One for Des

Define "religious symbolism". Especially as they are allowing people
to still wear crosses..

Phil

 

IT IS STILL DISCRIMINATION AGAINST SOMEONE ON THE BASIS OF RELIGION!

Is that too hard to understand?

Yes it does. It discriminates against *anyone* who disagrees with the
States stance on religion.

For a lot of people banning them from wearing stuff mandated by their
religion (think Jewish skullcap here - boys are *not* allowed to
go out without wearing one) is equivalent to banning their religion.

And from now on I am banning you from using any Christian phrases
in your speech because (as you are a Government employee) you are
forbidden to use any religious symbolism.

"Displaying signs of their religion" is often an integral part of
that religion..

Phil

 

By being intolerant of religion and practising their own bigotry?

And you still haven't explained how someone
else wearing a religious symbol infringes *your* freedom..

Nice start..

Phil

 

Except the majority of attitudes in the UK are derived from the
Norman-French feudal system and not the Anglo-Saxon system that
preceeded it.

Oh - and from Roman Law. Which of course is notoriously Angle-Saxon.

And BTW - I object to your racism.

Which is why membership in a lot of organisations is banned..

Phil

 

And just how is wearing a skullcap because you are a Jew "forcing
religious education" on someone else?

Phil

 

You snipped the whole point of that you wooly headed ****

 

Not about religion Boots, really. My experiences of it are very neutral.

 

Quite
The French jews are being *very* two faced about this in their silence
because everyone knows it's an attack on muslims. If it had been couched as
an attack on wearing skull caps the world media would be in uproar.

 

AR hits it on the head *again*

 

Err, I don't think so. If they are they shouldn't be (except under
clothing, of course).

 

You say that like it's a bad thing.

 

And a thinly veiled attack at that.

 

One point that you seem to be missing, however, is that this is not a
new rule. When the parents and grandparents of the current generation
decided to move to France, they took the decision to accept its laws,
and several generations of muslims have happily gone through the
French schooling system not wearing said headscarves etc.

It's hypocritical of them, to say the least, to now turn round and
demand that he law be changed because they've decided to stand up for
something they've been quite happy to ignore for the last 50-odd
years..

Hypocrisy, from a religious group? Surely not...

 

^^^^^^

Enough!

 

Oh, is that it? Well, I don't happen to believe that anyone has a
'right' to practise their chosen religion. In this case, where some
_new_ parts of it (or at least, newly important to the new radicals)
counter the state law, I don't think they've got a leg to stand on.

It'd be a bit like setting up a catholic church in Saudi Arabia and
demanding the law change to allow alcoholic communion wine to be
served.

Nope, I can go much lower than that.

 

You are Hog AICMF bottle of Ultraseal

 

Which is just stupid (see below)

This clothing, just clothing remember.
Next it's to be an offence to display coloured skin, because that marks them
out as most likely Muslim too. Bring on the bleach.

Jacko saw this whole thing coming didn't he!

 

And if your religion is one that *requires* you to display that sign..?

Phil

 

Really? How about the 'right' to ride a bike? The 'right'
to buy alcoholic drink? The 'right' to belong to a political party?

Phil

 

Well, I'm firmly in favour of these two, obviously, although there are
many places where demanding that you had a 'right' to the second would
land you in serious trouble.

If you say so.