioned in my previous post.

Zombrex

Conar wrote:

Wicknight I think most people here are talking about the face being covered.

Yes but they are just picking that because its what Muslims do. We see "strange" get outfits and get up all the time in our own culture and no one bats an eyelid.

The argument that you actually need to see someones face to communicate with them is totally bogus. Phones prove that fact in an instant, never mind that fact that some Muslims parts of the world have carried on this tradition for hundreds of years and still communicated with each other.

So the only thing left is the fact that it is strange to us.

But what makes a person uncomfortable, or what seems strange to someone is a completely relative thing.

You either respect others or you don't.

Zombrex

Sesshoumaru wrote:

Wicknight why do you keep talking about nuns and priests? I don't care how nuns and priests dress. They're a bit odd for sure, but they don't go around covering up their faces and that is what we are talking about here!

Thats only because its Muslims doing this. If nuns where covering their faces I doubt anyone would give two sh*ts, since we are far more tolerant and respectful towards our own weird habits (pardon the pun), but heaven forbit the foreigners should have any.

HelterSkelter

Sesshoumaru wrote:

I'd take the Jack Straw approach. Try and educate them on why we believe its bad to wear the veil. But I would also ban it(and all other religous clothing) in schools, workplaces and government offices. Religion is/should be a personal thing for an individual.

So you are going to tell the nuns and priests that run so many of our schools that they are no longer allowed to wear any religious symbols? That they have to dress in ordinary laymans clothes?

Sesshoumaru

HelterSkelter wrote:

So you are going to tell the nuns and priests that run so many of our schools that they are no longer allowed to wear any religious symbols? That they have to dress in ordinary laymans clothes?

No I would tell them they are not allowed run those schools. Same goes for Muslims, Jews etc. I'm a fair man

Zombrex

Sesshoumaru wrote:

I don't want to repress peoples right to wear religous clothing. But it shouldn't be allowed in schools, workplaces or government offices. The state needs to be entirely secular or it just won't work. None of this faith school crap.

Sigh ... you aren't a big fan of religous freedom are you :rolleyes:

Secularity doesn't mean no religion is allowed

It means EVERY religion is allowed

It means there is no offical religion held with higher regard or sponsorship than any other. It doesn't mean you ban religion altogether.

If someone wants to wear a cross into a civil service job that is fine. They have a right to believe in what they wish, and a right to express this belief in how they dress.

That doesn't mean that the State that they work for is offically sponsoring this religion, or giving more weight to this religion, over any other. That would be nonsense. The State is secular, which gives the person the freedom to worship what ever religion they wish in the first place.

CiaranC

Wicknight wrote:

You either respect others or you don't.

So its OK for a religious person to insist their face be covered, even when it isnt the custom in the country they are in, and in fact makes people distinctly uncomfortable. Respect only works one way it seems.

we are far more tolerant and respectful towards our own weird habits (pardon the pun), but heaven forbit the foreigners should have any.

Its nothing to do with race or nationality, its about religion. The former cant be changed, the latter is a set of beliefs and values, which can. Two different things.

An Irish woman in a veil doesnt make me feel any more or less comfortable with the idea.

HelterSkelter wrote:

So you are going to tell the nuns and priests that run so many of our schools that they are no longer allowed to wear any religious symbols? That they have to dress in ordinary laymans clothes?

Frankly, Id prefer if the state took over the running of the schools altogether, which would solve that problem.

Sesshoumaru

Wicknight wrote:

Thats only because its Muslims doing this. If nuns where covering their faces I doubt anyone would give two sh*ts, since we are far more tolerant and respectful towards our own weird habits (pardon the pun), but heaven forbit the foreigners should have any.

Wicknight I can assure you, I am equally intolerant of all religions. I don't care what sun god you worship, its all a bunch of superstitous nonsense to me. If nuns & priests decided tomorrow to start wearing a full ninja mask I'd be giving out about them just as much.

Conar

Wicknight wrote:

Yes but they are just picking that because its what Muslims do. We see "strange" get outfits and get up all the time in our own culture and no one bats an eyelid.

The argument that you actually need to see someones face to communicate with them is totally bogus. Phones prove that fact in an instant, never mind that fact that some Muslims parts of the world have carried on this tradition for hundreds of years and still communicated with each other.

So the only thing left is the fact that it is strange to us.

But what makes a person uncomfortable, or what seems strange to someone is a completely relative thing.

You either respect others or you don't.

I really can't comment on everyones reasons but I get the impression that most people posting here have no problem with their religion.
I think that in todays society people should not be disguised from head to toe. Their face should at least be on display.
I do understand your points and they really make me think, thats the beauty of these kinds of discussions. I still feel that people shouldn't be walking the street with their faces covered. I don't think it is right for kids or adults, atheists or religious, men or women.

In relation to the Jack Straw thing if seeing a persons face is not neccessary then why do they need to see him in person. Would a phone call not suffice?

Conar

Sesshoumaru wrote:

If nuns & priests decided tomorrow to start wearing a full ninja mask I'd be giving out about them just as much.

I'll second that.

Sesshoumaru

Wicknight wrote:

Sigh ... you aren't a big fan of religous freedom are you :rolleyes:

Secularity doesn't mean no religion is allowed

It means EVERY religion is allowed

It means there is no offical religion held with higher regard or sponsorship than any other. It doesn't mean you ban religion altogether.

If someone wants to wear a cross into a civil service job that is fine. They have a right to believe in what they wish, and a right to express this belief in how they dress.

That doesn't mean that the State that they work for is offically sponsoring this religion, or giving more weight to this religion, over any other. That would be nonsense. The State is secular, which gives the person the freedom to worship what ever religion they wish in the first place.

Where did I say ban religion altogether? Although its such a tempting idea I said religion should be a personal thing. That means you leave it outside the door when you walk into a school or a workplace. Why don't you venture your opinion on faith based schools then? I want to know what you think? Where do you think we should draw the line on religion? This far and no further..... ?

Zombrex

Sesshoumaru wrote:

That means you leave it outside the door when you walk into a school or a workplace.

Why? You don't leave any other "personal thing" outside the door when you walk into a school or a workplace. Do you think that everyone should wear the same tie as well?

Sesshoumaru wrote:

Why don't you venture your opinion on faith based schools then? I want to know what you think?

I think private faith based schools are prefectly fine. I think public schools should be secular, since they represent the state, which means they accepting of all religious demoninations and hold no one particular religion in any higher regard than any other. I think all public school students should have an R.E class where they learn about all different types of world religions and the cultures they appear in. Maybe then we would haven't such the ignorance one finds on this thread about Muslims or people of other faiths.

Sesshoumaru wrote:

Where do you think we should draw the line on religion?

When one persons religious pratice is in conflict with the rights of others.

Wearing a veil, or a cross, doesn't do this. Not even slightly.

CiaranC

Wicknight, Would you approve of a teacher or civil servant wearing a symbol of militant catholicism in Ireland then? Like a youth defence badge? Or militant protestantism in the north. Mr Brown wearing his sash for his shift in the DMV?

Conar

CiaranC wrote:

Wicknight, Would you approve of a teacher or civil servant wearing a symbol of militant catholicism in Ireland then? Like a youth defence badge? Or militant protestantism in the north. Mr Brown wearing his sash for his shift in the DMV?

Or an inverted cross?

Zombrex

Conar wrote:

I really can't comment on everyones reasons but I get the impression that most people posting here have no problem with their religion.

Which thread have you been reading?

According to posts on this thread -

- Wearing the veil means you are an extreme Muslim, most likely prone to sympaty to terrorists or being a terrorist yoursefl

- Wearing the veil means one can't tell if the Muslim is lying or not (seemingly Muslims lie a lot)

- Wearing the veil means you are quite probably a terrorist, and should not be allowed on buses or trains since you are clearly trying to hide your face from CCTV cameras.

- Wearing the veil means you support the Taliban

- Wearing the veil means you support the Islamic mistreatment of women, or the Islamic idea that women are property of men (which isn't actually and idea of Islam, but people shouldn't let details like that get in the way)

Pretty much all the objections to the veil are centered around the fact that it is Muslims doing the wearing.

Conar wrote:

I don't think it is right for kids or adults, atheists or religious, men or women.

I am still failing to see how it effects anyone in the slightest way?

Conar wrote:

In relation to the Jack Straw thing if seeing a persons face is not neccessary then why do they need to see him in person. Would a phone call not suffice?

You would think so. The only time I ever call into my doctor is when I'm being physcially examined. Otherwise I just ring my doctor, mainly because I couldn't be arsed taking time off work and travelling for an hour on public transport just to have a converstation that would be exactly the same as if I was speaking to her on the phone. There is no bonus to seeing her face (apart from that fact she is kinda cute, in a doctor kinda way), and it certainly isn't a desperate requirement.

Zombrex

CiaranC wrote:

Wicknight, Would you approve of a teacher or civil servant wearing a symbol of militant catholicism in Ireland then?

I don't "approve" of Muslim women wearing the veil. I think it is stupid. But I am tolerant of it because it isn't up to me, its up to them. I respect the persons right to be stupid.

And I would be tolerant of someone wearing a symbol of "militant catholicism" (what ever that means).

You don't have to agree or approve of the practice yourself. Where did you get that idea?

So long as they are not setting out to cause major offense to people, or not attempting to incite hatred etc, I don't see the problem. I wouldn't approve of someone wearing a sign that said "I raped Paddy's sister and she loved it" into work if his boss was called Paddy, for example. But people wear anti-abortion buttons all the time, or other person symbols, some quite privately, others on public display.

Zombrex

Conar wrote:

Or an inverted cross?

Whats wrong with an inverted cross? That a sign of the anti-christ or something ... God, religion is funny, Jesus=cross, upside down cross= not jesus .. I would probably find that funny more than anything else.

Conar

Wicknight wrote:

Whats wrong with an inverted cross? That a sign of the anti-christ or something ... God, religion is funny, Jesus=cross, upside down cross= not jesus .. I would probably find that funny more than anything else.

Me too......just thowing it out there.

CiaranC

I was talking about the specific case of wearing the veil in a school or civil service job etc.

In my opinion, aside from the fact that it is disconcerting and strange to the westerner, wearing the veil is a political and religious statement analgous to wearing the sash or a youth defence pin. They are statements about rather extreme interpretations of religious beliefs, none of which I like or am comfortable with. I do realise we live in a free society, and people are free to have loony ideas if they like. In the same way, people are free to respectfully ask others not to wear such things which they are uncomfortable with.

Which brings us back to the issue of respect, which hasnt been addressed. Apparently its OK for a woman to wear a veil in the west, even though it runs contrary to western culture and makes some people uncomfortable. This is not at all disrespectful. But asking her to remove it is disrespectful. Who decides where the balance lies?

Also, how many western women do you know who would travel to somewhere like Iran and ignore local custom? Do you think many men would wear a tshirt with a cartoon of the prophet on it and explain it away as being reflective of liberal free-speech secular culture in the west?

Double standards methinks.

Sesshoumaru

Wicknight wrote:

I think private faith based schools are prefectly fine. I think public schools should be secular, since they represent the state, which means they accepting of all religious demoninations and hold no one particular religion in any higher regard than any other. I think all public school students should have an R.E class where they learn about all different types of world religions and the cultures they appear in. Maybe then we would haven't such the ignorance one finds on this thread about Muslims or people of other faiths.

So you're saying not only are faith based indoctrination schools ok, but your version of secular schools would also encourage this superstitous rubbish? Think of the children man!! They have simple easily programmed minds. How can you condone exposing young childrens minds to ancient superstitous beliefs in sky gods and such???

Wicknight wrote:

Why? You don't leave any other "personal thing" outside the door when you walk into a school or a workplace. Do you think that everyone should wear the same tie as well?

As long as you are not making any extra demands on your employer to accomodate your superstitous beliefs then I can tolerate this. I'm talking about rediculous stuff like exempting Sikhs from wearing motorcycle helmets. A workplace example might be perhaps in a company that operates shifts. It would be unfair for Muslim workers to demand they be given all the morning shifts just because they are unallowed to eat after the morning during Ramadan.

Wicknight wrote:

When one persons religious pratice is in conflict with the rights of others.

Wearing a veil, or a cross, doesn't do this. Not even slightly.

It violates my right to live in a harmonious society.