Judge Hades Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 (edited) Yet the image the standard has in mind is dominately Christian Western which goes against the standard religious dresscode of Islam. Edited January 30, 2006 by Judge Hades Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mkreku Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 I remember some swedish construction company having legal problems because they had troubles getting a turban to fit under a hardhat.. I know they solved it in the end somehow, but I don't remember how. Swedish laws about hardhats on construction sites > Religious reasons to wear a turban. I'm guessing they managed to fit the turban on top of the hardhat ) Swedes, go to: Spel2, for the latest game reviews in swedish! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diamond Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 Yet the image the standard has in mind is dominately Christian Western which goes against the standard religious dresscode of Islam. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well, it's a western country after all. You've got to comply with local culture if you move in another country. If I was to go naked in the streets of a European city, I'd get arrested, but not in Africa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jediphile Posted January 30, 2006 Share 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? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> They don't have to be silenced, but religion is a personal affair. There is no need to stick it in everybody's face every two seconds. Now, I may personally think that the french laws are too harsh or that what the danish newspaper did was impolite, but now muslim countries are demanding that Denmark apologize and punish the newspaper, and that's completely insane. I really don't care what faith people have, but I do care to preserve the right to free speech. If the choice is between the right to wear religious icons and right to free speech, then I'll go for the latter every time. Still, that's just me. I'm not really religious and probably more of an agnostic. I tend to agree more with something Eddie Izzard once said, ""I don't believe religions are religions. No, I believe they're philosophies with some good ideas and some ****ing weird ones!" 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. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Please inform me what authority you have that gives you the right to tell me that my attitude is wrong. On second thought, you shouldn't bother, since I'm not going to accept it regardless... As for expression of religion in a public space, I wonder if we should then allow that carry over to other topics as well. Should we let people carry pro-life or political propaganda around with them wherever they please? You might think that's different, but I'm not supporting some special rights just because someone argues religion, as to me it's just another subject like everything else. In fact, being the major reason for war and death throughout history, religious expression in public space is probably the first thing we should ban on that list... Except I don't generally support laws that dictate what people can or cannot express either... <_< Visit my KotOR blog at Deadly Forums. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diamond Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 As for expression of religion in a public space, I wonder if we should then allow that carry over to other topics as well. Should we let people carry pro-life or political propaganda around with them wherever they please? You might think that's different, but I'm not supporting some special rights just because someone argues religion, as to me it's just another subject like everything else. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> When was political propaganda banned? Apart from rebellion propaganda (which is in democratic countries is rebellion against elected representatives), you are allowed to express political views. In fact, being the major reason for war and death throughout history, religious expression in public space is probably the first thing we should ban on that list... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Religion was not the major reason for war and death throughout history, wealth and power was. Religion was justification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jediphile Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 I can't see the logic here. It is not the fact that the item is religious that violates the dress code. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yet you cannot simply disregard its religious significance. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I disagree with that, actually. The dresscode should not take religious significance into consideration, because religion should be an issue in the first place. If people don't like that, then fine - go work someplace else, where it isn't a problem. It never fails to surprise me that people are so desperate to express their religion and are then all offended when strict adherence to it brings conflict with the rest of society. Society is what it is and religion is what it is, so make up your mind which is more important to you and live with the consequences. I actually admire people who accept limitations on religious or philosophical grounds, but it seems there are loads of people who are fine with their religion imposing limitations upon them, but are then all offended when that choice limits them in the rest of society. Grow up, already... Visit my KotOR blog at Deadly Forums. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jorian Drake Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 Hmm...vikings and turks...hmmm...real nice game concept...hmmmmm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Moth Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 (edited) They don't have to be silenced, but religion is a personal affair. There is no need to stick it in everybody's face every two seconds. Now, I may personally think that the french laws are too harsh or that what the danish newspaper did was impolite, but now muslim countries are demanding that Denmark apologize and punish the newspaper, and that's completely insane. I really don't care what faith people have, but I do care to preserve the right to free speech. If the choice is between the right to wear religious icons and right to free speech, then I'll go for the latter every time. How is wearing a cross "sticking it in everybody's face"? If that's how you view it, then you seriously need to grow up and learn to be more tolerant. I agree with you on the apology stance, but that's not what I'm talking about here. Please inform me what authority you have that gives you the right to tell me that my attitude is wrong. On second thought, you shouldn't bother, since I'm not going to accept it regardless... As for expression of religion in a public space, I wonder if we should then allow that carry over to other topics as well. Should we let people carry pro-life or political propaganda around with them wherever they please? You might think that's different, but I'm not supporting some special rights just because someone argues religion, as to me it's just another subject like everything else. In fact, being the major reason for war and death throughout history, religious expression in public space is probably the first thing we should ban on that list... Except I don't generally support laws that dictate what people can or cannot express either... <_< <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Intolerance is wrong, my friend, and that's what I see coming out of you. If we live in a free society, we should be able to express our religion OUTSIDE of our homes. If not, then the concept of "freedom" is a lie. As for pro-life "propaganda", I could think of worse things. Besides, it's not as if you have to be religious to be pro-life. You could be an atheist and be against abortion. Heck, I'll say it right now: I oppose abortion too, except in some specific cases. I'm sure a lot less people would be supportive of abortion if they came flat out and said "We want the right to kill our babies" As for religion being the main cause of war and death in history, that's an utterly stupid statement not backed up by facts whatsoever; more like a statement based on prejudice and ignorance. Do your self a favor and learn some history, then come back. But I'm not surprised to hear that, though, and your statement right after that borders on bigotry. Congratulations, you've done more damage to yourself than I could have. Edited January 30, 2006 by Mothman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Surreptishus Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 So what does everyone think about the actual topic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jediphile Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 They don't have to be silenced, but religion is a personal affair. There is no need to stick it in everybody's face every two seconds. Now, I may personally think that the french laws are too harsh or that what the danish newspaper did was impolite, but now muslim countries are demanding that Denmark apologize and punish the newspaper, and that's completely insane. I really don't care what faith people have, but I do care to preserve the right to free speech. If the choice is between the right to wear religious icons and right to free speech, then I'll go for the latter every time. How is wearing a cross "sticking it in everybody's face"? If that's how you view it, then you seriously need to grow up and learn to be more tolerant. I agree with you on the apology stance, but that's not what I'm talking about here. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Then you're off-topic. I really don't care if people wear religious icons or a headscarf, but some of those do scare people, and that is a problem whether we like to admit it or not. There is a great need for tolerance, yes, but that goes more for many of those people who do wear religious icons than for those that don't. Please inform me what authority you have that gives you the right to tell me that my attitude is wrong. On second thought, you shouldn't bother, since I'm not going to accept it regardless... As for expression of religion in a public space, I wonder if we should then allow that carry over to other topics as well. Should we let people carry pro-life or political propaganda around with them wherever they please? You might think that's different, but I'm not supporting some special rights just because someone argues religion, as to me it's just another subject like everything else. In fact, being the major reason for war and death throughout history, religious expression in public space is probably the first thing we should ban on that list... Except I don't generally support laws that dictate what people can or cannot express either... <_< <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Intolerance is wrong, my friend, and that's what I see coming out of you. If we live in a free society, we should be able to express our religion OUTSIDE of our homes. If not, then the concept of "freedom" is a lie. As for pro-life "propaganda", I could think of worse things. Besides, it's not as if you have to be religious to be pro-life. You could be an atheist and be against abortion. Heck, I'll say it right now: I oppose abortion too, except in some specific cases. I'm sure a lot less people would be supportive of abortion if they came flat out and said "We want the right to kill our babies" As for religion being the main cause of war and death in history, that's an utterly stupid statement not backed up by facts whatsoever; more like a statement based on prejudice and ignorance. Do your self a favor and learn some history, then come back. But I'm not surprised to hear that, though, and your statement right after that borders on bigotry. Congratulations, you've done more damage to yourself than I could have. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The Crusades... The Spanish Inquisition... And that's just Christianity - all in the name of holy Christ... The Bible says that "thou shalt not kill", yet that is the phrase that has been ignored the most, it seems... Maybe you should take your own advice and read some history... Visit my KotOR blog at Deadly Forums. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Moth Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 (edited) The Crusades... The Spanish Inquisition... And that's just Christianity - all in the name of holy Christ... The Bible says that "thou shalt not kill", yet that is the phrase that has been ignored the most, it seems... Maybe you should take your own advice and read some history... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> And how many wars have NOT been fought in the name of religion? I'll say it again: read some history. Because religious wars only make up a small fraction of historical conflicts. I also hope you realize the irony of your statements. You're so opposed to wars fought in the name of Christianity, yet you seem opposed to the pro-life stance as well. Edited January 30, 2006 by Mothman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jorian Drake Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 They don't have to be silenced, but religion is a personal affair. There is no need to stick it in everybody's face every two seconds. Now, I may personally think that the french laws are too harsh or that what the danish newspaper did was impolite, but now muslim countries are demanding that Denmark apologize and punish the newspaper, and that's completely insane. I really don't care what faith people have, but I do care to preserve the right to free speech. If the choice is between the right to wear religious icons and right to free speech, then I'll go for the latter every time. How is wearing a cross "sticking it in everybody's face"? If that's how you view it, then you seriously need to grow up and learn to be more tolerant. I agree with you on the apology stance, but that's not what I'm talking about here. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Then you're off-topic. I really don't care if people wear religious icons or a headscarf, but some of those do scare people, and that is a problem whether we like to admit it or not. There is a great need for tolerance, yes, but that goes more for many of those people who do wear religious icons than for those that don't. Please inform me what authority you have that gives you the right to tell me that my attitude is wrong. On second thought, you shouldn't bother, since I'm not going to accept it regardless... As for expression of religion in a public space, I wonder if we should then allow that carry over to other topics as well. Should we let people carry pro-life or political propaganda around with them wherever they please? You might think that's different, but I'm not supporting some special rights just because someone argues religion, as to me it's just another subject like everything else. In fact, being the major reason for war and death throughout history, religious expression in public space is probably the first thing we should ban on that list... Except I don't generally support laws that dictate what people can or cannot express either... <_< <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Intolerance is wrong, my friend, and that's what I see coming out of you. If we live in a free society, we should be able to express our religion OUTSIDE of our homes. If not, then the concept of "freedom" is a lie. As for pro-life "propaganda", I could think of worse things. Besides, it's not as if you have to be religious to be pro-life. You could be an atheist and be against abortion. Heck, I'll say it right now: I oppose abortion too, except in some specific cases. I'm sure a lot less people would be supportive of abortion if they came flat out and said "We want the right to kill our babies" As for religion being the main cause of war and death in history, that's an utterly stupid statement not backed up by facts whatsoever; more like a statement based on prejudice and ignorance. Do your self a favor and learn some history, then come back. But I'm not surprised to hear that, though, and your statement right after that borders on bigotry. Congratulations, you've done more damage to yourself than I could have. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The Crusades... The Spanish Inquisition... And that's just Christianity - all in the name of holy Christ... The Bible says that "thou shalt not kill", yet that is the phrase that has been ignored the most, it seems... Maybe you should take your own advice and read some history... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The christianity is not bad, but people are. Ergo : You will have always people who kills, plunder, does *badthingstogirls*, and ALL OF THIS IN THE NAME OF GOD!!!? I really would like to see some of these people strucked by a Lightning or meteor, maybe changed to salt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorth Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 As for expression of religion in a public space, I wonder if we should then allow that carry over to other topics as well. All those in favour of public stoning for adultery, please raise their hands ? <_> “He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice.” - Albert Einstein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Judge Hades Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 So what does everyone think about the actual topic? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> BLARG! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaftan Barlast Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 (edited) So what does everyone think about the actual topic? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Freedom of press and freedom of speech are two things more sacred than any religious dogma. And as always, a person in Palestine or Germany has no say whatsoever of what is printed in a newspaper in Denmark. Edited January 30, 2006 by Kaftan Barlast DISCLAIMER: Do not take what I write seriously unless it is clearly and in no uncertain terms, declared by me to be meant in a serious and non-humoristic manner. If there is no clear indication, asume the post is written in jest. This notification is meant very seriously and its purpouse is to avoid misunderstandings and the consequences thereof. Furthermore; I can not be held accountable for anything I write on these forums since the idea of taking serious responsability for my unserious actions, is an oxymoron in itself. Important: as the following sentence contains many naughty words I warn you not to read it under any circumstances; botty, knickers, wee, erogenous zone, psychiatrist, clitoris, stockings, bosom, poetry reading, dentist, fellatio and the department of agriculture. "I suppose outright stupidity and complete lack of taste could also be considered points of view. " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jediphile Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 (edited) The Crusades... The Spanish Inquisition... And that's just Christianity - all in the name of holy Christ... The Bible says that "thou shalt not kill", yet that is the phrase that has been ignored the most, it seems... Maybe you should take your own advice and read some history... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> And how many wars have NOT been fought in the name of religion? I'll say it again: read some history. Because religious wars only make up a small fraction of historical conflicts. I also hope you realize the irony of your statements. You're so opposed to wars fought in the name of Christianity, yet you seem opposed to the pro-life stance as well. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Try looking at most wars and then consider whether religion had relevance. It is frequently the case. For example, WW2 has ties to a confrontation between the jewish faith and Hitler's interpretation of christianity. Now, I know you'll say that Hitler's philosophies are not very christian and I agree with that, but the point is that religion was still an issue that served as a convenient pretense for pursuing the jews. If religion had not been an issue, it would have been more difficult for the nazis to do what they did. As for the pro-life example, I never spoke out for or against, so I would thank you for demonstrationing some of the tolerance you question yourself and refrain from putting words in my mouth. Edited January 30, 2006 by Jediphile Visit my KotOR blog at Deadly Forums. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jorian Drake Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 So what does everyone think about the actual topic? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Freedom of press and freedom of speech are two things more sacred than any religious dogma. And as always, a person in Palestine or Germany has no say whatsoever of what is printed in a newspaper in Denmark. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Really? I'm not so sure about this :ph34r: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Moth Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 (edited) Try looking at most wars and then consider whether religion had relevance. It is frequently the case. For example, WW2 has ties to a confrontation between the jewish faith and Hitler's interpretation of christianity. Now, I know you'll say that Hitler's philosophies are not very christian and I agree with that, but the point is that religion was still an issue that served as a convenient pretense for pursuing the jews. If religion had not been an issue, it would have been more difficult for the nazis to do what they did. As for the pro-life example, I never spoke out for or against, so I would thank you for demonstrationing some of the tolerance you question yourself and refrain from putting words in my mouth. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> That's simply not even close to true. For one thing, Hitler was no Christian. I don't think you even understand his motives for killing the Jews off at all. Ever hear of the "stabbed in the back" theory? His main case for killing Jews was their supposed "betrayal" of Germany thus causing them to lose WWI. And his agenda wasn't just against Jews, it was against other ethnic groups as well. In fact, he even targetted some dissenting Christians in his genocide. My point? Hitler's philosphies were not religion-based. As for your first sentence, the answer is there aren't. And if you want another example, just look at the cause of WWI, which was MAIN (militarism, alliances, imperialism, nationalism). Religion wasn't a factor. And just look at Communist Russia. Stalin killed more people than Hitler did, yet his actions were not based on religion at all. In fact, religion was one of the victims of Stalin's agenda. I'll say it again: religous wars only make up a small fraction of wars in history. They're only the tip of the iceberg. Edited January 30, 2006 by Mothman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosbjerg Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 hitler said on some occasions that religion was a powerful tool to control the masses .. that kinda speaks to both your arguments! Fortune favors the bald. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Moth Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 (edited) Hitler wasn't a Christian. He was brought up a Catholic, but he abandoned his religion. And he didn't use religion to control, either. He used nationalism. Edited January 30, 2006 by Mothman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jediphile Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 That's simply not even close to true. For one thing, Hitler was no Christian. I don't think you even understand his motives for killing the Jews off at all. Ever hear of the "stabbed in the back" theory? His main case for killing Jews was their supposed "betrayal" of Germany thus causing them to lose WWI. And his agenda wasn't just against Jews, it was against other ethnic groups as well. In fact, he even targetted some dissenting Christians in his genocide. My point? Hitler's philosphies were not religion-based. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Since you chose to completely ignore my point that Hitler tried to exploit the religious issue, it is pointless to debate this further... As for your first sentence, the answer is there aren't. And if you want another example, just look at the cause of WWI, which was MAIN (militarism, alliances, imperialism, nationalism). Religion wasn't a factor. And just look at Communist Russia. Stalin killed more people than Hitler did, yet his actions were not based on religion at all. In fact, religion was one of the victims of Stalin's agenda. I'll say it again: religous wars only make up a small fraction of wars in history. They're only the tip of the iceberg. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> 1. Never said religion was the cause of all wars, just most. 2. So you're arguing that Stalin targeting all religious followers in communist Russia is not an issue with religious connotations? An interesting way of thinking indeed... Visit my KotOR blog at Deadly Forums. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Moth Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 (edited) 1. Never said religion was the cause of all wars, just most. 2. So you're arguing that Stalin targeting all religious followers in communist Russia is not an issue with religious connotations? An interesting way of thinking indeed... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It's not even the cause of most. That's my point. As for Stalin, religion wasn't the basis for his campaign, it was communism/marxism. Nor was the hatred of religion a prime reason for his actions (it was one of many). Religion was just one of many victims. You can in no way blame religion for his actions. But hey, feel free to keep ignoring facts if you want. As for your point about Hitler, his prime weapon for killing off Jews was nationalism, not religion. Religion was an issue, but you cannot blame it for the holocaust. And even without religion, it's likely the holocaust would have occured anyway. Why? Hitler targetted more than just Jews, he also targetted ethnic groups as well. He was looking for somebody to blame for Germany's loss in WWI. His reasoning was based on Germany, not religion. Edited January 30, 2006 by Mothman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Surreptishus Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 So what does everyone think about the actual topic? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Freedom of press and freedom of speech are two things more sacred than any religious dogma. And as always, a person in Palestine or Germany has no say whatsoever of what is printed in a newspaper in Denmark. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I agree. Thats basically it, those who are offended by the cartoons have every right to feel that way and voice their objections as per the law of Denmark but in this case the guys took it way too far. Its down to the intent of the artist, did they draw the pics knowing it would irk Muslims? I guess it doesn't matter because the artist would have the right to do so. A few years back Nigeria was set to host Miss World, in some Nigerian paper ther was an editorial which claimed in a jestful manner that the contestants would be worthy of Prophet Mohammed himself. The reaction? Huge civil unrest - riots and violence in Nigeria in outrage at the article. The contest was moved to a different country. So it seems that there are muslims who take severe action if they feel they have been disrespected via opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junai Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 (edited) Hitler wasn't a Christian. He was brought up a Catholic, but he abandoned his religion. And he didn't use religion to control, either. He used nationalism. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Like you, I don't think he was interested in religion, just power. According to legends he spent hours staring at what is supposedly the "spear of destiny" (in Wienna?), and he tried to acquire it at the beginning of the war. Another legend has it that a Tibetan monk known as the "man with the green gloves" brough about a spiritual awakening in Hitler, which resulted in crystallized ego, and tremendous leadership "vibes".. I think he had an affinity for the occult, like all demons have. Anyway, OT, damn those countrymen of mine who drew pictures of Muhammed. I'm gonna be pissed if the subway explodes b/c of a cartoon. Edited January 30, 2006 by Junai Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Surreptishus Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 Hey, Islam is still a young religion. Its going through its terrible twos stage. Once it reaches the 3000 to 4000 year old mark it will somwhat be more mellow. maybe. Judaism: Crochety old man. Christianity: The rebellious teen. Islam: The terrible twos. Bhuddism: Wise but unconventional neighbor. Hinduiusm: The wacky neighbor that always comes over to borrow the hedge clippers. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Those epithets are quite offensive and suggests ignorance on your part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts