Question & Answers
Articles
89 mins ago
in ChatterBank
Search In The AnswerBank
 |
(Thu 17:29 02/Jul/09) OK, and your point is...........? | |
|
|
(Thu 17:42 02/Jul/09)
Barbarians at the gates Hell in a handbasket. Let's have a reader's poll.... err.. maybe not after the Gypsy one http://blogs.journalism.co.uk/editors/2009/06/ 20/twitterers-claim-victory-over-loaded-daily- mail-gypsy-poll/ :c) |
|
|
|
(Thu 18:11 02/Jul/09)
chinadog So the situation is that necklaces are banned because they could presumably get caught in something and garrot this poor little muppet, but brackets are OK. Are christian braclets banned at this school? Can the sihk girl wear her bangle on a chain around her neck? Is this just another story from whingeing christians who are picking a trivial fight while their religion slowly dies out. |
|
|
|
(Thu 18:12 02/Jul/09)
Question Author
My point Androcles? Why do the muslims always get their way? They're allowed to do what they want and when they want. Thats my point!!
|
|
|
|
(Thu 18:18 02/Jul/09)
Question Author
I don't see Christians as whingers Gromit. They want to wear a cross to show their religion. Christains have been wearing crosses for hundreds of years but since the muslims have "taken over" they're not allowed. Bangles can be caught on door handles causing injury so are they really any different to a cross in safetey terms.
|
|
|
|
(Thu 18:19 02/Jul/09)
And you don't think there's any possibility that it's because you wear a crucifix around your neck and bangles are not? You think that it's far more likely that a CofE school is deliberately stopping Christian children from wearing religious symbols? Do you automatically believe anything that reinforces your prejudices however far fetched? |
|
|
|
(Thu 18:22 02/Jul/09)
Bangles are no different to necklesses [crucifixes] in safety terms I Suppose a noose is no different to a set of handcuffs then? |
|
|
|
(Thu 18:22 02/Jul/09)
OK, now I get where you are coming from. All you did was post a link with no comment - you could have been for or against - I just wanted to see which- I think I now know! Undoubtedly! But what if the bangles had a cross on them? |
|
|
|
(Thu 18:28 02/Jul/09)
Question Author
The bangles the muslims wear don't have crosses on them Androcles. I just see it the muslims getting their own way as per.
|
|
|
|
(Thu 18:33 02/Jul/09)
chinadog Did you actually read your own link? This story involved a piece of jewelry worn by a Sikh girl, and elicited the comment from you that muslims always get their own way. You do know that Sikhs and Muslims are not from the same religion don't you? |
|
|
|
(Thu 18:34 02/Jul/09)
The children who wear bangles aren't muslim, they're Sikh. I was going to say one rule for all - no jewellery means no jewellery - and then I read the article. It seems the school has no objection to children wearing a cross as long as it isn't worn on a chain around the neck, which is why they have suggested a brooch. I can't see why, as Androcles says, a little cross can't be worn on a bracelet. Both the parents and the newspaper have sensationalised what amounts to a non-story. |
|
|
|
(Thu 18:34 02/Jul/09)
Question Author
I wear a crucifix myself Jake have done for years likewise my hubby. If I was ordered to remove mine I would play hell unless for medical reasons x rays etc. My grandchildren attend a COE school,no bother there about crosses..yet but their nativity play was cancelled not to upset the muslims. It's just not right,this is our country afterall.
|
|
|
|
(Thu 18:35 02/Jul/09) Sorry Gromit, cross posted there. | |
|
|
(Thu 18:36 02/Jul/09) Chinadog, the school isn't stopping children wearing crosses. It just doesn't want them worn around the neck. | |
|
|
(Thu 18:49 02/Jul/09) An afterthought, Chinadog. If your child's school's nativity play was cancelled for fear of offending Muslims, that isn't the fault of the Muslims. It's the fault of the silly people who, in an effort to be terribly politically correct, assume it will offend Muslims. I can understand what you're saying, but it's an issue that needs to be taken up with the school. | |
|
|
(Fri 01:01 03/Jul/09)
We the English, born and bred in the UK are now 2nd class citizens in our own Country to the Immigrants who have come over here to reap the awards from our soft free handouts to all and a sundry. We are not allowed to upset them, the laws are in their favour now. |
|
|
|
(Fri 02:38 03/Jul/09)
trt, It would appear the Costa del sol is your only resort of refuge. Bye. |
|
|
|
(Fri 07:30 03/Jul/09)
chinadog The problem with your argument is this: Sikhs are not Muslims in the same way that Catholics are not Bhuddists. They are completely different religions. The kara is a steel or iron bangle worn on the wrist and is one of five kakar, the articles of faith required to be worn by the Amritdhari Sikh, a Sikh who has been initiated into the order of Khalsa. The kara is a steel or iron bangle worn on the wrist and is one of five kakar, the articles of faith required to be worn by the Amritdhari Sikh, a Sikh who has been initiated into the order of Khalsa.times. Crosses are not a mandatory symbol to be worn by followers of the Christian faith. |
|
|
|
(Fri 08:00 03/Jul/09)
I attened a catholic school (with a nun as a head teacher) about 15 years ago and was asked to remove my necklace (crucifix) because of health and safety, I was told I could wear it on a broach if I wanted to wear it. It wasn't a news story when I had to do it, it's not a news story now and for crying out loud.... read the bl00dy thing and then re-read your muslim comment and see if it makes you giggle as much as it did me. |
|
|
|
(Fri 09:54 03/Jul/09)
trt, the point is that most complaints and restrictions are not instigated by immigrants - they are the work of the indigenous 'powers that be', and that is the fundamental issue that needs to be addressed. Councils who insist on calling Christmas Winterval, for example. That doesn't come from the immigrant population - it comes from the people who wield a little power over the rest of us, and who, in an effort to show how very politically correct and fair(?) they are, erroneously perceive potential offence being created where there is none. They, in the main, are the people that create much unnecessary resentment - and that not only causes the indigenous population to, naturally, feel aggrieved, but in many instances, encourages some immigrants to milk it for all it is worth. Where resentment is created, we will never have harmony. SP, I understand what you're saying, but we must be fair to everyone. If a Sikh is allowed to wear a symbol of his religion (whether that symbol is mandatory or not), then everyone else must be allowed to do the same. This particular issue is not a question of whether or not a symbol can be worn - it's simply one that questions the manner in which it is worn. It really is a non-story. |
Search In The AnswerBank