A society that does not allow crosses or veils in public is a dangerous one

N

NewsBoy

News Delivery
So the ideal of a society where no visible public signs of religion would be seen — no crosses around necks, no sidelocks, turbans or veils — is a politically dangerous one. It assumes that what comes first in society is the central political “licensing authority”, which has all the resource it needs to create a workable public morality.

More at link...
 
LOL! I guess that a straw man is appropriate in the Halloween season.

So, who does believe in a society that doesn't allow crosses and veils in public? Anyone?
 
OrnotBitwise said:
LOL! I guess that a straw man is appropriate in the Halloween season.

So, who does believe in a society that doesn't allow crosses and veils in public? Anyone?
Click to expand...
That depends on what you call public. Are the schools public? France definitely made its stance in this direction.
 
If the government is secular and doesn't endorse religion, then any government organisation should restrict religious iconography.

If people are weak enough to use religion, they should do so in their own homes.

It is only dangerous to ban it because the religious are like children and have temper tantrums at the drop of a hat....
 
AnyOldIron said:
If the government is secular and doesn't endorse religion, then any government organisation should restrict religious iconography.

If people are weak enough to use religion, they should do so in their own homes.

It is only dangerous to ban it because the religious are like children and have temper tantrums at the drop of a hat....
Click to expand...

Bull crap anyold.... a society that restricts this is a huge danger to all of our freedoms of religion...and freedoms in general....the government does NOT OWN ME OR MY PERSONAL EXPRESSION....

in our country congress CAN NOT LEGISLATE ANY restrictions on religion, especially in the public square....

thank God for the first amendment...!!! ;)

care
 
Bull crap anyold.... a society that restricts this is a huge danger to all of our freedoms of religion...and freedoms in general....the government does NOT OWN ME OR MY PERSONAL EXPRESSION....

I didn't advocate ownership of your freedom of expression by government.

I advocate keeping religious madness out of government. It is only on government grounds that I advocate restrictions. In your own home you are free to do as you like.

This is not a danger to freedoms in the slightest.

in our country congress CAN NOT LEGISLATE ANY restrictions on religion, especially in the public square....

thank God for the first amendment...!!!

Now this is dangerous, mixing the mental illness of religion with government. Just like in education, religion has no place there. Mixing the two leads you to the religious dark ages that the world is only just coming out of.

It has taken mankind millenia of social evolution to reach the Age of Reason, deliberately mixing religion and government sets you back.

Look at most Muslim countries for example, where the introduction of religion into government has destroyed most freedoms.....
 
Anyold, the first amendment guarantees freedom of religion in the PUBLIC SQUARE....freedom of religion on your own property in your own house was not the issue...but freedom from the government interfering in the public square, the public marketplace is forbidden....

Congress shall make no law, restricting the freedom of an individual's religion, if that means that nuns are allowed to wear their robes in the public square then this woman is allowed her own culture and religion and dress that goes with it....

What right do you have to tell anyone what to wear, outside of not wearing indecent clothing in public that would offend our children?

Like I said before, if there were rules that were in writing about a specific dress code when this woman was hired and she blatently broke those rules that she signed on to, then maybe you would have a "case", but if there was not....then she has every right to dress in this manner and she should not be fired for it.... PERIOD.
 
What right do you have to tell anyone what to wear, outside of not wearing indecent clothing in public that would offend our children?

If people have no right to state what people wear, what right do children have to not be offended? People don't have the right not to be offended. What is the moral case you can make that you can impinge your morality on one group, but they can't do the same to you? But that is beside the point.

If the teacher's religious insanity means she is no longer able to do her job, she should be fired.

If I come to work stoned, in a state that I cannot do my job, should I not be fired?
 
AnyOldIron said:
What right do you have to tell anyone what to wear, outside of not wearing indecent clothing in public that would offend our children?

If people have no right to state what people wear, what right do children have to not be offended? People don't have the right not to be offended. What is the moral case you can make that you can impinge your morality on one group, but they can't do the same to you? But that is beside the point.

If the teacher's religious insanity means she is no longer able to do her job, she should be fired.

If I come to work stoned, in a state that I cannot do my job, should I not be fired?
Click to expand...

How is she not doing her job anyold....? Prove it!

If the school system felt strongly about this then they would have had a dress code to prevent it, but they DID NOT, apparantly they did not feel it necessary...until now, until this muslim hatred crapola that you have jumped on the bandwagon with....

there is nothing wrong with her wearing her cultural dress, it can only teach children that there are other cultures that are different from their own and personally, I think this is a good lesson to learn...

As long as she is not preaching religion in the classroom, what she wears has no bearing....imo.
 
Last edited:
The dress code is an irrelevent issue. The reason she was suspended and that suspension was later upheld by an employment tribunal was because she couldn't do her job properly. When children begin to complain that they cannont understand what their teaching assistant is saying it creates a bit of a problem. Moreover, the fact that these were primary school children, some of whom didn't speak English as a first language increases the necessity to communicate face to face.

When she accepted the job, even though it isn't expressly stated in her employment contract, there is a naturally implied term that she can do the job to the standard of a reasonable teaching assistant...she couldn't.

There's nothing to stop her doing something else or attempting to find a school which will pander to her own religious needs.
 
AnyOldIron said:
Bull crap anyold.... a society that restricts this is a huge danger to all of our freedoms of religion...and freedoms in general....the government does NOT OWN ME OR MY PERSONAL EXPRESSION....

I didn't advocate ownership of your freedom of expression by government.

I advocate keeping religious madness out of government. It is only on government grounds that I advocate restrictions. In your own home you are free to do as you like.

This is not a danger to freedoms in the slightest.

in our country congress CAN NOT LEGISLATE ANY restrictions on religion, especially in the public square....

thank God for the first amendment...!!!

Now this is dangerous, mixing the mental illness of religion with government. Just like in education, religion has no place there. Mixing the two leads you to the religious dark ages that the world is only just coming out of.

It has taken mankind millenia of social evolution to reach the Age of Reason, deliberately mixing religion and government sets you back.

Look at most Muslim countries for example, where the introduction of religion into government has destroyed most freedoms.....
Click to expand...
Seems like just last month, AnyOldIron was trying to push the ridiculous notion that religion is growing, now we can see him switch arguments when it suits him.

I don't think many Muslim countries "introduced" religion into government save for say Iran, it was there from the start, if anything looking at religion even there you still see reforms, albeit more minor reforms to be more open. Look at Dubai for example.

I would also argue that as religion has ebbed, government has filled the void. Liberals simply look to government as their religion and provider/protector:
"Give us this day, our daily bread, er food stamps..."
 
AnyOldIron said:
Exactly my point Charver....
Click to expand...
LOL, if your point was really about her not being able to do her job because of language problems, then why are you sitting there arguing with Care4All over dress code?

This whole debate just reinforces to me that the real solution is to allow vouchers so people can have more choice and thus less strife in being stuck with a teacher that they do not want or strive to keep.
 
Seems like just last month, AnyOldIron was trying to push the ridiculous notion that religion is growing, now we can see him switch arguments when it suits him.

I don't think many Muslim countries "introduced" religion into government save for say Iran, it was there from the start, if anything looking at religion even there you still see reforms, albeit more minor reforms to be more open. Look at Dubai for example.

Religion might be on the wane in some countries, but that doesn't mean that religion is any less rampant.

Religion doesn't need to be 'introduced' into government, it spreads like an incidious cancer, step by step.

Religion now plays a major role in many governments, from the evangelical end-timer in the WH to the grinning evangelical in no.10.
 
LOL, if your point was really about her not being able to do her job because of language problems, then why are you sitting there arguing with Care4All over dress code?

I have said throughout this thread that the problem is about effective communication via facial expression, not the school's dress code. It was Care4 who stated that unless there was a dress code in place she can wear what you want...

If you read the thread, it prevents you typing bollocks and looking the fool....
 
AnyOldIron said:
Seems like just last month, AnyOldIron was trying to push the ridiculous notion that religion is growing, now we can see him switch arguments when it suits him.

I don't think many Muslim countries "introduced" religion into government save for say Iran, it was there from the start, if anything looking at religion even there you still see reforms, albeit more minor reforms to be more open. Look at Dubai for example.

Religion might be on the wane in some countries, but that doesn't mean that religion is any less rampant.

Religion doesn't need to be 'introduced' into government, it spreads like an incidious cancer, step by step.

Religion now plays a major role in many governments, from the evangelical end-timer in the WH to the grinning evangelical in no.10.
Click to expand...
Well the facts show you are wrong as always.
Take the quiz with factual references showing you are full of shit:

1. The words "under God" were not challenged to be removed from the pledge until what decade:
A) 1960's
B) 1970's
C) 1980's
D) 1990's
E) The present one

2. Gay marriage has only ever been allowed in America in which period of time:
A) 1800-1900
B) 2000-present
C)1950-2000
D)1900-1950

3. The 10 commandments sat on a courthouse for many decades before finally being removed in which president's term of office?:
A) Bill Clinton
B) Gerald Ford
C) George W Bush
D) George Bush Sr.

4. Which president was a Sunday School teacher, even while in office?
A) George W Bush
B) Ronald Reagan
C) Jimmy Carter
D) Bill Clinton

5. The number of atheists in GW Bush's America is growing?
A) True
B) False


Answer:
1. E - The present decade in 2004:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/14/national/main577944.shtml
2. B - The present decade
3. C - 2003
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/08/27/ten.commandments/
4. C - Jimmy Carter
http://www.ctlibrary.com/ct/1998/mar2/8t3046.html
5. True
http://www.mnatheists.org/beyond.html


Clearly we are moving away from what little religion exists in government. To claim the "religious right" is taking over this country or government is unfounded. In trying to remove some religion from government, yes there are people who object, but to claim their defense of religion somehow constitutes an "attack" on non-believers or that they are "pushing" religion on society is just completely false. It just isn't so.
 
1. The words "under God" were not challenged to be removed from the pledge until what decade:

Question for you. When was 'under god' introduced into the 'pledge of allegiance'?

a. 1960s
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top