Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login

Religious differences

last reply
143 replies
5.1k views
0 watchers
0 likes
Quote by flower411
"Having an opinion" and "stirring up religious hatred" are two entirely different things !

You are right, they are two different things.
So are "stirring up religious hatred" and "stating what is in the papers". If it was the first then the papers must be doing it on a scale far greater than a small forum and the powers that be would have put a stop to it.
It is up to the masses to read the reporting style of the journalists and make their own mind up or follow the papers way of thinking. I notice that some do and some do not. For example I have read a few comments from people who still believe that "Councils ban Christmas" because it was reported in the papers. This is because they want to believe it, do not want to read between the lines or do not want to research the story in depth to get to the truth. Whatever way they want is up to them, just they should not expect the remainder of society to fall for it as they have.
Dave_Notts
i thought this was a current affairs forum and this is a current affair ..a disliked one but a current affair all the same
should this issue have been reversed i wouldn`t have shouted foul!! you`d have to ask kenty if he would have but i fear he wouldn`t have argued the point either
i see a lot of all men are equal type statements bounded about on here but only when it suits and with very little conviction to the fact... the word equal is available to google or the oxford dictionary
although the two are different it is an issue of faith all the same ,now the girl has gone to the high court and won
is that for her religion or all ???
so should the nurse take her case to the high court and win will foul be called if it applies to only her religion and then minorities have to fight for them selves innocent
the bigger questions are.... will she infect someone with a cross.... is she good at her job...... does her religion mean she will treat me any different
also like to point out i do a lot of business with muslims and have yet to be offended when they say "allah be with you"
You are quite correct Davey.
Flower has accused me of being racist in the past, and now accuses me of stirring up religious hatred.
Of course to say anything now about anyone or anything, it seems you are this or that. That is what so called New Labour has achieved.
It is no coincidence that it is always the same four people that moan on here.
IF anyone wants to call me racist this or that I really could not give a toss. I have merely as Davey has quite rightly pointed out, taken things from daily papers. Now I am sure that if they were spouting any form of hatred be it racist or religious, then the powers to be would act.
People wonder why the BNP are growing when people like on here, want to shut people like me up from saying anything by branding me a racist or stirring up hatred,to try and frighten people like me into submission! Well it don't work with me. It may have worked with politicians too scared to address anything, but funnily enough with an election looming even Gordon Bottler Brown is now saying it it not racist to talk about immigration.....well he would now as he knows it is a huge issue for many and knows it is a vote loser.
I will not be bullied by people on here with their left wing views, and told to shut up.
But making accusations about other members on here, to be racist should be part of the AUP's policy of what you cannot say on here.
IF you think I am being racist then do what some do on here and report me to admin, I am sure many have.
I have been banned on here for my arguements with a couple of members but funnily enough never for my views, or my links.
So stick that in ya pipe and smoke it.
Quote by Lizaleanrob
the bigger questions are
1) will she infect someone with a cross: Possibly, that is why all jewellery is banned whether it is for religious or secular pleasure. Plenty of medical/research based study to show that there is a strong possibility that cross-contamination could occur.
2) is she good at her job: Possibly yes, but it was never the issue. The issue was question one and whether she was good at her job never came into it.
3) does her religion mean she will treat me any different: Possibly yes, but for that the law allows her to make those choices e.g. if she thinks something is against her principles/religion then she is allowed not to do it i.e. distribution of morning after pills to minors. If she is just after point scoring or flouncing then the law will be against her, as in the case she just lost

Dave_Notts
It just seems to me that it is far easier to ban jewellry, than to do the other major things which DO cause the vast majority of infections in hospitals.....PROPER hygiene in other words getting proper people in to clean the hospitals, and washing hands and making sure that everyone who enters a hospital washes their hands with bacterial soap.
But that is way too difficult to implement so they use a much easier option. As I have said already.....where exactly is the proof that jewellry causes infection exactly?
Maybe just maybe in this case it does indeed have nothing to do with ones religion, but the bangle and the BA worker certainly does.
But then again sometimes the law is applied to one section of a religion over the majority. I ride a motorbike and by law have to wear a crash helmet, but there are some sections who do not. Now nobody is forced to ride a motorbike as they have other options, but whilst the crash helemt law applies to me, other people can be excluded from that law based on their religion.....so there is religious discrimination out there.....probably always will be.
Quote by kentswingers777
It just seems to me that it is far easier to ban jewellry, than to do the other major things which DO cause the vast majority of infections in hospitals.....PROPER hygiene in other words getting proper people in to clean the hospitals, and washing hands and making sure that everyone who enters a hospital washes their hands with bacterial soap.
But that is way too difficult to implement so they use a much easier option. As I have said already.....where exactly is the proof that jewellry causes infection exactly?
Maybe just maybe in this case it does indeed have nothing to do with ones religion, but the bangle and the BA worker certainly does.
But then again sometimes the law is applied to one section of a religion over the majority. I ride a motorbike and by law have to wear a crash helmet, but there are some sections who do not. Now nobody is forced to ride a motorbike as they have other options, but whilst the crash helemt law applies to me, other people can be excluded from that law based on their religion.....so there is religious discrimination out there.....probably always will be.

The problem I see is that you are saying one type of cross contamination is worse than the other. If the end result is death to the patient then do you really think they or their family would give two hoots if it came from the jewellery/hands/mobile phone/clothing/back splash from handwashing liquid in an operating theatre/etc. IMO you are throwing in a red herring for this scenario. Cross contamination kills, in all forms and one is not more important as the other. They all need to be managed. Evidence? Just go into google scholar and type in the above list of examples where bacteria can be found. Be prepared to have your credit card available as the studies are not always free to download.
Now the young girl was stopped from wearing her religious bangle in a school that had a uniform policy, not an infection control problem. The bangle is integral to her religion and she wanted to wear it. When they said it was a ban on expensive jewellery, the girl pointed out that her steel bangle was worth a lot less than the watches that the other pupils wore. This is what won her the case.
The BA worker was banned from wearing it because of a uniform policy. As all other staff adhere to it (including other religions) then they had a right to stop her from wearing it outside of the uniform. She could wear it under her uniform.
A court makes a decision on a case by case basis and it depends on arguments and precedents as to what course of action the court takes, as they have to take these into consideration before making a decision.
If you wish to compare the cases then you need to get a Sikh worker who wears a bangle while working for BA and it is outside of the uniform and they allow it or you have to get a Christian schoolgirl that is banned from wearing a cross at the same school to show how it is double standards. By using two examples that are so wide of the mark and has different variables then a sensible answer can not be given………..but hey, that sells newspapers so what the hell
Dave_Notts
Quote by kentswingers777
But then again sometimes the law is applied to one section of a religion over the majority. I ride a motorbike and by law have to wear a crash helmet, but there are some sections who do not. Now nobody is forced to ride a motorbike as they have other options, but whilst the crash helemt law applies to me, other people can be excluded from that law based on their religion.....so there is religious discrimination out there.....probably always will be.

You can wear a turban too...........no discrimination there. It is choice in my books
Dave_Notts
Quote by kentswingers777
As it says in the link posted: The crucifix was not banned. She could have pinned it to her uniform or tucked it inside her uniform. Sikh bangles, and any other jewellery, are also not allowed to be worn in the hospital because of infection.
I really can not see what you are saying here Kenty? Both were banned in the hopsital, so where is the problem?
The last person to comment in the link was spot on. She was advised......she chose to ignore the advice and flounced.
Dave_Notts

I am a bit confused Davey.
One was banned from the workplace and the other was allowed to be worn in school.
I think the reasons are pretty obvious.
As was talked about the other night with Nicky Campbells programme.....is Christianity being forced to take a back seat over other religions?
As I have already stated until I am blue in the face, I am NOT religious at all, but why should one religious item be banned and the other allowed? I personally think NO religious item should be worn in school...........period.
Either allow all religious items to be worn either at work or at school or down the bloody Wimpy,or do not allow any.
As was muted on the tv programme the other night,are people terrified of upsetting other faiths, but seem to do it no problem,with anything to do with Christianity.
Hurrah, an apples and pears argument.
Because X is allowed in a school it doesn't mean X should be allowed in a hospital.
My bairn takes the pet hamster to school some days; it would not be allowed in a hospital.
Game over.
BTW, Nicky Campbell should always be muted on TV programmes, even if he believes he is mooting.
Is there anyone you listen too away?
Anyone who has an opinion different to yours, you slag off.
But hey such is life.
Quote by Kaznkev
So someone claim not to be religious but cries foul when a muslim school girl wins a case,is this another electioneering for you know who?!.....people say christianity is taking the back seat hehehe which "people"

You`re in my head ...aren`t ya !!!
It does seem odd for somebody that claims not to be religious to keep starting threads that are clearly aimed at stirring up religious hatred .
As one of the few proclaimed christians on the site i had exactly the same thoughts,
I am not an astronaught.......but I will cast an opinion about space travel
I am not gay........but I will cast an opinion about gay issues
I am not a lot of things.......but I will cast an opinion about anything I wish to. Thats mine and your right to do. Just because you are not something does not mean you shouldn't have an opinion about it.
Dave_Notts
i am afraid i have to disagree with you and ben,if the OP had started a thread on the general wearing of religious symbols in public life,then i think you would be didnt though,he claimed i take a hard line on discrimination,i believe that should a person from a group believe they are discriminated against then it is fact,for example should someone black see a word/action/behaviour/event/as racist than i as a white woman cannot deny we do not follow this we end up with persons of priviledge deciding what is or isnt oppression.
How does this relate to the OP,well in order to be consistent then allowing someone who does not belong to a certain group to define what is or isnt discrimination also raises my post tried to claim that certain things oppress christians,when he is not one.i dont believe you need to be a member of a group to comment on wether certain behaviour is oppresive,but this was not a comment,it was an assertion.
And as a side point,the campaign by right wing Christians is one that needs to be treated with more knowledge of the situation than was shown here.
just because a person or group believes something doesn`t automatically make it true,however special,different or in a minority they they are just mistaken or deluded.
This thread is a whinge about religious minorities being treated better than indigenous religious cultures. It has been thinly veiled as usual to cover whatever the true motives are which are either to seek attention by expressing immoderate views or to spread hate.
I take the point Dave that such debates are media driven. However newspapers have extensive legal teams which ensure the hate they spread stays within the law, just about. The folk who spread hate and unrest on these forums have no such back up and frequently fall foul of existing legislation. I am irritated by it mostly because it goes against my egalitarian principles but partly because I would be very upset to see our community attacked because of illegal intolerant views expressed on an unnecessary forum.
I gave up reporting racist/divisist threads to admin when the gypsy thread was allowed to run and run. I intend to continue to challenge threads that I believe are designed to promote hate and point out when I think such threads bring our community into disrepute.
Quote by Ben_welshminx
This thread is a whinge about religious minorities being treated better than indigenous religious cultures. It has been thinly veiled as usual to cover whatever the true motives are which are either to seek attention by expressing immoderate views or to spread hate.
I take the point Dave that such debates are media driven. However newspapers have extensive legal teams which ensure the hate they spread stays within the law, just about. The folk who spread hate and unrest on these forums have no such back up and frequently fall foul of existing legislation. I am irritated by it mostly because it goes against my egalitarian principles but partly because I would be very upset to see our community attacked because of illegal intolerant views expressed on an unnecessary forum.
I gave up reporting racist/divisist threads to admin when the gypsy thread was allowed to run and run. I intend to continue to challenge threads that I believe are designed to promote hate and point out when I think such threads bring our community into disrepute.

Your first point can you explain to me what is illegal?
The second point is maybe admin became sick and tired of your frequent requests to get people banned? It is one thing having an opinion and getting the hump with peoples views, and another completly different thing to whinge to admin every five minutes just beacuse YOU believe someone has said something you do not like. Your not the only person who uses this forum, and nor am I.
You can think exactly what you like as to why the thread was started, as I am not answerable to you. What I would say is your own tolerance falls far short of your own wording at the bottom of your profile.
If you think that minorities need your protection, instead of barking on here, what about doing something about it? But as was said the other night on the telly by those same minorities....they do not want white middle class people telling others what they think they want. All they say is by others sticking up for them makes matters far worse, and who is the white indigenous Brit who thinks they know best anyway?.....a valid point.
If you do not like the links posted then complain to that newspaper,it stimulates debate which is what a forum is all about, not to whinge at the first opportunity to the powers that be.
As im sure you know it is illegal to promote hatred on the grounds of religion. Please refer to your other threads for details form various contributors.
"frequent request to gte people banned" is of course bollox and a figment of your imagination.
I think you are answerable to the whole community when you are asked what your motivation is in posting these hateful threads.
I am politically active and make many large and small efforts to make a difference.
I do complain to the appropriate people on occasion about newspaper reporting. As I said newspapers know how to walk the hate line. You do not and frequently fall over it.
Well let us agree to disagree eh?
You do not moderate this site and until such time I am told to stop using links, or am warned that my behavour has racist or religious hatred undertones attatched to them by the relevant authorities, then I shall continue as a matter of debate.
What is really funny is that for ages I was accused of being racist on here, BUT as soon as that Question time programme came on, and those people said what I had been saying, I did not hear another whisper on here from anyone.
Now even Brown has said it is ok, as I have already said he would do as he is now fighting for his political career.
As a matter of interest though, what makes you think that the very people you want to stick up for, actually want you too? Have you asked them if they want you to be their savour?
There was a very inteligent Muslim on the tv the other night, who talked more sense than most people do. He does not want people sticking up for him, he does not want white Liberals coming to his aid. He feels he is inteligent enough to speak for himself and his opinions are echoed throughout the Muslim community.
I would listen to him all day long and did he talk a lot of sense, not like so many others.
On that note I am finished with this thread as to continue would have no objective.
Your presumption that I am a white anglo saxon protestant is wrong but has no bearing on my inclination to stand up to your offensive posts.
I am glad the latest example of your intolerance has drawn to a close but disappointed that you haven't clarified your intentions in making these posts.
But then regular readers will no doubt be aware that a reply to a direct question is rarely forthcoming.
And this is one of the reasons that so many people are scared stiff to debate issues of religion and race. This is a new phenomenon, which has grown up around new labour. People's views, some times very legitimate, are all to often silenced by cries of intolerance and racist.
Yes you WAS mistaken.....I say again.........you WAS mistaken.
I am not like some who go running like little children to the head teacher because Johny has taken my ball.
Not that I am giving you any advice, but read again admins pm to you and then think again before you say I am spouting religious hatred. Because like me I think neither one of us wants to get banned permanently from this site.
I will continue to say what I say as long as it does not step outside of the AUP, and when it has I have paid the price with a ban. I do not want another one and I presume neither do you, as this time it will probably be a life one, and am sure neither one of us want that.
So we will BOTH have to be very careful what we spout about each other.
Quote by Bluefish2009
And this is one of the reasons that so many people are scared stiff to debate issues of religion and race. This is a new phenomenon, which has grown up around new labour. People's views, some times very legitimate, are all to often silenced by cries of intolerance and racist.

worship:worship:
Blue no it isn't new. Both the incitement of religious division and critic of such incitement are well documented in the run up to WWII. How soon we forget, sadly.
sorry ben but that comment doesn`t back up claims to often made the we are living in the past and you all are moving towards the future dunno
Who all?
History repeats itself first as tragedy then as farce.
I do hope you arent gonna become an asinine double standardist pedant. Ive quite enjoyed your contributions.
Quote by Ben_welshminx
Blue no it isn't new. Both the incitement of religious division and critic of such incitement are well documented in the run up to WWII. How soon we forget, sadly.

Ok, But, I see no incitement here Ben, only discussion.
I understand you position Blue. I have asked the original poster to clarify their intentions and have had no response.
Quote by Ben_welshminx
I understand you position Blue. I have asked the original poster to clarify their intentions and have had no response.

You are having a fecking laugh here???
Go over what I have written Benny and if you still cannot see what I am saying, I shall write you a letter in capitals, so as it is a bit easier to understand........jeeze.
I do not mean to sound rude here but you are becoming a tad irritating, with YOUR constant ever so condescending tones.
Do you smoke a pipe by any chance?
Quote by kentswingers777
On that note I am finished with this thread as to continue would have no objective.
Yes Random but a question was levied at me which obviously needed answering, so there was another objective found.I was pissed off as was just going round and round in bloody circles, and was getting so dizzy I had to have a lay down. wink
Maybe people should read ALL of this and maybe then will understand what the programme was saying and trying to achieve.
Now do not read only parts of it, if it is a bit too long for some then have a cup of tea halfway through it.

Campbell cites the terror and totalitarianism that sprung up in France and Russia after their revolutions abolished religion and says: “The guiding principle of ‘liberalism’ - a commitment to tolerance ... to live and let live, has an inherent flaw.
“It’s less inclined to argue against strong competing ideologies – religious or otherwise.”

Or if anyone has time and there are a few on here that obviously do, then spend an hour taking this in....bet ya don't though.
Quote by Ben_welshminx
Who all?
History repeats itself first as tragedy then as farce.
I do hope you arent gonna become an asinine double standardist pedant. Ive quite enjoyed your contributions.

the problem is ben is history is the past and those who want move towards the future are responsible for forging it thus being guilty of history repeating its self wink
Quote by kentswingers777
Is there anyone you listen too away?
Anyone who has an opinion different to yours, you slag off.
But hey such is life.

Whine whine whine....
Address the substantive point whinemaker...
You're trying to make an argument about religious tolerance out of substantially different cases - stupid conjunctions like that may keep Nicky Campbell in work, but they don't cut much ice with me.
Incidentally, if you didn't get the point that I was making a pun out of your homophonic spelling mistake, maybe that's because you take yourself way too seriously.
This post is not and has never been about religion it is about 'Sthere you go I've said it....just as some of you would love to feel able to 'Ssaid it again
Kenty you say that the supposed lack of debate about immigration,religion,and ethnicity fuel the rise of the B.N.P. .....BOLLOCKSwhat fuels their rise is the evil spiteful shite spouted by your beloved daily mail and its cohorts in Wapping.....they spread lies and misinformation that many (and I include you)are either unwilling or unable to analyse....serious question.. why even when confronted with evidence to the contrary do you still believe the crap they spout...I can only think of two answers 1: you are an idiot or 2:you are a racist...take your pick.
I've addressed this to you kenty boy because you are the worst and most frequent offender you are by no means the one on here (names supplied on request..in the forum,I've no interest in any pm's)
If you want a debate about race have the nuts to start one and stop with these thinly veiled arguments about 'religious intolerance' it's bullshit you know it I know it and so does everybody else who comes here
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.

Welcome to the friendly forum Wildone wink
I feel you may have made a valid point.
Some of the preachers of tolerance here, appear, to me, to be the least tolerant people here