Topic: Gee I'm sick of this PC #$%*e

[Hush]

Check this little lot out, I say become one with us or we'll happily buy you a one way ticket to Iraq, Iran or Afganistan, I mean pick a horrible Muslim nation and be happy there.

http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/yaunzpop/popup/?rn=1886512&ch=&cl=15375036&src=newzealand

[demon78]

Yes at my age, I think that a lot don't know how good they've got it.
Bill the demon.

[HavocTurbo]

Well if you couldn't sue for feeling miserable....

I think the world would be simpler.

We've turned into a bunch of sniveling cowards.

[rhos1355]

Been there, seen that, and we've aaalllll got the t-shirt here in the uk. The only country to have the balls to say p!ss off to this religious blackmail is France.
Of course the main culprit for exacerbating the issue is the media. Trying to run with the hare & hunt with the hounds, methinks

[Inigo Montoya]

Yeah the PC stuff is way overboard. You can try to not be but then you just get sued and then people emotions instead of logic take over.

[Spanner 1]

Hush, I love ya and all that but I totally disagree with you on this one. 'Become like us " or
go to some Muslim country......first off that woman is a native NZ lander who decieded to become a Muslim , right ? She has every right to wear her headscarf ( whatever its called ) . In Europe millions of  mostly older Christian women wear headscarves ALL THE TIME.
I would not see any Judge asking a Catholic nun to remove her headgear, just as much of a cover-up as any Muslim woman would wear.....but then Catholic nuns are not terrorists, those other covered-up people though....... and btw, who exactly is the 'us' you are asking people to become ( in NZ )?

[DammitDan]

Hush, I love ya and all that but I totally disagree with you on this one. 'Become like us " or
go to some Muslim country......first off that woman is a native NZ lander who decieded to become a Muslim , right ? She has every right to wear her headscarf ( whatever its called ) . In Europe millions of  mostly older Christian women wear headscarves ALL THE TIME.
I would not see any Judge asking a Catholic nun to remove her headgear, just as much of a cover-up as any Muslim woman would wear.....but then Catholic nuns are not terrorists, those other covered-up people though....... and btw, who exactly is the 'us' you are asking people to become ( in NZ )?

Thank you.  I had been trying to think of a Western example of traditional Muslim customs all day, and a Nun's attire is the perfect parallel.

[Pinhead]

Now wait a second... In my opinion this should have very little to do with religion. What if my religion made me wear a ski mask everywhere I went? Is everyone that wears a ski mask a robber? No... But the anonymity makes it a lot easier for people to get away with stuff and therefore makes them quite a bit more ballsy. I've seen signs on the front of a lot of courthouses that say something to the effect of "please remove had and/or headgear" to keep a surveillance record of who comes and goes for security purposes.

EDIT: I'm a motorcyclist and fear for what could happen if I removed my helmet. You can guaran-damn-tee they'd make me take off my helmet before I walked into any government building.

[Hush]

This woman is milking the situation all right, her brother who was up on assault charges only "converted" to Islam ywo weeks before his trial......uh huh!
Many of the British Prison Officers who have emigrated here tell of an England where the English feel second class themselves, PC nonsense over so called religious freedoms and scum gangs fleeing from the European mainland have made their Britain a place of constant conflict, this from hardened Prison Officers who had to lock up this trash.
I'm a Morris dancer, it's the closest thing I have to a religion, would I be allowed to sit in court with my wee white hat with it's bells and ribbons on? Like Hell I would.
When was the last time a Morris dancer blew up a 747 or crashed a plane into the twin towers?
What I'm seeing here is the thin edge of the wedge, we had some Indians who wanted to become Prison Officers but would not take off their turbans (religious freedom again) so they couldn't do the correct training to wrestle with big uglies on the deck (turban kept falling off) solution.... they don't have to do the Control and Restraint training even though that is the core of our duties.
I really want them backing me when the next riot starts!
Oh yeah and the brother of that woman, he was asked 4 times by the judge to remove his hat, he ignored the judge then just walked out of the court house to be quickly arrested.

[Hush]

Sorry Spanner, forgot your question before I got off my soapbox.
The "us" would be the ordinary Kiwi, weather that be Maori, European, Chinese who ever, just as long as they obey the same laws/rules we all have to observe.
You can't come over here and drive on the right hand side of the road even though it's more normal for you, no you change your ways while here.
If my partner were stupid enough to holiday in Iraq, Iran, Afganistan etc she would be "required" (or suffer stoning and being spat on) to wear a head scarf.
Why does the rest of the world have to bow down to the Muslim religion?
Just because they have groups who are not afraid to strap on a #$%* load of explosives and walk up to complete strangers (USA/Aussie/NZ/British troops) and detonate themselves because some idiot told them they will get 17 virgins when they hit Islamic heaven!
No I'll ride my bike on the righthand side of the road when I come over to the U.S. and I'll take my hat/helmet off if I go into your courts, I wont throw stones at your wife if she doesn't wear a scarf, it's the way I was brought up.......be afraid be very afraid not of the Muslim terrorist threat in the Arab world, it's the idiots who convert and suddenly decide all the normal things they were raised to obey/celebrate are now only done by Infidels!

[Inigo Montoya]

Yeah that says it for me too. Why should I have to put aside things to accommodate them when it would certainly not go the other way? Cause I am supposed to be better? Screw that, it should be a 2 way street. If a person cant do the job properly because of a freakin turban, then they should not be allowed to do it.

[DammitDan]

In the USA there's a law on the books called "reasonable accommodation."  If there is a reasonable accommodation available for someone with a different belief system than you, then it should be made.  If the request in unreasonable, then you are not required to make the accommodation.  But it's not up to you, it is up to the legal system to say what is reasonable or unreasonable.

It doesn't seem unreasonable to me to wave the requirement to remove a headscarf in the courtroom if it is in someone's widely known (e.g. traditional Muslim) beliefs.  Her sect of the Muslim religion requires that women be shrouded, and while I don't agree with it on any personal level, it is at the very least something I can respect.  Other religions such as the Sikh and Hasidic Jews and Roman Catholic monastics require similar garb, and it is something that, in a country which supports religious tolerance, should be respected if there is a reasonable accommodation availble.  To deny that would be to deny religious freedom, whether you agree with it or not.

Hush, I think you're a really good guy with a lot of sound ideas, but in the end there is PC and then there is hate speech.  In this case I'm afraid you're bordering closer to the latter with your wide generalizations about terrorism and the Muslim faith.  The same link could be drawn between Roman Catholics and the IRA, or Protestants and the Klu Klux Klan/Neo Nazis groups.  But it is not.  Ignorance and fear is what created the link between Islam and terrorism.  There are more than a billion Muslims around the world; do you honestly think that every one of them wants to kill you or hates you because of what you believe in?

[Pinhead]

In my opinion, as stated above, the request to remove the "headscarf" has (or at leas should have) nothing to do with religion. It has to do with security. Not against Muslims in general, but against that *one* person that wants to come in with their face covered. Let's say cross-country skiing is my "religion." Therefore I am required to wear a ski mask when in public. Don't you think they'd make me take it off? Is everyone that wears a ski mask a robber? No... But the parallels should be clear.

[bucky katt]

in the past year or so, as political correctness has gotten kind of invasive, i've been going out of my way to be politically incorrect. not necessarily offensive but...............politically incorrect. opening doors for women, even strangers, calling waitresses "dear" stuff like my dad, who was born in 1924 would say or do.

[Rocking-M]

I think I'll start wearing Nun attire. Then I can be anonymous.

[Spanner 1]

Plus one with DammitDan...

[DammitDan]

In my opinion, as stated above, the request to remove the "headscarf" has (or at leas should have) nothing to do with religion. It has to do with security. Not against Muslims in general, but against that *one* person that wants to come in with their face covered. Let's say cross-country skiing is my "religion." Therefore I am required to wear a ski mask when in public. Don't you think they'd make me take it off? Is everyone that wears a ski mask a robber? No... But the parallels should be clear.

Pinhead, I think you're wrong here.  This has everything to do with religion and religious freedom.  There is no widely recognized religion which requires its participants to wear ski masks, nor is there one which requires one to wear a motorcycle helmet (unless you worship the law of several US States).  There IS, on the other hand, a religion which requires its participants to wear shawls and headscarves while in public.  This isn't an "option" for them as wearing a ski mask or motorcycle helmet in public is for you.  Forcing someone who is bound by their religious code to remove a garment that they are required to wear in public by the tenets of their religious beliefs is grounds for religious discrimination.  

The only case where it would be acceptable to deny claim is if a reasonable accommodation would cause undue hardship.  Say for example a religion requires its participants to carry a ceremonial pistol on their person at all times.  A person practicing this religion would NOT be allowed to carry the pistol onto public school grounds, government buildings, hospitals or airplanes.  This is because bringing a weapon into a "protected zone" causes a real security risk that could impact the safety of the students, government workers, medical staff and people on the airplane.  While you make a point that a headscarf could possibly obscure the face of someone with dubious intentions, it does not really present a clear and present security risk in *all* cases.  Wearing a ceremonial pistol on your belt, on the other hand, DOES present this risk in *all* cases.

What baffles me is that you're making an argument that one should be subjected to limited religious freedom for the sake of security.  I'll just leave that up to Benjamin Frankin:

"People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both."

[Hush]

"Hate" is a strong word Damitdan  fear might go closer.
If the Muslim world is so peaceful and religiously governed, why are your countrymen dying in their hundreds (or is it thousands by now?) in Iraq and Afganistan?
It wasn't the Catholics who downed the twin towers nor was it the Morris dancers who dropped that 747 over Lockabe.
"Accomodating" is something we are very used to doing here in New Zealand, major roads cannot go via the most suitable route because "mythical" monsters (taniwha) have their home in a swamp or some Seer believes that ancient bodies are buried in the path of the proposed motorway!
The "airwaves" were claimed because some legend spoke of catching the sun in a fishing net! Hello?
Accomodating our native peoples is expensive but acceptable, accomodating people who suddenly decide they are this religion or that religion I find not acceptable.
Being born into a religion is different again, kids know no better and until they reach an age where they can make decisions for themselves I guess they get their parents' chosen beliefs.
Anyone notice the latest riots in Britain?  Yep Poms trying to keep England English.
A scarf is a small thing, I bet the Jews of 1930's Germany thought the swastika was just a symbol too.

I have a saying to quote too: "From tiny acorns mighty Oak trees grow"!

[Inigo Montoya]

Yeah dan, in this case I can agree. There are LAWS which should govern EVERYONE. The law should be applied equally across the board, no exceptions. If I could not wear a skimask or helmet into a courthouse because of LAW, then they should not either and that is fair. If I were a cannibal because of my religion, do you think I would be allowed to eat someone? Of course not, and while that may be an extreme, it still shows that my religious beliefs fell to the wayside for laws, laws that should apply to everyone regardless of religion or race or anything else.

[DammitDan]

The Muslim world is a peaceful religion just as Christianity or Morris dancing are peaceful religions, but like any religion it can be easily warped to suit the needs of political men.  Religion has been the political explanation for genocide for centuries; Just as Roman Catholic Christian doctrine was used as a basis for the launch of several genocidal Crusades, and just as Christian values were used to justify the murder of six million Jews in Nazi Germany.  Would we consider these "Christian" values today?  No.  But Christianity was still successfully manipulated to suit the needs of men with an agenda.

It is much the same situation with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  I don't believe we are fighting a religion; we are fighting religious extremists.  Insurgent leaders have an agenda that they are pushing, and they are warping the teachings of a religion to do it.  But just as I believe the majority of Christians did not agree with the Holocaust, I also believe the majority of Muslims do not agree with the religious extremists fighting our troops.  You therefore cannot lump ALL people of the Muslim faith into the same group as many have done.  

You're right, Hush, it is fear of Muslims that is causing so much uproar in non-Muslim communities.  Unfortunately many of the generalizations you use about Muslims (Catholics didn't down the twin towers, etc) only serve to spread this fear.  We fear what we do not understand, and that fear eventually leads to hatred.  We have to find a way to nip it in the bud before this happens, or we could easily find ourselves in a genocidal pissing match.

Tiny acorns do indeed grow into mighty oak trees, but those oak trees are just another part of the forest as a whole.  Perhaps with a little more understanding and a little less fear mongering we won't end up burning the forest down.

[DammitDan]

Yeah dan, in this case I can agree. There are LAWS which should govern EVERYONE. The law should be applied equally across the board, no exceptions. If I could not wear a skimask or helmet into a courthouse because of LAW, then they should not either and that is fair. If I were a cannibal because of my religion, do you think I would be allowed to eat someone? Of course not, and while that may be an extreme, it still shows that my religious beliefs fell to the wayside for laws, laws that should apply to everyone regardless of religion or race or anything else.

I think you missed my point, man.  I'm saying that if something can be reasonably accommodated then it should be.  Wearing a ceremonial gun onto a plane would cause undue hardship as it is a security risk to everyone on that plane in 100% of the cases.  Wearing a headscarf into a courtroom is something that should be accommodated, as it is only a risk in a very small percentage of the cases.

Laws are indeed made for everyone, but they can easily be discriminatory if there are no exceptions.  Up until the 1970s there were several cities which held "Ugly Laws," making it illegal for persons with "unsightly or disgusting" disabilities to appear in public.  The goal of the law was to preserve the quality of life for those in the community, but it was grossly discriminatory to people with disfigurements.  Here's what the Americans with Disabilities Act says about the so-called "ugly laws":

   Individuals with disabilities are a discrete and insular minority who have been faced with restrictions and limitations, subjected to a history of purposeful unequal treatment, and relegated to a position of political powerlessness in our society, based on characteristics that are beyond the control of such individuals and resulting from stereotypic assumptions not truly indicative of the individual ability of such individuals to participate in, and contribute to, society.

There is a parallel to be drawn here between discrimination for disabilities and discrimination for religious practice...

[rostosky750]

Not entirely sure of the source  of this BUT, "17 virgins" is actually a mis-translation....of,....."17 RAISENS" someone or three is gonna be well pissed when they get to nirvana. but they got the makings of a smallish scone or cake.

[DammitDan]

I always heard it was 72 Virginians.

And Nirvana is from Buddhist culture 

[Rocking-M]

What baffles me is that you're making an argument that one should be subjected to limited religious freedom for the sake of security.  I'll just leave that up to Benjamin Frankin:

"People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both."

this says it all!

[Hush]

Actually there is a joke that goes: Suicide bomber gets to meet his maker and is presented with 17 Catholic nuns! (where else are you gonna find 17 adult female virgins for chrissake?)