Yet another poor persecuted christian

Undergod

philologos wrote: »

How is it telling them their belief is invalid?

Nurse: "I don't wear trousers, because of this passage of the Bible."
Judge: "WRONG. That's not what that means."

philologos

The McFarlane case is different and likewise that was ruled against because he didn't do what his employers contracted him to do.

The only cases that the Christian Legal Centre have brought that I actually broadly agree with are:
The case of Ben and Sharon Vogelenzang who were hauled through court for calling Muhammad a warlord.
The case of Eunice and Owen Johns who were rejected as foster parents for their unwillingness to promote homosexual acts as being acceptable in their own home.

Undergod wrote: »

Nurse: "I don't wear trousers, because of this passage of the Bible."
Judge: "WRONG. That's not what that means."

The judge is simply pointing out that trousers aren't exclusively men's clothing.

Newaglish

philologos wrote: »

The logic is as follows:

1. The passage cited forbids people wearing the clothing of the opposite sex.
2. Trousers aren't either male or female clothing in Britain.
3. Therefore the passage doesn't forbid the wearing of trousers

1. Women wearing pants was deemed a sin back in biblical times
2. Over time, people started paying less heed to this rule and women started wearing trousers (i.e. sinning)
3. The sin became a cultural norm
4. ???
5. God meant pants are OK

Just because a "sin" became normalised doesn't mean you can just change the word of God.

philologos

^^ There's no mention of trousers in the passage. If one wanted to go beyond saying "Don't wear the clothes of the opposite sex" one would need to look into exactly what men and women wore in Ancient Israel. If you want to do that go nuts. Let me know what you find.

Newaglish

philologos wrote: »

^^ There's no mention of trousers in the passage. If one wanted to go beyond saying "Don't wear the clothes of the opposite sex" one would need to look into exactly what men and women wore in Ancient Israel. If you want to do that go nuts. Let me know what you find.

It said not to wear clothes of the opposite sex. I'm working off what people wore when the book was written. Otherwise it's a pretty stupid rule. By that logic, who's the first woman who gets to wear the trousers? Why do trousers go from sinful to A-OK?

mikhail

Condatis wrote: »

How is a dress less hygienic than trousers?

They don't make surgical scrubs except with trousers.

MrPudding

philologos wrote: »

The McFarlane case is different and likewise that was ruled against because he didn't do what his employers contracted him to do.

Yes, the McFarlane case is different, on the facts, but the dicta of the judge is relevant to all cases of this type, so I repeat, please read it in full.

MrP

Undergod

philologos wrote: »

The judge is simply pointing out that trousers aren't exclusively men's clothing.

She thinks they are. That is her interpretation of her holy book. The judge's job is not to tell her otherwise. He is interpreting her belief for her; this is not okay, and it's not his job!

philologos

It's not about interpreting anything other than saying that trousers aren't considered exclusively male clothing.

Undergod

philologos wrote: »

It's not about interpreting anything other than saying that trousers aren't considered exclusively male clothing.

She thinks they are male clothing.

philologos

Undergod wrote: »

She thinks they are male clothing.

She can think what she likes. In British society and culture trousers are not exclusively male clothing. That's a valid point and it doesn't preclude anyone's right to believe anything else.

Undergod

philologos wrote: »

She can think what she likes. In British society and culture trousers are not exclusively male clothing. That's a valid point and it doesn't preclude anyone's right to believe anything else.

Exactly. She can think what she likes. The judge cannot tell her that she cannot consider trousers to be male clothing. That would be telling her how to interpret her belief.

philologos

They wouldn't be. They would be just saying that trousers aren't commonly considered to be exclusively male clothing. I don't have an issue with that if they are going to explicitly state that as her objection in court. Even without directly referencing the passage one could easily say that.

Newaglish

philologos wrote: »

They wouldn't be. They would be just saying that trousers aren't commonly considered to be exclusively male clothing. I don't have an issue with that if they are going to explicitly state that as her objection in court. Even without directly referencing the passage one could easily say that.

The point is that her interpretation of her religious scripture is twofold:

1. According to the particular passage, women should not wear men's clothing
2. According to the particular passage, men's clothing refers to pants, trousers, etc.

That's her interpretation of it. Sure, pants are commonly considered unisex clothing, but not universally. It's her religion. Yes, it's daft but a judge can't start telling her what parts of her religion are daft and what are reasonable. It's a slippery slope.

philologos

He can state what is a reasonable or an unreasonable objection. To state that trousers are exclusively male clothing is an unreasonable objection.

ShooterSF

philologos wrote: »

He can state what is a reasonable or an unreasonable objection. To state that trousers are exclusively male clothing is an unreasonable objection.

The point being made is they can't rule on it BECAUSE it's an unreasonable objection due to ambiguity because there are plenty of horrible passages in the bible that aren't as ambiguous and would be rejected on the point that they are against the rules. So for consistency you reject her claim too as it's against the rules. The minute you start arguing scripture you suggest that if the scripture was clearer you would allow it.

Can you not see that you are taking a blinkered look at this case?

philologos

ShooterSF: Please read my posts:

They wouldn't be. They would be just saying that trousers aren't commonly considered to be exclusively male clothing. I don't have an issue with that if they are going to explicitly state that as her objection in court. Even without directly referencing the passage one could easily say that.

MrPudding

philologos wrote: »

ShooterSF: Please read my posts:

You still haven't read the case have you?

MrP

Newaglish

philologos wrote: »

He can state what is a reasonable or an unreasonable objection. To state that trousers are exclusively male clothing is an unreasonable objection.

That's the way she interprets the bible. Can't you understand that?

ShooterSF

philologos wrote: »

ShooterSF: Please read my posts:

Look Phil, you're smarter than this and I an only see two options,One you aren't well and have missed the point made to you numerous times or 2: you are purposely being obtuse (which I'd expect more of others).

We could get into a discussion about what you think are male and female specific clothing but we're going off track. The point, again is, that the minute the courts begin to defend their decision based on peoples misinterpretation of the bible they give "better" interpretation of passages a level of authority they can't afford to. It doesn't matter whether they specify the passage or not as it appears their decision is only made because the claimant "misinterpreted" the passage rather than that the law is against her, which is the wrong image to portray.

philologos

If someone states that X is their reason then it is valid to engage in X in response as far as I see it. Even if they didn't cite the Bible and just said outright in court "I'm not going to wear trousers because they are male clothing" I would consider it acceptable to provide a response to that.

It's nothing about what you or I think about male and female clothing, it is about whether or not trousers are generally considered to be exclusively male clothing.

I guess I simply just disagree with you on this, if that makes me "obtuse" so be it.

MrPudding: I'm dealing with this case on its own merit not the McFarlane case.

Newaglish: I'm not an idiot

MrPudding

philologos wrote: »

MrPudding: I'm dealing with this case on its own merit not the McFarlane case.

Perhaps you are, but that is not how the courts work. The courts will look at a case on its facts and then apply previous judgements to it. You might not think the McFarlane case is relevant but please believe me, it is.

It is relevant not because the facts of the case are the same, they clearly aren't, but because the judge sets out where religious beliefs stand relative to the law and also sets out guidelines for how decisions relating to religious issues should be settled.

So I am afraid it is relevant to this case. If this woman does succeed in taking her case further it is almost 100% guaranteed that the McFarlane case will be cited and is likely to be the basis of the judgement.

Your continued refusal to read this case and appreciate it relevance is somewhat irritating.

philologos wrote: »

If someone states that X is their reason then it is valid to engage in X in response as far as I see it. Even if they didn't cite the Bible and just said outright in court "I'm not going to wear trousers because they are male clothing" I would consider it acceptable to provide a response to that.

There is a problem with this as well, as far as the courts are concerned. ShooterSF has tried to explain this to you, but you seem unwilling or unable to accept it. I will try. I the vast majority of cases the courts try not to make decisions on the validity of a person's belief, be it religious or otherwise. The courts like to interpret law.

When it comes to a persons belief in something, not related to religion, the court will generally only go to far as to try to establish if that belief is genuinely held and if it is reasonable. In some cases, the belief does not even have to be reasonable, as was the case with consent until the new sexual offences act.

The court will try not to get itself into a position where they are making value judgements on a persons belief. In this particular case this belief that she apparently holds is relatively harmless, unlike for example a belief that all ginger people are evil and should be stoned to death, so the court is not going to spend too much time analysing it. Any analysis that they do make will take into consideration the persons background and circumstances and whether or not other people might share this opinion. They will use this information to try to establish if this belief is genuinely held and if it is reasonable.

I think it seem pretty clear that whilst a judge, you or I might think this is a silly belief it is perfectly possible that it is genuinely held and further that it is not unreasonable. It is therefore unlikely that this case could be decided using the method that you propose.

MrP

philologos

philologos wrote: »

It's nothing about what you or I think about male and female clothing, it is about whether or not trousers are generally considered to be exclusively male clothing.

It's not about either of those things, it's about whether you are required to wear them or not at work, and that's the end of discussion
does the law have any say on it, recite the law, end of. no room for getting into discussions about personal feelings and beliefs

Zombrex

philologos wrote: »

She can think what she likes. In British society and culture trousers are not exclusively male clothing.

What a silly argument.

Nothing is exclusively male clothing anymore because the old idea of exclusively male clothing no longer applies. Women are no long required to look lady like. They can wear any male clothing they like.



This is in direct violation of the Biblical notion that was held valid up until about 150 years ago. The idea of a woman wearing trousers back then would have been a scandal. It is not any more precisely because women ignored these notions.

You can't seriously be arguing that the Biblical notion shouldn't apply anymore because people already ignore it?

Dades

I think there's an elephant in the room here.

Any lady that adheres to the Book of Deuteronomy for her dress code, is not going to be swayed in the least by any notion of trousers being unisex.

Reason has no place in this debate.

Penn

There is a simple solution to all of this. All we need is for a man to tell her to wear trousers.

"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." (I Corinthians 11:3)

"For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man." (I Corinthians 11:8-9)

Women have to do what men say, according to the Bible. Simple.



Wait.... I just thought of something....

Is it possible for a person to only use the Bible when it suits them, and ignore everything else? I know, it's a crazy notion, but.... is it possible?

robindch

Barrington wrote: »

All we need is for a man to tell her to wear trousers.

I like the way you're thinking

More seriously, I wonder if the lady concerned sticks to the rule about not wearing clothes cut from two different cloths?

Might be worth asking (from a safe distance).

Barrington wrote: »

Is it possible for a person to only use the Bible when it suits them, and ignore everything else? I know, it's a crazy notion, but.... is it possible?

Perish the thought!

Sarky

This means religious people can finally stop throwing hysterics over premarital sex, right?

Newaglish

Sarky wrote: »

This means religious people can finally stop throwing hysterics over premarital sex, right?

Yes indeed! According to philologos, if everyone does it, it's not a sin anymore.

philologos

Newaglish wrote: »

Yes indeed! According to philologos, if everyone does it, it's not a sin anymore.

If you've derived that from what I've said so far then you clearly:

• Haven't read my posts
• Haven't read my posts properly
• Obscured my posts intentionally

Trousers aren't explicitly prohibited in that passage, wearing men's clothes is. Trousers aren't explicitly mens clothes so therefore one isn't violating that passage by wearing trousers. It's nothing to do with majority rules.

As for honouring or dishonouring ones parents, stealing, committing adultery and so on these are explicitly prohibited.

Again, if you want to discuss the ins and outs of that over yonder is best.

I'm just saying that I would have absolutely no qualms were someone to say that trousers aren't explicitly male clothing in Britain in 2011.

Penn

philologos wrote: »

If you've derived that from what I've said so far then you clearly:

• Haven't read my posts
• Haven't read my posts properly
• Obscured my posts intentionally

Trousers aren't explicitly prohibited in that passage, wearing men's clothes is. Trousers aren't explicitly mens clothes so therefore one isn't violating that passage by wearing trousers. It's nothing to do with majority rules.

As for honouring or dishonouring ones parents, stealing, committing adultery and so on these are explicitly prohibited.

Again, if you want to discuss the ins and outs of that over yonder is best.

I'm just saying that I would have absolutely no qualms were someone to say that trousers aren't explicitly male clothing in Britain in 2011.

But philologos, the trouble is that the Bible passage in question is open to so much interpretation. Fair enough, there are women's trousers. But trousers began as male clothing, so in her opinion, even though they make trousers for women now, they're still men's clothes. Because the Bible contains no foresight whatsoever, that times will change.

So technically she's right. Her opinion that trousers are men's clothing, is a valid one to her interpretation of the Bible.

The trouble is, the Bible was written at a time when no-one could possibly have foreseen gender roles changing as they have. Because the Bible is not the Word of God (who would have such foresight and foresight to know that people would hold what he said literally), but is the word of Man, based on what Man perceived their God to want.

MrPudding

philologos wrote: »

I'm just saying that I would have absolutely no qualms were someone to say that trousers aren't explicitly male clothing in Britain in 2011.

But it is it not unreasonable for someone to hold that they are. I would not be surprised if there was a large number of people that shared this belief. Clearly large numbers of people believing something does not mean it is true, I am sure we can all think of something that large numbers of people believe but many think are rubbish, but it can be argued that the befief is reasonable.

MrP

philologos

Barrington wrote: »

The trouble is, the Bible was written at a time when no-one could possibly have foreseen gender roles changing as they have. Because the Bible is not the Word of God (who would have such foresight and foresight to know that people would hold what he said literally), but is the word of Man, based on what Man perceived their God to want.

The passage remains as it was when it was first written. It's application differs depending on what is generally considered to be male clothing. It has zero to say about trousers. As I've said to someone else, if they wish to lock a particular passage and its application to that time then they need to demonstrate to me what exactly the Ancient Hebrews wore.

However, even if they could, it has very little to do with the application of that passage in 2011 Britain.

robindch

philologos wrote: »

As for honouring or dishonouring ones parents, stealing, committing adultery and so on these are explicitly prohibited.

As are eating shellfish and wearing clothes cut from two different cloths.

Why are these rules less important?

philologos

robindch wrote: »

As are eating shellfish and wearing clothes cut from two different cloths.

Why are these rules less important?

The reason I posted here is to discuss this case. I've suggested if one wants to get any deeper into the theology of Torah law they should consider doing so over yonder.

Newaglish

philologos wrote: »

As for honouring or dishonouring ones parents, stealing, committing adultery and so on these are explicitly prohibited.

Well yes, but these are still commonly viewed as bad things.

The point I'm trying to make, and have made numerous ways already:

When the bible was written, the passage relating to men's clothing was referring to items of clothing including trousers. This can be interpreted in two ways:

1. Women shouldn't wear trousers as it was prohibited at the time and given that the word of God is infallible and whatnot, this shouldn't change
2. What is women's/Men's clothing items are dictated by societal attitudes in general and she should make a value judgement on that basis

All I'm saying is that she's plumping for interpretation number 1. Getting into a scenario where a judge is challenging her interpretation of the bible or the validity of her religious beliefs would be putting the legal system on pretty shaky territory.

Even if the passage didn't exist, if she's a member of a church which forbids evil pantaloons on ladies, that's her belief and her religion. Yes it's daft but that's how religion works.

twinQuins

philologos wrote: »

[...]Again, if you want to discuss the ins and outs of that over yonder is best.[...]

Uh, don't Christians always parrot the line that "the OT only applies to Jews"? If such is the case there really isn't anything to discuss.

monara

I am a Catholic and I have never considered the clothes I wear to have any connection whatever to my religion. Likewise my wife. If the lady wants to wear skins, or nothing at all, she can be sure that God will be equally indifferent to both. There are of course many religious nudists, people who wear only the clothes that God provides them with.:)

robindch

philologos wrote: »

The reason I posted here is to discuss this case.

And the shellfish and two cloths stuff is directly relevant, since it's what you refer to as "torah law" too.

philologos wrote: »

if one wants to get any deeper into the theology of Torah law they should consider doing so over yonder.

Let's see if we're brave enough to debate it here, eh?

philologos

It was my intention to post about the case here. The Christianity forum is better suited for a bigger discussion as to how relevant Torah law X or Y happens to be. Nothing about bravery, I just have no interest to turn a discussion that takes order n time into something that takes order n to the power of two time

Edit:

Even if the passage didn't exist, if she's a member of a church which forbids evil pantaloons on ladies, that's her belief and her religion. Yes it's daft but that's how religion works.

Even if the passage didn't exist (and it does only in so far as it forbids male clothing). If someone stated in court even on the most secular level that they don't want to wear trousers in work because trousers are male clothing. I think it is perfectly fine to respond by saying that trousers aren't male-exclusive clothing.

ShooterSF

monara wrote: »

I am a Catholic and I have never considered the clothes I wear to have any connection whatever to my religion. Likewise my wife. If the lady wants to wear skins, or nothing at all, she can be sure that God will be equally indifferent to both. There are of course many religious nudists, people who wear only the clothes that God provides them with.:)

Can you provide evidence for that?

Newaglish

philologos wrote: »

I think it is perfectly fine to respond by saying that trousers aren't male-exclusive clothing.

You and I can both say that pants are not male only clothing as that is the view held in society generally. Obviously her religion believes otherwise. You're asking for a judge to set a legal precedent whereby he rules that her religious belief that pants should not be worn by women is a misinterpretation of the bible.

kylith

From a bit of research men wore this kind of thing during biblical times


Therefore
A) the bible has nothing to say about trousers because they didn't exist so the position of trousers is cultural rather than religious, and this woman's complaint is nonsense
no woman should wear a dress, because they're male clothing