Janet

Another news story HERE about a clash between an individual who demands the right to wear a religious item and a secular institution that is committed to equality.

What are the rights and wrongs here? There have been Christians refused the right to wear crosses, now a Sikh refused the right to wear a bracelet that is one of the articles of Sikh faith. In French schools, female Muslim pupils are not permitted headscarves, and all religious symbols are banned from German schools and courts. To the faithful, this is difficult if not impossible to bear.

But secular society and equality policies throughout much of Europe are increasingly unwilling to allow individual faith to be imposed on others, even visually. Is it right to refuse individuals the choice of putting their religious symbolism on show? Or are such individuals actually making a political statement out of private religious beliefs?

torrenter

It makes my blood boil to hear of 'Christan'/'Muslim'/'whatever' children. It's patent nonsense.

A child can be a 'child of Muslim/Christian/whatever parents'. And those parents are being selfish in dressing their children in religious symbols that they cannot properly comprehend until they become mature enough to make their own religious choices.

__________________
The best telefonica can do:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Janet

Yes, I agree, completely, but what about when they're talking about 16 year old Muslim girls, not small children, and another case recently I seem to remember was an adult woman refused permission to wear a cross on a chain ... I seem to remember she was a BA employee.

torrenter

At 16, she is still a minor - wouldn't you agree? (the law does)

This is an issue that is presumably part of the work contract (else illegal) and therfore should be dealt with at the recruitment stage.

__________________
The best telefonica can do:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Janet

I think that although minors, many 16 year olds would dispute that they couldn't make their own mind up about what to wear and what they think! I remember a case not too long ago about a Muslim girl who wanted to wear a veil and was refused permission. Neither of her parents were devout Muslims, in the sense that the impetus came from them. The girl herself decided that she wanted to make a statement of her religion.

This is, actually, what seems often to be seen as the most valid reason for outlawing religious symbolism. It's argued, convincingly, that the desire to make a public statement is at the root of the issue, and as such, the wearing of crosses, veils, scarves, bracelets, whatever, is a political statement rather than a religious one.

The BA employee (if BA it was), I think, was already in post when the policy was implemented.

torrenter

I cannot understand the reverence given to religion. If I turned up for work in a tee-shirt saying 'David Cameron is a misguided loon', it would be no good protesting 'I am a devout socialist'

Yet religion gets a 'get out of jail free' card. To me, this is the root of the debate.

__________________
The best telefonica can do:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Cazten

Well Janet, I have, and wear several different pieces of jewellery, many of which could be described as religious.

The Ohmkar - Indian
The Cross - Christian
The Kopokelli - NA Indian
The Ankh - Egyptian
The Endless Eye - Egyptian
The Healer-?

And I don't consider myself as a religious person, spiritual yes, but not religious.
here's
a good link for explanations of some religious symbolism

I wear what I like and what feels right at the time. But if I HAD to wear some form of body adornment for my faith, then I would like to think that I could find a discreet way to wear it without upsetting anyone.

If my faith meant that much to me; then I would surely go to any lengths to conceal what may be seen as controversial and/or banned, I don't think I would need to draw media attention to my personal preferences, but as I'm not a religious fanatic, I can't really say.

Maybe the media attention is more important that actual religious belief to some these days?

I am a tad concerned that some people may be using their, so called, religious beliefs to "mock" the system.

IMO anyone who chooses to follows a radical religious lifestyle, should do so in private, not in public. Unless of course they want to draw attention to themselves, which IMO defeats the object.

__________________
©Cazten

torrenter

This is my point: why should a religious symbol be particularly upsetting? This is the 'get out of jail free' card I alluded to.

Religious beliefs, sincerely held, seem to have a precedence over other sincerely held beliefs. Why?

It's time religious beliefs were classified at the same level as political, moral - any other sincere beliefs.

I object to the artificial reverence awarded to what I see as benign delusions, compared with real-world polticical convictions.

Go on - flame away

__________________
The best telefonica can do:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Cathy

I think it's up to you what you want to wear and nothing to do with anyone. It's your choice.

__________________

www.tenerifehomecare.com

JAnot

So do you think that someone has the right to wear, say, a burka always, and have a passport photo and driving licence which shows nothing of their face?

Yes, but surely the point of the question is the fact that on many occasions you wouldn't be allowed to wear these things, and whether this would be right.