Heartland

smiscandlon wrote:

Wikipedia wrote: The turban being religiously obligatory for the Sikhs, a more tolerant view has begun to be taken recently. For example, the Motor Cycle Crash Helmets (Religious Exemption) Act passed in British Parliament in 1976 exempts “any follower of the Sikh religion while he is wearing a turban� from having to wear a crash helmet.

Yet another example of religion over rationale.

or rhyme and reason

At the interview for my current job, I purposely wore all my earings, spiked up my hair and wore my Doc's. If they wanted me they could have me 'warts and all' and would avoid hassle later on.

To me, it would have been dishonest not to.

amen

Debaser wrote:At the interview for my current job, I purposely wore all my earings, spiked up my hair and wore my Doc's. If they wanted me they could have me 'warts and all' and would avoid hassle later on.

To me, it would have been dishonest not to.

Right on!

Motz wrote:Sorry, but I'm not seeing the slightest practical difference between the two. Surely sacking someone if they don't wear what you tell them to is exactly the same act as telling them what to wear? It's not like they have strange mind control powers which can keep you in the job and force you to wear stuff. What you're saying is "Point 1 doesn't stand but Point 1 does". They're exactly the same

Yes, it is - but then if you want to work in a particular company then you have to play by their rules. Wear what they tell you, work the hours they tell you, or go look for employment elsewhere. Most employers will tell you what they expect in the way of a dress code, and will normally have a policy as regards religious paraphenalia (crosses, yarmulkes, etc.). I once got into a barney at my last job - there was a girl who wore a fleece jacket that had "Jesus" written in script over the pocket. Some friends and I went out and had American-style high-school lettermen jackets made up that had 666 Satan written across the back. She complained to Personnel, who made us take them off. Bottom line: play by our rules, or go find somewhere else to work.
Same applies to the wearing of balaclavas or whatever - a shop has the right to decline service to anyone, without giving a reason. It's private property, and they're allowed to make their own rules. If thay say "No Hoodies", then they're entitled to do it. There are signs at most petrol stations these days asking motorbike riders to remove their helmets before entering, and reception desks at offices require couriers to remove their helmets too. There's nothing to stop them requiring that muslim women remove veils, but most of them don't because it would be seen as descrimatory - although why bike messengers don't complain I don't know.
As far as the issue of veils on passports are concerned, that one's simple - the passport belongs to the government (don't know about driving licenses). They get to make the rules about how it gets used or what's in it. If you don't like it, don't have a passport. Everyone is free to wear what they want, until they enter someone else's premises, at which point the premise owner is free to require them to dress in the way he wants. It's fairly simple, for the life of me I can't work out why there's such a fuss over it.

had to turn the central heating on tonight

It's pretty cold isn't it? Winter's drawing in alright.

Damn right!

... time I got a new motor, it won't last another

Knew a bloke once (Canadian, actually) who had to light a fire under his to thaw the engine out one year. Guess we can count ourselves lucky we don't have it that bad.

Still bloody cold though.

So Sikh astronauts are not going to face a lot of success on their missions..

I have never, in all my life, seen a Sikh on a motorcycle.

DeWinter wrote:I have never, in all my life, seen a Sikh on a motorcycle.

-They are affraid of riding one without helmet?
-Their religion forbids them?
-Their scriptures say nothing about how to handle it?
-Do you know a Sikh when you see him?
-Umm, that´s it for now..

they make fantastic pakora, heid gear or no

James Blast wrote:they make fantastic pakora, heid gear or no

If I invent a religion, rest assured Pakora will be a holy rite

eotunun wrote: -They are affraid of riding one without helmet?
-Their religion forbids them?
-Their scriptures say nothing about how to handle it?
-Do you know a Sikh when you see him?
-Umm, that´s it for now..

Well there had to have been Sikh's riding motorcycles, or no-one would have thought to make the exemption in law, would they? And yes, I would recognise a Sikh if I saw one they are rather distinctive in appearance.

mh wrote:Knew a bloke once (Canadian, actually) who had to light a fire under his to thaw the engine out one year. Guess we can count ourselves lucky we don't have it that bad.

Still bloody cold though.

Obviously Canadian

http://www.slate.com/id/2152031/?nav=ais

A rather well thought-out piece on the issue that sparked this fiasco of a thread, if anyone still cares.

DeWinter wrote:

eotunun wrote: -They are affraid of riding one without helmet?
-Their religion forbids them?
-Their scriptures say nothing about how to handle it?
-Do you know a Sikh when you see him?
-Umm, that´s it for now..

Well there had to have been Sikh's riding motorcycles, or no-one would have thought to make the exemption in law, would they? And yes, I would recognise a Sikh if I saw one they are rather distinctive in appearance.

It's quite possible that natural selection had something to say about the number of Sikhs on motorcycles

sultan2075 wrote:http://www.slate.com/id/2152031/?nav=ais

A rather well thought-out piece on the issue that sparked this fiasco of a thread, if anyone still cares.

I agree fundamentally.

Motz wrote:

eastmidswhizzkid wrote:but they still don't have the right to tell you what to wear. they are perfectly entitled to refuse you emplyment or sack you for your apparel but it is still your choice as an individual whether or not to accept their terms on the strenghth of feeling you hold over the sacrifice of your freedom.

Sorry, but I'm not seeing the slightest practical difference between the two. Surely sacking someone if they don't wear what you tell them to is exactly the same act as telling them what to wear? It's not like they have strange mind control powers which can keep you in the job and force you to wear stuff. What you're saying is "Point 1 doesn't stand but Point 1 does". They're exactly the same

not really -it's about choosing which is more important to you. however i can't think of a single good reason why she should be forced to choose as i can't see why her veil precludes her ability to do the job, which should be the issue.

At the risk of arguing around in circles (again) the veil precludes her ability to do the job (at least in the opinion of her erstwhile employers) because she was involved in teaching English to children whose native tongues were other languages. Having one's mouth visible to the students is generally considered necessary in this scenario.

If it's a purely practical argument then I can see the point, and agree she probably should take the veil off.

What disturbs me is the quantum leap that is made from "covering her face may impede her ability to do this particular job which requires a great deal of non-verbal communication", to "covering her face indicates that she is setting herself outside "British society".

And I think it's the readiness of so many people (our own PM included) to make this sort of jump that makes this issue so loaded, and obscures the simple, practical problem. I think a lot of Muslim women would rightly fear that it's the thin end of the wedge, and if they remove their veils the next target will be the hijab. And of course there is no practical problem in a teacher wearing a headscarf... but there is still a ban on them in parts of mainland Europe. Which leads me to believe that what motivates a lot of the criticism of wearing the veil is nothing to do with practicalities, but rather the desire to get rid of all these symbols of religious belief (in public at least).

And therefore, I understand her unwillingness to take it off, even though, in a society without these tensions, it would probably be the most sensible thing to do.

Aye, it's called putting 2 and 2 together and getting 1,327,981,562. If someone wants to twist a perfectly reasonable and innocent thing to support their own agenda, they will find a way.