|
Post by Kirsty on Dec 6, 2005 15:58:58 GMT 1
Air New Zealand and Quantas have banned male, usually white, single men from sitting next to unaccompanied children on flights because they are potential paedolphiles. Muslims can celebrate Eid in public but suddenly the word "Christmas" is offensive. A French restaurant can fly the tricolour, but the cross of St George is deemed to have racist connotations. It is amusing to put down men but sexist to do the same to women. Small things...but discrimination none the less
|
|
|
Post by andi on Dec 6, 2005 16:04:09 GMT 1
I read something today where a Christian girl was sent home from school for wearing a crucifix, while Sikh boys attending the school are allowed to wear steel braclets called Karas as they are compulsary under their religion. The schools logic. Christianity does require followers to wear a specific symbol.
|
|
|
Post by Eeeefie on Dec 6, 2005 18:22:38 GMT 1
What?
Crucifixes aren't compulsary for Christianity
But she should have been allowed to wear it
|
|
|
Post by Kirsty on Dec 6, 2005 19:26:11 GMT 1
Yeah they're not compulsory.....but if somebody else is allowed to wear something for his religion then why shouldn't she Around maybe September a girl in America was expelled from her school because she lived with her mother and her mother's girlfriend. The school 'frowned' upon homosexuality and so the daughter was expelled - fuck knows why they thought punishing HER was right... Anyway, in the same school there were several students whose fathers were gay and had boyfriends, but none of them were expelled, and the school denied any knowledge of the gay parents and did not investigate further (despite having done so previously for the girl).
|
|
|
Post by andi on Dec 6, 2005 21:14:45 GMT 1
What? Crucifixes aren't compulsary for Christianity But she should have been allowed to wear it Well IMO any school that does that is only fueling racial tension by not allowing followers of one religion to wear a religious symbol, yet allowing others just because their religion makes it compulsary. Schools should be at the heart of tackling racism with the younger generation, not creating more of a problem.
|
|
|
Post by Kirsty on Dec 7, 2005 17:13:43 GMT 1
Yes we agreed with you....crucifixes still aren't compulsory though. I always wanted to wear one but I couldn't cos I was atheist I just liked how they looked
|
|
|
Post by Manoj on Dec 7, 2005 18:45:40 GMT 1
I have a muslim friend who wears crosses she says it's a shape Anyways So stupid banning Religious items, Also the eid thing that's funny but true.
|
|
|
Post by andi on Dec 7, 2005 20:50:31 GMT 1
crucifixes still aren't compulsory though. They may not be compulsary Kirsty, but does a school have the right to suspend a student for wearing one? I don't think so anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Kirsty on Dec 7, 2005 21:33:53 GMT 1
crucifixes still aren't compulsory though. They may not be compulsary Kirsty, but does a school have the right to suspend a student for wearing one? I don't think so anyway. Andi, I am not disagreeing with you. I specifically stated "if somebody else is allowed to wear something for his religion then why shouldn't she" in my first reply to that. The only part of your argument I disagreed with was that crucifixes are not compulsory and we have already agreed that is true. We've all agreed that the girl in question should've been allowed to wear her cross.
|
|
|
Post by Kirsty on Dec 7, 2005 21:35:23 GMT 1
I have a muslim friend who wears crosses she says it's a shape I debated wearing one anyway but I would hate people to assume I was Christian
|
|
|
Post by andi on Dec 7, 2005 21:38:13 GMT 1
They may not be compulsary Kirsty, but does a school have the right to suspend a student for wearing one? I don't think so anyway. Andi, I am not disagreeing with you. I specifically stated "if somebody else is allowed to wear something for his religion then why shouldn't she" in my first reply to that. The only part of your argument I disagreed with was that crucifixes are not compulsory and we have already agreed that is true. We've all agreed that the girl in question should've been allowed to wear her cross. Did i say you were disagreeing with me? Why do we seem to look like were argueing when were agreeing?
|
|
|
Post by Kirsty on Dec 7, 2005 22:07:17 GMT 1
Well you keep saying things like "does a school have the right to do XXX" - obviously not, I've made my position on the issue very clear and already stated that NO they do not have the right to do that
|
|
|
Post by andi on Dec 7, 2005 22:09:28 GMT 1
Well you keep saying things like "does a school have the right to do XXX" - obviously not, I've made my position on the issue very clear and already stated that NO they do not have the right to do that Sorry, i'm just posing a question in support of what your saying, but maybe i need to post the question actually before you give the answer rather than after it.
|
|
|
Post by Kirsty on Dec 7, 2005 22:24:38 GMT 1
Yeah that would make more sense
|
|
|
Post by andi on Dec 7, 2005 22:30:20 GMT 1
okies, i'll try and do that then.
|
|