Religious differences

8 Apr 2010

Quote by wildone11
No wonder so few people use the forum. Tolerance? All I see is bullying by the same members in almost all of the threads.
I have views on things but I would never post them, as i would get ripped apart by what seems to be a pack of wild dogs.
Too clicky in here for me.

Nobody rips anybody apart for views !! Take a punt ...say what ya think ....sometimes you`d be surprised how tolerent people are of differing views. It`s just a shame when the same person posts the same drivel over and over again....
I think I will give it a miss thanks all the same.
The same person comment is exactly the sort of thing I was talking about. In reality you are no different.
You have this place well and truly sussed wildone11. I had to laugh at the comment that nobody rips anybody apart for views!!!

8 Apr 2010

I make no claims to tolerance....infact I've posted that I don't have a tolerant nature in another thread....I am however offended by the constant evasion of the true subject of this type of thread.
There are those among us who whilst constantly claiming honesty and a frank exposition of their views, seem to point us all in one direction and then clumsily sidestep the inevitable terminus of the road we're lead down.I ask nothing more than an honest opinion wether I agree with it or not....I find it difficult to believe this is what we get.
And wildone welcome to the forums post and be damned is my advice.....but if you post you've got to expect those who disagree with you to reply...it's the nature of the beast

8 Apr 2010

Quote by flower411
No wonder so few people use the forum. Tolerance? All I see is bullying by the same members in almost all of the threads.
I have views on things but I would never post them, as i would get ripped apart by what seems to be a pack of wild dogs.
Too clicky in here for me.

Nobody rips anybody apart for views !! Take a punt ...say what ya think ....sometimes you`d be surprised how tolerent people are of differing views. It`s just a shame when the same person posts the same drivel over and over again....
I think I will give it a miss thanks all the same.
The same person comment is exactly the sort of thing I was talking about. In reality you are no different.
You have this place well and truly sussed wildone11. I had to laugh at the comment that nobody rips anybody apart for views!!!
Still just here for the stirring then !! rolleyes

Nope,just stating fact. You stir enough trouble up all by yourself.

8 Apr 2010

Quote by Max777
No wonder so few people use the forum. Tolerance? All I see is bullying by the same members in almost all of the threads.
I have views on things but I would never post them, as i would get ripped apart by what seems to be a pack of wild dogs.
Too clicky in here for me.

Nobody rips anybody apart for views !! Take a punt ...say what ya think ....sometimes you`d be surprised how tolerent people are of differing views. It`s just a shame when the same person posts the same drivel over and over again....
I think I will give it a miss thanks all the same.
The same person comment is exactly the sort of thing I was talking about. In reality you are no different.
You have this place well and truly sussed wildone11. I had to laugh at the comment that nobody rips anybody apart for views!!!
Still just here for the stirring then !! rolleyes

Nope,just stating fact. You stir enough trouble up all by yourself.
Last chance. Please get back on topic and leave the petty squabbling alone. It will be locked otherwise.
Dave_Notts

8 Apr 2010

Had a meeting of my local history group tonight (bear with me - this is relevant). The guy gave a very interesting history of churches and church-going in South Derbyshire.
One of the key periods in Anglican church history was the 1820-1880. Non-conformist congregations were booming, especially in the rapidly expanding, new industrial centres. And Anglican congregations were dwindling and why? the move into the cities, lack of central funding resulted in churches becoming run down, damp, and generally miserable places to be.
So the way they dealt with it wasn't to wring their hands and complain that 'other' beliefs were getting a better deal from someone. They invested in new churches in the new centres of population, renovated existing ones (ok - they buggered up some lovely medieval architecture - but hey ho) and in some cases replaced them completely.
They MADE AN EFFORT. That is the main point.
The anecdotal reports of the Christian Church getting less of everything than other faiths may have some substance. But whining about it isn't going to make any difference. They could, instead, take possession of their own future and get out there and make a difference among the population.
It might involve standing up to over-zealous 'let's not offend the (insert minority group)' bods. But it mostly involves making themselves a part of the real world and a real life choice. How many people tick "C of E" on applications automatically - as a default to having anything more interesting to put? Only the Church organisation can change that.
This all feeds in to an anxiety that Christians are being made to feel like they are disappearing. Well, in many views, they are, by failing to be more proactive/visible themselves (as an organisation perhaps more than as individuals).

9 Apr 2010

Quote by foxylady2209
Had a meeting of my local history group tonight (bear with me - this is relevant). The guy gave a very interesting history of churches and church-going in South Derbyshire.
One of the key periods in Anglican church history was the 1820-1880. Non-conformist congregations were booming, especially in the rapidly expanding, new industrial centres. And Anglican congregations were dwindling and why? the move into the cities, lack of central funding resulted in churches becoming run down, damp, and generally miserable places to be.
So the way they dealt with it wasn't to wring their hands and complain that 'other' beliefs were getting a better deal from someone. They invested in new churches in the new centres of population, renovated existing ones (ok - they buggered up some lovely medieval architecture - but hey ho) and in some cases replaced them completely.
They MADE AN EFFORT. That is the main point.
The anecdotal reports of the Christian Church getting less of everything than other faiths may have some substance. But whining about it isn't going to make any difference. They could, instead, take possession of their own future and get out there and make a difference among the population.
It might involve standing up to over-zealous 'let's not offend the (insert minority group)' bods. But it mostly involves making themselves a part of the real world and a real life choice. How many people tick "C of E" on applications automatically - as a default to having anything more interesting to put? Only the Church organisation can change that.
This all feeds in to an anxiety that Christians are being made to feel like they are disappearing. Well, in many views, they are, by failing to be more proactive/visible themselves (as an organisation perhaps more than as individuals).

Excellent post. The history of nineteenth century Anglicanism is fascinating precisely because of the flowering of High Anglicanism at the same time as the growth of the urban church - you only have to see the abandoned churches on the edge of our inner cities no to get an idea of the investment in growth that the church made.
Incidentally, our local Salvation Army citadel is now a mosque; now, the Sally Army had no problem sticking 'Blood and Fire'on their banners, but I wonder what the reaction would be if the Mosque adopted it as their motto?

9 Apr 2010

Quote by Kaznkev
Had a meeting of my local history group tonight (bear with me - this is relevant). The guy gave a very interesting history of churches and church-going in South Derbyshire.
snip snip

You werent at the last church meeting were u foxy? lol

Whilst the mainstream Church is seeing falling congregations the evangelical/charamatic churches are growing from these churches tend to be too busy getting on with it to whinge about media new monasticism of boiler rooms and the 24/7 prayer movement are also a modern answer to the problems of how to integrate faith into life.
How the established church deals with the problem of being legally the default for births,deaths and marriages is a question they need to i think disestablishment would be a good first step,however there are many groups out there doing rather than moaning.2 good local examples, the street pastors who go out every Friday and Saturday in provide practical help to those worse for drink,and the police report fewer rapes and Sexual assalts since they on the streets is another fascinating group,every Saturday afternoon they turn up at central Newcastle and offer prayers for healing to any shopper interested.
So folk are aware of the problems you mention,but are out there not writing to the media about bias.
We have some kind of pastor at work - comes in every week or so, dog collar and all that. Nice feller. Maybe what is needed is that these quiet people getting on and doing it need a voice. Not to complain about others, but to show people what they do. Maybe half the problem is that there isn't a single organisation doing this. So an 'umbrella' thing needs to be done to teach the 'customers' what people are out there doing.
You get the odd piece on local news about street pastors and such like. But I think it needs more.
Oh, and I wouldn't be at your chuch meeting as I am an agnostic. LOL. But I totally beleive in the spirituality of humans and their right to live through that sprituality. :thumbup: And I love history and how society was affected by all kinds of things, including religion.
I think may be part of the problem (tongue in cheek). (Needs sound)

9 Apr 2010

Quote by Kaznkev
Had a meeting of my local history group tonight (bear with me - this is relevant). The guy gave a very interesting history of churches and church-going in South Derbyshire.
One of the key periods in Anglican church history was the 1820-1880. Non-conformist congregations were booming, especially in the rapidly expanding, new industrial centres. And Anglican congregations were dwindling and why? the move into the cities, lack of central funding resulted in churches becoming run down, damp, and generally miserable places to be.
So the way they dealt with it wasn't to wring their hands and complain that 'other' beliefs were getting a better deal from someone. They invested in new churches in the new centres of population, renovated existing ones (ok - they buggered up some lovely medieval architecture - but hey ho) and in some cases replaced them completely.
They MADE AN EFFORT. That is the main point.
The anecdotal reports of the Christian Church getting less of everything than other faiths may have some substance. But whining about it isn't going to make any difference. They could, instead, take possession of their own future and get out there and make a difference among the population.
It might involve standing up to over-zealous 'let's not offend the (insert minority group)' bods. But it mostly involves making themselves a part of the real world and a real life choice. How many people tick "C of E" on applications automatically - as a default to having anything more interesting to put? Only the Church organisation can change that.
This all feeds in to an anxiety that Christians are being made to feel like they are disappearing. Well, in many views, they are, by failing to be more proactive/visible themselves (as an organisation perhaps more than as individuals).

You werent at the last church meeting were u foxy? lol

Whilst the mainstream Church is seeing falling congregations the evangelical/charamatic churches are growing from these churches tend to be too busy getting on with it to whinge about media new monasticism of boiler rooms and the 24/7 prayer movement are also a modern answer to the problems of how to integrate faith into life.
How the established church deals with the problem of being legally the default for births,deaths and marriages is a question they need to i think disestablishment would be a good first step,however there are many groups out there doing rather than moaning.2 good local examples, the street pastors who go out every Friday and Saturday in provide practical help to those worse for drink,and the police report fewer rapes and Sexual assalts since they on the streets is another fascinating group,every Saturday afternoon they turn up at central Newcastle and offer prayers for healing to any shopper interested.
So folk are aware of the problems you mention,but are out there not writing to the media about bias.
One way the church of England could grow is by being more upfront about the growth of the non stipendiary clergy, and by promoting the formation of new parishes that permit dissent.

14 Apr 2010

Interesting update to this thread here:-

This relaxation of hygiene practices could have possible ill-effects to ALL patients in the name of a religion that may not be theirs. So, one rule for muslims, and a different rule for others. Is this equality?

14 Apr 2010

Quote by ForestFunsters
Interesting update to this thread here:-

This relaxation of hygiene practices could have possible ill-effects to ALL patients in the name of a religion that may not be theirs. So, one rule for muslims, and a different rule for others. Is this equality?

:whistling:

14 Apr 2010

Quote by Kaznkev
Interesting update to this thread here:-

This relaxation of hygiene practices could have possible ill-effects to ALL patients in the name of a religion that may not be theirs. So, one rule for muslims, and a different rule for others. Is this equality?

omg,in the blogsphere many were wondering how long it would take for the "one rule for them brigrade to leap on this,especially after it was so accuratly reported in the Daily Heil.
Quote direct from elsewhere.(hope thats allowed mods,but its the hols and i can only get on for quick interludes untill the lads go out to terrosise the neighbourhood)
The truth of the matter - as to be expected with a Mail article- is very different. Firstly, this isn't necessarily a relaxing of 'superbug safeguards', rather it is a compromise based on best practice. For example, the Daily Mail links female Muslim modesty with poor hygiene - However, if you actually read the article it is clear that we are not talking about long sleeves in the traditional sense. If a female Muslim wishes to cover her arms they can use disposable 'over-sleeves', which come with strict hygiene instructions for their use.
As the Daily Mail points out, the over-sleeves are available on the Internet for £7 for a pack of 200, so it's hardly going to break the NHS financially.
Secondly, the bracelets that are worn for religious reasons must be pushed up the arm and secured in place for hand-washing and direct patient care.
The key word here is compromise. Shirley Chaplin refused to compromise, even though the NHS offered her different ways of wearing the crucifix that would be acceptable. Furthermore, the crucifix is a religious accessory, not necessity, and you could argue not a particularly good one.
If some simple compromises can be made - with hygiene at the forefront of considerations - that allows female Muslims to pursue a career in the NHS, then what can the problem be? Make no mistake, this Mail article is as usual a crude attack on minority faiths that tries to rile up yet more hatred and intolerance of other religions. Like the BNP the Daily Mail really believes that it is white Christians who are really the victims here, as always in New Labour's Britain, irrespective of reality.
Read more:
Good employers try to ensure that within reason there employees are able to their job well and with conideration foe the needs of the employees.
This is one of the worst problems with this forum - people make posts, then inevitably there is a host of replies discrediting the source. The article I quoted was from the Daily Telegraph, not the Mail. Please read posts properly before you slag them off.

14 Apr 2010

Quote by ForestFunsters
Interesting update to this thread here:-

This relaxation of hygiene practices could have possible ill-effects to ALL patients in the name of a religion that may not be theirs. So, one rule for muslims, and a different rule for others. Is this equality?

Now come on....you been on these forums long enough to know that this artical is untrue?
ALL religions are treated equally in the UK....to think any different would of course be anti..........what?
Oh look over there>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a pink piggy. lol

14 Apr 2010

Quote by Kaznkev
Interesting update to this thread here:-

This relaxation of hygiene practices could have possible ill-effects to ALL patients in the name of a religion that may not be theirs. So, one rule for muslims, and a different rule for others. Is this equality?

omg,in the blogsphere many were wondering how long it would take for the "one rule for them brigrade to leap on this,especially after it was so accuratly reported in the Daily Heil.
Quote direct from elsewhere.(hope thats allowed mods,but its the hols and i can only get on for quick interludes untill the lads go out to terrosise the neighbourhood)
The truth of the matter - as to be expected with a Mail article- is very different. Firstly, this isn't necessarily a relaxing of 'superbug safeguards', rather it is a compromise based on best practice. For example, the Daily Mail links female Muslim modesty with poor hygiene - However, if you actually read the article it is clear that we are not talking about long sleeves in the traditional sense. If a female Muslim wishes to cover her arms they can use disposable 'over-sleeves', which come with strict hygiene instructions for their use.
As the Daily Mail points out, the over-sleeves are available on the Internet for £7 for a pack of 200, so it's hardly going to break the NHS financially.
Secondly, the bracelets that are worn for religious reasons must be pushed up the arm and secured in place for hand-washing and direct patient care.
The key word here is compromise. Shirley Chaplin refused to compromise, even though the NHS offered her different ways of wearing the crucifix that would be acceptable. Furthermore, the crucifix is a religious accessory, not necessity, and you could argue not a particularly good one.
If some simple compromises can be made - with hygiene at the forefront of considerations - that allows female Muslims to pursue a career in the NHS, then what can the problem be? Make no mistake, this Mail article is as usual a crude attack on minority faiths that tries to rile up yet more hatred and intolerance of other religions. Like the BNP the Daily Mail really believes that it is white Christians who are really the victims here, as always in New Labour's Britain, irrespective of reality.
Read more:
Good employers try to ensure that within reason there employees are able to their job well and with conideration foe the needs of the employees.
This is one of the worst problems with this forum - people make posts, then inevitably there is a host of replies discrediting the source. The article I quoted was from the Daily Telegraph, not the Mail. Please read posts properly before you slag them off.
i made it clear that for time constraints i was going to quote the reasons why the sleeves are not a problem that was the point,not where it came you retract your one rule for muslims statement?that was the arguement made in the quote .Or did you feel because more than one newspaper had the same fail then you dont need to consider the facts.
I was not discrediting the source,more the whinging ohh look at the muslims and the special treatment they get arguement.
That is exactly how a lot of people see this.
This does nothing other than to add fuel to an already burning fire. It does not help.

14 Apr 2010

Laws be it health and safety or when you can start driving to drinking in a pub to buying cigarettes are all governed by law.
Everyone is treated the same....you cannot smoke in a pub or drink legally in a pub until you are 18....no exceptions.
I do not care if they are Muslim or Jewish or Christian...black white or green, everyone should be governed by the same laws. Whatever your colour or religion it should matter not a jot....but on many occasions we have seen it does.
Until such time when everyone walks down the same road there will be problems.
Because when a group are it seems allowed to by pass the law that most others have to adhere too, it makes people rather pissed off.
The trouble is that so many people are terrified to even be possibly seen to be as you would say " a bigot ". I do not see it that way at all.
If somebody else is allowed to do something that I would not be allowed to do, that is no more discriminate than some of the other things you read about.
The needs of an employer should be based on employment laws, and not special compensation for sections of a workforce, that is why we are supposed to have employment laws.
" Who determines the norm you would impose " the law does!!
IF as it says in that link that they will be allowed to dress differently than a Christian person or any other person for that matter in their place of work, then that is discrimination too!! Or can only certain sections of our society scream discrimination?

14 Apr 2010

Quote by kentswingers777
IF as it says in that link that they will be allowed to dress differently than a Christian person or any other person for that matter in their place of work, then that is discrimination too!! Or can only certain sections of our society scream discrimination?

Where exactly in that article does it say that a white, U.K. born so-called Christian can't also opt for disposable sleeves? It doesn't, does it? Would it be fair to say then that maybe the NHS has already thought this through, and despite some idiot Secretary of State's instructions, who has no idea what he's on about, allows a bit of personal discretion with the whole dress-code thing, and it applies to all employees? dunno

Maybe this discrimination thing you keep bleating on about is all in your head*? confused

By way of reply to the assertion that sleeves are a health issue, is What Alan Johnson actually said, and is a response from the British Medical Journal.

In December 2007 the BMA’s central consultants and specialists committee voiced concerns. “The CCSC is particularly concerned that the secretary of state’s ‘bare below the elbows’ policy is not supported by demonstrable scientific evidence and was issued hastily in response to an intense period of media focus on the issue. The CCSC and the wider BMA support evidence backed policies aimed at fighting infection rates in hospitals but believes that such policies should be introduced on the basis of clear evidence and in partnership with clinicians locally.”
Evidence base
In December 2007 an anonymous general practitioner sent in a query to the National Library for Health’s primary care question answering service. “re ‘Bare below the elbows’ policy. What is the evidence for this, specifically is there any for primary care?” The answer given was as follows, “We searched the NLH Library and the TRIP and Medline databases but found no guidelines or studies in support of clinical healthcare staff (primary or secondary care) adopting a ‘bare below the elbows’ policy.”
Indeed in the Department of Health’s working group on uniforms and laundry it is clearly demonstrated that “there is no conclusive evidence that uniforms (or other work clothes) pose a significant hazard in terms of spreading infection.”

Any one of you banging on about this so-called 'issue' could have Googled that just as easily as I did? :?
N x x x ;)
* That's by way of an indirect reply to you too ForestFunsters. Don't know you well enough to know if you're bleating or not? ;)

14 Apr 2010

There is a word there Neil and it is a " IF ", and it was put in capitals as well.

14 Apr 2010

Quote by kentswingers777
There is a word there Neil and it is a " IF ", and it was put in capitals as well.

Quote by kentswingers777
IF as it says in that link that they will be allowed to dress differently than a Christian person or any other person for that matter in their place of work, then that is discrimination too!! Or can only certain sections of our society scream discrimination?

You mean the 'IF' at the start of your statement where you went on to suggest that only certain groups in our society can 'scream discrimination'? confused

Cracking backpedal / disclaimer there Kenty. I take it all back.
N x x x ;)

14 Apr 2010

Quote by neilinleeds
There is a word there Neil and it is a " IF ", and it was put in capitals as well.

Quote by kentswingers777
IF as it says in that link that they will be allowed to dress differently than a Christian person or any other person for that matter in their place of work, then that is discrimination too!! Or can only certain sections of our society scream discrimination?

You mean the 'IF' at the start of your statement where you went on to suggest that only certain groups in our society can 'scream discrimination'? confused

Cracking backpedal/ disclaimer there Kenty. I take it all back.
N x x x ;)
Backpedal? Where exactly?

14 Apr 2010

Quote by Kaznkev
Laws be it health and safety or when you can start driving to drinking in a pub to buying cigarettes are all governed by law.
Everyone is treated the same....you cannot smoke in a pub or drink legally in a pub until you are 18....no exceptions.
I do not care if they are Muslim or Jewish or Christian...black white or green, everyone should be governed by the same laws. Whatever your colour or religion it should matter not a jot....but on many occasions we have seen it does.
Until such time when everyone walks down the same road there will be problems.
Because when a group are it seems allowed to by pass the law that most others have to adhere too, it makes people rather pissed off.
The trouble is that so many people are terrified to even be possibly seen to be as you would say " a bigot ". I do not see it that way at all.
If somebody else is allowed to do something that I would not be allowed to do, that is no more discriminate than some of the other things you read about.
The needs of an employer should be based on employment laws, and not special compensation for sections of a workforce, that is why we are supposed to have employment laws.
" Who determines the norm you would impose " the law does!!
IF as it says in that link that they will be allowed to dress differently than a Christian person or any other person for that matter in their place of work, then that is discrimination too!! Or can only certain sections of our society scream discrimination?

I am really having trouble understanding this desire for the belief that being allowed to wear different clothing means discrimination.I recently went to a night where there were some men dressed as french you ban this ,as there desires were different to yours?
These sleeves are worn by the blood team anyway,and if no one is harmed by others asking to wear them what is the problem?
people should be terrified to be bigots,they should be forced to examine their fears and prejudices and take a long hard look at why difference causes such an over reaction in them.
You speak about the law,where in this has a law been broken?i thought you were right wing,a believer in the "small state" and non government interference in peoples you would have the state dictate dress code?
Or is what you really believe in the imposition of white anglo saxon norms which you adhere to?
The law should not and has never in this country sort to impose norms thank god.
That is true as everybody would be in work and not taking their benefits. Perish the thought.
I suggest you take a little poodle down to your local bank or supermarket where " uniformity " is the NORM. Don't want to wear the clothes they give you? Then you will not get a job there. How dreadful is that eh?
Everyone should wear what they like to work, well you write a little letter to John Varley or Sir Terry Leahy, and see what they say about dress codes and the right to " uniformity ".
I have a mate who is ex graduate at a University and he has those self same views, he hates the way he is forced to wear a suit and tie to work.....ah poor soul. They obviously did not teach him the working of the real world at Uni!

14 Apr 2010

SNIP***

Quote by kentswingers777
Laws be it health and safety or when you can start driving to drinking in a pub to buying cigarettes are all governed by law.
Everyone is treated the same....you cannot smoke in a pub or drink legally in a pub until you are 18....no exceptions.

I think, unless the law has changed, a child of 16 can consume beer, wine or cider, if seated in a restaurant and the drinks were purchased by parent/gardian.
Playing devils advocate a little here Kenty, but I believe that could be an exception?

14 Apr 2010

Quote by Bluefish2009
SNIP***Laws be it health and safety or when you can start driving to drinking in a pub to buying cigarettes are all governed by law.
Everyone is treated the same....you cannot smoke in a pub or drink legally in a pub until you are 18....no exceptions.

I think, unless the law has changed, a child of 16 can consume beer, wine or cider, if seated in a restaurant and the drinks were purchased by parent/gardian.
Playing devils advocate a little here Kenty, but I believe that could be an exception?
That is I am afraid wrong Blue.
In fact no you are right as I have just Googled it.
We went out for a meal 3 months ago and mrs777's son was with us, and he was under 18, well by three months.
I brought him a beer when we sat down for our meal, and they promptly came over and said he could not drink it, even with a meal.
The law obviously says he could have done, but maybe in this case it was at the managements discretion?

14 Apr 2010

Quote by Kaznkev
Laws be it health and safety or when you can start driving to drinking in a pub to buying cigarettes are all governed by law.
Everyone is treated the same....you cannot smoke in a pub or drink legally in a pub until you are 18....no exceptions.
I do not care if they are Muslim or Jewish or Christian...black white or green, everyone should be governed by the same laws. Whatever your colour or religion it should matter not a jot....but on many occasions we have seen it does.
Until such time when everyone walks down the same road there will be problems.
Because when a group are it seems allowed to by pass the law that most others have to adhere too, it makes people rather pissed off.
The trouble is that so many people are terrified to even be possibly seen to be as you would say " a bigot ". I do not see it that way at all.
If somebody else is allowed to do something that I would not be allowed to do, that is no more discriminate than some of the other things you read about.
The needs of an employer should be based on employment laws, and not special compensation for sections of a workforce, that is why we are supposed to have employment laws.
" Who determines the norm you would impose " the law does!!
IF as it says in that link that they will be allowed to dress differently than a Christian person or any other person for that matter in their place of work, then that is discrimination too!! Or can only certain sections of our society scream discrimination?

I am really having trouble understanding this desire for the belief that being allowed to wear different clothing means discrimination.I recently went to a night where there were some men dressed as french you ban this ,as there desires were different to yours?
These sleeves are worn by the blood team anyway,and if no one is harmed by others asking to wear them what is the problem?
people should be terrified to be bigots,they should be forced to examine their fears and prejudices and take a long hard look at why difference causes such an over reaction in them.
You speak about the law,where in this has a law been broken?i thought you were right wing,a believer in the "small state" and non government interference in peoples you would have the state dictate dress code?
Or is what you really believe in the imposition of white anglo saxon norms which you adhere to?
The law should not and has never in this country sort to impose norms thank god.
That is true as everybody would be in work and not taking their benefits. Perish the thought.
I suggest you take a little poodle down to your local bank or supermarket where " uniformity " is the NORM. Don't want to wear the clothes they give you? Then you will not get a job there. How dreadful is that eh?
Everyone should wear what they like to work, well you write a little letter to John Varley or Sir Terry Leahy, and see what they say about dress codes and the right to " uniformity ".
I have a mate who is ex graduate at a University and he has those self same views, he hates the way he is forced to wear a suit and tie to work.....ah poor soul. They obviously did not teach him the working of the real world at Uni!
uniformity has nothing to do with uniforms,do you want me to write in simpler sentances so i dont confuse you?
Firstly KAZ Uniformity is " overall sameness ", check the dictionary. So what do you think that means?
Secondly there is no need to be rude, I can leave you standing for rudeness sweetie. wink

I very rarely get confused anyway, only get confused by other peoples views sometimes.
Duster?

14 Apr 2010

ok i read the O P and the two articles where different one was school the other was a hospital
for those who shouted foul for the differences would only need to read the article from the telegraph and should it be proved true then this section
(The Department of Health has also relaxed rules prohibiting jewellery so that Sikh members of staff can wear bangles linked with their faith, providing they are pushed up the arm while the medic treats a patient. )
is now a true comparison
you may now argue area now: but the last time i looked whatever i pushed up my arm ended at my neck !!!! via a shoulder
the last i heard was the crucifix thing lost its case: does this mean is now changed or is the crucifix still banned ??
if so i`m not sure it could be argued that this is not a valid case for religious discrimination
interesting debate now possibly :

14 Apr 2010

ok point taken let me re-word this
why cant the sikh wear it on his ankle and not on display it has as much chance of contact as the crucifix thus contamination dangers the same
nit pick all you like me ol flower but it`s nearer now than ever to a real comparison i see more personal difference than honest debate respectfully that is wink

14 Apr 2010

Quote by Lizaleanrob
ok i read the O P and the two articles where different one was school the other was a hospital
for those who shouted foul for the differences would only need to read the article from the telegraph and should it be proved true then this section
(The Department of Health has also relaxed rules prohibiting jewellery so that Sikh members of staff can wear bangles linked with their faith, providing they are pushed up the arm while the medic treats a patient.
is now a true comparison

They've also relaxed the rules on Doctors wearing watches so they can accurately measure your pulse according to the sweep of the second hand, in line with the existing hygiene rules, obviously.
Now what? Would it be the same relaxation of the rule that allows Sikh bangles that also allows the wearing of wrist watches, or am I quite spectacularly missing the point you're trying to make? confused

N x x x ;)

14 Apr 2010

Quote by neilinleeds
ok i read the O P and the two articles where different one was school the other was a hospital
for those who shouted foul for the differences would only need to read the article from the telegraph and should it be proved true then this section
(The Department of Health has also relaxed rules prohibiting jewellery so that Sikh members of staff can wear bangles linked with their faith, providing they are pushed up the arm while the medic treats a patient. )
is now a true comparison

They've also relaxed the rules on Doctors wearing watches so they can accurately measure your pulse according to the sweep of the second hand.
Now what? Would it be the same relaxation of the rule that allows Sikh bangles, that also allows the wearing of wrist watches, or am I quite spectacularly missing the point you're trying to make? confused

N x x x ;)
in which case you would have to ask if the bangle and watch are not a health risk nor is it now a religious argumentwhy is the crucifix still banned when worn outside the uniform and is it STILL banned
fair question ??

14 Apr 2010

Oh FFS Rob, if you can't be arsed reading freely available articles on the interwebs that suggest that you might just possibly be wrong as the wrongest thing in a shop full of wrong things, then there ain't much point in me trying to spoon-feed the difference between apples and pears to you is there, cos more than likely you won't read anything I link you to either? Will you?
N x x x ;)

14 Apr 2010

Please could some one post a recent link so I can read. Is a nurse permitted to wear a cross or not?

14 Apr 2010

Quote by flower411
ok i read the O P and the two articles where different one was school the other was a hospital
for those who shouted foul for the differences would only need to read the article from the telegraph and should it be proved true then this section
(The Department of Health has also relaxed rules prohibiting jewellery so that Sikh members of staff can wear bangles linked with their faith, providing they are pushed up the arm while the medic treats a patient. )
is now a true comparison
you may now argue area now: but the last time i looked whatever i pushed up my arm ended at my neck !!!! via a shoulder
the last i heard was the crucifix thing lost its case: does this mean is now changed or is the crucifix still banned ??
if so i`m not sure it could be argued that this is not a valid case for religious discrimination
interesting debate now possibly :

The crucifix is not and never was banned ....you only have to READ everything in the original links to see that !!!!!
ok so from this statement when read in one context it would suggest that everything that YOU personally read in the daily mail is infact fact as far a your concerned leading others to believe your a daily mail reader (believer)
we can all use context for an argument but we all know what is meant most of the time :jagsatwork:

14 Apr 2010

neil i`m missing something then
educate me send me the links i will read happily always ready for a change of mind but could i have younger one mines a bit worn one side