Should we be more lenient towards religious practice or religious people more accepting of rules?

[RooJ]

Not sure if this has came up before but i wondered what your opinions were on religious symbols, clothing and jewelry etc, and whether employers and law makers should make an exception for religious people. Some examples: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/a...ism/article.do - British Airways backs down on its policy for staff concealing jewelry due to a christian woman complaining she wanted to wear cross in the open. They've now changed the uniform policy. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...y-Panesar.html - Schoolgirl taking a school to court for stopping her wearing a religious bangle. http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...ion/article.do - Owner of an "alternative" London hair salon is being sued for religious discrimination after refusing to give a job to a Muslim woman who wanted to wear a headscarf at work. - "I sell image - it's very important - and I would expect a hair stylist to display her hair because I need people to be drawn in off the street," http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/b...ts/4310545.stm - Muslim schoolgirl wins courtcase against a school that 'banned her from wearing a headscarf because it wasn't part of the uniform'. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6159046.stm - The Dutch cabinet has backed a proposal by the country's immigration minister to ban Muslim women from wearing the burqa in public places. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...hristians.html - Hospital banned hot cross buns to avoid offending non-christians <--not quite the same i know So should people be a little more tolerant of religious practices and clothing etc, or should religious people respect and accept that some rules mean they can't wear certain religious jewelry, clothing and the like?

[bluefinger]

Well... when I was in school, I had to abide the wear the uniform, etc, I even went to a place which had a ridiculous "6-inch" rule for contact between a guy and a girl, whilst Sixth Formers were allowed to hold hands. Probably the most broken rule ever, but as far as clothing goes... it's a no brainer. A uniform is a uniform, if it doesn't include [insert religious attire here], tough shit. If one can't wear certain kinds of secular attire to places with a uniform policy, why should people make exceptions for religious attire? I can see a few compromises being made here and there (for small, inocuous items), but when you have to sell an image for your business, and you cover up from head to toe... that's not going to be a nice image on the behalf of the company. Seriously... use your head people... [/rant]

[Photolysis]

If people are allowed to wear crosses, then I demand the right to wear models of electrical chairs or syringes or guillotines around my neck. After all, anything else would be double standards. I am so fucking sick of this "religious persecution" and "it violates my human rights" bullshit in the UK. "You can't jail my client your honour. Yes he admits murdering 20 people with an axe, but jailing him violates his human rights". Why is religious belief granted this respect? If I say to an interviewer I have voices in my head that compel me to wear baseball caps, do you think I will be backed by the court when they (rightly) refuse to give me ajob?! If you don't like the dress code of a place, tough fucking shit. Find somewhere else to work. Your beliefs on the subject are irrelevant, as that is what they are, personal beliefs. God, I really hate this country at the moment.

[psychology student]

If people are allowed to wear crosses, then I demand the right to wear models of electrical chairs or syringes or guillotines around my neck. After all, anything else would be double standards. I am so fucking sick of this "religious persecution" and "it violates my human rights" bullshit in the UK. "You can't jail my client your honour. Yes he admits murdering 20 people with an axe, but jailing him violates his human rights". Why is religious belief granted this respect? If I say to an interviewer I have voices in my head that compel me to wear baseball caps, do you think I will be backed by the court when they (rightly) refuse to give me ajob?! If you don't like the dress code of a place, tough fucking shit. Find somewhere else to work. Your beliefs on the subject are irrelevant, as that is what they are, personal beliefs. God, I really hate this country at the moment. The BNP, growing in ire and and support. God, I really hate this country at the moment. ................................. I am so fucking sick of this "religious persecution" and "it violates my human rights" bullshit in the UK. The answer to your personal beliefs, as you so eloquently put it: Your beliefs on the subject are irrelevant, as that is what they are, personal beliefs. Amen.

[ClouD]

Amen. Aumen.

[CryoDragoon]

Dude... you're like the next Richard Dawkins. And I do agree with you, by the way.

[The Enterer]

God says I don't have to wear pants. Quit persecuting me.

[Mes Tarrant]

I thought the most ridiculous one out of the examples you provided was the muslim woman applying to be a hair dresser and hiding her hair. She must have been retarded thinking she had any chance at the job. I mean it's like the most conservative muslim (you know, the ones covered in black from head to toe) applying to be a swim suit model. It just isn't going to work. If I made the law, I wouldn't allow any of the rules to be bent to allow religious expression simply because religion is a private matter, or at least SHOULD be. I worship the god of nakedness and demand to be able to paste pornographic images onto my forehead in school and at work.

[Photolysis]

The BNP, growing in ire and and support. I don't support the BNP, I'm just a man who's tired of the double standards, and the "human rights violation" card being played for everything. People can believe what they want when it comes to the nature of the universe (and I fully respect their right to do so), but it's time that what is simply a form of personal belief (which has been labelled religious), has to obey the same rules as everyone else. My axe-wielding murderer case wasn't true obviously, but the same argument has and is used against so called 'life' sentences. The rights of criminals are given far more respect than the rights of their victims, and it has to stop. I looked up the ruling on that hairdresser case incidentally. From what I can find, "judgement was reserved". Not good enough; the Muslim woman should not only have been laughed out of court, but had to pay the legal fees, plus damages for the person who owned the place, by damaging the place's image and for the severe distress it must have caused.

[JET73L]

In the case of uniforms: Same level of strictness. If the institution to which the uniform belongs allows religious articles, fine. If it bans them, fine. Don;t apply to a situation in which you can;t stand the conditons. As for prison, I would say dispensations should be made if something can be proven harmless, and that anything that might be used as a weapon must be kept on display rather than worn (although nothing can be proven harmless, believe me, scarves included). In the case of institutions with a dress code but no uniforms: Less strict. If you (the rule enforcers for the institution) cannot stand someone displaying their personal religion, either allow any religious apparel that does not physically distract from the purpose of the institution (say, wearing a pope's mitre to a school lecture), or do not allow such freedom at all. Anything specifically gang-related should not be allowed if meant to cause offense, and same for intentionally wearing religious articles improperly or that you should not be wearing by religious law, but "gang colors," handkerciefs, scaves (if allowed by the dress code) should not be banned. Individual gang members should be punished by the institution if they can;t keep from fighting or otherwise breaking the rules of the institution. In the case of obscenity laws: more strict. You can wear as many clothes as you want, but you cannot use religion (a refusal to wear clothing, or the necessity to openly display pornography) or self-gain (nude tanning, showing off your 53xxY bod) as an excuse to violate the local restrictions for minimum clothing. As for anything that is a result of religion affecting state, if the country requiresyou to be there, they should make an exception for you. If you are there of your own free will, you should conform to their laws, or not go there in the first place. (note: a crucifix with a graphically sculpted image of the body of christ, including stigmata, may be legally considered obscenely violent in some places. I refer to all obscenity laws, not just those pertaining to sexual exposure.) If I've forgotten anything (I probably have), just assume I either don;t consider it relevant to the discussion, or completely forgot to type it out. (relevance to the discussion is not the same as importance. Something may be very important, but not relevant in the least. Please don;t pick fights [also, the please is mere ettiquette.])

[Serkat]

This makes me completely sick. It shows very clearly that religion is still one of the most powerful enemies of a free and equal society. Which is why I still think that "freedom of religion" is the very worst part of any of todays constitutions and needs to be taken out because it doesn't make any sense and gives special rights to certain groups for no good reason (hence inequality). The label "religious" is still both powerful and incredibly meaningless. Why is the opinion of a religious person of higher importance than that of a non-religious one? We call that inequality. However some of those were acceptable. For example hot cross buns, who gives a shit about that? Also, burqas should only be banned if all forms of concealment are banned. Generally, the government shouldn't be able to dictate clothing unless there's a real reason (security, identification etc.) Public schools would be an exception in that all religious symbols should be banned. So it is once again time for this smart video about "offending":

[psychology student]

This makes me completely sick. It shows very clearly that religion is still one of the most powerful enemies of a free and equal society. Please? The opposite is true in this case.

[RooJ]

I agree with what most people have said, rules are rules and you agree to abide by them when you sign the contract. I do however think some of the uniform policies are too strict, the BA one for instance doesn't make alot of sense to me, Id agree with jewelry being kept to a minimum but i do hate the way companies try to control staff to such an extent. The way I see it we can't discriminate against people on the grounds that they dont have a religion that supports wearing a certain type of clothing, but allow others to do so because they follow that religion, doing that would open up a huge loophole in the law and a huge divide amongst people. I also feel people should have a certain amount of freedom to express themselves and their beliefs. Im not sure what its like in other countries but the UKs gone a little PC (Political correctness) crazy lately, everythings about keeping everyone happy at the expense of what we used to take for granted. A prime example of this is the story lately of a man who was recently threatened with a fine for having the St Georges cross flag in the back of his car, because it could be deemed racist .

[psychology student]

I thought the most ridiculous one out of the examples you provided was the muslim woman applying to be a hair dresser and hiding her hair. She must have been retarded thinking she had any chance at the job. I mean it's like the most conservative muslim (you know, the ones covered in black from head to toe) applying to be a swim suit model. It just isn't going to work. I agree that that example is ridiculous. But I would never generalise that conclusion to other, more common examples. Like, a girl not being allowed to wear a small bracelet on her wrist, that she says has religious value to her, I don't see the problem.

[Serkat]

Please? The opposite is true in this case. How so?

[psychology student]

People having limited free religious expression. Like wearing a bracelet.

[bluefinger]

People having limited free religious expression. Like wearing a bracelet. If I can't wear a certain secular clothing item or accessory in a uniform environment, why should religious apparel get a free ticket into the work place?

[psychology student]

If I can't wear a certain secular clothing item or accessory in a uniform environment, why should religious apparel get a free ticket into the work place? What workplace stops you wearing a bracelet (of course, you must gender contextualise it). And why should they?

[Serkat]

What workplace stops you wearing a bracelet (of course, you must gender contextualise it). And why should they? It doesn't matter. If they don't want people wearing bracelets then they shouldn't or get fired. If the bitch can wear a cross, I should be able to wear a guitar bracelet with drumsticks. People having limited free religious expression. Like wearing a bracelet. Why does it matter whether it's religious? Why can't I wear a swastika to work since it's "free political expression"? If you demand wearing some symbol and you're required not to, then you can't attend the party - it's simple.

[bluefinger]

What workplace stops you wearing a bracelet (of course, you must gender contextualise it). And why should they? Ones which might have to handle food. Like in restaurant kitchens and such. Why? Because jewellery and certain accessories may carry dirt and generally not be clean, and therefore pose a contamination risk. Not so hard to think of one.

[Serkat]

Also, hospitals and sports. If you demand working in an operating theater with a cross on, that's tough luck for you because you can't.

[psychology student]

Ones which might have to handle food. Like in restaurant kitchens and such. Why? Because jewellery and certain accessories may carry dirt and generally not be clean, and therefore pose a contamination risk. Not so hard to think of one. But thats a token exception. If you look at my reply to Mes's comment, I make that clear. That religious articles that are incompatiable with certain employments for specific reasons are fine to reject or ban. But a bracelet in the workplace? Please.

[psychology student]

It doesn't matter. If they don't want people wearing bracelets then they shouldn't or get fired. If the bitch can wear a cross, I should be able to wear a guitar bracelet with drumsticks. Why does it matter whether it's religious? Why can't I wear a swastika to work since it's "free political expression"? If you demand wearing some symbol and you're required not to, then you can't attend the party - it's simple. WHy don't they want people to wear certain things. They can't just say no, unfoundedly. A swastika is racist, and incredibly insensitive. It goes beyond political/religious expression.

[Serkat]

But thats a token exception. If you look at my reply to Mes's comment, I make that clear. That religious articles that are incompatiable with certain employments for specific reasons are fine to reject or ban. But a bracelet in the workplace? Please. They just don't want their employees to look like that to the customers. They want neat and tidy employees with a smile, a uniform and no extra apparel. A swastika is racist, and incredibly insensitive. It goes beyond political/religious expression. Yeah, I know. I was just making a point. The point being that if your employer wants you to look a certain way and you refuse to, then that's your fault. If the employer wants to appear secular to the customers, then that's tough luck for religious folks. If the employer wants to look hip and cool then that's tough luck for folks in suits.

[bluefinger]

But thats a token exception. If you look at my reply to Mes's comment, I make that clear. That religious articles that are incompatiable with certain employments for specific reasons are fine to reject or ban. But a bracelet in the workplace? Please. Well, why not? If it's a company policy, then it is up to the company to decide. Also, take note of Korittke's suggestions.