View Full Version : What is happening to OUR Country?
North Rhins
13-Jan-07, 00:18
It has just been reported on the news that a school girl in Kent has been banned from wearing a crucifix to school. This is on top of a British Airways employee some weeks ago, being suspended for refusing to remove a gold cross and chain. I was always under the impression that we were a Christian country and that we were tolerant of all faiths and denominations. What on earth is going on? Who are these people making these decisions.? Where do they get their authority?
jinglejangle
13-Jan-07, 00:21
It has just been reported on the news that a school girl in Kent has been banned from wearing a crucifix to school. This is on top of a British Airways employee some weeks ago, being suspended for refusing to remove a gold cross and chain. I was always under the impression that we were a Christian country and that we were tolerant of all faiths and denominations. What on earth is going on? Who are these people making these decisions.? Where do they get their authority?
that is just ridicolous - i agree with you - so much so that if people don't like what they see they can go back to where they came from. we don't ask other religions not to wear their dress etc - if we did we would be classed as racist - this place is going made. read in one of my children's books today about merpeople - i take it mermaid is no longer allowed?
Cedric Farthsbottom III
13-Jan-07, 00:26
that is just ridicolous - i agree with you - so much so that if people don't like what they see they can go back to where they came from. we don't ask other religions not to wear their dress etc - if we did we would be classed as racist - this place is going made. read in one of my children's books today about merpeople - i take it mermaid is no longer allowed?
Merpeople are characters from Harry Potter,mermaid is a woman,merman is a man.Merpeople is the MER community together
Alice in Blunderland
13-Jan-07, 00:27
If we are to be a multi cultural society then that means accepting everyones right to wear symbols of their belief ,not ban them. :) This is the pc brigade gone mad once again.
jinglejangle
13-Jan-07, 00:28
Merpeople are characters from Harry Potter,mermaid is a woman,merman is a man.Merpeople is the MER community together
cheers - it wasn't harry potter i was reading but probably same principle applies! thank you for replying - i thought political correctness had gone mad!
It has just been reported on the news that a school girl in Kent has been banned from wearing a crucifix to school. This is on top of a British Airways employee some weeks ago, being suspended for refusing to remove a gold cross and chain. I was always under the impression that we were a Christian country and that we were tolerant of all faiths and denominations. What on earth is going on? Who are these people making these decisions.? Where do they get their authority?
When I was at school the girls wern't allowed to wear any jewelry at all, could it be that this school has a similar ban?
North Rhins
13-Jan-07, 00:46
I’ve always imagined that the ‘PC Brigade’ was some Harris Tweed jacketed, corduroy trousered, nylon sock wearing open toe sandaled, anally retentive zealot who fervently believes that by persecuting the majority he is somehow showing his support for the minority. The fact is he is probably doing the minority more harm than good. You immediately suspects that a non Christian i.e. a Muslim/Jew/Hindu/ Buddhist has kicked up a stink about the Christian symbol, in all probability nothing could be further from the truth. They couldn’t care less what anyone wears. To continue my rant, have you ever noticed that the perpetrator of the ban is never seen or heard. All you ever get is ‘A spokesperson declined to comment.’ Who are these people?
Cedric Farthsbottom III
13-Jan-07, 00:46
cheers - it wasn't harry potter i was reading but probably same principle applies! thank you for replying - i thought political correctness had gone mad!
PC has gone mad.Somehow because I was baptized under the Church of Scotland I'm classed as Protestant.I've never seen masel as a Protestant,just as I never thought anything of the guys who went to the Catholic School in my home town as Catholics.They were all one of the guys.I wasn't naive as to know they had different religious beliefs,but when yer playing football at 100mph these things don't matter.
If someone wears a crucifix its to support their beliefs.Some folk don't wear a crucifix because they feel their beliefs inside.The problem with religion is that it causes more wars than any other subject.Unless us on Caithnss Org can change this and say that Monopoly is a better game than Ker Plunk,cos I'm up for a fight!!!:lol: :lol:
changilass
13-Jan-07, 00:54
Of course monopoly is best, unless of course you are a kid :lol: then ker plunk rules:lol:
the charlatans
13-Jan-07, 00:56
Kerplunk is best.
my mum always cheated at monopoly. :mad: found this out when i got old.
North Rhins
13-Jan-07, 01:00
It seems like the Health & Safety Police have had a hand in this as well.
http://www.kentonline.co.uk/news/default.asp?article_id=30271&startrecord=-1.#IND
Cedric Farthsbottom III
13-Jan-07, 01:02
Kerplunk is best.
my mum always cheated at monopoly. :mad: found this out when i got old.
Monopoly came down to who was the banker charlatans
Cos when the others were looking at their cards to see how much a hotel cost in Mayfair.The banker would be chucking £2000 into their money pile.Ker Plunk ye couldnae cheat on,if ye pulled oot the straws and the marbles fell,the marbles fell.Ye cannae beat gravity,unless yer in space!!!:lol:
North Rhins
13-Jan-07, 01:05
Ker Plunk is a game for the hard of thinking. Monopoly on the other hand is a game of skill, fiscal prudence, strategy and slight of hand.
the charlatans
13-Jan-07, 01:06
Monopoly came down to who was the banker charlatans
Cos when the others were looking at their cards to see how much a hotel cost in Mayfair.The banker would be chucking £2000 into their money pile.Ker Plunk ye couldnae cheat on,if ye pulled oot the straws and the marbles fell,the marbles fell.Ye cannae beat gravity,unless yer in space!!!:lol:
EXACTLY. thats exactly what she did. AND she's a cross wearing Christian..... cheating her bairns oot o monopoly money. we don't let her forget it either. but she just giggles!
as for the original theme - i say wear your cross and be proud.
Cedric Farthsbottom III
13-Jan-07, 01:13
It seems like the Health & Safety Police have had a hand in this as well.
http://www.kentonline.co.uk/news/default.asp?article_id=30271&startrecord=-1.#IND
Read the link it has infuriated the parents of the girl.We live in a multi-cultural society where most of the time we all live along makin' sure oor own families are going to be alright.I care about one thing in OUR country that ye wake up in the morning and ye have a smile on yer face for the rest o' the day.If the young lassie is wearing her crucifix,wear it.When someone tells ye you can't,ye have to fight for yer rights.If theirs no solutions we could always read oor Sunday Posts:lol: :lol:
The school has a policy of no jewellery to be worn by any students in Years 7 to 10. All parents and students are aware of this.
“In this particular instance, the student, and parent, were informed that the wearing of the chain was a health and safety hazard, but that we would allow a lapel badge to be worn.
“The only exception to our uniform rule we would consider making is if the jewellery were an essential requirement of a particular religion.
I don't have a problem with that...the crucifix is an item of jewellery, an optional extra........not a required essential element of any Christian faith.
I assume the parents were aware of the rules..........so it strikes me they are just looking for their fifteen minutes of "fame"!
So a thin gold chain which would snap with the least strain, and I have never, ever, heard of anybody being strangled by one, is considered dangerous.
However, a Lapel Badge, which I would assume could and probably would be fastened with a sharp pointed "pin" through the lapel, is considered perfectly safe.
A small crucifix on a thin chain is jewellery but a similar or even the same crucifix worn on a lapel is not?
Magic, pure magic. I would suggest that the next time they have Mushroom Soup for lunch they check the type of Mushrooms they use very, very carefully!
Cedric Farthsbottom III
13-Jan-07, 03:41
So a thin gold chain which would snap with the least strain, and I have never, ever, heard of anybody being strangled by one, is considered dangerous.
However, a Lapel Badge, which I would assume could and probably would be fastened with a sharp pointed "pin" through the lapel, is considered perfectly safe.
A small crucifix on a thin chain is jewellery but a similar or even the same crucifix worn on a lapel is not?
Magic, pure magic. I would suggest that the next time they have Mushroom Soup for lunch they check the type of Mushrooms they use very, very carefully!
Crackin post man.:D
Metalattakk
13-Jan-07, 05:43
So a thin gold chain which would snap with the least strain, and I have never, ever, heard of anybody being strangled by one, is considered dangerous.
However, a Lapel Badge, which I would assume could and probably would be fastened with a sharp pointed "pin" through the lapel, is considered perfectly safe.
A small crucifix on a thin chain is jewellery but a similar or even the same crucifix worn on a lapel is not?
Magic, pure magic. I would suggest that the next time they have Mushroom Soup for lunch they check the type of Mushrooms they use very, very carefully!
Who said it was a "thin gold chain which would snap with the least strain"?
Rubbish post, JAWS. You're just inferring what you want to read, with no sign of 'reasoned debate' at all.
Oddquine has it nailed down - "so it strikes me they are just looking for their fifteen minutes of "fame"!
if you look at the photo in the link it shows the neclace and chain..
the chain is cery light and would snap very easy.
and if the family are devout catholics.. then yes it is an important religious symbol
she could be wearing rosaries... if they were very very devout!
and yes say that it was a fundamental part of their religion..
i know it sounds silly but when they mentioned the badge on the lapel.. i thought.. star of david.. might as well sew it on.. for all the tollerance they are showing.
but the article also said other children wore jewerly to school as well.
on another note.. when i was 15. i had a really really and i mean scary! bad hair day..
i wore a cap to school.. which was against the rules..
the teacher told me to take it off..
i was nearly in tears.. and i looked like i had stuck my finger in the socket. i
begged him to let me keep it on.. and he said no.. and sent me to the office..
the vice principle then told me as he took out a wooden paddle that he was going to paddle me!
i was 15 years old! and this man was going to spank me?!!
now im all for respecting athourity.. but i felt that was just wrong..
and i simply told him.. mr. leonard i swear to god if you touch me with that you better pray to God its made of choc.
he smirked and said why?
i said cause my mama will make you eat the darn thing..
he said.. oh we will see about that and called my mum..
after her shock wore off that the man actually wanted to bend me over and paddle my behind.. well lets just say that she had several colorful things to say.. left work and came straight down.
she kindly informed him that if he ever ever lay a hand on me that she would make sure he was under the jail.
that i was no longer a child to be paddled.. and if he could not offer proper dicipline for the crime then he had no buisness being there.
now i was not punished at school.. but i did get grounded for breaking teh rules. and not listening to the teacher by my mom.. but good lord..
that woman was scary! *grins*
if you look at the photo in the link it shows the neclace and chain..
the chain is cery light and would snap very easy.
and if the family are devout catholics.. then yes it is an important religious symbol
she could be wearing rosaries... if they were very very devout!
and yes say that it was a fundamental part of their religion..
A crucifix necklace may be important to them, brandy..........but not an essential part of the religion..and it is not necessary to wear a rosary.
but the article also said other children wore jewerly to school as well.
Doubtless children not in years 7-10. I would assume the school had reasons we don't know about for making the rules specific to a group.
I am astounded by the numbers of people who decide that rules are not for them, and proceed to break them, then whine to the media when pulled up about it.
its not really necessary to wear any religious garb, but we do it to carry our faith. we wont die or suffer severe consequences if we dont, but its the fact that some one is being denied the ability to do it.
you cant on one hand say.. oh you dont have to wear a motorcycle helmet because your faiths and beliefs say you need to wear your turban.. and then turn around and say.. you can not wear a crucifix because of health and saftey.
by the way.. not taking a shot at muslims by the way. .but taking a shot at health and saftey issues..
seriously which is more risk?
The school has a policy of no jewellery to be worn by any students in Years 7 to 10. All parents and students are aware of this.
“In this particular instance, the student, and parent, were informed that the wearing of the chain was a health and safety hazard, but that we would allow a lapel badge to be worn.
“The only exception to our uniform rule we would consider making is if the jewellery were an essential requirement of a particular religion.
I don't have a problem with that...the crucifix is an item of jewellery, an optional extra........not a required essential element of any Christian faith.
I assume the parents were aware of the rules..........so it strikes me they are just looking for their fifteen minutes of "fame"!
I attended a school in Kent, and we also had strict uniform rules (some 20 years ago), and again the NO Jewellery rule applied, i agree with you " fifteen minutes of fame" for the family, or kicking up a fuss when it really isn't necessary, just seems like a good excuse to have a dig at the school and religion. The world has gone mad.
Boozeburglar
13-Jan-07, 15:59
Brandy>
For even mentioning the wearing of the Star of David in this context, in a society that is 70% plus declared Christian with only a tiny instance of verifiable anti Christian activity, you should be ashamed of yourself.
Boozeburglar
13-Jan-07, 16:01
Generally speaking, I am with Oddquine on this one.
The schoolgirl was breaking the rules, so there is no case to answer for the school.
Are the teachers supposed to inspect all the jewelry worn every day to check no one is wearing a chain strong enough to choke on?
Pretty practical to just ban it then.
Rules must also be fairly general in large organizations such as BA.
The majority of Sikhs wear bangles or turbans as a requirement of their religion. A large number of Muslims wear the Hijab, and consider it a requirement.
Therefore, when devising a dress code, BA made some allowances.
The crucifix, the wearing of externally not generally being considered a requirement, was not included in these allowances.
BA’s catch all rule on personal jewelry, including crucifixes, allowed that these could be worn within the uniform.
Seems fair to me.
Of course there is also is a health and safety issue with having a necklace outside a uniform when handling baggage, or leaning over people serving drinks and food on a plane.
(Brandy, someone having their eye scratched by a flight attendant wearing a necklace is a corporate liability. A Sikh sustaining head injuries through not wearing a motorcycle helmet is their personal liability.)
The employee in question was undoubtedly making a point.
I think she was crying wolf in claiming religious discrimination.
Just like some people here are doing.
Boozeburglar
13-Jan-07, 16:18
Crikey, just noticed the emphatic capitalisation in the title of this thread...
Just what does this issue have to do with such notions as ‘OUR country’?
Is this happening in Scotland?
There are plenty of British born Muslims, and plenty non British Christians living here.
However, anyone who is deemed fit to live here has equal rights to expression in my view.
Why not just discuss the issue of religious tolerance without confusing it with issues of nationality and origin?
This is supposedly a democracy, the needs and rights of the minority should be represented, and Christianity is the market leader, at over 70% of those declaring a religious bent.
However, there were other religions here long before the Christians. Are they the ones who ‘own’ the gaff? The druids? The Picts?
As far as the ridiculous idea that, ‘if people don't like what they see they can go back to where they came from’, (jinglejangle), history would show you that approach would get you just a short distance before you were one of the ones who was going back ‘home’.
If you don’t like what you see, get out and make a noise about it, lend the weight of your intellect to the debate, just like everyone else is entitled to. That is the beautiful thing about democracy and free speech, use it while you still can. If your argument can sustain itself, you will make a difference.
danc1ngwitch
13-Jan-07, 18:02
ok then let me see. This is a forum ( yep ) ok then, we are all individual. ( hell yea ). Everyone is allowed their own say aslong as your not insulting other inocent folks. ( yea what u gettin at ? ) alrighty then.
for this is the only commandment,
by magick of old be it done.
Eight words the ******* ***** forfill,
IF IT HARMS NONE SO BE IT WILL.
let me see for those who is less understanding then fine remember this is only a forum. Ah the talk of riddles lol who loves it .. and if you dont then put on ignore... [lol]
Brandy>
For even mentioning the wearing of the Star of David in this context, in a society that is 70% plus declared Christian with only a tiny instance of verifiable anti Christian activity, you should be ashamed of yourself.
what does the star of david have to do with the percentages of christians?
i said i knew it sounded silly, its just what popped into my head when i read that she could wear a badge, if she wanted to express her faith..
it just made me think of the poor jews who were persecuted.. and forced to wear the star of david.
it may not make sence but its just what came to mind.
im honestly sitting here re reading over and over the above quote.. trying to figure out why i should be ashamed.. imho.. i just do not get the remark.. im not being obtuse.. just really dont understand it.
also, want to point out.. in the particular case.. not saying that i think the person is trying to get thier 15 min.. or sincerly deeply faithful and feels deep comfort with the crucifix..
its more the principle behind it.
and their reasoning..
as for the post on dangerous weapons.. theres a case i read on cnn yesterday where a 12 year old girl.. is being sentanced.. after her and another 12 year old got into an argument..
the one girl hit the other one.. (over a fone call where they hung up on one another) well she slapped out at the other girl hitting her in the chest..
she had a comb in her hand.
the girls mother came .. and took the one child home.. hours later the girl complained of chest pain and went to the hospital.. the girl did not even know she had been hurt.. but the comb had went into her chest .. and embedded 2 in. into her heart.
now the other child who held the comb is being charged with basically attempted murder.. and is facing years in prison.. over something that was actually an accident.. she never stabbed the girl, she pushed her.. and the end of the metal comb went in..
freak accident but it happened..
its things like this that do upset me..
you have kids that deliberatly... find others to hurt and kill.. torturing them and yet they get away with a slap on the hand.
or spend time in juvie..
yet then you see where two kids get into an argument.. a fist flys .. one gets hurt..
and in all honesty, the two never really meant to "hurt" the other.. just a juvinile hormone driven urge.. that we all have experianced at one time or the other..
yet, they are put away with the truly mean ones.. tarred with the same brush.
just gotta love the justice system.
sometimes things happen.. and it is an accident..
a lot of times, people are just plain mean and malicious and they take joy in hurting others.
should both be punished equally?
Jeemag_USA
13-Jan-07, 18:58
I agree with Oddquines post on this. Wether we feel the schools rules are right or wrong, they were there before the girl came to school with the crucifix on so the child and parents have nothing to complain about. And I don't think anywhere in christianity does it declare you must wear a crucifix. If jewellry is not allowed the its not allowed. Just another excuse for a news story.
ok then let me see. This is a forum ( yep ) ok then, we are all individual. ( hell yea ). Everyone is allowed their own say aslong as your not insulting other inocent folks. ( yea what u gettin at ? ) alrighty then.
"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law."
Aleister Crowley
Who said it was a "thin gold chain which would snap with the least strain"?
Rubbish post, JAWS. You're just inferring what you want to read, with no sign of 'reasoned debate' at all.
Oddquine has it nailed down - "so it strikes me they are just looking for their fifteen minutes of "fame"!
Did you have a point to make?
oldmarine
14-Jan-07, 00:51
It has just been reported on the news that a school girl in Kent has been banned from wearing a crucifix to school. This is on top of a British Airways employee some weeks ago, being suspended for refusing to remove a gold cross and chain. I was always under the impression that we were a Christian country and that we were tolerant of all faiths and denominations. What on earth is going on? Who are these people making these decisions.? Where do they get their authority?
If this occured in the USA it would be due to the actions of the ACLU. Many refer to them as the Anti-American Civil Liberties Union. I wonder if they have extended their authority some how to Scotland by way of the United Kingdom?
for this is the only commandment,
by magick of old be it done.
Eight words the ******* ***** forfill, Witches' Creed
IF IT HARMS NONE SO BE IT WILL.
Witches' Creed
I'm a feeling at home here e night. :)
More to the point, what's happening to OUR Org? So many new faces, some old ones absent. I spy many new XX faces. The future is still XX. ;)
Does anyone still remember me? :lol:
More to the point, what's happening to OUR Org? So many new faces, some old ones absent. I spy many new XX faces. The future is still XX.
If the future is XX then we have no future.[evil]
Nice to see you Gleber2. I thought of you when I mentioned absent old faces. Have you been practising the old telepathy?
Who can I conjure up next? Where's Jabberw0ck? He's a bit of an XY man too.
More to the point, what's happening to OUR Org? So many new faces, some old ones absent. I spy many new XX faces. The future is still XX. ;)
Does anyone still remember me? :lol:
IMO the new xx faces has replaced the old trouble makers, the .Org survives and is the better for it
connieb19
14-Jan-07, 02:19
IMO the new xx faces has replaced the old trouble makers, the .Org survives and is the better for it
If anyone else had said this they'd be accused of trolling!!![disgust]
Does anyone still remember me? :lol:
Remember you well Crayola - good to see you post. I'm still here too.
j4bberw0ck
14-Jan-07, 02:46
How could I forget? Crayola, please stop hexing my keyboard; I typed a reply, sent it, and it didn't appear.
Gist of it was that Salome. Myra Hindley and Rose West were presumably all XX, so judging people by their chromosomal load is a bit like judging them by their bust measurement, or what they look like, or the clothes they wear. Not all XX are good, not all XY are bad.
Anyway, that said, it's nice to see you back.
Crikey, all the old regulars are popping up now. I'm getting good at this conjuring game. :D
What I want to know is who are the PC Brigade? Is it a secret organisation? Can anyone join or is it by invite only? Do they wear a uniform? Is it smart? ;)
I like laissez faire. Mother Earth created us all equal we should all respect each other. Are you listening golach and j4bberw0ck? Play nice!
Nice to see you too Moira and connie. The future is XX
Metalattakk
14-Jan-07, 03:33
Did you have a point to make?
The clue is in the post - maybe try reading it? Or are you just trying to stir the pot, as usual?
Oddquine has it nailed down - "so it strikes me they are just looking for their fifteen minutes of "fame"!
The clue is in the post - maybe try reading it? Or are you just trying to stir the pot, as usual?I made no mention of the parents actions, or the reasons behind them. I simply commented of the "logic" of the suggested solution made by the school which has no relevance to the parent's intentions at all.
So a thin gold chain which would snap with the least strain, and I have never, ever, heard of anybody being strangled by one, is considered dangerous.
However, a Lapel Badge, which I would assume could and probably would be fastened with a sharp pointed "pin" through the lapel, is considered perfectly safe.
A small crucifix on a thin chain is jewellery but a similar or even the same crucifix worn on a lapel is not?
Magic, pure magic. I would suggest that the next time they have Mushroom Soup for lunch they check the type of Mushrooms they use very, very carefully!
Who said it was a "thin gold chain which would snap with the least strain"?
Rubbish post, JAWS. You're just inferring what you want to read, with no sign of 'reasoned debate' at all.
Take a look at the picture on http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=428488&in_page_id=1770
Perhaps my understanding of "Thin Gold Chain" is not what appears in that picture but that is how I would describe it. Perhaps there could be some dispute that it could be made of "Silver" or some other metal, but thin it certainly is and "snap with the least strain" it certainly would.
I made a straight forward comment and that is all, I made no mention of anybody else’s opinion or comments they had made on the Thread nor have I made comment about any other poster. In what way is that "stirring the pot"?
There does seem to be some "pot stirring" being done but it certainly isn't being done by me.
If you see any particular fault with any of the details in the post then please make your point about that. If not then treat it for what it was, a straightforward comment, nothing more and nothing less!
You may well consider my original Post a "Rubbish Post" and you may have felt the need to inform me of your opinion. That you are perfectly entitled to do just as I have the entitlement to dismiss the comment with little more than slight amusement. :roll:
IMO the new xx faces has replaced the old trouble makers, the .Org survives and is the better for it
Can't help yourself, can you?[disgust]
Metalattakk
14-Jan-07, 06:59
I made no mention of the parents actions, or the reasons behind them. I simply commented of the "logic" of the suggested solution made by the school which has no relevance to the parent's intentions at all.
Take a look at the picture on http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=428488&in_page_id=1770
Perhaps my understanding of "Thin Gold Chain" is not what appears in that picture but that is how I would describe it. Perhaps there could be some dispute that it could be made of "Silver" or some other metal, but thin it certainly is and "snap with the least strain" it certainly would.
I made a straight forward comment and that is all, I made no mention of anybody else’s opinion or comments they had made on the Thread nor have I made comment about any other poster. In what way is that "stirring the pot"?
There does seem to be some "pot stirring" being done but it certainly isn't being done by me.
If you see any particular fault with any of the details in the post then please make your point about that. If not then treat it for what it was, a straightforward comment, nothing more and nothing less!
You may well consider my original Post a "Rubbish Post" and you may have felt the need to inform me of your opinion. That you are perfectly entitled to do just as I have the entitlement to dismiss the comment with little more than slight amusement. :roll:
The lady doth protest too much, methinks...
And yes, that's another rubbish post, JAWS!! You're getting too good at this! (Unless of course you're just trying to rile people - stirring the pot, if you may ...)
My point, as you well know, was:
Oddquine has it nailed down - "so it strikes me they are just looking for their fifteen minutes of "fame"!
Which you seemed to completely ignore, concentrating more on your own issues rather than the point in case.
Be aware, I'm on to you, my boy. I know what you're up to, and what you're trying to achieve.
And you can dismiss that one too, with as much amusement as you care to donate. ;)
You seem to be the only one getting riled. Nobody else seems to be bothered in the least.
I don't see where I have said anything to contradict or dispute Oddquine's opinion of the parents reasons for complaining.
You appear to be the only one to arrive at the conclusion that I have any problem with Oddquine's view of the parents intentions. Where you get that idea from I have no idea, I had made no mention of his post or the parents.
To put you’re mind at rest, I suspect Oddquine is probably quite right about the parents and their desire for “15 minutes of fame”.
I’m sure it is of great comfort to all the members of the forum that you can assure them you are “on to me”.
I would suggest that you keep both eyes on me so others know they are having their interests well cared for.
You believe what you wish to believe, I don't mind in the least. But do try not to let your imagination run away with you too much.
j4bberw0ck
14-Jan-07, 11:05
Are you listening.......j4bberw0ck? Play nice!
You mean agree with everyone? :lol:
Praetorian
14-Jan-07, 14:37
I thought this thread was about what has happened with our country but as with many threads the remaining pages are nothing to do with the initial topic so replying to the original thread seems a waste of time. If people have other topics start another thread. i.e have all the troublemakers really gone? I personally doubt it perhaps the troublemakers are just the same people with new faces;)
If people have other topics start another thread. i.e have all the troublemakers really gone? I personally doubt it perhaps the troublemakers are just the same people with new faces;)
Or maybe just people who interpret posts differently.........and reply to what they understand them to mean. Imo, as long as altercations are conducted politely, how can differing interpretations of posts be termed troublemaking.
Troublemaking is posts such as those talking about troublemakers in a currently reasonably conducted discussion. :roll:
danc1ngwitch
14-Jan-07, 21:40
It has just been reported on the news that a school girl in Kent has been banned from wearing a crucifix to school. This is on top of a British Airways employee some weeks ago, being suspended for refusing to remove a gold cross and chain. I was always under the impression that we were a Christian country and that we were tolerant of all faiths and denominations. What on earth is going on? Who are these people making these decisions.? Where do they get their authority?
Oh no no no, maybe it was an upside down crucifix. ( even if it was ) so what. Tolerant, hmmmm i dunno i really dunno. By the way look the original post, lol, Alot of us cannot be who we want to be and it's because of people who are afraid, afraid of what they cannot control.
I ain't much but i have my own thoughts and no one can ever touch them . ( i do however have to tone down for the org ) Or i would get kicked and bounced of the walls before getting thrown out into the cold.[lol]
It took a little time but BA have seen some sense, wonder how much this will cost them.
http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.1136541.0.0.php
You mean agree with everyone? :lol:No, just agree with me. You know you want to. :D
You mean agree with everyone? :lol:
No, I think that I am the only one who is expected to agree with everyone.
Hi ,I wear a chain cause my wife bought me it, i myself would never buy one but since i now have it i wear it. my wife some times wears a crucifix cause she likes it, not for any religious beliefs. Why cant a cross be worn just cause they like it i/e just as a piece of jewellery without inciting other beliefs surely we can tolerate all religions. yes i suppose there are far to many political correct do gooder,s ranting & raving making a noise just to get them selves heard. i reckon this country bends over backwards, building mosques teaching foreign lingo to incomers allowing them to live as they would in their home countries. some immigrants just want to to live their lives here but in the manner that they would in their native countrie,s. they dont want to change, they want us to change.
that is my personal opinion i dont expect anyone to agree with me, we can all make our minds up as we feel free?
Hi ,I wear a chain cause my wife bought me it, i myself would never buy one but since i now have it i wear it. my wife some times wears a crucifix cause she likes it, not for any religious beliefs. Why cant a cross be worn just cause they like it i/e just as a piece of jewellery without inciting other beliefs surely we can tolerate all religions.
No reason at all!
But, out of interest........ if you took a job where it clearly said that jewellery was not to be worn openly..........would you insist on your "right" to wear jewellery regardless of the rules?
And would you do it under the spurious claim that you had as much right to proclaim your religion, because you feel like it, as anyone who is expected to maintain a specific dress code as part of theirs does?
It was obviously not discrimination. If they allowed other jewellery to be worn over clothes but not the crucifix then it would be discrimination.
I'm getting a bit fed up of all those people who are jumping on the "Sikhs wear turbans, some muslims wear headscarves, some Jews wear yarmulkes...so I should get to wear quasi-religious jewellery" bandwagon! :roll:
if i was offered a job that insisted that no jewellery was to be worn, then i would accept that . im sure it would be stipulated at the job interview.
there was a case not long ago where a woman was awarded compensation for being sacked cause she insisted on wearing a mask, yet when she was interviewed for that same position , she attended wearing western clothes & not wearing the mask. jewellery i can live without it wont keep you warm, you cant eat it & and it,s a poor substitute for company. as i said i only wear a chain cause i got it for nothing.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.