has affirmative action gone too far?

[DeletedUser]

A "Christian country"? Unless you are talking about a dictatorship somewhere which I haven't heard of, no such thing exists. For a nation to be described as an [insert whichever religion here] country, it can only be a totalitarian state. Something I assume you aren't in favour of, right?

Just from a quick check at NationMaster the figures from the 2001 census...

Christian (Anglican, Roman Catholic, Presbyterian, Methodist) 71.6%
Muslim 2.7%
Hindu 1%
other 1.6%
unspecified or none 23.1%

And like most other developed nations, those census statistics are huge overestimates of who is actually a practicing Christian because UK church attendence is only 27% (and that covers all religions, not just Christianity.

Based simply on Church of England, the UK is what I would describe as a christian country, in the same way that Saudi Arabia would be a Muslim country, a simple definition based on the majority and in no way inferring that all residents must be of that religion.

Obviously there is a huge difference between someone choosing to wear a an item which symbolises something about their religion and someone whose religion dictates that the item must be worn. If a school says no jewellery, then no jewellery, whether it has religious significance to the wearer or not. It is no different from me not being allowed to wear a hat while Jewish guys in my class wore their kippah. No one is being discriminated against by the rule, but refusing to allow a Kara or a Kippah or a headscarf would essentially amount to the denial of an education on the basis of religion.

Interestingly according to this source the requirement is not to actually wear the bracelet but that the Kakars (of which the kara is one) are as follows. "The articles are to be kept on or with the person at all times." Therefore asking the person to remove the bracelet and put it a pocket would not mean that you are asking them to go against their religion. So then they should fall under the no jewellry rule as well.

 

[DeletedUser]

Based simply on Church of England, the UK is what I would describe as a christian country, in the same way that Saudi Arabia would be a Muslim country, a simple definition based on the majority and in no way inferring that all residents must be of that religion.

As a non-Christian, that is a statement that I would find offensive about my own country just as I am sure that the the 28.4% of yours whose values and culture are excluded by that statement would do. The implication of it is that Christian values are more important than those of others. You can't make an argument for religious equity based on the majority. The majority is irrelevant. And that is codified in our laws, just as I'm sure it is in yours.

Interestingly according to this source the requirement is not to actually wear the bracelet but that the Kakars (of which the kara is one) are as follows. "The articles are to be kept on or with the person at all times." Therefore asking the person to remove the bracelet and put it a pocket would not mean that you are asking them to go against their religion. So then they should fall under the no jewellry rule as well.

But in your source, the sentence before the one you quoted is, "A Sikh is required to wear all of the 5 K's when initiated in the Sikh baptism ceremony of Amrit, and there after." I can only assume that the "on or with" is linguistic quibbling trying to accommodate the different item types.

I would also assume that practices vary slightly, as does Muslim and Jewish dress, depending on the orthodoxy of the particular individual. The fact that there might be various interpretations of the religious requirements means that each of those interpretations must be respected, not that one is negated in favour of the other. If one Muslim woman wears a burqa and another wears a head scarf, they are both acting on the same religious law - the hijab - but expecting the first to remove her burqa in favour of a head scarf would be intolerance.

 

[DeletedUser]

As a non-Christian, that is a statement that I would find offensive about my own country just as I am sure that the the 28.4% of yours whose values and culture are excluded by that statement would do. The implication of it is that Christian values are more important than those of others. You can't make an argument for religious equity based on the majority. The majority is irrelevant. And that is codified in our laws, just as I'm sure it is in yours.

Okay then, I will try to explain myself this time. The fact is that this coutry has its own religion. Namely C of E. Now I do not expect all people to conform to this religion nor do I expect that this religion be given preferential treatment. What I do question though is the fact that even in its own country a symbol of faith (which is all the 5 K's are) is banned, whilst others are given preference. The principle is that they are both jewellry, they are both symbols of religious faith, they should be treated the same. If you can expect equal treatment anywhere surely it is at home.

But in your source, the sentence before the one you quoted is, "A Sikh is required to wear all of the 5 K's when initiated in the Sikh baptism ceremony of Amrit, and there after." I can only assume that the "on or with" is linguistic quibbling trying to accommodate the different item types.

Actually I would disagree with that. There should be no need to add the "on or with" if they couldn't be removed.

Kachhera - Worn (undergarment)
Kanga - Worn (comb worn in the turban)
Kara - Worn
Kes - Worn (hair)
Kirpan - Worn (sword)

They are all worn, therefore leading to my understanding that on or with applies to all (obviously not the hair).

A interesting link as well http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7529694.stm.

EDIT: sorry it took so long, the joys of being at work.

 

[DeletedUser]

The fact is that this coutry has its own religion. Namely C of E

Can you quantify this please Furry...

 

[DeletedUser]

Can you quantify this please Furry...

Can you actually stick to your word for once and stop coming back into a debate multiple times after saying you had had enough?

 

[DeletedUser]

I am not going to engage with you over the main topic of the thread any longer (namely has affirmative action gone too far...). I have not moved from that position. That does not mean that I will not post when I precieve an error on other topics that are in the same thread.

You have alluded to the "fact" that the UK has a state religion - C of E. I want you to quantify. I guess you can choose to ignore me. The world won't stop spinning if you do. I just asked you to quantify - either do it or don't. Your choice bubba...

 

[DeletedUser]

Okay then, I will try to explain myself this time. The fact is that this coutry has its own religion. Namely C of E. Now I do not expect all people to conform to this religion nor do I expect that this religion be given preferential treatment.

Apart from the fact that your succession laws require the monarch to be a protestant, the fact that there is a religious branch which originated in your country doesn't make it a "christian country". And from what I understand, that particular prejudice which still remains in the law (as well as the prejudice which puts a younger son higher in the succession than an older daughter) will be removed very soon.

If the UK is a "christian country" because a christian denomination originated there, does that make the US a Mormon country? No.

Is the UK is a Christian country because the majority of the pop are self-described as Christian? If you answer is yes, then I'd ask you to take a look at some other statements which use the exact same logic and see if you can not recognise the offensiveness of this.

The UK is a white country.
The UK is a heterosexual country.
The UK is a female country.

That last one is obviously only by a small majority but it illustrates the ridiculousness of this logic as well as the offense.

Any time you say your country is a "whatever" country all those who don't fit with the "whatever" are effectively being told they are not British (because Britain is so-and-so and they are not). National identity is a large part of individual identity (whether that is a good thing or a bad thing) and whenever you narrow the definition of the national identity, you are excluding people from their part in it.

What I do question though is the fact that even in its own country a symbol of faith (which is all the 5 K's are) is banned, whilst others are given preference. The principle is that they are both jewellry, they are both symbols of religious faith, they should be treated the same. If you can expect equal treatment anywhere surely it is at home.

By stripping the rest of that passage, you've not provided an answer to the salient points. And further, when you say "in it's own country" you are once again making a call on a limited national identity as well as far overstating the case, as this related solely to the rules of a particular school, not the country itself.

 

[DeletedUser]

If the UK is a "christian country" because a christian denomination originated there, does that make the US a Mormon country? No.

A little bit different. The C of E was the state religion of the UK for 400 years, until the 20th century, and Queen Elizabeth II is still the Supreme Governor of the Church of England. LDS is clearly not and has never been the state religion of the U.S., but Utah is still considered a Mormon state.

 

[DeletedUser]

A little bit different. The C of E was the state religion of the UK for 400 years, until the 20th century, and Queen Elizabeth II is still the Supreme Governor of the Church of England. LDS is clearly not and has never been the state religion of the U.S., but Utah is still considered a Mormon state.

"I accept Your Majesty as the sole source of ecclesiastical, spiritual and temporal power."

The oath of loyalty sworn by Church of England bishops.

This basically means that the old Queen (gawd bless 'er *tugging forelock*) is the Head of the Church of England. At the same time, the Queen is also the Head of State in the UK. This makes the C of E an "established" church, rather than religion. As a result (bizarrely, as far as I am concerned), the church and the aristocracy are given privileges.

My point to Furry, was what he thought of this. He claims that the C of E should not be given preferential treatment yet it clearly is. See here

 

[DeletedUser]

Furry, that you would grab "about.com" as the sole source for your research on the issue shows your lack of research skills. a kara must be worn on the wrist, it is a requirement of the Sikh faith, a cuff of slavery to their God.

It is not a requirement, in any Christian faith, that a cross be worn (in fact, it specifically says to the contrary, regarding idolatry). To use your argument, that items with religious symbolism should be be allowed, you could effectively wear a mass of jewelry, adorning every part of your body, including nose piercings, tongue piercings, belly-button piercings, etc., just as long as they have some sort of religious association. Oh, and let us not forbid items of clothing with scriptures plastered on them that denounce other religions or beliefs, or that threaten harm to those of other beliefs.

Let's step this one up a notch. If you're going to advocate removing restrictions on Christian idolatry, why not remove restrictions on 'all' religion's idolatry? At what point do you wish to put the brake on this? Reading your other comments, it seems you feel strongly that England is a Christian nation, so do you believe other religions should not be allowed? Are you a follower of the Church of England, or do you follow another denomination? If you believe that England is a Christian nation, it is not much of a stretch to believe you are comfortable with the idea of a theocratic government. After all, it seems you are advocating that Christians receive special significance in England, provided special rights and privileges.

Assuming these things, and it is not unreasonable to do so considering the multitude of posts you've presented that seem to advocate such, we can contend you feel the need to extend these rights and privileges beyond mere rights and privileges. It is not unreasonable to assume you would advocate removal of rights and privileges from other religions and denominations.

When you make arguments, you must consider just how far you wish to take these arguments.

 

[DeletedUser]

Furry, that you would grab "about.com" as the sole source for your research on the issue shows your lack of research skills. a kara must be worn on the wrist, it is a requirement of the Sikh faith, a cuff of slavery to their God.

Please provide a source rather then simply attacking mine. If/when you do then I will retract my statement but not untill then.I have seen it described as such and also as a reminder that they would see before commiting sins with their hands

It is not a requirement, in any Christian faith, that a cross be worn (in fact, it specifically says to the contrary, regarding idolatry).

Umm I thought it was false idols, may be wrong but are you telling me that pretty much every church is in the wrong since pretty much all of them have crucifixs in?

To use your argument, that items with religious symbolism should be be allowed, you could effectively wear a mass of jewelry, adorning every part of your body, including nose piercings, tongue piercings, belly-button piercings, etc., just as long as they have some sort of religious association.

Or you could take a sensible line on this, a simple cross necklace worn under the clothing is a lot different to that, infact since one of the arguements re the Kara in that story is that it is covered...

Oh, and let us not forbid items of clothing with scriptures plastered on them that denounce other religions or beliefs, or that threaten harm to those of other beliefs.

Now your being stupid, that is covered in the fact that even freedom of speech doesn't allow you to incite religous hatred AFAIK.

Let's step this one up a notch. If you're going to advocate removing restrictions on Christian idolatry, why not remove restrictions on 'all' religion's idolatry? At what point do you wish to put the brake on this? Reading your other comments, it seems you feel strongly that England is a Christian nation, so do you believe other religions should not be allowed?

See my quote of myself below.

Are you a follower of the Church of England, or do you follow another denomination?

I would class myself as an agnostic inso much as I couldn't care less either way.

If you believe that England is a Christian nation, it is not much of a stretch to believe you are comfortable with the idea of a theocratic government. After all, it seems you are advocating that Christians receive special significance in England, provided special rights and privileges.

Assuming these things, and it is not unreasonable to do so considering the multitude of posts you've presented that seem to advocate such, we can contend you feel the need to extend these rights and privileges beyond mere rights and privileges. It is not unreasonable to assume you would advocate removal of rights and privileges from other religions and denominations.

When you make arguments, you must consider just how far you wish to take these arguments.

Before posting crap please at least take the time to read posts on the same sodding page.

Okay then, I will try to explain myself this time. The fact is that this coutry has its own religion. Namely C of E. Now I do not expect all people to conform to this religion nor do I expect that this religion be given preferential treatment.

THAT is posted further up on the very same page as your post. Hellstromm if you are going to attempt to troll me, (which given the fact that normally your reading comprehesion on these forums is very good, so I assume you are trying to wind me up) then please refrain from moaning about trolling elsewhere on these forums.

 

[DeletedUser]

Please provide a source rather then simply attacking mine. If/when you do then I will retract my statement but not untill then.I have seen it described as such and also as a reminder that they would see before commiting sins with their hands

Without even needing to go to sources, Furry, I think that is covered in the comparison that I made between this and the hajib (ie; some muslim women think a headscarf is enough, others firmly believe they must be covered from head to toe.). Even if some Sikhs interpret it variously, that doesn't negate the stricter intepretation of importance for the individual believer.

Umm I thought it was false idols, may be wrong but are you telling me that pretty much every church is in the wrong since pretty much all of them have crucifixs in?

They don't all use the crucifix symbol. (The crucifix is the one with jesus on it.) Various denominations use different forms of a cross as a symbol, and some Christian denominations reject the "symbols" alltogether as idolatry. There a passages in the text both in favour of and against jeweleery of any kind, so that is once again an issue of interpretation. But there is no text in the bible that says a cross of any kind "must" be worn.

For a reference on the Sikh requirements, you'll see the Wiki article on the Khalsa (which is sourced) is quite clear that this is a requirement and the reasoning for that is explained. And every other source I have looked at has said the same thing and had the same theological coherence.

Don't be confused by the use of the term symbol. For the Sikh's, it is a requirement that the symbol be worn.

Now your being stupid, that is covered in the fact that even freedom of speech doesn't allow you to incite religous hatred AFAIK.

If that were truly the case, very few religious texts (like the bible, for example) would be allowed to be printed.

Before posting crap please at least take the time to read posts on the same sodding page.

The issue here, again, is that by raising the issue of "christian country" you are giving it a relevance and privilege. If you truly do not think it should have any simply based on numbers, why are you bringing it up? Hellstromm isn't trying to tell you what you think or trolling you. He is trying to illustrate what you are actually implying when you bring irrelevancies such as this into your arguments. By doing that, you are giving them undue weight. Just cut them from your case altogether and that problem is solved.

 

[DeletedUser]

Furry you pose silly articles to substantiate your positions, and then grab unreliable information and base your arguments upon them. In almost every argument, you create a house of cards. And when someone corrects you, your tactic is to demand contra-evidence when the evidence you provided wasn't even worthy of that title. You should do your own homework, learn to research and compare information rather than stand about with your finger up your pothole and claim, "i'm oppressed, i'm oppressed."

Oh right, I forgot, it's now, "you're trolling me, you're trolling me." Seriously, what an idiotic time to claim victimization. I repeatedly presented sound arguments in these threads, and effectively rebutted your presentations. That's not trolling, it's debate. If you don't want to deal with rebuttals, don't participate in a debate. I'm not going to walk on eggshells for you.

The issue here, again, is that by raising the issue of "christian country" you are giving it a relevance and privilege. If you truly do not think it should have any simply based on numbers, why are you bringing it up? Hellstromm isn't trying to tell you what you think or trolling you. He is trying to illustrate what you are actually implying when you bring irrelevancies such as this into your arguments. By doing that, you are giving them undue weight. Just cut them from your case altogether and that problem is solved.

qft.


Furry, per your request, here's a few links:

http://www.realsikhism.com/symbols.html
http://sikhism101.com/node/246
http://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php?title=Kara
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kara_(Sikhism)
http://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php/Articles_of_faith

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idolatry_in_Christianity
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/general/icon_faq.aspx
http://bible.cc/

I wish to close with this comment: Furry, I have nothing personal going on with you, in this thread or any other. I make my comments based on the information presented. If you do not like my demonstrative approach, understand it is not an attack on your person, but on your arguments. Put more thought and research into your arguments.

 

[DeletedUser]

this just in

Court Rules For Firefighters In Ricci Case

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., were unfairly denied promotions because of their race, reversing a decision that high court nominee Sonia Sotomayor endorsed as an appeals court judge.

New Haven was wrong to scrap a promotion exam because no African-Americans and only two Hispanic firefighters were likely to be made lieutenants or captains based on the results, the court said Monday in a 5-4 decision.

The controversy started when New Haven voided its entire 2003 promotional exam after the results made 18 whites - but no blacks - eligible to become officers. When the city decided to promote no one, the white firefighters called that invalid under the Constitution.

source


I have ony took the first few paragraphs

 

[DeletedUser]

PREJUDICE

a. An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts.
b. A preconceived preference or idea.
2. The act or state of holding unreasonable preconceived judgments or convictions. See Synonyms at predilection.
3. Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion.
4. Detriment or injury caused to a person by the preconceived, unfavorable conviction of another or others.
tr.v. prej·u·diced, prej·u·dic·ing, prej·u·dic·es 1. To cause (someone) to judge prematurely and irrationally. See Synonyms at bias.
2. To affect injuriously or detrimentally by a judgment or an act.


RACIST

1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

 

[DeletedUser]

and?

 

[DeletedUser]

(I, ofcourse, am reffering to the earlier portion of this thread, pre-page 10)

And, just like Billy said, it seems like you are being prejudice in throwing out premature facts before getting 100% accurate information, but you sure as hell aren't racist. sure, you could say a percentage of minoritys is involved in gangs, but,

Like Elmyr posted earlier in this thread when it still made some sense:

According to Elmyrs graph, 32% of the Majority race (Caucasian, 66% of US population) is involved in gangs, and 68% of the minority (all minority races) are involved in gangs

Now, bring in mathematics.
66% x 300,000,000=198,000,000
34% x 300,000,000=102,000,000

Now, for Over all Average gang rates.

32% x 198,000,000=63,360,000
68% x 102,000,000=69,360,000

According to Elmyrs graph, the displacement for the majority/minority gang rate is: 6,000,000 gang members. More gang members are from the minority races according to Elmyrs graph.

Gizmo was right on the gangs, but he did not explain his reasoning. Now everyone is going off calling him racist when he simply did not state his facts. I do not know wether or not he is prejudice or not, but I know he is not racist, but, plenty of our fellow members have jumped the gun and have blammed accusations of racism. Giz, i know you are not racist, as for prejudice, that is up to everyone else because I can't tell one way or another, but according to Elmyrs graph, you were correct about majority/minority gang rates by 6 million people. Considering there are 6 billion going on 7 billion people on earth, that margin is luck.

 

[DeletedUser]

Wow.

Someone skipped their statistical analysis class, didn't they?

 

[DeletedUser]

"lol"

It's the whole response that these last few posts deserve.

 

[DeletedUser]

David, you should recheck your figures. And, you should read all the posts pertaining to the discussion of those figures before demonstrating any more of your immense dumb.