No hijabs need apply.

A hijab is a harmless item of clothing that doesn't affect a womans life in any way. I have much greater reservations regarding the niquab, which keeps her hidden from view, affecting how she interacts with others and they with her, I see that as an oppressive garment, as is the bur'qa. Personally, I see no point at all in banning a headscarf. There is nothing oppressive about covering one's hair.

The hijab affects nobody apart from the wearer and anybody who objects to that is being unreasonable in the same way anyone who objects to a person wearing a cross around their neck is being unreasonable. Unless they're carrying it on their back, it's not exactly obtrusive.

I'm not sure the State should be given a say in how people dress.

222233

Candie wrote: »

The hijab affects nobody apart from the wearer and anybody who objects to that is being unreasonable in the same way anyone who objects to a person wearing a cross around their neck is being unreasonable. Unless they're carrying it on their back, it's not exactly obtrusive.

I'm not sure the State should be given a say in how people dress.

It's not unreasonable if it's against the dress code in a business or workplace.

I often think - Should all children be allowed to wear hats in class in primary schools? Because in most they aren't allowed to but if the Hijab should be allowed for certain pupils I don't see why students shouldn't wear whatever they please on their heads.

Widdershins

Candie wrote: »

A hijab is a harmless item of clothing that doesn't affect a womans life in any way. I have much greater reservations regarding the niquab, which keeps her hidden from view, affecting how she interacts with others and they with her, I see that as an oppressive garment, as is the bur'qa. Personally, I see no point at all in banning a headscarf. There is nothing oppressive about covering one's hair.

The hijab affects nobody apart from the wearer and anybody who objects to that is being unreasonable in the same way anyone who objects to a person wearing a cross around their neck is being unreasonable. Unless they're carrying it on their back, it's not exactly obtrusive.

I'm not sure the State should be given a say in how people dress.

As long as you think so that must be ok then. It's not you who is expected to wear one, is it? Nor are any of your freedoms being curtailed.

It's not the state in which the ruling was passed, it's the communities or families of the women who dictate that modesty garb should be worn in public, which is why women theoretically might not be free to go out if they are banned in a workplace. This was a theory raised in this thread. The piece of cloth isn't allowing or stopping them from having freedom, it's the controlling culture that does so. It's not the piece of fabric that is offensive, it's the fact that women are wearing what is a tool of oppression and some women here, are foolish enough to think those women choose it, as if they weren't brought up to believe in it, and had simply decided one day that a hijab might be nice.

I'm stunned at the ignorance. ''' The hijab affects nobody but the wearer and anyone that says it does is being unreasonable''. I again refer you to Iranian women campaigning to be free of the hijab. Not the niqab, not the abaya, the hijab. But they're being unreasonable?. Time to unfollow this farce of a thread.

Widdershins

Widdershins wrote: »

As long as you think so that must be ok then. It's not you who is expected to wear one, is it? Nor are any of your freedoms being curtailed.

It's not the state in which the ruling was passed, it's the communities or families of the women who dictate that modesty garb should be worn in public, which is why women theoretically might not be free to go out if they are banned in a workplace. This was a theory raised in this thread. The piece of cloth isn't allowing or stopping them from having freedom, it's the controlling culture that does so. It's not the piece of fabric that is offensive, it's the fact that women are wearing what is a tool of oppression and some women here, are foolish enough to think those women choose it, as if they weren't brought up to believe in it, and had simply decided one day that a hijab might be nice.

I'm stunned at the ignorance. ''' The hijab affects nobody but the wearer and anyone that says it does is being unreasonable''. I again refer you to Iranian women campaigning to be free of the hijab. Not the niqab, not the abaya, the hijab. But they're being unreasonable?. Time to unfollow this farce of a thread.

I've worked in countries where the hijab is routinely worn, and I can assure you that all the women I met wearing the hijab were anything but cowed and oppressed. I didn't interact with anyone wearing a full-face covering, so I imagine that might be rather different, but that's my personal, lived experience. The hijab has no effect on how a woman works, lives, interacts with others, and generally goes about her business. I am not ignorant.

If you read my post very carefully, you'll note that I stressed this is my opinion. I'm more than happy to read yours and interact politely, but I won't be called ignorant because I don't share your view as it is contrary to my experiences.

Again, I don't think it's particularly helpful to ban a woman from wearing a headscarf because it's a sign of an oppressive culture, but support a government telling people what they may and may not wear, and claim that this is not in fact oppressive itself.

Widdershins

Candie wrote: »

I've worked in countries where the hijab is routinely worn, and I can assure you that all the women I met wearing the hijab were anything but cowed and oppressed. I didn't interact with anyone wearing a full-face covering, so I imagine that might be rather different, but that's my personal, lived experience. The hijab has no effect on how a woman works, lives, interacts with others, and generally goes about her business. I am not ignorant.

If you read my post very carefully, you'll note that I stressed this is my opinion. I'm more than happy to read yours and interact politely, but I won't be called ignorant because I don't share your view as it is contrary to my experiences.

Again, I don't think it's particularly helpful to ban a woman from wearing a headscarf because it's a sign of an oppressive culture, but support a government telling people what they may and may not wear, and claim that this is not in fact oppressive itself.

What happens to some women when they don't wear modesty garb in regions where they are strict about it? It certainly does have an effect on their lives. It's wonderful that those women appeared to be free to you, in their hijab.

I take exception to being called unreasonable. I think it was ignorant to say objections to modesty garments are unreasonable. It is obviously either ignoring, dismissing or showing a lack of awareness of the many women who don't like or want modesty garments, and those who were indoctrinated into feeling they must wear them, and most importantly those who are at risk in any way if they reject them.

IF the state bans modesty garments I might not agree with that ban. But the government has not banned any of it. So how the government is oppressing anyone is a mystery.

Widdershins

Widdershins wrote: »

What happens to some women when they don't wear modesty garb in regions where they are strict about it? It certainly does have an effect on their lives. It's wonderful that those women appeared to be free to you, in their hijab.

I take exception to being called unreasonable. I think it was ignorant to say objections to modesty garments are unreasonable. It is obviously either ignoring, dismissing or showing a lack of awareness of the many women who don't like or want modesty garments, and those who were indoctrinated into feeling they must wear them, and most importantly those who are at risk in any way if they reject them.

IF the state bans modesty garments I might not agree with that ban. But the government has not banned any of it. So how the government is oppressing anyone is a mystery.

There is a reasonable argument that if you ban hijabs, that you're just condemning some women to never leaving the house again. If a woman is under such strict control that she has no choice in what she wears due to pressure by community or family, does anyone really believe that banning a hijab means she'll be free? No, she'll just be kept indoors.

It's just going to restrict the most restricted more, and unfairly dictate to people what they may or may not wear.

Since I don't believe a hijab to be oppressive, and I've no reason to believe that women who say they choose to wear them are lying and are adults making their own decisions, and that banning them will force those women who are forced to wear them to withdraw from wider society, I believe any move to ban them is counterproductive and unwarranted.

That is not an ignorant position to take. I will not be responding to you again.

Widdershins

Candie wrote: »

There is a reasonable argument that if you ban hijabs, that you're just condemning some women to never leaving the house again. If a woman is under such strict control that she has no choice in what she wears due to pressure by community or family, does anyone really believe that banning a hijab means she'll be free? No, she'll just be kept indoors.

It's just going to restrict the most restricted more, and unfairly dictate to people what they may or may not wear.

Since I don't believe a hijab to be oppressive, and I've no reason to believe that women who say they choose to wear them are lying and are adults making their own decisions, and that banning them will force those women who are forced to wear them to withdraw from wider society, I believe any move to ban them is counterproductive and unwarranted.

That is not an ignorant position to take. I will not be responding to you again.

Ok. I will concede that those women who haven't consciously been coerced into wearing one say it is their choice. Although I don't personally believe it can be a choice under the circumstances. It wasn't invented by a woman or for women's benefit, either. Not wearing it is to their detriment in some places. So it seems a strange choice to me, but then much of what religious people do and what they consider to be pious is a mystery to me.
When women only wear hijab because their society expects it of them and would not have worn one prior to their region coming under islamic state control, do you consider that oppressive?
Workplace rules restrict us in ways we aren't restricted in public, we all have to accept that in some way or another in some of our professional roles.Again, the government banning hijab would be quite different to this ruling.

Ah, have just seen your last word. That's ok, I'll continue to be unreasonable in the hope that women will wake up and stop defending the subjugation of other women.

pilly

Widdershins wrote:

Ok. I will concede that those women who haven't consciously been coerced into wearing one say it is their choice. Although I don't personally believe it can be a choice under the circumstances. It wasn't invented by a woman or for women's benefit, either. Not wearing it is to their detriment in some places. So it seems a strange choice to me, but then much of what religious people do and what they consider to be pious is a mystery to me. When women only wear hijab because their society expects it of them and would not have worn one prior to their region coming under islamic state control, do you consider that oppressive? Workplace rules restrict us in ways we aren't restricted in public, we all have to accept that in some way or another in some of our professional roles.Again, the government banning hijab would be quite different to this ruling.

You see this is why your posts could be considered unreasonable because you point blank refuse to even consider that it may be a choice for some women. It's actually quite arrogant to ignore others telling you that they've spoken to Muslim women who have a choice and choose to wear it.

I understand you don't get why religious people do it.

Doesn't mean you can keep telling others they're ignorant.

Widdershins

pilly wrote: »

You see this is why your posts could be considered unreasonable because you point blank refuse to even consider that it may be a choice for some women. It's actually quite arrogant to ignore others telling you that they've spoken to Muslim women who have a choice and choose to wear it.

I understand you don't get why religious people do it.

Doesn't mean you can keep telling others they're ignorant.

Do you understand what coercive control is?

And what was said was not that my posts are unreasonable, but thanks for that. This is what was said:

''The hijab affects nobody apart from the wearer and anybody who objects to that is being unreasonable''

I understand why some women think they do it. And why some religious people believe strange things. It does defy logic, though.

pilly

Widdershins wrote:

Do you understand what coercive control is?

I understand quite well thank you. You're trying a bit yourself by insisting on trying to convince people that your view is correct.

Sorry, not gonna work. I and many others disagree.

And yes it is unreasonable to object to wearing of a headscarf in my opinion and nothing will change that.

You asked another poster to not call you unreasonable. I'm asking you to not call others ignorant because they don't agree with your view.

Widdershins

pilly wrote: »

I understand quite well thank you. You're trying a bit yourself by insisting on trying to convince people that your view is correct.

Sorry, not gonna work. I and many others disagree.

And yes it is unreasonable to object to wearing of a headscarf in my opinion and nothing will change that.

You asked another poster to not call you unreasonable. I'm asking you to not call others ignorant because they don't agree with your view.

And you're not insisting your view is correct, and by calling objectors unreasonable, Candy wasn't either. No, the coercive control exerted over women from birth is somewhat different to disagreeing on Boards.

I'm sure Candie is not an ignorant person. I thought the comment was ignorant of peoples' reasons for objecting. As Candie has said she has finished responding, I will do the same. I'm sorry to have caused offense.

54and56

Omackeral wrote: »

I don't believe in God. My partner's friend holds a degree in microbiology (of all things!), works in a lab and is way more intelligent than I am and she does believe in God. Plenty of competent people from Gardaí to firemen to healthcare workers to accountants to teachers believe in God. You could miss out on some good candidates with that outlook.

I appreciate that may be the case but my policy has worked pretty well so far.

54and56

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Any measure looking at banning religious garb is wrong.

It violates the Freedom of Religion principle.

No one is banning religious garb. What you wear on your own time is up to you. What you wear when I'm paying you is up to me and if i want you to wear a uniform which doesn't include a head scarf or whatever then you either adhere to that or get another job. Thankfully the law supports this position.

LordSutch

I guess the hijab is a bit like a balaclava in that your face & identity are visually hidden. Same with the KKK head gear. (sharply pointed hat that includes a full-faced cloth mask with eyeholes).

LaChatteGitane

LordSutch wrote: »

I guess the hijab is a bit like a balaclava in that your face & identity are visually hidden. Same with the KKK head gear. (sharply pointed hat that includes a full-faced cloth mask with eyeholes).

*sigh*
The hijab does not cover the face ! :rolleyes:

LaChatteGitane

LaChatteGitane wrote: »

*sigh*
The hijab does not cover the face ! :rolleyes:

True, but if you freely allow the use of the Hijab, then how do you justify refusal of the Burka, or the Niqab?

Widdershins

Deleted User wrote: »

True, but if you freely allow the use of the Hijab, then how do you justify refusal of the Burka, or the Niqab?

Quite. Since they are worn for the very same reasons, how is one ok and the others not, since the others are more extreme expressions of the same piety and modesty.

Either you're ok with women (only women) having to cover up areas not usually associated with immodesty (I can't think of the word I want), or you think it's an imposition and a dangerous front line.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

No one is banning religious garb. What you wear on your own time is up to you. What you wear when I'm paying you is up to me and if i want you to wear a uniform which doesn't include a head scarf or whatever then you either adhere to that or get another job. Thankfully the law supports this position.

I agree with this.

LaChatteGitane

Deleted User wrote: »

True, but if you freely allow the use of the Hijab, then how do you justify refusal of the Burka, or the Niqab?

Quite frankly, I don't care what people wear, for whatever reason. But this thread is about the hijab and it is, to me, no different from a person wearing a hat or 'god-forbid' a shawl.
Why anyone would care is beyond me.

Widdershins

LaChatteGitane wrote: »

Quite frankly, I don't care what people wear, for whatever reason. But this thread is about the hijab and it is, to me, no different from a person wearing a hat or 'god-forbid' a shawl.
Why anyone would care is beyond me.

Nobody has to wear a hat or shawl, every day, in public. They won't be judged or at risk for not wearing one. That's why I care. I've tried to explain this to the best of my ability and have referred to Iranian women who campaign against the hijab so if it's still beyond anyone why some of us object, I'm sorry to hear that.

LaChatteGitane

Widdershins wrote: »

Nobody has to wear a hat or shawl, every day, in public. They won't be judged or at risk for not wearing one. That's why I care. I've tried to explain this to the best of my ability and have referred to Iranian women who campaign against the hijab so if it's still beyond anyone why some of us object, I'm sorry to hear that.

People here have been going over this time and time again, to explain to you, to the best of their ability that we are notin Iran but in a western society where there is religious freedom and a freedom to wear what we want.

You don't seem to grasp that by not allowing muslim women to wear a hijab, whether they are coerced or not, we are in fact making their lives much more difficult and unbearable. How is that fair ?

Widdershins

LaChatteGitane wrote: »

People here have been going over this time and time again, to explain to you, to the best of their ability that we are notin Iran but in a western society where there is religious freedom and a freedom to wear what we want.

You don't seem to grasp that by not allowing muslim women to wear a hijab, whether they are coerced or not, we are in fact making their lives much more difficult and unbearable. How is that fair ?

And I've been going over this to explain my view to you. So no need to patronise me as if I'm stupid.

Why would not being able to wear hijab (to work) in Britain make life unbearable for a British woman unless she has somehow developed seriously unhealthy ideas about her own modesty in connection the the hijab, or else she is in an abusive relationship where she is in trouble if she doesn't wear it? Either way the ban is not the problem it's only that the result of the ban is a sign of a problem.

And I'm not in favour of banning hijab in public places, unless all religious garments were to be banned, even then, I don't know whether I'd agree until I had time to consider it carefully and look at the rules, and how they would be enforced.

LaChatteGitane

LaChatteGitane wrote: »

People here have been going over this time and time again, to explain to you, to the best of their ability that we are notin Iran but in a western society where there is religious freedom and a freedom to wear what we want.

You don't seem to grasp that by not allowing muslim women to wear a hijab, whether they are coerced or not, we are in fact making their lives much more difficult and unbearable. How is that fair ?

Fair? I'm more interested in their safety.

Tell me something. Say if there is a campaign of bombing in Europe, with hundreds/thousands killed, with various Islamic groups claiming credit...

Don't you think that with a very strong rise in far right ideas across Europe that these people will become targets because they're dressed differently, and essentially promoting that they're muslims?

But then you can wipe your hands and say that we gave them the choice (although there is no real choice if the law allows it). After all, we're not responsible for what other people decide to do in revenge.

Widdershins

If a religion, any religion, decided women should wear a gag or shackles in public, that would be permitted because of religious freedom too, and people would probably believe it if some women said ''i wear them by choice''. Growing up in Britain where hair worn loose or uncovered isn't seen as a sign of immodesty or promiscuity or anything like that, why should girls from some communities be raised to think that it is. It's the boys and men in a lot of cases who bully them into it. Just because Britain unlike Iran is not Muslim majority and it's happening parallel to what society on the whole does in Britain doesn't mean it's unimportant. Look at what these teenage girls put up with. This afaik only started in the 90's, it was more relaxed in Britain, before that. It's pretty much accepted now in 2017 and nobody's questioning it anymore, as evidenced here on Boards!


On a side note, it strikes me as interesting that it's the younger adherents who are getting more zealous. In Catholicism it's usually the older ones who are the most devout and strict. Probably something to do with Catholicism fading away nowadays.
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/why-they-cant-turn-their-backs-on-the-veil-islams-strict-dress-code-has-divided-young-muslim-women-1372931.html

LordSutch

LaChatteGitane wrote: »

LordSutch wrote: »

I guess the hijab is a bit like a balaclava in that your face & identity are visually hidden. Same with the KKK head gear. (sharply pointed hat that includes a full-faced cloth mask with eyeholes).

*sigh*
The hijab does not cover the face ! :rolleyes:

Oops, that would be the burka then!
I knew it was one of those foreign things.

Actually, the hijab looks quite nice, now that I know what it is :-)

Samaris

Deleted User wrote: »

Fair? I'm more interested in their safety.

Tell me something. Say if there is a campaign of bombing in Europe, with hundreds/thousands killed, with various Islamic groups claiming credit...

Don't you think that with a very strong rise in far right ideas across Europe that these people will become targets because they're dressed differently, and essentially promoting that they're muslims?

But then you can wipe your hands and say that we gave them the choice (although there is no real choice if the law allows it). After all, we're not responsible for what other people decide to do in revenge.

So your approach is that innocent people should change how they dress, how the look, and hope they don't look too dark-skinned or middle eastern too if it comes to that rather than, y'know, arresting and dealing severely with the people who make them targets?

There's common sense and then there's just telling these people "yep, you're going to be a target so keep your head down and you're forbidden from wearing clothes relating to your culture because it might trigger one of our nutjobs to hurt you. We're doing this because we care. Just not enough to actually protect you. It's your responsibility not to be attacked by a mob of xenophobic idiots and if you don't like it, go home." And if they were born there, well, I don't know, maybe they should blame their parents. Instead of it being made bloody clear to the thugs that bullying fellow Britons or indeed fellow humans just getting on with their lives because of their religion or nationality is not on.

There is choice - for many. And like I choose to wear long skirts rather than short ones, or an order of nuns chooses to wear the habit, they should be allowed to have that choice. There is a problem that many other women do feel coerced/ARE outright coerced into wearing it and -that- is something that should be targeted. But banning all women from wearing it and pretending that it's not because many non-Muslims are afraid of Muslims (and Sikhs. Not because the Sikhs have done anything at all, just because way too many people can't tell the difference) is a bit hunting for excuses in my mind. Some of these issues need facing. But they're not being faced by victimising Muslim women further and saying "job done".

Widdershins

Widdershins wrote: »

Just because Britain unlike Iran is not Muslim majority and it's happening parallel to what society on the whole does in Britain doesn't mean it's unimportant. Look at what these teenage girls put up with. This afaik only started in the 90's, it was more relaxed in Britain, before that. l[/url]

I lived in England in the 70s & 80s, and i went to primary school with girls who wore trousers under their school uniforms, and long sleeves under their short sleeved shirts and hijabs on their heads. I go over regularly the past 30 years and i haven't noticed any difference.
There are still girls i went to school with wearing those clothes, there are some of them still wearing the hijab, there are also others who have stopped wearing those garments altogether.

Samaris

Samaris wrote: »

So your approach is that innocent people should change how they dress, how the look, and hope they don't look too dark-skinned or middle eastern too if it comes to that rather than, y'know, arresting and dealing severely with the people who make them targets?

Whereas your approach is to ignore the wave of anger/hatred sweeping Europe, and help place a rather distinctive target on their backs?

I'm not suggesting any official movement to restrict Muslims beyond the very public dress that you and others wish to encourage. You seem to believe that you can place everything at the feet of official channels. You don't think vigilante groups or mobs will target Muslims based on their appearance?

There's common sense and then there's just telling these people "yep, you're going to be a target so keep your head down and you're forbidden from wearing clothes relating to your culture because it might trigger one of our nutjobs to hurt you. We're doing this because we care. Just not enough to actually protect you. It's your responsibility not to be attacked by a mob of xenophobic idiots and if you don't like it, go home." And if they were born there, well, I don't know, maybe they should blame their parents. Instead of it being made bloody clear to the thugs that bullying fellow Britons or indeed fellow humans just getting on with their lives because of their religion or nationality is not on.

Tell me honestly. Do you genuinely believe that our police services can protect muslims if public opinion swings towards extremist responses?

There is choice - for many. And like I choose to wear long skirts rather than short ones, or an order of nuns chooses to wear the habit, they should be allowed to have that choice. There is a problem that many other women do feel coerced/ARE outright coerced into wearing it and -that- is something that should be targeted. But banning all women from wearing it and pretending that it's not because many non-Muslims are afraid of Muslims (and Sikhs. Not because the Sikhs have done anything at all, just because way too many people can't tell the difference) is a bit hunting for excuses in my mind. Some of these issues need facing. But they're not being faced by victimising Muslim women further and saying "job done".

Banning the display of a religious dress outside their home or religious buildings is the most fair solution if applied to all religions equally. And it would likely go a long way towards reducing tensions since their apparel wouldn't be the red flag flapping in the face of the bull.

Are you aware of the change in political/social thought currently sweeping through Europe? Even if the majority of Europeans don't turn to hatred or violence, that still leaves a rather large amount of people who have rather strong feelings towards Islam, and not particularly interested in separating the peaceful ones from the extremist ones.

I'm not saying that religious apparel should never be allowed. I'm saying this is a rather bad time to be encouraging it. Later, when the world has settled down, and we have managed to solve some of the problems coming from extremist Islamic groups, then, we can look to giving those freedoms to them.

Widdershins

bubblypop wrote: »

I lived in England in the 70s & 80s, and i went to primary school with girls who wore trousers under their school uniforms, and long sleeves under their short sleeved shirts and hijabs on their heads. I go over regularly the past 30 years and i haven't noticed any difference.
There are still girls i went to school with wearing those clothes, there are some of them still wearing the hijab, there are also others who have stopped wearing those garments altogether.

Our experiences are different. It happens. Maybe from different areas. There are many anecdotal reports of an increase in piety and pressure to conform to it in England. I've just shared one from back when it really kicked off, which was in the 1990s, did you see it? It describes how the Muslims of the 70s and 80s were less fanatical than their children later became, and how the boys bullied the girls in Tower Hamlets, to dress modestly. Denying that the hijab is more common a sight now seems a bit strange, though. Again, different experiences, fair enough.

It could be different areas for sure, i wouldn't know Birmingham, for example, at all.
I only heard of radicalised fanatical mulims in the last nearly 20 years. There will always be extremists, in all religions. But i believe that the more Muslims live on the west the more likely they will be to rejecting the more extreme parts of their religion.

Samaris

Good grief, klaz, of course I'm aware, I have been paying attention the last few years.

But the answer when there's a vicious undercurrent, from a policy perspective, is not to punish the victims. Violent extremists out there? Let's encourage them by showing that when they are violent and cause fear, it rebounds on innocent people instead, particularly the innocent people that the extremists doesn't like. It's the equivelent in school terms of punishing the victim of the bully because the bully is too difficult to tackle. It is craven and it will not work, because instead of punishing victimisation and cruelty, one punishes the victims and then looks hopefully at the bully as if to say "see, if I do it, you don't need to...so you'll stop now? Right? Right?"

From a personal perspective, people may indeed prefer not to call attention to themselves, especially if the popular opinion is "who cares, they're only Muslims", and that's fine. People should be allowed to take their own precautions to protect themselves. But public and social policy should not be "well, maybe if we disguise them a little, the xenophobes won't notice them."

And banning a religion or infringing on its freedom, (especially in rather spiteful-appearing ways like this) is the single best way to get people involved in it. Because then it becomes a fight for survival, not just a celebration of one's own private culture. Ban Irish in Ireland and you bet in ten years we'd all be speaking it!

Edit: Also, there is a difference between allowing something and encouraging it. I'm talking about not banning a freaking article of clothing that is important to many women. Doesn't mean that -I- feel it to be any more or less than a piece of clothing. But it is to them - and it obviously is to many of the people who are so terrified at the sight of it that they demand it to be hidden from society. And there is a lurking -fear- behind all this. No-one's scared of a Sikh turban (except the people that attack them because it "looks Muslim").

end of the road

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

I appreciate that may be the case but my policy has worked pretty well so far.

you don't know if your policy has worked because you don't know if those you employ actually do have a religious belief, because it's not something they are going to tell you.

Deleted User wrote: »

Fair? I'm more interested in their safety.

the problem is banning religious or other cultural clothing doesn't make those people safer. in fact, it could make things worse for them in terms of elements of their community.

Deleted User wrote: »

Tell me something. Say if there is a campaign of bombing in Europe, with hundreds/thousands killed, with various Islamic groups claiming credit...

Don't you think that with a very strong rise in far right ideas across Europe that these people will become targets because they're dressed differently, and essentially promoting that they're muslims?

But then you can wipe your hands and say that we gave them the choice (although there is no real choice if the law allows it). After all, we're not responsible for what other people decide to do in revenge.

even if muslims stopped wearing such clothing in that situation, the far right would still attack. they just attack anyone who is brown or black, because brown and black people, rather then religion is what they are against. religion is just a way to get at those of a different colour to them. which is why instead of banning clothing, the nutjobs should be dealt with hard.

Widdershins wrote: »

If a religion, any religion, decided women should wear a gag or shackles in public, that would be permitted because of religious freedom too, and people would probably believe it if some women said ''i wear them by choice''. Growing up in Britain where hair worn loose or uncovered isn't seen as a sign of immodesty or promiscuity or anything like that, why should girls from some communities be raised to think that it is. It's the boys and men in a lot of cases who bully them into it. Just because Britain unlike Iran is not Muslim majority and it's happening parallel to what society on the whole does in Britain doesn't mean it's unimportant. Look at what these teenage girls put up with. This afaik only started in the 90's, it was more relaxed in Britain, before that. It's pretty much accepted now in 2017 and nobody's questioning it anymore, as evidenced here on Boards!


On a side note, it strikes me as interesting that it's the younger adherents who are getting more zealous. In Catholicism it's usually the older ones who are the most devout and strict. Probably something to do with Catholicism fading away nowadays.
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/why-they-cant-turn-their-backs-on-the-veil-islams-strict-dress-code-has-divided-young-muslim-women-1372931.html

plenty of us have stated that pressuring people into wearing such clothing is wrong and where evidence of it happening exists it should be stamped out hard. however, implementing banns against such clothing will likely do more harm then good, and we have to recognise that some women do wish to wear it also. of course it is wrong that people are raised to feel they should wear such clothing, but realistically we have to decide whether we have one' making a choice to wear something that we don't agree with, or whether we make things more difficult for these women by implementing ineffective banns.

Folks, I would agree with you except that the anger that is growing is coming as a result of external sources. i.e. religious extremists.. and alas guilt by association is still a vey strong motivation for many people.

If there wasn't the pressure from ISIS, or other groups, I wouldn't have an issue with the Hijab (as long as the other more extreme dress wasn't allowed). However that pressure does exist and it is likely to grow worse. If we only had to concern ourselves with normal racism or bigotry, I would agree with you, and feel that our societies would adapt. I don't see it happening now though.

Still, I've said my piece. I understand your reasoning, and in normal times, I would agree with you. We're not living in normal times though. I honestly Hope you're right and I'm wrong.

54and56

No one here that I'm aware of is suggesting or supporting the idea that people should be free to wear what they want in their free time. I couldn't give a rats what someone wants to wear except when they are working for me and as an employer I have the right to require my staff to wear a particular uniform or follow a particular dress code that I define. If what you wear while working for me doesn't adhere to the dress code or deviates from the uniform you are in breach of your terms of employment.

I'm not religious but I support the right of people to practice their religion however they wish providing it doesn't impact on me or my business in any way and that's why I won't allow the wearing of any religious garb whilst working (unless it is underneath your clothing and not visible) or facilitate special breaks or time off work to go pray or whatever. Do that stuff on your own time like any other hobby.

Samaris

And yet, counter-productively, your answer is to make religion be a problematic factor in your workplace by essentially refusing to let anyone devout, despite it not affecting you in any way whatsoever, rent you their skills. You lose out on a huge sector of society in terms of skills and abilities. A less autocratic employer's gain. Just a bit ironic that the only one actually causing religion to interfere in your business is you.


Also, as a side-note, it strikes me that asking someone in an interview in classically "Catholic Ireland" if they believe in God is probably going to get fibbers saying yes under the impression that you're an interfering Catholic imposing your beliefs on them!

Widdershins

Samaris wrote: »

And yet, counter-productively, your answer is to make religion be a problematic factor in your workplace by essentially refusing to let anyone devout, despite it not affecting you in any way whatsoever, rent you their skills. You lose out on a huge sector of society in terms of skills and abilities. A less autocratic employer's gain. Just a bit ironic that the only one actually causing religion to interfere in your business is you.


Also, as a side-note, it strikes me that asking someone in an interview in classically "Catholic Ireland" if they believe in God is probably going to get fibbers saying yes under the impression that you're an interfering Catholic imposing your beliefs on them!

Imagine being asked that in Northern Ireland :eek: I wouldn't know what way to answer

54and56

Samaris wrote: »

And yet, counter-productively, your answer is to make religion be a problematic factor in your workplace by essentially refusing to let anyone devout, despite it not affecting you in any way whatsoever

I want staff who are logical thinkers and can be trusted to make good decisions based on the evidence available to them. People who are prepared to suspend logic and reason to blindly "believe" in anything (whether it's got a label called religion or or not) rank lower on my my selection criteria than those that don't believe in makey uppey stuff. Bad decisions cost money and I like to avoid that as much as possible. Simples

Samaris wrote: »

You lose out on a huge sector of society in terms of skills and abilities.

How so? What skills and abilities do people who believe in made up entities have that those who don't believe in such things miss out on?

Samaris wrote: »

Just a bit ironic that the only one actually causing religion to interfere in your business is you.

Religion doesn't interfere in my business whatsoever. I have no idea what you are referring to.

Samaris wrote: »

Also, as a side-note, it strikes me that asking someone in an interview in classically "Catholic Ireland" if they believe in God is probably going to get fibbers saying yes under the impression that you're an interfering Catholic imposing your beliefs on them!

That may be the case if that was on the questionnaire but it's not. Anyone with an IQ above 90 will realise giving equivalence to the loch ness monster, god, the tooth fairy and leprechauns is not a very "catholic Ireland" question and if they don't and they tick the box for believing in god when they don't in fact believe in god the questionnaire will still have done it's job in screening them out early as I wouldn't want someone who thinks and behaves like that working for me. Win win.

JackieChang

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

If that's the case how come we don't have terrorist women dressed in pyjamas planting bombs in Penneys?

Je_suis_Jean

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

How so? What skills and abilities do people who believe in made up entities have that those who don't believe in such things miss out on?

I hope you don't have a sudden cardiac event that requires urgent surgery. You might be unable to ascertain if your surgeon believes in a god before he or she saves your life.

I can't imagine how embarrassed you'd be given the above statement if your life depended on the life-saving skills of a theist.

You'd be morto, being forced to live instead of dying in defence of your position.

tomwaterford

JackieChang wrote: »

If that's the case how come we don't have terrorist women dressed in pyjamas planting bombs in Penneys?

Seripusly though....we are only a generation or two from this happening though

54and56

Candie wrote: »

I hope you don't have a sudden cardiac event that requires urgent surgery. You might be unable to ascertain if your surgeon believes in a god before he or she saves your life.

I can't imagine how embarrassed you'd be given the above statement if your life depended on the life-saving skills of a theist.

You'd be morto, being forced to live instead of dying in defence of your position.

I've been under the knife of a god fearing surgeon (two years ago) and had no problem with it. He was the best qualified and most experienced at what he did so I went with him and was very happy with the outcome. Haven't felt morto at all. Having said that, if there was a choice between two identically qualified and experienced surgeons and one believed in makey uppey stuff and one didn't I'd go with the latter.

Thankfully the success of the operation was down to the surgeons skills not his beliefs.

This is what I thought of as I drifted off to sleep when the anaesthetist started doing his magic

DEFTLEFTHAND

Jean have you ever heard the expression, "Only a fool thinks he knows everything."

There's a lot we can't answer, nobody alive knows for sure what happens when we die.

We must keep an open mind on these issues.

54and56

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Jean have you ever heard the expression, "Only a fool thinks he knows everything."

I have and I agree 100% with it which is why it's important to focus on what we do actually know, what we (as in society) are striving to discover and not waste time on makey uppey stuff.

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

There's a lot we can't answer, nobody alive knows for sure what happens when we die.

I'm interested to know what purpose the word "alive" has in your statement. There is no evidence of any sort whatsoever throughout the entire history of mankind that anything at all happens after we die. I understand why prehistoric man may have wanted to credit all the "big" questions e.g. where do we come from? why are we here? what happens when we die? to a universal being of some sort and to have a comfort blanket of living happily ever after when we die but why such thinking prevails today when we have sent people into space and discovered millions of planets etc is just lazy thinking in my personal view.

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

We must keep an open mind on these issues.

Exactly but how can your mind be truly open if you have predetermined that there is a god? I really do have an open mind. If it turns out in years to come that there is in fact some greater being out in the ether who is responsible for everything and provides those of us who pass his test of good behaviour (or whatever) with some sort of happy ever after when we die I'll accept the facts as I find them but until that day comes I'll continue to focus on current actual facts rather than alternative facts!!

Je_suis_Jean

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

I really do have an open mind. !

You really don't. You won't employ people who have different beliefs to you. You scorn people who believe in god because you do not.

I'm atheist. I don't ever believe it will turn out that there is some greater being in the universe. I don't believe there is any big reason for us being here, other than just luck. I don't believe anything will happen when we die, we just die.
However, I respect other people's beliefs, maybe because I'm entirely happy with my beliefs, I don't need to force them on others.

Maybe you are not as open minded as you would like to think.

Samaris

So, you don't get what skills a devout person could possibly have that a non-devout person wouldn't, but you were okay having life-saving surgery from this devout guy because he was the best man for it. Because religious belief and skill are nothing to do with each other but when it comes to your company, you choose to believe that their faith makes them less able for the job (but not when your life is at stake!).

Many people are devout in some way or another. Many people will answer yes. Therefore, you will immediately dismiss them from proving their ability to you based on their belief, i.e. prejudging their worth to your company. That's the bit where your loss, a more open-minded employer's gain.

However, you probably would never have known if they believed in a god or not except that you nose into it. So you make the problem for yourself. The only person that makes the existence of religion a problem for your company is you. Your choice. Just a daft thing to do and thus it entertains me.

As a side-thing, if you asked me that question at all, I would choose a job that where I was employed somewhere less nosey and judgmental, despite being far closer to an atheist than not. The biting off of one's nose to spite one's face as a company culture, coupled with the spiteful disdain of a large group of people would make me very dubious about the company overall. Afraid it works both ways.

Samaris

So, you don't get what skills a devout person could possibly have that a non-devout person wouldn't, but you were okay having life-saving surgery from this devout guy because he was the best man for it. Because religious belief and skill are nothing to do with each other but when it comes to your company, you choose to believe that their faith makes them less able for the job (but not when your life is at stake!).

Many people are devout in some way or another. Many people will answer yes. Therefore, you will immediately dismiss them from proving their ability to you based on their belief, i.e. prejudging their worth to your company. That's the bit where your loss, a more open-minded employer's gain.

However, you probably would never have known if they believed in a god or not except that you nose into it. So you make the problem for yourself. The only person that makes the existence of religion a problem for your company is you. Your choice. Just a daft thing to do and thus it entertains me.

As a side-thing, if you asked me that question at all, I would choose a job that where I was employed somewhere less nosey and judgmental, despite being far closer to an atheist than not. The biting off of one's nose to spite one's face as a company culture, coupled with the disdain of a large group of people would make me very dubious about the company overall. All the talk about logic and intelligence would also make be suspect the workplace could be spiteful against anyone not conforming to your expectations. Afraid it works both ways.

Je_suis_Jean

This statement here:

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

I've been under the knife of a god fearing surgeon (two years ago) and had no problem with it. He was the best qualified and most experienced at what he did so I went with him and was very happy with the outcome.

Contradicts this statement here:

What skills and abilities do people who believe in made up entities have that those who don't believe in such things miss out on?

Obviously you'd have missed out on your doctors surgical skills if you applied your difficult to believe system of screening employees to him prior to your surgery.

What your doctor does or doesn't believe obviously had no effect on his ability to do his job. Something to bear in mind.

54and56

bubblypop wrote: »

You really don't. You won't employ people who have different beliefs to you.

I really do and I can't not employ people who have different beliefs to me as I don't have ANY beliefs whatsoever, that's the entire point. How do you not get that???

My preference is to employ people who don't make decisions based on any sort of belief, I need people who make decisions based on evidence. If I run out of such people I'll have no choice but to lower my recruitment criteria but I don't see that happening anytime soon.

bubblypop wrote: »

You scorn people who believe in god because you do not.

No, wrong again. I don't scorn anyone. I actually defend the right of people to practice whatever hobbies they like in their own time, no one should be prevented from believing whatever they want. Doesn't mean I can't hold the view that I'd prefer to employ people who do not habitually choose to suspend logic and reason.

bubblypop wrote: »

I'm atheist. I don't ever believe it will turn out that there is some greater being in the universe. I don't believe there is any big reason for us being here, other than just luck. I don't believe anything will happen when we die, we just die.

Good on ya.

bubblypop wrote: »

However, I respect other people's beliefs

I don't "respect" other peoples beliefs but I do defend their right to believe whatever they want. I think all "beliefs" are worthless hokus pokus.

bubblypop wrote: »

maybe because I'm entirely happy with my beliefs

What atheist "beliefs" do you have? I thought the definition of an atheist is that they don't believe?

bubblypop wrote: »

I don't need to force them on others.

Why would anyone want to force their beliefs on others? That would be oppressive. One of the advantages about not having any beliefs is that you've no beliefs to force on others. I know some "evangelical" atheists who like to try and convert every religious person they meet to atheism and they are a royal pain in the ar$e. Whether you believe in a god or not is personal and not something you should impose on others as far as I'm concerned and that includes forcing your beliefs on people under the age of consent.

bubblypop wrote: »

Maybe you are not as open minded as you would like to think.

I really am. If it turns out some or all of the 4,000 "gods" which have been worshipped throughout history actually exist I'll accept the fact but until then.............

54and56

The clocks go forward an hour tonight and I have to be up at 8am to go to mass for a run so I'll leave you with this little gem:



Night night.

You look down at people who believe in god, which has been obvious from your posts on here.
You scorn them & discriminate against them in your business.

That's not open minded