Jediphile Posted January 30, 2006 Posted January 30, 2006 It's a shame I stumbled across another article that contained this sentence:In January, Denmark's Supreme Court ruled that a supermarket chain had the right to fire a young Muslim woman for wearing an Islamic headscarf to work. Article Please explain to me if I'm wrong or mistaken (hell, I know I can be a little silly sometimes :"> ), but is that not a tad hypocritical? It's a private company. They have a dress code. Your religion can not force a company to change it's dress code and they are entitled to not employ you if you do not want to abide by it... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I see... that makes sense... so the whole thing about respecting people's religious freedom was a lie... ok... thanks for clearing that up for me Gorth <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Shouldn't people be responsible for the religion they choose and deal with the consequences? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yes, I think they should. After all, can you imagine someone working in a bank showing up for work dressed as a car mechanic? Everybody accepts that, but when religion is involved, people suddenly want all sorts of special priviledges out of respect for their faith. But faith is not some magical shield you wave around to make everybody submit to what you want, nor should it be. The dress code of a company will always be set by the employer. Personally I don't see the problem with someone wearing a headscarf in a supermarket, but then that's just the point - that's my opinion, and the employer doesn't have to agree with me. Visit my KotOR blog at Deadly Forums.
Lucius Posted January 30, 2006 Author Posted January 30, 2006 (edited) Anyone could invade us and win, except maybe luxenberg. Took the Germans about half an hour. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> 24 hours actually, not that it makes it much better. Oh and I just read that the European Union has stated that a boycott of Denmark is unacceptable (not to mention the threats) and would count as a boycott of the entire EU. Edit: and Saudis risk the case be brought before the WTO. Edited January 30, 2006 by Lucius DENMARK! It appears that I have not yet found a sig to replace the one about me not being banned... interesting.
~Di Posted January 30, 2006 Posted January 30, 2006 I'm sure y'all deserved it. After all, it's not like Muslims, or any other group of folks for that matter, ever decide to get offended and hate a country without a reason. They hate the USA because the US asked to be hated. Therefore, I'm sure Denmark asked to be hated too! :D Oh, the irony! /end joking sarcasm
Lucius Posted January 30, 2006 Author Posted January 30, 2006 As always Di you deliberately miss the point (big surprise), I'm not saying we don't deserve hate or boycotts, I'm just saying that they should suffer the consequences of trying to make one (EU, WTO etc), and also that the state has nothing to apologize for. Let them burn flags and hate for all I care, some backwards tyranny is not going to dictate what we can or can't say. DENMARK! It appears that I have not yet found a sig to replace the one about me not being banned... interesting.
Dark Moth Posted January 30, 2006 Posted January 30, 2006 Yes, I think they should. After all, can you imagine someone working in a bank showing up for work dressed as a car mechanic? Everybody accepts that, but when religion is involved, people suddenly want all sorts of special priviledges out of respect for their faith. But faith is not some magical shield you wave around to make everybody submit to what you want, nor should it be. The dress code of a company will always be set by the employer. Personally I don't see the problem with someone wearing a headscarf in a supermarket, but then that's just the point - that's my opinion, and the employer doesn't have to agree with me. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It's not the same thing. Besides, someone's faith is a little more serious than the matter you just described. Faith shouldn't be waved around as some "magical shield", but I think it's fair that society not try to repress or silence faith of any kind just because it might be a public place. In France, they're banning Muslim women from wearing headscarves, and Chistians from wearing large crosses. Is that fair? Why do they have to be silenced? Is it really too hard to allow some expression of religion in school or the workplace? Answer: NO. If the employer can't allow some room for religion, than that's his problem, not the employee's problem. You're attitude is: "They chose it, they have to deal with it", which in this case, is the wrong attitude to take. Public schools and workplaces should be a place of inclusion, not exclusion.
Lucius Posted January 30, 2006 Author Posted January 30, 2006 Whether or not his attitude is wrong is a matter of opinion, depends on how the individual views religion. I think it is the right attitude. Would you care for Satanic rituals at your workplace, for instance? Or does it only apply to Christian and Muslim rituals? DENMARK! It appears that I have not yet found a sig to replace the one about me not being banned... interesting.
Dark Moth Posted January 30, 2006 Posted January 30, 2006 Whether or not his attitude is wrong is a matter of opinion, depends on how the individual views religion. I think it is the right attitude.Would you care for Satanic rituals at your workplace, for instance? Or does it only apply to Christian and Muslim rituals? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It's the wrong attitude. If you can't put up with other faiths, then you have a problem. And did I say anthing about rituals? I meant simple forms of religious expression, like headscarves or crosses. What is wrong with them? I would have the same attitude if there were Hindus or Buddhists involved. And of course I wouldn't want a satanic ritual in my workplace (for one, they tend to be a little more inappropriate), but neither would I allow a Christian to serve Communion in the workplace either. Rituals/ceremonies are very different than simply what you wear.
~Di Posted January 30, 2006 Posted January 30, 2006 (edited) As always Di you deliberately miss the point (big surprise), I didn't miss anything. You, however, apparently did. Please open your Funk & Wagnells, and read the definition of "joking" , "sarcasm" and "irony". Also, there's no need for you to constantly add personalized insults. You can discuss the content of posts without ad hominems, and I respectfully request that you do so. I'm not saying we don't deserve hate or boycotts, I'm just saying that they should suffer the consequences of trying to make one (EU, WTO etc), and also that the state has nothing to apologize for. I'm not disagreeing. Any time one group of individuals moves into the territory of another group and tries to impose their values, problems are bound to arise. I certainly don't want the culture and values of others imposed upon me in my own home; I can see that you wouldn't either. Nor would the Iraqi people, for that matter, which is why Bush's vision for that country was doomed from the start, IMHO. I personally think forbidding religious dress and religious icons is a bit harsh, but that is because here in the USA we have more tolerance for various religions than some countries do. Let them burn flags and hate for all I care, some backwards tyranny is not going to dictate what we can or can't say. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> In other words, things look a bit different when one is the actual target rather than merely an univolved observer. Exactly so. You may wish to consider that when judging others. Edited January 30, 2006 by ~Di
Lucius Posted January 30, 2006 Author Posted January 30, 2006 You're right, but you just love to take jabs at me and so I respond. Mothman, I wasn't talking about wearing crosses, star of david, thors hammer or any of the sort. I thought you were talking about prayer rituals of that sort. We don't have laws against wearing icons, I wear Thors hammer myself for Christ sake. DENMARK! It appears that I have not yet found a sig to replace the one about me not being banned... interesting.
~Di Posted January 30, 2006 Posted January 30, 2006 You're right, but you just love to take jabs at me and so I respond. Mothman, I wasn't talking about wearing crosses, star of david, thors hammer or any of the sort. I thought you were talking about prayer rituals of that sort. We don't have laws against wearing icons, I wear Thors hammer myself for Christ sake. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ? I do not recall ever having (deliberately) taken a personal jab at you. I do not even know you. This is, however, the second or third time you've launched personal insults at me. I rather suspect we might have suffered a serious breakdown of communication somewhere along the way.
Lucius Posted January 30, 2006 Author Posted January 30, 2006 It might be a language barrier, who knows. Or perhaps I'm just stupid. DENMARK! It appears that I have not yet found a sig to replace the one about me not being banned... interesting.
Judge Hades Posted January 30, 2006 Posted January 30, 2006 Religion is a private affair and should be practiced in private. I agree with the ruling. It would be no different if it was a Jewish male wearing a yamaka to work or a Christian wearing a necklace with a cross on it. Religion has no place in public.
Atreides Posted January 30, 2006 Posted January 30, 2006 They want a UN resolution as well. lols. does this mean we are about to be invaded ? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No doubt the terrorists can dredge this up when it suits them. Spreading beauty with my katana.
Lucius Posted January 30, 2006 Author Posted January 30, 2006 (edited) Religion is a private affair and should be practiced in private. I agree with the ruling. It would be no different if it was a Jewish male wearing a yamaka to work or a Christian wearing a necklace with a cross on it. Religion has no place in public. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I know guys who wear a cross, but doesn't actually believe. The cross is part of who we are, it's in our banner and even embodied in one of the most popular Danish male names, "Christian". It holds more traditional values now than religious. (You are also decorated with a Cross if you are knighted in Denmark) Edited January 30, 2006 by Lucius DENMARK! It appears that I have not yet found a sig to replace the one about me not being banned... interesting.
Judge Hades Posted January 30, 2006 Posted January 30, 2006 Can't play favorites. If you going to ban one you gotta ban them all.
random evil guy Posted January 30, 2006 Posted January 30, 2006 i couldn't care less if a few muslims were offended by this, but at the same time, i find it quite hypocritical that it was a christian newspaper that published these drawings here in norway. i wonder how they would have reacted to similar drawings of, say jesus...
~Di Posted January 30, 2006 Posted January 30, 2006 It might be a language barrier, who knows. Or perhaps I'm just stupid. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> More likely the former than the latter. If you wish to discuss it further, feel free to PM me. I'll be happy to clarify what I meant. I can say, however, that I do not recall ever saying anything to you that would be considered an insult here in my own country, so if it is considered an insult in yours, I should probably know about it so I don't repeat the behavior.
Walsingham Posted January 30, 2006 Posted January 30, 2006 Religion is a private affair and should be practiced in private. I agree with the ruling. It would be no different if it was a Jewish male wearing a yamaka to work or a Christian wearing a necklace with a cross on it. Religion has no place in public. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Good thing you told me. Heaven forbid we should cross the street to help someone cause God tells us to... "It wasn't lies. It was just... bull****"." -Elwood Blues tarna's dead; processing... complete. Disappointed by Universe. RIP Hades/Sand/etc. Here's hoping your next alt has a harp.
Lucius Posted January 30, 2006 Author Posted January 30, 2006 (edited) It might be a language barrier, who knows. Or perhaps I'm just stupid. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> More likely the former than the latter. If you wish to discuss it further, feel free to PM me. I'll be happy to clarify what I meant. I can say, however, that I do not recall ever saying anything to you that would be considered an insult here in my own country, so if it is considered an insult in yours, I should probably know about it so I don't repeat the behavior. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I don't think there's a need for that. It's more like the case that I just misunderstood your intentions. Sometimes language can be tricky. Edited January 30, 2006 by Lucius DENMARK! It appears that I have not yet found a sig to replace the one about me not being banned... interesting.
Judge Hades Posted January 30, 2006 Posted January 30, 2006 (edited) i couldn't care less if a few muslims were offended by this, but at the same time, i find it quite hypocritical that it was a christian newspaper that published these drawings here in norway. i wonder how they would have reacted to similar drawings of, say jesus... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hey, they should make a toon drawing of Jesus, Mohammad, Moses, and the Archangel Michael and Gabriel all playing poker. Jesus cheats because he is "all knowing" and changes everyone's drink into wine. After everyone is drunk they realize Jesus was cheating and they have a drunken brawl pummeling each other, but mostly Jesus. Edited January 30, 2006 by Judge Hades
Lucius Posted January 30, 2006 Author Posted January 30, 2006 Can't play favorites. If you going to ban one you gotta ban them all. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Not really, I mean it's not very overt to wear a miniature cross or crescent moon around your neck. It's as close to private as you can get without actually being at home in my opinion. DENMARK! It appears that I have not yet found a sig to replace the one about me not being banned... interesting.
Judge Hades Posted January 30, 2006 Posted January 30, 2006 If it religious in nature, leave it at home.
Judge Hades Posted January 30, 2006 Posted January 30, 2006 (edited) Not just me but everyone. I don't think its just me who is annoyed by people who show off religious fetishes that scream "LOOK AT ME! I BELEVE IN GOD/ALLAH/VISHNU/BOB SAGET!" But then again it might just be me. Edited January 30, 2006 by Judge Hades
Moose Posted January 30, 2006 Posted January 30, 2006 It's the wrong attitude. If you can't put up with other faiths, then you have a problem. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> A problem that you can solve with genocide! There are none that are right, only strong of opinion. There are none that are wrong, only ignorant of facts
Recommended Posts