What kind of headgear should be allowed on schools?
No headgear should be allowed
22.8% (28)
22.8% (28)
Only religious headgear should be allowed
17.1% (21)
17.1% (21)
Only atheist headgear should be allowed
3.3% (4)
3.3% (4)
Only headgear that leaves the face visible and doesn't hinder anyone's view should be allowed
55.3% (68)
55.3% (68)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: Atheist headgear banned on school

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT
 

Katatori-kun:
It's a case of them preventing the group from engaging in necessary practices that do no harm to the public.

My religious beliefs say so is not what creates a 'necessity'.

To portray them as "bother" shows your lack of interest in a reasonable discussion of the topic. But then, even that is just another re-tread of your first thread.

Yes, he totally needs to see their complaint as more than a bother to be reasonable. Everyone who doesn't give the same respect to religion as you is just obviously not trying to be reasonable! Oh wait, that's a nonsensical dismissal based on a single word. But then you're good at making up reasons to dismiss what you don't like and not consider it.

cerapa:
1) Sadly this is not a case of a re-think of a rule. This is an exception to a rule, giving more power to a group or groups of people.

"giving more power"?! Let's not be completely ridiculous, please. Allowing minorities to fulfill their religious/cultural commitments is not "power". It's a basic human right in civilized societies.

2)This isnt differing behaviour, this is sidestepping a rule.

It is differing behavior. The rule was clearly conceived of in a time when Muslims were an almost unheard of group and it didn't occur to anyone that students might wear head coverings for a purpose other than for fashion. When people demand Muslims obey the rule in violation of their beliefs, what they are doing is punishing Muslims for having different beliefs. The resultant "freedom of religion" is effectively to say that you have total freedom of religion as long as you do nothing that's different from what the rest of society does- which isn't freedom of religion at all.

Sadly, this is what is behind a lot of anti-Islamic sentiment at the moment. For many Europeans and Americans, this is the first time they are encountering truly different cultures through Middle Eastern immigration. For many people, different = scary. So these people convince themselves they aren't biased against Muslims, they just want Muslims to stop being different.

Personally I do understand the fact that wearing some sort of hat can be very important to a person,

Then might I propose you inform yourself before you start declaring your opinion?

but that is more of a reason for getting rid of the rule, rather than making an exception based on religion.

This argument would have credibility if these arguments weren't always framed in a way that pretends the privileged majority are discriminated against merely by reasonably accommodating minority groups that have different needs. The fact that you can propose a better rule (and I do think your rule is better) doesn't make the status quo discriminatory.

An exception which carries the implication that religious requirements are more important than other requirements.

I would argue that in some cases, they are. Let's take diet, for example. I don't like eggs. I hate eggs. The mere thought of eating eggs disgusts me. I can do it, but I don't ever want to. Certain religious groups have prohibitions against eating pork. Now I dislike eggs and it's unfair for someone to force me to eat them for no good reason. But since I can eat them, it's far worse for someone to force someone with a religious prohibition to eat pork.

3)Rules are created to prevent harm of some kind.

Incorrect. I've spent a lot of time working in schools. Without knowing why these Dutch schools Danyal loves harping on about ban hats we'll never be able to speculate for their case, but I've seen plenty of rules in schools that have nothing to do with preventing harm. They have everything to do with making it easier to maintain order. The schools can accommodate an exception to the rule as needed, but if they just let everyone violate the rule willy-nilly without need then there will be chaos.

Get over yourself. Atheists aren't being discriminated against. Headscarves are a part of Muslim culture and the only discrimination would be not allowing them to wear them.

When I was in school (public school in the states), there was some stupid rule against wearing hats, and when it was finally challenged by a group of us, the rule was rescinded. Why? The only reason the powers that be could come up with for why the rule even existed was "because."

The problem is less with the religious headgear exemption and more with the ridiculous rule against hats. Worry about that, not whether there's some organized campaign to discriminate against atheists and/or non-headgear wearing belief systems.

Katatori-kun:
*snip*

Hats are powerful things. Never underestimate the abilities of a hat-wielding person! Hat-wielder are obviously in a better position than other people.

The only problem I have is that this particular exception only takes into account a persons religion. The rules and laws of country/school will naturally be determined by the culture of the majority of the population, and as such accomodations for minorities have to be consciously made. But the exceptions should be as universal as possible, rather than latching onto religion or anything else. This naturally creates a degree of uncertainty over when you exceptions should be used, but I would rather have uncertainty over someone being deprived of something they need because they are not of a particular religion(and this is where my calls of discrimination come from).

On another note, making it harder to maintain order in a school could be considered harm. But I dont exactly care for this particular piece of our argument so you can ignore this paragraph.

I dont know if the "being biased against muslims" was pointed at me, and I dont really care if they are, but if they are, then I assure you, I am not biased against muslims. I am instead completely unfazed by cultural standards, so any rules made for reasons of culture or religion seem exceedingly silly to me. I dont even understand why hatlessness is an actual rule rather than just politeness. I understand the arguments, but the whole thing seems silly.

I will now be going off to bed. I hope my second paragraph clarifies my viewpoint.

Mortai Gravesend:

Why is their culture any more important than some other belief, hmm?

And it's quite related, people are getting a free pass on their beliefs because their beliefs are being granted a completely unnecessary 'special' status.

Uh, no; the same is true for political beliefs as well as religious beliefs, you know. The school can't limit your political free speech or your religious freedoms with their dress codes, so long as you are not being disruptive.

Did you ever hear of the black armbands supreme court case?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinker_v._Des_Moines_Independent_Community_School_District

Students were wearing black armbands to school to protest the Vietnam war; the school tried to ban them, but the Supreme Court said that that infringed the student's freedom of speech and political expression.

But, yes. We have certain rights that are guaranteed to us in the Constitution. One is freedom of religion, and one is freedom of speech. The government can not limits your freedom of religion or one that limits your freedom of speech. So, yes, in a way that is a "special right", but it's one that goes both ways, and actually does more to protect atheists then it does to protect religious people most of the time.

Yosarian2:

Mortai Gravesend:

Why is their culture any more important than some other belief, hmm?

And it's quite related, people are getting a free pass on their beliefs because their beliefs are being granted a completely unnecessary 'special' status.

Uh, no; the same is true for political beliefs as well as religious beliefs, you know. The school can't limit your political free speech or your religious freedoms with their dress codes, so long as you are not being disruptive.

Uh, yes. I pointed it out, saying "No!" doesn't make it so.

Did you ever hear of the black armbands supreme court case?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinker_v._Des_Moines_Independent_Community_School_District

Students were wearing black armbands to school to protest the Vietnam war; the school tried to ban them, but the Supreme Court said that that infringed the student's freedom of speech and political expression.

Which is irrelevant to this.

But, yes. We have certain rights that are guaranteed to us in the Constitution. One is freedom of religion, and one is freedom of speech. The government can not limits your freedom of religion or one that limits your freedom of speech. So, yes, in a way that is a "special right", but it's one that goes both ways, and actually does more to protect atheists then it does to protect religious people most of the time.

I wonder why people make such ridiculous arguments as "It protects atheists!" when the part in question can clearly be done away with without harming any kind of protection of atheists.

This special right in question doesn't go both ways. Wearing special clothes that defy the regular rules? Not at all something that goes both ways. To remove it would not impose a religion on them.

Mortai Gravesend:

Yosarian2:

Mortai Gravesend:

Why is their culture any more important than some other belief, hmm?

And it's quite related, people are getting a free pass on their beliefs because their beliefs are being granted a completely unnecessary 'special' status.

Uh, no; the same is true for political beliefs as well as religious beliefs, you know. The school can't limit your political free speech or your religious freedoms with their dress codes, so long as you are not being disruptive.

Uh, yes. I pointed it out, saying "No!" doesn't make it so.

Did you ever hear of the black armbands supreme court case?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinker_v._Des_Moines_Independent_Community_School_District

Students were wearing black armbands to school to protest the Vietnam war; the school tried to ban them, but the Supreme Court said that that infringed the student's freedom of speech and political expression.

Which is irrelevant to this.

Of course it's not. Schools can not ban you from having either political beliefs or religious beliefs, or prevent you from expressing them in non-disruptive ways. How is that "irrelevant"?

But, yes. We have certain rights that are guaranteed to us in the Constitution. One is freedom of religion, and one is freedom of speech. The government can not limits your freedom of religion or one that limits your freedom of speech. So, yes, in a way that is a "special right", but it's one that goes both ways, and actually does more to protect atheists then it does to protect religious people most of the time.

I wonder why people make such ridiculous arguments as "It protects atheists!" when the part in question can clearly be done away with without harming any kind of protection of atheists.

This special right in question doesn't go both ways. Wearing special clothes that defy the regular rules? Not at all something that goes both ways. To remove it would not impose a religion on them.[/quote]

the general rule of tolerance does protect atheists. This is the same part of the Constitution that means that you no longer have to say a prayer in the morning, every morning, in public schools, as was true just a few decades ago. If you want to take away the constitutional protection for people's beliefs, you need to understand how that will affect you.

Mortai Gravesend:
This special right in question doesn't go both ways. Wearing special clothes that defy the regular rules? Not at all something that goes both ways. To remove it would not impose a religion on them.

You're still viewing it in the incorrect mindset. It is not a case of Muslims "getting" to do something. Muslims have to do something, which in a state permitting freedom of religion they must be allowed to do. To insist it "go both ways" first fails to comprehend the basic nature of a religious obligation, and secondly denies that followers of the status quo in a secular society might be privileged. I know it's all fun and trendy to pretend everyone hates atheists and so it's so hard to be an atheist, but as someone who doesn't have a religion that demands extra duties from you, you don't really think you deserve extra accommodation in fulfilling those duties that don't exist, do you?

Before I answer your question, I have my own. What is Atheist headgear and how does it relate to Atheist belief? Furthermore, where in Atheist scripture does it mandate, or suggest, that you wear this headgear?

Because right now it seems like you don't really have an argument. The girls who choose to wear Muslim head/body coverings do so because it is a part of their religion/culture. Nowhere in the non-existent Atheist scripture does it say that certain garments are needed to be worn. If there were Atheist scripture, and it did mandate this, then it would go completely against the concept of Atheism.

Right. A law "no one may go to church" is just as unconstitutional as a law "anyone may go to church". They're the same thing. In the same way, a law "no one may wear an Islamic headscarf" is just as unconditional as a law saying "everyone must wear an Islamic headscarf".

That's why the first amendment that protects the freedom of religion of Muslims is the same first amendment that protects the freedom of religion of atheists. You can't get rid of one and keep the other.

cerapa:
The only problem I have is that this particular exception only takes into account a persons religion.

For that we only have Danyal's word, and prior to being banned Danyal was notorious for spamming the boards with anti-Islam and anti-religion diatribes. I for one am rather skeptical that if a student went to the school with a legitimate secular need to wear a hat, the school would automatically turn them down because the need is not religious. But if that is indeed the case, and if you are Dutch or somehow invested in Dutch schools, then I propose that the best way to express your opinion is not to get sucked into a thread dedicated to whining that despite the Netherlands being a country where Mosques and Muslim schools have been attacked and where a leading parliamentarian created a propaganda film demonizing Muslims, somehow the fact that Danyal doesn't get to wear a hat makes him discriminated against. Better for you to go to the school and combat the ban on hats in general, and not try to dress it up in false persecution.

I dont know if the "being biased against muslims"

Don't worry, it wasn't. But be aware that you're travelling in rhetorical circles that are rife with anti-Islamic sentiment.

TheDarkEricDraven:
Get over yourself. Atheists aren't being discriminated against. Headscarves are a part of Muslim culture and the only discrimination would be not allowing them to wear them.

But at the same time, by allowing favouritism for religious reasons in what is supposed to be a secular institution, it sets the precedent that the religious should be accomadated over the non-religious.

I myself was in a Catholic secondary school that only offered exemption from masses and religious classes (which preached Catholicism as the correct belief) by being in a non-christian religion. Atheists and Secularists like myself[1] were cast to the side and left to sit through classes teaching ideas/morals that we disagreed with because we weren't Catholic.

[1] By which I mean I'm a Secularist, not an Atheist.

Katatori-kun:

Mortai Gravesend:
This special right in question doesn't go both ways. Wearing special clothes that defy the regular rules? Not at all something that goes both ways. To remove it would not impose a religion on them.

You're still viewing it in the incorrect mindset. It is not a case of Muslims "getting" to do something. Muslims have to do something, which in a state permitting freedom of religion they must be allowed to do. To insist it "go both ways" first fails to comprehend the basic nature of a religious obligation, and secondly denies that followers of the status quo in a secular society might be privileged. I know it's all fun and trendy to pretend everyone hates atheists and so it's so hard to be an atheist, but as someone who doesn't have a religion that demands extra duties from you, you don't really think you deserve extra accommodation in fulfilling those duties that don't exist, do you?

Like I said before which you ignored. What if it was illegal?

What if I had the heroin religion and once a week I had to go and take some heroin to satisfy my god? It wouldn't harm anyone else and my religion says I have to, should I be allowed to do it?

Katatori-kun:

Mortai Gravesend:
This special right in question doesn't go both ways. Wearing special clothes that defy the regular rules? Not at all something that goes both ways. To remove it would not impose a religion on them.

You're still viewing it in the incorrect mindset. It is not a case of Muslims "getting" to do something. Muslims have to do something, which in a state permitting freedom of religion they must be allowed to do. To insist it "go both ways" first fails to comprehend the basic nature of a religious obligation, and secondly denies that followers of the status quo in a secular society might be privileged. I know it's all fun and trendy to pretend everyone hates atheists and so it's so hard to be an atheist, but as someone who doesn't have a religion that demands extra duties from you, you don't really think you deserve extra accommodation in fulfilling those duties that don't exist, do you?

I know you dislike actual argument and enjoy pretending that your position is just right when you present it on its own, but can you actually *TRY* to justify it if you're going to bother to post? I know you like being all high and mighty but it gets rather dull to watch. You know, unjustified statements like saying my mindset is incorrect, while failing to prove that there is a correct mindset and so on. You really show no evidence of actually thinking about any of this, you just like to accuse people of being 'trendy' and shit. Helps you feel superior for holding illogical beliefs or something I guess. Funny that I never felt that need when I had 'em, but I guess I just value not dismissing people for dishonest reasons unlike you.

Anyway, first off I already told you what I thought of that bullshit about them 'having' to do it. No, they don't have to. Thinking they have to does not make it so.

Further, thinking it has to go both ways does not fail to comprehend. Get off your high horse and realize that people can *gasp* DISAGREE WHILE UNDERSTANDING. I simply do not think religious obligation deserves any kind of respect.

Also, don't spew BS about privilege. It exists, but it is utterly asinine to say that my position denied that there might be privilege. My position on what ought to be done does not make statements of fact about what exists or does not.

Lastly, I don't think extra accommodation is warranted. If your stupid vendetta wasn't blocking your view you might have seen that HE claimed it went both ways. I never said it SHOULD because I know this special privilege cannot go both ways. Thanks in advance for the apology for insinuating I said it should go both ways when I was simply saying he was wrong to say "So, yes, in a way that is a "special right", but it's one that goes both ways, and actually does more to protect atheists then it does to protect religious people most of the time." Though maybe you won't have the integrity to admit you were wrong to insinuate it.

Ninjamedic:

TheDarkEricDraven:
Get over yourself. Atheists aren't being discriminated against. Headscarves are a part of Muslim culture and the only discrimination would be not allowing them to wear them.

But at the same time, by allowing favouritism for religious reasons in what is supposed to be a secular institution, it sets the precedent that the religious should be accomadated over the non-religious.

That's not "favoritism" at all. A discriminatory policy would be "anyone with a headscarf is not allowed into the building", which in practice is a lot like the racial segregation of the south in the 1950's. I guess that's what you're arguing in favor of?

I myself was in a Catholic secondary school that only offered exemption from masses and religious classes (which preached Catholicism as the correct belief) by being in a non-christian religion. Atheists and Secularists like myself were cast to the side and left to sit through classes teaching ideas/morals that we disagreed with because we weren't Catholic.

Yeah, Catholic schools are going to be biased towards Catholic beliefs, obviously. Secular schools, on the other hand, have to welcome everyone, no matter what their beliefs are or what they look like.

Yosarian2:

Mortai Gravesend:

Yosarian2:

Uh, no; the same is true for political beliefs as well as religious beliefs, you know. The school can't limit your political free speech or your religious freedoms with their dress codes, so long as you are not being disruptive.

Uh, yes. I pointed it out, saying "No!" doesn't make it so.

Did you ever hear of the black armbands supreme court case?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinker_v._Des_Moines_Independent_Community_School_District

Students were wearing black armbands to school to protest the Vietnam war; the school tried to ban them, but the Supreme Court said that that infringed the student's freedom of speech and political expression.

Which is irrelevant to this.

Of course it's not. Schools can not ban you from having either political beliefs or religious beliefs, or prevent you from expressing them in non-disruptive ways. How is that "irrelevant"?

Of course it is. How is the law relevant to how things should be?

But, yes. We have certain rights that are guaranteed to us in the Constitution. One is freedom of religion, and one is freedom of speech. The government can not limits your freedom of religion or one that limits your freedom of speech. So, yes, in a way that is a "special right", but it's one that goes both ways, and actually does more to protect atheists then it does to protect religious people most of the time.

I wonder why people make such ridiculous arguments as "It protects atheists!" when the part in question can clearly be done away with without harming any kind of protection of atheists.

This special right in question doesn't go both ways. Wearing special clothes that defy the regular rules? Not at all something that goes both ways. To remove it would not impose a religion on them.

the general rule of tolerance does protect atheists. This is the same part of the Constitution that means that you no longer have to say a prayer in the morning, every morning, in public schools, as was true just a few decades ago. If you want to take away the constitutional protection for people's beliefs, you need to understand how that will affect you.

There is no general rule of tolerance, please don't make shit up. There are specific rules, and it is quite possible to change them to protect one thing and not another. Maybe it completely missed you in the rush to give me that awful argument, but I just said 'not impose a religion on them'. If we simply change it to that then shockingly that does not affect me.

Batou667:
Rules are made on generalities. Back when the rules were made (the '50s in your example, but similar "exceptions on religious grounds" battles are being fought in many schools all over Europe right now) "don't wear a hat" was an eminently sensible rule. However, it didn't accommodate the idea that anybody would seriously have cause to wear a hijab or a kippah or a turban - after all, that's what foreigners wear. Fast-forward sixty years, the foreigners are our fellow countrymen, and that particular part of the dress code is no longer compatible with the cultural and religious needs of all of the students, so it needs to be changed.

Your average student had no need to wear a flat cap, balaclava, sombrero or motherfuckin' propellor beanie back in the '50s, and they still don't. So there's no need to modify that particular part of the dress code. Seriously, what part of this don't you get?

Ah. Way to go. Let's divide the world into 'average students' and 'foreigners', and give the foreigners extra rights. That will help 'working and living together' and 'integration'.

Is it really so hard for you to see that this rule is just downright silly? You talk about catering to the cultural and religious needs of all students. Well, this law only caters to religious needs. Cultural needs are ignored. This rule basically says "God said it? It's okay. Other reason? Screw you!". In the situation "Students who want to wear caps - Muslims who want to wear headscarves" it might be a useful rule. But don't you see that this rule is discriminatory and doesn't properly solve the problem of "students and headgear"? Don't you think my solution is better, or don't you have a better solution yourself? Is this the best thing we can come up with - just plain discrimination between religious and non-religious students?

Batou667:

No, there are non-religious people campaigning for the right to wear headgear. It's an anology, remember?

No, the non-religious people are saying "they shouldn't ought to have concessions made for them, unless we get concessions too, and what's more we want our concessions to be frivolous".

Oh yes, of course, non-religious concerns are "frivolous".

Batou667:
Like I said; just amend the rule to say "Anybody is permitted to wear a headscarf, regardless of gender or religion". Perfect fairness, and suddenly the issue of egalitarianism evaporates.

Yeah that probably sounds a lot less biased or discriminatory, a lot more logical and will solve all problems with headgear in the near future.

Batou667:

You're the one who demands different treatment of religious and non-religious people.
The rule could also be "No headgear allowed, except for certain people with a validated reason". Then Muslim girls could go ask the head or the school or someone else if they were allowed to wear their headscarf, and they were allowed to do it. The bald cancer-patient could do the same, just as the guy who is ashamed of his red hair or the Indian who likes to wear a turban. I've got no problems with that. But I favor 'equal treatment' over 'prejudicial treatment of non-religious people and discriminatory rules'. Is that so strange?!

So... your solution is to have all final decisions at the discretion of the head teacher? Is that not EXACTLY what is happening at the moment, with the school choosing to waive the "no headwear" rule for hijabs? What purpose would it serve to have that codified into the school rules?

No, it's not the solution I want, I gave you my preferred solution in the OP.
No, this is not EXACTLY what is happening at the moment. We're not having "There is a rule, and the head teacher finds individual solutions for all individual problems." What we're having is "Religious headgear is fine, non-religious headgear isn't".

Batou667:
You're here to complain because of a percieved injustice because "they're allowed to do something I'm not" - even if that "something" (wearing a hijab) is something you had no desire to do before and would have no use for even if you were permitted to.

They're not allowed to wear hijabs. They're allowed to wear headgear. Can't you see that this rule is stupid and can be refined?

Batou667:
I can't help but agree with Katatori on this one; your whole argument is just a cheap shot at one of the most benign elements of a very specific religion. And I say that as a pro-secularist and de-facto strong atheist.

"Hey, I'd be fine with you wearing a headscarf, but I think this rule is rather poorly worded. The fact that you, miss Muslim, have good reasons to wear a headscarf doesn't mean that all religious people have good reasons to wear all kinds of headgear. Instead of demanding a religious excuse for headgear, we could just allow anyone to wear headgear - as long as the face is visible and nobody's view is obstructed. How does that sound?"

"You're just taking a cheap shot at my religion!"

image

Are we even in the same universe?

Yosarian2:

That's not "favoritism" at all. A discriminatory policy would be "anyone with a headscarf is not allowed into the building", which in practice is a lot like the racial segregation of the south in the 1950's. I guess that's what you're arguing in favor of?

Yep, because it is equal, it doesn't make exceptions to specific groups. By setting a rule that implies "You can't wear a scarf, unless you hold this belief" it becomes discriminatory.

I shouldn't have to subscribe to a specific religion to have the same rights, especially in a public school.

Also, not wanting a group to have privilege is the same as segregation? Really?

Yeah, Catholic schools are going to be biased towards Catholic beliefs, obviously. Secular schools, on the other hand, have to welcome everyone, no matter what their beliefs are or what they look like.

It was a public school, see the issue I had? It was also the liberal one in the area.

Katatori-kun:

Mortai Gravesend:
This special right in question doesn't go both ways. Wearing special clothes that defy the regular rules? Not at all something that goes both ways. To remove it would not impose a religion on them.

You're still viewing it in the incorrect mindset. It is not a case of Muslims "getting" to do something. Muslims have to do something, which in a state permitting freedom of religion they must be allowed to do. To insist it "go both ways" first fails to comprehend the basic nature of a religious obligation, and secondly denies that followers of the status quo in a secular society might be privileged. I know it's all fun and trendy to pretend everyone hates atheists and so it's so hard to be an atheist, but as someone who doesn't have a religion that demands extra duties from you, you don't really think you deserve extra accommodation in fulfilling those duties that don't exist, do you?

But Muslims don't have to wear head coverings any more than Americans have to shoot off fireworks on Independence Day or go door-to-door asking for candy on Halloween. Why does a religious/cultural belief trump a secular belief? And before you cite freedom of religion, I direct you to Board v. Grumet, in which the Supreme Court decided that "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion." The school cannot allow an exception for religious reasons but not for secular reasons.

Oh my fucking god, it's a hat. Seriously, you're bitching about how Muslims get extra "rights" because they get to wear a hat that their religion dictates they wear and you don't? First world problems indeed.

Tyler Perry:
Oh my fucking god, it's a hat. Seriously, you're bitching about how Muslims get extra "rights" because they get to wear a hat that their religion dictates they wear and you don't? First world problems indeed.

Please read my post. I'm not annoyed at them being able to wear a hat, just the notion that they gain extra rights because they subscribe to a specific belief system. Especially when I'm forced to attend events and ceremonies to a religion I don't belong to.

Nothing to get angry over, but still worth voicing my disapproval.

Ninjamedic:

Tyler Perry:
Oh my fucking god, it's a hat. Seriously, you're bitching about how Muslims get extra "rights" because they get to wear a hat that their religion dictates they wear and you don't? First world problems indeed.

Please read my post. I'm not annoyed at them being able to wear a hat, just the notion that they gain extra rights because they subscribe to a specific belief system. Especially when I'm forced to attend events and ceremonies to a religion I don't belong to.

Nothing to get angry over, but still worth voicing my disapproval.

I was referring more to Danyal in post 123, not you; should have quoted.

What "events and ceremonies" are you forced to attend at a public school?

Tyler Perry:
Oh my fucking god, it's a hat. Seriously, you're bitching about how Muslims get extra "rights" because they get to wear a hat that their religion dictates they wear and you don't? First world problems indeed.

We're on a forum that discusses video games. That's a pretty bad retort given the context.

Mortai Gravesend:

Tyler Perry:
Oh my fucking god, it's a hat. Seriously, you're bitching about how Muslims get extra "rights" because they get to wear a hat that their religion dictates they wear and you don't? First world problems indeed.

We're on a forum that discusses video games. That's a pretty bad retort given the context.

I don't give two fucks about the context, or your opinion of my "Retort." This thread is largely pointless whining.

Tyler Perry:

What "events and ceremonies" are you forced to attend at a public school?

You know, Mass, prayer, sitting watching the choir, being told how sex before marriage and abortion is wrong using clips from Passion of The Christ, my brother almost being expelled for having long hair.

I'm not making those last two up.

Tyler Perry:

Mortai Gravesend:

Tyler Perry:
Oh my fucking god, it's a hat. Seriously, you're bitching about how Muslims get extra "rights" because they get to wear a hat that their religion dictates they wear and you don't? First world problems indeed.

We're on a forum that discusses video games. That's a pretty bad retort given the context.

I don't give two fucks about the context, or your opinion of my "Retort." This thread is largely pointless whining.

Funny that you're accusing him of largely pointless whining.

But anyway, you're hilariously hypocritical. Your excuse is also shit for the reasons I pointed out. You're obviously upset for other reasons considering the other kinds of things discussed here and how irrelevant they are. Your false concern is obvious. Funny that you like derailing tactics like that so much.

Ninjamedic:

Tyler Perry:

What "events and ceremonies" are you forced to attend at a public school?

You know, Mass, prayer, sitting watching the choir, being told how sex before marriage and abortion is wrong using clips from Passion of The Christ, my brother almost being expelled for having long hair.

I'm not making those last two up.

You were forced to attend Mass at a public school?

Mortai Gravesend:

Tyler Perry:

Mortai Gravesend:

We're on a forum that discusses video games. That's a pretty bad retort given the context.

I don't give two fucks about the context, or your opinion of my "Retort." This thread is largely pointless whining.

Funny that you're accusing him of largely pointless whining.

But anyway, you're hilariously hypocritical. Your excuse is also shit for the reasons I pointed out. You're obviously upset for other reasons considering the other kinds of things discussed here and how irrelevant they are. Your false concern is obvious. Funny that you like derailing tactics like that so much.

Cool fucking story bro. "Obviously upset." Wow, you must be like a psychic or something.

Your post is utter word salad. Step away from the keyboard and come back later when you're not so angry.

Tyler Perry:

Ninjamedic:

Tyler Perry:

What "events and ceremonies" are you forced to attend at a public school?

You know, Mass, prayer, sitting watching the choir, being told how sex before marriage and abortion is wrong using clips from Passion of The Christ, my brother almost being expelled for having long hair.

I'm not making those last two up.

You were forced to attend Mass at a public school?

Our counrty has issues. You know how I said that my brother was almost expelled for having long hair? Well my parents decided to send me to ths school in the other town as it was more open-minded. All of the above except the last on that list then happened.

Ninjamedic:

Tyler Perry:

Ninjamedic:

You know, Mass, prayer, sitting watching the choir, being told how sex before marriage and abortion is wrong using clips from Passion of The Christ, my brother almost being expelled for having long hair.

I'm not making those last two up.

You were forced to attend Mass at a public school?

Our counrty has issues. You know how I said that my brother was almost expelled for having long hair? Well my parents decided to send me to ths school in the other town as it was more open-minded. All of the above except the last on that list then happened.

Ah, just checked your profile ... yeah, it's Ireland. I am well versed in the oddities of Irish Catholicism.

Tyler Perry:

Ah, just checked your profile ... yeah, it's Ireland. I am well versed in the oddities of Irish Catholicism.

We're insane alright. You can then understand my shift to anti-theism during my later years in that school.

Tyler Perry:

Mortai Gravesend:

Tyler Perry:

I don't give two fucks about the context, or your opinion of my "Retort." This thread is largely pointless whining.

Funny that you're accusing him of largely pointless whining.

But anyway, you're hilariously hypocritical. Your excuse is also shit for the reasons I pointed out. You're obviously upset for other reasons considering the other kinds of things discussed here and how irrelevant they are. Your false concern is obvious. Funny that you like derailing tactics like that so much.

Cool fucking story bro. "Obviously upset." Wow, you must be like a psychic or something.

Or I can read your posts.

Your post is utter word salad. Step away from the keyboard and come back later when you're not so angry.

Not at all. You could come back when you have something to contribute besides saying we shouldn't talk about this because it makes you unhappy or whatever BS reason. First you go with the implication there are more important things, but that's kind of obvious bullshit considering the forum. Who knows what nonsense you'll come up with next?

Ninjamedic:
snip

That is actually an example of what the OP is trying to talk about. In this case, athiests don't have anything to be accommodated.

TheDarkEricDraven:

Ninjamedic:
snip

That is actually an example of what the OP is trying to talk about. In this case, athiests don't have anything to be accommodated.

So what you're saying is that we should allow someone to ignore minor rules because they believe they have to?

Can I set up my own religion and ask that I walk in wearing a Chaos Sorceror Helmet?

Tell me, what aspect of their belief allows them to bend the rules in this manner? And how would that belief or idea be any different than a moral opposition not infleuenced by belief?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked