# M & S Muslim staff are told they can refuse to serve Alcohol and pork.



## shetlandlover (Dec 6, 2011)

Marks & Spencer tells Muslim staff they CAN refuse to serve customers buying alcohol or pork | Mail Online

I don't understand, these items are wrapped up or in bottles not being forced down anyones throats.


----------



## Howl (Apr 10, 2012)

I think part of the faith is not being allowed to touch or sell these goods, it also applies to some faith in relation to banking, some accounts are involved in stocks/shares and are considered gambling. 
I wouldn't touch or sell dog meat if I worked in retail in some parts of asia.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Personally I think Asda have the right idea, in that if someone doesn't wish to handle a product for religious reasons then they won't place them on the tills.

Why take a job that requires you to do things that disagree with your moral/religious compass? 

I most certainly would not be happy to be told to wait to be served due to what is in my shopping basket


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

I don't have a problem with anyone's beliefs etc. but surely, if you apply for a job in a supermarket, knowing full well what they sell, it's unfair to expect special dispensations not to handle certain stock?

I don't eat meat - so wouldn't choose to work in a butchers. 

But I do work in a café and handle and cook meat for customers - because that is a reasonable requirement for a cook in an establishment that provides food selected by the paying public. It was my choice to take the job or not.

Should M & S be able to ask applicants if there are any products in store that they are not happy to handle or sell, as part of their selection process just as they would ask if there were certain shifts that people would not be willing to work?


----------



## Quirk (Nov 12, 2013)

StormyThai said:


> Personally I think Asda have the right idea, in that if someone doesn't wish to handle a product for religious reasons then they won't place them on the tills.
> 
> Why take a job that requires you to do things that disagree with your moral/religious compass?
> 
> I most certainly would not be happy to be told to wait to be served due to what is in my shopping basket


I agree with this. I would be really fed up if id been waiting to be served and then refused because of what i wanted to buy. They should put signs on certain tills letting the customers know before queuing, like they do for paying in cash or on card.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

Ridiculous, they can work somewhere they don't need to compromise their beliefs


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

Quirk said:


> I agree with this. I would be really fed up if id been waiting to be served and then refused because of what i wanted to buy. *They should put signs on certain tills letting the customers know before queuing, like they do for paying in cash or on card*.


I don't agree with this - it implies that individual employees should be able to dictate the staffing rota and customer service in a store. Just doesn't make sense to me.

To me it is very simple - if you don't want to sell the products sold in any given store - choose a job elsewhere.

Stores have to obey licensing laws and laws surrounding the sale of knives, chemicals, films and games. That is it as far as I can see.

It's just stuff and nonsense IMO


----------



## Quirk (Nov 12, 2013)

Lurcherlad said:


> I don't agree with this - it implies that individual employees should be able to dictate the staffing rota and customer service in a store. Just doesn't make sense to me.
> 
> To me it is very simple - if you don't want to sell the products sold in any given store - choose a job elsewhere.
> 
> ...


Dont get me wrong, i dont think it should be allowed but *if* the store insist on it then they should at least put the signs up for the customers benefit.


----------



## Mr Gizmo (Jul 1, 2009)

I am 100% against the fur trade but as part of my roll within Harrods I sometimes have to handle real fur,I could refuse and would probaly get away with it but as it's a part of the job I chose to take I will handle it.

If they don't want to do the job there is plenty who will.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

*Why take a job when you know these items are going to be sold. If they are so against people having pork or booze, then in my book they are hypocrites.
It's a bit like saying, i don't agree with someone robbing a place, but i'll be the get away driver.*


----------



## MCWillow (Aug 26, 2011)

Ridiculous.

If I had filled my trolley, queued up, unloaded all my shopping, then got told I would have to wait for someone else to serve me, I would leave everything there and go and do my shopping elsewhere!

Next they will have cashiers asking to see a marriage certificate before selling customers condoms, if they don't believe in sex before marriage


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

Quirk said:


> Dont get me wrong, i dont think it should be allowed but *if* the store insist on it then they should at least put the signs up for the customers benefit.


I worry though that that could create some very real nasty situations when certain people are confronted by such a sign IYKWIM?


----------



## Waterlily (Apr 18, 2010)

I sure hope people sue for being discriminated against cos of whats in their trolley..Thats just bullshit.


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

Well that sounds fine by me!
Providing vegetarians can refuse to serve meat products.
Can't be doing with this exclusion myself based on your religion - certainly not in the workplace I can't


----------



## skyblue (Sep 15, 2010)

when i see this in something more reputable than the daily mail i might believe it


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

MCWillow said:


> Ridiculous.
> 
> Next they will have cashiers asking to see a marriage certificate before selling customers condoms, if they don't believe in sex before marriage


That is a very good point!


----------



## skyblue (Sep 15, 2010)

the telegraph is running this

Muslim staff at Marks & Spencer can refuse to sell alcohol and pork - Telegraph

now this raises alot of questions because all corner shops sell alcohol


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

skyblue said:


> when i see this in something more reputable than the daily mail i might believe it


Muslim staff at Marks & Spencer can refuse to sell alcohol and pork - Telegraph

http://www.themuslimtimes.org/2013/...s-spencer-can-refuse-to-sell-alcohol-and-pork


----------



## smudgiesmummy (Nov 21, 2009)

barking mad if you ask me ... if i was a muslim why on earth would i want to work in a place that sells something i could not touch ... i would not even think to work there ... if i did i would be asked to work in a different area that does not involve if working with it ... i agree with equal opportunities but to refuse when you are working on a till is stupid ... i wouldnt be happy to be refused to be served and would complain and i would consider going elsewhere


----------



## CRL (Jan 3, 2012)

i think its silly. especially at this time of year when the queues are so big. why should customers have to queue up twice because they have some bacon or beer? they shouldnt have to. if they dont like touching the bottle or wrapper they should either get a job in another department or a job somewhere else. especially when pork and alcohol are big sellers this time of year in m and s. they are going to loose a lot of customers.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

It's a bit of a dilemma though isn't it? There are few jobs around as it is, would these same people be criticised if they turned down a job on the basis of their beliefs/religion, when people are always saying 'a job is a job'?


----------



## Waterlily (Apr 18, 2010)

This is a comment from the site... and makes these stores look like bigots against westerners for their decision.



> Here in Morocco, supermarket staff, almost all of whom are Muslims, sell alcohol and pork products. As they are packaged so they don't come into direct contact with the product, they have no problem handling them. They would never think of embarrassing a customer simply because they do not eat or drink the product being purchased. If a Muslim country can do this, I am struggling to understand why M&S is creating a distinction that is ultimately divisive, and it should not be encouraged in a liberal society.


----------



## CRL (Jan 3, 2012)

simplysardonic said:


> It's a bit of a dilemma though isn't it? There are few jobs around as it is, would these same people be criticised if they turned down a job on the basis of their beliefs/religion, when people are always saying 'a job is a job'?


a job is a job. so if they choose that job they should be willing to do everything that job entails. 
i dont like working mornings or weekends, but i have to. 
i dont like cleaning up vomit, but i have to. 
until i can find another job i have to put up with the things i dont like. if they dont like it they can find another job.


----------



## Waterlily (Apr 18, 2010)

simplysardonic said:


> It's a bit of a dilemma though isn't it? There are few jobs around as it is, would these same people be criticised if they turned down a job on the basis of their beliefs/religion, when people are always saying 'a job is a job'?


Im getting sick of religion dictating how things work for the majority.. They sue for discrimination if you _dont_ hire them, then sue if forced to do the damn job they are _hired_ to do.. on religious grounds.. Bout time non religious westerners started suing for our rights in this as well i think.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

*I wonder if Jehovahs Witness's could refuse to serve anyone with anything to do with christmas, because they don't believe in it.*


----------



## poohdog (May 16, 2010)

*A strange concession from a Jewish company.*


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

Religion can often be picked up and put down according to one's own requirements.

There are Jews who eat bacon, Muslims who drink alcohol, Christians who practise sex before marriage, Catholics who use condoms, blah, blah, blah.

Our local corner shop is owned by a lovely Muslim family. They are happy to sell alcohol.

If someone is so devout that selling a particular product as part of their job goes against their beliefs, then even working for an organisation that sells such items is possibly already a step too far?

Or do some people deliberately set out to challenge the normally acceptable?


----------



## Mr Gizmo (Jul 1, 2009)

Sorted.


----------



## grumpy goby (Jan 18, 2012)

I wonder if this is something staff have actually asked for, or if its an oversensitive (probably white) Human Resource manager that dreamed it up.....

The latter I suspect!

I imagine anyone with any problems serving pork or alcohol will unlikely be put on the food service till.. but instead working in other areas of the store. I would be astonished if anyone that strictly holds this belief to that extent, would want to put themselves in that akward situation an would instead request to do something else!


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Howl said:


> I think part of the faith is not being allowed to touch or sell these goods, it also applies to some faith in relation to banking, some accounts are involved in stocks/shares and are considered gambling.
> I wouldn't touch or sell dog meat if I worked in retail in some parts of asia.


But if you did work in retail in those parts, you would not have the choice. You would either do the job or be told to leave. That is the difference. If they do not want to do the job, they should not apply for it and the employers should not take them on in the first place.


----------



## Mulish (Feb 20, 2013)

CRL said:


> a job is a job. so if they choose that job they should be willing to do everything that job entails.
> i dont like working mornings or weekends, but i have to.
> i dont like cleaning up vomit, but i have to.
> until i can find another job i have to put up with the things i dont like. if they dont like it they can find another job.


There is a difference between not liking to do something and finding it morally objectionable, though. It's not always as easy as just finding another job at the moment, either.

I think it's silly but I find a lot of the minutiae of all religions silly. I do wonder if this is something that's been pushed for by lots Muslim workers or just introduced by overly p.c. management? Certainly none of the Muslims I know have ever tried to dictate to anyone and generally find this sort of publicity to be detrimental to them.


----------



## skyblue (Sep 15, 2010)

muslims use things to suit,i worked with alot of muslims at my last job and they demanded permanent days during ramadan,even though nights would have suited them better because they could have slept while fasting,thats of course the ones that did fast,i saw a fair few muslims go out during break and drive their cars to the far end of the car park and start scoffing sandwiches

they refused to handle home brew kits because they are alcohol,i pointed out that its not alcohol until brewed...i got reported for racism,the cold hard facts hurt hey

and another somali muslim asked a polish girl out,when she refused he went to personel to complain about racism


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Dodgy ground there.. anyone remember the couple who refused to let gays share a bed in their B&B due to religious belief and were found legally wrong. What's the difference?


----------



## negative creep (Dec 20, 2012)

Mr Gizmo said:


> Sorted.


Not sure I'd want to be trying that with a £40 bottle of wine..........


----------



## grumpy goby (Jan 18, 2012)

skyblue said:


> muslims use things to suit,i worked with alot of muslims at my last job and they demanded permanent days during ramadan,even though nights would have suited them better because they could have slept while fasting,thats of course the ones that did fast,i saw a fair few muslims go out during break and drive their cars to the far end of the car park and start scoffing sandwiches
> 
> they refused to handle home brew kits because they are alcohol,i pointed out that its not alcohol until brewed...i got reported for racism,the cold hard facts hurt hey
> 
> and another somali muslim asked a polish girl out,when she refused he went to personel to complain about racism


This sounds like the problem was less that they are muslim and more that they were tw*ts....

There are plenty of muslims in the world who are reasonable, realistic and generally good people.

There are also plenty of tw*ts, of varying creeds, colour and religion.


----------



## lorilu (Sep 6, 2009)

skyblue said:


> muslims use things to suit,i worked with alot of muslims at my last job and they demanded permanent days during ramadan,even though nights would have suited them better because they could have slept while fasting,thats of course the ones that did fast,i saw a fair few muslims go out during break and drive their cars to the far end of the car park and start scoffing sandwiches
> 
> they refused to handle home brew kits because they are alcohol,i pointed out that its not alcohol until brewed...i got reported for racism,the cold hard facts hurt hey
> 
> and another somali muslim asked a polish girl out,when she refused he went to personel to complain about racism


SOME Muslims use things to suit. Human nature being what it is, there are going to be people in every race, religion and creed who use political correctness to suit their own needs and hypocrisies.

It's disgusting, but that's humans for you. 

I think this regulation may be illegal. It's a form of segregation and discrimination isn't it? And aren't segregation and discrimination illegal in the UK?


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

It's a little like applying for and taking a job in a Peanut Factory when you know you're allergic to peanuts.

If part of the Job Description is that they will have to handle these products, then in a way, they accept the job under false pretences.

If everyone began making their own decisions about what part of their job they would or wouldn't do, it would be mayhem.

It really does have to be one rule for all.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> *I wonder if Jehovahs Witness's could refuse to serve anyone with anything to do with christmas, because they don't believe in it.*


I know Catholic pharmacists can and do can refuse to sell the morning after pill or fill prescriptions for the contraceptive pill because it goes against their beliefs re birth control and abortion. I once worked with a pharmacist who wouldn't even sign orders for these items, so that we could order the stock.

The GPhC instructs that they have to direct the customer to another establishment where they can obtain what they need - that seems even worse than waiting in a supermarket queue for someone else to serve you with pork or alcohol.

I did try to discuss with this pharmacist what the difference was between selling it herself and directing the customer to somewhere else where she could buy it - the end result would be the same. She wasn't interested in discussing it though


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

*lol I found a good answer on google, now i've lost the damn page. Will search again after dinner.*


----------



## Mulish (Feb 20, 2013)

grumpy goby said:


> This sounds like the problem was less that they are muslim and more that they were tw*ts....
> 
> There are plenty of muslims in the world who are reasonable, realistic and generally good people.
> 
> There are also plenty of tw*ts, of varying creeds, colour and religion.


Very well put. Unfortunately being a Tw*t does seem to be the fastest growing religion at the moment, thanks primarily to so much celebrity endorsement. It just gets mislabeled a lot.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

grumpy goby said:


> I wonder if this is something staff have actually asked for, *or if its an oversensitive (probably white) Human Resource manager that dreamed it up*.....
> 
> The latter I suspect!
> 
> I imagine anyone with any problems serving pork or alcohol will unlikely be put on the food service till.. but instead working in other areas of the store. I would be astonished if anyone that strictly holds this belief to that extent, would want to put themselves in that akward situation an would instead request to do something else!


I'm inclined to say the latter as well. Unfortunately it creates even more excuses to use certain religions as whipping boys


----------



## grumpy goby (Jan 18, 2012)

Mulish said:


> Very well put. Unfortunately being a Tw*t does seem to be the fastest growing religion at the moment, thanks primarily to so much celebrity endorsement. It just gets mislabeled a lot.


Im pretty sure Paul Dacre is the Pope of the church of Tw*t. His holy Tw*tiness. Driving around in the Tw*tmobile.

To hide the religion, however, they cover it up by blaming the disabled, muslims, people that look like they might be muslims, or the unemployed, for all the countries problems.


----------



## WelshYorkieLover (Oct 16, 2011)

If this is true I am disgusted! I swear I am not racist but I'm sorry my country is britain and we live by british rules and traditions and anyone who chooses to move to this country regardless of their religion should be made to have live by these rules. I am disgusted! how dare they be able to dictate what we can and cannot buy from stores over here just because of religion! I would cause a MASSIVE scene if i had this happen to me. It is perfectly normal and legal to buy pork and alcohol (over the age of 18 of course) in this country and therefore I will buy it regardless of religions and opinions!

I am also disgusted with m&s because if they have decided this off their own back, they are putting this on muslim people and things like this cause problems for them. Like here in wales a few of our schools refused to let pupils celebrate st davids day in case it offended their muslim pupils. i am still seething about this. but the thing is this had nothing to do with the opinions of muslim people. they did not protest or complain or decide that we couldnt celebrate our saints day, it was the do-gooders who I understand dont want to offend them and that is geat but they decided on this not the muslim people.

I have nothing against muslim people in the slightest, i have friends that are muslim and respect that their religion is their business and its what makes them feel happy and whole but if anyone was complaining about things like having to sell alcohol etc my message to them is simple 'remember where you live and suck it up!'


----------



## shetlandlover (Dec 6, 2011)

My questions are if this starts to roll out throughout shops (not just M&S) can vegetarians refuse to serve meat products? Can jewish people refuse to serve Pork? Can non Muslims refuse to serve Halal meat if they don't agree with the way they are killed? Can Catholic /Christians who don't believe in sex before marriage refuse to serve Condoms to those who are not married? Can someone who can't eat gluten/dairy refuse to serve those products?

If we allow one group of people to have their own rules then others must be allowed too.


----------



## skyblue (Sep 15, 2010)

shetlandlover said:


> My questions are if this starts to roll out throughout shops (not just M&S) can vegetarians refuse to serve meat products? Can jewish people refuse to serve Pork? Can non Muslims refuse to serve Halal meat if they don't agree with the way they are killed? Can Catholic /Christians who don't believe in sex before marriage refuse to serve Condoms to those who are not married? Can someone who can't eat gluten/dairy refuse to serve those products?
> 
> If we allow one group of people to have their own rules then others must be allowed too.


yes indeed:yesnod:


----------



## grumpy goby (Jan 18, 2012)

shetlandlover said:


> My questions are if this starts to roll out throughout shops (not just M&S) can vegetarians refuse to serve meat products? Can jewish people refuse to serve Pork? Can non Muslims refuse to serve Halal meat if they don't agree with the way they are killed? Can Catholic /Christians who don't believe in sex before marriage refuse to serve Condoms to those who are not married? Can someone who can't eat gluten/dairy refuse to serve those products?
> 
> If we allow one group of people to have their own rules then others must be allowed too.


The telegraph article does state M&S extend the priviledge of choice to any religion.

Not quite as sensationalist as the headline though.



> "M&S promotes an environment free from discrimination and so, where specific requests are made, we will always make reasonable adjustments to accommodate them, whilst ensuring high levels of customer service."
> The policy applies throughout its 700-plus stores. The spokesman said the policy of tolerance applied to other religions, so, for example, Christians who did not want to work on Sundays and religious Jews who chose not to work on Saturdays would also be excused. "This is something we decide on a case-by-case basis," the spokesman added.


----------



## skyblue (Sep 15, 2010)

soon they're going to be offended for not being allowed to marry 9 year old girls,after all whats good for the prophet and all that


----------



## ZipsDad (Oct 31, 2013)

Thats total horse sh!t.

If your religious beliefs were that strong, you wouldnt choose to work in a place that even sold those things. If your need to make a living dictated you'd compromise your beliefs enough to work there then, by God, do your job. :incazzato:
It's not like they didn't know, as a cashier, they'd have to handle those items.

Good on this company: "In contrast to M&S, Sainsbury's has told Muslim staff that there is no reason why they cannot handle goods such as alcohol and pork - even if they are not allowed to eat or drink the products."

Maybe people will get offended by having to wait and take their business elsewhere. Hitting M & S in the wallet may help them change their tune.


----------



## Mr Gizmo (Jul 1, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> *lol I found a good answer on google, now i've lost the damn page. Will search again after dinner.*


 Hurry up then I want to know .
What you having for dinner or shouldnt I ask as the reply might offend.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Mr Gizmo said:


> Hurry up then I want to know .
> What you having for dinner or shouldnt I ask as the reply might offend.


*LOL well have a read through this. Quite interesting i thought.*
HALAL AND HARAM

Loads on there to read, scroll down to section 23.
" 
23. INCOME AND WORKING IN HARAM ITEMS PLACES

Question :

Is the income of employees who work in food stores/shops that sell alcohol considered halal (lawful)? Also, is it permissible in Islam to eat from "halal" restaurants which also sell alcohol?

Is it permissible for Muslims to work in places like McDonalds, etc., where the majority of food is haram, and you have to touch pork? Also should Muslims try not to work in such places as they are owned by Americans?

Answer :

Income in compensation for working in stores that sell alcohol is permissible provided that the work itself does not include handling of alcoholic beverages, because handling these liquors is not permissible and consequently payment received for such a prohibited action is not earned lawfully from the Shari`ah point of view.

Eating in halal restaurants that sell alcohol is permissible as long as you don't share the same table with a person who drinks. It is, however, shameful for such restaurants to offer halal meat side by side with alcoholic beverages.

Working in places like McDonalds is permissible provided that you do not handle the sale of pork."

*Oh and today we had mince casserole greens and mash. lol *


----------



## foxiesummer (Feb 4, 2009)

Methinks they may have avoiding pork products in every day life. Mind you this was published in the Daily Mail. 
From bullets to bread and beer, tambourines to toothpaste...all of that plus another 180 other things to do with a pig | Mail Online


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Goblin said:


> Dodgy ground there.. anyone remember the couple who refused to let gays share a bed in their B&B due to religious belief and were found legally wrong. What's the difference?


Don't know the story, but I bet they weren't muslim


----------



## witchyone (Dec 16, 2011)

Where I used to live there was a local shop that was owned and run by a muslim family. They had recently taken over the shop from the previous owner who had a licence to sell alcohol. The muslim family decided not to re new the licence as alcohol was forbidden to them, fair enough. But what they didn't seem to mind was having a shelf full of soft porn magazines when they insist that muslim women wear a burka and not show any flesh. Oh and they were quite happy to sell the likes of pre packed ham ect.


----------



## staffgirl (May 1, 2013)

newfiesmum said:


> Don't know the story, but I bet they weren't muslim


From memory they were a Christian couple who did not want to allow a homosexual couple to share a room in their b&b. They were found guilty of discrimination I think.


----------



## ZipsDad (Oct 31, 2013)

If you can't do the job, be it physical limitations or religious conflict, should it be considered discrimination to deny employment because of those inabilities?


----------



## Waterlily (Apr 18, 2010)

ZipsDad said:


> If you can't do the job, be it physical limitations or religious conflict, should it be considered discrimination to deny employment because of those inabilities?


Hell no.. a business has to keep afloat and has jobs that need doing, they aint charity for volunteers.


----------



## ZipsDad (Oct 31, 2013)

Waterlily said:


> Hell no.. a business has to keep afloat and has jobs that need doing, they aint charity for volunteers.


You're my new hero!


----------



## Mulish (Feb 20, 2013)

grumpy goby said:


> Im pretty sure Paul Dacre is the Pope of the church of Tw*t. His holy Tw*tiness. Driving around in the Tw*tmobile.
> 
> To hide the religion, however, they cover it up by blaming the disabled, muslims, people that look like they might be muslims, or the unemployed, for all the countries problems.


You forgot stay at home mums, working mums, single mums, teenagers and anyone deemed 'a bit foreign'. Credit where it's due, must be much harder remembering who to blindly hate than it is to avoid drinking alcohol or eating ham sandwiches.

Does he have a Tw*t hat? Is it shaped like a willy?


----------



## ForestWomble (May 2, 2013)

Ridiculous!


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

WelshYorkieLover said:


> If this is true I am disgusted! I swear I am not racist but I'm sorry my country is britain and we live by british rules and traditions and anyone who chooses to move to this country regardless of their religion should be made to have live by these rules. I am disgusted! how dare they be able to dictate what we can and cannot buy from stores over here just because of religion!


No-one is dictating to anyone what they can and can't buy. People are not wanting to handle things because of their religioius beliefs and their employer is making it possible for them to still work without compromising their beliefs. This does not happen just with Muslims - did you see my post about Catholic pharmacists not supplying the contraceptive pill or the morning after pill? Your argument about people moving to this country sort of falls down there, doesn't it?



shetlandlover said:


> My questions are if this starts to roll out throughout shops (not just M&S) can vegetarians refuse to serve meat products? Can jewish people refuse to serve Pork? Can non Muslims refuse to serve Halal meat if they don't agree with the way they are killed? *Can Catholic /Christians who don't believe in sex before marriage refuse to serve Condoms to those who are not married*? Can someone who can't eat gluten/dairy refuse to serve those products?
> 
> If we allow one group of people to have their own rules then others must be allowed too.


Don't know about the others you have quoted but the one I have highlighted can and does happen.



grumpy goby said:


> The telegraph article does state M&S extend the priviledge of choice to any religion.
> 
> Not quite as sensationalist as the headline though.


Stop being a spoil sport by reading the article properly! It's much more fun to read the headline and go off in a tirade about being forced not to buy things in your own country. :lol:

Folks, it's Christmas Day on Wednesday. Do Chrsitans not even pay lip service to the message of their religion any more? What happened to peace and goodwill to all fellow men? Has it been reduced to peace and goodwill to all fellow men providing I don't have to wait a few minutes for someone else to serve me because your religious beliefs differ from mine? If people cannot even tolerate other people's beliefs at this time of year, then I weep for mankind.


----------



## Waterlily (Apr 18, 2010)

Spellweaver said:


> Folks, it's Christmas Day on Wednesday. *Do Chrsitans not even pay lip service to the message of their religion any more? * What happened to peace and goodwill to all fellow men? Has it been reduced to peace and goodwill to all fellow men providing I don't have to wait a few minutes for someone else to serve me because your religious beliefs differ from mine? If people cannot even tolerate other people's beliefs at this time of year, then I weep for mankind.


Why put the blame onto christians? last i checked half of us here posting our views werent either religion


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Waterlily said:


> Why put the blame onto christians? last i checked half of us here posting our views werent either religion


Because of the proximity of Christmas Day


----------



## Waterlily (Apr 18, 2010)

Spellweaver said:


> Because of the proximity of Christmas Day


But most use it as a day for family and material absorbtion.. half the people "celebrating" dont even believe in god lol.. so its not about Christians if people dont like the idea of waiting for there booze longer then they already have, its about people in general.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Waterlily said:


> But most use it as a day for family and material absorbtion.. half the people "celebrating" dont even believe in god lol.. so its not about Christians if people dont like the idea of waiting for there booze longer then they already have, its about people in general.


Most people who celebrate christmas celebrate a feeling of goodwill at this time of year that is over and above the feeling of goodwill during the rest of the year. My point was that if people are so intolerant that waiting a few more minutes to accomodate someone else's views makes them really angry *even at this time of year,* then what hope is there for the rest of the year?


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> My point was that if people are so intolerant that waiting a few more minutes to accomodate someone else's views makes them really angry *even at this time of year,* then what hope is there for the rest of the year?


No problem here! I shall finish my shopping at Waitrose


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Dictating what parts of a job you wish to do has nothing to do with tolerance or a lack of. I have better things to do with my day than wait longer just because of the items in my basket.

I could just imagine the reception if I had a job at Tesco's and refused to sell bleach or another household product because they test on animals


----------



## ZipsDad (Oct 31, 2013)

Spellweaver said:


> Most people who celebrate christmas celebrate a feeling of goodwill at this time of year that is over and above the feeling of goodwill during the rest of the year. My point was that if people are so intolerant that waiting a few more minutes to accomodate someone else's views makes them really angry *even at this time of year,* then what hope is there for the rest of the year?


Accommodating someone else's views is a two way street. Especially when you hire on at a place that isnt exclusive to your own religious beliefs.


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

It sounds like a load of grief for M and S.

Imagine queueing for ages in a hot sweaty shop, some child whining next to you and finally..its your turn to pay and get out, get home and get ready for the season.and at the bottom of your trolley are some sausages...oh sounds like fun.lol


----------



## Waterlily (Apr 18, 2010)

Spellweaver said:


> Most people who celebrate christmas celebrate a feeling of goodwill at this time of year that is over and above the feeling of goodwill during the rest of the year. My point was that if people are so intolerant that waiting a few more minutes to accomodate someone else's views makes them really angry *even at this time of year,* then what hope is there for the rest of the year?


I got that bit and agree, it was the slating of another religion to defend the other that I was pointing out.


----------



## Howl (Apr 10, 2012)

I spent a lot of time with a group of muslim friends at uni. We had the opportunity to chat about things in an open way and ask each other questions which was a huge learning experience outside of the aggresive PC culture we live in where we are frightened to mention difference let alone discuss why or what the logic behind things are. 
One thing I learnt was that there are huge differences in different cultures even within British Muslims. Where their families may have originated from and the traditions and cultural beliefs differ to the point where individuals within a group of friends might find each others families beliefs bizarre. 
When things like this come up we treat Muslims as though they all hold the same beliefs which isn't the case. 
The differences are cultural which is not the same as religious. I think this is important. 
One girl said she does not believe in covering her head with a scarf she believed the laws that dictated it were not based on her religious beliefs they were interpretations made by a culture. 
Another difference is, is this something that is wrong in the quran and would lead to the individual going to hell or is this something that is just not the done thing in the culture the person is brought up in. I think this is important because although I would hate to sell dog meat and I do not like serving/cleaning meat at work I don't strongly believe I am going to face eternal damnation for it so I can and do get on with it. So the comparison can't be seen as the same. 
I don't think cultural differences should be ignored but my Muslim friends would argue that if you are doing something for cultural reasons then that is a choice but a religious reason is not. 
Another point is that if the individual is not making profit from the meat/alcohol then is there a difference? 
Isn't it better that british muslims feel able to work in retail than feel they have no choice but to leave their jobs and sit on the dole? 
Personally I find the challenge 25 rule more offensive but thats a different post.


----------



## Megan345 (Aug 8, 2012)

This doesn't actually bother me. I used to work with a Muslim bloke in a nursing home kitchen - I was a bit p!ssed off initially that I had to stop what I was doing and load the alcohol onto the lunch trolley for him, but why not? It doesn't matter in the long run.


----------



## ZipsDad (Oct 31, 2013)

A few things were challenged and lost here in the name of religion.
Muslim women didnt want to remove their head coverings for Drivers License photo as that was supposed to be against their religion.
The option? Don't have a drivers license then.
They opted for the uncovered picture.

Another was car insurance.
Some attempted to legally forgo insurance because they likened it to gambling, which is against their religion.
The option? Don't drive.
They opted for the insurance.

Point being there are things in place that you will either have to make amends with your God about or don't do.

Surely there are more jobs than just retail where these people find serving pork or alcohol a personal/religious affront.
Find a job that doesn't deal with either and you'll be just fine.


----------



## Firedog (Oct 19, 2011)

How different is it to someone refusing to work on the fish counter because the smell makes the physically ill?


----------



## EmCHammer (Dec 28, 2009)

Alcohol.. On the lunch trolley.. At the nursing home .. And there was me being worried about growing old and going into a home


----------



## Megan345 (Aug 8, 2012)

EmCHammer said:


> Alcohol.. On the lunch trolley.. At the nursing home .. And there was me being worried about growing old and going into a home


I think the view was - they've made it so far, what will an extra couple of Guinesses matter?!

(Also had to go down the chippy for some of the residents' tea).


----------



## foxiesummer (Feb 4, 2009)

Muslims aren't supposed to gamble but the first winner of the national lottery was a muslim winning 17/1-2 million. He uggered off and left his wife and family never to be seen again. Some just use religion to their own ends.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

haha thats just a joke surely.. if they know they cant handle those type of products dont get a job somewhere that sells them, how stupid can ya be... well not as stupid as the bosses apparently. Imagine what would have happened if a none religious person refused to handle a product because it didnt fit in with their personal beleifs for whatever silly reason they decide to concoct.. they'd be out on their arse...


----------



## MCWillow (Aug 26, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> Because of the proximity of Christmas Day


_Because_ of the proximity of Christmas day, the shops are fuller and the queues are longer (not saying I agree, but its a fact).

_If_ therefore, I have just spent 2 hours battling to fill my trolley, then another 30 mins queuing - I am going to be in no mood to then spend X amount of time either joining another queue, or waiting for someone to do the the job they were actually employed _to do_, to come and serve me.

I wouldn't go for a job at an abattoir, and then expect to not have to come into contact with animals due to be killed.

I wouldn't go for a job at a research lab, and then expect to be able to refuse to clean out cages of animals that had been experimented on.

I wouldn't go for _any_ job, that I _know_ would be in conflict with my own personal, moral or religious beliefs - why would I?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Waterlily said:


> I got that bit and agree, it was the slating of another religion to defend the other that I was pointing out.


I wasn't defending any religion - out of interest, which religion do you think I was defending? I've spoken about both muslims and catholics being allowed to find ways to reconcile their religious beliefs with their work. That's not defending their religion; it's merely showing tolerance of differing beliefs.

And I repeat, the christian reference was that if people are so intolerant that waiting a few more minutes to accomodate someone else's views makes them really angry *even at this time of yea*r, then what hope is there for the rest of the year?


----------



## EmCHammer (Dec 28, 2009)

I think I am annoyed about this was the way the press present this to stir up a them and us feeling - and that we should be annoyed those Muslims getting special treatment etc

I don't really care enough to get in a state over it tbh if someone is that not comfortable by handling something and there is a way around it then so what everyone's happy. Currently if I am served by someone under 18 in The supermarket and I have booze they push a button and someone comes over and sorts it quickly sure it will be like that. 

Interesting also that they offer this to all religions but that's not daily mail news. 

I don't think stories of my local shop is run by Muslims and they do blah helps ; to lump all Muslims to think in the same way is wrong. I am sure many faiths have very devout people and many who are less so - it takes all sorts

I have worked many place where people with children are given concessions different working hours etc but that's life do I begrudge them .. Of course not .. Only begrudge people getting concessions at work if I feel I am unfairly missing out on something that should be available to all


----------



## Guest (Dec 22, 2013)

Megan345 said:


> I think the view was - they've made it so far, what will an extra couple of Guinesses matter?!
> 
> (Also had to go down the chippy for some of the residents' tea).


Thats the place i want my kids to send me!!!


----------



## Jobeth (May 23, 2010)

I used to be active within the Salvation Army and I wouldn't have chosen to work somewhere that went against those beliefs e.g. a betting shop. Even though I haven't gone for ages I still donate to a raffle rather than take a ticket and don't drink etc. If the tills are clearly signed with 'no alcohol or pork' and other tills available I personally wouldn't have an issue with it. I'd hate to be forced to compromise aspects of my faith that I found important and wouldn't want to do that to others. I'd be surprised if many Muslims are actually saying no as there was only one example in the article. The other was of Tesco's locking a prayer room, which I don't think is acceptable.


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

Its not a case of waiting a few extra minutes.the world has gone mad.If someone's religion prevents them from handling any item.and any religion.then its ridiculous for them to get a job where they will come into contact with it.

Nobody is asking anybody to eat or drink something that offends them in the name of religion.

If I got a job in a halal butchers shop then objected to handling meat on any grounds.or that I am not muslim.I would be laughed at.

The trouble with this sort of story etc is that it actually makes relations between different faiths more volatile and we already have enough grief in the world without getting into muslim staff in M and S


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

Jobeth said:


> I used to be active within the Salvation Army and I wouldn't have chosen to work somewhere that went against those beliefs e.g. a betting shop. Even though I haven't gone for ages I still donate to a raffle rather than take a ticket and don't drink etc. If the tills are clearly signed with 'no alcohol or pork' and other tills available I personally wouldn't have an issue with it. I'd hate to be forced to compromise aspects of my faith that I found important and wouldn't want to do that to others. I'd be surprised if many Muslims are actually saying no as there was only one example in the article. The other was of Tesco's locking a prayer room, which I don't think is acceptable.


Outrageous that a prayer room is shut.


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

Reckon if there was no religion there would be no arguments


----------



## Julesky (Feb 10, 2012)

DT said:


> Reckon if there was no religion there would be no arguments


DT- are you kidding.... general chat is fact and proof that there would be arguments in the absence of religion


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

EmCHammer said:


> I think I am more annoyed about this was the way the press present this to stir up a them and us feeling - and that we should be annoyed those Muslims getting special treatment etc
> 
> I don't really care tbh if someone is that not comfortable by handling something and there is a way around it then so what. Currently if I am served by someone under 18 in The supermarket and I have booze they push a button and someone comes over and sorts it quickly sure it will be like that.
> 
> ...


Spot on - especially the bit I've highlighted. You are the second one to point this out on this thread - but most people are taking no notice. They notice the word "muslim" and steam right on in their eagerness to express their indignation that muslim religious beleifs could delay them for a few minutes while someone else comes to serve them.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

DT said:


> Reckon if there was no religion there would be no arguments


Nah - there's always politics to fall back on!


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

Julesky said:


> DT- are you kidding.... general chat is fact and proof that there would be arguments in the absence of religion


You are scaring me now


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

DT said:


> Reckon if there was no religion there would be no arguments


Well, I think people will always find something to argue about, from how to treat a dog to why their little darling has been overlooked for the lead role of Mary or Joseph in this Year's Nativity Play.

Religion is personal, everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, but I think the trouble starts when one Person's Faith is foisted onto another.


----------



## lorilu (Sep 6, 2009)

DT said:


> Reckon if there was no religion there would be no arguments


 Imagine that.


----------



## smudgiesmummy (Nov 21, 2009)

EmCHammer said:


> I think I am annoyed about this was the way the press present this to stir up a them and us feeling - and that we should be annoyed those Muslims getting special treatment etc
> 
> I don't really care enough to get in a state over it tbh if someone is that not comfortable by handling something and there is a way around it then so what everyone's happy. *Currently if I am served by someone under 18 in The supermarket and I have booze they push a button and someone comes over and sorts it quickly sure it will be like that.*
> 
> ...


the difference being though is that is the law ... this is not

i work in a card shop and say im against a different type of card that i dont agree with ... and i refuse to sell it ... i would be sacked for it !!!


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

by "even at this time of year" do you mean december? i mean "this time of year" is only significant if you're religious- if you're not religious i see no reason to suddenly start tolerating hyopcrisy or ridiculousness any more than any other time of year.

its not muslims getting something chistians wouldnt that bothers me, its religious groups gettin stuff the non religious couldnt.

like imagine if i got a job in a pharmacy but refused to serve or handle any product that had been tested on animals because i dont agree with it... its ridiculous right? Obviously i just shouldnt get a job there in the first place, or i should suck it up and get on with it. ..But certainly the reason for my refusal shouldnt hold any less weight just cos it wasnt formed centuries ago by people who wouldnt have even known what a pharmacy is.


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

newfiesmum said:


> Don't know the story, but I bet they weren't muslim


No, I believe they were devout Christians. And it wasn't because the couple were gay, rather that they weren't married and wanted to share a double room, if my memory serves me right.


----------



## MCWillow (Aug 26, 2011)

Lurcherlad said:


> No, I believe they were devout Christians. And it wasn't because the couple were gay, rather that* they weren't married *and wanted to share a double room, if my memory serves me right.


Kind of the same thing really, since same sex marriage, wasn't something that was recognised,_ or _allowed (if I remember rightly).

So even having a Civil Partnership, wasn't good enough. I wonder if they turned away people that weren't married in a place of worship?


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

Jobeth said:


> If the tills are clearly signed with 'no alcohol or pork' and other tills available I personally wouldn't have an issue with it. .


See, I wouldn't have a problem with that scenario if I was in a Muslim country, but this discussion is about the UK.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Actually "at this time of year" may also apply to Hanukkah which often falls on Dec 25............... 

Which is a Jewish festival


----------



## MCWillow (Aug 26, 2011)

smokeybear said:


> Actually "at this time of year" may also apply to Hanukkah which often falls on Dec 25...............
> 
> Which is a Jewish festival


Absolutely!

I dont actually have a problem with what time of year it is - you do the job you are employed to do - simples.

If you dont feel you can do a particular job because of your own personal, moral or religious views (or any other views that will stop you doing that job) - then dont take that particular job!


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Wot about if you live in an area of high unemploymnet?

Do you think this approach is better or worse than say being on benefits?


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

MCWillow said:


> Kind of the same thing really, since same sex marriage, wasn't something that was recognised,_ or _allowed (if I remember rightly).
> 
> So even having a Civil Partnership, wasn't good enough. I wonder if they turned away people that weren't married in a place of worship?


I don't know what lengths they went to in order to check whether a couple were married in church, but if two men or two women turn up at the door with an overnight bag, it's pretty obvious they aren't married in the traditional Christian sense i.e. in a Church. 

They stated clearly on their website their beliefs and "house rules" so I wonder if they were targeted to be honest. Certainly, if I were gay and saw such a statement on the website of a B & B before I booked, I wouldn't want to stay there anyway.

Anyhoo, whilst I defend anyone's right to have their own moral and religious beliefs, I don't like to see them imposed upon anyone else.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Lurcherlad said:


> I don't know what lengths they went to in order to check whether a couple were married in church, but if two men or two women turn up at the door with an overnight bag, it's pretty obvious they aren't married in the traditional Christian sense i.e. in a Church.
> 
> They stated clearly on their website their beliefs and "house rules" so I wonder if they were targeted to be honest. Certainly, if I were gay and saw such a statement on the website of a B & B before I booked, I wouldn't want to stay there anyway.
> 
> Anyhoo, whilst I defend anyone's right to have their own moral and religious beliefs, I don't like to see them imposed upon anyone else.


aye, soon as you realised they were bigoted against you wouldnt the natural reaction be to say "screw you, wouldnt want to stay here if you payed me" and just find somewhere else.. but i bet they made a few quid by going to the media with the story...


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

smokeybear said:


> Wot about if you live in an area of high unemploymnet?
> 
> Do you think this approach is better or worse than say being on benefits?


in an area of high unemployment i suspect there would be somebody else more suited for the job who would gladly do it instead.


----------



## MCWillow (Aug 26, 2011)

TBH, I have never looked on their website. Having been married in a registery office I would actually consider my self married, and to be turned away _just_ because I wasn't married in a church would gall me (to put it lightly!)

Begs the question if they actually asked a man a woman that arrived, for the marriage certificate, and then further proof that they were actually married in a place of worship.

Any couple, comprising of an opposite sex couple, could turn up and give the same surname and pretend they were married.

So _if _this couple actually do stand by the beliefs they say they do, surely they would be asking for a marriage certificate, and proof of marriage within a religious institute?

And if they don't, well, then they really _are_ guilty of discrimination aren't they?!


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

Trouble with having signs on the tills, especially at this time of year means that there'd be no-one at that till. Shopping last night, every trolley was rammed with booze and everyone was getting sausages wrapped in bacon.


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

MCWillow said:


> TBH, I have never looked on their website. Having been married in a registery office I would actually consider my self married, and to be turned away _just_ because I wasn't married in a church would gall me (to put it lightly!)
> 
> Begs the question if they actually asked a man a woman that arrived, for the marriage certificate, and then further proof that they were actually married in a place of worship.
> 
> ...


Get your point about the registry office vs church thing, but then I'm not a devout Christian.

Doubt they went to such lengths to prove it, but didn't expect people to "rub their noses in it" so to speak 

In the past, I've been away for "weekends" with boyfriends and it was probably obvious we weren't married 

Also, had a few "weekends" away with my husband - in the early days you might have wondered - but now we have been married 25 years it's probably obvious


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

porps said:


> in an area of high unemployment i suspect there would be somebody else more suited for the job who would gladly do it instead.


Of course there would but what about the person who needs a job and an income.

The point is not about substitutes but those who have a job

Also in areas of high unemployment it does not necessarily follow that EVERYONE is looking for a job ..............


----------



## MCWillow (Aug 26, 2011)

Lurcherlad said:


> Get your point about the registry office vs church thing, but then I'm not a devout Christian.
> 
> Doubt they went to such lengths to prove it, but didn't expect people to "rub their noses in it" so to speak
> 
> ...


I do get your point - I really do!

What I am trying to say is - _anyone_ can say or refuse to do anything they like, as long as they say its 'my beliefs' - and everyone bends over backwards to accomodate them!

So where is the proof that you always stringently apply your beliefs? Do you always ask for proof of marriage in a religious institute before you let a room? If you don't, then _yes_, you are guilty of discrimination, because the couple that booked in were same sex. So you didnt actually need to ask for proof of where they were married - you made the call based on who they were.

I mean, I _could_ say 'its my belief not to answer any phone calls before 2pm on a Monday', *or* 'its not in my belief system to speak to men that are not complimentary to their wives' *or* 'I wont speak to people that arent married' *or* 'my beliefs dont recognise same sex relationships, therefore I don't have to talk to anyone that calls me that is in a same sex relationship'

Now in my job, I would be able to refuse at _least_ 50% of the calls I get, and be entitled to hang up on them, just because I don't believe in the way they live their lives! Really?

If you _have_ a belief system, then you make sure you _live_ by that belief system - you dont just choose who you _want_ to believe just because their 'face fits'.

And getting back on topic ( :blush: ) - if your_ personal_ belief system is that stringent, that you couldnt possibly even handle 'taboo' goods, then surely you wouldnt apply for a job that would ask you to go against your beliefs.


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

MCWillow said:


> And getting back on topic ( :blush: ) - if your_ personal_ belief system is that stringent, that you couldnt possibly even handle 'taboo' goods, then surely you wouldnt apply for a job that would ask you to go against your beliefs.


Yep - I mean No, I wouldn't


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Did not a druid get some payout recently because they were refused Halloween off?


----------



## ZipsDad (Oct 31, 2013)

smokeybear said:


> Of course there would but what about the person who needs a job and an income.


Simples. Find one that doesn't conflict with your religion.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

ZipsDad said:


> Simples. Find one that doesn't conflict with your religion.


Have you ever actually visited or lived somewhere like Rochdale for example which has very limited job opportunities?


----------



## MCWillow (Aug 26, 2011)

smokeybear said:


> Have you ever actually visited or lived somewhere like Rochdale for example which has very limited job opportunities?


Thats not the point though is it?

You will take a job and do it because you want a job.

You don't take a job, sign your job contract, then start saying you wont do this that or the other, which you actually signed a contract saying you _would_ do.

If thats the case, then every single person would take a job knowing that they could then say - 'oh no, sorry, I dont believe in that' - madness!


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

MCWillow said:


> Thats not the point though is it?
> 
> You will take a job and do it because you want a job.
> 
> ...


Do we have any evidence that this particular decision was staff driven?

Do we have any evidence that it was at the request of particular employees?

Do we have any evidence that the reason for this decision was based on employees who signed a contract and then changed their mind?

Or is it an M & S directive from on high?

Or do we just have a set of headlines which, like so many, do not give the whole picture but provide a convenient bandwagon for the professionally outraged to jump on?


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

smokeybear said:


> Do we have any evidence that this particular decision was staff driven?
> 
> Do we have any evidence that it was at the request of particular employees?
> 
> ...


Well, obviously not - but then where would be the fun in that


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

porps said:


> my[/U] refusal shouldnt hold any less weight just cos it wasnt formed centuries ago by people who wouldnt have even known what a pharmacy is.


It's all a matter of degree. To use your pharmacy analogy, refusing to serve or handle any product that had been tested on animals would mean there was very little of your job that you could do, so of course an employer would not put up with that, no matter how enlightened they were. But if you were a catholic and refused to handle or sell birth control products, then you could do the major part of your job and I would expect an enloghtened employer to allow staff to work around this.

Similarly with M&S - they are allowing those Muslim staff who do not want to handle pork and alcohol not to handle them, and they have said they will treat other religious needs in a similar manner. I can't see anything at all wrong with that - in fact it should be applauded imo.



MCWillow said:


> I dont actually have a problem with what time of year it is - you do the job you are employed to do - simples.
> 
> If you dont feel you can do a particular job because of your own personal, moral or religious views (or any other views that will stop you doing that job) - then dont take that particular job!





ZipsDad said:


> Simples. Find one that doesn't conflict with your religion.


But it isn't "simples" at all. People need to work and earn money - jobs are not exactly gropwing on trees these days and imo it's better than someone takesa job where a little amount of compromise may be needed than sit at home and expect the tax payer to fund their lifestyle.


----------



## astro2011 (Dec 13, 2011)

We aren't asking them to drink the alcohol or touch the meat tho! It's all packaged!? I use self service anyway.


----------



## MCWillow (Aug 26, 2011)

smokeybear said:


> Do we have any evidence that this particular decision was staff driven?
> 
> Do we have any evidence that it was at the request of particular employees?
> 
> ...


Do we have any evidence that this particular decision _wasn't_ staff driven?

Do we have any evidence that it_ wasn't _at the request of particular employees?

Do we have any evidence that the reason for this decision _wasn't_ based on employees who signed a contract and then changed their mind?

Or is it an M & S directive from on high? Or _wasn't _it?

Do we? Who knows? Do _you_?

Do you have some sort of _proof_ that shows whether or not this was down an employee, or down to M&S jumping on a 'bandwagon'?

So roll your eyes all you like, people have a right to reply on how they personally feel about situations - whether those situations are real _or _contrived - they are _still_ entitled to an opinion on them.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> It's all a matter of degree. To use your pharmacy analogy, refusing to serve or handle any product that had been tested on animals would mean there was very little of your job that you could do, so of course an employer would not put up with that, no matter how enlightened they were. But if you were a catholic and refused to handle or sell birth control products, then you could do the major part of your job and I would expect an enloghtened employer to allow staff to work around this.
> 
> Similarly with M&S - they are allowing those Muslim staff who do not want to handle pork and alcohol not to handle them, and they have said they will treat other religious needs in a similar manner. I can't see anything at all wrong with that - in fact it should be applauded imo.
> 
> But it isn't "simples" at all. People need to work and earn money - jobs are not exactly gropwing on trees these days and imo it's better than someone takesa job where a little amount of compromise may be needed than sit at home and expect the tax payer to fund their lifestyle.


Excellent points and post.


----------



## staffgirl (May 1, 2013)

MCWillow said:


> Do we have any evidence that this particular decision _wasn't_ staff driven?
> 
> Do we have any evidence that it_ wasn't _at the request of particular employees?
> 
> ...


Yup - the fact is that some staff have been refusing to serve customers, so customers are making their feelings about it known.


----------



## ClaireLouise (Oct 11, 2009)

If I am honest I struggle to see the issue with this!
If a company can support it's employee in this way with no detriment To the business then why not? We expect/hope our cultural and religious beliefs are taken into account in the work place such as time off at crimbo , early pay day etc so if doable why can't other religions be accommodated in the work place. I would imagine this would be easily accommodated anyway they could work on the self service part and cigs counter


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

staffgirl said:


> Yup - the fact is that some staff have been refusing to serve customers, so customers are making their feelings about it known.


Is that really a fact? Because even the Daily Wail didn't claim that! When even the Daily Wail can only come up with "one unnamed shopper" who felt "taken aback" then it seems to me that either staff have not been refusing to serve customers or customers in general are a bit more tolerant than some posters on here!


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

ClaireLouise said:


> If I am honest I struggle to see the issue with this!
> If a company can support it's employee in this way with no detriment To the business then why not? We expect/hope our cultural and religious beliefs are taken into account in the work place such as time off at crimbo , early pay day etc so if doable why can't other religions be accommodated in the work place. I would imagine this would be easily accommodated anyway they could work on the self service part and cigs counter


Well said Claire - and some good points made re our cultural expectations of our employers at Christmas.

I'm having to get up at 5am on Christmas Eve in order to do the fresh food shop before I go to work, because when I come hom from work at 5.30pm lall the shops will have closed so that their staff can go home early. Now to me, that's much more annoying than having to wait a couple of minutes for a nion-muslim to come and put my pork and alcohol through the till.


----------



## MCWillow (Aug 26, 2011)

Yep - I agree - let the people that dont want to handle/sell pork or alcohol, work somewhere that they wont have to encounter it.

Don't put them on a till where they _may_ encounter it - that just causes embarrassment for _all_ concerned - and there is no need for it.

However my posts may be read - I _dont_ disagree with people not doing things because of their beliefs - I _do _disagree with people agreeing to do things, and then saying they wont do them because of their beliefs, and I disagree with employers saying they they _wont_ have to do things because of their beliefs, and then reneging on that agreement.

In short - if everyone was honest and upfront - there wouldnt be a problem would there?!

If employers employ people, and agree to take their beliefs into consideration - thats exactly what they _should _do. They shouldn't put them in a position where they may have to compromise those beliefs - or consider whether their beliefs or their job is more important!


----------



## ItsonlyChris (Mar 12, 2013)

Why do we make so many acceptions for people?

If I ran a business, you would just do your job.

It's not even that I'm being ignorant. If a M&S had mostly Muslim staff in a secular area then pork and booze wouldn't be sold as much because of religious restrictions and then they would lose business.

We should be going to work because we want to get paid, not because we want to cherry pick our duties :laugh:

It's just funny that there doesn't seem to be a backbone anymore. I remember when the NHS were giving out boob jobs earlier this year.

_Just get on with what you're being paid to do_.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Is this a ruling that has "suddenly" come in - or is it just that the media have suddenly got hold of the story days before Christmas.

It's not as if M&S only sell pork products and alcohol at Christmas - or that most areas have a higher concentration of muslim workers at this time of year - most of the staff are probably there all year round and the products are available and purchased the same.

Do they afford the same rulings to Jews who don't eat / handle pork (or anything containing pork fat which could include butters and other animal fats) - many practising Jews won't have meat and milk products in the same fridge - so this would spill over into packing customers shopping bags or being prepared to accept these items mixed on the till belt etc

Most Hindu's consider the cow sacred - so whilst milk is acceptable - they don't consider it acceptable to eat beef - does this mean they won't handle it either?

Such rulings open up all sorts of issues affecting many religions, not just Muslims - unfortunately, we ALL know that those headlines wouldn't make such a good story -- all they serve in doing is creating prejudice where none previously existed.

=================================

We presumably live in an enlightened society where we embrace and respect others differences, whether it be religion, skin colour, sexual preference or any other minority factor which makes them "different" - regardless of what the often ludicrous laws the government brings in telling us we have to - hopefully people should have enough humanity in them to tolerate and respect these differences.

The argument has already been put above about a staunch catholic working in a pharmacy being permitted to not selling the contraceptive / morning after pills - and historically - in the medical profession staunch Catholics have been excused from participating in terminations - but unless it's a top political agenda item, you wouldn't see it being plastered all over the papers.

===============================

I really don't like the idea of singling out queues by till operator religion and what they will / won't handle - that has undertones of segregation and even remnants of the very thing Nelson Mandela spent his life fighting against.

I think if staff are not prepared to handle certain items, they should, where practical. be placed in other areas of the store - particularly at this time of year when it could be particularly problematic

My OH went to M&S today to get a few odds and ends (still the only chain where many of their mainstream products are gluten free including their new and delectable mini gluten free chicken kievs ) - he was told he would have to wait an hour to get to the checkout - needless to say he refused and left the store.

Adding the complexity of staff not handling certain items could quickly and easily double that time (unless they have a wandering operator to deal with passing these items through the till and, where necessary, packing them).

I also appreciate where I live this won't be a major issue - from memory - I've only ever seen one lady in Muslim dress in our local store, but appreciate that this will change dramatically in London and some areas of the Midlands and North, making it impractical to take all affected staff off the tills - in which case - one or more wandering packer / operators could be used to get around the issue without having to upset anyone - far better than singling staff out based on religion which really doesn't sit comfortably with me at all and I don't think it should with anyone with any ounce of humanity - at this time of year, it's food shopping for a couple of days - it's hardly a life and death matter.

===============================

My SIL has lived in Dubai for around 10 years - we've been out there twice - certain stores are licensed to sell pork products and alcohol (albeit pork products will be on shelves out of sight of the main store) -

You don't see many bars, but alcohol is available in most hotels and restaurants. Pork is rarely seen on menus, but is frequently available if asked for - most of the staff who will prepare this food / drinks will be Muslims demonstrating an element of tolerance and respect for others' cultures that you typically won't see in most other predominantly Muslim countries.

-------------------------------------------------

I can understand peoples' frustrations with these headlines - as usual - the media has sensationalised it - but there has to be easier ways around it to ensure the smooth running - where it isn't practical to provide these staff with other roles - I hope that one of the alternatives *isn't* identifying what staff on individual tills will / won't do because of their religious / cultural beliefs.

Ultimately, now this has come to light - it could also lead to discrimination when hiring staff based on their religious presentation - that is totally unacceptable - there has to be a compromise somewhere.


----------



## labradrk (Dec 10, 2012)

I do like a good chuckle at the Daily Mail - it's my daily fix of trash. You can predict the headlines because they pretty much always involve Romanians/Bulgarians, gypsies, immigration, chavs or their favourite.....Muslims.


----------



## Jobeth (May 23, 2010)

M&S apologises after saying Muslim staff may refuse to serve customers pork and alcohol - Home News - UK - The Independent

It seems that they are now saying that they usually locate staff in more appropriate areas. It also appears to have been based on one person complaining.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

I was waiting for this.

What makes me laugh is that there were so many holes in the original story that you could drive a bus through it but instead of questioning or challenging some of the alleged statements it provided the bandwagon that some people need ROFLMAO

A woman said she could not process the bottle of champagne.

Why

Ah, she was wearing a headscarf, that MUST mean that a) she is a muslim and b) that she was refusing to process the bottle because of her religion

Of course it could not POSSIBLY be that the woman was wearing a headscarf as she was recovering from cancer and/or she might be too young to process the alcohol?



Etc etc

Anyway, it provided me with a lot of entertainment and an opportunity for self identification for many posters and an excuse to rant.

So thank you.


----------



## poohdog (May 16, 2010)

labradrk said:


> I do like a good chuckle at the Daily Mail - it's my daily fix of trash. You can predict the headlines because they pretty much always involve Romanians/Bulgarians, gypsies, immigration, chavs or their favourite.....Muslims.


*Unlike the Express which specializes in...*
*SNOW/GALES/ICE/DROUGHT/FLOOD/FREEZING* 

.


----------



## Waterlily (Apr 18, 2010)

smokeybear said:


> Of course there would but what about the person who needs a job and an income.
> 
> The point is not about substitutes but those who have a job
> 
> Also in areas of high unemployment it does not necessarily follow that EVERYONE is looking for a job ..............


f they were that desperate for a job and had to take one they didnt want to do cos of religion, then im sure the god they serve would understand it wasnt a deliberate sin  If not then they maybe need to find a god that lets them live in society, or go to a muslim nation (which ironically the staff serve booze in those nations )


----------



## Shadow And Lightning (Jan 18, 2012)

To be fair, some muslims just like to use things like this as an excuse :/

touching alcohol in a bottle aint gonna do any harm

the pig thing, blehh I don't even touch the stuff even if its wrapped, knocks me sick, but, I aint gonna go to hell if I touch it

people just being awkward
I know a muslim friend of mine works in asda, if she handles such things, she washes her hands afterwards, simples.

products from pig and alcohol is not meant to enter the mouth etc but it seems like these muslims just like to exaggerate.
In this day and age, they need to move on from such things, scanning such items isn't exactly consuming it.


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

MCWillow said:


> Yep - I agree - let the people that dont want to handle/sell pork or alcohol, work somewhere that they wont have to encounter it.
> 
> Don't put them on a till where they _may_ encounter it - that just causes embarrassment for _all_ concerned - and there is no need for it.
> 
> ...


no probs.where do you draw the line? is it real alcohol in the sherry trifle? what about the chocloate liquers or cherries in brandy chocolates?Is there any brandy in the mince pies or christmas puddings?

When we had the recent horse beef scandal, unscrupulous producers were putting pork into all sorts of foods....

Pig skin has been used for making shoes, purses, slippers.......

and so it goes on.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

smokeybear said:


> Did not a druid get some payout recently because they were refused Halloween off?


thats not really the same thing is it? I mean thats a whole different can of worms (should all religious holidays be given the same rights as each other, is it fair to get national days off for 1 religions holiday but not another, how can a multicultural country with free religion ever be fair if it isnt actually secular etc etc). All decent questions, but i dont see how it's relevant unless the druid took a job as a lumberjack and then refused to chop down mother natures trees...



smokeybear said:


> Have you ever actually visited or lived somewhere like Rochdale for example which has very limited job opportunities?


many times.



swarthy said:


> Ultimately, now this has come to light - it could also lead to discrimination when hiring staff based on their religious presentation - that is totally unacceptable - there has to be a compromise somewhere.


sorry to snip that mighty post down to this just this.. But is it really unnacceptable? Is it not just common sense not to hire say, a muslim to work at a bacon factory or a catholic to work at an abortion clinic or whatever...? Why is common sense unnacceptable these days.. tolerance can go too far.


----------



## staffgirl (May 1, 2013)

Spellweaver said:


> Is that really a fact? Because even the Daily Wail didn't claim that! When even the Daily Wail can only come up with "one unnamed shopper" who felt "taken aback" then it seems to me that either staff have not been refusing to serve customers or customers in general are a bit more tolerant than some posters on here!


It's not just in the Daily Mail. It's a story run in many other papers, including the broadsheets as well as the tabloids. The story has highlighted the policy that is in place. M&S have now apologised about it, saying that whilst it is their policy, they should have ensured that the staff member was placed in an appropriate role in the store which wouldn't conflict with their beliefs, or compromise customer service. Does it matter if it's a story generated by one customer's experience, or hundreds? It's clearly the principle that has caused a lot of debate.


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

and I suppose no Muslim runs an off licence or corner shop which sells drink then?..


or bacon/sausage/scratchings?


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

Spellweaver said:


> Is that really a fact? Because even the Daily Wail didn't claim that! When even the Daily Wail can only come up with "one unnamed shopper" who felt "taken aback" then it seems to me that either staff have not been refusing to serve customers or customers in general are a bit more tolerant than some posters on here!


Lets remember that "Marks" (co-founder of M&S) was himself jewish, yet M&S sell pork products...LOL

BBC News - M&S apology over Muslim alcohol refusal


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

More to the point, why didnt M&S ask if job applicants object to selling and of their product range?....

which supermarket chain banned christian staff from wearing a crucifix?


----------



## ZipsDad (Oct 31, 2013)

smokeybear said:


> Have you ever actually visited or lived somewhere like Rochdale for example which has very limited job opportunities?


Don't know anything about Rochdale but I have lived in some pretty economically depressed areas. Especially since the banking meltdown. Worked 2 part time jobs at one point and was glad to have them. Wouldnt dare dream of saying I wont do this or that for fear of losing the income. Some part time jobs I found I wouldnt take because there's no way I would be able to do what was wanted. Here in America if you refuse to do your job they just let you go and give the job to someone that wants to work.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Colliebarmy said:


> More to the point, why didnt M&S ask if job applicants object to selling and of their product range?....
> 
> which supermarket chain banned christian staff from wearing a crucifix?


Not sure it would have been something I had thought of asking tbh, I mean if someone applies for a job you kind of expect them to have read the job description and either bought up any issues themselves at the interview or that they were happy to take on the job...

I see that M&S have appologised and said that they put people that have issues with these products in other jobs around the supermarket...pretty much what I had said should have happened at the start lol

There is no reason why people that have issues handling these products can't be a shelf packer or even a shop cleaner...my point was that if you don't wish to partake in "bits" of a job due to religious or moral obligations then don't take jobs that put you in the position to break these religious/moral obligations.

Yes finding a job is hard in this climate, I know as well as most, however, if your moral/religious code is so strong that even handling a packaged item is against the "code" then you are a fool to get a job where handling these products will be practically a daily occurrence... I have worked on the tills at Tesco's before, you will be surprised at how many pork and alcohol products go through the tills...there are plenty of other jobs within the supermarket that could be done, there is no reason these people "have" to work on the tills ..

But then I guess the story wouldn't have had the same effect if they had come up with "Shock horror...."some" muslims are given other jobs around supermarkets due to religious beliefs" now does it 

As for the Crucifix, that was BA and Tesco's but the staff weren't forced to not wear them, they were asked to keep them covered, the same as any other jewelry that wasn't part of the work uniform


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

_Tolerance can go too far........................._

The best quote I have heard for a long time.

Particularly apt at Christmas I feel.

Goodwill to all men?

No danger of that I feel in very many cases.

Absolutely hilarious


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

smokeybear said:


> _Tolerance can go too far........................._
> 
> The best quote I have heard for a long time.


Thanks i'm glad you like it.



smokeybear said:


> Goodwill to all men?
> 
> No danger of that I feel in very many cases.


too right, not all men deserve it.


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

Do we have a "right" to a job on our own terms?

A job vacancy is advertised. A job description is given, along with the nature of the business.

Based on that knowledge a person applies for that job, and if offered the job decides whether they accept the terms and conditions.

Once taken on, the employee carries out their duties as agreed at interview.

End of.


----------



## Julesky (Feb 10, 2012)

I guess it's up to the employer- they can employ people under 18 to work on checkouts (trust me i was there)- they have to put on a light or ring for authorisation if someone in queue has alcohol as illegal to serve.

Basically if an employee asks for something and gets it it's really between the corporation and the staff, it's none of our business.

However the amount of filth they are putting in our processed food and hiding it- mcvities, all brands now chic full of glucose fructose syrup, which is nasty nasty sh*t... hidden under different aliases....

Get upset about how the supermarkets are screwing you and your children over on a daily basis by their continued concealed cost-cutting to the benefit of health.

Anyone remember hydrogenated fats- well this is the next one .

I want sugar back, not this enzyme time-bomb

Don't get upset at someone elses job spec.


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

Julesky said:


> I guess it's up to the employer- they can employ people under 18 to work on checkouts (trust me i was there)- they have to put on a light or ring for authorisation if someone in queue has alcohol as illegal to serve.


Surely, though, that is a business decision by the company as they employ a vast number of under 18's because they are cheaper - and they have to obey licensing laws?

Having to make allowances for an employee based on their religious beliefs is an entirely different matter - and the subject of this discussion


----------



## Julesky (Feb 10, 2012)

Lurcherlad said:


> Surely, though, that is a business decision by the company as they employ a vast number of under 18's because they are cheaper - and they have to obey licensing laws?
> 
> Having to make allowances for an employee based on their religious beliefs is an entirely different matter - and the subject of this discussion


Forgive me, foolishly I thought the discussion was outrage at a decision employers made- not specifically religion.

Employers make all kinds of insane decisions based on their law suit loving lazy backsides employees...

The world went bananas a long time ago.

I think it's silly, but not because of the religious connotations half the ukip fans want to go bonkers about- i think it makes poor business sense but then I don't know the ins and outs of it.

What i was suggesting for the perspective that in the broad scheme of thinsg this story and supermarket really doesn't impinge hugely on your lives... other MAJOR decisions by supermarkets are not met with such a reaction when they should be.

Am I still allowed in the discussion?

I feel religiously I should be


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Julesky said:


> Forgive me, foolishly I thought the discussion was outrage at a decision employers made- not specifically religion.
> 
> Employers make all kinds of insane decisions based on their law suit loving lazy backsides employees...
> 
> ...


I'd hardly call this "outrage"


----------



## Julesky (Feb 10, 2012)

StormyThai said:


> I'd hardly call this "outrage"


You been on facebook or read any of the comments under any news site that has reported this? What I have read amounts to outrage


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Julesky said:


> You been on facebook or read any of the comments under any news site that has reported this? What I have read amounts to outrage


To be fair it is the same as any "fail" article, their readers would be "outraged" if the paper reported that the sun wasn't coming out that day LOL

I must have a good bunch on my fb as I've not seen anything about this at all on there


----------



## Julesky (Feb 10, 2012)

Gotta go walk the hound, will be back, Merry Christmas people


----------



## Julesky (Feb 10, 2012)

StormyThai said:


> To be fair it is the same as any "fail" article, their readers would be "outraged" if the paper reported that the sun wasn't coming out that day LOL
> 
> I must have a good bunch on my fb as I've not seen anything about this at all on there


Hahahahahahah the vast majority on mine don't give a poop either... one cretin... Ironically a dog breeder seems to have a lot of utterly horrid people as friends commenting on her status


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

Apologies if this has already been mentioned (so many posts, so little time), but around our way there are a number of corner shops owned by Muslims, and they don't seem to have any scruples about handling/selling alcohol, or bacon, or ham, or pork pies, or sausages. Just saying.


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

Lurcherlad said:


> Do we have a "right" to a job on our own terms?
> 
> A job vacancy is advertised. A job description is given, along with the nature of the business.
> 
> ...


if they dont like it they know where the door is


----------



## Julesky (Feb 10, 2012)

lostbear said:


> Apologies if this has already been mentioned (so many posts, so little time), but around our way there are a number of corner shops owned by Muslims, and they don't seem to have any scruples about handling/selling alcohol, or bacon, or ham, or pork pies, or sausages. Just saying.


How do you know they are muslims?


----------



## Polimba (Nov 23, 2009)

lostbear said:


> Apologies if this has already been mentioned (so many posts, so little time), but around our way there are a number of corner shops owned by Muslims, and they don't seem to have any scruples about handling/selling alcohol, or bacon, or ham, or pork pies, or sausages. Just saying.


But as another poster has said not all Muslims act in the same way and some are cultural differences, just like Christians, Jews, Hindus. Also just like all other religions people have different interpretations of their religion and devoutness (is that a word ).

Our local Indian restaurant is run by Muslims, they sell alcohol and have lovely Christmas decorations up. I've worked with a number of Muslims and some were happy to go to a pub and not have alcohol, some weren't. Some embraced Christmas others didn't 'do' it.

I have a very good friend who is Hindu, she eats beef (don't tell her parents ) but she follows other parts of the religion.

I'd be interested how many times someone has been asked to go to another till, I've been sold those items dozens of times by Muslim till staff. I think the majority of staff are quite happy to sell those items as they are not eating them and they are wrapped to they are not touching them.


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

Julesky said:


> How do you know they are muslims?


cos its obvious as they walk to and from the local mosque....


----------



## Julesky (Feb 10, 2012)

Colliebarmy said:


> cos its obvious as they walk to and from the local mosque....


Did I ask you?

My local mosque is miles away- I wouldn't have a scooby what religion folk who run independent shops in half of Glasgow are let alone the time to watch them walk to a mosque


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

just came from my butcher..muslim.I know..for we are friends with his missus.....
I brought my lovely gammon and lomo...:001_wub:


all his stuff are muslim...but all clients were welcomed to free shot of Marie B..
and Christmas décor all round...


for business is business!!!


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

It shouldn't be allowed if you feel so strongly over something like this then don't work somewhere you'll have to do it. Although it was the daily mail facts aren't to get in the way of causing the next huge public panic


----------



## Guest (Dec 23, 2013)

Setting aside the whole sensationalistic daily fail story for a second...


I wonder why religious/cultural objections seem to hold more weight than personal ones.

Im a vegetarian, gentle-parenting, non-religious freak living in the buckle of the bible belt of the US. Believe me when I say that my personal beliefs and the local culture dont always jive. 

Yet I somehow manage to do my job, parent my kids, love my husband, and live my life without causing a ruckus about my beliefs nor compromising my values. Its really not that hard. 

It certainly would never occur to me to ask someone else to make concessions for my beliefs. To me that smacks of insecurities in your own value system. 

I mean, what actually happens to a devout muslim if they touch pork? Is it like holy water on a vampire? Does it burn or something? Does their god banish them from the kingdom of heaven forever because they soiled themselves at an honest job, providing for their family? What kind of god would that be? 

Im sorry, I know this sounds so disrespectful, but really. Its touching pork. Get a grip people. 

Last I checked the Koran has some pretty crazy requirements in it, of which avoiding pig flesh is just ONE (to be fair the bible has its fair share too). Why are we worried about touching pork and alcohol and not the fact that these clerks are also looking upon women who dont have all the appropriate parts covered for example?


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

The thing is that a lot of the time it's other people deciding to get offended on their behalf not the people themselves. I'm sure most while maybe bothered by it aren't asking for these concessions.


----------



## Julesky (Feb 10, 2012)

ouesi said:


> Setting aside the whole sensationalistic daily fail story for a second...
> 
> I wonder why religious/cultural objections seem to hold more weight than personal ones.
> 
> ...


Fear I believe, crazy ass fear- that's why some devout people from all religions take things too far, fear and power.

Same way the press tries to manipulate the public.

Fear has been used to control for years and years, be it religion or government or media


----------



## Guest (Dec 23, 2013)

Julesky said:


> Fear I believe, crazy ass fear- that's why some devout people from all religions take things too far, fear and power.
> 
> Same way the press tries to manipulate the public.
> 
> Fear has been used to control for years and years, be it religion or government or media


"The enemy is fear. We think it is hate; but, it is fear. ~Gandhi

This is so true IME.
And much of it is a very real fear that ones rules for living, ones values, and guiding life choices wont hold up to scrutiny.


----------



## Jobeth (May 23, 2010)

As mentioned earlier I used to be active in the Salvation Army. My faith was never based on fear. I served with them in Zambia at a compound where love and thought for others had built a hospital, a school for the children, a teaching centre for the farmers and historically there was also a leprosy centre. People gave up their time to serve and I have never met such wonderful people from different faiths who did nothing but care for others. 'Hand to man and heart to God' is certainly not a philosophy based on fear. I feel sad that so many judgements are made over those who have faith. 

I think the Daily Mail has done nothing but stir up hate over a non issue. M & S have already said they make appropriate choices for staff and good for them.


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

Julesky said:


> Forgive me, foolishly I thought the discussion was outrage at a decision employers made- not specifically religion.
> 
> Employers make all kinds of insane decisions based on their law suit loving lazy backsides employees...
> 
> ...


I meant that the discussion was about the title of the thread, which specifically mentioned a decision made because of religion, at least that was what I was talking about, I thought 

I'm doing my best to keep up  

The more the merrier in a discussion IMO


----------



## Guest (Dec 23, 2013)

Jobeth said:


> As mentioned earlier I used to be active in the Salvation Army. My faith was never based on fear. I served with them in Zambia at a compound where love and thought for others had built a hospital, a school for the children, a teaching centre for the farmers and historically there was also a leprosy centre. People gave up their time to serve and I have never met such wonderful people from different faiths who did nothing but care for others. 'Hand to man and heart to God' is certainly not a philosophy based on fear. *I feel sad that so many judgements are made over those who have faith.*
> 
> I think the Daily Mail has done nothing but stir up hate over a non issue. M & S have already said they make appropriate choices for staff and good for them.


I hope you also extend your sadness to those of faith.

FWIW, you dont need a religious affiliation to do charity work. Just ask organizations like Doctors Without Borders, the Peace Corps, and UNICEF to name a few.


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

Julesky said:


> How do you know they are muslims?


A) they are pakistani, and or of semitic origin (usually muslim)

B) their ladies mostly wear the hijab, or khimar, and shalwar kameez

c) I talk to them - they aren't ashamed of it any more than I am ashamed of being Christian. We talk about religious festivals etc and how difficult it can be at (for instance) Ramadan, if you need a particular type of medical examination. (There was an instance when one of the guys got a hospital appointment to have a nasendoscopy, and was going to cancel it because he didn't want to have the anaesthetic sprayed into his nose in case he accidentally swallowed some and broke his fast. I told him you can have it without anaesthetic - it's not comfy, but it isn't painful, either. And in case you wonder how I know that, I have had it down myself on several occasions, and I prefer not to have the spray.)


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

Julesky said:


> *Did I ask you?*
> 
> My local mosque is miles away- I wouldn't have a scooby what religion folk who run independent shops in half of Glasgow are let alone the time to watch them walk to a mosque


Bit sharp, Jules. CB was just making a joke. I've seriously answered your comment on another post.


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

Nicky10 said:


> It shouldn't be allowed if you feel so strongly over something like this then don't work somewhere you'll have to do it. *Although it was the daily mail facts aren't to get in the way of causing the next huge public pani*c


Absolutely!:ciappa:


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

ouesi said:


> Setting aside the whole sensationalistic daily fail story for a second...
> 
> I wonder why religious/cultural objections seem to hold more weight than personal ones.
> 
> ...


Touche! Excellent post, Ouesi. You always seem to manage to get to the heart of things without being unkind or offensive.


----------



## Guest (Dec 23, 2013)

lostbear said:


> My son and I were just talking about that - would vegetarians/vegans be able to refuse to touch animal products?


I dont know 
As it is, when the dogs get turkey necks I just wash my hands. So far so good. Havent been excommunicated from the church of vegetable worship yet


----------



## Indiandpuppy (Feb 24, 2013)

My sister has a phobia of toothpaste... so she never worked in a supermart


----------



## egyptianreggae (May 26, 2012)

This does all sound like over-exaggerated Daily Mail rubbish to me, but if it is true, then I don't mind waiting an extra 5 mins or whatever to be served alcohol. It doesn't make much of a difference to me and I wouldn't want someone to feel uncomfortable or compromised by serving me alcohol. I do get really fed up with being IDed at the age of 31 though!


----------



## ZipsDad (Oct 31, 2013)

Indiandpuppy said:


> My sister has a phobia of toothpaste... so she never worked in a supermart


Not trying to be insensitive here but what does she brush her teeth with?
Surely she practices some sort of oral hygiene.


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

ZipsDad said:


> Not trying to be insensitive here but what does she brush her teeth with?
> Surely she practices some sort of oral hygiene.


You can clean your teeth just with a brush and water - it's just as effective, just takes a bit longer.

I think chewing liquorice - the twiggy stiff, not the black stuff - cleans teeth, too. Maybe she uses one of these methods.


----------



## poohdog (May 16, 2010)

Is this thread still going? Thirty odd years in the press of Catholic v Protestant...now it's Muslim,Muslim,Muslim...not being a Goddite I get sick of hearing it. 
I think I'll stick with the Express with it's death and destruction weather forecasts.

Like Les Dawson used to say..."I used to be an atheist but I wasn't getting any holidays"


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

poohdog said:


> Is this thread still going? Thirty odd years in the press of Catholic v Protestant...now it's Muslim,Muslim,Muslim...not being a Goddite I get sick of hearing it.
> I think I'll stick with the Express with it's death and destruction weather forecasts.
> 
> Like Les Dawson used to say..."I used to be an atheist but I wasn't getting any holidays"


You all get April Fools' Day, surely . . .

(The fool sayeth in his heart, "There is no God" Ps 47.1a)


----------



## poohdog (May 16, 2010)

lostbear said:


> You all get April Fools' Day, surely . . .
> 
> (The fool sayeth in his heart, "There is no God" Ps 47.1a)


*And I sayeth...prove it....eth*


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

Sky news reports that M&S has apologised after a Muslim member of staff refused to serve a customer alcohol. Is it all a big joke?


----------



## Royoyo (Feb 21, 2013)

I'm sorry but if someone refused to serve me I would feel very offended. I'm the type of person that doesn't care what you believe in, like believe in whatever you want! but if you refuse to serve me I will kick off. 

How about I refuse to serve Muslims British food? How about when Muslims come to stay in the hotel I work at I refuse to even deal with them because I do not agree with their religion? 

Religion has NO place in a work place. If you want to be a Muslim/Christian/Catholic or whatever then go for it but it's not my problem. If the outside world offends you that much then why even bother getting a job in a place that is going to offend you even more! 

It's ridiculous.


----------



## Julesky (Feb 10, 2012)

Jobeth said:


> As mentioned earlier I used to be active in the Salvation Army. My faith was never based on fear. I served with them in Zambia at a compound where love and thought for others had built a hospital, a school for the children, a teaching centre for the farmers and historically there was also a leprosy centre. People gave up their time to serve and I have never met such wonderful people from different faiths who did nothing but care for others. 'Hand to man and heart to God' is certainly not a philosophy based on fear. *I feel sad that so many judgements are made over those who have faith.
> *
> I think the Daily Mail has done nothing but stir up hate over a non issue. M & S have already said they make appropriate choices for staff and good for them.


Yeah i agree they need a break, people who believe- the fear comment was more about the darker side of both extremism and mis-reporting in the media etc. I , personally always took home the message of love over fear when I was raised in religion.



lostbear said:


> Bit sharp, Jules. CB was just making a joke. I've seriously answered your comment on another post.


Pet peeve, answering someone elses post. Now you've done it too hahahahahah.

Was sharp only cause i never did this.....

No offence intended, more a cheeky challenge:aureola:


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

There was a clip on the news this morning about this.maybe.....it seems that 1 employee refused to serve alcohol.and it got blown all out of proportion.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

lostbear said:


> You all get April Fools' Day, surely . . .
> 
> (The fool sayeth in his heart, "There is no God" Ps 47.1a)


But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgement. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.
Matthew 5:22

The bible - Because nothing says absolute truth quite like contradiction.


----------



## Indiandpuppy (Feb 24, 2013)

ZipsDad said:


> Not trying to be insensitive here but what does she brush her teeth with?
> Surely she practices some sort of oral hygiene.


She uses Colgate original one, when they changed it a few years ago she had to go into therapy to use a different one. She closes her eyes in films if the character is brushing there teeth and when I or her husband brush there teeth we have to be in another room with music or a tap on. She wouldn't be able to stack shelves or scan stuff because of the handling of toothpaste and brushes. She goes to the 'special' dentist like me (fear of needles) because of her fear of dental produce. She brushes her teeth very well, they always bleed because she doesn't want to have fillings.

I am vegetarian but I would handle meat if it was in packets so I could work in a supermarket yay  how great lol


----------



## grumpy goby (Jan 18, 2012)

porps said:


> But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgement. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.
> Matthew 5:22
> 
> The bible - Because nothing says absolute truth quite like contradiction.


I was more confused about why an atheist would adopt a holiday based on a biblical reference...

Personally I base my holidays of cultural tradition rather than religion origins (albeit if they were originally hijacked from more ancient festivals themselves)


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

grumpy goby said:


> I was more confused about why an atheist would adopt a holiday based on a biblical reference...


as in me?


----------



## grumpy goby (Jan 18, 2012)

porps said:


> as in me?


No, not as in you.


----------



## ZipsDad (Oct 31, 2013)

Indiandpuppy said:


> She uses Colgate original one, when they changed it a few years ago she had to go into therapy to use a different one. She closes her eyes in films if the character is brushing there teeth and when I or her husband brush there teeth we have to be in another room with music or a tap on. She wouldn't be able to stack shelves or scan stuff because of the handling of toothpaste and brushes. She goes to the 'special' dentist like me (fear of needles) because of her fear of dental produce. She brushes her teeth very well, they always bleed because she doesn't want to have fillings.
> 
> I am vegetarian but I would handle meat if it was in packets so I could work in a supermarket yay  how great lol


Thank you for takin it the way you did and taking the time to explain it.
I was afraid you'd be offended by my asking but I was too curious not to.


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

Julesky said:


> Yeah i agree they need a break, people who believe- the fear comment was more about the darker side of both extremism and mis-reporting in the media etc. I , personally always took home the message of love over fear when I was raised in religion.
> 
> *
> Pet peeve, answering someone elses post. Now you've done it too hahahahahah.
> ...


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

staffgirl said:


> It's not just in the Daily Mail. It's a story run in many other papers, including the broadsheets as well as the tabloids. The story has highlighted the policy that is in place. M&S have now apologised about it, saying that whilst it is their policy, they should have ensured that the staff member was placed in an appropriate role in the store which wouldn't conflict with their beliefs, or compromise customer service. *Does it matter if it's a story generated by one customer's experience, or hundreds?* It's clearly the principle that has caused a lot of debate.


It only matters when you read a story about *one* member of staff and* one *customer's experience, and then post to say it is a* fact *that *some* staff have been refusing to serve *some* customers - ie it matters because you are making it seem much worse, whipping it up into something it isn't, and then stating that your whipped up version is a fact:



staffgirl said:


> Yup - the fact is that some staff have been refusing to serve customers, so customers are making their feelings about it known.


----------



## ZipsDad (Oct 31, 2013)

Spellweaver said:


> It only matters when you read a story about *one* member of staff and* one *customer's experience, and then post to say it is a* fact *that *some* staff have been refusing to serve *some* customers - ie it matters because you are making it seem much worse, whipping it up into something it isn't, and then stating that your whipped up version is a fact:


Well, that makes it all the worse, in my opinion.
One person refusing to do their job that they signed on to, knowing their duties they'd be tasked with, causing so much grief and allowed by the company?

Sounds more like they'd fear the PC backlash which is so prevalent in today's society.

If it were my store and the same *single * clerk made his/her stand, s/he'd be out on her @ss and a clerk willing to work and abide by company rules would be standing in his/her place.

Enough with this feel good crap.
If you hire on to do a job, you do it.


----------



## MCWillow (Aug 26, 2011)

Indiandpuppy said:


> She uses Colgate original one, when they changed it a few years ago she had to go into therapy to use a different one. She closes her eyes in films if the character is brushing there teeth and when I or her husband brush there teeth we have to be in another room with music or a tap on. She wouldn't be able to stack shelves or scan stuff because of the handling of toothpaste and brushes. She goes to the 'special' dentist like me (fear of needles) because of her fear of dental produce. *She brushes her teeth very well, they always bleed because she doesn't want to have fillings. *
> 
> I am vegetarian but I would handle meat if it was in packets so I could work in a supermarket yay  how great lol


Not read your other posts, so I am just guessing your sister has a huge dentist/dental phobia.

Anyway - as an ex-dental nurse, I just want to say her gums *shouldn't* bleed when brushing - if they bleed she is being too harsh, is in danger of wearing away the enamel, and could be damaging her gums!

So - floss everyday (may bleed at first, but it will stop), no vigourous brushing - brush thoroughly, but not hard. A single tooth has at least three visible areas (front, back and top) each side needs to be brushed gently, but thoroughly, and the sides the brush can't reach, needs to be flossed.

If you drink juice (orange etc) leave it at _least_ 30 mins before brushing, as the acid in juice softens the enamel, you dont want to brush softened enamel.

And chocolate is _much_ better for teeth than hard sweets! Chocolate melts quickly and is flushed of the tooth surface quite quickly - whereas boiled sweets/chews get stuck in the tooth crevices for much longer, therefore having the potential do much more damage.

Sorry for going off topic OP :blush:


----------



## staffgirl (May 1, 2013)

Spellweaver said:


> It only matters when you read a story about *one* member of staff and* one *customer's experience, and then post to say it is a* fact *that *some* staff have been refusing to serve *some* customers - ie it matters because you are making it seem much worse, whipping it up into something it isn't, and then stating that your whipped up version is a fact:


OK. So would this make you happy? The fact is that a member of staff has refused to serve a customer, so customers are making their feelings known about it.

Surely you get the fact that it is the principle that has caused debate? I'm amused that you think what I wrote has done all the "whipping up". It's the fact that the policy became public knowledge that has caused all the controversy. So, again, does it matter if it was one person, two people, or many people that it happened to? Nobody is denying what has happened and there's nothing wrong with people discussing it.

Happy Christmas!


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

staffgirl said:


> OK. So would this make you happy? The fact is that a member of staff has refused to serve a customer, so customers are making their feelings known about it.
> 
> Surely you get the fact that it is the principle that has caused debate? I'm amused that you think what I wrote has done all the "whipping up". It's the fact that the policy became public knowledge that has caused all the controversy. So, again, does it matter if it was one person, two people, or many people that it happened to? Nobody is denying what has happened and there's nothing wrong with people discussing it.
> 
> Happy Christmas!


Hope you and yours had a lovely christmas 

I didn't mean that you personally had done the whipping up - merely that this kind of stating facts which are blatantly not facts is the kind of thing that _does_ whip up these "anti" feelings and gets in the way of discussing the salient principle sensibly.

The principle that a major store has a policy which allows staff of _all faiths_ to work around issues in their duties which conflict with their faiths, is far different from the principle that multiple members of staff are refusing to serve multiple customers. The first is factually correct and worthy of discussion. The second is factually incorrect (even though it was stated as a fact) and hence any discussion on it is pointless because it didn't happen.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

ouesi said:


> I dont know
> As it is, when the dogs get turkey necks I just wash my hands. So far so good. Havent been excommunicated from the church of vegetable worship yet


lolol :lol:

Then here you have meat munching me (well predominantly chicken these days, occasionally beef and the obligatory Christmas turkey to avoid upsetting my mum) - always cooked - but I will go out of my way not to handle raw meat - even when I give it to the dogs; when I fed raw - there was always a piece of foil or something equally protective such as the packaging in-between my hands and the meat


----------



## staffgirl (May 1, 2013)

Spellweaver said:


> Hope you and yours had a lovely christmas
> 
> I didn't mean that you personally had done the whipping up - merely that this kind of stating facts which are blatantly not facts is the kind of thing that _does_ whip up these "anti" feelings and gets in the way of discussing the salient principle sensibly.
> 
> The principle that a major store has a policy which allows staff of _all faiths_ to work around issues in their duties which conflict with their faiths, is far different from the principle that multiple members of staff are refusing to serve multiple customers. The first is factually correct and worthy of discussion. The second is factually incorrect (even though it was stated as a fact) and hence any discussion on it is pointless because it didn't happen.


I think you are splitting hairs and deflecting from the real point of this whole thread. And I'm not sure about your stance of "any discussion is pointless because it didn't happen". It did happen. Nobody is denying that it happened. Logic of, oh well it only happened the once, is flawed logic. Personally I think that it is M&S who messed up. Employees are tasked to do their jobs within the terms and conditions of their contract. This employee was uncomfortable with what she was asked to do so invoked her right to say no. Unfortunately the customer and a lot of the general public it would seem were unaware of M&S's policy about this and that's what blew it all up.

Discussion on this kind of thing is far from pointless. For issues of difference, discussion is essential I feel if we're to become a more tolerant society. It's when things aren't discussed that feelings and difficulties fester. There is always a period of "storming" for want of a better word when controversial topics are aired. That's inevitable. You could take a different view of this whole debacle and say that actually good can come of it. Perhaps people with polarised views have had the opportunity to hear others' views and maybe review theirs. But there will always be people who don't do that and it's hard to have a discussion with closed minds. And I'm fairly certain that M&S won't make this mistake again.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Think the following quote from the Telegraph is an important point:



> Morrisons, which is based in Bradford where there is a large Muslim community, said it had widespread experience of dealing with the issue and would respect and work around anyones wishes not to handle specific products for religious or cultural reasons.
> 
> At M&S, Muslim staff who do not wish to handle alcohol or pork have been told they can politely request that customers choose another till at which to pay.


In one, they work around the wishes.. so it could be they don't serve on tills, employ people on tills who don't mind whatever. Customers are not effected. People's beliefs aren't impacting customers.

For M&S, people were told the person couldn't sell them the items at the till. This not only affected customers, it was effectively throwing religion into their faces. It could be seen as trying to influence those people, saying it's wrong. It probably wasn't meant that way but that is what happened. I'm all for tolerance and everyone has the right to their beliefs when it doesn't harm others. Nobody has a right to throw their religion into other's faces.


----------



## Mulish (Feb 20, 2013)

Royoyo said:


> I'm sorry but if someone refused to serve me I would feel very offended. I'm the type of person that doesn't care what you believe in, like believe in whatever you want! but if you refuse to serve me I will kick off.
> 
> How about I refuse to serve Muslims British food? How about when Muslims come to stay in the hotel I work at I refuse to even deal with them because I do not agree with their religion?
> 
> ...


I don't really understand your point about serving Muslims 'British' food? Most of the Muslims I know are British, it's a religion not a nationality.

I'm pragmatic, generally, and agree with the idea that you should just get on with life, including the less savoury parts. However, I don't have any strong religious beliefs, I don't know what it's like to believe doing something quite simple could result in my eternal damnation. I do know what it's like growing up as a vegetarian (and even vegan for awhile) in a family full of Mighty Meat Eaters so I know what it's like to have ridicule and scorn heaped upon my beliefs and I go out of my way not to do it to someone else. I might think refusing to handle sausages is silly but I can't tell you the number of times I got told my refusal to eat them was stupid and inconvenient to other people.

Also, anyone who thinks any minority gets it easy in this country should try talking to them about their day to day life. My friend has had her car vandalized 3 times by people shouting racist abuse. She had 6 months of misery living next door to a middle class couple who found it hilarious to be as offensive and nasty as possible because they didn't approve of Muslims being 'over here' (my friend is British). Every time one of these non-stories hits the news her heart sinks knowing the backlash her completely normal, hard working and perfectly lovely family will now face. I'd take having to wait a couple of extra minutes at a checkout over that any day.

(This isn't all aimed at you, Royoyo, just the bit about Brit food).


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

staffgirl said:


> I think you are splitting hairs and deflecting from the real point of this whole thread. And I'm not sure about your stance of "any discussion is pointless because it didn't happen". It did happen. Nobody is denying that it happened.


I would say the real point of the thread is what was posted in the first post. And if you go back to that first post you will see that what happened was that ONE shopper was "taken aback" (the exact words used by the journalist) about ONE member of staff being unable to serve them with a bottle of alcohol. *That* is worth discussing

What happened was that one major retailer has policies in place to enable their staff of all religions to be able to deal with their religious issues and continue to do their work. *That *is worth discussing and worth comparing with what opther major retailers do (as Goblin has done with the Morrisons comparison).

What did not happen is what you posted - ie that *some* customers complained about *some* staff not serving them. That is inflaming the situation into something it isn't and is *not *worth discussing *purely because it didn't happen.*

Can't you see that there is a difference between one customer being "taken aback" by the actions of one salesperson, and many customers complaining about many salespersons?



staffgirl said:


> Logic of, oh well it only happened the once, is flawed logic.


No - it is the TRUTH. One member of staff refused to serve ONE customer. Go back to the origianal post and actually read the report.

So you would prefer to ignore the TRUTH that this happened ONCE and instead you would like to discuss the UNTRUTH that it happened many times? And you think that is logical? 



staffgirl said:


> Personally I think that it is M&S who messed up. Employees are tasked to do their jobs within the terms and conditions of their contract. This employee was uncomfortable with what she was asked to do so invoked her right to say no. Unfortunately the customer and a lot of the general public it would seem were unaware of M&S's policy about this and that's what blew it all up.


I think that M&S ought to be applauded for trying to find ways for their staff of all religions to deal with issues that conflict with their religion so that they can continue working



staffgirl said:


> Discussion on this kind of thing is far from pointless. For issues of difference, discussion is essential I feel if we're to become a more tolerant society. It's when things aren't discussed that feelings and difficulties fester.


I would agree with you if you were discussing what actually happened and not wanting to discuss something that never happened. I would agreee with you if you were not stating it as a fact that many staff refused to serve many customers. (Because that was what promped this particular discussion between the two of us, remember? Your post:



staffgirl said:


> Originally Posted by staffgirl View Post
> Yup - the fact is that some staff have been refusing to serve customers, so customers are making their feelings about it known.


When untruths like that are stated as facts things blow up out of all proportion. When things get blown up out of all proportion people get riled up uinnecessarily and you can kiss tolerance and understanding goodbye.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> When untruths like that are stated as facts things blow up out of all proportion. When things get blown up out of all proportion people get riled up uinnecessarily and you can kiss tolerance and understanding goodbye.


Fact is that people were refused the service they would expect from a shop. That's not an untruth however unpalateable. The person in question should not be at a till working if they refuse to serve their customers who are doing nothing wrong.


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

Goblin said:


> Fact is that people were refused the service they would expect from a shop. That's not an untruth however unpalateable. The person in question should not be at a till working if they refuse to serve their customers who are doing nothing wrong.


For me, that is the whole point.

I don't care what people's religions or beliefs are and I respect their right to have them.

However, it is not unreasonable for a member of the public to purchase pork and alcohol in their local supermarket - without special arrangements needing to be made to facilitate that process.

That is the point.

The problem need never have arisen IMO.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Goblin said:


> Fact is that people were refused the service they would expect from a shop. That's not an untruth however unpalateable. The person in question should not be at a till working if they refuse to serve their customers who are doing nothing wrong.


No, the fact is that ONE customer (singular) was "taken aback" by ONE salesperson (singular) directing him/her to another till.

Just becuse some posters want to transpose this singular action into a plural "people", and then to tag on that "people" are being "refused sevices" doesnt make it true. However ....

Person A comes along, reads the fiist post about a one-off happening of someone being directed to another till, shrugs and thinks, "So what?"

Person B comes along later on in the thread, reads your post without trawling through the whole thread, and is angry because he thinks that a lot of people are being refused a service.

He then goes off and posts on another forum, where the message gets even more garbled, and people get even more angry and post on other forums - and then people are thinking it must be true because they are reading about it everywhere.

That is how misinterpretation of the facts, and stating things are facts when they are not facts at all, leads to misunderstanding and intolerance.


----------



## sskmick (Feb 4, 2008)

Lurcherlad said:


> For me, that is the whole point.
> 
> I don't care what people's religions or beliefs are and I respect their right to have them.
> 
> ...


I have looked at this thread many times, and you have put into words what I was thinking.

I will add whether it happened to one customer or many. The only time I would expect to change to another till is when the tiller goes off for a break. However they usually put a sign on the conveyor belt indicating till closed.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

sskmick said:


> I will add whether it happened to one customer or many.


That's exactly the point.. Doesn't matter if it's one person or many. The very fact that M&S are stating that it is acceptable is wrong.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Goblin said:


> That's exactly the point.. Doesn't matter if it's one person or many. The very fact that M&S are stating that it is acceptable is wrong.


The point is, what exactly is it that you are you insisting is wrong?

The fact that M&S has a policy that allows their staff to observe the issues around their religion whilst still continuing to work? That's wrong according some opinions but not wrong according to others.

The fact that one person was taken aback at being asked to go to anothe till? That's also wrong according to some opinions but not according others.

The fact that this happened to multiple people? That didn't happen.

The fact that people are being refused a service? That didn't happen.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

Did everyone totally ignore my post about the news reporting that M&S apologised about a Muslim member of staff refusing to serve someone? I don't think it is an actual policy, more an idea that's been mooted and then discarded.


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

cinnamontoast said:


> Did everyone totally ignore my post about the news reporting that M&S apologised about a Muslim member of staff refusing to serve someone? I don't think it is an actual policy, more an idea that's been mooted and then discarded.


Soz - missed that one 

Never let facts get in the way of a good discussion eh? 

:lol::lol::lol:


----------



## merlin12 (Jun 24, 2011)

I don´t know why when something comes up about religion, people start deciding wether what people believe in is important or not. In all honesty, I feel we all like our values (whatever their origen, to be respected).
Of course they accept the job knowing they have to charge whatever item the customer buys and it is true that you have to complain before and not after but I think a company trying to make their workers feel more at ease is going the extra mile and doing things better, if there is an alternative, why not use it? 
That said, a company should also work out all their issues behind closed doors, the customer should never be inconvenienced. Either they have specific counters and there are big singboards that the customer can read before spending half an hour or they allocate sensitive workers elsewhere (should they want to give something more).

I have only two vegetarian friends (not very popular here in Spain) and it is tiresome to hear them explain why they don´t eat meat and they get comments like "that is just nonsence..." I´m not a vegetarian but I respect that they are and don´t try to change their minds or belittle their values and that is what I find happens when someone says their reason for doing things is religeous. If there is freedom then it should be for all. I repeat, in a job it is something you should speak about before accepting but then, it´s not always possible. Kudos to bosses who try to consider all their employees (key word, all).


----------



## Mulish (Feb 20, 2013)

cinnamontoast said:


> Did everyone totally ignore my post about the news reporting that M&S apologised about a Muslim member of staff refusing to serve someone? I don't think it is an actual policy, more an idea that's been mooted and then discarded.


I read it as they do have a policy in place which allows for people to not do things which go against their religion (whatever faith they may be) and so they usually place them somewhere it's not going to be an issue. The apology was for this one incident where a person was put in a position whereby they couldn't do their job and a customer was slightly inconvenienced.


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

merlin12 said:


> I have only two vegetarian friends (not very popular here in Spain) and it is tiresome to hear them explain why they don´t eat meat and they get comments like "that is just nonsence..." I´m not a vegetarian but I respect that they are and don´t try to change their minds or belittle their values and that is what I find happens when someone says their reason for doing things is religeous.


I too am a veggie, but the fact that I choose not to eat meat does not impact on anyone else. I don't refuse to cook my customers a bacon sandwich - just because I choose not to eat them.

If my principals were so rigid that I did not feel able to do so, then I would not get a job working in a café.

I don't expect my fellow diners, when out with friends, not to order a steak, just because I choose not to eat meat. I am often asked to justify my choices, but I would never ask a meat eater to do the same.

As an atheist, why should I be inconvenienced when shopping, perfectly reasonably, for bacon or alcohol - because the salesperson is religious?

There are plenty of jobs one could take that do not involve compromising one's beliefs or religion.

I think that is the point that most people are uncomfortable with.

Why should anyone's choices be more valid than the next person's.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Mulish said:


> I read it as they do have a policy in place which allows for people to not do things which go against their religion (whatever faith they may be) and so they usually place them somewhere it's not going to be an issue. The apology was for this one incident where a person was put in a position whereby they couldn't do their job and a customer was slightly inconvenienced.


This is how I also read it.



Lurcherlad said:


> As an atheist, why should I be inconvenienced when shopping, perfectly reasonably, for bacon or alcohol - because the salesperson is religious?


What happened to tolerance and respect for other people and their views? Does that only count so long as it does not inconvenience you?



Lurcherlad said:


> *There are plenty of jobs *one could take that do not involve compromising one's beliefs or religion.


If that were true there would not be the huge unemployment problem we have at the moment.



Lurcherlad said:


> Why should anyone's choices be more valid than the next person's.


Isn't it M&S's policy to treat all their staff the same? Isn't that M&S saying everyone's choices are equal?


----------



## merlin12 (Jun 24, 2011)

Lurcherlad said:


> I too am a veggie, but the fact that I choose not to eat meat does not impact on anyone else. I don't refuse to cook my customers a bacon sandwich - just because I choose not to eat them.
> 
> If my principals were so rigid that I did not feel able to do so, then I would not get a job working in a café.
> 
> ...


Like I said the customer should not be inconvenienced but I have read a number of comments about the religión and I´m sure we have both read the same thread.
Being a vegetarian is a personal decisión that is to be respected as others people make, it does not inconvenience anyone if you go to a restaurant or in your own home but it does if you are a guest sometimes, not everyone will take the pain of making something different and you find them avoiding things in dishes because the host feels they should just remove the meaty parts.

There are not so many Jobs available and sometimes people are forced to compromiso but they don´t feel good about it so what´s wrong with their employers trying to make them happier? It should not have made the news as it should have been solved. Why should people start deciding for others what they should feel guilty about?


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

Spellweaver said:


> What happened to tolerance and respect for other people and their views? Does that only count so long as it does not inconvenience you?
> 
> *Works both ways. I'm not asking anyone to go against their beliefs. But I don't think that because a person is religious they are any more important than the next person. For myself, I would tend to shrug my shoulders and move to the next till, it's the principal that people are referring to, I believe.*
> 
> ...


One final point - if my friends invite me to eat they can either make something special for me or not - I don't expect it (just as I would if a friend didn't eat fish, mussels, etc.)

Anyway, it's all been said - on both sides of the argument IMO - so moving on.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Comes back round to the UK is a country of tolerance, however the culture and working of the UK should not be dictated to by a minority and their individual choices. What happens when a religion states that serving "black" men is wrong.. should we also tolerate that choice?


----------



## chichi (Apr 22, 2012)

I went into my local Marks and Spencer on Monday, to get our Christmas food.

I didn't buy alcohol but did buy pork and the lady that served me was a very polite and helpful Muslim lady (going by her head wear), who never batted an eyelid at handling all of my shopping; including the Pork/Pork Sausagemeat/Sausage Rolls, etc.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

chichi said:


> I went into my local Marks and Spencer on Monday, to get our Christmas food.
> 
> I didn't buy alcohol but did buy pork and the lady that served me was a very polite and helpful Muslim lady (going by her head wear), who never batted an eyelid at handling all of my shopping; including the Pork/Pork Sausagemeat/Sausage Rolls, etc.


No! How could that be?

That would mean that the incident in question was an isolated incident.

That would mean that people shopping in M&S stores all over the country aren't being inconvenienced every time they want to buy pork or alcohol.

That would mean that a retailer taking into account religious issues of its staff is actually having a minimal - almost negligible - effect on everybody.

That would mean that everyone getting their knickers in a twist about being greatly inconvenienced is actually getting them in a twist about nothing.

Sshh Chichi - the truth will spoil their indignation and deprive them of their fun!


----------



## merlin12 (Jun 24, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> No! How could that be?
> 
> That would mean that the incident in question was an isolated incident.
> 
> ...


But what is wrong with a retailer taking into account religious issues of his staff? I say relñigious as I can say a particular aversión, health problema...as long as he does it in a way that does not affect his customers, what should it matter to the world? Not aimed at you in particular Spellweaver.


----------



## chichi (Apr 22, 2012)

Spellweaver said:


> No! How could that be?
> 
> That would mean that the incident in question was an isolated incident.
> 
> ...


Oh my bad......just did not think of the repercussions of posting before about my M & S experience. Sorry for any fun spoiling :lol:


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

merlin12 said:


> But what is wrong with a retailer taking into account religious issues of his staff? I say relñigious as I can say a particular aversión, health problema...as long as he does it in a way that does not affect his customers, what should it matter to the world? Not aimed at you in particular Spellweaver.


If you read the rest of my posts on this thread you will see that I agree with you 100% - the post you replied to was a tongue in cheek dig at the posters who _do_ think that a retailer taking into account the religious beliefs of their staff is the end of the world as we know it


----------



## staffgirl (May 1, 2013)

Spellweaver said:


> I would say the real point of the thread is what was posted in the first post. And if you go back to that first post you will see that what happened was that ONE shopper was "taken aback" (the exact words used by the journalist) about ONE member of staff being unable to serve them with a bottle of alcohol. *That* is worth discussing
> 
> What happened was that one major retailer has policies in place to enable their staff of all religions to be able to deal with their religious issues and continue to do their work. *That *is worth discussing and worth comparing with what opther major retailers do (as Goblin has done with the Morrisons comparison).
> 
> ...


Talking of getting all riled up unnecessarily...  I can see that you're never going to move on from your difficulty with this. If you read my post, just for the record I didn't say *many *staff have refused to serve *many *customers. If you're going to hang your argument with me solely on my use of words to describe the staff/customers involved, then you should get it right. After all you've taken issue supremely with me on this! I said *some* staff and *some *customers. Not "many" as you have stated. I can let that go though.

This is all getting a bit silly to be honest. Like I said before quite some time ago, yes it happened with one customer. Still caused a lot of discussion widely though didn't it? Despite it being one incident.....


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

staffgirl said:


> Talking of getting all riled up unnecessarily...  I can see that you're never going to move on from your difficulty with this.


I'm not riled up - quite mellow actually after another lovely day - and I don't have any difficulty with the subject or with you. In fact I think it's rather amusing that we've gone through this whole rigmarole merely because I pointed out that you were wrong when you stated it was a *fact* that some (ie plural) people were refusing to sell alcohol and pork and some (plural) people were complaining that they had been affected. The more you try to wriggle out of it, the more I smile 



staffgirl said:


> This is all getting a bit silly to be honest. Like I said before quite some time ago, yes it happened with one customer. Still caused a lot of discussion widely though didn't it? Despite it being one incident.....


Hmm. One insignificant incident causes all this discussion and causes people to pretend its a lot more prevalent than it actually was. Says a lot about people, that does.


----------



## chichi (Apr 22, 2012)

In all seriousness....if said Muslim lady had refused to handle the pork products in my trolley....she would have been putting all my shopping back on the shelves. When I pay good money for my shopping I dont expect to have to be faffing around due to somebody's religious beliefs. 

My point though is that this whole M and S situ with regards to Muslim employees handling certain products is more than likely a pile of poo....exaggerated by some.


----------



## staffgirl (May 1, 2013)

Spellweaver said:


> I'm not riled up - quite mellow actually after another lovely day - and I don't have any difficulty with the subject or with you. In fact I think it's rather amusing that we've gone through this whole rigmarole merely because I pointed out that you were wrong when you stated it was a *fact* that some (ie plural) people were refusing to sell alcohol and pork and some (plural) people were complaining that they had been affected. The more you try to wriggle out of it, the more I smile
> 
> Hmm. One insignificant incident causes all this discussion and causes people to pretend its a lot more prevalent than it actually was. Says a lot about people, that does.


Nope - not trying to wriggle out of it really. I just don't think it was the most important thing that was written in the whole thread about this topic. Nor do I think it made people react more than they did. But if you do then that's your opinion.

Glad something has made you smile though!


----------



## MCWillow (Aug 26, 2011)

chichi said:


> In all seriousness....if said Muslim lady had refused to handle the pork products in my trolley....she would have been putting all my shopping back on the shelves. When I pay good money for my shopping I dont expect to have to be faffing around due to somebody's religious beliefs.
> 
> My point though is that this whole M and S situ with regards to Muslim employees handling certain products is more than likely a pile of poo....exaggerated by some.


^^^ This!!



Spellweaver said:


> <snip>
> 
> Hmm. One insignificant incident causes all this discussion and causes people to pretend its a lot more prevalent than it actually was. Says a lot about people, that does.


I could see it was insignificant at a time _other_ than Christmas. If you work full time, and then have to spend ages in a supermarket, either after work, or on your day off, it _does_ become signicant.

Full time workers have precious few hours to get everything ready for Christmas as it is, but if you then add in battling round a crowded shop, queuing to buy some groceries, and then being told you have to queue up elsewhere because the person serving refuses to handle the goods in your trolley, I really_ can_ see why people would become annoyed.

All the people saying 'its just a few extra minutes' etc obviously havent been supermarket shopping at Christmas! Or if they have, and it really _is_ just a few extra minutes - please let me know where you do your shopping!


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

MCWillow said:


> I could see it was insignificant at a time _other_ than Christmas. If you work full time, and then have to spend ages in a supermarket, either after work, or on your day off, it _does_ become signicant.


The indignificant part was that of all the millions of Christmas shoppers going through tills this Christmas, it happened once. In the whole of Christmas shopping time only one person was taken aback about being asked to go to another till. No-one - not one single person - queued for hours and then was told to go and queue again. Statistically, that is pretty indignificant.



MCWillow said:


> All the people saying 'its just a few extra minutes' etc obviously havent been supermarket shopping at Christmas! Or if they have, and it really _is_ just a few extra minutes - please let me know where you do your shopping!


Remember we're talking about M&S here, where it is unusual for peope to have the huge trolly full of stuff they might have in the likes of Sainsburys or Morrisons.

And I would expect M&S to be at least as acommodating as Tesco - the other week in Tesco I complained that I was fed up of standing in a queue while the assistant chatted to the supervisor who was waiting to close the till after me and they ushered me to a chair, put my trolley full of stuff through the till, and packed my bags for me while I sat down.


----------



## MCWillow (Aug 26, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> The indignificant part was that of all the millions of Christmas shoppers going through tills this Christmas, it happened once. In the whole of Christmas shopping time only one person was taken aback about being asked to go to another till. No-one - not one single person - queued for hours and then was told to go and queue again. Statistically, that is pretty indignificant.


Well - to be fair - it only happened to _one_ person that thought to go to the papers with their 'story' - that doesn't mean it hasn't happened to other people that had better things to do with their time 



Spellweaver said:


> Remember we're talking about M&S here, where it is unusual for peope to have the huge trolly full of stuff they might have in the likes of Sainsburys or Morrisons.


You've obviously never shopped at M&S at Brooklands!! Might be difficult at the moment though, we are suffering from floods so I couldnt get there even if I wanted to! But, in all seriousness, people can and do, get trollies full of food at M&S, just like they do at other food stores.



Spellweaver said:


> And I would expect M&S to be at least as acommodating as Tesco - the other week in Tesco I complained that I was fed up of standing in a queue while the assistant chatted to the supervisor who was waiting to close the till after me and they ushered me to a chair, put my trolley full of stuff through the till, and packed my bags for me while I sat down.


Now that is the kind of shop I want to do my shopping in!

Yes, I do think employers should accommodate their staff, but I also think they should accommodate their customers. Common sense should tell them not to put staff on tills, at an especially busy time of the year, that will have a problem dealing with goods in peoples trollies.

Put them somewhere that doesn't infringe on their personal beliefs, and doesn't infringe on the customer. Win win all round IMO.


----------



## Royoyo (Feb 21, 2013)

Mulish said:


> I don't really understand your point about serving Muslims 'British' food? Most of the Muslims I know are British, it's a religion not a nationality.
> 
> I'm pragmatic, generally, and agree with the idea that you should just get on with life, including the less savoury parts. However, I don't have any strong religious beliefs, I don't know what it's like to believe doing something quite simple could result in my eternal damnation. I do know what it's like growing up as a vegetarian (and even vegan for awhile) in a family full of Mighty Meat Eaters so I know what it's like to have ridicule and scorn heaped upon my beliefs and I go out of my way not to do it to someone else. I might think refusing to handle sausages is silly but I can't tell you the number of times I got told my refusal to eat them was stupid and inconvenient to other people.
> 
> ...


I know being a Muslim is not a nationality, I don't think I worded what I was trying to say very well. I was trying to compare it to something even more ridiculous I suppose, like say if a British person refused to serve someone based on the fact that they were a Muslim or that they had different beliefs to them. Even though I do not have an issue with people who follow Islam it would anger me if someone refused to serve me. That is why I do not agree with Muslims being allowed to refuse to serve people because of their own beliefs but I honestly doubt that many of them would refuse.

I just don't see why Muslims should be allowed to have that option and not other religions or people with other personal beliefs. If I refused to serve someone because of my own personal beliefs I would probably get the sack!


----------



## ZipsDad (Oct 31, 2013)

Spellweaver said:


> The principle that a major store has a policy which allows staff of _all faiths_ to work around issues in their duties which conflict with their faiths, is far different from the principle that multiple members of staff are refusing to serve multiple customers. The first is factually correct


Any store that does this is doomed to be a former store.
Capitalism (what a dirty word, eh?) is what drives people to start with little and amass enough to care for their family.
When they cater to the staff (that hired on to do a job)rather than their customers (who pay the bills) they are following a path to bankruptcy.

Case in point.
Crackerbarrel, in the US, decided to pull all the merchandising of "Duck Dynasty" after Phil (the patriarch of the family[of Duck Dynassty- a multi million dollar industry started by a simple man of simple means]) dared to have a negative opinion of the possibility of an afterlife for homosexuals *during his church's bible study group*. 
The audacity of that man to have an *OPINION*!!
Nothing negative was spoken about their livelihood or anything of the sort.
Just the religious beliefs of an elderly many who is devoutly Christian.

Crackerbarrel pulled all the merchandising to assuage any homosexuals who may have been offended. :frown2:

What they didn't expect was that a lot of free thinkers here, in the US, would afford a man his OPINION and boycott CrackerBarrel for their actions.

Seems the bottom line (the almighty dollar) decided things for Cracker Barrel.
All the merchandise is back up and for sale.
More to the point, the "principle of the matter" is, for "lack of any evidence" a religious excuse to eliminate a job duty.
Simple as that.
You hire on to do a job, you DO it.
Job doesn't suit you, DONT HIRE ON! :thumbsup:


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

chichi said:


> Oh my bad......just did not think of the repercussions of posting before about my M & S experience. Sorry for any fun spoiling :lol:


Please - don't apologise! We're used to you, poppet :wink::wink::wink: LOL


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

It has just occurred to me to wonder what a such a 'devout' muslim is doing working for M&S anyway - surely the original Mr Marks was Jewish? How does that not go against his/her religious grain?


----------



## mollydog07 (May 26, 2012)

Markies profits are what pay the wages.fairly sure pork and alcohol contribute to sales and sales= wages.....lower sales=redundancies.


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

ZipsDad said:


> Any store that does this is doomed to be a former store.
> Capitalism (what a dirty word, eh?) is what drives people to start with little and amass enough to care for their family.
> When they cater to the staff (that hired on to do a job)rather than their customers (who pay the bills) they are following a path to bankruptcy.
> 
> ...


As Voltaire once said - "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

ZipsDad said:


> Any store that does this is doomed to be a former store.
> Capitalism (what a dirty word, eh?) is what drives people to start with little and amass enough to care for their family.
> When they cater to the staff (that hired on to do a job)rather than their customers (who pay the bills) they are following a path to bankruptcy.
> 
> ...


And yet here in the UK we have many catholic pharmacists working in many different pharmacies (some private, some huge chains) who refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control pills or morning after pills because it goes against their religious beliefs. Their professional ruling body (the GPhC) allows them to do this providing they direct the customer to another store where they can get their prescription filled. The different companies (both private and conglomerates) they work for respect this and allow this.

By your logic that would mean that only the pharmacies with non-Catholic pharmacists would survive, However, that is not the case at all.

So sorry, just because narrow-mindedness sank one store in the US (and I'm talking about the narrow-mindedness of people who believe that homosexuals can't have a place in heaven here, not the store) it doesn't follow that the same will happen to all stores in all countries.

It is perfectly possible for companies to resepct and work around the religious beliefs of their staff and still provide an excellent service.


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

All people - ALL people - are entitled to courtesy and consideration - but similarly if you apply for and take on a job you have to expect to fulfil the requirements of the post - you cannot pick and choose which bits you will do.

Maybe this particular muslim was trying to gain a bit of self-righteous-holier-than-thou-I'm-SUCH-a-good-muslimness that they could brag about to friends family and the guys down the mosque.

When I was at school our drama club put on a play and there was a lot of competition for parts. One of the main parts went to a girl I shall call Sheila (because that was her name). She came to rehearsals, everything was going fine and then she announced out of the blue just before the show that she was not prepared to utter the (very mild - remember this was a school production) swear word that her part called for. It wasn't even used as a swear word, if you know what I mean. She couldn't do it, she declared, because it was against there strong Christian principles. The same principles that hadn't bothered her when she was trying out for the part, or during rehearsals. The same principles that hadn't bothered her when she effectively took the part from someone else (most of us were dying to say 'damn' in public without getting a clip round the ear!). There was a big argument backstage, and then the teacher put on her understudy - then it was "You can't do that my mam and dad are here to see me".

Tough!

She then said she'd 'do the swearword' but the teacher told her is was too late and that the u/s had the part, even though it meant juggling a couple of others to accommodate the change.

She obviously saw herself as some sort of martyr for her faith. Her intention had been to be known as the person who was so good she had refused to swear - but it didn't work out like that.

(Course if she had had any sense at all, she would have gone onstage and just substituted the word ("You, Sir, will be darned to the very deepest pit of Heck", or whatever it was). But that would not have achieved her purpose of looking like a good-two-shoes and getting loads of praise from her church. (Possibly she got that anyway - I don't know. She certainly didn't achieve what she wanted at the time)


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

I would not apply for any job that I could not carry out due to ethics.

I would not work in an abortion clinic, nor would I work in a pharmacy supplying morning after pills. I would work in Mand S and sell beer and pork.

I suppose Mand S have a problem with this worker cos how can they sack her over religious grounds? and thats the problem with it. If the worker has a contract, the job is secure...bet Mand S are not overjoyed with any of this or the publicity that goes with it either.


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

oh, and I don't have any strong religious views either, each to his/her own.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

When I lived in Letchworth there was a Catholic doctor at the practise I was registered at & all leaflets, etc for the practise stated that he would not give advice or prescribe contraceptives

This was years ago although he is still there & is a popular doctor ..... don't see the Daily Mail making screaming headlines about that though!


----------



## staffgirl (May 1, 2013)

Spellweaver said:


> No, the fact is that ONE customer (singular) was "taken aback" by ONE salesperson (singular) directing him/her to another till.
> 
> Just becuse some posters want to transpose this singular action into a plural "people", and then to tag on that "people" are being "refused sevices" doesnt make it true. However ....
> 
> ...


It's been almost 24 hours since you posted this. I'd be curious to know if there are many articles and comments where the story has been widely misinterpreted and the message getting garbled as you have foretold it would. I can see it's generated alot of comment. But not that it's been misinterpreted.

Again, yes it is a single incident. Again it is the principle behind what happened that people have been discussing, not whether it happened once or twice or three times. And personally I think it's a worthy discussion to have. It's through discussion that hopefully misunderstanding and intolerance can be worked through.

I thought we'd moved on from this. See post #192 again as perhaps you'd missed it. This point that you're labouring is now so weak that it barely has a pulse!  Talking of which I'm now taking my OH to A&E as he had come back from a dog walk with what looks like a broken hand. Happy days.


----------



## Zhari (Dec 27, 2013)

I've heard that this policy has been revoked and even though I'm Muslim, I totally agree it was out of line. Muslims aren't required to police everyone as to what they do. I can just imagine the havoc it would cause if a business had to accommodate every single religious belief in a country where there is as much religious diversity as the UK. I think perhaps in the hiring statement, M & S can just say, to work as a cashier you'll be required to allow people to purchase items you may find objectionable and if the potential employee agrees, hire, if not perhaps there is another area of the store they can work in.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Zhari said:


> Muslims aren't required to police everyone as to what they do. I can just imagine the havoc it would cause if a business had to accommodate every single religious belief in a country where there is as much religious diversity as the UK.


This to me is the right attitude. I would like to think the majority of people are willing to make compromises where possible to avoid the situation wherever possible but this is an imperfect world. With some stores this may be possible after all plenty to do in a store without using a till but it will not always be possible. From my perspective the Catholic attitude is a difficult one but the same principle should apply. Even here though when you look at it, the new Pope is actually attacking these views.

St Paul in Corinthians I think stated that women should have their hair covered and men should have their hair short. How much of this is important for a relationship with God or is it mainly a cultural issue which needs to change as culture changes in the name of tolerance within a multicultural society? Religion has been the excuse for more conflict than anything else yet the core principles are often ignored as people focus on the minor issues which are no longer necessary or applicable in a modern multicultural society. We shouldn't need to abandon core principles but at the same time we need to make sure everyone is part of society we choose to live in and the way it functions. It partly up to the church leaders to determine what the core principles actually are and how they are implemented. Acceptance of others surely should be one of those core principles. Holding people apart from others only leads resentment and ultimately to conflict in the long run.

In Egypt we had the excellent example of tolerance, Christians protecting muslims while they prayed and Muslims protecting Christians while they did the same. I'm sure some from both sides of the religious divide could argue that this wasn't right according to their religion. I will disagree.

What I find interesting is where I live now we actually have multiple pharmacies. When I asked my OH why she always went to a specific one as another is nearer I was told.. "but this is the Catholic one". It's not always simply Christian/Muslim which impacts society but Catholic/Protestant or Sunni/Shia. The separation of pharmacies allowed for choice and that is always possible. It's not something I agree with. If we want to be a multicultural society we cannot push our beliefs on others and accept differences between us. However religion is a personal choice and needs to be kept as personal. If we don't agree with something we should not put ourselves into a position where we expect special treatment. Tolerance is a two way thing.


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

Goblin said:


> This to me is the right attitude. I would like to think the majority of people are willing to make compromises where possible to avoid the situation wherever possible but this is an imperfect world. With some stores this may be possible after all plenty to do in a store without using a till but it will not always be possible. From my perspective the Catholic attitude is a difficult one but the same principle should apply. Even here though when you look at it, the new Pope is actually attacking these views.
> *
> St Paul in Corinthians I think stated that women should have their hair covered and men should have their hair short. How much of this is important for a relationship with God or is it mainly a cultural issue which needs to change as culture changes in the name of tolerance within a multicultural society*? Religion has been the excuse for more conflict than anything else yet the core principles are often ignored as people focus on the minor issues which are no longer necessary or applicable in a modern multicultural society..


This was very much cultural at that time - Christianity was just becoming established, and it was necessary not to do anything that would give the authorities an excuse to come down like a ton of bricks!

The important thing to me in a relationship with God is to 'love others as yourself' and definitely to lead by example - be tolerant, and you can (or should be able to) expect tolerance in return.


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

Cleo38 said:


> When I lived in Letchworth there was a Catholic doctor at the practise I was registered at & all leaflets, etc for the practise stated that he would not give advice or prescribe contraceptives
> 
> This was years ago although he is still there & is a popular doctor ..... don't see the Daily Mail making screaming headlines about that though!


I think there isa bit of a difference though between a doctor not prescribing drugs or contraceptives and somebody with a job deciding at the busiest alcohol sales time of year that now they won't do a part of their job.


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

Zhari said:


> I've heard that this policy has been revoked and even though I'm Muslim, I totally agree it was out of line. Muslims aren't required to police everyone as to what they do. I can just imagine the havoc it would cause if a business had to accommodate every single religious belief in a country where there is as much religious diversity as the UK. I think perhaps in the hiring statement, M & S can just say, to work as a cashier you'll be required to allow people to purchase items you may find objectionable and if the potential employee agrees, hire, if not perhaps there is another area of the store they can work in.


I think the real shame here is it just re enforces some peoples attitudes towards racism.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

lilythepink said:


> I think there isa bit of a difference though between a doctor not prescribing drugs or contraceptives and somebody with a job deciding at the busiest alcohol sales time of year that now they won't do a part of their job.


I don't see it that way, the doctor in question was still opting out of part of his job due to religious beliefs & am sure I have read a lot will not take part with helping women patients arrange terminations should they choose not to continue with pregnancies ..... again not really that newsworthy to the Daily Mail


----------



## grumpy goby (Jan 18, 2012)

Id be more annoyed if my pharmacist decided to interfere with my personal choices on birth control by refusing to fulfill my prescription than if i was asked to wait a few mins to buy booze (which happens if a 17yo serves me as well....)


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

staffgirl said:


> I thought we'd moved on from this.


So did I - but that aint ever gonnna heppen while you keep resurrecting old posts! 

You were wrong to say that it was a fact that some (plural) people were refusing to serve alcohol and pork and wrong to say it was a fact that some (plural) people had complained about it. End of. Let it go. The discussion has move on to far more interesting things than your imagined "facts".


----------



## staffgirl (May 1, 2013)

Spellweaver said:


> So did I - but that aint ever gonnna heppen while you keep resurrecting old posts!


Pot meet kettle! Perhaps you could take your own advice too and move on.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

lilythepink said:


> I think there isa bit of a difference though between a doctor not prescribing drugs or contraceptives and somebody with a job deciding at the busiest alcohol sales time of year that now they won't do a part of their job.


Was going to answer this but Cleo and grumpy goby have said exactly what I would have said:



Cleo38 said:


> I don't see it that way, the doctor in question was still opting out of part of his job due to religious beliefs & am sure I have read a lot will not take part with helping women patients arrange terminations should they choose not to continue with pregnancies ..... again not really that newsworthy to the Daily Mail





grumpy goby said:


> Id be more annoyed if my pharmacist decided to interfere with my personal choices on birth control by refusing to fulfill my prescription than if i was asked to wait a few mins to buy booze (which happens if a 17yo serves me as well....)


I would add that the effects of a pharmacist or GP refusing to do things because of their beliefs would be far more inconvenient than being asked to go to another till in the supermarket - plus it could also have far-reaching medical and social implications.

Having to work around the religious beliefs of pharmacists and doctors happens far more often than having to work around the religious beliefs of someone serving in a supermarket. Yet neither the Daily Wail nor the rest of the gutter press make a song and dance about it; nor does it seem to annoy people in the same way that a Muslim adhering to the beliefs of their religion annoys them.

Odd, that.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

staffgirl said:


> Pot meet kettle! Perhaps you could take your own advice too and move on.


I have - read the posts from me on this thread - oooh look; fancy that; discussing the latest issues posted. And you are - well, you seem to be resurrecting old posts and trying to goad me. Takes much more than that to goad me. 

Let it go. Move on. Join in and enjoy the discussion happening now.

Love and light being sent your way and hope your OH's hand is ok


----------



## staffgirl (May 1, 2013)

Spellweaver said:


> I have - read the posts from me on this thread - oooh look; fancy that; discussing the latest issues posted. And you are - well, you seem to be resurrecting old posts and trying to goad me. Takes much more than that to goad me.
> 
> Let it go. Move on. Join in and enjoy the discussion happening now.
> 
> Love and light being sent your way and hope your OH's hand is ok


I am not trying to goad you. Seriously why would I bother?!

It just seems like you allow yourself to refer to old posts to continue to make a point, but don't like it if the same thing is done to you in return. You made some sweeping statements about which I was curious to see if they'd come true. You didn't respond to that which is your choice.


----------



## Zhari (Dec 27, 2013)

I think there might be a bit of a difference between a Pharamacy or Doctor who posts notices saying that they won't deal with contraceptives or abortion issues, the patient is warned ahead of time and that a quantifiable issue.

But even if M&S posted a sign over the Cashier's till saying they wouldn't process pork or alcohol products, the customer may still get caught up in not being able to complete their purchases. There is an abundance of pre-packaged foodstuffs that contain one or both of those products that I as a Muslim trying to avoid pork/alcohol would have read the label and know about, but the poor shopper may not. How is she/he going to react when she gets to my till, thinking she's safe cause she didn't buy a ham or a bottle of wine, and I refuse to process the bottle of Vanilla flavouring due to it's alcohol content or her box of cookies cause they have lard in them. Depending on which School of Thought I follow, there is a huge number of items I could refuse to process under the guise of "religious objections" 

Also the issue of allowing someone to purchase the product isn't universally agreed upon by all Muslim scholars the same way the ban on abortion and contraceptives is agreed upon by all Catholic scholars and the Pope. (or at least from my perception)


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Zhari said:


> I think there might be a bit of a difference between a Pharamacy or Doctor who posts notices saying that they won't deal with contraceptives or abortion issues, the patient is warned ahead of time and that a quantifiable issue.


It doesn't happen that way at all. No pharmacy will ever display such a sign because it will depend upon which pharmacist is on duty. In the pharmacy where I do locums a couple of nights a week, sometimes the pharmacist on duty is a catholic and won't dispense the prescriptions, and sometimes the pharmacist on duty is a Muslim, sometimes they are CofE, sometimes they are pagan, sometimes I don't even know what their religious persuasions are. However, the point is that there is no set pattern as to when brith control and morning after pills will be dispensed - and if a customer needs their prescription that evening they then have to get across the city to the nearest pharmacy - sometimes in the rush hour, sometimes late at night when there are few buses



Zhari said:


> Also the issue of allowing someone to purchase the product isn't universally agreed upon by all Muslim scholars the same way the ban on abortion and contraceptives is agreed upon by all Catholic scholars and the Pope. (or at least from my perception)


My knowledge of both Islam and Catholicism is gleaned merely from speaking to people of those faiths, so I don't know enough to discuss the matter with you in any great depth. I do know that I have worked with muslims who felt that they could not sell particular medicines that contained alcohol, and muslims who felt that they could. Similarly, I have worked with catholics who felt that they could not dispense prescriptions for birth control pills, and catholics who felt they could.


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

I think a refusal to prescribe/dispense a drug that would interfere with procreation cannot be compared to a refusal to sell a pack of bacon or a bottle of wine, IMO


----------



## merlin12 (Jun 24, 2011)

Here our pharmacies are privately owned and practising catholics that won´t dispènse birth control or abortive pills don´t hide t from their employers, just as doctors can say it goes against their concience. But they have the right to do that and the law permits it. Freedom is a two way Street. Anyway, the solution for me would be simple, don´t inconvenience customers and announce, put signs and distribute your workers well to avoid people having to get angry because one person feel bad about handling certain ítems.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Lurcherlad said:


> I think a refusal to prescribe/dispense a drug that would interfere with procreation cannot be compared to a refusal to sell a pack of bacon or a bottle of wine, IMO


Could you explain this further? They are both instances where someone's religious beliefs can cause inconvenience to someone for whom they are employed to tender a service, and so imo direct comparison can be made between them. Why do you think they cannot be compared?


----------



## Mulish (Feb 20, 2013)

Royoyo said:


> I know being a Muslim is not a nationality, I don't think I worded what I was trying to say very well. I was trying to compare it to something even more ridiculous I suppose, like say if a British person refused to serve someone based on the fact that they were a Muslim or that they had different beliefs to them. Even though I do not have an issue with people who follow Islam it would anger me if someone refused to serve me. That is why I do not agree with Muslims being allowed to refuse to serve people because of their own beliefs but I honestly doubt that many of them would refuse.
> 
> *I just don't see why Muslims should be allowed to have that option and not other religions or people with other personal beliefs.* If I refused to serve someone because of my own personal beliefs I would probably get the sack!


M&S said it was their policy that all religious beliefs be taken into consideration, no special treatment is being given to Muslims.

I think it would probably irritate most people to be refused service to some degree or other but that's not the person on the tills fault. If the company policy means employees have the right to not do certain parts of a job, then it's up to management to put them somewhere that they can still work without having to either compromise their beliefs or impact on anyone else. I don't know for sure but it seems to me like there was a single cock up whereby someone was put on a till who maybe shouldn't have been and it's been blown out of all proportion.

I think it's just generally difficult for most of us to get our heads around the idea that something so simple to us is such a big deal to someone else but if it is, why shouldn't we compromise? What's the point in getting into a bloody minded Who Has the Rightest Rights contest? There won't ever be a winner because no-one is impartial enough to judge and there are so many more important things to fight for.


----------



## Zhari (Dec 27, 2013)

Mulish said:


> M&S said it was their policy that all religious beliefs be taken into consideration, no special treatment is being given to Muslims.
> 
> I think it would probably irritate most people to be refused service to some degree or other but that's not the person on the tills fault. If the company policy means employees have the right to not do certain parts of a job, then it's up to management to put them somewhere that they can still work without having to either compromise their beliefs or impact on anyone else. I don't know for sure but it seems to me like there was a single cock up whereby someone was put on a till who maybe shouldn't have been and it's been blown out of all proportion.
> 
> I think it's just generally difficult for most of us to get our heads around the idea that something so simple to us is such a big deal to someone else but if it is, why shouldn't we compromise? What's the point in getting into a bloody minded Who Has the Rightest Rights contest? There won't ever be a winner because no-one is impartial enough to judge and there are so many more important things to fight for.


I like some of the points you make, especially who has the rightest rights. The Priest who is buying wine for the sacrament or the Muslim who doesn't want to touch the bottle? By refusing to process the sale, does that step on someone else s religious freedoms to acquire the item?

A compromise, which is great, but requires both sides to give and take. I guess what is at stake is deciding how far to go to accommodate religious beliefs. Would you be supportive if religious people said "I can't serve homosexuals as their lifestyle is against my religious beliefs"

I feel faith and religion should be a personal matter and once you start trying to accommodate religious beliefs in the public sphere you open a whole can of worms that you'll never be able to satisfy everyone, but the demands people will make will just keep coming. And it causes so much strife and arguments, it just seems so much fairer and simpler not to open that can.

BTW, I'm totally impressed by the number of people on this thread who are supportive of allowing Muslims to adhere to their beliefs and supportive of respecting and accommodating various peoples religious beliefs. Way to go UK


----------



## ZipsDad (Oct 31, 2013)

Spellweaver said:


> And yet here in the UK we have many catholic pharmacists working in many different pharmacies (some private, some huge chains) who refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control pills or morning after pills because it goes against their religious beliefs. Their professional ruling body (the GPhC) allows them to do this providing they direct the customer to another store where they can get their prescription filled. The different companies (both private and conglomerates) they work for respect this and allow this.
> 
> By your logic that would mean that only the pharmacies with non-Catholic pharmacists would survive, However, that is not the case at all.
> 
> ...


Rather than "and yet" it should be "and also" because both relate to the same problem.
Except in the case of the pharmacists, it seems, a ruling body has allowed for this.

To the second highlighted point, you must have misread the whole point made.
Not only did narrow mindedness not occur, open mindedness did.
The store in question, Cracker Barrel, also did not sink.
They did the admirable thing by taking the _open minded_ approach (you know, actually realizing people with different view points from your own should be allowed to have them) and continued to sell their merchandise.
And, god forbid, in a house of worship, a man should have a view point contrary to your own about the afterlife.
It's only his opinion and wasn't hate filled or anything of the sort.

As far as employees being able to pick and choose their work assignments based on their own crutches, I think it's a farce.

How could any self respecting religious practitioner even work in a place (or for a company) that would deal in things they, themselves, find so vile?

It's ok to dance with the devil as long as you don't kiss his cheek?
Ridiculous.


----------



## Mulish (Feb 20, 2013)

Zhari said:


> I like some of the points you make, especially who has the rightest rights. The Priest who is buying wine for the sacrament or the Muslim who doesn't want to touch the bottle? By refusing to process the sale, does that step on someone else s religious freedoms to acquire the item?
> 
> A compromise, which is great, but requires both sides to give and take. I guess what is at stake is deciding how far to go to accommodate religious beliefs. Would you be supportive if religious people said "I can't serve homosexuals as their lifestyle is against my religious beliefs"
> 
> ...


Wouldn't life be so much simpler if there was a blanket ban on anyone doing anything that might upset/annoy/irritate or in anyway inconvenience anyone else outside of their own homes? Think of the jobs created in trying to police it, too 

You're right, you can't please everyone and in trying to please one you could well be upsetting another, it's just like bloody parenting. All we can do is to try and be fair and consistent.

As to your question about refusing to serve someone due to their sexuality - I think, although I could well be wrong, that there's a difference between refusing to handle something because you think that it will result in your own eternal damnation and refusing to serve someone because you think their activities will result in their eternal damnation. It's okay to protect your own soul but not to make value judgments on others, if you see what I mean?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

ZipsDad said:


> Rather than "and yet" it should be "and also" because both relate to the same problem.
> Except in the case of the pharmacists, it seems, a ruling body has allowed for this.


No - it's definitely an "and yet". You stated that any store that allows staff to accommodate their religious beliefs is "_doomed to be a former store_" *and yet* pharmacies do this in the UK and are not former stores. 



ZipsDad said:


> To the second highlighted point, you must have misread the whole point made.
> Not only did narrow mindedness not occur, open mindedness did.
> The store in question, Cracker Barrel, also did not sink. They did the admirable thing by taking the _open minded_ approach (you know, actually realizing people with different view points from your own should be allowed to have them) and continued to sell their merchandise.


Yep, agree, didn't read it properly. However, according to you there was nothing open-minded about Cracker Barrel's approach - they did it because people boycotted the store and "_the bottom line (the almighty dollar) decided things for Cracker Barrel. All the merchandise is back up and for sale_."

As for the people who boycotted the store being open minded, I daresay some _were_ taking action because they thought the store was not allowing one man to have his own viewpoint. However, I'd wager that there were also a lot of boycotters who were taking action because they agreed with the man's opinion about homosexuals and were boycotting for that reason rather than an altruistic one. Nothing open-minded about that.



ZipsDad said:


> And, god forbid, in a house of worship, a man should have a view point contrary to your own about the afterlife. It's only his opinion and wasn't hate filled or anything of the sort.


I would be interested in his thought processes and why he thinks that homosexuals cannot have an afterlife. To me that smacks of genderism and unenlightened thinking and, whilst I fully agree that he is entitled to whatever opinion he wishes, I am also allowed my opinion and my opinion is that I would not want to spend my hard-earned money making someone who held such opinions any richer.



ZipsDad said:


> As far as employees being able to pick and choose their work assignments based on their own crutches, I think it's a farce.
> 
> How could any self respecting religious practitioner even work in a place (or for a company) that would deal in things they, themselves, find so vile?
> 
> ...


The people I have spoken to (mainly catholic pharmacists) don't see it that way at all. They see themelves as doing a lot of good in their profession in areas other than brith control. And in areas of birth control, they see their refusal to supply it as saving a life (morning after pill) or allowing God's will to be done in a life being created (birth control)

Myself, I think that they aren't doing that at all; imo they are merely handing over to someone else to end a life (morning after pill) or to deny God's will to create a life (birth control).

However, the fact remains that their ruling body and their employers' policies mean that they can and do take their religious beliefs into account; it does affect customers more than being asked to go to another till; and the pharmacies are not "doomed".


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

poohdog said:


> *A strange concession from a Jewish company.*


It's no longer a 'jewish' company. It was originally started by two Jewish men but that is quite a while ago.

Sorry haven't read the whole thread, but I know there are chemists where some staff refuse to sell the 'morning after' pill as they don't agree with it. For me ALL of these refusals are appalling. Nobody has the right to judge a customer who has innocently entered a shop to - what a radical idea! - *buy* a product *on sale *in said shop!


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

Spellweaver said:


> Spot on - especially the bit I've highlighted. You are the second one to point this out on this thread - but most people are taking no notice. They notice the word "muslim" and steam right on in their eagerness to express their indignation that muslim religious beleifs could delay them for a few minutes while someone else comes to serve them.


If there were Hindus in M&S refusing to handle beef, or Jews refusing to handle pork, then I'm pretty sure the media would have jumped on these too.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> If there were Hindus in M&S refusing to handle beef, or Jews refusing to handle pork, then I'm pretty sure the media would have jumped on these too.


You may be right - look at all the fuss being made because of only _one_ case of a muslim asking someone to go to another till.

However, prehaps it happens more often (I mean from people of all religious persuasions) and the press don't get to know about it because most customers are enlightened enough to think that it's no big deal. Even the Daily Wail could only find one customer who it had happend to - and that customer was merely "taken aback", not angry or outraged.


----------



## Mulish (Feb 20, 2013)

Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> If there were Hindus in M&S refusing to handle beef, or Jews refusing to handle pork, then I'm pretty sure the media would have jumped on these too.


I'm not, unless they thought they might be Eastern European immigrants, of course 

After all, Spellweaver knows Catholic pharmacists who are turning away people wanting to buy birth control, etc, and yet I've never read anything about that in any tabloid.

All religions have gone through their own periods of being persecuted and it seems it's currently Islam's turn.


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

Mulish said:


> All religions have gone through their own periods of being persecuted and it seems it's currently Islam's turn.


cant imagine why, can you?


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

If im in M&S with a trolley loaded with booze, condoms, pork scratchings,streaky bacon and **** will there be a till i CAN use?...

or is the true purpose of the self-service tills?


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

Spellweaver said:


> Even the Daily Wail could only find one customer who it had happend to - and that customer was merely "taken aback", not angry or outraged.


But it does make them a new minority group....and they have the power now


----------



## Mulish (Feb 20, 2013)

Colliebarmy said:


> cant imagine why, can you?


I can think of multiple reasons and very few of them have anything to do with the actual religion and lots to do with bigots on either side taking stuff out of context in order to justify being utter barstewards to their fellow humans


----------



## Mulish (Feb 20, 2013)

Colliebarmy said:


> But it does make them a new minority group....and they have the power now


"Taken aback" customers are the new all powerful minority group? Finally! Asda have been really sh*tty in their customer service recently, thank goodness I now have the ability to smite them like they deserve.

I feel like She-Ra


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

Mulish said:


> I'm not, unless they thought they might be Eastern European immigrants, of course
> 
> After all, Spellweaver knows Catholic pharmacists who are turning away people wanting to buy birth control, etc, and yet I've never read anything about that in any tabloid.
> 
> All religions have gone through their own periods of being persecuted and it seems it's currently Islam's turn.


last year there were 2 midwives who went to the high court seeking permission to not be involved in teaching or anything else related to abortion and it made headline news.

Also, last year or maybe earlier this year, christian B and B owners were taken to court for refusing to allow 2 gay men a room at their BandB. It made national news.

Maybe it would have made more of a splash if gay men had refused to stay at religious christian Band Bs?lol


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

Mulish said:


> "Taken aback" customers are the new all powerful minority group? Finally! Asda have been really sh*tty in their customer service recently, thank goodness I now have the ability to smite them like they deserve.
> 
> I feel like She-Ra


find morrisons.lol


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

Colliebarmy said:


> But it does make them a new minority group....and they have the power now


who is the new minority group and who and what power do they have?


----------



## mollydog07 (May 26, 2012)

If you work in a supermarket your job is to sell the products that your employer stocks,you receive a wage for doing so.if you cant/wont do your job alternative employment would be an idea.what a mess the world would be in if we all refused certain aspects of our jobs.


----------



## merlin12 (Jun 24, 2011)

Zhari said:


> I like some of the points you make, especially who has the rightest rights. The Priest who is buying wine for the sacrament or the Muslim who doesn't want to touch the bottle? By refusing to process the sale, does that step on someone else s religious freedoms to acquire the item?
> 
> A compromise, which is great, but requires both sides to give and take. I guess what is at stake is deciding how far to go to accommodate religious beliefs. Would you be supportive if religious people said "I can't serve homosexuals as their lifestyle is against my religious beliefs"
> 
> ...


and way to go Spain


----------



## merlin12 (Jun 24, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> No - it's definitely an "and yet". You stated that any store that allows staff to accommodate their religious beliefs is "_doomed to be a former store_" *and yet* pharmacies do this in the UK and are not former stores.
> 
> Yep, agree, didn't read it properly. However, according to you there was nothing open-minded about Cracker Barrel's approach - they did it because people boycotted the store and "_the bottom line (the almighty dollar) decided things for Cracker Barrel. All the merchandise is back up and for sale_."
> 
> ...


I can´t agree with you here, we can only control our actions and not those of others, the catholic pharmacist is doing what he believes in, he can´t control the right of a customer to go and ask elsewhere and the right of another pharmacy to sell to them but he does not have to participate in something that goes against what he believes in and that is what he is denying to do.


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

Mulish said:


> I can think of multiple reasons and very few of them have anything to do with the actual religion and lots to do with bigots on either side taking stuff out of context in order to justify being utter barstewards to their fellow humans


9/11 didnt help much


----------



## merlin12 (Jun 24, 2011)

Zhari said:


> I like some of the points you make, especially who has the rightest rights. The Priest who is buying wine for the sacrament or the Muslim who doesn't want to touch the bottle? By refusing to process the sale, does that step on someone else s religious freedoms to acquire the item?
> 
> A compromise, which is great, but requires both sides to give and take. I guess what is at stake is deciding how far to go to accommodate religious beliefs. Would you be supportive if religious people said "I can't serve homosexuals as their lifestyle is against my religious beliefs"
> 
> ...


But faith and religion are not something you do inside the privacy of your home. I am a practising catholic, I don´t leave my faith and values in church when I go to mass on Sundays and do what the rest of the world feels I should the rest of the week. It plays a very important part of my life, it is the center of my life so I do understand how it must feel to be in a situation where you feel incredibly guilty while doing something. A lot of people live their faith according to what is convenient for them or to please others but for those who don´t it is difficult. I try very hard not to make anyone uncomfortable with my values but I try to draw the line when people want me to lie or do things I don´t like and I know they probably ask me because they don´t see anything wrong with it and for them it´s just survival but for me it´s damaging to my spiritual life and my peace of mind and they don´t have to go to confession but I do (I do because I want to). This is just an example but sometimes we have to try and see both sides.
Like I said, for me the store has to make sure that their customers are happy so they should try and prevent such situations in the first place but I find that having happy staff also goes a long way.


----------



## Mulish (Feb 20, 2013)

lilythepink said:


> last year there were 2 midwives who went to the high court seeking permission to not be involved in teaching or anything else related to abortion and it made headline news.
> 
> Also, last year or maybe earlier this year, christian B and B owners were taken to court for refusing to allow 2 gay men a room at their BandB. It made national news.
> 
> Maybe it would have made more of a splash if gay men had refused to stay at religious christian Band Bs?lol


Yes but from what I remember the headlines were mostly supportive of their Christian rights to refuse, particularly in the case of the midwives. I think it gets trickier when people can relate more to someone's ideologies. I 'get' why someone would be uncomfortable being involved in terminations, I don't really 'get' why touching wrapped bacon is a big deal (and I'm pescatarian). Although in both cases I wouldn't want someone to treat or serve me who was doing so under duress.

The gay couple were in our local paper and actually received a lot of backlash from people who couldn't understand why they'd even want to stay somewhere they weren't welcome. They got accused of publicity seeking and trouble making which I don't think has happened to this 'taken aback' M&S customer (yet).



lilythepink said:


> find morrisons.lol


There is one being built here next year and I can't wait! By The Power of Morrisons - I Have The Powerrrrr!


----------



## Mulish (Feb 20, 2013)

Colliebarmy said:


> 9/11 didnt help much


Did you not read the bit about bigots taking stuff out of context to justify being barstewards to their fellow humans? Islam is hardly the first religion to have it's name taken in vain and used to commit atrocities, is it?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

merlin12 said:


> I can´t agree with you here, we can only control our actions and not those of others, the catholic pharmacist is doing what he believes in, he can´t control the right of a customer to go and ask elsewhere and the right of another pharmacy to sell to them but he does not have to participate in something that goes against what he believes in and that is what he is denying to do.


I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

The pharmacists' ruling body (the GPhC) has ruled that in order to accommodate their beliefs about birth control the catholic pharmacist *must* reccommend another open pharmacy where the prescription can be fulfilled. If they cannot or will not, they are breaking the terms of their registration with their ruling body, and without that registration they cannot work. Hope that explains it better.


----------



## merlin12 (Jun 24, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> I'm not sure I understand what you mean.
> 
> The pharmacists' ruling body (the GPhC) has ruled that in order to accommodate their beliefs about birth control the catholic pharmacist *must* reccommend another open pharmacy where the prescription can be fulfilled. If they cannot or will not, they are breaking the terms of their registration with their ruling body, and without that registration they cannot work. Hope that explains it better.


I understand that, what I´m saying is that in such cases all they can do is what they can control and that is to not sell, they can´t do anymore legally. You have pharmacies whith catholics and none catholics, I have a friend who works in one and her boss seels certain things and her colleague doesn´t. It is very complicated anyway.


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

Mulish said:


> Did you not read the bit about bigots taking stuff out of context to justify being barstewards to their fellow humans? Islam is hardly the first religion to have it's name taken in vain and used to commit atrocities, is it?


I could have cited the Crusades, but in living memory Islam is the most noted

I think any fair minded individual could agree with that


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

merlin12 said:


> I understand that, what I´m saying is that in such cases all they can do is what they can control and that is to not sell, they can´t do anymore legally. You have pharmacies whith catholics and none catholics, I have a friend who works in one and her boss seels certain things and her colleague doesn´t. It is very complicated anyway.


Ah, now I get what you mean - that the individual pharmacist has control only over what he/she does and not what anyone else does. Thanks for explaining.


----------



## Mulish (Feb 20, 2013)

Colliebarmy said:


> I could have cited the Crusades, but in living memory Islam is the most noted
> 
> I think any fair minded individual could agree with that


Could agree with what? That all followers of an entire religion should be written off as unhinged, murderous war mongers just because some unhinged, murderous warmongers committed atrocities in their name? Or just the most recently hijacked religion?

Perhaps we have different definitions of 'fair minded'.


----------



## ZipsDad (Oct 31, 2013)

Spellweaver said:


> No - it's definitely an "and yet". You stated that any store that allows staff to accommodate their religious beliefs is "_doomed to be a former store_" *and yet* pharmacies do this in the UK and are not former stores.


No, since you're quoting, it would have been nice to have what I said quoted.
What I said was "When they cater to the staff (that hired on to do a job)rather than their customers (who pay the bills) they are following a path to bankruptcy."
Perhaps that (bankruptcy) was a bit overstated. But, if I were a woman who needed her pills on a regular basis and, given the silliness of who may be on as to whether or not I get served, you can bet your bottom dollar I'd opt for a store that I knew I'd be served at in spite of the religious absurdity.



Spellweaver said:


> Yep, agree, didn't read it properly. However, according to you there was nothing open-minded about Cracker Barrel's approach - they did it because people boycotted the store and "_the bottom line (the almighty dollar) decided things for Cracker Barrel. All the merchandise is back up and for sale_."


So, in your opinion, when smacked in the wallet and reconsidering their PC stance, that didn't lead to be more open mindedness about how others may think.
What a finite little world you live in.
It doesn't matter _what_ taught the lesson, only that the lesson was learned. 



Spellweaver said:


> As for the people who boycotted the store being open minded, I daresay some _were_ taking action because they thought the store was not allowing one man to have his own viewpoint. However, I'd wager that there were also a lot of boycotters who were taking action because they agreed with the man's opinion about homosexuals and were boycotting for that reason rather than an altruistic one. Nothing open-minded about that.


I never mentioned the boycotters and open minded.
Please read what's written. I called them "free thinkers" I do believe. Not because they necessarily agreed with Phil's position because PC crap has run amok and don't believe a person should suffer back lash because of stating his opinion in a very non-judgmental way. His statements, after all, took place in a setting where beliefs should be allowed.
Had he railed against homosexuality and used any form of hate speech, he'd have had more to answer to than just losing revenue from ONE company that decided to error on the side of possible LGBT backlash (that never occurred. Even they respected the rights of a person, in this day and age, to have an opinion. Unlike some who want to equate it with narrow mindedness )
By the way, SO WHAT if some agreed with his opinion? Does that make them matter any less?
Should everyone bow to your (and that ilk's) opinions or be as damned as the beliefs on other end of the spectrum? What ever happened to free speech and individuality? Should we all conform to one like mind? Preposterous.
Personally, I don't agree with the man but I do support his right to his own opinion.



Spellweaver said:


> I would be interested in his thought processes and why he thinks that homosexuals cannot have an afterlife. To me that smacks of genderism and unenlightened thinking and, whilst I fully agree that he is entitled to whatever opinion he wishes, I am also allowed my opinion and my opinion is that I would not want to spend my hard-earned money making someone who held such opinions any richer.


Genderism???
Do you think that homosexuals only come in one gender? What, exactly, were you trying to say there?
One man's (or woman's, clarified fear of _also_ being classified, incorrectly, as a genderist) enlightenment is another man's folly.

Congratulations on having the same opinion (where to spend your money) as those that didn't agree with the persecution.
Isn't freedom a wonderful thing?



Spellweaver said:


> The people I have spoken to (mainly catholic pharmacists) don't see it that way at all. They see themelves as doing a lot of good in their profession in areas other than brith control. And in areas of birth control, they see their refusal to supply it as saving a life (morning after pill) or allowing God's will to be done in a life being created (birth control)
> 
> Myself, I think that they aren't doing that at all; imo they are merely handing over to someone else to end a life (morning after pill) or to deny God's will to create a life (birth control).
> 
> However, the fact remains that their ruling body and their employers' policies mean that they can and do take their religious beliefs into account; it does affect customers more than being asked to go to another till; and the pharmacies are not "doomed".


Ahh, personal justification.
Could you, as an animal lover, reconcile working at a slaughter house because you only loaded the carcases? You didnt have a hand in the abhorrent task of destroying the animal just loading the left overs.
Or, say, running the books of the company. Is removing yourself, by task, from what you find abhorrent making what takes place in the company you work for ok in your mind?
Seems a bit self serving to me. How could you take a pay check from those that condone things you, yourself, find so atrocious?
Again, ridiculous, I say. Pure and utter horse ****.



> It's ok to dance with the devil as long as you don't kiss his cheek?
> Ridiculous.


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

Spellweaver said:


> You may be right - look at all the fuss being made because of only _one_ case of a muslim asking someone to go to another till.
> 
> However, prehaps it happens more often (I mean from people of all religious persuasions) and the press don't get to know about it because most customers are enlightened enough* to think that it's no big deal.* Even the Daily Wail could only find one customer who it had happend to - and that customer was merely "taken aback", not angry or outraged.


Why isn't it a big deal?

I don't care which faith a person follows - they don't get to prevent me buying and eating what I choose to buy and eat.

No person, of ANY faith, should ever be allowed to refuse to serve a customer. If I go into a shop I have the right to purchase anything and everything they sell - my choice.

It's a slippery slope, I believe, once we start letting people of one faith (any one faith) dictate to others what they can and cannot buy, eat, drink, etc.

I respect the right of any Muslim to live under Sharia Law - in Muslim countries.

Just as I respect the right of Jews to abide by Halacha (Jewish law) - in the one Jewish nation.

And so on and so forth.

But here, in the UK, if I want to walk into a shop and buy an item that is on sale - that is MY right and no way on earth does anyone of ANY FAITH have the right to refuse me. Their belief in Islam/Catholicism/etc does not and should not trump my right to make my own choices as an adult, living in a democracy.


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

To the folk who support the right of - for instance - a devout Muslim not to serve customers, do you also support the rights of Muslim men to have multiple wives, and for each wife to receive benefits....? That is something which is happening here in the UK. Even though polygamy is illegal here.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Mulish said:


> Could agree with what? That all followers of an entire religion should be written off as unhinged, murderous war mongers just because some unhinged, murderous warmongers committed atrocities in their name? Or just the most recently hijacked religion?
> 
> Perhaps we have different definitions of 'fair minded'.


I wouldnt say that ALL followers of any particular religion are unhinged, murderous war mongers but,i would say that religions churn out much more than their fair share of unhinged, murderous war mongers. Theyre all as bad as each other and should be treated with the contempt they so richly deserve.


----------



## grumpy goby (Jan 18, 2012)

Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> Why isn't it a big deal?
> 
> I don't care which faith a person follows - they don't get to prevent me buying and eating what I choose to buy and eat.
> 
> ...


No one is being refused the right to purchase items... IF the person on the till cannot do something due to their belief you would just be served by someone else. Much like if you tried to buy alcohol when a 17yo is on the till, they call someone to serve you. No-ones right is trumping anyone elses right.


----------



## ZipsDad (Oct 31, 2013)

Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> I respect the right of any Muslim to live under Sharia Law - in Muslim countries.
> 
> Just as I respect the right of Jews to abide by Halacha (Jewish law) - in the one Jewish nation.
> 
> ...


Now THAT just abut nails it on the head.
In your home country, YOUR customs should be respected.
If someone wants to come in and obtain a job, serving those same people, then they should, at the very least, be able to carry out those objectives.
Find your job duties a personal/religious affront, DONT TAKE THE JOB.

Why is that so hard to comprehend?


----------



## ZipsDad (Oct 31, 2013)

Spellweaver said:


> You may be right - look at all the fuss being made because of only _one_ case of a muslim asking someone to go to another till.
> 
> However, prehaps it happens more often (I mean from people of all religious persuasions) and the press don't get to know about it because most customers are enlightened enough to think that it's no big deal. Even the Daily Wail could only find one customer who it had happend to - and that customer was merely "taken aback", not angry or outraged.


What a complete and total farce.
"Enlightened enough"?
Are you kidding me?
I suppose religious leaders who smiled upon others, at their time way back when, that accepted the Earth was flat considered them "enlightened" as well.
That term bugs me to no end. It's normally used by those who pat others on the back for thinking like them. "ahh, you're enlightened because you think like me....and...I...think forward".
Hogwash

Should I be "enlightened enough" to accept/understand/rationalize suddenly having my electric cut off depending who is at the helm because they find burning fossil fuels an affront to their person? Or maybe because, of how and when fossil fuels were created, a sensationalist, at duty at that particular time, might decide providing heating to homes is abhorrent?

What we need to become "enlightened enough" about is the fact that when you take a farking job, you do as expected.
Period. Full stop. No ifs, ands or buts.

Take the job and shut up and do your duty. You know full well what is expected.
If it upsets you, get a different job!


----------



## Mulish (Feb 20, 2013)

Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> To the folk who support the right of - for instance - a devout Muslim not to serve customers, do you also support the rights of Muslim men to have multiple wives, and for each wife to receive benefits....? That is something which is happening here in the UK. Even though polygamy is illegal here.


No because, as you say, polygamy is illegal here. Refusing to serve someone isn't. The number of wives they have is also not going to affect the fate of their everlasting soul. Like I said in a previous post, I wouldn't make someone do something they thought would damn themselves but that's entirely different to condoning all of their actions.



porps said:


> I wouldnt say that ALL followers of any particular religion are unhinged, murderous war mongers but,i would say that religions churn out much more than their fair share of unhinged, murderous war mongers. Theyre all as bad as each other and should be treated with the contempt they so richly deserve.


I'm not really sure how to go about responding to this, porps. To me, if someone is going to be an unhinged murderous warmonger (why on earth did I coin such a laborious to type phrase?) then they will find whatever justification they need to be one. Race, religion, boundary disputes, that time someone looked at them a bit funny, not enough hugs from their mum, etc. Likewise, if someone feels compelled to do great good in their lives they may well do it in the name of their religion, culture, because they were shown great kindness once or because it'll look good on the front of the local rag.

You can't write off all religion as being the cause of our misery, far more of it is caused by the pursuit of power and greed (money, land, oil).


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Mulish said:


> No because, as you say, polygamy is illegal here. Refusing to serve someone isn't. The number of wives they have is also not going to affect the fate of their everlasting soul. Like I said in a previous post, I wouldn't make someone do something they thought would damn themselves but that's entirely different to condoning all of their actions.
> 
> I'm not really sure how to go about responding to this, porps. To me, if someone is going to be an unhinged murderous warmonger (why on earth did I coin such a laborious to type phrase?) then they will find whatever justification they need to be one. Race, religion, boundary disputes, that time someone looked at them a bit funny, not enough hugs from their mum, etc. Likewise, if someone feels compelled to do great good in their lives they may well do it in the name of their religion, culture, because they were shown great kindness once or because it'll look good on the front of the local rag.
> 
> You can't write off all religion as being the cause of our misery, far more of it is caused by the pursuit of power and greed (money, land, oil).


With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. 
― Steven Weinberg


----------



## ZipsDad (Oct 31, 2013)

Mulish said:


> Like I said in a previous post, I wouldn't make someone do something they thought would damn themselves


If you hired them to perform a service, you wouldn't be "making them" do anything. You would expect them to carry out their job duties.
If they had any reservations about the job duties to be carried out (after they hired on AND because they weren't made aware of what was expected BEFORE hand) then they have a right to balk.

If, on the other hand, they hired on to a place that served alcohol/pork and were tasked with ringing up those items, I hardly see any solid footing for them to be upset since their task was clear from the outset.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

ZipsDad said:


> No, since you're quoting, it would have been nice to have what I said quoted.


Hmmm. I quoted you as saying:



Spellweaver said:


> You stated that any store that allows staff to accommodate their religious beliefs is "_doomed to be a former store_


_

and you actually wrote:



ZipsDad said:



Any store that does this is doomed to be a former store.

Click to expand...

Seems to be a pretty accurate quote to me.

--------------------------------------------------------



ZipsDad said:



So, in your opinion, when smacked in the wallet and reconsidering their PC stance, that didn't lead to be more open mindedness about how others may think.

Click to expand...

No - that was your stance, not mine. You wrote:



ZipsDad said:



Capitalism (what a dirty word, eh?) is what drives people to start with little and amass enough to care for their family. ... Seems the bottom line (the almighty dollar) decided things for Cracker Barrel.
All the merchandise is back up and for sale.

Click to expand...

I was merely pointing out that what you had described was not free thinking on the part of Cracker Barrel, but a response to falling profits.

----------------------------------------------------------------------



ZipsDad said:



What a finite little world you live in.

Click to expand...

:lol: If you knew anything about me at all you would know that was certainly not true. Perhaps you ought to glean some facts before throwing your accusations around.

--------------------------------------------------



ZipsDad said:



It doesn't matter what taught the lesson, only that the lesson was learned. 

Click to expand...

Utter rubbish. If you really thought that, you would have to advocate that it was ok to use cruel methods to train animals providing that they learned the lesson you were teaching them.

---------------------------------------------------------



ZipsDad said:



I never mentioned the boycotters and open minded. Please read what's written. I called them "free thinkers" I do believe.

Click to expand...

So free thinkers are not open minded? Wow. You sure do have some funny takes on things.

-------------------------------------



ZipsDad said:



Not because they necessarily agreed with Phil's position because PC crap has run amok and don't believe a person should suffer back lash because of stating his opinion in a very non-judgmental way. *His statements, after all, took place in a setting where beliefs should be allowed*.

Click to expand...

Only inasmuch as they agree with the tenets of the religion

----------------------------------------------



ZipsDad said:



Even they respected the rights of a person, in this day and age, to have an opinion. Unlike some who want to equate it with narrow mindedness )

Click to expand...

So you respect his right to have an opinion that homosexuals cannot go to heaven but do not respect my right to have an opinion that he is narrow-minded for thinking that? Hmmmm. Some twisted thinking there.

-----------------------------------------------



ZipsDad said:



Should we all conform to one like mind? Preposterous.

Click to expand...

Well you seem to want me to conform to yours

--------------------------------------------



ZipsDad said:



Personally, I don't agree with the man but I do support his right to his own opinion.

Click to expand...

So do I. Did you not read where I said:



Spellweaver said:



*whilst I fully agree that he is entitled to whatever opinion he wishes,* I am also allowed my opinion and my opinion is that I would not want to spend my hard-earned money making someone who held such opinions any richer.

Click to expand...

or did you ignore that because it didn't fit in with the erroneous picture you are building of me?

---------------------------------------------------



ZipsDad said:



Ahh, personal justification.
Could you, as an animal lover, reconcile working at a slaughter house because you only loaded the carcases? You didnt have a hand in the abhorrent task of destroying the animal just loading the left overs.
Or, say, running the books of the company. Is removing yourself, by task, from what you find abhorrent making what takes place in the company you work for ok in your mind?
Seems a bit self serving to me. How could you take a pay check from those that condone things you, yourself, find so atrocious?
Again, ridiculous, I say. Pure and utter horse ****.

Click to expand...

No, I couldn't. But I could work in a store that sold leather goods among other things and ask the boss if it would be ok if I did not serve on the leather counter, which is a more accurate comparison to pharmacists not wanting to dispense birth control prescriptions.

However, that is beside the point. If you'd actually read my post properly before going off on such a tirade you would see that I have said:



Spellweaver said:



And in areas of birth control, they see their refusal to supply it as saving a life (morning after pill) or allowing God's will to be done in a life being created (birth control)

*Myself, I think that they aren't doing that at all; imo they are merely handing over to someone else to end a life (morning after pill) or to deny God's will to create a life (birth control).*

Click to expand...

In other words, I do not agree that they are achieving what they think they are. However, I am free thinking enough to allow them to follow what they believe in - something which you, apparently, are not.

So, to recap, you think that a man can have an opinion about homosexuals not being able to go to heaven, but I cannot have an opinion that the man is narrow minded, and a catholic pharmacist cannot have an opnion that it is wrong to kill and unborn child?

Despite your protestations about everyone being allowed opinions, seems like you only allow people to have opinions if they don't clash with yours.

So are you free-thinking? No. Are you narrow minded? Yes._


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> Why isn't it a big deal?
> .


I didn't say whether it was or it wasn't. I was merely posing a suggestion that perhaps there had been nothing in the media about it because it had happened and people hadn't found it to be a big deal.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

ZipsDad said:


> What a complete and total farce.
> "Enlightened enough"?
> Are you kidding me?
> I suppose religious leaders who smiled upon others, at their time way back when, that accepted the Earth was flat considered them "enlightened" as well.
> ...


And all this, of course, is going to happen because some people think it is ok for retailers to take into account the religious sensibilities of their staff.

Get a grip. Before you get completely wild-eyed and foaming at the mouth, let's get back to reality.

What happened was that ONE muslim asked ONE shopper to use another till. That's ONE incident in the whole of the UK Christmas shopping spree. This ONE customer was not even angry - she was merely "taken aback"

Now, either it is one isolated incident - in which case why all the fuss? - or it happens often and it doesn't get into the media because people are just not that bothered about it. imo it's the latter.

Either way it is not going to lead to the doom and gloom you painted above.


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

This thread proves one thing


There cant be anything on TV


Whenever Ive refused to carry out my agreed duty at work ive been sacked...


end of


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Colliebarmy said:


> Whenever Ive refused to carry out my agreed duty at work ive been sacked...
> 
> end of


As a pharmacy technician I have a professional code of conduct set out by the GPhC to adhere to. There are times when employers have wanted me to do things as part of my agreed duty at work that have conflicted with that code and I have refused to do them. I have never been sacked.


----------



## ZipsDad (Oct 31, 2013)

Spellweaver said:


> Hmmm.
> 
> Seems to be a pretty accurate quote to me.


Nice attempt. The "red" in my original response shows your folly though. 

Catering to a staff and accommodating religious beliefs are at odds here. One would be silliness of proper staff the other would be a niche market. 
Hope that isn't over your head. 



Spellweaver said:


> No - that was your stance, not mine. You wrote:
> "Capitalism (what a dirty word, eh?) is what drives people to start with little and amass enough to care for their family. ... Seems the bottom line (the almighty dollar) decided things for Cracker Barrel.
> All the merchandise is back up and for sale."
> 
> I was merely pointing out that what you had described was not free thinking on the part of Cracker Barrel, but a response to falling profits.


2 points
1. No, that wasn't my point. That was your failed attempt at one.
I pointed out they changed their mind due to civil unrest (albeit in the act of boycotting.
2. AGAIN, I never mentioned "free thinking" in the realm of Cracker Barrel. Please read what is written. I do my best to make things clear.
I DID mention that, due to revelations, OPEN MINDEDNESS was the course of the day and that, no matter what the learning agent was, lessons learned are just that.
CLOSED MINDEDNESS is that, as in your posts, which negates anything said in favor of their own position. 



Spellweaver said:


> :lol: If you knew anything about me at all you would know that was certainly not true. Perhaps you ought to glean some facts before throwing your accusations around.


Sorry. I can only go by your positions that you put in black and white.
If you wish to portray a different position please state it as such.



Spellweaver said:


> Utter rubbish. If you really thought that, you would have to advocate that it was ok to use cruel methods to train animals providing that they learned the lesson you were teaching them.


Speaking of utter rubbish. 
That is conditioning, my dear, that you are speaking of.
Hardly the cognizance of open mindedness.



Spellweaver said:


> So free thinkers are not open minded? Wow. You sure do have some funny takes on things.


Aren't you cute? Attempting to put a spin on things. Seems the favorite go to for failing arguments.
I never made any such claim. Simply corrected your erred "quotation".
When you attempt to attribute thoughts/sentiments to me, for the sake of your own argument, you will be corrected.
Nothing more, nothing less. 



Spellweaver said:


> Only inasmuch as they agree with the tenets of the religion


And who is to say they didn't? You?
Cracker Barrel?
The public at large?

No complaints came from the fellowship. Only a conglomerate who found out that bowing to PC horse **** wasn't quite the way to go. 



Spellweaver said:


> So you respect his right to have an opinion that homosexuals cannot go to heaven but do not respect my right to have an opinion that he is narrow-minded for thinking that? Hmmmm. Some twisted thinking there.


Sorry. Attempt at being a martyr denied.
I am simply rebutting your refusal to allow a simple man his opinion (by using labels to box him in)
This is nothing more than a discussion. I'm not trying to deny you your ability to have an opinion (as did my example [Cracker Barrel])



Spellweaver said:


> Well you seem to want me to conform to yours


Hardly. Merely pointing out that there are different thoughts in this world and all should be respected. I never labeled you or attempted to belittle you for having your opinion. 



Spellweaver said:


> So do I. Did you not read where I said:
> 
> "whilst I fully agree that he is entitled to whatever opinion he wishes"
> 
> or did you ignore that because it didn't fit in with the erroneous picture you are building of me?


Firstly, I'm not trying to build a picture of you. You're doing quite a good job of that on your own. I'm simply rebutting your points, to the best of my ability, using an open minded approach to things said by people of different ages and different cultures.

Secondly, in that same sentence that you allowed him to express his opinions, you labeled him with a rather derogatory (albeit misguided) label.
So, be hard to find you as unbiased as you would like to be seen.
It was your sentiment I went off of regardless of the window dressing.



Spellweaver said:


> No, I couldn't. But I could work in a store that sold leather goods among other things and ask the boss if it would be ok if I did not serve on the leather counter, which is a more accurate comparison to pharmacists not wanting to dispense birth control prescriptions.


So, in your own words, you could profit, with a clear conscience, from the suffering of animals as long as you don't have your hand in the "dirty work".
How .......contradictory.



Spellweaver said:


> However, that is beside the point. If you'd actually read my post properly before going off on such a tirade you would see that I have said:
> 
> "Myself, I think that they aren't doing that at all; imo they are merely handing over to someone else to end a life (morning after pill) or to deny God's will to create a life (birth control)."


Oh, I read it properly. I also put it into proper perspective. Twice.
Dance with the devil ring a bell?



Spellweaver said:


> In other words, I do not agree that they are achieving what they think they are. However, I am free thinking enough to allow them to follow what they believe in - something which you, apparently, are not.


What you are doing is not free thinking. It's being tolerant to excuses made by a few in attempt to reconcile themselves with their own misdeeds.
Either they really believe in something or they don't
If they don't, (believe in such atrocities) they wouldnt profit from working for a death dealer. (eg, providers of contraception, etc)



Spellweaver said:


> So, to recap, you think that a man can have an opinion about homosexuals not being able to go to heaven, but I cannot have an opinion that the man is narrow minded, and a catholic pharmacist cannot have an opnion that it is wrong to kill and unborn child?
> 
> Despite your protestations about everyone being allowed opinions, seems like you only allow people to have opinions if they don't clash with yours.
> 
> So are you free-thinking? No. Are you narrow minded? Yes.


Proper recap:
I called you on labeling a man for having an opinion.
Your unrest is because of inability to reconcile that fact.

You absolutely have the right to your opinion. Who am I to deny you that?
I will call things as I see them, though, as I, too, have a right to an opinion.


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

grumpy goby said:


> No one is being refused the right to purchase items... IF the person on the till cannot do something due to their belief you would just be served by someone else. Much like if you tried to buy alcohol when a 17yo is on the till, they call someone to serve you. No-ones right is trumping anyone elses right.


And you cannot see how absurd that is?

If the shop sells pork, for instance, then how on earth can a shop employee refuse to take a customer's money for pork?

Why should a customer have to wait an extra 20 minutes while a non Muslim staff member can be found to come and serve at the till? And yes this DID happen - I know the person it happened to!

The analogy with being under age is not valid - that involves a legal ruling. There is no legal ruling in a NON Muslim country concerning the selling of pork and alcohol!


----------



## ZipsDad (Oct 31, 2013)

Spellweaver said:


> And all this, of course, is going to happen because some people think it is ok for retailers to take into account the religious sensibilities of their staff.
> 
> Get a grip. Before you get completely wild-eyed and foaming at the mouth, let's get back to reality.
> 
> ...


LOL @ your portrayal.
Feel better about your position yet?

Now, back to reality.

Whether or not it was one, or several, who shirked their duties they signed on for and took a customer aback (with good reason. When you go shopping you don't expect to feel like you aren't in your own country let alone a local supermarket) it was met with more shirking of responsibilities (to their customers) by the retailer.

One simply cannot hire on to do a job and, later, decide that the responsibilities they are being paid to carry out are in conflict with their religion. If, in the case they find out after the fact their duties DO, indeed, conflict with their religion, they should be reassigned. A paying customer shouldn't have the additional worry of potentially disrespecting someones religion simply because of their diet/shopping habits. Nor should they be inconvenienced for the same.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

ZipsDad said:


> Nice attempt. The "red" in my original response shows your folly though.
> 
> Catering to a staff and accommodating religious beliefs are at odds here. One would be silliness of proper staff the other would be a niche market.
> Hope that isn't over your head.
> ...


:lol: Some spin you've put on everything there. You seem to be reading a different forum to me. However, spin all you want to - all the posts are there for everyone to see and make up their own minds.


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

grumpy goby said:


> No one is being refused the right to purchase items... IF the person on the till cannot do something due to their belief you would just be served by someone else. Much like if you tried to buy alcohol when a 17yo is on the till, they call someone to serve you. No-ones right is trumping anyone elses right.


the difference here is is it is illegal in the whole UK for a 17 year old to sell alcohol.


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

Spellweaver said:


> And all this, of course, is going to happen because some people think it is ok for retailers to take into account the religious sensibilities of their staff.
> 
> Get a grip. Before you get completely wild-eyed and foaming at the mouth, let's get back to reality.
> 
> ...


Actually it's happened several times. One incident was reported on but it has happened more than once.

And to reiterate, I do think it's the start of a slippery slope. We already have situations in the UK where concessions are being made that are unfair and absurd.

A retail establishment is surely a NON religious environment? Now, if a person enters a halal restaurant and asks for pork, THEN of course they can't expect to get it.

But in a *secular * establishment it is utterly mad for the religion of one person to come before the rights and convenience of the customer!

Ditto with chemists who refuse to sell the 'morning after' pill. They are not in a Church - they are in a shop. It is not a religious establishment and if they sell that particular pill, it is mad for anyone to refuse the customer.


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

Just out of interest, I typed in 'concessions to Islam' into Google, expecting to find maybe six or seven. I then found this list on this site:

Concessions to Islam: Master List of Concessions

I don't seem to be finding a comparable list for other faiths BUT by all means, if anyone else wants to correct me by finding one, I'm happy to be proven wrong.

***I can't speak for the sites these links go to, the info seems to be well documented but I've only just come across this so can't vouch for it.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

ZipsDad said:


> LOL @ your portrayal.


Yes, the truth is often funny



ZipsDad said:


> Feel better about your position yet?


You seem to be labouring under some misapprehension that I have a feeling of unrest about my posiiton.   Nothing could be further from the truth.



ZipsDad said:


> Whether or not it was one, or several, who shirked their duties they signed on for and took a customer aback (with good reason. When you go shopping you don't expect to feel like you aren't in your own country let alone a local supermarket) it was met with more shirking of responsibilities (to their customers) by the retailer.


See, this is what annoys me. The person who asked a custiomer to go to another till was also in her own country. Catholic pharmacists who refuse to fill prescriptions ofr birth control are also in their own country. Trying to make it seem as though immigrants are refusing to serve the indiginous population is inaccurate scare-mongering at best and whipping up religious hatred at worst.



ZipsDad said:


> One simply cannot hire on to do a job and, later, decide that the responsibilities they are being paid to carry out are in conflict with their religion.


That is not what happened in this case (it would help greatly if you got your facts right so that we could discuss the reality rather than arguing about something that never happened). The policy of the retailer in question was to work around the religious issues of their staff and allow them to ask customers to use another till. So the person in question was actually doing nothing wrong as per the job she was hired to do.


----------



## ZipsDad (Oct 31, 2013)

Spellweaver said:


> :lol: Some spin you've put on everything there. You seem to be reading a different forum to me. However, spin all you want to - all the posts are there for everyone to see and make up their own minds.


Hahahah. You're cute.


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> Actually it's happened several times. One incident was reported on but it has happened more than once.
> 
> And to reiterate, I do think it's the start of a slippery slope. We already have situations in the UK where concessions are being made that are unfair and absurd.
> 
> ...


Absolutely.

The bit in bold too - as a citizen of a non-muslim country I object to the halal slaughter of animals full stop.

But that's a whole debate in itself :ihih:


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

Spellweaver said:


> Yes, the truth is often funny
> 
> You seem to be labouring under some misapprehension that I have a feeling of unrest about my posiiton.   Nothing could be further from the truth.
> 
> ...


Yes but they were trying to impose Islamic and Catholic religious rules on people living in an ostensibly secular country.

The fact that they are citizens here is irrelevant.

I'm a British citizen - does that mean that if I become a vegan I have the right to get a job in a restaurant and then refuse to serve customers ordering meat....?

I frankly don't care if someone is Hindu, Jewish, Muslim, Catholic; I don't give a damn if they are a citizen here or just here for a day. I don't interfere with THEIR rights to eat or not eat pork etc - and I expect them not to interfere with *my* rights to eat/drink what I choose.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> But in a *secular * establishment it is utterly mad for the religion of one person to come before the rights and convenience of the customer!
> 
> Ditto with chemists who refuse to sell the 'morning after' pill. They are not in a Church - they are in a shop. It is not a religious establishment and if they sell that particular pill, it is mad for anyone to refuse the customer.


Any retail establishment in the UK has the legal right to refuse to sell anything to any customer:

"_When a retailer puts an item on the shelf with a price on it, this does not constitute an offer to sell (legally, its called an 'invitation to treat'). In fact, a shop doesn't have to sell you anything if they don't wish to, even if its on the shelf with a price. They can change their mind. They can't refuse to serve on discriminatory grounds of course, that would be illegal for other reasons, but for any goods-related reason they can. _"
The Law of Shopping - Sale of Goods Act


----------



## ZipsDad (Oct 31, 2013)

Spellweaver said:


> Yes, the truth is often funny


And so is farce. Hilarious in fact. :lol:



Spellweaver said:


> You seem to be labouring under some misapprehension that I have a feeling of unrest about my posiiton.   Nothing could be further from the truth.


Laboring? No.
I find it simple to dismantle falsehoods.



Spellweaver said:


> See, this is what annoys me. The person who asked a custiomer to go to another till was also in her own country. Catholic pharmacists who refuse to fill prescriptions ofr birth control are also in their own country. Trying to make it seem as though immigrants are refusing to serve the indiginous population is inaccurate scare-mongering at best and whipping up religious hatred at worst.


As I said, you shouldn't be burdened IN YOUR OWN COUNTRY by thoughts/sentiments/feelings/religions from others etc.

If you're an immigrant you integrate into the society. Not push your own beliefs onto them as if you are in your OWN country.

For example:
A man of Shariah belief raped his wife.
While on trial he explained that, because of their religion he was entitled to sex whenever he saw fit. Should his wife decline, he was allowed to take it, forcefully, if necessary.
Didn't wash in the US. Rape is rape.
Your religion be damned.

Catholics (or any other religion) who refuse service to others should, also, be sent packing. Unless they OWN the store, they have no position to set standard. They hire one. They do a job. IF the job doesn't suit the find ANOTHER one. Simple as. 



Spellweaver said:


> That is not what happened in this case (it would help greatly if you got your facts right so that we could discuss the reality rather than arguing about something that never happened). The policy of the retailer in question was to work around the religious issues of their staff and allow them to ask customers to use another till. So the person in question was actually doing nothing wrong as per the job she was hired to do.


Pardon me?

From the article in the OP:
"Managers at a London store told the workers they could ask any shoppers trying to buy the items to wait until a different till was available, it emerged yesterday."

"*Last night, Marks & Spencer said the advice had been given in error and was not consistent with its national policy*"

Unless you have some inside info I haven't, I think even the company doesn't agree with your position.

If they did they would have a nightmare on their hands of how to handle each and every person rather than corporate business. :thumbup:


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> Yes but they were trying to impose Islamic and Catholic religious rules on people living in an ostensibly secular country.


Britain is not secular.   The UK's state religion is Anglican.


----------



## Guest (Dec 28, 2013)

ZipsDad said:


> If you're an immigrant you integrate into the society. Not push your own beliefs onto them as if you are in your OWN country.
> 
> For example:
> A man of Shariah belief raped his wife.
> ...


Not going to get in to the fray, but just wanted so say, be careful with your analogy above.
The original immigrants to the New World, from the Conquistadors to the Pilgrims were not exactly good representations of not pushing their beliefs on to the native culture.


----------



## ZipsDad (Oct 31, 2013)

Spellweaver said:


> Any retail establishment in the UK has the legal right to refuse to sell anything to any customer:
> 
> "_When a retailer puts an item on the shelf with a price on it, this does not constitute an offer to sell (legally, its called an 'invitation to treat'). In fact, a shop doesn't have to sell you anything if they don't wish to, even if its on the shelf with a price. They can change their mind. They can't refuse to serve on discriminatory grounds of course, that would be illegal for other reasons, but for any goods-related reason they can. _"
> The Law of Shopping - Sale of Goods Act


What I don't see is the right for individual employees to decide what they want to sell and not to sell.

Right to refuse service (from a corporations stand point) is a wholly different thing.


----------



## ZipsDad (Oct 31, 2013)

ouesi said:


> Not going to get in to the fray, but just wanted so say, be careful with your analogy above.
> The original immigrants to the New World, from the Conquistadors to the Pilgrims were not exactly good representations of not pushing their beliefs on to the native culture.


Quite right. Outright slaughters occurred.
In the mean time, reparations have been made and they are as welcome to buy anything, in any store, that is on the shelves.

To get to the original point, though, laws of the land have been made. There is also a line drawn between church and state here.

Meaning, regardless of your faith, there are tenants you will adhere to. End of.


----------



## mollydog07 (May 26, 2012)

:


Spellweaver said:


> Any retail establishment in the UK has the legal right to refuse to sell anything to any customer:
> 
> "_When a retailer puts an item on the shelf with a price on it, this does not constitute an offer to sell (legally, its called an 'invitation to treat'). In fact, a shop doesn't have to sell you anything if they don't wish to, even if its on the shelf with a price. They can change their mind. They can't refuse to serve on discriminatory grounds of course, that would be illegal for other reasons, but for any goods-related reason they can. _"
> The Law of Shopping - Sale of Goods Act


Dear god no!.....greggs cant do this can they?,i,d drown in my drool or die of starvation


----------



## MCWillow (Aug 26, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> Any retail establishment in the UK has the legal right to refuse to sell anything to any customer:
> 
> "_When a retailer puts an item on the shelf with a price on it, this does not constitute an offer to sell (legally, its called an 'invitation to treat'). In fact, a shop doesn't have to sell you anything if they don't wish to, even if its on the shelf with a price. They can change their mind. *They can't refuse to serve on discriminatory grounds of course, that would be illegal for other reasons, but for any goods-related reason they can.* _"
> The Law of Shopping - Sale of Goods Act


So if a Catholic pharmacist refused to give me contraceptive pills, because he is a Catholic and doesn't believe in contraception, doesnt that mean he is discriminating against me for not being a Catholic?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

ZipsDad said:


> I find it simple to dismantle falsehoods.


Really? You have yet to show an example of this.



ZipsDad said:


> As I said, you shouldn't be burdened IN YOUR OWN COUNTRY by thoughts/sentiments/feelings/religions from others etc.
> 
> If you're an immigrant you integrate into the society. Not push your own beliefs onto them as if you are in your OWN country.
> 
> ...


You totally fail to address the point that muslims and catholics are born in this country, so it is completely redundant to use the "you shouldn't be burdened in your own country" argument - unless of course you are also going to apply it to muslims, catholics, jews, wiccans etc etc who are also born in this coutry. So in this case we have had a person born in this country asking another person born in this country to go to another till - which one do you think should not be burdened? See how your argument is redundant?



ZipsDad said:


> Pardon me?
> 
> From the article in the OP:
> "Managers at a London store told the workers they could ask any shoppers trying to buy the items to wait until a different till was available, it emerged yesterday."
> ...


And once again you totally miss the point. It doesn't matter what size letters you use, the fact still remain that the company made a mistake, not the girl on the till. Look what you have quoted: "Managers at a London store told the workers they could ask any shoppers trying to buy the items to wait until a different till was available, it emerged yesterday."

The girl on the till had done exactly what the company told her to do - ergo she was doing exactly what she was employed to do.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

ZipsDad said:


> What I don't see is the right for individual employees to decide what they want to sell and not to sell.
> 
> Right to refuse service (from a corporations stand point) is a wholly different thing.


An individual has the right to refuse to sell to anyone - there are numerous examples of this that spring to mind. Bar staff refusing to sell alcohol to people who, in their judgement, have drunk enough; pharmacy staff refusing to sell particular medicines to people who, in their judgement, may abuse the drugs; sales assistants refusing to sell to people they judge are being abusive; sales assistants refusing to sell to people who are speaking on mobile phones; and once - which happened to us - a sales assistant refusing to sell us a CD because it had been marked with a price that was too low.



ZipsDad said:


> Quite right. Outright slaughters occurred.
> In the mean time, reparations have been made and they are as welcome to buy anything, in any store, that is on the shelves.
> 
> To get to the original point, though, laws of the land have been made. There is also a line drawn between church and state here.
> ...


Not sure who these tenants are that you've introduced - perhaps you mean tenets? 



MCWillow said:


> So if a Catholic pharmacist refused to give me contraceptive pills, because he is a Catholic and doesn't believe in contraception, doesnt that mean he is discriminating against me for not being a Catholic?


No - if he refuses to dispense contraceptive pills to everyone regardless of their religion he is not discriminating.


----------



## ZipsDad (Oct 31, 2013)

Spellweaver said:


> Really? You have yet to show an example of this.


Only your previous stances



Spellweaver said:


> You totally fail to address the point that muslims and catholics are born in this country, so it is completely redundant to use the "you shouldn't be burdened in your own country" argument - unless of course you are also going to apply it to muslims, catholics, jews, wiccans etc etc who are also born in this coutry. So in this case we have had a person born in this country asking another person born in this country to go to another till - see how your argument is redundant?


What you fail to address is the word IMMIGRANTS in your posts. THAT is what I was addressing.
I'm sorry if logic eludes you.



Spellweaver said:


> And once again you totally miss the point. It doesn't matter what size letters you use, the fact still remain that the company made a mistake, not the girl on the till. Look what you have quoted: "Managers at a London store told the workers they could ask any shoppers trying to buy the items to wait until a different till was available, it emerged yesterday."
> 
> The girl on the till had done exactly what the company told her to do - ergo she was doing exactly what she was employed to do.


What you fail to see, and I don't understand how given the position you've stated that you hold, is that it wasn't the COMPANY that said, but her errant managers in the store.
In large print, that you failed to read properly, was the COMPANY saying the advice had been given in error.
See your folly now?

Your points, although given in an air of supremacy and authority, have been found wanting and misinformed even though I did my best to make things as elementary as possible.


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

I am sure the salesperson did the refusal with grace dignity and not trying to be offensive......and manners maketh man.


----------



## staffgirl (May 1, 2013)

*coughs.... adopts Dervla Kirwan accent*

*"This is not just any retail debacle. This is an M&S retail debacle." *

*grabs coat and runs for the hills*


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

ZipsDad said:


> Only your previous stances


Only in your dreams



ZipsDad said:


> What you fail to address is the word IMMIGRANTS in your posts. THAT is what I was addressing.
> I'm sorry if logic eludes you.


No, I've already addressed that in a previous post. You wrote:



ZipsDad said:


> When you go shopping you don't expect to feel like you aren't in your own country let alone a local supermarket) it was met with more shirking of responsibilities (to their customers) by the retailer.


to which I replied:



Spellweaver said:


> The person who asked a custiomer to go to another till was also in her own country. Catholic pharmacists who refuse to fill prescriptions ofr birth control are also in their own country. *Trying to make it seem as though immigrants are refusing to serve the indiginous population is inaccurate scare-mongering at best and whipping up religious hatred at worst*.


In simpler words (because your understanding of the English language seems shaky at times - thinking of your mixing up tenants with tenets here :lol your writing clearly showed that you are pre-supposing the sales person was an immigrant rather than someone born in this country, and, as I pointed out, that is inaccurate at best and whipping up religious hatred at worst.

Now, instead of addressing that point you then spewed out this garbage:



ZipsDad said:


> As I said, you shouldn't be burdened IN YOUR OWN COUNTRY by thoughts/sentiments/feelings/religions from others etc.
> 
> If you're an immigrant you integrate into the society. Not push your own beliefs onto them as if you are in your OWN country.
> 
> ...


which totally ignores the point made in favour of yet another tirade about people not born in the country. Now, with such an example of your failure to follow a logical argument, and as I had already addressed this point with you, I thought it kinder and less embarassing for you to simply ignore your rubbish.



ZipsDad said:


> What you fail to see, and I don't understand how given the position you've stated that you hold, is that it wasn't the COMPANY that said, but her errant managers in the store.
> In large print, that you failed to read properly, was the COMPANY saying the advice had been given in error.
> See your folly now?


And still you are not seeing that the worker was doing exactly what she had been told - ergo employed - to do, and was not acting upon her own choice. Can you understand your error now?



ZipsDad said:


> Your points, although given in an air of supremacy and authority, have been found wanting and misinformed even though I did my best to make things as elementary as possible.


:lol: in your dreams. Your attempts to belittle posters rather than argue cogently and logically let you down. Unfortunately for you, you have picked on the wrong person to try to belittle. You'll get as good as you give from me. Fair warning!


----------



## MCWillow (Aug 26, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> <snip>
> 
> No - if he refuses to dispense contraceptive pills to everyone regardless of their religion he is not discriminating.


Surely he is discriminating against anyone that doesn't hold the same religious views that he does isn't he?

It stands to reason that if people held the same religious views as him, they wouldn't be asking for contraception in the first place, so refusing to dispense any contraception is discriminating against people with differing religious views.


----------



## ZipsDad (Oct 31, 2013)

Spellweaver said:


> Only in your dreams


Not quite. I'll show you the error of your ways, though you do trot on with an air of superiority:



Spellweaver said:


> Now, instead of addressing that point you then spewed out this garbage:
> 
> which totally ignores the point made in favour of yet another tirade about people not born in the country. Now, with such an example of your failure to follow a logical argument, and as I had already addressed this point with you, I thought it kinder and less embarassing for you to simply ignore your rubbish


Let's talk about failure to follow a logical argument for a minute.
Was this not your own post?



Spellweaver said:


> Britain is not secular.   The UK's state religion is Anglican.


If that is truly the case, the members of that society should feel welcomed in non niche store going about their business and not subjected to any foreign religious crutches. Right? 
Ergo the comments made. Following along alright so far?



Spellweaver said:


> And still you are not seeing that the worker was doing exactly what she had been told - ergo employed - to do, and was not acting upon her own choice. Can you understand your error now?


No. Not by a long shot.
What I see is an employee angling to use her religion and an illinformed (you must feel comfortable with them at this point) manager making a huge mistake. Most likely bowing to PC pressures felt today.
The COMPANY, however, produced a statement saying that it doesn't condone that decision.
Do YOU see the folly of YOUR thinking now?
It's pretty cut and dry.
To make it as simple as possible, an employee made a stink (in CONTRAST to their duties) a manager effed up and allowed it and the COMPANY said NO...that's not our way.
In effect, you're wrong in your thinking. End of.



Spellweaver said:


> :lol: in your dreams. Your attempts to belittle posters rather than argue cogently and logically let you down. Unfortunately for you, you have picked on the wrong person to try to belittle. You'll get as good as you give from me. Fair warning!


Far from it.
Those are not my intents but rather give as good as gotten. Only better.  and with logic (never mind facts) on my side.

But, feel slighted if you must. Though, that's not my intent. Only to counter your misconceptions and closed mindedness with honesty (at least as far as what's been printed that has precipitated this matter) and integrity.

By the way, no hard feelings on your part I hope.
No angst or ill will here. Just love the interaction and exchange of slants on what has taken place. :thumbup:


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

MCWillow said:


> Surely he is discriminating against anyone that doesn't hold the same religious views that he does isn't he?
> 
> It stands to reason that if people held the same religious views as him, they wouldn't be asking for contraception in the first place, so refusing to dispense any contraception is discriminating against people with differing religious views.


Good point. I wonder which stance the law would take - that he is not discriminating because he is treating everyone the same, or that he is discriminating because he is forcing his views onto anyone who is not Catholic? I guess it would depend upon the lawyers on each side - ie which one could argue the most eloquently.


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

Spellweaver said:


> Any retail establishment in the UK has the legal right to refuse to sell anything to any customer:
> 
> "_When a retailer puts an item on the shelf with a price on it, this does not constitute an offer to sell (legally, its called an 'invitation to treat'). In fact, a shop doesn't have to sell you anything if they don't wish to, even if its on the shelf with a price. They can change their mind. *They can't refuse to serve on discriminatory grounds of course, *that would be illegal for other reasons, but for any goods-related reason they can. _"
> The Law of Shopping - Sale of Goods Act


But if e.g. a Muslim refuses to serve a non Muslim alcohol, is that not discriminatory....? After all, the refusal hinges on religion....


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

Spellweaver said:


> Britain is not secular.   The UK's state religion is Anglican.


But we are nominally a secular nation, in the sense that the Church does not control the country. i.e. compare this to a Muslim country where religious law, Sharia Law, is also the state law. e.g. a woman who commits adultery can be buried alive in Iran - and this has happened on several occasions in recent years.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

ZipsDad said:


> Not quite. I'll show you the error of your ways, though you do trot on with an air of superiority:


That's because in logic and the english language I am superior to you 



ZipsDad said:


> By the way, no hard feelings on your part I hope.
> No angst or ill will here. Just love the interaction and exchange of slants on what has taken place. :thumbup:


No hard feelings at all. In fact, I am highly amused at your conceited and unrealistic opinion of yourself and your abilities, and am laughing out loud at your wriggling out of answering points by silly attempts to belittle - and so, if my pm's arr anything to go by, is half the forum 

Anyway, my take-away has arrived - I'll be back


----------



## ZipsDad (Oct 31, 2013)

Spellweaver said:


> That's because in logic and the english language I am superior to you


We all have fantasies, I suppose. 



Spellweaver said:


> No hard feelings at all. In fact, I am highly amused at your conceited and unrealistic opinion of yourself and your abilities, and am laughing out loud at your wriggling out of answering points by silly attempts to belittle - and so, if my pm's arr anything to go by, is half the forum
> 
> Anyway, my take-away has arrived - I'll be back


Before you let your cheerleaders bolster your false sense of bravado, you may want to go back and address your inaccuracies concerning company policy.
Just one example of the plethora of points you attempted to skate past. 

As for PM's, there seems to be a lot of those going on both sides, though, I wouldn't have stooped to citing them for affirmation.


----------



## Mulish (Feb 20, 2013)

porps said:


> With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
> ― Steven Weinberg


That's a neat little quote, very nicely worded. Doesn't make it true, though  Good people do evil things for a multitude of reasons: to protect others, for some greater good or maybe just because they've had a bad day and made a mistake. Good people can be misinformed, under educated or badly lead by anyone or anything. Remove all religion and this won't magically stop happening. It's human nature.



ZipsDad said:


> If you hired them to perform a service, you wouldn't be "making them" do anything. You would expect them to carry out their job duties.
> If they had any reservations about the job duties to be carried out (after they hired on AND because they weren't made aware of what was expected BEFORE hand) then they have a right to balk.
> 
> If, on the other hand, they hired on to a place that served alcohol/pork and were tasked with ringing up those items, I hardly see any solid footing for them to be upset since their task was clear from the outset.


But M&S *did* tell them before this incident that they were allowed to refuse duties that went against their religious beliefs (as are all of their employees). The cashier wasn't doing anything wrong in their bosses eyes. Her terms of employment were agreed and adhered to.

So why on earth would I stand at a till demanding to be served by someone who thought they would go to hell for doing so, in a shop with a policy that said she had every right to refuse me? I honestly do not understand why my right to buy a bottle of wine within x amount of minutes and at this exact checkout trumps someone else's right to peace of mind. And I have 5 kids - I really need that wine!

You can say that people shouldn't be put in a position where their religious views will have to either be compromised or the customer inconvenienced and I'll not argue with you. But I cannot agree with the notion that just because someone finds a belief silly or trivial it gives them an automatic right to dismiss it and the person who holds it.


----------



## ZipsDad (Oct 31, 2013)

Mulish said:


> But M&S *did* tell them before this incident that they were allowed to refuse duties that went against their religious beliefs (as are all of their employees). The cashier wasn't doing anything wrong in their bosses eyes. Her terms of employment were agreed and adhered to.


Ahh, ok.
You've read more on the subject than I.
I was going by the report in the OP where the company said the decision by the local employee was not acceptable. (leading me to believe it wasnt something originally agreed upon but more of an off the cuff decision in error.)


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

Mulish said:


> That's a neat little quote, very nicely worded. Doesn't make it true, though  Good people do evil things for a multitude of reasons: to protect others, for some greater good or maybe just because they've had a bad day and made a mistake. Good people can be misinformed, under educated or badly lead by anyone or anything. Remove all religion and this won't magically stop happening. It's human nature.
> 
> But M&S *did* tell them before this incident that they were allowed to refuse duties that went against their religious beliefs (as are all of their employees). The cashier wasn't doing anything wrong in their bosses eyes. Her terms of employment were agreed and adhered to.
> 
> ...


But why should someone else's religious beliefs, trump my right to buy an item sold in a shop?

When I shop I am usually in a rush. I have a bus to catch, a dog to get back for, work to rush back for. Why on earth should I have to waste up to 20 minutes, waiting for another staff member to arrive, because the person on the till happens to follow a faith that condemns what I'm buying?

I'll use Islam again as that's the faith involved:

Just because the person on the till adheres to Sharia Law, why on earth should that be imposed on me - we are not living on a country run by Sharia Law! That person has every right to choose to live in a country governed BY Sharia - there are umpteen to choose from. Britain is not one of them.


----------



## ZipsDad (Oct 31, 2013)

Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> But why should someone else's religious beliefs, trump my right to buy an item sold in a shop?
> 
> When I shop I am usually in a rush. I have a bus to catch, a dog to get back for, work to rush back for. Why on earth should I have to waste up to 20 minutes, waiting for another staff member to arrive, because the person on the till happens to follow a faith that condemns what I'm buying?
> 
> ...


PC?

Learn to forgo your own expectations, regardless of where you happen to live, so that you can be tolerant of anything and everything shoved in your face.


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

ZipsDad said:


> PC?
> 
> Learn to forgo your own expectations, regardless of where you happen to live, so that you can be tolerant of anything and everything shoved in your face.


Yep 

The person on the till should be 'tolerant' of MY choice to buy bacon  That makes more sense.

Here's the thing: we are taught to respect other folks' faiths and I totally endorse that. I totally respect anyone's right to follow any faith of their choice. But - that does NOT mean I have to actually respect the ideology.

i.e. I do not have to 'tolerate' another person's belief that they may go to 'hell' because they hold a packet of bacon. Their faith, their belief - their right not to buy bacon.

Equally my right to not follow that faith.


----------



## ZipsDad (Oct 31, 2013)

Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> Yep
> 
> The person on the till should be 'tolerant' of MY choice to buy bacon  That makes more sense.
> 
> ...


You know what? I think that's the most succinct summerization I've yet seen.


----------



## Mulish (Feb 20, 2013)

Can't quote all of the things I want to address because it'd make my post too huge but I just want to ask what is so very wrong with being tolerant? What is wrong with showing respect and being nice to people even if you don't agree with them? No-one's eating babies or burning virgins on the street, someone's just been a bit inconvenienced when purchasing something. 

No, we don't live in a country governed by Sharia Law, we live in one where freedom of faith is protected. How lucky we all are that we have the time and resources that this is something that's worthy of debate, eh?

Now I'll 'do a porps' and end on a quote I like: Treat everyone with politeness, even those who are rude to you  not because they are nice, but because you are.


----------



## ZipsDad (Oct 31, 2013)

Mulish said:


> Can't quote all of the things I want to address because it'd make my post too huge but I just want to ask what is so very wrong with being tolerant? What is wrong with showing respect and being nice to people even if you don't agree with them?


Nothing is wrong with that and, as an employee of a company catering to customers, it should be expected. :thumbup:


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> But if e.g. a Muslim refuses to serve a non Muslim alcohol, is that not discriminatory....? After all, the refusal hinges on religion....


What is discrimination? 
_
The definition of Discrimination is to treat individuals or a group of people differently because of race, religion, gender, age, disability, physical demeanour, nationality, and sexual orientation._
What is discrimination

So discrimination is treating a section of people, or one person, differently. If you treat all peple the same, it's not discriminatory. So a muslim not serving alcohol or a catholic refusing to dispense a prescription for birth control is not discriminatory _providing_ they refuse everyone. If they refuse everyone, they are not discriminating.

You may have felt discriminated against if someone had refused to serve you alcohol, but if everyone had been refused you would have been treated the same as everyone else - ie you would not have been discriminated against.

Similarly, if M&S allowed just muslims to work around the issues caused by their religion, that would be discriminatory. However, since they have stated that they allow this for all religions, they are not discriminating either.



ZipsDad said:


> you may want to go back and address your inaccuracies concerning company policy.
> Just one example of the plethora of points you attempted to skate past.


Explaining to you at least twice that the girl was obeying instructions from her bosses is not skating past the issue - it is telling you that you were wrong, at least twice. In fact, your refusal to acknowledge you were wrong is a neat bit of skating around the issue from yourself - must be your bandy legs that allow you to do that 

Oh look, someone else is saying the same as me regarding the girl obeying instructions:



Mulish said:


> But M&S *did* tell them before this incident that they were allowed to refuse duties that went against their religious beliefs (as are all of their employees). The cashier wasn't doing anything wrong in their bosses eyes. Her terms of employment were agreed and adhered to.


Oh, and now you're finally acknowledging your error:



ZipsDad said:


> Ahh, ok.
> You've read more on the subject than I.
> I was going by the report in the OP where the company said the decision by the local employee was not acceptable. (leading me to believe it wasnt something originally agreed upon but more of an off the cuff decision in error.)


Well done! There, that didn't hurt too much, did it?


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

Mulish said:


> Can't quote all of the things I want to address because it'd make my post too huge but I just want to ask what is so very wrong with being tolerant? What is wrong with showing respect and being nice to people even if you don't agree with them? No-one's eating babies or burning virgins on the street, someone's just been a bit inconvenienced when purchasing something.
> 
> No, we don't live in a country governed by Sharia Law, we live in one where freedom of faith is protected. How lucky we all are that we have the time and resources that this is something that's worthy of debate, eh?
> 
> Now I'll 'do a porps' and end on a quote I like: Treat everyone with politeness, even those who are rude to you  not because they are nice, but because you are.


To clarify:

I am utterly 'tolerant' of anyone's choice to follow any faith.

*My 'tolerance' stops when their religious beliefs, infringe on my freedoms. *

I don't care if it's my freedom to buy bacon, to buy a certain medication, to buy booze. I don't care. It's my right NOT to adhere to any of these faiths and there is no reason for me to 'tolerate' the ideologies of faiths I disagree with.

Have you read the Quran?

Do you know, just out of interest, that a core Islamic tenet is to establish Sharia Law the world over? This is not a secret, any Islamic scholar will tell you this. There is no room for misinterpretation of the Quran, it's very clear.

Again: I support the right of every Muslim to follow Islam.

But not when their Islamic faith infringes upon my non Islamic beliefs.

Ditto for Judaism, Catholicism, Hinduism, etc etc.


----------



## MCWillow (Aug 26, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> What is discrimination?
> _
> The definition of Discrimination is to treat individuals or a group of people differently because of race, *religion*, gender, age, disability, physical demeanour, nationality, and sexual orientation._
> What is discrimination
> ...


So someone who refuses to serve someone else because of their _own _religious beliefs, is actually discriminating against everyone that _doesn't _hold those same religious beliefs - right?

So would that be classed as discrimination or not?

Very grey area IMO


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> To clarify:
> 
> I am utterly 'tolerant' of anyone's choice to follow any faith.
> 
> ...


As you have stated that you feel Britain is secular, did you tolerate not being able to shop on Christmas Eve afternoon because everyone went home early to celebrate? Did you tolerate not being able to shop (if you had wanted to) on Christmas Day? If you did, why? As Claire pointed out waaaaay back, that's merely another example of religious beliefs impinging on people's freedom.


----------



## Muze (Nov 30, 2011)

As someone with a disability looking for employment, I am openly told to keep my limitations private. 

No way of earth would I find employment if I told them that I wasn't good at dealing with people, even though this is not my choice! 

I can't believe I'm saying it, but political correctness, especially around Islam, is getting beyond a joke. Make REASONABLE allowances of course, but any more just breeds resentment.


----------



## Mulish (Feb 20, 2013)

Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> To clarify:
> 
> I am utterly 'tolerant' of anyone's choice to follow any faith.
> 
> ...


Well then we're going to have to agree to differ on this because my tolerance doesn't stop until someone (anyone, doesn't have to be me or someone I know) is actually going to be hurt by something.

I've not read the Quran and I'm not at all worried that we're in imminent danger of falling under Sharia Law. That would, in fact, seem to go against the whole ideal of religious freedom the UK aspires to.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

MCWillow said:


> So someone who refuses to serve someone else because of their _own _religious beliefs, is actually discriminating against everyone that _doesn't _hold those same religious beliefs - right?
> 
> So would that be classed as discrimination or not?
> 
> Very grey area IMO


I would argue that it would not be classed as discrimination because he is treating every single person in the same way, irrespective of whether they hold his beliefs or not.

Unless he is treating someone differently, he is not discriminating. He may be forcing his views on someone; he may be causing someone an inconvenience; he may be forcing someone to accept something that they do not want to accept - but that is not discrimination, wrong though those things may or may not be in their own right.


----------



## MCWillow (Aug 26, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> I would argue that it would not be classed as discrimination because he is treating every single person in the same way, *irrespective of whether they hold his beliefs or not.*
> 
> Unless he is treating someone differently, he is not discriminating. He may be forcing his views on someone; he may be causing someone an inconvenience; he may be forcing someone to accept something that they do not want to accept - but that is not discrimination, wrong though those things may or may not be in their own right.


Totally get what your saying, but on the other hand (refer to bolded bit) he _wouldn't_ be turning away people that hold the same beliefs as him - because if they held the same beliefs they _wouldn't_ be wanting to buy bacon, wine, condoms or anything else that the particular religion he believes in, classes as morally wrong.

This is why I think its a grey area - yes people can argue that they treat everyone the same ie: they refuse to sell alcohol to _everybody_, but the reality is, the only people that will be trying to buy alcohol, are people that don't follow the same faith - so therefore are those customers not being discriminated against _just_ because of their religion?


----------



## 642 (Oct 22, 2013)

Sorry, I haven't read all the replies. 

"At M&S, Muslim staff who do not wish to handle alcohol or pork have been told they can politely request that customers choose another till at which to pay."

So that's from the telegraph article - what are they supposed to do? Do a trolley inspection before allowing the customers to come to the till? 'Cause if I loaded my shopping onto a checkout only to be told to go elsewhere, I'd be a bit more than miffed. And it's not like the cashier would be able to call their supervisor over for each meat/ alcohol transaction because if all the cashier's did that, well I think the supervisor wouldn't be too happy either. 

I think M and S's heart's in the right place for their staff but they do seem to be lacking in common sense about now.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

MCWillow said:


> Totally get what your saying, but on the other hand (refer to bolded bit) he _wouldn't_ be turning away people that hold the same beliefs as him - because if they held the same beliefs they _wouldn't_ be wanting to buy bacon, wine, condoms or anything else that the particular religion he believes in, classes as morally wrong.
> 
> This is why I think its a grey area - yes people can argue that they treat everyone the same ie: they refuse to sell alcohol to _everybody_, but the reality is, the only people that will be trying to buy alcohol, are people that don't follow the same faith - so therefore are those customers not being discriminated against _just_ because of their religion?


I see what you mean - you do give me food for thought! However, after much thought I still come up with the same answer. The salesperson has no knowledge of anyone's religion when he serves them. I think you would agree that a brown skin does not mean Muslim no more than a white skin means Anglican. So if he does not know someone's religion, and he treats everyone in the same manner, how can he be discriminating against them?

If a Muslim wanted to shop on Christmas day but could not because stores were closed, would that be discrimination? Again, I would argue no, because the store is closd for everyone, irrespective of their religion. Everyone has been treated the same.


----------



## ZipsDad (Oct 31, 2013)

Spellweaver said:


> What is discrimination?
> _
> The definition of Discrimination is to treat individuals or a group of people differently because of race, religion, gender, age, disability, physical demeanour, nationality, and sexual orientation._
> What is discrimination
> ...


That would work if it was corporate policy. Especially if they singled out a certain race or religion. 
However, a _single person_ (according to your prior assertions)certainly WOULD qualify when they're working within the confines of a corporation that doesn't hold those same views.



Spellweaver said:


> Explaining to you at least twice that the girl was obeying instructions from her bosses is not skating past the issue - it is telling you that you were wrong, at least twice. In fact, your refusal to acknowledge you were wrong is a neat bit of skating around the issue from yourself - must be your bandy legs that allow you to do that


I guess IGNORING the company's official statement makes you feel justified?
Logic dictates that, had she been hired under HER conditions, a manager wouldn't have made an errant judgment (similar to your own) 



Spellweaver said:


> Oh look, someone else is saying the same as me regarding the girl obeying instructions


Two wrongs make a right for you, does it?



Spellweaver said:


> Oh, and now you're finally acknowledging your error:
> 
> Well done! There, that didn't hurt too much, did it?


I've shown the corporate statement that backs my position.
Here is more:An M&S spokesman said: 'Customer service is our priority. Where we have an employee whose religious beliefs restrict food or drink they can handle, we work closely with our member of staff to *place them in a suitable role, such as in our clothing department or bakery.
*
'We regret that in the case highlighted today *we were not following our own policy.*

'As a *secular* business we have an inclusive policy that welcomes all religious beliefs.

Care to validate your position with links? Would readily admit being wrong about corporate policy if only you could offer more than posturing.

Take your time.


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

Spellweaver said:


> As you have stated that you feel Britain is secular, did you tolerate not being able to shop on Christmas Eve afternoon because everyone went home early to celebrate? Did you tolerate not being able to shop (if you had wanted to) on Christmas Day? If you did, why? As Claire pointed out waaaaay back, that's merely another example of religious beliefs impinging on people's freedom.


Not a valid comparison - I choose to reside in a country whose national holidays are Christian.

Equally, if I chose to live in an Islamic country, I would not be objecting if a shop employee refused to sell me wine.


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

Spellweaver said:


> I see what you mean - you do give me food for thought! However, after much thought I still come up with the same answer. The salesperson has no knowledge of anyone's religion when he serves them. I think you would agree that a brown skin does not mean Muslim no more than a white skin means Anglican. So if he does not know someone's religion, and he treats everyone in the same manner, how can he be discriminating against them?
> 
> *If a Muslim wanted to shop on Christmas day but could not because stores were closed, would that be discrimination? Again, I would argue no, because the store is closd for everyone, irrespective of their religion. Everyone has been treated the same*.


Again, not a valid analogy. The Muslim is *choosing* to be in a country that has Christian national holidays. So he could not then complain if the shops are shut at Christmas.

I am not choosing to live in a country where Sharia Law applies.
Thus I will not tolerate anyone applying Sharia Law to me and what I buy/eat/drink.


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

Mulish said:


> Well then we're going to have to agree to differ on this because my tolerance doesn't stop until someone (anyone, doesn't have to be me or someone I know) is actually going to be hurt by something.
> 
> *I've not read the Quran and I'm not at all worried that we're in imminent danger of falling under Sharia Law. That would, in fact, seem to go against the whole ideal of religious freedom the UK aspires to*.


I did not say we are in 'imminent' danger of falling under Sharia Law.

But when I read that in some areas people are being told they are dressing 'too immodestly' by groups of Muslim youths, then do I worry? Yes, a bit.

I think we should also note the context: no other faith states repeatedly in its holy texts that the rest of the world 'must' either come under its religious rules OR die.

There are a number of concessions to Islam that have been made in the UK and also in other countries. Some of these concessions are fine, they don't infringe on the rights and freedoms of non Muslims. But some do affect us.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

ZipsDad said:


> That would work if it was corporate policy. Especially if they singled out a certain race or religion.
> However, a _single person_ (according to your prior assertions)certainly WOULD qualify when they're working within the confines of a corporation that doesn't hold those same views.


No they wouldn't. If a single person treats everyone the same they would not be discriminating against anyone. They may be breaking company policy if their company does not hold the same views, but they would still not be discriminating against anyone.



ZipsDad said:


> I guess IGNORING the company's official statement makes you feel justified?
> Logic dictates that, had she been hired under HER conditions, a manager wouldn't have made an errant judgment (similar to your own)
> 
> Two wrongs make a right for you, does it?
> ...


Sigh. Here you go:

*At the time Marks and Spencer said staff could refuse to sell these items, based on their religious beliefs.* 
*But now Marks and Spencer has apologised and said that Muslim staff who did not want to handle these products would not man tills and would work in other roles such as in clothing or in the bakery*. 
M&S apology over Muslim staff policy - Telegraph

So she was hired expecting that she would not have to serve pork or alcohol.

Game set and match to me, I believe!


----------



## MCWillow (Aug 26, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> I see what you mean - you do give me food for thought! However, after much thought I still come up with the same answer. The salesperson has no knowledge of anyone's religion when he serves them. I think you would agree that a brown skin does not mean Muslim no more than a white skin means Anglican. So if he does not know someone's religion, and he treats everyone in the same manner, how can he be discriminating against them?
> 
> If a Muslim wanted to shop on Christmas day but could not because stores were closed, would that be discrimination? Again, I would argue no, because the store is closd for everyone, irrespective of their religion. Everyone has been treated the same.


You're right. The salesperson has absolutely NO knowledge of the customers religion. BUT, my point is, someone who followed the same religion as the salesperson wouldn't be trying to buy those 'banned' goods in the first place, so it follows that they wouldn't be of the same religion - so that does beg the question on whether the customer is being discriminated against because of their religion.

By the same token, is a Muslim or a Jehovahs Witness being discriminated against because they cant go shopping on Christmas Day?

I guess on the latter question, I could add that England is Anglican, and the 'state church' (don't know if thats the right phrase?) is the Church of England, so it is a national tradition (?) that businesses are closed for Christmas day. So if you live in England you have to abide by Englands national holidays.

_I_ know what I'm trying to say - I don't know if anyone else does though :blush:

Oh, and you're right again, I don't equate skin colour with religion whatsoever


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> Again, not a valid analogy. The Muslim is *choosing* to be in a country that has Christian national holidays. So he could not then complain if the shops are shut at Christmas.
> 
> I am not choosing to live in a country where Sharia Law applies.
> Thus I will not tolerate anyone applying Sharia Law to me and what I buy/eat/drink.


There are many muslims born in this country, and whose families have been in this country for several generations. They are as English as you are. Hence it is a perfectly valid analogy.


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

Spellweaver said:


> There are many muslims born in this country, and whose families have been in this country for several generations. They are as English as you are. Hence it is a perfectly valid analogy.


I did not say they weren't as English as I am. Nor did I imply that.

You were the one who asked if a Muslim wishing to shop on Xmas day, but couldn't, was being discriminated against. I simply responded.

It is utterly irrelevant whether the Muslim in question has lived here their whole lives or not. They are choosing to live in a nominally Christian country - so they cannot then claim that the national holiday, a Christian holiday, is 'discrimination'.

Just as if I chose to live in a Muslim nation, I could not then complain if I was refused alcohol in a shop or restaurant.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

MCWillow said:


> You're right. The salesperson has absolutely NO knowledge of the customers religion. BUT, my point is, someone who followed the same religion as the salesperson wouldn't be trying to buy those 'banned' goods in the first place, so it follows that they wouldn't be of the same religion - so that does beg the question on whether the customer is being discriminated against because of their religion.
> 
> By the same token, is a Muslim or a Jehovahs Witness being discriminated against because they cant go shopping on Christmas Day?
> 
> ...


Again, I can see what you mean about being discriminated against because of your religion if you want to buy alcohol and the till is manned by a muslim. But if you go back to the definition of discrimination - ie treating a person or a group differently - would that fit?

I would argue not. It's not treating a person differently, because no-one can buy alcohol at that till. It's not treating a group differently, because no-one can buy alcohol at that till. And for those whose religions do not preclude buying alcohol, they can be served at another till - so everyone can get what they want and no one will have been discriminated against.

And I agree with the statement that if you live in England you have to abide by English National holidays - besides that, I don't think anyone is being discriminated against becasue the store is closed to eveyone, not just to a single person or a group.

Crikey - I'm using brain cells I've not used since my philosophy degree here! Thanks for the cerebral work out - it makes a lovely change to debate with someone who can actually debate back in a sensible manner.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> I did not say they weren't as English as I am. Nor did I imply that.
> 
> You were the one who asked if a Muslim wishing to shop on Xmas day, but couldn't, was being discriminated against. I simply responded.
> 
> ...


But it's your assumption that they _chose_ to live here that I'm challenging. They may be third, fourth fith or even longer generation muslims, born in this country. They may not have enough money to be able to emigrate. In other words, they may have no choice in the matter at all.


----------



## ZipsDad (Oct 31, 2013)

Spellweaver said:


> No they wouldn't. If a single person treats everyone the same they would not be discriminating against anyone. They may be breaking company policy if their company does not hold the same views, but they would still not be discriminating against anyone.


She would break policy because she would, indeed, be discriminating against others.

Discrimination: treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance.

So, down goes that point. 



Spellweaver said:


> Sigh. Here you go:
> 
> *At the time Marks and Spencer said staff could refuse to sell these items, based on their religious beliefs.*
> *But now Marks and Spencer has apologised and said that Muslim staff who did not want to handle these products would not man tills and would work in other roles such as in clothing or in the bakery*.
> ...


Ok. So now I see that they USED to allow it but are now retreating from that policy. Not in my back yard and not important enough to make the local news so I admit not knowing the ins and outs of it. Only the OP link.

But, you gotta admit, it sort of goes to my original point about stores catering to customers vs staff, now doesn't it?
I guess my original point was right all along. Any store that values their livelihood will do as the customer dictates. Boycotting them could have seriously hurt their bottom line. Dare I mention "capitalism" again? 
After all, "the customer is always right" didn't become common place for no reason.



Spellweaver said:


> Game set and match to me, I believe!


Sorry. At best you score a draw. Quit being so competitive. It's a discussion. Even debates have no winners. Only exchanges of ideas.


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

Spellweaver said:


> But it's your assumption that they _chose_ to live here that I'm challenging. They may be third, fourth fith or even longer generation muslims, born in this country. They may not have enough money to be able to emigrate. In other words, they may have no choice in the matter at all.


But none of that is down to me.

The only time I would accept being refused to buy e.g. pork by a Muslim, is *if* I am IN a Muslim country which is governed by Sharia Law.

Whether a Muslim employee, sitting at the till, in a shop, is living in the UK by choice or not, I expect to be able to buy what I choose and what is present in said shop.

Look at it this way:

Let's say I give a dinner party. One of my guests is a Muslim. I have cooked pork and they politely explain they cannot eat pork as it goes against their religion.

Now, *that* is totally reasonable.

I would be absurd for trying to pressure them to eat the pork and indeed, it would never occur to me to do so. I would simply and happily prepare another meal for them.

But in a shop, where nobody is trying to make the same Muslim person eat the bacon, then no - they do not have any right to stop me from purchasing it.


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

May I just ask: those of you defending the right of the employee not to serve the customer: would you also support the right of a vegetarian to refuse to serve someone buying meat?


----------



## MCWillow (Aug 26, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> Again, I can see what you mean about being discriminated against because of your religion if you want to buy alcohol and the till is manned by a muslim. But if you go back to the definition of discrimination - ie treating a person or a group differently - would that fit?
> 
> *I would argue not. It's not treating a person differently, because no-one can buy alcohol at that till. It's not treating a group differently, because no-one can buy alcohol at that till. And for those whose religions do not preclude buying alcohol, they can be served at another till - so everyone can get what they want and no one will have been discriminated against.*
> 
> ...


I didn't even _do_ a degree, so have some sympathy for my poor unused braincells  

See, it could be argued that that till is discriminating against anyone who follows a religion that _does_ allow them to consume alcohol.

Turn it around - how would a sign on the till stating 'No alcohol or pork goods will be served at this till - Muslim friendly' be received by the general public?

How about a sign that states 'No meat on Fridays, only fish will be served at this till on Fridays - Christian friendly'?

They are the only two examples I can think of as I'm not religious - but you probably get the point.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

ZipsDad said:


> She would break policy because she would, indeed, be discriminating against others.
> 
> Discrimination: treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance.
> 
> So, down goes that point.


Erm - no it doesn't. If she is treating everyone the same, she would not be "making a distinction in favour of or against a person or group, class or caegory to which that person or group belongs". Neither would she be practising racial or religious intolerance.

If she is treating everyoine the same she is making no distinctions at all; ergo she cannot be discriminating in any way. She will be treating all races and all religions in the same way, so she cannot be practising racial or religious intolerance.

It's simple logic. If you find it all too hard, read the exchanges on discrimination between myself and MCWillow. You might learn something about logic and about discrimination.



ZipsDad said:


> Ok. So now I see that they USED to allow it but are now retreating from that policy. Not in my back yard and not important enough to make the local news so I admit not knowing the ins and outs of it. Only the OP link.


As I've already advised you on this thread, if you glean information before putting finger to keyboard then you go some way to prevent yourself from making these sorts of errors.


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

Unless a shop is an Islamic shop, there is no logical reason why Islamic religious law within the shop should trump the right of a customer to buy something. It really IS as simple as that.

Ditto if the person at the till was a Hindu and didn't want to serve someone buying beef. Or Jewish and not wanting to serve someone buying pork.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Well peeps, it's nearly 1.30 and I'm up early tomorrow - off up to Otley to meet loads of friends and have a great walk at Bolton Abbey (about 40 dogs between us!) and then to a party at the Caleykiz kennels afterwards. The OH is shouting downstairs, complaining that I said I'd only be a minute about an hour ago, so I'd better be off to me bed. 

Thanks for some great discussions and I'll catch up with you all tomorrow evening or maybe even Monday, depending on what time I get back.


----------



## Royoyo (Feb 21, 2013)

This whole thread just confirms to me even more as to why I do not like religion. That doesn't mean I hate Muslims or Christians or Catholics ect, but I hate religion. 

Religion is used as an excuse to justify all kinds of skewed views on morality (now even down to the things we buy) and it makes its way into politics way too often. If there ever comes a time when religion is simply just a personal belief that doesn't impose on others, I would have no problem with it at all.

Where does it end ? Will it eventually come down to supermarkets making separate supermarkets for Muslims/Christians or whatever religion you are? 

To me it just seems like we're going backwards, we're supposed to be living in the 21st century.


----------



## MCWillow (Aug 26, 2011)

1.30??? Its 12.30 here 

Have a good day tomorrow


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

Royoyo said:


> This whole thread just confirms to me even more as to why I do not like religion. That doesn't mean I hate Muslims or Christians or Catholics ect, but I hate religion.
> 
> Religion is used as an excuse to justify all kinds of skewed views on morality (now even down to the things we buy) and it makes its way into politics way too often. If there ever comes a time when religion is simply just a personal belief that doesn't impose on others, I would have no problem with it at all.
> 
> ...


Religion can bring out the best and the worst in people, I think.

Also, some religions don't actually demand that others comply with their religious beliefs - you virtually never find Hindus or Jews or B'hais for instance, demanding that non members of the faith make concessions.


----------



## ZipsDad (Oct 31, 2013)

Spellweaver said:


> Erm - no it doesn't. If she is treating everyone the same, she would not be "making a distinction in favour of or against a person or group, class or caegory to which that person or group belongs". *Neither would she be practising racial or religious intolerance.
> *
> If she is treating everyoine the same she is making no distinctions at all; She will be treating all races and all religions in the same way, so she cannot be practising racial or religious intolerance.


What the bloody feck?

You're reaching, astronomically, here.
How could she NOT be practicing religious intolerance if she is COMPLETELY intolerant of another religions ability to buy/use products HER religion does not? 
Simply by refusing them service she is guilty of that intolerance whether or not she was meant to be handling those items.
Refusal of service because of religious odds is still discrimination.
Cut and dry.
How could she POSSIBLY be treating EVERYONE the same when the whole point is that she is negating the opportunity for NON MUSLIMS to buy what they want? 



Spellweaver said:


> ergo she cannot be discriminating in any way.


Ok. Now I need a "pass completely out" smiley.

Even you have to see the stupendous silliness in your assertion.
She would ONLY be treating everyone equally if EVERYONE came to her counter and was refused the ability to obtain those items.
So, LOGIC dictates, only those who don't identify with her religion could even think to buy them.

What a joke!



Spellweaver said:


> It's simple logic. If you find it all too hard, read the exchanges on discrimination between myself and MCWillow. You might learn something about logic and about discrimination.
> 
> As I've already advised you on this thread, if you glean information before putting finger to keyboard then you go some way to prevent yourself from making these sorts of errors.


What errors?
Inability to admit when you're mistaken? That's your realm. Not mine. I do have that ability and make those admissions when needed.
Perhaps you need to push away from the keyboard so you don't keep making farcical stands that are hilarious (at least to me) from the outset.

"It's not religious intolerance (nor discrimination) just because you won't serve a person their goods that are perfectly ok in their religion."

:lol:

I mean COME ON!

That's like me saying Im not gender biased for refusing to serve females because I treat every man and woman the same.

(of course, if youre a man, you won't have to worry about being discriminated against)


----------



## nicolaa123 (Mar 30, 2012)

Just to add my little bit  I've spoken to a few Muslims about this..not that I want to label as I see us all the same..most have said how ludicrous it it, one said don't know I'm off to the pub 

For my own opinion I have my own beliefs and thoughts about things..and others have there's if I was that passionate in my beliefs as in the m&s thing I would choose to not work on the till..because I respect mine and others beliefs.

I don't believe in gambling but I can't ban everyone from gambling or refuse to see those that do (I know not a religious belief but a belief all the same) I certainly would not work in a betting shop..


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> I would argue not. It's not treating a person differently, because no-one can buy alcohol at that till. It's not treating a group differently, because no-one can buy alcohol at that till. And for those whose religions do not preclude buying alcohol, they can be served at another till - so everyone can get what they want and no one will have been discriminated against.


If a jehova's witness doctor (a group I know very little about but used as it's away from the main ones) refused to give a blood transplant and had to get someone else to do it due to their faith it would not be discrimination either using that argument. Doesn't make it right.

On the question of why highlighting muslims etc. At the current time, muslims are being "hit" for want of a better word as the incidents of radicalism and fanaticism around the news is far higher than any other religion. Any religion's reputation get's destroyed by fanaticism.

I'm going to be totally against politically correctness and say I knew of a sociology professor a few years ago who stated the only way to prevent Europe adopting Sharia law in the long term is the rechristianisation of Europe. "Rechristianisation" will not happen so instead we do seem to bend over backwards as soon as "my religion" is mentioned when it's not christianity and allow creeping sharia law as boundaries are pushed. Someone wearing a cross to work.. not allowed it's not religious.. someone wearing a burka.. that's fine. Neither are religious, both are choices. People don't admit it but this is what they see and are afraid of. It's important things like the pharmacies policy is highlighted to balance it out but when taken to court, the scales do seem to be stacked heavily the other way.


----------



## ZipsDad (Oct 31, 2013)

Goblin said:


> If a jehova's witness doctor (a group I know very little about but used as it's away from the main ones) refused to give a blood transplant and had to get someone else to do it due to their faith it would not be discrimination either using that argument. Doesn't make it right.
> 
> On the question of why highlighting muslims etc. At the current time, muslims are being "hit" for want of a better word as the incidents of radicalism and fanaticism around the news is far higher than any other religion. Any religion's reputation get's destroyed by fanaticism.
> 
> I'm going to be totally against politically correctness and say I knew of a sociology professor a few years ago who stated *the only way to prevent Europe adopting Sharia law in the long term is the rechristianisation of Europe.* "Rechristianisation" will not happen so instead we do seem to bend over backwards as soon as "my religion" is mentioned when it's not christianity and allow creeping sharia law as boundaries are pushed. Someone wearing a cross to work.. not allowed it's not religious.. someone wearing a burka.. that's fine. Neither are religious, both are choices. People don't admit it but this is what they see and are afraid of. It's important things like the pharmacies policy is highlighted to balance it out but when taken to court, the scales do seem to be stacked heavily the other way.


I'm not sure of how your laws are written. Let me state that from the outset.
But, here in the US we have laws, irrespective of faith, that rule the land.
In my earlier post I cited a case where Sharia law was put forth as a defense for rape (of the man's wife)
It succeeded initially but was overturned and the judge censured because, as the appellate court stated, they weren't sure what law school that judge studied in but it sure wasn't one that taught US law.


----------



## nicolaa123 (Mar 30, 2012)

I just think the world would be a better place if we lived and let live, respect and be respected regardless of race/religion. My Muslim colleague I made sure I said happy holidays too him..he said happy Christmas to me..I respected him fasting as he respected Christmas..no debate no argument..

Some times a label is a dangerous thing!


----------



## myshkin (Mar 23, 2010)

Goblin said:


> I'm going to be totally against politically correctness and say I knew of a sociology professor a few years ago who stated the only way to prevent Europe adopting Sharia law in the long term is the rechristianisation of Europe. "Rechristianisation" will not happen so instead we do seem to bend over backwards as soon as "my religion" is mentioned when it's not christianity and allow creeping sharia law as boundaries are pushed. Someone wearing a cross to work.. not allowed it's not religious.. someone wearing a burka.. that's fine. Neither are religious, both are choices. People don't admit it but this is what they see and are afraid of. It's important things like the pharmacies policy is highlighted to balance it out but when taken to court, the scales do seem to be stacked heavily the other way.


I fear you've been paying attention to too much Fox TV, Goblin, thought you were a lot smarter than that, to be honest. Sharia law in Europe? Absolute nonsense, it isn't prevalent in the majority of Muslim countries, and it certainly won't happen here. 
Somewhat selective of facts too. The crucifix as worn is an item of adornment, a piece of jewellery. The case in which the woman was told she couldn't wear one to work was a case of no jewellery as policy.....not a religious issue at all, no discrimination.


----------



## ZipsDad (Oct 31, 2013)

myshkin said:


> I fear you've been paying attention to too much Fox TV, Goblin, thought you were a lot smarter than that, to be honest. Sharia law in Europe? Absolute nonsense


Sure of that?
Your own gov't is making Sharia compliant bonds. The first country ever. What is the next step?

Britain to become first non-Muslim country to launch sharia bond - Telegraph


----------



## nicolaa123 (Mar 30, 2012)

Not being funny..but really tabloids


----------



## ZipsDad (Oct 31, 2013)

nicolaa123 said:


> Not being funny..but really tabloids


Opps. Is that a tabloid? Not familiar with your rags.


----------



## ZipsDad (Oct 31, 2013)

Is the BBC reliable?

BBC News - Cameron unveils Islamic bond plan


----------



## nicolaa123 (Mar 30, 2012)

ZipsDad said:


> Is the BBC reliable?
> 
> BBC News - Cameron unveils Islamic bond plan


They are seriously worse than the gutter press :lol:


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

myshkin said:


> I fear you've been paying attention to too much Fox TV, Goblin, thought you were a lot smarter than that, to be honest. Sharia law in Europe? Absolute nonsense, it isn't prevalent in the majority of Muslim countries, and it certainly won't happen here.


Really.. That's your viewpoint but many would disagree with you even if not openly stated. Small changes and acceptance with no resistance as most people don't care about religion and it's impact on society. Those who push their values will overtake others when the alternative viewpoint is apathy. I'm also not saying the sharia law will be the extreme version that it is today in some places. Neither would it happen in the short term either, certainly not in my lifetime. What happens when christianity is a minority and the majority don't care?



> Somewhat selective of facts too. The crucifix as worn is an item of adornment, a piece of jewellery. The case in which the woman was told she couldn't wear one to work was a case of no jewellery as policy.....not a religious issue at all, no discrimination.


The burka is cultural not religious. A piece of jewelry can be a personal item for faith therefore a religious item to an individual. It's all choice and belief.

Edit: Also notice I don't quote Fox as I don't even watch it.


----------



## myshkin (Mar 23, 2010)

ZipsDad said:


> Sure of that?
> Your own gov't is making Sharia compliant bonds. The first country ever. What is the next step?
> 
> Britain to become first non-Muslim country to launch sharia bond - Telegraph


The same government is trying very hard to attract investment from China - are we also taking step towards becoming an authoritarian, communist state? It doesn't even slightly affect our laws.



Goblin said:


> Really.. That's your viewpoint but many would disagree with you even if not openly stated. Small changes and acceptance with no resistance as most people don't care about religion and it's impact on society. Those who push their values will overtake others when the alternative viewpoint is apathy. I'm also not saying the sharia law will be the extreme version that it is today in some places. Neither would it happen in the short term either, certainly not in my lifetime. What happens when christianity is a minority and the majority don't care?
> 
> The burka is cultural not religious. A piece of jewelry can be a personal item for faith therefore a religious item to an individual. It's all choice and belief.
> 
> Edit: Also notice I don't quote Fox as I don't even watch it.


The crucifix incident was a matter of uniform policy, known by the staff member when she accepted the job. When has there been an incident where an employer has disallowed a crucifix, but allowed a burqa?


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

myshkin said:


> I fear you've been paying attention to too much Fox TV, Goblin, thought you were a lot smarter than that, to be honest. Sharia law in Europe? Absolute nonsense,* it isn't prevalent in the majority of Muslim countries, and it certainly won't happen here. *
> Somewhat selective of facts too. The crucifix as worn is an item of adornment, a piece of jewellery. The case in which the woman was told she couldn't wear one to work was a case of no jewellery as policy.....not a religious issue at all, no discrimination.


You're ignoring the fate of Jews, Christians, Gays and women in countries where Sharia Law is in effect. Usually a ghastly fate for all of these groups. Girls as young as nine forced to marry and then suffer genital mutilation - and that IS happening here in the UK right now, because it is mandated by Sharia Law and is being adhered to.

Please look at the list of concessions to Islam that I linked to - across Europe more and more instances of Sharia Law are occurring. Sharia courts already exist in the UK and are being set up in Scotland - and these courts claim they can deal with *legal* issues i.e. if a Muslim steals or assaults someone.

Under Islamic law it is 'forbidden' to EVER critque or speak negatively of Islam. Note I say Islam - not Muslims. Thus where one can discuss and critque the ideologies of ALL other faiths, if you do it with Islam, well, we've seen what happens over a mere cartoon, haven't we.......?

The openly stated aim OF Islam is: to implement Sharia Law throughout the world.

I repeat: Islam OPENLY states this. So the phenomenon of 'creeping sharia' IS something to worry about.

http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/about-2/


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

I don't feel qualified to comment on the religious sensibilities but over the last 48 hours I have noticed my own attitude to M&S advertising. They have an ad running offering a free bottle of sparkling wine when purchasing 'party' food. My instant thought has been - no point as I couldn't guarantee I'd be served without hassle. Unlikely scenario I know but it does put the lie to the saying there's no such thing as bad publicity. I have no desire to upset anyone of any religion. I do have a desire to shop without hindrance. This whole thing can't be good for business.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

myshkin said:


> The crucifix incident was a matter of uniform policy, known by the staff member when she accepted the job.


What.. like selling products sold by a store to customers..


----------



## Zhari (Dec 27, 2013)

nicolaa123 said:


> Just to add my little bit  I've spoken to a few Muslims about this..not that I want to label as I see us all the same..most have said how ludicrous it it, one said don't know I'm off to the pub
> 
> For my own opinion I have my own beliefs and thoughts about things..and others have there's if I was that passionate in my beliefs as in the m&s thing I would choose to not work on the till..because I respect mine and others beliefs.
> 
> I don't believe in gambling but I can't ban everyone from gambling or refuse to see those that do (I know not a religious belief but a belief all the same) I certainly would not work in a betting shop..


On that note, just as point of information. The objection the Muslim cashiers would have is not universally agreed upon by all Islamic schools of Thought however those that teach it's a sin to contribute to the sale of these items (the argument is that you are contributing to sin) also rule that a Muslim can't accept money earned in this way. Hence, a paycheque from a company where part of the earnings come from sales of pork and alcohol and/or inappropriate material (lottery tickets/books etc) is also haram (forbidden)

So if I'm a strict enough Muslim not to want to allow another person to purchase these items, I should also be strict enough not to accept money from the sales of these items. I just personally hate it when people pick and chose which part of the ruling they decide to follow.


----------



## merlin12 (Jun 24, 2011)

Hmmmmmmmmmmm, we are here arguing about a customer who wasn´t really angry, a worker that has probably forgotten all about it and sleeps well at night and a company that has the policy of trying to take into consideration its workers religieous values.....


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

merlin12 said:


> Hmmmmmmmmmmm, we are here arguing about a customer who wasn´t really angry, a worker that has probably forgotten all about it and sleeps well at night and a company that has the policy of trying to take into consideration its workers religieous values.....


But the original point opens up debate on a much wider subject - no bad thing surely, and equally valid?

Some interesting points have been raised and are worthy of discussion.

That's usually what happens when a debate begins on any subject.


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

merlin12 said:


> Hmmmmmmmmmmm, we are here arguing about a customer who wasn´t really angry, a worker that has probably forgotten all about it and sleeps well at night and a company that has the policy of trying to take into consideration its workers religieous values.....


No, we are not, actually.

We are debating a point of principle. A concession to one faith that is one concession among an increasing number. And several customers have now reported being furious when they had queued for ages only to be told they could not be served in the 'normal' fashion because of *one *person's faith.

See, here's the thing that some of you keep missing:

The *only* person being _*intolerant*_ is the person refusing to allow the customer to buy what they want.

Nobody is stopping anyone from following Islam. Nobody is insisting the Muslim in question eats the pork or drinks the alcohol. All anyone is asking is to be permitted to walk into a shop and then buy what is on offer. Period.


----------



## grumpy goby (Jan 18, 2012)

Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> No, we are not, actually.
> 
> We are debating a point of principle. A concession to one faith that is one concession among an increasing number. And several customers have now reported being furious when they had queued for ages only to be told they could not be served in the 'normal' fashion because of *one *person's faith.
> 
> ...


And they can. Even if one cashier doesnt serve certain goods, no one is being prevented from buying anything from the shop. No more than trying to buy 18+goods from a minor or trying to get birth control in a pharmacy with a catholic pharmacist.

Its a minor inconvenience to the customer, not a full on refusal of service, and not one that is unknown to the retail world in other forms.


----------



## Zhari (Dec 27, 2013)

merlin12 said:


> Hmmmmmmmmmmm, we are here arguing about a customer who wasn´t really angry, a worker that has probably forgotten all about it and sleeps well at night and a company that has the policy of trying to take into consideration its workers religieous values.....


Actually from an outsiders point of view, the discussion has been really interesting and happily without a lot of the mudslinging that goes on in some forums. For me personally, since I only know from a few UK converts here who seem to think the UK is the bastion of Islamic discrimination, I am really happy and surprised at the level of open mindness and willingness of people to accommodate religious beliefs. So for me, it's been very educational


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

grumpy goby said:


> And they can. Even if one cashier doesnt serve certain goods, no one is being prevented from buying anything from the shop. No more than trying to buy 18+goods from a minor or trying to get birth control in a pharmacy with a catholic pharmacist.
> 
> Its a minor inconvenience to the customer, not a full on refusal of service, and not one that is unknown to the retail world in other forms.


In practise, there is a difference.

If you go to a till with an underage cashier - what usually happens is they spot the alcohol, ring for assistance, supervisor comes over - inserts a key in keypad and puts in their own id code and the cashier then continues as normal. So very little disruption to the whole process.

The situation which may arise now because of religion is that at best, the customer has to find another queue to join (which may be longer) or, having not noticed the sign above the cashier that states they don't serve X Y Z - has to reload a week's shopping back into their trolley and locate to another till - or wait while the cashier is replaced. (Surely, if the cashier is so devout - the supervisor, keypad solution as used for alcohol would not suffice?)


----------



## mollydog07 (May 26, 2012)

Why work in retail if you don't want to sell? your wage depends on it!,many companies are already struggling,markies included,due to recession.....I would want my employees to sell their granny if it came to it! (joking).think said employee might be happier in another profession.


----------



## merlin12 (Jun 24, 2011)

Zhari said:


> Actually from an outsiders point of view, the discussion has been really interesting and happily without a lot of the mudslinging that goes on in some forums. For me personally, since I only know from a few UK converts here who seem to think the UK is the bastion of Islamic discrimination, I am really happy and surprised at the level of open mindness and willingness of people to accommodate religious beliefs. So for me, it's been very educational


Debate is good and respect for different views is even better but I haven´t seen a lot of accommodating, I have seen a lot of indignation at not getting what they want when they go to certain places. With all the shops and pharmacies around apart from different cashiers I dont see why people feel they have to have the particular person that doesn´t want to do something to do it, it just seems like "I´m going to break your will, you do as I say". Anyway the fault is of the shop, things should be adequately warned to avoid customers wasting their precious time and having to find out about the personal values of the workers.


----------



## Zhari (Dec 27, 2013)

Out of curiosity I checked out what the Muslim Council of Britain had to say, and they agree with people that think allowing the cashier to refuse was unwarranted. 
Muslim leaders slam M&S over 'ridiculous' till policy | Mail Online

Quoted from the Article:

Khola Hasan, a legal consultant who has advised the Islamic Sharia Council, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: 'I was quite dismayed when I heard this news about M&S. I'm just wondering how far till workers can go? Are they there to police what people are buying?
'Will a till worker refuse to process a cake that has got champagne in it or a chocolate that has got brandy in it?

'Muslims cannot eat any meat that is not halal, so will they refuse to process chicken or beef or lamb because it's not halal? I don't know how far we are going to go. I think it's ridiculous.'

Miss Hasan said that Islamic law does not prohibit Muslims from selling alcohol in a supermarket.

She added: 'I think that we have to live together and that includes Muslims. How are we going to live together if we are sitting in a shop saying, "I won't serve you and I won't talk to you because you've got this in your hands?".'

SO, WHAT DOES THE KORAN SAY?
The Noble Qur'an (Koran)

Few interpreters of the Koran claim the holy text forbids any contact with pork or alcohol.

Rather, the guidance to the faithful is tolerant of those who break the rules out of necessity.

Among the passages that deal with food and drink, Sura two, verse 173, reads: 'He has forbidden you carrion, blood, and the flesh of swine; also any flesh that is consecrated other than in the name of God.

'But whoever is compelled through necessity, intending neither to sin nor to transgress, shall incur no guilt. God is forgiving and merciful.'

The same Sura, verse 219, falls short of outright condemnation of drinking alcohol. It reads: 'They ask you about drinking and gambling. Say, "There is great harm in both, although they have some benefit for men; but their harm is far greater than their benefit".'


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

grumpy goby said:


> And they can. Even if one cashier doesnt serve certain goods, no one is being prevented from buying anything from the shop. No more than trying to buy 18+goods from a minor or trying to get birth control in a pharmacy with a catholic pharmacist.
> 
> Its a minor inconvenience to the customer, not a full on refusal of service, and not one that is unknown to the retail world in other forms.


It is not a 'minor inconvenience' according to those it has happened to. And it represents a wider principle that is absurd.

The analogy of buying from a minor doesn't work: that is a *legal* situation. There is no law in the UK that a cashier or any other shop employee is allowed to refuse service just because they *personally* don't agree with consuming the item being sold.

Let me ask you:

You have queued for a while to buy some meat. The cashier rings through all your other items and then informs you that because she/he is a vegetarian, they will not ring through the meat. You then have to wait 20 mins for a non vegetarian cashier to be brought in from another till.

Would that be acceptable to you?

It sure as hell wouldn't be acceptable to me.


----------



## grumpy goby (Jan 18, 2012)

Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> It is not a 'minor inconvenience' according to those it has happened to. And it represents a wider principle that is absurd.
> 
> The analogy of buying from a minor doesn't work: that is a *legal* situation. There is no law in the UK that a cashier or any other shop employee is allowed to refuse service just because they *personally* don't agree with consuming the item being sold.
> 
> ...


No different to being told I have to go across town to get my contraceptive pill. Which sounds like MORE of an inconvenience to me. And with a much greater potential impact/damage if I am unable to get to the other pharmacist. And where does it ever take 20mins for a cashier to attend for help in any supermarket type store? IME when a cashier has called for assistance its been a matter of minutes before someone has attended. They do it call assistance the time for various reasons (replacing broken eggs at the till for example..) - tills have lights on for a reason...

I really think people are over reacting hugely.

I am an atheist and think all religions are a bit silly honestly, but you cant exclude some religions certain exclusions when others exist (such as pharmacists).

I really do see the whole thing as a mountain out of a molehill and cannot for the life of me see it as a major hassle or problem.


----------



## Jobeth (May 23, 2010)

Zhari said:


> Out of curiosity I checked out what the Muslim Council of Britain had to say, and they agree with people that think allowing the cashier to refuse was unwarranted.
> Muslim leaders slam M&S over 'ridiculous' till policy | Mail Online
> 
> Quoted from the Article:
> ...


Just shows you that you should consult the relevant authority before deciding on policy.


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

grumpy goby said:


> *No different to being told I have to go across town to get my contraceptive pill. Which sounds like MORE of an inconvenience to me. And with a much greater potential impact/damage if I am unable to get to the other pharmacist.* And where does it ever take 20mins for a cashier to attend for help in any supermarket type store? IME when a cashier has called for assistance its been a matter of minutes before someone has attended. They do it call assistance the time for various reasons (replacing broken eggs at the till for example..) - tills have lights on for a reason...
> 
> I really think people are over reacting hugely.
> 
> ...


I think the situation with the pharmacy is APPALLING. I think any situation where one person's religious choices infringe on another person's freedoms is wrong.

And just to be pedantic: I do know someone who had to wait just over 20 minutes when the original cashier refused to serve her; she was buying alcohol. She was an adult. And she was hopping mad!

Please take on board that none of these are isolated instances: there is an increasing trend of people's freedoms being compromised because of other people's religions. Sure, today it's affecting shopping. Doesn't mean it will stop at that - it's when things happen in increments that they are the most dangerous.

What about all the other concessions being made?


----------



## grumpy goby (Jan 18, 2012)

Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> I think the situation with the pharmacy is APPALLING. I think any situation where one person's religious choices infringe on another person's freedoms is wrong.
> 
> And just to be pedantic: I do know someone who had to wait just over 20 minutes when the original cashier refused to serve her; she was buying alcohol. She was an adult. And she was hopping mad!
> 
> ...


I honestly think people like to get uptight and overwrought with things that dont warrant it. I see this as exactly that situation.

These concessions arent isolated to one religion, they are blanket policies covering all religions.

If someone has to wait 20mins in a store for assistance i would suggest the store in itself is understaffed, badly managed, and go shop elsewhere. I have never, ever, had to wait any great lengths for assistance, and if I did I would probably shop elsewhere - somewhere with better staffing levels probably.


----------



## Zhari (Dec 27, 2013)

Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> It is not a 'minor inconvenience' according to those it has happened to. And it represents a wider principle that is absurd.
> 
> It sure as hell wouldn't be acceptable to me.


I agree with you, and I wonder if people really realize the breathe of things I could refuse to process. It's not just a bottle of wine or package of bacon. Good look in your cupboards and fridge and read the labels of how (at least in Canada my country origin) often pork and alcohol is used in modern food.

Going through my till, you'd better not be planning on having marshmellows on your hot chocolate with those cookies with lard and vanilla in them curled up reading 50 Shades of Grey. And NO you don't need nutmeg, don't care if you're grandmothers recipe calls for it. Nor do you need any Ni-quill for your cold An energy drink!!!! my gosh you've got to be kidding me even if you could use it to do your shopping all over again.

And that is just a tiny sample of thinks I could refuse to process. And in reality these people do Islam and other Muslims an injustice as they do skew the actual wider belief system.

People are not even being asked to touch these items cause unless the UK does it a whole lot differently, the meat is wrapped and the wine is in the bottle.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

grumpy goby said:


> If someone has to wait 20mins in a store for assistance i would suggest the store in itself is understaffed, badly managed, and go shop elsewhere.


You are spoiled when it comes to the number of tills open in places like tesco's. Maximum number of open tills at one of the local supermarkets here.. 3.

It's not badly understaffed, it's the people aren't doing the job for which they are paid. Badly managed I can agree with as management shouldn't allow people to not do the job for which they are paid.

Who has said the policy at the pharmacies is justified out of interest?


----------



## grumpy goby (Jan 18, 2012)

Goblin said:


> You are spoiled when it comes to the number of tills open in places like tesco's. Maximum number of open tills at one of the local supermarkets here.. 3.
> 
> It's not badly understaffed, it's the people aren't doing the job for which they are paid. Badly managed I can agree with as management shouldn't allow people to not do the job for which they are paid.
> 
> Who has said the policy at the pharmacies is justified out of interest?


No one. Yet its not kicked up the same storm when its been policy for goodness knows how long, do you not see that as hypocritical or highlighting of an agenda from the media?


----------



## Zhari (Dec 27, 2013)

merlin12 said:


> Debate is good and respect for different views is even better but I haven´t seen a lot of accommodating, I have seen a lot of indignation at not getting what they want when they go to certain places. With all the shops and pharmacies around apart from different cashiers I dont see why people feel they have to have the particular person that doesn´t want to do something to do it, it just seems like "I´m going to break your will, you do as I say". Anyway the fault is of the shop, things should be adequately warned to avoid customers wasting their precious time and having to find out about the personal values of the workers.


 Funny isn't it how different things appear to people cause I see quite a few people arguing for the cashiers right to refuse on religious grounds and promoting more tolerance from people who want to buy the item and more tolerance in general .

I agree with you though that this particular incident M&S could have handled better and they obviously need a more clear cut policy that staff are trained on.


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

grumpy goby said:


> No one. Yet its not kicked up the same storm when its been policy for goodness knows how long, do you not see that as hypocritical or highlighting of an agenda from the media?


Sorry, you are incorrect.

There was a massive debate about the pharmacy issue a while back, feel welcome to look at my posts and you will find it there.

I see no difference between a devout Catholic refusing to sell contraception, and a Muslim refusing to sell alcohol. Both people are being intolerant of the customers' choices and rights and freedoms.

It is not mutual intolerance. Nobody forced the Catholic to become a chemist. Nobody forced the Muslim to work somewhere that sells alcohol.


----------



## grumpy goby (Jan 18, 2012)

Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> Sorry, you are incorrect.
> 
> There was a massive debate about the pharmacy issue a while back, feel welcome to look at my posts and you will find it there.
> 
> I see no difference between a devout Catholic refusing to sell contraception, and a Muslim refusing to sell alcohol. Both people are being intolerant of the customers' choices.


Im sorry, can you point me to where there is* media* critisism of pharmacy policy? I did state MEDIA hypocrisy and agenda - not member comments. If there are news articles on the issue I have missed then I apologise.


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

Zhari said:


> Funny isn't it how different things appear to people cause I see quite a few people arguing for the cashiers right to refuse on religious grounds and promoting more tolerance from people who want to buy the item and more tolerance in general .
> 
> I agree with you though that this particular incident M&S could have handled better and they obviously need a more clear cut policy that staff are trained on.


But nobody has explained why I as the customer, should tolerate other people's religions when those religions prevent me from walking into a shop and buying what is on sale there.

I am not intolerant - I support the right of any Muslim to follow Islam for themselves and to abstain from alcohol or pork etc. I support the right of any Catholic not to use contraception.

Equally, they should be tolerant towards those of us who *do* choose to purchase these items!


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

grumpy goby said:


> Im sorry,* can you point me to where there is media critisism of pharmacy policy? * I did state MEDIA hypocrisy and agenda - not member comments. If there are news articles on the issue I have missed then I apologise.


Here are just a few:

Catholic chemist refused to sell morning after pills | Mail Online

BBC NEWS | World | Americas | Chile pharmacies warned over pill

Some Pharmacies Refuse to Fill Birth Control Prescriptions - ABC News

New Va. pharmacy won


----------



## grumpy goby (Jan 18, 2012)

Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> Here are just a few:
> 
> Catholic chemist refused to sell morning after pills | Mail Online
> 
> ...


Then I apologise as I had not seen these.

I do still honestly believe this to be a bit of a non issue though personally. No one is being refused service, as they would be served by another cashier.

I do still believe the media (esp the mail) love to whip up a good drama (I have personally seen this happen), and I do think this is such a case.


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

grumpy goby said:


> Then I apologise as I had not seen these.
> 
> I do still honestly believe this to be a bit of a non issue though personally. No one is being refused service, as they would be served by another cashier.
> 
> I do still believe the media (esp the mail) love to whip up a good drama (I have personally seen this happen), and I do think this is such a case.


Oh, I don't deny it makes a good headline and story 

And I accept that on a personal level, it may well seem like a 'non issue'. For many of us.

It's when one sees it as part of a bigger picture that I think it becomes an important topic. I do not feel that any one faith should trump the rights of non members of said faith.

If you look at my earlier post, a few pages back, and actually see the entire list of concessions that have been made, you may slightly change your mind.....

Here is just one example that I find worrying - this seems to be happening more in the last two or three years. I don't know the blog this links to, but have seen this story elsewhere also:

http://theopinionator.typepad.com/m...ts-of-london-are-sharia-controlled-zones.html


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

Might be worth noting that women in some communities in the UK are already suffering under Sharia:

Islamic Sharia Law Comes to Great Britain - World - CBN News - Christian News 24-7 - CBN.com

To reiterate: I fully respect the right of any Muslim to live by Sharia Law. I do *not* accept that any non Muslim should also have to 'tolerate' Sharia. Under Sharia, women, Christians, Jews, Hindus, and Gays *do* suffer.


----------



## grumpy goby (Jan 18, 2012)

With all due respect, these are HEAVILY biased sources :/

The opinionator specifically is Pro EDL. And clearly has an agenda.


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

grumpy goby said:


> With all due respect, these are HEAVILY biased sources :/
> 
> The opinionator specifically is Pro EDL. And clearly has an agenda.


I don't know the blog so I won't disagree re your point about the EDL.

However, the facts reported are, I believe, correct.

There *are* areas in the UK that are now 'no go' areas for non Muslims.

There *are* Sharia courts ruling on matters that should be confined to the British justice system.

There *are* Muslim girls and women who are suffering terribly because of Sharia Law.

And if you look at countries that are bound by Sharia, it is very, very worrying. Women buried alive and stoned to death for adultery. Genital mutilation of young girls. Rape victims not believed unless there is at least one other male witness because a woman's word, according to Sharia, is 'worth less' than that of a man. And so on, and so forth...

I do not want to live in a country where Sharia Law is permitted to encroach on the lives of non Muslims.

That is what I am trying to convey with my points about the M&S situation - it is simply one point on a terribly slippery slope.


----------



## grumpy goby (Jan 18, 2012)

I agree that horrible things are done in the name of religion. I think religion, all religions, are an excuse for misogyny. 

I dont agree however that there is a risk of the UK or Europe falling under Sharia Law - and that is properganda spread by bigots like those in the EDL. Scaremongering at its best.

Facts become skewed in the hands of media with a political agenda. And sites like the Opinionator are absolutly brimming with it.


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

grumpy goby said:


> I agree that horrible things are done in the name of religion. I think religion, all religions, are an excuse for misogyny.
> 
> I dont agree however that there is a risk of the UK or Europe falling under Sharia Law - and that is properganda spread by bigots like those in the EDL. Scaremongering at its best.
> 
> Facts become skewed in the hands of media with a political agenda. And sites like the Opinionator are absolutly brimming with it.


Not all religions have a comprehensive political theology, as does Islam.

And alarmingly, in the UK right now, Sharia Law exists alongside British Law, in many instances. If someone had suggested this could happen a few decades ago, the response would have been ridicule and laughter. But it has happened - and in some cases Sharia is allowed to actually supercede British law.

The other difference is that most other faiths do not mandate that the rest of the world agree with them and live by the same rules. Islam openly states this, this is not 'propaganda' in the slightest - it is an openly stated aim OF Islam.

Of course, there are millions of Muslims who don't agree with this. But they are going against the Quran - it's the Muslims who adhere to the Quran and Islam and Sharia that *do* support these aims.

To reiterate: this is NOT 'propaganda'. It is simple, objective fact.

I would speak equally as passionately about any other religion that said the same things about non members or that had the same openly stated aims.

And it cannot be 'bigotry' to state objective facts. I support the right of anyone who wishes to follow Islam. I simply don't wish to follow it at all myself NOR to have to make concessions to it.


----------



## myshkin (Mar 23, 2010)

Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> Oh, I don't deny it makes a good headline and story
> 
> And I accept that on a personal level, it may well seem like a 'non issue'. For many of us.
> 
> ...


Do you think that blog site is a reliable source of news? It openly campaigns for the BNP and the EDL.... both known for peddling outright lies to further their racist, bigoted and xenophobic agenda.


----------



## Guest (Dec 29, 2013)

Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> I don't know the blog so I won't disagree re your point about the EDL.
> 
> However, the facts reported are, I believe, correct.
> 
> ...


I have said it before and i will say it again. Sharia law has no legal standing in the uk and never will. Although the paranoid right wing will tell anyone who will listen otherwise. However sharia law does have a place in our society... Sharia Law in the UK


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

myshkin said:


> Do you think that blog site is a reliable source of news? It openly campaigns for the BNP and the EDL.... both known for peddling outright lies to further their racist, bigoted and xenophobic agenda.


I mentioned at the outset that I was not familiar with that blog, so I totally take on board your points. I am utterly against the BNP. I don't support the EDL either.

That being said, the examples described in that blog are valid, because they've been reported elsewhere, including more mainstream and 'reliable' sources. I am about to go out shortly but when I'm back later I will be happy to link to sources that don't for instance support the BNP - because I do take your point


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

Robnsacha said:


> I have said it before and i will say it again. Sharia law has no legal standing in the uk and never will. Although the paranoid right wing will tell anyone who will listen otherwise. However sharia law does have a place in our society... Sharia Law in the UK


OK, firstly I am not 'paranoid' so quit with the insults - thus far this debate has been very good natured.

Secondly, you can say what you want, as many times as you want: the reality is that in *some* cases, Sharia Law is operating alongside British law.

*Women suffering in Britain under Sharia Law:
Inside Britain's Sharia courts - Telegraph*

*Muslim 'religious police' in the UK:
Muslim Religious Police Begin Enforcing Islamic Law in London (VIDEO) | FrontPage Magazine*

*Islamic Sharia Law courts operating in West Midlands - Birmingham Mail*

*Britain's Sharia Courts: "You Cannot Go Against What Islam Says" :: Gatestone Institute*

*Islamic Sharia Law Comes to Great Britain - World - CBN News - Christian News 24-7 - CBN.com*

*Britain has 85 sharia courts: The astonishing spread of the Islamic justice behind closed doors | Mail Online*


----------



## merlin12 (Jun 24, 2011)

Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> OK, firstly I am not 'paranoid' so quit with the insults - thus far this debate has been very good natured.
> 
> Secondly, you can say what you want, as many times as you want: the reality is that in *some* cases, Sharia Law is operating alongside British law.
> 
> ...


Yes it is operating and it is the law that dictates what they do and it is followed before the law of the country.


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

Zhari said:


> I agree with you, and I wonder if people really realize the breathe of things I could refuse to process. It's not just a bottle of wine or package of bacon. Good look in your cupboards and fridge and read the labels of how (at least in Canada my country origin) often pork and alcohol is used in modern food.
> 
> Going through my till, you'd better not be planning on having marshmellows on your hot chocolate with those cookies with lard and vanilla in them curled up reading 50 Shades of Grey. And NO you don't need nutmeg, don't care if you're grandmothers recipe calls for it. Nor do you need any Ni-quill for your cold An energy drink!!!! my gosh you've got to be kidding me even if you could use it to do your shopping all over again.


:lol: the more you add to this list, the dafter it gets. You could add most brands of toothpaste too.


----------



## Guest (Dec 29, 2013)

I wasnt calling you parnoid. I said paranoid right wing, the daily mail for example. And the linkr you provided show that certain people have used sharia law outside not alongside british law. Unless both parties agree to using sharia and has been ruled over by the high court. Anyone trying to enforce sharia law on to anyone without the backing of the high courts hasnt got a leg to stand on legally


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Robnsacha said:


> Anyone trying to enforce sharia law on to anyone without the backing of the high courts hasnt got a leg to stand on legally


Dangerous slope isn't it though.. Don't follow along and you are ostracized and potentially intimidated within your local community. We'll ignore the fact that it could well be that the people involved are not actually informed of what they can and cannot do after all cultural brainwashing never happens does it. You don't think the fanatics of a religion aren't doing the same thing people like the BNP are, in distorting reality? You don't think that british muslims are radicalised in the UK? Are you saying honor killings don't happen or is this all propaganda?

I said earlier apathy but from what's been said it's also denial. Worse it's people staying out, often due to the fear of simply being labelled an extremist. You don't have to be an extremist to express your views. In many ways it's necessary to actually create an environment where understanding can be reached between all sides.


----------



## Guest (Dec 29, 2013)

I agree in part yes. Those things can and do happen. What can be done about it? Wish i knew but i dont. Maybe better education in schools and places of worship as to the laws and rights that everyone regardless of who they are have in the uk? Lack of understanding from both sides is why we see things like 'secret sharia courts in the uk'


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

Robnsacha said:


> I agree in part yes. Those things can and do happen. What can be done about it? Wish i knew but i dont. Maybe better education in schools and places of worship as to the laws and rights that everyone regardless of who they are have in the uk? Lack of understanding from both sides is why we see things like 'secret sharia courts in the uk'


No, the reason we see sharia courts operating is because *some* Muslims have requested or demanded them.

Surely British law should apply to everyone who lives in Britain...?

May I just ask, are you familiar with the tenets of Sharia Law? I don't mean to sound patronising, just there is no way for me to know if you are familiar with it or not.


----------



## Guest (Dec 29, 2013)

Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> No, the reason we see sharia courts operating is because *some* Muslims have requested or demanded them.
> 
> Surely British law should apply to everyone who lives in Britain...?
> 
> May I just ask, are you familiar with the tenets of Sharia Law? I don't mean to sound patronising, just there is no way for me to know if you are familiar with it or not.


British law does apply to everyone here. And im not an expert on sharia law (far from it) but i think i understand enough to form an opinion. Was there something in paticular you wanted to bring to my attention?


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

Robnsacha said:


> British law does apply to everyone here. And im not an expert on sharia law (far from it) but i think i understand enough to form an opinion. Was there something in paticular you wanted to bring to my attention?


Actually British law does not apply to everyone.

e.g. in Britain polygamy is illegal. A man is only allowed one wife at a time under British law.

However, because under Sharia Law men are allowed several lives, some Muslim men in the UK are allowed several wives - and in some cases each wife receives benefits. This happens when the men are from countries where it is legal to have several wives.

Thus the laws from another country are already trumping British laws.

This is just one example.


----------



## ZipsDad (Oct 31, 2013)

Robnsacha said:


> I have said it before and i will say it again. Sharia law has no legal standing in the uk and never will. Although the paranoid right wing will tell anyone who will listen otherwise. *However sharia law does have a place in our society*... Sharia Law in the UK


That sentiment would go over like a lead balloon here in the US.
I mean, individual states are allowed laws but even those can't supersede US law.
I can't fathom the idea of allowing a particular religion's laws to exist alongside our Constitution.


----------



## Mulish (Feb 20, 2013)

Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> May I just ask: those of you defending the right of the employee not to serve the customer: would you also support the right of a vegetarian to refuse to serve someone buying meat?


If their employers had told them they didn't have to and it was something they felt that strongly about then yes, I would. Although I'd wonder at the business sense of putting someone into a job they couldn't do fully.



MCWillow said:


> ...Turn it around - how would a sign on the till stating 'No alcohol or pork goods will be served at this till - Muslim friendly' be received by the general public?...


Judging by this thread? Not very well 



Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> You're ignoring the fate of Jews, Christians, Gays and women in countries where Sharia Law is in effect. Usually a ghastly fate for all of these groups...
> 
> The openly stated aim OF Islam is: to implement Sharia Law throughout the world.


The fate of women and gay people isn't that great in a whole load of countries and many of them don't live under Sharia Law. India in particular has been generating a lot of horrible headlines this year.

I am interested in this idea that Islam is out to take over the world, though. Like I said, I've not read the Quran so my limited knowledge comes from speaking with Muslim friends but I've been told on more than one occasion that unlike, say, Jehovah Witnesses, Muslims aren't allowed to try and convert non-believers. Islam is a religion you are supposed to discover for yourself and you then decide how far you wish to submit to it. Hence why some women cover more than others and the varying levels of adherence to food rules and praying.



Goblin said:


> What.. like selling products sold by a store to customers..





Lurcherlad said:


> In practise, there is a difference.
> 
> If you go to a till with an underage cashier - what usually happens is they spot the alcohol, ring for assistance, supervisor comes over - inserts a key in keypad and puts in their own id code and the cashier then continues as normal. So very little disruption to the whole process.
> 
> The situation which may arise now because of religion is that at best, the customer has to find another queue to join (which may be longer) or, having not noticed the sign above the cashier that states they don't serve X Y Z - has to reload a week's shopping back into their trolley and locate to another till - or wait while the cashier is replaced. (Surely, if the cashier is so devout - the supervisor, keypad solution as used for alcohol would not suffice?)


M&S have already back tracked and admitted this person shouldn't have been stuck on a till but placed where her beliefs wouldn't be compromised and customers wouldn't be affected. It was a mistake and I don't see it being repeated in every store across the land because the backlash was so great. Which, honestly, sort of proves that the UK is not on the slippery slope to Sharia Law if one reported case of someone being refused service gets so much negative publicity a big company like M&S apologise and revise their stance so fast.

I think we can all rest easy knowing that, at least for the moment, profit still supersedes religion


----------



## Guest (Dec 29, 2013)

Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> Actually British law does not apply to everyone.
> 
> e.g. in Britain polygamy is illegal. A man is only allowed one wife at a time under British law.
> 
> ...


Well i will have to do some research on that one, thanks for bringing it up. But i would be suprised if i didnt find a british law that allowed people to do this. How else could they officially be classed as married here?


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

UK legally recognises multiple Islamic wives - Culture & Society - ArabianBusiness.com


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

Robnsacha said:


> Well i will have to do some research on that one, thanks for bringing it up. But i would be suprised if i didnt find a british law that allowed people to do this. How else could they officially be classed as married here?


The 'logic' seems to be that because the weddings took place in countries where polygamy is legal, these polygamous marriages have to be accepted and sanctioned here in the UK.

Even though under British law, polygamy is illegal.

It's ridiculous.

By comparison, any British man who marries more than once, at the same time, faces up to seven years in prison.

This is a clear instance of the law not applying equally to all and of a religion being given 'special' rights.


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

Mulish said:


> If their employers had told them they didn't have to and it was something they felt that strongly about then yes, I would. Although I'd wonder at the business sense of putting someone into a job they couldn't do fully.
> 
> Judging by this thread? Not very well
> 
> ...


Granted, there are plenty of Muslims who would not try and convert anyone. Yes, I totally agree.

However, Islam if adhered to 'properly' involves attempting to establish Sharia wherever and whenever possible. Unlike other faiths, Islam is also a political system, which clearly splits the world into two parts: the House of Islam, and the non Islamic world.

Or, as Islam calls these:, the House of Islam (dar al-Islam) and the House of War (dar al-harb).

The House of Islam encompasses nations that have submitted to Islamic rule, - nations ruled by Sharia law. The rest of the world, which has not accepted Sharia law exists in a state of rebellion or 'war' with the will of Allah/Islam.

If you ever have time and the inclination, read the Quran. It's extremely interesting.


----------



## ZipsDad (Oct 31, 2013)

Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> The 'logic' seems to be that because the weddings took place in countries where polygamy is legal, these polygamous marriages have to be accepted and sanctioned here in the UK.
> 
> Even though under British law, polygamy is illegal.
> 
> It's ridiculous.


That wouldn't happen here in the US.
Even the Mormons here, whose religion allows polygamy, are prosecuted for practicing that belief.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Mulish said:


> M&S have already back tracked and admitted this person shouldn't have been stuck on a till but placed where her beliefs wouldn't be compromised and customers wouldn't be affected. It was a mistake and I don't see it being repeated in every store across the land because the backlash was so great. Which, honestly, sort of proves that the UK is not on the slippery slope to Sharia Law if one reported case of someone being refused service gets so much negative publicity a big company like M&S apologise and revise their stance so fast.


No that simply shows this time there are enough people to stand up and say it is wrong. You have others argue it's perfectly acceptable. How long until those who argue it's acceptable become the majority?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

MCWillow said:


> 1.30??? Its 12.30 here
> 
> Have a good day tomorrow


Yup - I discovered it was 12.30 when I got to bed and set the alarm clock :lol:

Lots to catch up on - going to start reading now ...


----------



## Mulish (Feb 20, 2013)

Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> Granted, there are plenty of Muslims who would not try and convert anyone. Yes, I totally agree.
> 
> However, Islam if adhered to 'properly' involves attempting to establish Sharia wherever and whenever possible. Unlike other faiths, Islam is also a political system, which clearly splits the world into two parts: the House of Islam, and the non Islamic world.
> 
> ...


Aren't there a lot of questionable things in all holy books, though? They were all written such a long time ago and the world has moved on. Concessions are made by many more progressive members of all faiths - gay lifestyles are becoming accepted, women are making their way into traditionally male roles - and I honestly see this as the way all religions will eventually go. There will always be the extremists but as education levels increase the world over, changes will be made to accommodate modern living for fear of losing people.

Traditionally, I feel religion has been used as a way to keep the masses under control. It offered rules and laws and hope and comfort when people stayed where they were and knew nothing but what they were taught by those around them. Most of the world doesn't live that way anymore.

That's why I don't worry about finding myself suddenly living under a religion led dictatorship. That and the fact the people making our rules might seem to give concessions to minorities but, ultimately, no-one is going to do anything that affects their own position of wealth and power.



Goblin said:


> No that simply shows this time there are enough people to stand up and say it is wrong. You have others argue it's perfectly acceptable. How long until those who argue it's acceptable become the majority?


Bloody ages  Just judging from this thread the general consensus seems to be 'do what you like as long as it doesn't affect me'. People are mostly selfish and lazy and will let stuff go right up until it stops them from doing what they want, when they want. I can't speak for all of us who are arguing for religious rights to be accommodated (and we are a definite minority in this thread) but I've said several times that I think they should be taken into consideration _alongside_ the customer's right to service. No-one's rights should trump anyone else's so place people in jobs they can do fully. It's the fairest and most practical solution.

Reading the statement from the UK's Islamic council that was quoted a few posts back, even they aren't asking for segregation and special treatment so where is the push to turn us into a nation under Sharia Law supposed to be coming from?


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

MULISH -

I totally agree, there are insane things in most, if not all, religious scriptures. Absolutely.

But I would ask you to consider the vital differences between the ideology of Islam, and all other faiths.

For example, I would ask you:

Why do we have so many problems with Muslims but not Buddhists?

Why are we constantly urged to tolerate and co-exist with Muslims but not Buddhists?

Western culture isn't more similar to Buddhism than Islam. So why doesn't anybody feel the need to convince us to tolerate Buddhists?

*Could it be that the tenets of the religions themselves are dramatically different?*

You also might like to note:

Currently more people are killed in the name of Islam every year than were killed in the entire 350 years of the Spanish Inquisition.

Look at how the Quran was written. Whereas the scriptures of many other faiths were written by several people, over hundreds or even thousands of years, *the Quran was written by one man, Mohammad, over the course of his lifetime. *

It took him 23 years to write it. (Actually he recited it because he was illiterate.) The Quran does not contain metaphors or stories. It is mostly a colourful description of hell and Paradise, and many direct instructions on how a Muslim should behave.

The Quran makes it crystal clear what a devout Muslim 'must' do to secure a place in Paradise - and avoid hell.

A large part of the Quran is dedicated to talking about the inferiority of non Muslims.

***note, I am not saying that all Muslims follow the Quran. Many don't. But even if a minority of Muslims follow it, that is still millions and millions of people who believe they 'must' create Sharia Law wherever possible, by any means possible.


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

Mulish said:


> Reading the statement from the UK's Islamic council that was quoted a few posts back, even they aren't asking for segregation and special treatment so where is the push to turn us into a nation under Sharia Law supposed to be coming from?


That 'push' is coming from devout Muslims and their leaders. Please, see the links in my earlier answers. I can provide many more if you are interested.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

ZipsDad said:


> What the bloody feck?
> 
> You're reaching, astronomically, here.
> How could she NOT be practicing religious intolerance if she is COMPLETELY intolerant of another religions ability to buy/use products HER religion does not?
> ...


She is not practising religious intolerance; she is merely practising her own religion. The fact that aspects not allowed in her religion are allowed in other religions does not mean she is being intolerant of other religions. In order to practice intolerance of other religions she would have to be doing something to stop people of other religions buying pork and alcohol, which she clearly isn't doing if she is directing them to another till where they can be served.

For real religious intolerance, look to the posters on here who would deny her the right to practice her religion just because it may incovenience them for a minute or so. Now THAT is religious intolerance.



ZipsDad said:


> Ok. Now I need a "pass completely out" smiley.
> 
> Even you have to see the stupendous silliness in your assertion.
> She would ONLY be treating everyone equally if EVERYONE came to her counter and was refused the ability to obtain those items.
> ...


The only joke here is that you seem uinable to grasp what discrimination and treating everyone equally actually means.

You state that she would be treating everyone equally if everyone who came to her counter was refused the ability to obtain those items.

Well, everone was.

Ergo, she is treating everyone equally.  

Your second statement is redundant because the fact that some people who come to her till may be of the same religion as her does not affect her decision on whether or not to serve them. Her decision on whether or not to serve them is based purely upon her own beliefs, and in making that decsion she is treating everyone equally - you've even admitted that yourself.



ZipsDad said:


> "It's not religious intolerance (nor discrimination) just because you won't serve a person their goods that are perfectly ok in their religion."
> 
> :lol:
> 
> ...


No it's not. Logic certainly is not your strong point.

Premise: her religon prevents her from touching alcohol therefore she serves no-one with alcohol
Conclusion: she has treated everyone equally and discriminated against no-one.

Your argument:
Premise: I treat every man and woman the same therefore I serve men but refuse to serve women.
Conclusion: I do not treat men and women the same rherefore I am discriminating against women.


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

My responses in blue:



Spellweaver said:


> She is not practising religious intolerance; she is merely practising her own religion. The fact that aspects not allowed in her religion are allowed in other religions does not mean she is being intolerant of other religions. In order to practice intolerance of other religions she would have to be doing something to stop people of other religions buying pork and alcohol, which she clearly isn't doing if she is directing them to another till where they can be served.
> 
> *For real religious intolerance, look to the posters on here who would deny her the right to practice her religion just because it may incovenience them for a minute or so. Now THAT is religious intolerance.*
> 
> ...


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

MCWillow said:


> I didn't even _do_ a degree, so have some sympathy for my poor unused braincells
> 
> See, it could be argued that that till is discriminating against anyone who follows a religion that _does_ allow them to consume alcohol.
> 
> ...


Ah, now this is interesting. With the wording given above, I would say that it is discminatory because you are stating that it is being done because of certain religions. People other than muslims might not agree with alcohol being sold; people other than christians might prefer a till where no meat is sold. However, without the "muslim friendly" or "christian friendly" bit, the signs would be no more discriminatory than the signs that say "ten items or less" or "cash only".

If the signs have the references to religion, I think they would not go down very well with the members of the punlic who are intolerant of other religions. Take away the references to religion, and I think the signs would go unnoticed until the Daily Wail caught on and tried to make it into something it wasn't


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Goblin said:


> If a jehova's witness doctor (a group I know very little about but used as it's away from the main ones) refused to give a blood transplant and had to get someone else to do it due to their faith it would not be discrimination either using that argument. Doesn't make it right.


But things can be non-discriminatory and yet still be wrong for many other reasons - anyone who tried to argue diffferently would be on a very sticky wicket indeed.



Goblin said:


> On the question of why highlighting muslims etc. At the current time, muslims are being "hit" for want of a better word as the incidents of radicalism and fanaticism around the news is far higher than any other religion. Any religion's reputation get's destroyed by fanaticism.
> 
> I'm going to be totally against politically correctness and say I knew of a sociology professor a few years ago who stated the only way to prevent Europe adopting Sharia law in the long term is the rechristianisation of Europe. "Rechristianisation" will not happen so instead we do seem to bend over backwards as soon as "my religion" is mentioned when it's not christianity and allow creeping sharia law as boundaries are pushed. Someone wearing a cross to work.. not allowed it's not religious.. someone wearing a burka.. that's fine. Neither are religious, both are choices. People don't admit it but this is what they see and are afraid of. It's important things like the pharmacies policy is highlighted to balance it out but when taken to court, the scales do seem to be stacked heavily the other way.


To be honest, the thought of re-christianisation is as equally abhorrent as the spread of Sharia law. Some dreadful things have been done in the name of Christianty - the suppression of the indiginous religion of countries, the crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the trouble in Northern Ireland to name but a few.

Just suppose what would happen if your professor's ideal was taken up - imagine the wars between christians and muslims that would cause. Do you really think there would be anything left of the world when it was all done?

I have nothing against any religion - just man's misappropriation of it to gain power over others.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

ZipsDad said:


> Sure of that?
> Your own gov't is making Sharia compliant bonds. The first country ever. What is the next step?
> 
> Britain to become first non-Muslim country to launch sharia bond - Telegraph


Read it properly - the "Sharia" part refers merely muslim investors and profits, nothing else. This is the kind of inaccurate scaremongering which allows organisations like EDL, and political parties like the BNP, to convince the gullible that we are all going to be subject to Sharia rule unless we stop allowing muslims to work on tills and not serve alcohol.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> Now THAT is religious intolerance.


No it has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with doing the job that she is paid to do. Doesn't matter if it's due to religion or getting out of bed on the wrong side in the morning. It's not discriminatory.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> See, here's the thing that some of you keep missing:
> 
> The *only* person being _*intolerant*_ is the person refusing to allow the customer to buy what they want.


imo there is more intolerance being shown by people who feel it is more important that they are not kept waiting a few minutes than it is for someone to practice their religion.



Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> Nobody is stopping anyone from following Islam. Nobody is insisting the Muslim in question eats the pork or drinks the alcohol. All anyone is asking is to be permitted to walk into a shop and then buy what is on offer. Period.


No-one is stopping anyone from buying anything - ONE person was asked to go to another till.

It used to be a regular occurance in post offices that you could queue for ages and then the assistant would put up the closed sign when you get to the front so that you had to go to another queue. Did people wail about the religion of the person at the till? No, of course they didn't (although there might have been a few choice remarks about the questionability of their parents' marrital status )

So why is one a big deal and not the other? The effects of the action are the same - it is only the attitude of the customer towards both that differs.


----------



## oliviarussian (Sep 2, 2010)

Just popped to Waitrose to get a few things, as I only had a basket and wanted some cigarettes I went to the tobacco checkout, after the young man had put through my groceries I asked for 20 silk cut only to be told sorry he was too young to serve me!  he was so apologetic and embarrassed and he had to call for assistance as the queues got longer and people were getting impatient.... Who on earth made the crazy decision to put someone not old enough to serve ciggies on the tobacco counter!!!! :mad2::mad2:


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

oliviarussian said:


> Just popped to Waitrose to get a few things, as I only had a basket and wanted some cigarettes I went to the tobacco checkout, after the young man had put through my groceries I asked for 20 silk cut only to be told sorry he was too young to serve me!  he was so apologetic and embarrassed and he had to call for assistance as the queues got longer and people were getting impatient.... Who on earth made the crazy decision to put someone not old enough to serve ciggies on the tobacco counter!!!! :mad2::mad2:


But the employment of under age staff is a business decision, because their wages are lower - and is perfectly reasonable IMO.

It has nothing to do with one person's religion taking precedence over another individual's choice of purchase.

So, personally, I don't have a problem with that 

Incidentally, I never get impatient or angry with supermarket staff when there is a delay in service, for whatever reason. They usually have very little control of the situation at hand and I always feel it is unfair to use them as the whipping boy.


----------



## oliviarussian (Sep 2, 2010)

Lurcherlad said:


> But the employment of under age staff is a business decision, because their wages are lower - and is perfectly reasonable IMO.
> 
> It has nothing to do with one person's religion taking precedence over another individual's choice of purchase.
> 
> ...


I agree but surely common sense would dictate you don't put them in a position where they can't do their job!


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

oliviarussian said:


> I agree but surely common sense would dictate you don't put them in a position where they can't do their job!


Absolutely agree - really unfair to put the lad in that position and something I would not have done if I were the manager in charge.

Usually, there are at least a couple of staff at the ciggie counter in my local supermarket, so I guess maybe someone had gone on break.

I do get surprised when I am in a queue and there is a delay and people get all humpy and try and draw me into their outrage! I simply state that "oh, I'm not bothered, I'm not in a hurry". :thumbup:


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> You are incorrect. It is not 'intolerant' of me to want to walk into a shop and buy alcohol. Or enter a chemist and get contraception. That is me being an adult in a democratic country - an adult who has chosen NOT to live in a theocracy, be that a Muslim or a Catholic one


No, but it is intolerant of you to object to being served at another till so that someone dos not have to compromise her faith



Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> I support the right of any person to follow ANY faith.


You have said this on multiple occasions - but that seems at odds with your reluctance to use another till to suppport the right of someone to follow their religion.



Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> But hell yes, I am intolerant of Sharia - and you should be too, given that this is a religious code which mandates women are inferior and men have the 'right' to rape them. That Gays should be killed. That Christians and Jews and Hindus must submit TO Sharia or be killed.
> 
> I will not accommodate ANY religion which has THESE as its tenets. That means I'm 'intolerant'???
> 
> Then so be it.


I too am totally against Sharia law. However, I would not bat an eyelid at being asked to go to another till - and Sharia law would not even come into my mind.



Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> Again you are wrong. It is discrimination because ONLY the people wishing to buy these items are being refused. Ergo only some people who go to that till are affected.


No, you are wrong. EVERYONE is being refused, irrespective of their beliefs, age, gender, marital status, whether they want to buy alcohol or not - EVERYONE is being refused. That is not discrimination.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> For real religious intolerance, look to the posters on here who would deny her the right to practice her religion just because it may incovenience them for a minute or so. Now THAT is religious intolerance.





Goblin said:


> No it has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with doing the job that she is paid to do.


Perhaps you've missed the posts where we have established that she was indeed doing the job that she was employed to do, that her bosses told her she was able to refuse to handle pork and alcohol, and that M&S have apologised for that mistake 



Goblin said:


> Doesn't matter if it's due to religion or getting out of bed on the wrong side in the morning. It's not discriminatory.


If someone is intolerant of being asked to use another till because the sales assistant is Muslim then that is religious intolerance.

If someone is intolerant of being asked to use another till because they got out of bed on the wrong side then that is not religious intolerance.


----------



## MCWillow (Aug 26, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> Ah, now this is interesting. With the wording given above, I would say that it is discminatory because you are stating that it is being done because of certain religions. People other than muslims might not agree with alcohol being sold; people other than christians might prefer a till where no meat is sold. However, without the "muslim friendly" or "christian friendly" bit, the signs would be no more discriminatory than the signs that say "ten items or less" or "cash only".
> 
> If the signs have the references to religion, I think they would not go down very well with the members of the punlic who are intolerant of other religions. Take away the references to religion, and I think the signs would go unnoticed until the Daily Wail caught on and tried to make it into something it wasn't


I would say it was discriminatory if it said Muslim ONLY or Christian ONLY, but not if you use the word 'friendly'.

You see the words Vegetarian Friendly on lots of packaging, but no-one feels that is discriminating against meat eaters, or Child Friendly on pubs etc, but it doesn't make people feel they can't go into them if they have no children.

The word 'friendly' gives you a choice on whether you want to use that particular product or service, and whether it would be helpful or beneficial for you to do so, not that you _can't_ use it unless you fit that criteria.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> If someone is intolerant of being asked to use another till because the sales assistant is Muslim then that is religious intolerance..


It's not religious intolerance if religion isn't the reason for that intolerance. The person could be from the religion of "never mention the name of the scottish play" and people would react the same way.

The person in question was wrong and if they felt that strongly about the issue, they should not be working for someone who sold the items in question. (also established from the UK Muslim Council if you missed that post).


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> Why do we have so many problems with Muslims but not Buddhists?
> 
> Why are we constantly urged to tolerate and co-exist with Muslims but not Buddhists?
> 
> Western culture isn't more similar to Buddhism than Islam. So why doesn't anybody feel the need to convince us to tolerate Buddhists?


Simple answer is that buddhism is a non theistic religion rather than a monotheistic religion. Buddhism is not about doing what some old book says an imaginary deity would want them to do. Buddhism is not about Divine Right.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Goblin said:


> It's not religious intolerance if religion isn't the reason for that intolerance..


Erm - that is actually what I said?  



Spellweaver said:


> *If someone is intolerant of being asked to use another till because they got out of bed on the wrong side then that is not religious intolerance*.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> Erm - that is actually what I said?


Not what you indicated.. cries of religious intolerance or racism are frequently used when it's not, as in this case. If it is, it's the other way around, pushing your religion into other people's faces which is also a form of religious intolerance.



porps said:


> Simple answer is that buddhism is a non theistic religion rather than a monotheistic religion. Buddhism is not about doing what some old book says an imaginary deity would want them to do. Buddhism is not about Divine Right.


Interesting article: BBC News - Why are Buddhist monks attacking Muslims?


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Goblin said:


> Not what you indicated.. cries of religious intolerance or racism are frequently used when it's not, as in this case. If it is, it's the other way around, pushing your religion into other people's faces which is also a form of religious intolerance.
> 
> Interesting article: BBC News - Why are Buddhist monks attacking Muslims?


interesting aye, thanks for posting. I still hold the position that all religion is bad, however from what i have seen the worst are monotheistic, followed by polytheistic and then finally, the least harmful to society, non theistic.

(not that i see problems being caused by polytheistic religions either)


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

Spellweaver said:


> No, but it is intolerant of you to object to being served at another till so that someone dos not have to compromise her faith
> 
> You have said this on multiple occasions - but that seems at odds with your reluctance to use another till to suppport the right of someone to follow their religion.
> 
> ...


How can Sharia Law not come into your mind when it is because OF Sharia that the woman won't serve you 

You keep ignoring my point: my objection to what has happened with *several * customers at M&S is because it is not an isolated example - i*t is simply one more instance of Sharia and Islam being accommodated.*

Do you also support the swimming pools that at certain times are now closed to EVERYONE bar Muslim women so they can swim 'without being looked at'?

What about the college in London where women now have to sit at the back - to accommodate Muslim men who won't sit with women?

ALL of these are compromises being made *for* Sharia Law. Again PLEASE look at the long list I linked to in an earlier post: that is the context within which the M&S situation has arisen!

And no, it is not me being 'intolerant' of the woman's right to follow Islam: she chose to work somewhere where 'haram' items are being sold which she will inevitably come into contact with.


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

porps said:


> Simple answer is that buddhism is a non theistic religion rather than a monotheistic religion. Buddhism is not about doing what some old book says an imaginary deity would want them to do. Buddhism is not about Divine Right.


Judaism and Christianity are also monotheistic but neither faith mandates that the rest of the world 'must' agree or die.

I used Buddhism as an arbitrary example.

I do appreciate that many people often place the three Abrahamic faiths in the same category. However, anyone who has studied the three will see that in fact Islam is radically different from the other two.

Just as an instance, Judaism forbids members to try and convert non Jews. It is simply not allowed.

Also Islam encompasses an entire political system that the other two Abrahamic faiths do not.

Please also note that more people have been killed in the name of Islam than all other faiths combined.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Goblin said:


> Not what you indicated.. cries of religious intolerance or racism are frequently used when it's not, as in this case.


Who said anything about racism? I think you're the only one to do that. This discussion is about religion, not race.

When I write:


Spellweaver said:


> If someone is intolerant of being asked to use another till because the sales assistant is Muslim then that is religious intolerance.
> 
> If someone is intolerant of being asked to use another till because they got out of bed on the wrong side then that is not religious intolerance.


then I am saying exactly that, not indicating anything else. 



Goblin said:


> pushing your religion into other people's faces which is also a form of religious intolerance.


I suppose it's a matter of opinon as to what constitues "pushing your religion in other people's faces". For me, being asked to use a different till so a muslim does not have to break her faith is not pushing anything in my face - but then I'm a live and let live sort of person.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> And no, it is not me being 'intolerant' of the woman's right to follow Islam: she chose to work somewhere where 'haram' items are being sold which she will inevitably come into contact with.


A view backed by the Muslim council.


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

porps said:


> interesting aye, thanks for posting. I still hold the position that all religion is bad, however from what i have seen the worst are monotheistic, followed by polytheistic and then finally, the least harmful to society, non theistic.
> 
> (not that i see problems being caused by polytheistic religions either)


The monotheistic faiths are actually very different from one another.

SPELLWEAVER:

I have to correct you:

I would be 'intolerant' if, upon reaching the till, I saw the cashier was Muslim and I immediately stated I would not be served by a Muslim. (or a Jew/Hindu/Christian/Buddhist)

That, would be religious 'intolerance'.

It is not me being intolerant if, because of the cashier's religion (whatever that may be) *SHE refuses* to serve ME and I then am irate!


----------



## Mulish (Feb 20, 2013)

Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> Do you also support the swimming pools that at certain times are now closed to EVERYONE bar Muslim women so they can swim 'without being looked at'?
> 
> *What about the college in London where women now have to sit at the back - to accommodate Muslim men who won't sit with women?*
> 
> ...


Can't answer for your local pool which might ban everyone but Muslim women at certain times, none of the pools in my area do. Although one has a female only, hour long session every week which is open to any woman of any faith. My friend's mum likes to go at that time as she had to have breast reconstructive surgery and is self-conscious about her scarring. She's an atheist leaning agnostic, if that matters.

The bit in bold I did just quickly Google, though, and according to the links I found the segregation happened, people complained and it's not likely to happen again. Here are two of the most up to date reports I could find:

Universities 'can segregate men and women for debates' - Telegraph

Inside the British university where Muslims were segregated by sex: Shocking picture shows how men were reserved front-row seats while women had to sit at the back | Mail Online

Huh, look at what our Prime Minister says about it: Mr Cameron said: Im absolutely clear that there should not be segregated audiences for visiting speakers to universities in Britain. That is not the right approach, the guidance should say that universities should not allow this.

It doesn't really sound like the first step towards Sharia Law to me when the person in charge of our country is going, "nope, can't do that here."

Just seems like a few little concessions are getting blown out of proportion by the media and jumped on by those with an agenda. Companies mess up, universities mess up, people have their say and revisions are made both for and against religious rights. Isn't that just part of living in a democracy?


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> Judaism and Christianity are also monotheistic but neither faith mandates that the rest of the world 'must' agree or die.


Indeed, because they beleive there is an eternity of pain and suffereing waiting after life for people who dont beleive the same as them. Not that it has actually stopped them from committing genocide on various occassions.



Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> I used Buddhism as an arbitrary example.


I understand, i wouldve used taosim myself.



Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> I do appreciate that many people often place the three Abrahamic faiths in the same category. However, anyone who has studied the three will see that in fact Islam is radically different from the other two.
> 
> Just as an instance, Judaism forbids members to try and convert non Jews. It is simply not allowed.
> 
> ...


I do place all monotheistic religions in the same category. All require faith (by defination : beleif without evidence). None are good for society.

I dont care if islam killed 100000 but christianity only killed 99000, that doesnt somehow make christianity a good thing.

I'm not well read on judaism i admit, but i dont see how any good can come of beleiving you are a gods chosen people above all others. Thats a recipe for warmongering if ever there was one.

Plus its easy to say Christianity isnt as bad as Islam because muslims did x, x and x, but christians dont do x. But you could also say Christianity is much worse than islam because christians did y, y and y and that isnt something muslims do.

Lets not ever forget that the only reason this country is a christian country at all is because of christian violence.

And now suddenly all these christians are getting worried about the same thing happening to them and their beleifs.. part me of thinks "good, let it happen, it's what you all deserve". You reap what you sow and all that.


----------



## Guest (Dec 30, 2013)

Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> Judaism and Christianity are also monotheistic but neither faith mandates that the rest of the world 'must' agree or die.


Yeah... tell that to the Conquistadors and the Crusaders.
Hell, tell it to the folks who in their Christian loving kindness tell my children they will rot in hell if they dont accept Jesus in to their hearts.

Any religion that requires its followers to believe *this* is the one and ONLY god above all others creates divisiveness. And when you create divisiveness in humans you create violence.


----------



## Mulish (Feb 20, 2013)

porps said:


> I do place all monotheistic religions in the same category. All require faith (by defination : beleif without evidence). None are good for society.
> 
> I dont care if islam killed 100000 but christianity only killed 99000, that doesnt somehow make christianity a good thing.
> 
> ...


Porps, I agree with all of the above except I would argue religion isn't necessarily bad for society. At their core, most are saying be nice to each other, the problem is all of the other bits that get shoved in and tacked on.


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

porps said:


> Indeed, because they beleive there is an eternity of pain and suffereing waiting after life for people who dont beleive the same as them. Not that it has actually stopped them from committing genocide on various occassions.
> 
> I understand, i wouldve used taosim myself.
> 
> ...


Just to clarify:

Judaism doesn't teach that 'chosen' = superior. That is something that has been misinterpreted down through the centuries. Judaism teaches that all people of all faiths or no faiths are equal - and all faiths are 'chosen' for their own unique path.

Also just to correct: Judaism does not believe in 'hell'. No such concept in Judaism. It teaches that all 'righteous' souls will be with god after death.

Re the figures for the deaths caused by each faith: I suspect you might get a shock if you saw how many people die each year, in the name of Islam....

Re concessions: each single concession can be viewed as 'minor'. When you combine them all, and consider the fate of women due to the number of Sharia courts operating in the UK, the situation itself does not seem so 'minor'.


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

ouesi said:


> Yeah... tell that to the Conquistadors and the Crusaders.
> Hell, tell it to the folks who in their Christian loving kindness tell my children they will rot in hell if they dont accept Jesus in to their hearts.
> 
> Any religion that requires its followers to believe *this* is the one and ONLY god above all others creates divisiveness. And when you create divisiveness in humans you create violence.


I agree. I don't support any faith that insists it's the 'only' truth or path etc.
And I've spent countless hours debating southern baptists and evangelists so I do have some notion of what you're referring to 

That being said, anyone who studies Islam will soon see that it is radically different to Christianity. Islam accounts for more deaths in ONE YEAR than occurred in the whole of the Crusades.

The very psychology of Islam differs radically from ANY other religion.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Mulish said:


> Porps, I agree with all of the above except I would argue religion isn't necessarily bad for society. At their core, most are saying be nice to each other, the problem is all of the other bits that get shoved in and tacked on.


I dont think we need religion to know to be nice to each other, any more than a wolf needs religion to know not to eat members of their own pack. Its part and parcel of being a social species.

As such i beleive that the good that people think comes from religion would be there with or without it, but the evil things done in the name of religion would not.

If we stripped a religion down to it's core of "just be nice to people" would it still even be a religion?


----------



## Waterlily (Apr 18, 2010)

Oh yay, this threads still going.. how exciting lol


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

porps said:


> I dont think we need religion to know to be nice to each other, any more than a wolf needs religion to know not to eat members of their own pack. Its part and parcel of being a social species.
> 
> As such i beleive that the good that people think comes from religion would be there with or without it, but the evil things done in the name of religion would not.
> 
> If we stripped a religion down to it's core of "just be nice to people" would it still even be a religion?


But surely evil would still exist, and conflict would still occur, it would be - as an arbitrary example - blue eyed folk against brown eyed folk.


----------



## Guest (Dec 30, 2013)

Waterlily said:


> Oh yay, this threads still going.. how exciting lol


I think that too every time I see it pop up on new posts 
There is hope for us still!


----------



## Guest (Dec 30, 2013)

Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> But surely evil would still exist, and conflict would still occur, it would be - as an arbitrary example - blue eyed folk against brown eyed folk.


Oh sure, of course! But I think porps is saying that you dont need religion for people to be nice to each other.

I mean, if the only reason were being nice is to avoid some eternal punishment or to gain some eternal salvation, can you even call it being nice or rather, its just being self-serving?


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> But surely evil would still exist, and conflict would still occur, it would be - as an arbitrary example - blue eyed folk against brown eyed folk.


as i quoted earlier :

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."


----------



## Jobeth (May 23, 2010)

True faith involves serving others in God's name and putting their needs over your own. My earlier quote from the SA is "Hand to man and heart to God." Real religion has nothing to do with the hate that people pretend to do in God's name. Hate and evil would exist without religion as can love.


----------



## Mulish (Feb 20, 2013)

porps said:


> I dont think we need religion to know to be nice to each other, any more than a wolf needs religion to know not to eat members of their own pack. Its part and parcel of being a social species.
> 
> As such i beleive that the good that people think comes from religion would be there with or without it, but the evil things done in the name of religion would not.
> 
> If we stripped a religion down to it's core of "just be nice to people" would it still even be a religion?


No, we don't need it but it can be used as a focal point to bring communities together. For instance it's our parish church which has been organising the local food bank (speaking of things which shouldn't still be needed in the 21st century). They are also heavily involved with the care taking of elderly residents and various charitable drives when funds are needed to help out the vulnerable.

With the way society has moved away from extended family groups staying close together to take care of each other, churches do seem to fill that gap. At least where I live.

Would help still be there without any religious angle to it? Probably but having a ready made group of folk who are looking for good to do seems more efficient than having to put groups together every time help is needed.



Waterlily said:


> Oh yay, this threads still going.. how exciting lol


Christmas telly has been woeful this year :frown2:



Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> But surely evil would still exist, and conflict would still occur, it would be - as an arbitrary example - blue eyed folk against brown eyed folk.


At last, we agree :thumbup: Religion doesn't create the problem of people wanting to be horrible to each other, it just gives them a handy reason for it. They'd find justification in something or other.


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

Mulish said:


> No, we don't need it but it can be used as a focal point to bring communities together. For instance it's our parish church which has been organising the local food bank (speaking of things which shouldn't still be needed in the 21st century). They are also heavily involved with the care taking of elderly residents and various charitable drives when funds are needed to help out the vulnerable.
> 
> With the way society has moved away from extended family groups staying close together to take care of each other, churches do seem to fill that gap. At least where I live.
> 
> ...


Totally agree with this post of yours 

In most faiths there are some truly beautiful and inspiring teachings and thankfully, people that follow them 

And I've seen recently in the UK some really wonderful examples of, for instance, Muslims and Jews working together within some communities. I love reading these more uplifting stories!


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> Totally agree with this post of yours
> 
> In most faiths there are some truly beautiful and inspiring teachings and thankfully, people that follow them
> 
> And I've seen recently in the UK some really wonderful examples of, for instance, Muslims and Jews working together within some communities. I love reading these more uplifting stories!


the very fact that people from 2 different faiths merely working together is so rare that it seems beautiful to you illustrates to me just how divisive religion is.


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

porps said:


> the very fact that people from 2 different faiths merely working together is so rare that it seems beautiful to you illustrates to me just how divisive religion is.


It is not unheard of but not as common as one would like...


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> How can Sharia Law not come into your mind when it is because OF Sharia that the woman won't serve you


I don't see Sharia law as the big bogeyman that some people do. The woman won't serve me because of her religious principles - no more, no less.



Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> You keep ignoring my point: my objection to what has happened with *several * customers at M&S is because it is not an isolated example - i*t is simply one more instance of Sharia and Islam being accommodated.*


All the reports I've seen cite it happening once, not several times - perhaps you could post some proof that it has happened several times (proper proof, I mean, not biased stuff like the link you posted before)

And even if it had happened several times, for your assertation that it is one more instance of Sharia law being accommodated to be true, M&S would have to be making concessions to Muslim staff only - which they are not; they are making concessions to staff of all religions across the board. What do concessions to a Christian or a Jewish member of staff have to do with Sharia law?



Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> Do you also support the swimming pools that at certain times are now closed to EVERYONE bar Muslim women so they can swim 'without being looked at'?


Our local swimming pool has sessions for OAPs only, children and parents only, pregnant women only, water aerobics only, schools lessons only, learners only, serious swimmers only etc etc - what is the difference between all those and muslim women only? Why should you be disturbed by that and none of the others? From my point of view, they are all sessions that are closed to me unless I happen to be of that particular group.



Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> What about the college in London where women now have to sit at the back - to accommodate Muslim men who won't sit with women?


What about it? Cameron has said it has to stop. It's an example of how Sharia law is NOT being tolerated in the UK, not an example of how it is.

_However, the Equality and Human Rights Commission said that, while the law allows segregation by gender in premises being used for religious purposes, it was "not permissible" in an academic meeting or in a lecture open to the public.

Mr Cameron told Channel 4 News: "I'm absolutely clear that there shouldn't be segregated audiences for visiting speakers to universities in Britain.

"That is not the right approach, the guidance shouldn't say that, universities should not allow this and I'm very clear about that."

Education Secretary Michael Gove said: "We should not pander to extremism. Speakers who insist on segregating audiences should not be indulged by educators."_
PM 'clear' on gender segregation



Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> ALL of these are compromises being made *for* Sharia Law. Again PLEASE look at the long list I linked to in an earlier post: that is the context within which the M&S situation has arisen!


No they are not - in fact they are quite the opposite, as I've shown you above.



Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> And no, it is not me being 'intolerant' of the woman's right to follow Islam:


Yes it is - if you were being tolerant of her right to follow Islam you would go to another till.



Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> she chose to work somewhere where 'haram' items are being sold which she will inevitably come into contact with.


On the understanding that she would not have to deal with them, an error which M&S have apologised for.


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

Spellweaver said:


> I don't see Sharia law as the big bogeyman that some people do. The woman won't serve me because of her religious principles - no more, no less.
> 
> All the reports I've seen cite it happening once, not several times - perhaps you could post some proof that it has happened several times (proper proof, I mean, not biased stuff like the link you posted before)
> 
> ...


Yes people of other faiths who work in M&S also have the right to refuse to handle certain goods - but apparently they are sufficiently tolerant that they are happy to handle said goods in order to *do their jobs*.

If a Christian or Jew or Hindu refused to serve me, I would be AS fed up. It is unacceptable whatever the faith. If a vegetarian cashier refused to ring through meat I wanted to buy - I would be just as angry. *Thus it makes no sense for you to claim that I am 'intolerant' of anyone's faith. *

I don't care WHAT the reason that a cashier gives when refusing to serve me - if it involves her personal beliefs, it's nothing to do with me. The shop is a secular, commercial establishment.

As for your remarks on Sharia - the fact that you don't accept there is a reason to worry, does not mean there is no reason for concern.

Why don't you take a look at what happens in countries where increasing pressure to abide by Sharia occurs?

Here is just one example, in Indonesia:

*Due to the massive protest campaign launched by extremist Islamic groups in recent days, the management of Hermes Palace - a multi-starred hotels in Banda Aceh - have canceled plans for New Year's Eve. The celebrations for the last day of the year were planned some time ago, but the pressure from fundamentalist movements in Aceh, the only province in Indonesia where Shariah , or Islamic law is in vigor, has led to the evening's cancellation for safety reasons and public order.*

*The decision came after a meeting with Islamic leaders, who have proclaimed themselves the "guardians of Sharia law in Aceh ." The hotel managers were forced to publish a written document confirming the cancellation of all the events planned for the evening, including music and dance. The hotel, however, can organize similar events in any one evening in 2014 , but not New Year's Eve because it "does not come from the Islamic calendar.*

SOURCE: ASIA NEWS

This is NOT an isolated example.

And when there are more Sharia followers than non followers in any given country, do you really think we won't see more of these situations...?

Sharia mandates:

- no rights for women
- no rights for non Muslims
- no rights for gays
- death to anyone who tries to leave Islam
- death by stoning for any woman committing adultery

And various other rules that are appalling.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> All the reports I've seen cite it happening once, not several times - perhaps you could post some proof that it has happened several times (proper proof, I mean, not biased stuff like the link you posted before)
> ...
> On the understanding that she would not have to deal with them, an error which M&S have apologised for.


Any proof/evidence she actually asked about this and an understanding was reached before getting the job as you are so dependent on proof?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> Yes people of other faiths who work in M&S also have the right to refuse to handle certain goods - but apparently they are sufficiently tolerant that they are happy to handle said goods in order to *do their jobs*.
> 
> If a Christian or Jew or Hindu refused to serve me, I would be AS fed up. It is unacceptable whatever the faith. If a vegetarian cashier refused to ring through meat I wanted to buy - I would be just as angry. *Thus it makes no sense for you to claim that I am 'intolerant' of anyone's faith. *
> 
> ...


I've lived through the era where the alarmists said we wee all going to be taken over by Russian communists. It never happened.

I've lived through the era when the alarmists said we were all going to die in a nuclear holocaust. It never happened.

And now the alarmists are saying we are all going to be subjected to Sharia law.

You'll have to forgive me if experience has taught me to ignore all the alarmists.

There are many causes worthy of attention, real causes, without worrying myself over invented causes.


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

Spellweaver said:


> I've lived through the era where the alarmists said we wee all going to be taken over by Russian communists. It never happened.
> 
> I've lived through the era when the alarmists said we were all going to die in a nuclear holocaust. It never happened.
> 
> ...


Patronising, much....?

I think you will find that Sharia is a massive 'cause' and problem for people in certain parts of the UK. Just because it happens not to affect YOU, doesn't mean there is no problem.

I also resent being labelled an 'alarmist'. Much as I disagree with your posts, I have never once been remotely insulting. Maybe you too could remain pleasant.

Go and speak to non Muslims living in Tower Hamlets, if you think I'm just being 'alarmist'.

Go and speak to any of the numerous doctors who are having to deal with cases of female genital mutilation on an increasing basis.

At the risk of invoking cries of 'Godwin's Law', I'll just point out that when people first started warning about the dangers of Hitler, they too were accused of being 'alarmist'.

Tower Hamlets Taliban: Death threats to women and gays attacked in the streets | Mail Online

Islamic extremists in the East End - *written BY A MUSLIM. Is he being 'religiously intolerant' too????*


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> Patronising, much....?


What is patronising about writing the truth? I _have_ lived through all those alarmist scares that came to nothing. I _am_ sure that the pattern is merely repeating itself with all the scare-mongering about Sharia law. Why am I being patronising by posting an opinion generated by my experience in life?



Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> I think you will find that Sharia is a massive 'cause' and problem for people in certain parts of the UK. Just because it happens not to affect YOU, doesn't mean there is no problem.


I didn't say it might not be a problem for some people - what I am saying is that it certainly isn't the scary monster under the bed, going to overtake us all at any minute just because we allow people of all cultures some leeway to practise their religious beliefs at work.



Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> I also resent being labelled an 'alarmist'. Much as I disagree with your posts, I have never once been remotely insulting. Maybe you too could remain pleasant.


Actually when I wrote about alarmists I was meaning the kind of alarmists who write things like the link you provided. However, now you mention it, citing things as examples of concessions to Sharia law that are clearly not - such as the segregation in a university (already stopped by the government), or a store allowing people of ALL religions some concessions at work,_ could_ be construed as alarmist.

As for being insulting and remaining pleasant - perhaps you ought to read some of your replies to me and apply that to yourself - calling me patronising, for example


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

Spellweaver said:


> What is patronising about writing the truth? I _have_ lived through all those alarmist scares that came to nothing. I _am_ sure that the pattern is merely repeating itself with all the scare-mongering about Sharia law. Why am I being patronising by posting an opinion generated by my experience in life?
> 
> I didn't say it might not be a problem for some people - what I am saying is that it certainly isn't the scary monster under the bed, going to overtake us all at any minute just because we allow people of all cultures some leeway to practise their religious beliefs at work.
> 
> ...


My replies have all been polite.

And you are consistently missing the point about the M&S situation and the wider context - despite my having posted several times with many, many valid links about worrying concessions and also the barbarism that is Sharia.

I never said that Sharia would 'suddenly' overtake us. But if you actually study the evidence, and look at all the things happening across Europe and indeed beyond, with Sharia, then it is a valid conclusion to reach that with time, there will be *more* problems.

I don't think we're getting any further, we're now going round in circles.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Goblin said:


> Any proof/evidence she actually asked about this and an understanding was reached before getting the job as you are so dependent on proof?


Yes - posting the link for the third time on this thread:

_At the time Marks and Spencer said staff could refuse to sell these items, based on their religious beliefs.
But now Marks and Spencer has apologised and said that Muslim staff who did not want to handle these products would not man tills and would work in other roles such as in clothing or in the bakery. _
M&S apology over Muslim staff policy - Telegraph


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> My replies have all been polite.


As polite as mine 



Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> And you are consistently missing the point about the M&S situation and the wider context - despite my having posted several times with many, many valid links about worrying concessions and also the barbarism that is Sharia.


No, I am not *missing* your point. After giving your point due consideration I have *disagreed* with your point and put forward a different point of my own.

My point is that there is *no *wider context to what happened at M&S with regard to Sharia law because what happened at M&S has _nothing at all to do with Sharia law_. M&S's policy applies to *all *staff of *all* religions; therefore how could it have any relevance to anything to do with Sharia law at all?



Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> I never said that Sharia would 'suddenly' overtake us. But if you actually study the evidence, and look at all the things happening across Europe and indeed beyond, with Sharia, then it is a valid conclusion to reach that with time, there will be *more* problems.


Problems will arise and be taken are of, as the university debacle was. That is still nothing to do with what happened at M&S.


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

Spellweaver said:


> As polite as mine
> 
> No, I am not *missing* your point. After giving your point due consideration I have *disagreed* with your point and put forward a different point of my own.
> 
> ...


Again with respect, you are missing the point.

Unless I am mistaken, no Hindu or Jewish or Buddhist staff members have refused to ring through purchases.

It is only several devout Muslim employees who have refused. And yes there is a link to Sharia and there is a wider context. You cannot 'disagree' with objective facts. And the facts are that in the name of Islam and in the name of Sharia, across the world, non Muslims AND some non devout Muslims are being beheaded, shot, and set on fire in the name of Sharia. In the UK and many other countries, girls as young as NINE are being forced to marry mature men.

That is the wider context. I acknowledge that what happened in M&S is at the other extreme but it is still a continuum.

The key point you are missing:

Islamic leaders openly admit that gaining concessions TO Sharia is partly HOW they aim to establish Sharia in non Muslim nations.


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

I think author Bill Warner says it better than I can:

"Every accomodation non-Muslims make for Muslims moves our culture, our beliefs, and our legal systems one step closer to Sharia law.

The concession itself is the establishment of Sharia law.

*Let's look at an example. Around the world, Muslims react strongly when anyone criticizes Islam. Why? In Sharia law, it is forbidden to criticize either Islam or Mohammad. This is a precept of Sharia law.*

Forbidding the criticism of any religion is certainly not a precept of a free society or of Western civilization. This means: To whatever degree Islamic supremacists succeed in silencing our criticisms of Islam, to that degree they have imposed Sharia law on non-Muslims."

Some concessions to Sharia that have been made:

1. The UN passed a resolution banning criticism of Islam.
2. In Britain, female Muslim medical staff don't have to follow legal rules of cleanliness.
3. Also in Britain, Muslim women can no longer get a divorce like other women in Britain.
4. Penn Jillette (of Penn and Teller) will not criticize Islam out of fear.
5. A blogger in Malaysia was arrested for insulting Islam.
6. Muslims get segregated toilets in Australia so they don't have to go to the bathroom where non-Muslims go to the bathroom.
7. Germany and Belgium and Britain offer welfare benefits to Muslim polygamists' various wives.
8. Scotland allows Sharia courts to operate within their borders.
9. Russia allows Sharia courts to operate, even though it is against their Constitution.
10. In Canada, public swimming pools are closed to non-Muslims so Muslim women can swim away from the defiling eyes of non-Muslims.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> Yes - posting the link for the third time on this thread:
> 
> _At the time Marks and Spencer said staff could refuse to sell these items, based on their religious beliefs.
> But now Marks and Spencer has apologised and said that Muslim staff who did not want to handle these products would not man tills and would work in other roles such as in clothing or in the bakery. _
> M&S apology over Muslim staff policy - Telegraph


That link isn't what I asked for though is it  You, nor I can determine what conditions she was actually employed under and her actual contract. Was the person in question actually told she wouldn't need to sell these items. If so why did she accept going on the till at all if she couldn't do it and there was someone else available to who could?

All the link shows in my opinion is that Mark's and Spencers damage control misread the situation (can't afford to be called intolerant as it's not PC) and had to backtrack when it became apparent people's opinion didn't match.

As for communism etc etc... Why didn't it take over.. could it be that there was an opposing viewpoint strong enough and committed enough to stand up against it?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> Again with respect, you are missing the point.


Again, with respect, I am not missing the point. I understand perfectly well what you are trying to say, but I disagree with you. I do not accept that what you say is correct. I think you are wrong.

I think you are wrong when you say that because no other staff of any religion refused to ring through purchases that means M&S were conceeding to Sharia law.

I think you are wrong when you try to extend that point to be an example of how Sharia law is creeping in.

I think that Sharia law had nothing to do with M&S's policies BECAUSE THEIR POLICIES APPLY TO ALL RELIGIONS AND NOT JUST ISLAM. Therefore whatever happens in the name of Islam and Sharia law throughout the world is irrelevant in this case.

Sorry for the shouting, but I really do not know how else to get it through to you that I am not missing your point; that I understand your point, but that I think your point is totally wrong; and because of that I disagree with your point.

Please do not tell me I am missing it again. I am not missing your point. I am disagreeing with your point.

Have I said it enough times for you to accept it now?



Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> It is only several devout Muslim employees who have refused.


It was ONE muslim employee.



Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> And yes there is a link to Sharia and there is a wider context. You cannot 'disagree' with objective facts.


And neither can you make up facts and then tell people they are missing your point when they don't agree with your made up facts.

The facts are:

M&S have a policy that allows concessions to ALL staff of ALL religions
One muslim took advantage of that concession.
That has nothing to do with any devious plan Islamic leaders may or may not have to spread Islam by spreading Sharia law.
Whatever is happening re the spread of Islam and/or Sharia law in the world had nothing to do with the decision made by M&S

Those are the objective facts.



Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> The key point you are missing:
> 
> Islamic leaders openly admit that gaining concessions TO Sharia is partly HOW they aim to establish Sharia in non Muslim nations.


This is not a key point in this case. Even if this is true it has nothing to do with the M&S case *because M&S were not merely giving concessions to muslims*. A muslim extremist did not persuade M&S to give concessions to muslims. M&S decided to make a policy concerning ALL staff of ALL religions, ergo their decision had nothing to do with Sharia law irrespective of what is happening in the rest of the world. Can you not see that? Are you so blinded by your fear of Sharia law that you see it everywhere, under every bed?

Once more, I am not missing your point. I am disagreeing with your point.

Please don't come back once more and try to say I am missing your point. I disagree with your point. I am not missing it.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Goblin said:


> That link isn't what I asked for though is it  You, nor I can determine what conditions she was actually employed under and her actual contract. Was the person in question actually told she wouldn't need to sell these items. If so why did she accept going on the till at all if she couldn't do it and there was someone else available to who could?


You are right, neither of use were at her interview so neither of us can know exactly what she was told when she was employed. All we have to go on is the statement by the company, which openly states that she had been told she did not have to handle pork or alcohol.

So going on the information available, she was doing exactly what she was told and was not, therefore, breaking her employment contract.

How much clearer do you want it?



Goblin said:


> As for communism etc etc... Why didn't it take over.. could it be that there was an opposing viewpoint strong enough and committed enough to stand up against it?


Partly - but mainly because there was a lot of misinformation about that resulted in people being afraid of reds under the bed that weren't there; so it turned out not to be as big a threat as the scaremongers tried to make everyone believe.

_Aggressive, intimidating, and unfazed by the truth, Joe McCarthy single-handedly whipped 1950s USA into a frenzy of anti-communist fear and paranoia._ 
Reds Under the Beds: Joseph McCarthy and the Cold WarHistory in an Hour


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

Wouldn't it be nice if we lived in a community where people were proactively tolerant rather than just accommodating? Certainly, on a busy Saturday at my local Waitrose, I will avoid tills staffed by kids because it does create a backlog when they have to ask their supervisor over. It is easier to just find another queue (there is always alcohol in my basket). I think it is STUPID that they can't sell me wine but you gotta be practical, right? No point tilting at windmills.

Before this thread it might not have occurred to me to choose a till staffed by someone overtly dressed in a fashion that might point to their being of Muslim faith. Maybe I should. Even though they are quite unlikely to refuse me service, wouldn't it be good to show some respect, just in case? (Just as someone with 50 shades of whatever might shy away from a till staffed by someone in overtly Christian garb).

Makes me think. Wouldn't it just all work better if we're were nice, rather than competitive? It doesn't cost anything really.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> All we have to go on is the statement by the company, which openly states that she had been told she did not have to handle pork or alcohol.


Information available is that she wouldn't need to serve on a till. Why did she accept doing so when she didn't want to?



> Partly - but mainly because there was a lot of misinformation about that resulted in people being afraid of reds under the bed that weren't there; so it turned out not to be as big a threat as the scaremongers tried to make everyone believe.


So despite being an overreaction it created opposition. Opposition to something means the spread of it is contained far more easily than the idea of "let them do as they want".



> I do not accept that what you say is correct. I think you are wrong.


Ditto based on the evidence provided. So I'll leave this thread as we are just going in circles.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Goblin said:


> Information available is that she wouldn't need to serve on a till. Why did she accept doing so when she didn't want to?


But you haven't got that right. have you? The information available *actually says she was told she could refuse to serve pork and alcohol*. Once more, because despite it having been posted three times already, you are still choosing to ignore it:

*At the time Marks and Spencer said staff could refuse to sell these items, based on their religious beliefs.*
M&S apology over Muslim staff policy - Telegraph

So, having been told by her bosses that she could serve on a till and refuse to serve pork and alcohol, why wouldn't she serve on a till?



Goblin said:


> So despite being an overreaction it created opposition. Opposition to something means the spread of it is contained far more easily than the idea of "let them do as they want".


There is nothing wrong with opposition to anything. Oppostion to something is healthy. What is wrong, what is unhealthy, what does humanity no favours whatsoever, is is scaremongering, whipping up opposition to something imaginary, and trying to make people fear something that just is not true.



Goblin said:


> Ditto based on the evidence provided. So I'll leave this thread as we are just going in circles.


The above was in response to me telling another poster that I thought she was wrong about M&S's decision being an example of Sharia law creeping into our society. So far no-one has given any evidence to prove that the decision by M&S to allow concessions to staff of ALL religions is an example of Sharia law in action. If you do have evidence to the contrary, perhaps you would care to post it - or is that why you have left the thread, because you have no such evidence and don't want to be called upon to prove your statements?

As for the argument going around in circles, it will continue to do that while ever people ignore the actual evidence of what did happen and try to make it into something that didn't.

What DID happen was this:

M&S have a policy of allowing concessions to staff of all religions.
Normally, this would mean that muslims, for example, would not be asked to serve on a till so that they do not have to handle pork and alcohol.
The bosses in this particular store told a muslim worker that she could serve on a till and ask people to go to anoither till if she did not want to handle pork and alcohol
One shopper was taken aback by this.
The Daily Mail got hold of it and tried to make it into more than it was.
M&S apologised and explained that their policy meant muslim staff were usually not employed on tills.

And that's it in its entirety.

It affected ONE shopper, not several
M&S were not favouring muslim staff over others
People of other religions were not being dictated to by muslims
People of this country were not being dictated to by people from another country
People of all religions were being treated equally - both by M&S and the sales assistant - so no-one was being discriminated against
Non- muslims were not being told they could not buy pork and alcohol; they were merely redirected to another till
It was not another example of Sharia law creeping into the country.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> *At the time Marks and Spencer said staff could refuse to sell these items, based on their religious beliefs.*
> M&S apology over Muslim staff policy - Telegraph


You still haven't answered.. When.. when she told them she wouldn'tor she'd cry "religious freedom" or unfair dismissal or when she actually applied for a job which by default means she should have to work with these products.



> So, having been told by her bosses that she could serve on a till and refuse to serve pork and alcohol, why wouldn't she serve on a till?


Dur... as she would have to deal with the items in question :mad2:



> There is nothing wrong with opposition to anything. Oppostion to something is healthy.


Thank you.. can ignore the rest as it's only your opinion, not fact.



> or is that why you have left the thread, because you have no such evidence and don't want to be called upon to prove your statements?


No like normal, you ignore what you don't like and don't answer questions put to you with evidence.

I know you'll continue thinking perhaps last response = prove point but as said.. no point in continuing from my side.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Goblin said:


> .You still haven't answered.. When.. when she told them she wouldn'tor she'd cry "religious freedom" or unfair dismissal or when she actually applied for a job which by default means she should have to work with these products.


I've answered this four times already. Your refusal to accept this and your ignoring of the evidence that I have posted does not mean I have not answered. It merely means you are ignoring my answer because you cannot refute it.



Goblin said:


> No like normal, you ignore what you don't like and don't answer questions put to you with evidence.


Putting your own values onto me there. I have provided plenty of evidence to back up my statements. For the second time of asking, where is your evidence to back up yours? For the second time of asking, what evidence do you have that the decision by M&S was fuelled by Sharia law? Anyone can say they have evidence, but are not going to post it. If you want to be believed, post your evidence. Otherwise anything you say is just so much hot air.



Goblin said:


> I know you'll continue thinking perhaps last response = prove point but as said.. no point in continuing from my side.


:lol:
Once again, putting your own values onto me there. I don't care about last words, merely about defending myself from ujust accusations. You're the one who was going to leave the thread - and came back for the last word :lol:


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

So If I apply for a job at a nut tester in a peanut factory would I be able to then refuse to test the nuts due to my nut allergy

sorry , couldn't resist


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

DT said:


> So If I apply for a job at a nut tester in a peanut factory would I be able to then refuse to test the nuts due to my nut allergy
> 
> sorry , couldn't resist


:lol: You nutter!!! :lol: xxx


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

SPELLWEAVER, you are ignoring the point I keep making. Namely, even though the M&S policy *could* be applied to people of other faiths, it hasn't had to be because apparently NONE of them were intolerant enough to *refuse* to serve customers.

And I have not once 'made up' anything. I know customers were refused by Muslim staff more than once because I know a woman it happened to - but as I accept you could cry 'anecdotal' I have refrained from using this as 'evidence'. And to reiterate: it is *irrelevant* whether it happened once or ten times. It is the concession itself that is key.

Nor have I 'made up' ANY of the other FAR BIGGER concessions to Sharia - my goodness, I've given links from the Asian Times and umpteen other news sources!

When people are being killed over a blinking cartoon depicting Mohammed, because Sharia states it is 'forbidden' to critique Islam, and when newspapers in supposedly democratic countries don't then run those cartoons as a principle (free speech), I think we can say that the concessions ARE dangerous, they ARE worrying, they ARE increasing.

Or is it acceptable for Indonesians, for instance, to miss out on their New Year celebrations because the Sharia supporters insist on it.....?

Yes, different country, but in any country where Muslims are the largest group, you have the very real danger of Sharia taking over. And I really don't think you'd enjoy living under Sharia Law!!!

Look at the demographics, look at the projections.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> SPELLWEAVER, you are ignoring the point I keep making. Namely, even though the M&S policy *could* be applied to people of other faiths, it hasn't had to be because apparently NONE of them were intolerant enough to *refuse* to serve customers.


:mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2:

I am losing the will to live. I haven't ignored your point. I have said repeatedly that I haven't ignored it. I have said repeatedly that I have considered your point. I have said repeatedly that I think you are wrong. I have said repeatedly that I disagree with you about it. I went waaaaay over the top in my last post to you in order to emphasise all that. So why, after all that, can you still not accept that I* I am not ignoring your point; I think your point is wrong and I disagree with it*?

Once again - it does not matter how many staff of how many religions have refused to serve customers - M&S's policy for staff applies to staff of *all *religions ergo it is a non-disriminatory policy and was a policy formed with no special reference to Sharia law. The fact that the press has reported that one customer was taken aback by a request from a muslim member of staff is neither here nor there. You don't know that staff of other religions have not refused to serve and the incident gone unreported. You are taking ONE incident and are trying to make out it is an incidence of Sharia law creeping in. I do not agree with you that this is the case.

Now I know your opinion differs from mine. I accept that. I do not tell you that you are ignoring the point I am making because your opinion differs from mine.

So PLEASE stop telling me I am ignoring the point you are making because my opinion differs fom yours.


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

Spellweaver said:


> :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2:
> 
> I am losing the will to live. I haven't ignored your point. I have said repeatedly that I haven't ignored it. I have said repeatedly that I have considered your point. I have said repeatedly that I think you are wrong. I have said repeatedly that I disagree with you about it. I went waaaaay over the top in my last post to you in order to emphasise all that. So why, after all that, can you still not accept that I* I am not ignoring your point; I think your point is wrong and I disagree with it*?
> 
> ...


No need to shout.

And yes, you have ignored some of the points that I have raised: if you don't address them then you are ignoring them.

Shall we just agree to disagree...?


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

Here are instances of the wider picture which are being ignored:

Leyton Sharia Council, which openly states on its website that it is preparing for the full recognition of Islamic Sharia law in Britain.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Muslim preacher Anjem Choudary is actively and openly campaigning
,to turn twelve British citiesincluding what he calls "Londonistan"into independent Islamic states. The so-called Islamic Emirates would function as autonomous enclaves, ruled by Sharia law and governed entirely outside British jurisprudence

--------------------------------------------------------------------

*Female Genital Mutilation:* Britain has the highest levels of FGM in Europe. According to a government-funded study published in 2007, at least 66,000 women and girls in Britain have had the procedure performed on them, and more than 20,000 girls under the age of 15 are currently at risk.

These figures, however, may be only the tip of the iceberg. A 2011 Department of Health policy paper warns that "it is possible that, due to population growth and immigration from practicing countriesFGM is significantly more prevalent than these figures suggest."

--------------------------------------------------------------

*In May, new census data published by the British government showed that Islam is set to become the dominant religion in Britain within the next generation.*

The report, published by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) on May 16, shows that although Christianity is still the main religion in Britainover 50% of the population describe themselves as suchnearly half of all Christians in Britain are over the age of 50, and, for the first time ever, fewer than half under the age of 25 describe themselves as Christian.

By contrast, the number of people under 25 who describe themselves as Muslim has doubled over the past ten years: one in ten under the age of 25 are Muslim, up from one in 20 in 2001.

If current trends continuea Muslim population boom, combined with an aging Christian demographic and the increasing secularization of British nativesIslam is set to overtake Christianity in Britain within the next 20 years, according to demographers


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

Jesus, the pair of you! Just stop! Go get some nice bits for tonight and CHILL! It isn't affecting your life, it isn't gong to change the world, blimey!


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

cinnamontoast said:


> Jesus, the pair of you! Just stop! Go get some nice bits for tonight and CHILL! *It isn't affecting your life,* it isn't gong to change the world, blimey!


With respect, how do you know what does and doesn't affect me, and those close to me...?

And what could affect us?

You don't know


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> *In May, new census data published by the British government showed that Islam is set to become the dominant religion in Britain within the next generation.*
> 
> The report, published by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) on May 16, shows that although Christianity is still the main religion in Britainover 50% of the population describe themselves as suchnearly half of all Christians in Britain are over the age of 50, and, for the first time ever, fewer than half under the age of 25 describe themselves as Christian.


Do you have a link? I can only seem to find 2011 census data.


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

porps said:


> Do you have a link? I can only seem to find 2011 census data.


Will try and find one, bear with me


----------



## Guest (Dec 31, 2013)

A prominent female muslim minister defending christians? It cant be right... Can it? http://www.conservativehome.com/par...the-problems-facing-christians-worldwide.html


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> Here are instances of the wider picture which are being ignored:
> 
> Leyton Sharia Council, which openly states on its website that it is preparing for the full recognition of Islamic Sharia law in Britain.


No it doesn't. Have you actually read their website, or are you cutting and pasting this misinformation from another dodgy anti-islam site?

I had never heard of them until now (shock horror - *that's* how militant they are :lol and so I googled their website. And what did I find? That Leyton Sharia Council (or the Islamic Council as it is also known) is a muslim council concerned with marriage, divorce and inheritance issues as they affect muslims. It is not extremist; there are testimonials from women who are thanking them for helping them through their divorce, for example. If anything, it seems to exist to help muslims reconcile the tenets of their religion which deal with marriage and divorce, with the laws of this country.There is no mention at all of inculcating muslims to prepare for the full recognition of Sharia law in Britain. There are no stirring speeches persuading muslims to spead the word of Sharia law.  

The only part that could possibly be construed that way - and even then it would take an anti-islamic fanaticist to twist it to mean that) is the part where it says that although the council is not legally recognised in Britain, it hopes to gain the confidence of its local community in the soundness of its legal system: Note that word, l_ocal_. It does not mean the whole of Britain 

"_Sitting back and waiting for the civic *local *authorities to solve the problems of the Muslim community does not present a positive response to the challenges facing the Muslims. Taking the initiative in building Islamic institutions whether in the field of worship, education, business transactions or in the field of jurisdiction, all represent practical viable answers to the challenges facing Muslims in the West.

This expresses at the same time a determination on the part of the Muslims that they are here to stay, and stay as a successful community which *shares the common problems facing the present day society in a way which should enrich, vitalize and enhance the good relations between the two sections of the society, the immigrants and the indigenous.*_
About Us - ISLAMIC SHARIA COUNCIL

Ooooooh - they want to enhance good relations between their community and the indigenous community - how radical and extremist of them! How scary! Run for the hills! OMG - they've started - they've planted a muslim in M&S who has asked one customer to go to a different till - we're doomed, I tell you! We're doomed!

Seriously though, I don't know where you are getting your infomation from, but wherever it is, it is twisting the truth and scaremongering, plain and simple. I was going to look at each of your points, but after the above nonsense I suspect I will find more of the same and tbh I really can't be bothered.


----------



## Julesky (Feb 10, 2012)

By the way.....

Just wanted to say, I worked for M &S and you're allowed to refuse to work the old sabbath for religious reasons


----------



## ZipsDad (Oct 31, 2013)

Julesky said:


> By the way.....
> 
> Just wanted to say, I worked for M &S and you're allowed to refuse to work the old sabbath for religious reasons


Same here. Most jobs. But thats a bit different than refusing customers based on the fact that their purchases don't agree with your religious beliefs.


----------



## Julesky (Feb 10, 2012)

ZipsDad said:


> Same here. Most jobs. But thats a bit different than refusing customers based on the fact that their purchases don't agree with your religious beliefs.


Na it's the same thing, it's asking the employer to amend your working conditions based on your religious beliefs and practices


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Julesky said:


> Na it's the same thing, it's asking the employer to amend your working conditions based on your religious beliefs and practices


You said it before me 

In fact, if you ask not to work the sabbath because of your religious beliefs, you're not only refusing to serve customers _two_ products because of your religious beliefs, you are actually refusing to serve them _at all_ because of your religious beliefs.


----------



## myshkin (Mar 23, 2010)

ZipsDad said:


> Same here. Most jobs. But thats a bit different than refusing customers based on the fact that their purchases don't agree with your religious beliefs.


How so? Opting out of turning up to work at all on a specific day is surely more of an inconvenience to the employer than opting out of a specific task, surely?
They are both for religious belief. And most jobs here don't allow it, M&S has chosen to allow its employees these options.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

still getting special treatment. I wonder if it would be ok for me to work in a bookstore but refuse to sell religious books cos im an athiest or if i'd just get fired for not doing my job.


----------



## Guest (Dec 31, 2013)

Hrm... ZipsDad, how do you feel about blue laws in the US?


----------



## ZipsDad (Oct 31, 2013)

Julesky said:


> Na it's the same thing, it's asking the employer to amend your working conditions based on your religious beliefs and practices


Not even close.
Your employer allowing days off for religious observance is wholly different than treating customers on a case by case (or should I say religion by religion) basis.

Apples and oranges.


----------



## ZipsDad (Oct 31, 2013)

ouesi said:


> Hrm... ZipsDad, how do you feel about blue laws in the US?


Not sure I'm aware of blue laws to be honest.
Please enlighten me.


----------



## myshkin (Mar 23, 2010)

ouesi said:


> Hrm... ZipsDad, how do you feel about blue laws in the US?


Gosh, that was new on me.....so, religion dictating law, eh? 
It would never happen here.


----------



## Guest (Dec 31, 2013)

ZipsDad said:


> Not sure I'm aware of blue laws to be honest.
> Please enlighten me.


Many southern states prohibit the sale of alcohol on Sundays. There are also laws about retail stores being allowed to be open and operational on Sundays.


----------



## ZipsDad (Oct 31, 2013)

myshkin said:


> Gosh, that was new on me.....so, religion dictating law, eh?
> It would never happen here.


Lots wouldn't happen here.
Depends on how it coincides with the CONSTITUTION.


----------



## Guest (Dec 31, 2013)

ZipsDad said:


> Lots wouldn't happen here.
> Depends on how it coincides with the CONSTITUTION.


Says the guy who doesnt even know what blue laws are 

Separation of church and state my aspen....


----------



## ZipsDad (Oct 31, 2013)

ouesi said:


> Many southern states prohibit the sale of alcohol on Sundays. There are also laws about retail stores being allowed to be open and operational on Sundays.


As I said earlier, States are allowed laws that don't attempt to circumvent the law of the land.
Some states (or just counties) can decide to have either ZERO sales or 24 hour sales of alcohol.

Those laws don't infringe on your rights. Even a dry county can't prosecute you for going to another county to buy your alcohol.

EDITED

By the way, those laws are voted in. Takes a majority of people in your area to agree.


----------



## ZipsDad (Oct 31, 2013)

ouesi said:


> Says the guy who doesnt even know what blue laws are
> 
> Separation of church and state my aspen....


When I said "not sure I'm aware of the blue laws" perhaps I could have been more articulate.
I meant I wasn't sure of WHICH were being talked about. :thumbup:


----------



## myshkin (Mar 23, 2010)

ZipsDad said:


> Lots wouldn't happen here.
> Depends on how it coincides with the CONSTITUTION.


Well please educate me. As I understand it, your constitution guarantees religious freedoms ( not just one) which includes the freedom not to have a religion. It also separates church and state, yet there are laws enforcing religious adherence on Sunday.....seems that constitution, noble as it is, is ignored when it suits the lawmakers.


----------



## ZipsDad (Oct 31, 2013)

myshkin said:


> Well please educate me. As I understand it, your constitution guarantees religious freedoms ( not just one) which includes the freedom not to have a religion. It also separates church and state, yet there are laws enforcing religious adherence on Sunday.....seems that constitution, noble as it is, is ignored when it suits the lawmakers.


What that guarantees is, if you don't claim a religion or REQUEST that day off to attend religious ceremonies, you CAN work it. You are NOT bound by any religious laws.

Thus, separation of church and state.

How is that confusing to you?


----------



## Guest (Dec 31, 2013)

ZipsDad said:


> As I said earlier, States are allowed laws that don't attempt to circumvent the law of the land.
> Some states (or just counties) can decide to have either ZERO sales or 24 hour sales of alcohol.
> 
> *Those laws don't infringe on your rights.* Even a dry county can't prosecute you for going to another county to buy your alcohol.
> ...


How do you figure? If Im a retail store owner I should have the right to open my store whatever day of the week I so choose. And a government restriction on what day that store is open should not be based on religion.


----------



## ZipsDad (Oct 31, 2013)

ouesi said:


> How do you figure? If Im a retail store owner I should have the right to open my store whatever day of the week I so choose. And a government restriction on what day that store is open should not be based on religion.


What days are you not allowed to open your store?
I've seen stores open on every religious holiday and every gov't recognized holiday.
To be honest, I've never heard of any shop owner denied the ability to be open.

Of course, this all depends on your personal city/county where VOTES were put through and the law determined by the predominance of the population.

But, still, Walmart is open 24/7 EVERYWHERE I check.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> With respect, how do you know what does and doesn't affect me, and those close to me...?
> 
> And what could affect us?
> 
> You don't know


And with respect, I meant the constant back and forth of an argument going nowhere, not how Sharia law affects your life.


----------



## Guest (Dec 31, 2013)

ZipsDad said:


> What days are you not allowed to open your store?
> I've seen stores open on every religious holiday and every gov't recognized holiday.
> To be honest, *I've never heard of any shop owner denied the ability to be open.*
> 
> ...


Do your research then 

And nope, even Wally World is subject to blue laws depending on how theyre written for that state.

Look, I dont really care enough to get in to a deep constitutional debate about it, I just though it was funny how self-righteous you were getting about how that would never happen here when it clearly does. 
Did you also know that certain states forbid atheists from holding any political office? A lot of that happened during the McCarthy years, but the laws are still on the books. Its worth doing some digging. Us yanks arent as pristine in our religious freedom as you would like to think.


----------



## myshkin (Mar 23, 2010)

ZipsDad said:


> What that guarantees is, if you don't claim a religion or REQUEST that day off to attend religious ceremonies, you CAN work it. You are NOT bound by any religious laws.
> 
> Thus, separation of church and state.
> 
> How is that confusing to you?


I am not the confused one here. Which is why my arguments aren't inconsistent and garbled. Anyhoos, it's New Years Eve, and tempting as it is to wait and see how long it takes you to call me a canute, I have loved ones requiring my attention.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

I find it a very fun paradox that the county in which Jack Daniels is made is dry, yet the employees get a pint a month! Brilliant!


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

ZipsDad said:


> Not even close.
> Your employer allowing days off for religious observance is wholly different than treating customers on a case by case (or should I say religion by religion) basis.
> 
> Apples and oranges.


In neither case are customers are being treated on a case by case base or a religion by religion base. The religion of the customer is irrelevant in both cases. Customers of all religions are being treated the same in both cases.


----------



## ZipsDad (Oct 31, 2013)

Spellweaver said:


> In neither case are customers are being treated on a case by case base or a religion by religion base. The religion of the customer is irrelevant in both cases. Customers of all religions are being treated the same in both cases.


My ass.

When your religion (deciding to handle what you wish to) conflicts with MY religion (or even a lack thereof) it IS a case by case basis.

If my religion dictates the same as yours, there won't be an issue.
But, by God, if mine does, now I'm denied service?

Eff off.


----------



## ZipsDad (Oct 31, 2013)

cinnamontoast said:


> I find it a very fun paradox that the county in which Jack Daniels is made is dry, yet the employees get a pint a month! Brilliant!


They aren't BUYING it though. It's a stipend. Not in violation of the laws the people of that county voted in.
Don't you just LOVE loopholes? :lol:


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

ZipsDad said:


> My ass.
> 
> When your religion (deciding to handle what you wish to) conflicts with MY religion (or even a lack thereof) it IS a case by case basis.
> 
> ...


*Dislike* No need, FNG 



ZipsDad said:


> They are BUYING it though. It's a stipend. Not in violation of the laws the people of that county voted in.
> Don't you just LOVE loopholes? :lol:


Nope, they are *given* it.


----------



## ZipsDad (Oct 31, 2013)

myshkin said:


> I am not the confused one here. Which is why my arguments aren't inconsistent and garbled. Anyhoos, it's New Years Eve, and tempting as it is to wait and see how long it takes you to call me a canute, I have loved ones requiring my attention.


Well, I'm a bit confused. Not sure what you were meaning. Not the brightest bulb in the house am I. Freely admit that.

But, if you can't see the difference, now, of how being in a country where religious laws can NOT dictate that you are FORCED to NOT work on a Sunday....well....I'm afraid I won't be of much more help after the clear explanation I gave.

Cheerio!


----------



## ZipsDad (Oct 31, 2013)

cinnamontoast said:


> *Dislike* No need, FNG


What is FNG?

Btw, I think dislikes should be an option too.



cinnamontoast said:


> Nope, they are *given* it.


And that, my dear, is the LOOPHOLE! :thumbup:

Oh, my word.

My mistake. I missed the "n't" for the most operative word.
I would have hoped that would have been assumed though.

My mistake...and...most sincere apologies.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

ZipsDad said:


> My ass.
> 
> When your religion (deciding to handle what you wish to) conflicts with MY religion (or even a lack thereof) it IS a case by case basis.
> 
> ...


Sure sign you're losing an argument when you use language like that. Want another ban, do you? Not even going to reply to your erroneous and illogical points if you can't reply without resorting to profanities


----------



## Guest (Dec 31, 2013)

ZipsDad said:


> Well, I'm a bit confused. Not sure what you were meaning. Not the brightest bulb in the house am I. Freely admit that.
> 
> But, if you can't see the difference, now, of how being in a country where religious laws can NOT dictate that you are FORCED to NOT work on a Sunday....well....I'm afraid I won't be of much more help after the clear explanation I gave.
> 
> Cheerio!


Dude, nothing about your explanation was clear.
However your need to reduce an adult conversation to expletives and childish dismissals is.

Sorry to see this thread degenerate


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

ouesi said:


> Dude, nothing about your explanation was clear.
> However your need to reduce an adult conversation to expletives and childish dismissals is.
> 
> Sorry to see this thread degenerate


Just ignore him and he'll go away - it's the only way to deal with childish behaviour like that. It would be a pity to allow him to get the thread closed - some very good debates on here.


----------



## Guest (Dec 31, 2013)

Spellweaver said:


> Just ignore him and he'll go away - it's the only way to deal with childish behaviour like that. It would be a pity to allow him to get the thread closed - *some very good debates on here*.


Yes, I thought so too, was enjoying it


----------



## ZipsDad (Oct 31, 2013)

ouesi said:


> Dude, nothing about your explanation was clear.
> However your need to reduce an adult conversation to expletives and childish dismissals is.
> 
> Sorry to see this thread degenerate


Had I wanted to be dismissive ( or nasty as you allege) there is a lot of fodder there. (re-read what was originally written)

I made a simple statement, in fact as sweetly as I could with a bit of self detrimental verbage thrown in to, hopefully, offset any POSSIBILITY of upset.

Dismissive, I can be. Especially when a point is poppy cock. However, in this case, I was as accommodating as possible.

By the way, if that point wasn't clear, I can always answer questions.



Spellweaver said:


> Just ignore him and he'll go away - it's the only way to deal with childish behaviour like that. It would be a pity to allow him to get the thread closed - some very good debates on here.


Aww, I do so abhor folks that feel bested. Shame. Wasn't my intention.

Feel free to answer prior quotes and I will then, too, answer yours with as much respect as was given me here.


----------



## ZipsDad (Oct 31, 2013)

ouesi said:


> Yes, I thought so too, was enjoying it


Gotta say, up until this point, I agree.


----------



## ZipsDad (Oct 31, 2013)

ouesi said:


> Do your research then
> 
> And nope, even Wally World is subject to blue laws depending on how they're written for that state.
> 
> ...


Is that right?

Kind of like laws where if you spit on the side walk you can be fined?
Or having sex with your boots on can have you jailed?
Look, if you want to be ridiculous, you certainly can.
But, in this day and age with the freedoms that are clearly here, irrespective of your ludicrously postulated argument, I'd say it'd be harder to fall prey to those laws than erroneous attacks on the net by die hard cheerleaders. 

By the way, dear reader, I think I already stated that SOME laws CAN be voted in by POPULAR vote.
MEANING...your PEERS had the chance to decide the fate of your area.
THAT...love....is WELL within the CONSTITUTION.

No wonder you dont want to debate it. 

By the way....cite me a place where wally world can't operate 7 days a week.
Easy enough to pop off with that. But, knowing that corporations bottom line, I'd find it hard to believe they'd set up shop in some dogmatic area. 



ouesi said:


> Did you also know that certain states *forbid* atheists from holding any political office? A lot of that happened during the McCarthy years, but the laws are still on the books. It's worth doing some digging. Us yanks aren't as pristine in our religious freedom as you would like to think


How cute.
If you read the preamble to ANY of those STATE constitutions, they were put to ..a...you guessed it....vote.
The PEOPLE decided what kind of leader they wanted. Oh, by the by, they are ALL able to be challenged via SUPREME COURT.

We both know what SCOTUS says goes.


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

My bits in blue, within the box:



Spellweaver said:


> No it doesn't. Have you actually read their website, or are you cutting and pasting this misinformation from another *dodgy anti-islam site?*
> 
> *lol lol - I've linked to info from the Daily Telegraph and Asia News - hardly 'dodgy anti Islam sites'!*
> 
> ...


LOL LOL and are the ex Muslims also warning about Sharia in Europe also 'scaremongering'? Are the following also 'twisting the truth and scaremongering'

* Ayaan Hirsi Ali* - born in Somalia, from which she escaped to avoid an arranged marriage, and she eventually became a member of Parliament in the Netherlands. You may know her name - she worked with Theo van Gogh on a film that condemned Islam's treatment of woman. Van Gogh was then threatened by numerous Muslim groups and then *shot to death* by a Muslim - and a note was pinned to his chest which threatened the life of Ayaan Hirsi Ali too.[/COLOR]

How about *Tapan Ghosh* ? The president of Hindu Samhati, he speaks all over India and the United States about the *ongoing Islamic invasion of West Bengal.*

What about *Wafa Sultan?* Born in Syria. Trained as a Psychiatrist. She has repeatedly condemned Islam for its treatment of Christians and Jews.

*Ibn Warraq *- is he 'twisting the truth' in his book 'Leaving Islam'?

Is *Seyran Ates* 'scaremongering'? Born in Turkey of Kurdish parents, and now working as a lawyer in Germany.

Her book, "Islam Needs a Sexual Revolution," was scheduled for publication in Germany in 2009. In an interview in January 2008 on National Public Radio, Ates admitted that she was in hiding and would not be working on Muslim women's behalf publicly (including in court)* due to the threats against her.*

OOh - what about *Francis Bok* Is he 'scaremongering'? Born in Sudan, 
in 1986, *Bok was captured and enslaved at age seven during an Islamic militia raid on the village of Nymlal. Slavery is a standard feature of orthodox Islam. *

I guess you think *Nonie Darwish* is 'twisting the truth' too? Grew up a Muslim, in Egypt. She formed 'Former Muslims United' and now lives in America, where she is passionate critic of Sharia Law.


RE NOT WORKING ON SABBATH:

Sorry guys, but it really isn't the same thing.

If I go into a store, it doesn't affect *me* or any other customer if, say, EMPLOYEE X, is absent due to the sabbath. I can still presumably take my goods to ANY till, secure in the knowledge that it'll be business as usual and I won't face an absurd refusal by the cashier to process my goods etc.

However, if EMPLOYEE X is there, and her religion dictates that *she* doesn't interact with bacon/alcohol/baking powder/whatever, then ****if***** I am trying to buy these, her refusal *affects me personally.*

Look, it really is simple:

In a commercial environment, where certain items are available, the customer should be able to buy them - period. The ONLY exception is if said purchase is illegal, i.e. minor trying to buy booze.

When there is a clash between the cashier's religion and my LACK OF SAME RELIGION AS HER, it cannot be logical or fair for her rights to trump mine, as the customer.

(I should add, I don't drink and never have, and I don't eat pork. So these refusals won't ever affect me. But I am passionate about the principles involved).


----------



## Guest (Jan 1, 2014)

Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> RE NOT WORKING ON SABBATH:
> 
> Sorry guys, but it really isn't the same thing.
> 
> ...


In states where there are blue laws prohibiting the sale of alcohol on Sundays, you can go in to a supermarket for example, and the whole aisle with wine and beer will be either blocked or have something marking them as unavailable. 
So a product the the store normally has available to purchase, is made unavailable to everyone based on a religion not everyone is a member of. 
Interesting huh?

FWIW, I dont drink, the law doesnt directly affect me, but it is entertaining to me to see tourists and visitors to this state get all sorts of up in arms about not being able to buy a pack of beer to watch their favorite team play in the Sunday Football game 
Locals know to buy their beer the day before 
Oh, and some private bars and certain restaurants can sell alcohol on Sundays if they jump through the right hoops and get the right paperwork - its not an easy process...


----------



## Mulish (Feb 20, 2013)

ZipsDad said:


> As I said earlier, States are allowed laws that don't attempt to circumvent the law of the land.
> Some states (or just counties) can decide to have either ZERO sales or 24 hour sales of alcohol.
> 
> *Those laws don't infringe on your rights. Even a dry county can't prosecute you for going to another county to buy your alcohol*.
> ...


Bit like how one person on one till who can't serve you for whatever reason (age, religion, false nails too long to peel off a reduced sticker and see the barcode*) doesn't stop you from being served by someone else in the same store? Except, of course, it's easier to just wait for assistance or even go to a different checkout than it is to go to an entirely different state to buy what you want.

*actually did happen to me once.


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

ouesi said:


> In states where there are blue laws prohibiting the sale of alcohol on Sundays, you can go in to a supermarket for example, and the whole aisle with wine and beer will be either blocked or have something marking them as unavailable.
> So a product the the store normally has available to purchase, is made unavailable to everyone based on a religion not everyone is a member of.
> Interesting huh?
> 
> ...


I think that's appalling too. I guess I would find it more worrying though if it was the start of a slippery slope, the other end of which would see every state in America gradually coming under Fundamentalist Christian rule....

We have areas in London and other cities now, where any woman dressed 'inappropriately' will be accosted by 'sharia patrols'. Now, if I'd warned a few years back that this would start happening, no doubt I would have been accused of 'scaremongering'........


----------



## Royoyo (Feb 21, 2013)

I don't know about anyone else but this thread is making me want a sausage butty and a nice glass of wine :yesnod:


----------



## Guest (Jan 1, 2014)

Well, like I told ZipsDad, its not really something I care deeply about one way or another. I think its insane that in this country churches pay no taxes for example, but Im not out there trying to change it.

I suppose on some level it does bug me how insidiously religion gets inserted in to our every day lives. In public schools for example we start the day by reciting the pledge of allegiance which includes the statement one nation under god. What goes unsaid is that the under god part was not part of the original pledge. It was added in the 1950s along with adding in god we trust to our paper money - a reaction against godless communism and another way for America to distance itself from the red scare. 

Now, dont even get me started on creationists and their push to include creationism in the science curriculum!! That I will get passionate about


----------



## grumpy goby (Jan 18, 2012)

ouesi said:


> Well, like I told ZipsDad, its not really something I care deeply about one way or another. I think its insane that in this country churches pay no taxes for example, but Im not out there trying to change it.
> 
> I suppose on some level it does bug me how insidiously religion gets inserted in to our every day lives. In public schools for example we start the day by reciting the pledge of allegiance which includes the statement one nation under god. What goes unsaid is that the under god part was not part of the original pledge. It was added in the 1950s along with adding in god we trust to our paper money - a reaction against godless communism and another way for America to distance itself from the red scare.
> 
> *Now, dont even get me started on creationists and their push to include creationism in the science curriculum!! That I will get passionate about *


Now that IS mad. How can you teach something with no scientific evidence as SCIENCE. Surely that belongs in Religious Studies class or some such.


----------



## Julesky (Feb 10, 2012)

ouesi said:


> Well, like I told ZipsDad, its not really something I care deeply about one way or another. I think its insane that in this country churches pay no taxes for example, but Im not out there trying to change it.
> 
> I suppose on some level it does bug me how insidiously religion gets inserted in to our every day lives. In public schools for example we start the day by reciting the pledge of allegiance which includes the statement one nation under god. What goes unsaid is that the under god part was not part of the original pledge. It was added in the 1950s along with adding in god we trust to our paper money - a reaction against godless communism and another way for America to distance itself from the red scare.
> 
> *Now, dont even get me started on creationists and their push to include creationism in the science curriculum!! That I will get passionate about *


Hahahahahah few weeks back had the Jehovah's at the door and their pamphlet about the lie of evolution..... by the time i'd finished with them they were the ones trying to get away!


----------



## Guest (Jan 1, 2014)

ZipsDad said:


> By the way....cite me a place where wally world can't operate 7 days a week.


Decades-old &#39;blue laws&#39; ban Thanksgiving Day shopping in 3 states | Fox News



> In Rhode Island, Maine and Massachusetts so-called "blue laws" prohibit large supermarkets, big box stores and department stores from opening on Thanksgiving.


Our 24hr Walmart was closed here too on Thanksgiving, and Christmas day.


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

For those who think I am 'scaremongering', there are many examples of the double standard that exists in the UK at present. Here is just one:

Alan Buchan wrote a piee for the 'North East Weekly' in Aberdeenshire, in which he opposed a resettlement centre for asylum seekers in his area. Result: he was charge with 'inciting racial hatred'.

Meanwhile, Dr Yaqub Zaki, who was deputy leader of the Muslim Parliament of Great Britain, was *not* charged after he publicly said he would be 'very happy' if there was a terrorist attack on Downing Street and that he didn't care what would happen to the 'inmates' of No.10.

Just one example. source: Stephen Glover, journalist (August 21 2005)

Meanwhile, Mohammed Abdul Bari, of the Muslim Council of Britain, has openly said he wants to encourage Britain to adopt Islamic traditions, such as *arranged marriages.*

I really have no problem with an increasing Muslim population in the UK UNLESS they will be pushing more and more for Sharia Law. And I predict they will.


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

Julesky said:


> Hahahahahah few weeks back had the Jehovah's at the door and their pamphlet about the lie of evolution..... *by the time i'd finished with them they were the ones trying to get away*!


A few weeks ago we had JWs in our street too. They chose to approach my house and at the same time my next door neighbours on a Friday evening - just after the start of the Jewish sabbath. My neighbours are Orthodox Jews.

I listened with great interest as the JWs tried desperately to persuade my Jewish neighbours to abandon their own beliefs etc. The husband of the family next door listened really politely and then quietly asked the JW spokesman to tell him - without looking at the bible in his hand - what the 10th commandment was. The JW could not do it. The husband then quietly recited all ten commandments and reminded the JW that they originate from the Tanakh, the original Jewish scriptures which Jews the world over still read and study today in the original Hebrew.

It was all done really politely but I think the JWs might hesitate before trying that house again....

I don't get angry about my dinner being interrupted by JWs knocking at my door - I accept that this is what they do, it is part of their faith, and they feel passionately about it.

However, if I walked into a shop and was refused service, even temporarily, because a JW cashier didn't agree with my purchases - then hell YES I would be angry!


----------



## mollydog07 (May 26, 2012)

Julesky said:


> Hahahahahah few weeks back had the Jehovah's at the door and their pamphlet about the lie of evolution..... by the time i'd finished with them they were the ones trying to get away!


Could do with you at our house!....me and o/h seen the jw,s approaching our houses...we grabbed the dogs,headed upstairs to our bedroom...as they rang our bell my o/h said.....what if they can fly?:lol:


----------



## myshkin (Mar 23, 2010)

Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> For those who think I am 'scaremongering', there are many examples of the double standard that exists in the UK at present. Here is just one:
> 
> Alan Buchan wrote a piee for the 'North East Weekly' in Aberdeenshire, in which he opposed a resettlement centre for asylum seekers in his area. Result: he was charge with 'inciting racial hatred'.
> 
> ...


Steven Glover, Daily Mail journalist. The problem with this story is, as far as I can see ( and I am knackered, so by all means link to it if I'm wrong) is the article Buchan was charged for isn't available. I can't form a judgement on second hand commentary of events which took place over eight years ago, other than the commentary being a dubious source itself.


----------



## Mulish (Feb 20, 2013)

Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> Meanwhile, Mohammed Abdul Bari, of the Muslim Council of Britain, has openly said he wants to encourage Britain to adopt Islamic traditions, such as *arranged marriages.*
> 
> I really have no problem with an increasing Muslim population in the UK UNLESS they will be pushing more and more for Sharia Law. And I predict they will.


What's wrong with arranged marriages? Both parties agree to them, my friend is in one, as are her siblings (different marriages, in case that isn't clear  ), and all are very happy. Forced marriages on the other hand are totally abhorrent and illegal here.


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

because......I wouldn't trust my mother to get me a pair of shoes or even a pair of earrings cos we have vastly differing tastes.

And, whats the point of an arranged marriage? just to reproduce?


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

Mulish said:


> What's wrong with arranged marriages? Both parties agree to them, my friend is in one, as are her siblings (different marriages, in case that isn't clear  ), and all are very happy. Forced marriages on the other hand are totally abhorrent and illegal here.


They want everyone, regardless of faith, to agree to having arranged marriages.

Some of us are not mad on the idea...


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> They want everyone, regardless of faith, to agree to having arranged marriages.
> 
> Some of us are not mad on the idea...


lol. sometimes my husband of 33 years absolutely does my head in.but at least I picked him.lol.and, even though my parents both now think my husband is the best thing since sliced bread, they were totally against us until after we got married.


----------



## Mulish (Feb 20, 2013)

lilythepink said:


> because......I wouldn't trust my mother to get me a pair of shoes or even a pair of earrings cos we have vastly differing tastes.
> 
> And, whats the point of an arranged marriage? just to reproduce?


But that's you and your mum. Mine would've picked me a good'un if she could but I beat her to it. My dad, on the other hand, would've sold me off to the highest bidder (2 pints of lager and a packet of crisps, probably  )

I think the point of arranged marriages is similar to that of blind dates - your family knows someone they think you'd be compatible with. There's probably a lot of suitability and approval issues to it all, too, but again that's like being introduced through friends, surely? Certainly the people I know who are in one were introduced and allowed to get to know one another before marriage happened. No mail order brides or coercion which i do take issue with.


----------



## Mulish (Feb 20, 2013)

Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> They want everyone, regardless of faith, to agree to having arranged marriages.
> 
> Some of us are not mad on the idea...


I don't understand how that would work. Is this after we're all living under Sharia Law? People aren't going to agree to arranged marriages unless they want one. If someone doesn't want to get married and is forced to then that isn't an arranged marriage, it's a forced one.


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

whole box of frogs this one.

it takes many of us to get into our 40s before we start to realise who we are let alone.know ourself. Do we ever really know another person? enough to commit them to a life sentence?

Personally, I wouldn't want the responsibility of choosing a partner for any one of my daughters.

my mother may know me.....but she would never have picked my husband for me...first 2 years she couldn't stand the sight of him.lol


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

Mulish said:


> But that's you and your mum. Mine would've picked me a good'un if she could but I beat her to it. My dad, on the other hand, would've sold me off to the highest bidder (2 pints of lager and a packet of crisps, probably  )
> 
> I think the point of arranged marriages is similar to that of blind dates - your family knows someone they think you'd be compatible with. There's probably a lot of suitability and approval issues to it all, too, but again that's like being introduced through friends, surely? Certainly the people I know who are in one were introduced and allowed to get to know one another before marriage happened. No mail order brides or coercion which i do take issue with.


an arranged marriage is just that.arranged and not just a casual meet up before a couple decides.

I have muslim friends. My very good friend converted over 30 years ago and married another convert. When her very pale skinned baby girl was born, the local muslim elders jokingly asked about arranged marriages....

in western worlds divorce rate is high but thats the price you have to pay for freedom of choice.

I moved to scotland from a high asian community......some of the stuff that went on was criminal.and nothing was ever done about it.


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

we now have agencies within the UK police force.and in parts of scotland its a huge problem too.for forced marriages where a young girl goes away on holiday and comes back married and pregnant.


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

and arranged marriages are not just within the Islamic faith either


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

and.going back to OP . If I were in MandS and it was heaving cos it was christmas time and I had just fought my way round stupid people getting in my way wherever I wanted to look at goods on shelves etc,and I got my goodies and queued up only to reach the till and for whatever reason the cashier couldn't/wouldn't serve me, I would be ripping.cos its christmas time and I have a million things to do. so, if I was delayed by 10minutes for maybe somebody over 18 to come and serve me beer, it would annoy me.and it would annoy everybody else in the queue behind me.nothing whatsoever to do with religion and ethics.

good for MandS for being so thoughtful that they include religious stuff for their workers


----------



## Mulish (Feb 20, 2013)

lilythepink said:


> whole box of frogs this one.
> 
> it takes many of us to get into our 40s before we start to realise who we are let alone.know ourself. Do we ever really know another person? enough to commit them to a life sentence?
> 
> ...


I don't disagree with you, it's not something I'd want for either me or any of my children. But then I don't want, like or need most cultural or religious rules to live by. Doesn't mean I'll stop others who do. If you want an arranged marriage, go for it.



lilythepink said:


> an arranged marriage is just that.arranged and not just a casual meet up before a couple decides.
> 
> I have muslim friends. My very good friend converted over 30 years ago and married another convert. When her very pale skinned baby girl was born, the local muslim elders jokingly asked about arranged marriages....
> 
> ...


My friends must have had different experiences to yours, which I guess isn't surprising. Still I don't understand what's inherently wrong with arranged marriage when both parties are up for it?



lilythepink said:


> we now have agencies within the UK police force.and in parts of scotland its a huge problem too.for forced marriages where a young girl goes away on holiday and comes back married and pregnant.





lilythepink said:


> and arranged marriages are not just within the Islamic faith either


I agree with both of these points. Forced marriage is always, always wrong but it seems as much a cultural thing as a religious one.

Being female shouldn't automatically relegate you to a second class citizen in this day and age. It does, though, frequently and it's not all just happening to people of certain faiths or colours, either.


----------



## witchyone (Dec 16, 2011)

Not read the entire thread here but it wont be long before self service checkouts are the norm so muslim or whatever faith wont have a problem about handling pork, alcohol ect because there wont be humans serving on tills.


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

witchyone said:


> Not read the entire thread here but it wont be long before self service checkouts are the norm so muslim or whatever faith wont have a problem about handling pork, alcohol ect because there wont be humans serving on tills.


yes, totally agree with that one.

Its not that many years ago that petrol stations had people to fill up your car.


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

Mulish said:


> I don't disagree with you, it's not something I'd want for either me or any of my children. But then I don't want, like or need most cultural or religious rules to live by. Doesn't mean I'll stop others who do. If you want an arranged marriage, go for it.
> 
> My friends must have had different experiences to yours, which I guess isn't surprising. Still I don't understand what's inherently wrong with arranged marriage when both parties are up for it?
> 
> ...


I think education plays a massive part in it.

The migrants who moved into the village where we lived were mainly from the villages of bangladseh and pakistan. They were uneducated and didn't want their wives and children educating.

The women were fabulous seamstresses, didn't need a pattern or even a tape measure and produced beautiful things. I had cookery lessons from an old woman. and I loved Eid.......cos it was curry like you never saw or even heard of before.


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

Mulish said:


> I don't disagree with you, it's not something I'd want for either me or any of my children. But then I don't want, like or need most cultural or religious rules to live by. Doesn't mean I'll stop others who do. If you want an arranged marriage, go for it.
> 
> My friends must have had different experiences to yours, which I guess isn't surprising. Still I don't understand what's inherently wrong with arranged marriage when both parties are up for it?
> 
> ...


My friend is english and very pale skinned but dark hair. Her husband is blonde and blue eyed. Their children were very pale skinned and very dark haired. It was my friend who told me that the lighter and paler skinned was desired.


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

and..we didn't move all the way up here to total isolation to escape a muslim presence, in fact, our farm where we were was more isolated and we saw less people.lol


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> LOL LOL and are the ex Muslims also warning about Sharia in Europe also 'scaremongering'? Are the following also 'twisting the truth and scaremongering'


I don't know - I lost the heart to look at the rest of your links after diligently searching through the Leyton website that you quoted as openly inciting muslims to spread Sharia law througout Britain. * That* was entirely wrong. It was doing no such thing. After that, I surmised that the rest of your links would end up the same so I didn't follow them at all. One of the prices you pay for posting things that aren't true is that people tend to think nothing you post will turn out to be true.

With that in mind, I won't be following any more links you post unless you go to the original websites (rather the newspaper or the anti-muslim site you get the misinformation from) and quote, from the original websites, the parts that support your assertations.

You could not have done that with the Leyton website because what you were saying was there w*as not actually on the website*. Had you followed the link yourself instead of blindly believing what you had read on whatever site, you would have seen what you were posting was wrong. It might even have given you pause for thought that these sites that incite you to fear the spread of Sharia law so much might not be as accurate as you think they are. It might make you check the links more carefully yourself, see that they wre wrong, and realise the extent to which they twist things in order to scaremonger.

But you still haven't addressed the point that you posted information that was wrong, have you? You've completely ignored the fact that you were posting scaremongering untruths and decided instead to post yet more - most probably, going by your record - misinformed information.



Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> RE NOT WORKING ON SABBATH:
> 
> Sorry guys, but it really isn't the same thing.
> 
> ...


There are two ways of approaching this matter: from the member of staff's point of view and from the customer's point of view.

From the member of staff's point of view, the store allowing staff to observe theIr religious tenets by either allowing them not to sell alcohol or not to work on Sundays means that all staff are being treated the same. No member of staff is being discriminated against. Everyoe is being treated equally. No particular religion is being favoured over another.

From the customer's point of view, are things the same? Suppose I am a customer who wants to buy a bottle of alcohol, which my local store sells. I go down on Thursday and the lady at the till is muslim and asks me to go to anotherr till. Fair enough; I (irrespective of my religion) have been affected personally: I have been inconvenienced a little. Next, I go down on Sunday and the store is closed because the person who should have been working has asked not to work the sabbath, so I have to go into the next village to buy whatever I need. I (irrespective of my religion) have been affected personally: I have been inconvenienced a lot.

Yes, it really is that simple, if only you apply logic rather than anger that someone of a different religion to yours has caused you inconvenience..


----------



## witchyone (Dec 16, 2011)

lilythepink said:


> yes, totally agree with that one.
> 
> Its not that many years ago that petrol stations had people to fill up your car.


A lot of petrol stations now have pumps where you can pay at the pump and not bother going into the kiosk to pay and converse with a human being. I do think the human race is now being taken over by technology and that's not particularly good. It wont be that long before machines do everything and the human race will become defunct.

Sorry, bit off topic.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> For those who think I am 'scaremongering', there are many examples of the double standard that exists in the UK at present. Here is just one:
> 
> Alan Buchan wrote a piee for the 'North East Weekly' in Aberdeenshire, in which he opposed a resettlement centre for asylum seekers in his area. Result: he was charge with 'inciting racial hatred'.
> 
> ...





Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> They want everyone, regardless of faith, to agree to having arranged marriages.
> 
> Some of us are not mad on the idea...


Unless you can provide links to original websites where we can view this information in its original setting, without it having been subjected to twisting by journalists trying to sensationalise things to sell newspapers, or twisting by anti-islamic groups to whip up fear and hatred - or even twisting by pro-islamic fundamentalist groups to make the spread seem more than it is - then it's just so much hot air I'm afraid.



myshkin said:


> Steven Glover, Daily Mail journalist. The problem with this story is, as far as I can see ( and I am knackered, so by all means link to it if I'm wrong) is the article Buchan was charged for isn't available. I can't form a judgement on second hand commentary of events which took place over eight years ago, other than the commentary being a dubious source itself.


So it took place over eight years ago and it still has not affected us at all? How can anyone think that something which happened over eight years ago is a threat now?



witchyone said:


> Not read the entire thread here but it wont be long before self service checkouts are the norm so muslim or whatever faith wont have a problem about handling pork, alcohol ect because there wont be humans serving on tills.


Oh no, now that's not fair - according to Owned by a yellow lab, muslins have a cunning plan to subject us all to Sharia law by asking us to go to another till to buy pork or alcohol. Oh well, it looks like that plan is well and truly scuppered. It's back to the drawing board for those who are determined to spread Sharia law.

There you go, Owned by a yellow lab - some good news for you from Witchyone. You can sleep safely now; your nightmare has been averted.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

witchyone said:


> A lot of petrol stations now have pumps where you can pay at the pump and not bother going into the kiosk to pay and converse with a human being. I do think the human race is now being taken over by technology and that's not particularly good. It wont be that long before machines do everything and the human race will become defunct.
> 
> Sorry, bit off topic.


But a very good point all the same :thumbsup:


----------



## mollydog07 (May 26, 2012)

witchyone said:


> Not read the entire thread here but it wont be long before self service checkouts are the norm so muslim or whatever faith wont have a problem about handling pork, alcohol ect because there wont be humans serving on tills.


Yip and people will lose jobs,i hate the self scan in asda and Tesco,i,m always convinced I,ve stole something or scanned twice.


----------



## Mulish (Feb 20, 2013)

I'm sorry, I know this is a serious discussion and I'm not meaning to undermine it in any way but the last few posts have now got me thinking about a dystopian future in which robots are being forced to live under Sharia Law after most of humanity has wiped each other out/become obsolete.

I think that'd make a pretty good sit-com, actually.


----------



## witchyone (Dec 16, 2011)

mollydog07 said:


> Yip and people will lose jobs,i hate the self scan in asda and Tesco,i,m always convinced I,ve stole something or scanned twice.


Exactly. This is why I said machines will do things for us and we will have no use anymore. This is the way the world is going, pay one person to oversee self checkouts and dispense with people working the tills, money saved for the big corporations


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

Spellweaver said:


> I don't know - I lost the heart to look at the rest of your links after diligently searching through the Leyton website that you quoted as openly inciting muslims to spread Sharia law througout Britain. * That* was entirely wrong. It was doing no such thing. After that, I surmised that the rest of your links would end up the same so I didn't follow them at all. One of the prices you pay for posting things that aren't true is that people tend to think nothing you post will turn out to be true.
> 
> With that in mind, I won't be following any more links you post unless you go to the original websites (rather the newspaper or the anti-muslim site you get the misinformation from) and quote, from the original websites, the parts that support your assertations.
> 
> ...


If you don't look at any of my links then you aren't qualified to state that I am 'twisting the truth' etc. I have given lots of links in lots of posts. Big deal so ONE thing doesn't still appear at the original site.

RE SABBATH ETC

Yes, of course we can approach the M&S issue from the view of either the customer or the employee. Er, tell me again WHY employees are there - oh, that's right: *to serve the customers.*

As for my 'anger' - yes damn right I am angry when I find out that girls as young as eight and nine right here in the UK are suffering female genital mutilation *in the name of Sharia.*


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

SPELLWEAVER:

That's fine, I can easily provide more up to date examples of the dangers of the rise of Islam in the UK.

In November of this year, Douglas Murray writes in the Spectator of the dangers of the Muslim Brotherhood in Britain:

"And elsewhere, at Londons SOAS (the School of Oriental and African Studies) a speaker who is opposed to the Muslim Brotherhood was chased from the stage by Muslim Brotherhoood supporters. It is worth watching the video of what turned into an Islamist rally just to remind yourself of how well spent our taxpayer money is."

The Muslim Brotherhood thrives in Britain » Spectator Blogs

He also makes some vital points that the tragic death of Lee Rigby:

".....Even if we, the general public, had all had our eyes closed before last May, in the months since the attack in Woolwich we have all been able to read our papers and watch our televisions. We all saw the front-pages of these machete-wielding men, hands covered in blood, shouting about Allah and quoting the Quran. In the months since, we have all been able to hear about their defence in court.

We can all read the headlines only a few days ago in which one of the killers  Michael Adebolajo  said:

*I killed Lee Rigby because I am a soldier of Allah.*

We can also read the note to his children which Adebolajo gave to a passerby and which came up in court:

*Know that to fight Allahs enemies is an obligation Do not spend your days in endless dispute with the cowardly and foolish if it means it will delay you meeting Allahs enemies on the battlefield.*

Today and tomorrow people will read of the defendants carrying and kissing their Qurans as they were sentenced. Mr Cameron may think the killing had nothing to do with Islam but* Michael Adebolajo  who was not deemed insane, and was deemed fit to stand trial  certainly believed it had to do with Islam*. And therein lies a problem which Mr Cameron and the political class that thinks like him must one day confront.

*Far from having nothing to do with Islam, the killing of Lee Rigby had everything to do with Islam  the worst possible version of Islam, certainly, but a version of Islam nonetheless. And although it may not be the version that most Muslims worldwide follow, let alone practise, it is one with a considerable and bloody presence  across the Indian sub-continent, the Middle East, North Africa and now in Europe.*

If we had responsible public debate it would focus on identifying and stopping those Islamists who are able to recruit people like Adebolajo into their ranks

. It would ask why the rhetoric of our lands and their lands ever entered the lexicon of citizens of our country.

It would ask who Adebolajo and Adebowale were listening to when they came to the impression that British troops wilfully murder Muslims abroad.

How fringe is that type of rhetoric? Not very. How many people make a wilful effort to correct it  to point out that British troops saved Muslims from ethnic cleansing in the Balkans, and spent the best part of a decade trying to stop Muslims killing other Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq? Very few in my experience, preferring to push the lazy and bigoted narrative of a British army at war with Muslims.

As I say  the murder of Drummer Rigby had everything to do with Islam: a nasty, bigoted, backward version of Islam to be sure, but a version of Islam nonetheless..."

For anyone wanting to read the whole article: 
The murder of Lee Rigby had everything to do with the worst version of Islam » Spectator Blogs

These examples recent enough for you.....?


----------



## Jonescat (Feb 5, 2012)

Right with you on the FGM issue, but where is the link to Sharia law? Does Sharia law demand it? In her book "Do they hear you when you cry?" Fauziya Kassindja is really clear that it is not a Muslim practice but a cultural one. FGM is absolutely an evil that needs stamped out, but if you focus on Islam, you will not save a swathe of girls from different backgrounds.


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

Jonescat said:


> Right with you on the FGM issue, but where is the link to Sharia law? Does Sharia law demand it? In her book "Do they hear you when you cry?" Fauziya Kassindja is really clear that it is not a Muslim practice but a cultural one. FGM is absolutely an evil that needs stamped out, but if you focus on Islam, you will not save a swathe of girls from different backgrounds.


My understanding is that it is an Islamic 'tradition' but thank you, I will double check - I am more than happy to be corrected if I'm wrong. I will check now.

edited to add:

'The practice, *prevalent in some majority Muslim countries*, has a tremendous cost: many girls bleed to death or die of infection. Most are traumatized. Those who survive can suffer adverse health effects during marriage and pregnancy. New information from Iraqi Kurdistan raises the possibility that the problem is more prevalent in the Middle East than previously believed and that *FGM is far more tied to religion than many Western academics and activists admit.*

The article does point out that not all Muslim clerics condone FGM, but there seems to be support for it in the Islamic hadiths.

Here is the link to the whole article:

http://www.meforum.org/1629/is-fema...amic-problem?gclid=CIqutNTi_aYCFUVqKgodJk39Zw

Also: Islamic law on FGM:

http://answering-islam.org/Sharia/fem_circumcision.html

And from The Guardian:

"A mullah tells the film-makers that "Khatana [the Kurdish term for FGM] is a duty; it is spiritually pure." That is the position of the Shafi'i school of Sunni Islam that is practised by Iraqi Kurds. *It is the same branch of Islamic law *that predominates in Egypt, where *studies show that up to 80% of women have been mutilated.*"

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/oct/24/female-genital-mutilation-film-changing-kurdistan-law


----------



## Jonescat (Feb 5, 2012)

I recently went to a talk by some Maasai,who said they were working to eradicate "female initiation" - it really isn't Islamic but it does coincide with some Muslim populations.


----------



## Guest (Jan 1, 2014)

There is a reason lee rigby was murdered on our streets. And it goes alot deeper than BECAUSE I AM A SOLDIER OF ALLAH! Lee Rigby | | truthaholics


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> If you don't look at any of my links then you aren't qualified to state that I am 'twisting the truth' etc. I have given lots of links in lots of posts. Big deal so ONE thing doesn't still appear at the original site.


Firstly, I haven't said you are twisting the truth. I've said the places where you are getting your information from are and you are merely guilty of believing it and passing it on without checking its veracity.

Secondly, when one of your links have proved to be untruthful, why should anyone believe any of them? One or two of them may indeed turn out to be true - but surely you must know about the boy who cried wolf?



Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> RE SABBATH ETC
> 
> Yes, of course we can approach the M&S issue from the view of either the customer or the employee. Er, tell me again WHY employees are there - oh, that's right: *to serve the customers.*


And that applies to muslims who don't want to handle alcohol and pork, christians who don't want to work on the sabbath, jews who don't want to work Saturdays, etc etc - so why does none of it anger you other than the muslim part? Why do you see concessions to muslims as being indicative of the spread of Sharia law, but concessions to other faiths as merely an annoyance??



Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> As for my 'anger' - yes damn right I am angry when I find out that girls as young as eight and nine right here in the UK are suffering female genital mutilation *in the name of Sharia.*


That angers me too and is more than worthy of a thread in its own right - but it has* nothing *to do with M&S allowing concessions to staff of ALL religions.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> , the killing of Lee Rigby had everything to do with Islam  the worst possible version of Islam, certainly, but a version of Islam nonetheless. And although *it may not be the version that most Muslims worldwide follow, let alone practise, *it is one with a considerable and bloody presence  across the Indian sub-continent, the Middle East, North Africa and now in Europe.[/COLOR][/B]
> 
> These examples recent enough for you.....?


The red bit is the truth behind all the rhetoric.

The vile swine who killed Lee Rigby were extremists. Most muslims do not agree with them, let alone all other religions.

What happened to Lee was awful, God rest his soul - but it does not make your argument that all muslims want to spread Sharia law any more true.


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

Robnsacha said:


> There is a reason lee rigby was murdered on our streets. And it goes alot deeper than BECAUSE I AM A SOLDIER OF ALLAH! Lee Rigby | | truthaholics


In Muslim countries, non Muslims have been treated as 'dhimmis' for centuries and suffered accordingly - since way, way before Iraq or Afghanistan.


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

Spellweaver said:


> The red bit is the truth behind all the rhetoric.
> 
> The vile swine who killed Lee Rigby were extremists. Most muslims do not agree with them, let alone all other religions.
> 
> What happened to Lee was awful, God rest his soul - but it does not make your argument that all muslims want to spread Sharia law any more true.


I stated earlier, very clearly, that millions of Muslims are peace loving.

The fact remains that EVEN if it's a minority of Muslims who adhere to the Quran and Sharia, that is still a hell of a lot of people. And unless the other Muslims who don't agree with them stand up to be counted, there will be problems - there already are problems.

Let's say a small minority of 1 billion Muslims don't follow the Quran rigidly -that is still a lot of people. And the minority is not nearly as small as people like to think. I agree that the number of Muslims following Mohammad's order to* "kill unbelievers wherever you find them"* may be small, but a much bigger number believes in the political purpose of Islam.

And the political purpose of Islam is to establish Sharia.

I would also suggest - and honestly, I don't mean this to be patronising - that you investigate the meaning of 'jihad'.

*Jihad is compulsory for all Muslims. * Jihad means 'to struggle', in many different ways, to achieve Islam's single political goal: The submission of all non-Muslims to Sharia law.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Robnsacha said:


> There is a reason lee rigby was murdered on our streets. And it goes alot deeper than BECAUSE I AM A SOLDIER OF ALLAH! Lee Rigby | | truthaholics


Very interesting :thumbsup:


----------



## Guest (Jan 1, 2014)

Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> In Muslim countries, non Muslims have been treated as 'dhimmis' for centuries and suffered accordingly - since way, way before Iraq or Afghanistan.


Yes but lee rigby was randomly butchered in the streets. Just like muslim children are randomly bombed on the streets by the west. We can trace history as far back as you want. Both sides are guilty and have blood on their hands.


----------



## myshkin (Mar 23, 2010)

Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> I stated earlier, very clearly, that millions of Muslims are peace loving.
> 
> The fact remains that EVEN if it's a minority of Muslims who adhere to the Quran and Sharia, that is still a hell of a lot of people. And unless the other Muslims who don't agree with them stand up to be counted, there will be problems - there already are problems.
> 
> ...


If it the case that to be Muslim means that striving to establish Sharia as the law of the land, how come the MAJORITY of Muslim countries are NOT governed by Sharia?

(Caps for emphasis, fat fingers on touchscreen. Not shouting. )


----------



## ZipsDad (Oct 31, 2013)

Robnsacha said:


> Yes but lee rigby was randomly butchered in the streets. *Just like muslim children are randomly bombed on the streets by the west.* We can trace history as far back as you want. Both sides are guilty and have blood on their hands.


That I have to take exception to. 
Collateral damage is kept to the barest minimum. Unlike carpet bombings of days gone by, we now use "smart bombs" that hit intended targets.
There ARE incidents of innocents hit but that has more to do with intelligence (faulty and what not) that your attempted portrayal of random bombings of children.


----------



## myshkin (Mar 23, 2010)

ZipsDad said:


> That I have to take exception to.
> Collateral damage is kept to the barest minimum. Unlike carpet bombings of days gone by, we now use "smart bombs" that hit intended targets.
> There ARE incidents of innocents hit but that has more to do with intelligence (faulty and what not) that your attempted portrayal of random bombings of children.


Well I am sure their families are deeply comforted by that. "It wasn't random slaughter, it was faulty intelligence. Oh that's ok then."


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

Robnsacha said:


> Yes but lee rigby was randomly butchered in the streets. Just like muslim children are randomly bombed on the streets by the west. We can trace history as far back as you want. Both sides are guilty and have blood on their hands.


Er, so by your 'logic', America brought 9-11 on itself....? :mad2:


----------



## Guest (Jan 1, 2014)

ZipsDad said:


> That I have to take exception to.
> Collateral damage is kept to the barest minimum. Unlike carpet bombings of days gone by, we now use "smart bombs" that hit intended targets.
> There ARE incidents of innocents hit but that has more to do with intelligence (faulty and what not) that your attempted portrayal of random bombings of children.


Wow! Just wow! You really see the killing of children as just a part of war? Oh and when a bomb is dropped on a group of people in the hope of hitting your "target" every but your target is a random killing. Japan learnt that the hardway remember?


----------



## Guest (Jan 1, 2014)

Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> Er, so by your 'logic', America brought 9-11 on itself....? :mad2:


Well i dont think we will ever know the exact truth about 911 but yes i think america added fuel to the fire so to speak


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

myshkin said:


> If it the case that to be Muslim means that striving to establish Sharia as the law of the land, how come the MAJORITY of Muslim countries are NOT governed by Sharia?
> 
> (Caps for emphasis, fat fingers on touchscreen. Not shouting. )


Countries where Sharia is implemented totally:

Saudi Arabia
Iran
Afghanistan under the Taliban regime
Sudan
Somalia

In other Muslim countries, there are attempts to establish Sharia.

However, many other countries do have Sharia but it governs 'only' personal' issues such as marriage. (i.e if a woman is unfaithful or thought to be unfaithful, she can still be stoned to death)

Only 11 of the 47 nations (23 percent) with an Islamic majority have democratically elected governments.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> I would also suggest - and honestly, I don't mean this to be patronising - that you investigate the meaning of 'jihad'.


Of course that's not patronising - why would your assumption that I don't know what jihad means be in the least bit patronising?


----------



## ZipsDad (Oct 31, 2013)

Robnsacha said:


> Wow! Just wow! You really see the killing of children as just a part of war? Oh and when a bomb is dropped on a group of people in the hope of hitting your "target" every but your target is a random killing. Japan learnt that the hardway remember?


Now see?

That is exactly what I'm talking about.
Never once did I say I agreed with the killing of innocents. But, if you feel it forwards your warped view of war, so be it.

In fact, I went out of my way to describe that we now use "smart bombs" instead of "carpet bombing" as a means to an end because of the want to reduce "collateral damage"

Now, when bad guys surround themselves with women and children, as an attempt to safeguard themselves, I call them cowards. They are willing to sacrifice others lives in an attempt to preserve their own.

As far as Japan goes, that's an example of mass killings. We didn't use smart bombs or theatrical nukes. We simply wiped out an entire area.

Not much different, in cost of lives or complete lack of respect for human life, in Britains past. Though you didn't have the technology we possessed, if you look into your history, you will find mass slaughters etc.

As I said, NOWADAYS. we use weapons (and platforms) that attempt to ONLY kill those that are intended.
We (the "West") don't subscribe to indiscriminate killings. In fact, out Gov't comes under fire every time we're upset by that sort of thing.
So, to attempt to say the west just blanket kills women and children is as far from the truth as you can possibly get.


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

Robnsacha said:


> Well i dont think we will ever know the exact truth about 911 but yes i think america added fuel to the fire so to speak


My apologies if I'm misunderstanding - are you implying that you believe America itself organised the atrocities of 9-11?

If I'm reading something into your response that is not there, I do apologise.


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

Please don't just take my word on Sharia:

*"All schools of Islamic Jurisprudence promote that Muslims MUST declare war on and fight Non-Muslims until they are subjugated to Islam."*
- Tawfik Hamid

Dr. Tawfik Hamid, is an Islamic thinker and reformer, and one time Islamic extremist from Egypt. He was a member of a terrorist Islamic organization JI with Dr. Ayman Al-Zawaherri who became later on the second in command of Al-Qaeda. Some twenty-five years ago, he recognized the threat of Radical Islam and the need for a reformation based upon modern peaceful interpretations of classical Islamic core texts.

Dr. Tawfik Hamid's Official Website- Part of the Potomac Institute of Policy Studies

If you scroll down the link below, there are some really interesting articles:

http://www.tawfikhamid.com/opt-eds/


----------



## ZipsDad (Oct 31, 2013)

Robnsacha said:


> Well i dont think we will ever know the exact truth about 911 but yes i think america added fuel to the fire so to speak


That I agree with.

If you're constantly kicking in the doors of other people's homes and saying you won't leave their living room until they conduct business as you see fit.....you WILL have backlash. You WILL p!ss people off.

I mean, look at the American Revolution as an example. It was occupation and taxation without representation that brought a WHOLE COUNTRY to revolt and kick your butts.

What we're seeing is called "blow back" by officials in the Gov't. Some of it is expected. Other bits aren't foreseen.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

ZipsDad said:


> That I have to take exception to.
> Collateral damage is kept to the barest minimum. Unlike carpet bombings of days gone by, we now use "smart bombs" that hit intended targets.
> There ARE incidents of innocents hit but that has more to do with intelligence (faulty and what not) that your attempted portrayal of random bombings of children.


Oh, silly us - of couirse American and English bombs are nice bombs that only kill terrosits and never touch women and children. 

It is a war. In a war, innocent people are killed. However, I'm sure those who have been killed are completly reassured to know that their deaths were "collateral damage kept to the barest minimum".

They are still dead. They have still left parents without children, children without parents, families where generations have been wiped out at a stroke. And when innocents are killed, is it surprising that men rise up against the people doing the killing of innocents? One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.


----------



## Guest (Jan 1, 2014)

ZipsDad said:


> Now see?
> 
> That is exactly what I'm talking about.
> Never once did I say I agreed with the killing of innocents. But, if you feel it forwards your warped view of war, so be it.
> ...


your words not mine. You called the killing of children collateral damage. They are not! And "smart bombs" i.e drones. The faceless enemy in the sky. Imagine one over you or your childrens knowing you could be the next "oops sorry thought you were someone else mate"


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

Robnsacha said:


> your words not mine. You called the killing of children collateral damage. They are not! And "smart bombs" i.e drones. The faceless enemy in the sky. Imagine one over you or your childrens knowing you could be the next "oops sorry thought you were someone else mate"


Speaking of drones...

....apparently soon we can expect them to be delivering our mail, our milk, and assorted other things.

I do agree that the use of drones makes it far easier for those in power to kill.


----------



## Guest (Jan 1, 2014)

Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> My apologies if I'm misunderstanding - are you implying that you believe America itself organised the atrocities of 9-11?
> 
> If I'm reading something into your response that is not there, I do apologise.


Im simply saying me (the ordinary man on the street) will never know the truth. Just check out the bushs and bin ladens. It is always deeper than the final act


----------



## myshkin (Mar 23, 2010)

Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> Countries where Sharia is implemented totally:
> 
> Saudi Arabia
> Iran
> ...


That's a MINORITY of Islamic countries with Sharia as the law of the land. How does that compute with your view that in the UK, where Muslims are in a minority, and those who would wish to see Sharia implemented a tiny minority of that minority, we are in danger of being taken over by Sharia law?

There is no logic to this view, just irrational fear.


----------



## ZipsDad (Oct 31, 2013)

Spellweaver said:


> Oh, silly us - of couirse American and English bombs are nice bombs that only kill terrosits and never touch women and children.


Good grief. Do you really miss the whole point (erm...not to mention my TEXT that NOTED innocents were killed) of what was said?
If so, I attributed far more, in the sense...of...sense...than I should have if that is the case.



Spellweaver said:


> It is a war. In a war, innocent people are killed. However, I'm sure those who have been killed are completly reassured to know that their deaths were "collateral damage kept to the barest minimum".


Let's harken back to Germany, just for a sec, where whole cities were set ablaze and scores killed.
Or England, during the V-bombs, where not only cities demolished but thousands of innocents obliterated.

Can you, in your overly stated robust ability to reason, not see the difference in war between now and then? Can you not see the leaps made to ensure those casualties are NOW kept to a minimum?
We NO LONGER bomb entire cities to wipe out communications. We send in wire guided/satellite guided munitions to hit TOWERS.

If you can't see the strides effected to eliminate entire CITIES in order to effect the change needed, rather than theatrical strikes to eliminate a single target, then you really can NOT be as astute as you pretend to be. 



Spellweaver said:


> They are still dead. They have still left parents without children, children without parents, families where generations have been wiped out at a stroke.


That is the cost of war. The cost, however, has been extremely lowered because of munitions that hit intended targets rather than wiping out whole civilizations to achieve the same ends.

I still say, in spite of your rhetoric, that goals have been achieved to limit the number of collateral damage and the "west" does NOT indiscriminately kill women and children. Far FROM it, in fact. :thumbup:


----------



## Guest (Jan 1, 2014)

Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> Speaking of drones...
> 
> ....apparently soon we can expect them to be delivering our mail, our milk, and assorted other things.
> 
> I do agree that the use of drones makes it far easier for those in power to kill.


Lol yes i can see the headlines now. My dog was beheaded by a mail drone propellar on my front lawn! (amazon refused to comment)


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

myshkin said:


> That's a MINORITY of Islamic countries with Sharia as the law of the land. How does that compute with your view that in the UK, where Muslims are in a minority, and those who would wish to see Sharia implemented a tiny minority of that minority, we are in danger of being taken over by Sharia law?
> 
> There is no logic to this view, just irrational fear.


If you look at what has happened to non Muslims and moderate Muslims, even in countries where Sharia is partly in effect, it's still horrific.

In Britain, within a generation, if it comes to pass that the Muslim population becomes the biggest religious group, then even if only some of this group continue pushing for concessions to Sharia, those concessions will quite possibly happen.

When you have authors and journalists and activists in fear of their lives, because they dared to challenge Sharia, then how can you possibly say this is just 'irrational fear' 

The penalty for leaving Islam = death.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

myshkin said:


> That's a MINORITY of Islamic countries with Sharia as the law of the land. How does that compute with your view that in the UK, where Muslims are in a minority, and those who would wish to see Sharia implemented a tiny minority of that minority, we are in danger of being taken over by Sharia law?
> 
> There is no logic to this view, just irrational fear.


And then, to bring the thread back on topic, to use the fact that M&S allows concessions to staff of ALL religions as an example of the spread of Sharia law is more than pandering to irrational fear - it is plain ridiculous.


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

Spellweaver said:


> And then, to bring the thread back on topic, to use the fact that M&S allows concessions to staff of ALL religions as an example of the spread of Sharia law is more than pandering to irrational fear - it is plain ridiculous.


Please see my response in the post above this one. If you truly feel it's 'ridiculous' to worry about the spread of Islam, when we have people in fear of their lives merely for COMMENTING on Islam.....


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

For those of you saying that America has in part brought 9-11 on itself, how do you explain the 'reasons' for all the other Islamic terrorist attacks on other countries, countries including:

Sudan, Yemen, Pakistan, Thailand, Nigeria, India, Tunisia, Kenya, Lebanon,


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

ZipsDad said:


> Good grief. Do you really miss the whole point (erm...not to mention my TEXT that NOTED innocents were killed) of what was said?
> If so, I attributed far more, in the sense...of...sense...than I should have if that is the case.
> 
> Let's harken back to Germany, just for a sec, where whole cities were set ablaze and scores killed.
> ...


My husband is German - his family lived through our carpet bombing of Germany just as my family lived through the carpet bombing of this country, Of course there have been advances to that kind of warfare.

It still does not alter the fact that in wars, innocent people are killed. Still does not alter the fact that innocents being killed gives rise to freedom fighters (or terrorists if you happen to be the oppressor they are fighting against)


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

Spellweaver said:


> My husband is German - his family lived through our carpet bombing of Germany just as my family lived through the carpet bombing of this country, Of course there have been advances to that kind of warfare.
> 
> It still does not alter the fact that in wars, innocent people are killed. Still does not alter the fact that innocents being killed gives rise to freedom fighters (or terrorists if you happen to be the oppressor they are fighting against)


So when Al Queda and the Muslim Brotherhood, to name just two examples, openly state that they wage war against the west because the Quran tells them to - they are 'freedom fighters'.....?


----------



## myshkin (Mar 23, 2010)

Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> If you look at what has happened to non Muslims and moderate Muslims, even in countries where Sharia is partly in effect, it's still horrific.
> 
> In Britain, within a generation, if it comes to pass that the Muslim population becomes the biggest religious group, then even if only some of this group continue pushing for concessions to Sharia, those concessions will quite possibly happen.
> 
> ...


The biggest religious group - what does that matter? Our lawmakers didn't wait for Christianity to catch up on reproductive rights or sexuality. Many of our freedoms were enshrined in law against serious opposition from religion....don't forget how many bishops there are in the House of Lords too.
Granting religious freedoms is not a slippery slope to a theocracy. Generally speaking it is the action of a state which is not dictated to by religious interests.


----------



## Guest (Jan 1, 2014)

Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> For those of you saying that America has in part brought 9-11 on itself, how do you explain the 'reasons' for all the other Islamic terrorist attacks on other countries, countries including:
> 
> Sudan, Yemen, Pakistan, Thailand, Nigeria, India, Tunisia, Kenya, Lebanon,


A terrorist will use any excuse to commit an act of terror? If there was a terrorist handbook that would probably be on the first page


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> Please see my response in the post above this one. If you truly feel it's 'ridiculous' to worry about the spread of Islam, when we have people in fear of their lives merely for COMMENTING on Islam.....


I didn't say that it was ridiculous to worry about the spread of Islam.

I said that it was ridiculous to try to say that a store allowing concessions to staff of all religions was indicative of the spread of Sharia law.

If the store had given concessions *only to muslims*, you might - just might - have a cause for your hysteria. But even then I would be arguing that it was indicative of PC gone mad rather than the spread of Sharia law.


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

Spellweaver said:


> I didn't say that it was ridiculous to worry about the spread of Islam.
> 
> I said that it was ridiculous to try to say that a store allowing concessions to staff of all religions was indicative of the spread of Sharia law.
> 
> If the store had given concessions *only to muslims*, you might - just might - have a cause for your hysteria. But even then I would be arguing that it was indicative of PC gone mad rather than the spread of Sharia law.


So now I'm guilty of 'hysteria'?

I haven't insulted you once - kindly remain polite or there's no point in continuing the debate, which is a shame since everyone else has stayed pleasant.

I have said over and over that the M&S issue is significant when seen in it's wider context - *that* is the bit you keep ignoring.

Shall we agree to disagree?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> So when Al Queda and the Muslim Brotherhood, to name just two examples, openly state that they wage war against the west because the Quran tells them to - they are 'freedom fighters'.....?


No, they are extremists who are interpreting the Qur'an in a way that it is not normally interpreted,


----------



## ZipsDad (Oct 31, 2013)

Spellweaver said:


> My husband is German - his family lived through our carpet bombing of Germany just as my family lived through the carpet bombing of this country, Of course there have been advances to that kind of warfare.
> 
> It still does not alter the fact that in wars, innocent people are killed. Still does not alter the fact that innocents being killed gives rise to freedom fighters (or terrorists if you happen to be the oppressor they are fighting against)


Well, at least you now admit that advances have been made and the "West" isn't hungry for the blood of innocents. Bravo.

You can't have a fist fight without a bloody nose.
You also cannot have war without deaths. 
Those two things are just facts of life.
Thank GOD though that advances have been made and deaths (in wars) are kept to a minimum and attempted to be only those of bad people and not entire cities anymore.

I do think that was my original post that you jumped on and attempted to make it out as more bad than good. :thumbup:


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> So now I'm guilty of 'hysteria'?
> 
> I haven't insulted you once - kindly remain polite or there's no point in continuing the debate, which is a shame since everyone else has stayed pleasant.
> 
> ...


When you stop being patronising you can lecture on politeness. 

I agreed to disagree with you over this many, many, many posts ago. I used repetetive sentences and repetetive smilies in repetetive posts to try to explain it to you.

If you haven't yet got the message that I am *not ignoring your point *about the wider context, but rather that *I think you are wrong and I don't agree with your point that there is a wider context to M&S's decision, *then you are never going to understand.


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

ZipsDad said:


> Well, at least you now admit that advances have been made and the "West" isn't hungry for the blood of innocents. Bravo.
> 
> You can't have a fist fight without a bloody nose.
> You also cannot have war without deaths.
> ...


only attempt for bad people get killed in wars..well that makes all the collateral damage ok then does it?


----------



## myshkin (Mar 23, 2010)

ZipsDad said:


> Well, at least you now admit that advances have been made and the "West" isn't hungry for the blood of innocents. Bravo.
> 
> You can't have a fist fight without a bloody nose.
> You also cannot have war without deaths.
> ...


What a cruel disregard for the lives of children your god must have......makes you feel better, I suppose.


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

Spellweaver said:


> No, they are extremists who are interpreting the Qur'an in a way that it is not normally interpreted,


lol lol, your statement is easily proven untrue.

Here are MAINSTREAM Islamic leaders:

*Ali Gomaa, the grand mufti of Egypt, the highest Muslim religious authority in the world, supports murdering non-Muslims.* In the daily Al Ahram (April 7, 2008), he said, "Muslims must kill non-believers wherever they are unless they convert to Islam." He also compares non-Muslims to apes and pigs.

source: Canada Free Press

Muhammad Sayyid Al Tantawi*, president of Al Azhar University (the most prominent and authoritative institute of Islamic jurisprudence in the world) *also approves of killing and maiming Christians, Jews, and other infidels. He added, "This is not my personal view. This what the Shari'a Law says, the law of Allah, *the only valid law on the earth.*

*Syed Abul Ala Maududi, founder of the Pakistani political party Jamaat-e-Islami,* said non-Muslims have "absolutely no right to seize the reins of power in any part of God's earth nor to direct the collective affairs of human beings according to their own misconceived doctrines." If they do, "the believers would be under an obligation to do their utmost to dislodge them from political power and to *make them live in subservience to the Islamic way of life."*

source: Jihad Watch

*The Chief Justice of Saudi Arabia,* Sheikh abdullah bin Muhammad bin Humaid teaches that "at first fighting was forbidden, then it was permitted, and after that it was made obligatory." He clearly identifies two groups *Muslims are obligated to fight*: "(1) they who start fighting against Muslims, and (2) they who worship gods other than Allah.

source: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bzm...YzNmLWI4YTMtNjRiNDRmMDExYzg3/edit?pli=1&hl=en

*
The most prominent Muslim scholar of the 20th century,* Sheikh Abu Ala Maududi, stated in his book, Islamic Law and Constitution, on p. 262, that the Islamic State "seeks to mould every aspect of life and activity. In such a state no one can regard any field of his affairs as personal and private. Considered from this aspect the Islamic State bears a kind of resemblance to the Fascist and Communist states." Maududi added *"Islam wishes to destroy all states and governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and program of Islam."*

Hasan al Banna, Founder of the *Muslim Brotherhood (the largest international Islamic organization in the world)* wrote, "Islam is an all-embracing concept which regulates every aspect of life, adjudicating on every one of its concerns and prescribing for it a solid and rigorous order." Hasan al-Banna acknowledged there are many levels of jihad, including mere "interior spiritual struggle," which he deemed the lowest level. According to al-Banna, waging warfare against the infidels is the highest expression of fidelity.

Hasan al-Banna also wrote, "it is a duty incumbent on every Muslim to struggle towards the aim of making every people Muslim and the whole world Islamic, *so that the banner of Islam can flutter over the earth and the call of the Muezzin can resound in all the corners of the world."* Now remember, this is the founder of the largest international Muslim organization in the world. Source: Robert Spencer's book, Stealth Jihad

The Saudi Sheikh Saleh Al-Lehadan, *head of the Supreme Judiciary Council,* told Al Watan Daily, (March 25, 2008) "After getting rid of the Jews in our Arab land, we must turn to the Christians. They have three options: either they convert to Islam, or leave, or pay Jizia (protection taxes)


----------



## ZipsDad (Oct 31, 2013)

myshkin said:


> Well I am sure their families are deeply comforted by that. "It wasn't random slaughter, it was faulty intelligence. Oh that's ok then."


Oh, look. Another one with "Pie in the Sky" ideals.
Have you never looked into your own history of war?
Have you not seen the effects of your own hands in countries like Palestine?

Do people die in war? Obviously.
Have efforts been made to reduce the deaths of innocents (as had been the hard line approach of years gone by?) Absolutely.

So, get off your horse, dear lass.

People are going to die in wars. It's the hard and fast truth of it. War is an ugly "business" (quoted for a reason)

What is at hand here is whether or not war has become more ......humane...if that is even an option.

Rather than killing multiple THOUSANDS of innocents in a single strike, the move has become one of taking out a single target.

Even YOU have to admit that it's more humane to limit the damage to a single command center (or centre) than to wipe out a whole civilization to achieve the same ends.

Done with this silliness.


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

Spellweaver:


owned by a yellow lab said:


> lol lol, your statement is easily proven untrue.
> 
> Here are mainstream islamic leaders:
> 
> ...


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

pie in the sky ideals....actually thats offensive.

and, its been Israel since 1948. not Palestine.

I don't think myshkin was making a comment about who was at fault with wars, she just replied to your callous attitude to collateral damage and only attmepting to kill bad people and not blowing up whole cities..please correct me if I am wrong myshkin.

Glad you are done with the silliness.....next stop being rude and aggressive?


----------



## ZipsDad (Oct 31, 2013)

lilythepink said:


> only attempt for bad people get killed in wars..well that makes all the collateral damage ok then does it?





myshkin said:


> What a cruel disregard for the lives of children your god must have......makes you feel better, I suppose.


Good grief. What does it take to get through to the small minded?

ANY death is bad. Mkay?
LESS deaths (let's say MULTIPLE THOUSANDS vs a few) equals more humane conditions.

Let me ask you this. Were either of you around during the last world war? Certainly you haven't studied it or the atrocities that took place.

Had you cracked a book on what the death toll (of innocents at that time) was, you would be grateful at the minimization of them.

:thumbup:


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

oi.....take your insults and your small mindedness and keep them to yourself...you seem to have 2 opinions.your own and the wrong one.if you can't play nice, don't play.


----------



## Guest (Jan 1, 2014)

ZipsDad said:


> Oh, look. Another one with "Pie in the Sky" ideals.
> Have you never looked into your own history of war?
> Have you not seen the effects of your own hands in countries like Palestine?
> 
> ...


Its humane to bomb a school 3 times? Drone strike in KP kills six - DAWN.COM i agree on one thing tho, i am done with the silliness aswell


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

Spellweaver said:


> No, they are extremists who are interpreting the Qur'an in a way that it is not *normally interpreted,*


Just to clarify: the Quran doesn't need 'interpreting'. It is remarkably clear in its points. It's not vague, it's not full analogies, it's very clear in what it says, and it was all worded by one man and only one man - Mohammed.

I've already quoted an ex Muslim terrorist who is an expert on Islam and the Quran and Sharia and he states that 'all Islamic jurisprudence' says the same thing.


----------



## Guest (Jan 1, 2014)

Spellweaver said:


> And then, to bring the thread back on topic, to use the fact that M&S allows concessions to staff of ALL religions as an example of the spread of Sharia law is more than pandering to irrational fear - it is plain ridiculous.


Yes, bringing this back on topic...
I agree, one store making concession to the religious will not necessarily lead to an entire nation coming under Sharia law.

Personally I find the concessions ridiculous and hypocritical. Not because theyre Muslim, or Christian, or Jewish, but because of how all of these religions pick and choose which bits of their holy books they choose to follow. Id be much happier if we just left all religion out of the streets and kept it in our homes and places of worship. But Im also mostly evolved enough to know that its not just about me and my preferences


----------



## tashi (Dec 5, 2007)

I am not sure if I have moderated this too much or not enough, having not read any of it previously I am not sure what was out of order. Please if you find any I have missed can you let me know by reporting the post. Thanks


----------



## Guest (Jan 1, 2014)

tashi said:


> I am not sure if I have moderated this too much or not enough, having not read any of it previously I am not sure what was out of order. Please if you find any I have missed can you let me know by reporting the post. Thanks


Thank you for moderating, and keeping it open  Much appreciated :thumbup:


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Closing this now as it is getting into a pointless racist argument.

Ok, had a quick look and I see Tashi has left it open by request but please keep it civil. We have had enough drama for one week.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> Just to clarify: the Quran doesn't need 'interpreting'. It is remarkably clear in its points. It's not vague, it's not full analogies, it's very clear in what it says, and it was all worded by one man and only one man - Mohammed.
> .


If you get any three people reading any piece of work you will get three different interpretations of that work. Look at the different interpretations of the christian bible - for example, the way some pentecostal churches in the US have intrepreted the handling of snakes.

Heck, it doesn't even have to be a religious piece of work for people to interpret it differently. There is a a post on a forum about M&S allowing concessions to staff of all religions so that their staff can continue to work whilst obeying the tenets of their religions. Some people took that at face value and put no interpretation on it. Some people interpreted it as meaning they would be refused to buy things in their own country by people of another country. And one person interpreted it to be indicative of the spread of Sharia law.

See what I mean?

And if that has not convinced you, have a look at this:

"_Reading the Quran can be a baffling experience. Unlike the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament), the Quran is not a collection of books recounting the mythical history of a community of faith. It is not, like the Gospels, a pseudo-biographical sketch of a particular prophet in a particular time. It does not narrate the life of Mohammed , nor does it chronicle the rise of Islam (indeed, Mohammed is barely mentioned in it). Though the Quran is divided into 114 chapters (called suras), these are arranged neither thematically nor chronologically but rather from longest to shortest, the lone exception being the first and most important chapter, al-Fatiha, or "The Opening." The chapters are given evocative titles like "The Cow" or "The Feast," but these have almost nothing to do with the content that follows. The Quran itself states that its verses have multiple meanings, some of which are unfathomable to human beings and known only to God.

Since the end of the seventh century CE, when its verses were collected into a single, authoritative canon, the Quran has remained fixed in Arabic, the language in which it was originally revealed. It was believed that translating the Quran into any other language would violate the divine nature of the text.

That is now changing. Over the last century, the Quran has been translated into more languages than in the previous 14 centuries combined.

*Arabic is a language whose words can have multiple, sometimes contradictory, meanings, so how one chooses to render a particular word from Arabic to English has a lot to do with one's biases or prejudice*.

The new crop of Quran translators are brushing aside centuries of traditionalist, male-dominated, and often misogynistic clerical interpretations in favor of a more contemporary, more individualized, and often more gender-friendly approach to the Quran. In the process, they are not only reshaping the way Islam's holy book is read; they are reinterpreting the way Islam itself is being understood in the modern world.

After all, as the Quran itself states, only God knows what it truly means."_
IslamiCity.com - Interpreting the Quran

Still think the Qur'an can't be interpreted in several different ways to suit the predilections of the interpreter?


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

newfiesmum said:


> Closing this now as it is getting into a pointless racist argument.
> 
> Ok, had a quick look and I see Tashi has left it open by request but please keep it civil. We have had enough drama for one week.


Who has been racist?

Nobody.

If one can't critique a religious ideology without being accused of racism, then that is absurd.

I support the right of anyone to follow any faith - but I have openly said I am against Sharia Law and anyone here who has read the Quran will know what it says about women, Christians, Jews and gays!


----------



## MCWillow (Aug 26, 2011)

Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> Who has been racist?
> 
> Nobody.
> 
> ...


It might be referring to removed posts 

Really glad this thread has been re-opened because its really interesting reading :yesnod:


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

I have to correct one or two things here, my points in blue:



Spellweaver said:


> If you get any three people reading any piece of work you will get three different interpretations of that work. Look at the different interpretations of the christian bible - for example, the way some pentecostal churches in the US have intrepreted the handling of snakes.
> 
> Heck, it doesn't even have to be a religious piece of work for people to interpret it differently. There is a a post on a forum about M&S allowing concessions to staff of all religions so that their staff can continue to work whilst obeying the tenets of their religions. Some people took that at face value and put no interpretation on it. Some people interpreted it as meaning they would be refused to buy things in their own country by people of another country. And one person interpreted it to be indicative of the spread of Sharia law.
> 
> ...


*

You are, again, ignoring the numerous quotes I posted - ALL from respected, mainstream Islamic leaders, and ALL stating OPENLY that non Muslims 'must' submit ultimately to Sharia Law.*


----------



## MCWillow (Aug 26, 2011)

Some interesting reading.

Don't know if its right or not - I just googled 'does the qaran say everyone must submit to sharia law'

TheReligionofPeace - Islam: Loyalty to Non-Muslim Governments

Rights of Non-Muslims in an Islamic State

Political Islam // Articles // Sharia Law for Non-Muslims Chapter 5-The *****


----------



## Jobeth (May 23, 2010)

I found this site (BBC) interesting and challanges perceptions of Sharia law BBC - Religions - Islam: Sharia


----------



## myshkin (Mar 23, 2010)

MCWillow said:


> Some interesting reading.
> 
> Don't know if its right or not - I just googled 'does the qaran say everyone must submit to sharia law'
> 
> ...


I don't doubt that the dogma says this - christian dogma demands some pretty odd stuff too - but the reality, at the risk of becoming repetitive, is that those Muslims who live under Sharia law in Muslim countries are in the minority. That is fact, whatever the interpretation of scriptures.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> I have to correct one or two things here, my points in blue:
> 
> The Hebrew/Jewish bible is the TANAKH.
> 
> The 'old testament' is the Church version OF the Tanakh. Jews are hardly going to refer to their own scriptures as 'old' - they haven't been replaced by anything lol. Jews the world over study, discuss and read the Tanakh. Nothing else. (Torah is part of the Tanakh, in case anyone was wondering).


Interesting - but nothing to do with the point that the Qur'an is held as difficult to read by everyone (except you, apparently). In fact it deflects from the point that the qur'an is different and therefore less easy to interpret. I guess that was your intention, though! 



Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> Er, he's not mentioned in it because he dictated the Quran - he created it himself! I'm sorry but if you don't even know these most basic of points, kindly don't try and make out that I don't understand!


Erm - let me get this straight. I tell you something about the Qur'an, and then you use that to tell me I don't know about the very point I'm telling you? How did you come to that conclusion? If I am pointing something out to you, surely common sense dictates I know about it?   Or is this merely another diversionary tactic because you cannot really answer any of the points I put to you?



Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> You also seem unaware of the principle used by all Muslim scholars when approaching the Quran - that of abrogation.
> 
> In other words, when you find that there are both peaceful, and aggressive parts of the Quran, Islam states that the *later* parts cancel out the earlier ones. ANY Islamic scholar will acknowledge this. You will find that the earlier parts of the Quran ARE more peaceful because Mohammed wrote them before he became as radical as he later did.
> 
> The Quran itself states that if two passages conflict, the later text is 'better' than the earlier on


With the greatest respect, you really do come across as patronising in the extreme. Do you think that you are the only person on the forum who knows about the Qur'an? Do you think you are the only person whio knows about abrogation? Because that's how you come across when you state things like this.

Sorry to burst your little bubble, but I do know what abrogation means, and how later surahs are held by some to abrogate the earlier ones. However, contrary to your statement, not *all *muslim acholars agree that this is so:

_Not all Muslim scholars agree on what abrogation covers. Briefly here was my discovery._Muslim scholars of old hold to the concept that some ayahs in the Quran abrogate other ayahs in the Quran, but do not all hold to the same set of abrogated and abrogating ayahs.
Other Muslim scholars are of the opinion that the Quran may abrogate the Quran as well as the Sunnah (deed or example of Mohammad) and vice versa.
Some Muslim scholars hold that the Quran abrogates all the previous scriptures, specifically the scriptures sent to Musa and Isa, but not itself.
Some Muslim scholars, especially of recent times do not believe in the concept of abrogation at all.[/I]
The Problem of Abrogation in the Quran

_The Doctrine of Abrogation
This is a doctrine which is spurned by many Muslims who believe it reflects most unfavourably on the supposed textual perfection of the Quran, but one that is generally accepted by the more conservative Muslims and orthodox maulanas._
Message for Muslims: Doctrine of Abrogation - (note that this site then atually goes on to explain why the author thinks muslims are wrong to spurn it - but if it were not spurned in the first place then there would have been no need for him to write this.)

_The doctrine of abrogation, that one Quranic passage is canceled by another, has always been controversial. From the time that Muhammad introduced it, to this day, Muslims have been discussing and arguing its contexts, applications, and ramifications._
Ahmad, Allah, and Abrogation



Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> You are, again, ignoring the numerous quotes I posted - ALL from respected, mainstream Islamic leaders, and ALL stating OPENLY that non Muslims 'must' submit ultimately to Sharia Law.


There is nothing "respected" about the Jihad Watch site - except perhaps by other islamophobes. It is one of the main sites of anti-islamic theories on the internet and has been widely and repeatedly criticised by numerous academics who believe that it promotes an Islamophobic worldview and conspiracy theories. So when you post from these kind of sites I will continue to ignore your links.

However, on the subject of ignoring - how about you actually answer the points in my previous post instead of ignoring them and patronising me in your mistaken belief that I know nothing about the Qur'an?

I've given you numerous quotes, from numerous sites, from numerous scholars, about the difficulty of interperting the Qur'an.

I've shown how other religious writings, writings that are written in chronological order rather than order of revelation, are interpreted differently by different religious sects.

I've shown how even straightforward secular pieces of writing can be read by different people and interpreted in different ways.

I've shown you how the difficulty of translating from Arabic into other languages has lead to arguments about the accuracy of the translations.

And you have ignored all that, and instead of answering any of it, you merely come back with a blank, unsupported statement that the Qur'an is not diffcult to interpret.

Are you unable to answer the points? Are you afraid if you look into it, you might find sites such as Jihad Watch to be wrong? Are you afraid that you just might find out that the threat of which you are so afraid is not really so great a threat after all?


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

Jobeth said:


> I found this site (BBC) interesting and challanges perceptions of Sharia law BBC - Religions - Islam: Sharia


But why not just look at what happens to non Muslims in Muslim states, and in states where Sharia is implemented if not fully then in some areas...?

And a key point: *often it is Muslims themselves, Muslim women especially*, who suffer terribly under Sharia.

NOTE: I don't think even SPELLWEAVER can complain about these links, I've linked to umpteen different publications from various countries.

MUSLIMS SUFFERING UNDER ISLAM:

*Cleric beaten for promoting a peaceful Islam:*

allAfrica.com: Kenya: Radical Muslim Youth Attack Mombasa Sheikh (Page 1 of 2)

*Saudi beheadings reaching record level:*

allAfrica.com: Kenya: Radical Muslim Youth Attack Mombasa Sheikh (Page 1 of 2)

*Liberal blogger sentenced to death:*

Answering Muslims: Saudi Blogger Raif Badawi Sentenced to Death for Apostasy

*Here is the reality for non Muslims:*

*Legal punishment in Islamic societies:*

Articles: Persecution and Death: Legal Punishment in Islamic Societies

*Iran arrests converts as they celebrate Christmas:*

Iranian Christian Converts Arrested as They Celebrated Christmas

*Human rights in Indonesia:*

Human rights are under attack in post-tsunami Indonesia | Human Rights Watch

*The US hate preacher who inspired the killer of Lee Rigby:*

Lee Rigby killer became a Muslim after watching US hate preacher Khalid Yasin | Mail Online

*Taliban play soccer with severed heads:*
*WARNING - GRAPHIC IMAGES*
Graphic video: Taliban members play soccer with severed heads - Jihad Watch

*Hindu man attacked for speaking to Muslim women:*

Youth assaulted for talking to women - The Hindu

*Man sentenced to death for drawing:*

Death sentence given in blasphemy case - The Express Tribune

*Syrian Druze Arabs forced to convert to Islam:*

Report: Al Qaeda Forces Syrian Druze to Convert - Middle East - News - Israel National News

*Oh, and for those who say I'm 'scaremongering':*

Global Islamism: Prospects for 2014 | FrontPage Magazine


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

My points in blue:



Spellweaver said:


> Interesting - but nothing to do with the point that the Qur'an is held as difficult to read by everyone (except you, apparently). In fact it deflects from the point that the qur'an is different and therefore less easy to interpret. I guess that was your intention, though!
> 
> *Er no, I was simply correcting a fundamental error in your post. Nothing more, nothing less.*
> 
> ...


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

- am taking Dex out, will resume this battle when I return, assuming thread still open


----------



## Julesky (Feb 10, 2012)

I take exception to the last link being proof of anything other than a political opinion. Search for the opposing diatribe and you'll find a firm response depending which ideaology you wish to believe in.

Given this thread concerns a capitalist corporation's remit for employees I find ridiculous we are harping on about which religion and rules will take over etc., it will do us all well to remember that at the end of the day remove all religion and power (sometimes in the form of money, sometimes in the form of controlling masses of people/women etc etc.) is the biggest curse of all and is not unique to any religion.

The continued inequality against women, the use of children in battle, the use of sexual violence and persecution of people who 'differ' from the masses continues across the world, look at parts of Africa , the Congo for example, what religion there? None, the fight and commit atrocities under no banner, purely for power and control of resources.

Just look at all of our imported fruit, palm oil plantations and tell me that western organisations do not on a daily basis exploit the resources, the people and the opportunities for a future in many developing countries.

Ultimately this comes down to an employer, a big multi-corp, they can do what they like...


----------



## mollydog07 (May 26, 2012)

This a fantastic debate and really goes to show we all have opinions and dealt with in a calm non argumentative fashion are enlightening,upbring life experiences and good old conscience imo shape our person....jeez its not even 11am and I,am all psychological!.....maybe just psycho!


----------



## Mulish (Feb 20, 2013)

Julesky said:


> I take exception to the last link being proof of anything other than a political opinion. Search for the opposing diatribe and you'll find a firm response depending which ideaology you wish to believe in.
> 
> Given this thread concerns a capitalist corporation's remit for employees I find ridiculous we are harping on about which religion and rules will take over etc., it will do us all well to remember that at the end of the day remove all religion and power (sometimes in the form of money, sometimes in the form of controlling masses of people/women etc etc.) is the biggest curse of all and is not unique to any religion.
> 
> ...


I've been trying to formulate a reply since last night to say exactly why this thread is starting to irritate me but my brain is not co-operating. Yours comes the closest to saying what I want.

Thing is, it's an unfair world in so many ways. Try belonging to a minority group (by which I mean lack of representation through money and power rather than numbers) in pretty much any country and see how fairly you get treated. I think, as a general rule, the UK does try, but only so long as it doesn't affect the main goal of getting more money and power for the already rich and powerful.

What it boils down to here is that concessions get made and PC 'goes mad' because it's needed. If we were really a fair society, if there was genuinely equality there would be no need to legislate against discrimination. The idea that 'PC' has gone so far it's tipped us completely in favour of any particular minority group is frankly laughable. Except, of course, if you're a member of that minority group struggling through every day life whilst being told by the media you've got it so easy now. Then I guess it becomes a little less funny.

We are not in danger of becoming an extremist Muslim state because there's no profit in it. You can Google and find links that say we are all doomed for any number of reasons because everyone has an agenda and the internet gives them all a fairly equal platform. And whilst people are distracted arguing over the most sensible way to sell sausages, the rich and powerful can continue burning down forests, wiping out indigenous populations, driving other species to the point of extinction and poisoning us all in peace.

Still, at least those nutty religious types aren't getting away with dictating which till we buy our booze from, eh?


----------



## Cheryl89 (Jun 24, 2013)

I have literally no input...okay maybe a little bit. Just that if I want booze and meat I'll just move to another till that would serve me. Wouldn't necessarily offend me I'd just be p*ssed off and say oh f*ck it then move off :lol:

Anyhoo, I'm just lurking :


----------



## Jobeth (May 23, 2010)

I think it is also interesting in that no matter what 'evidence' or arguments are presented everyone is still firm in what they believe in. I doubt anything discussed is going to change that. I do like reading other people's opinions though.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> Er no, I was simply correcting a fundamental error in your post. Nothing more, nothing less.
> 
> Again - you made a fundamental error. What am I meant to do, *ignore* vital errors in your post when you're the one telling me I'm 'twisting the truth', as you did in earlier posts??


Well, you could try reading the post again and then you might realise that the "fundamental errors"  you are correcting were not comments made by me, but comments from other people - scholars of islam - in things I had quoted. Nor were they fundamental errors - they were comments from scholars exlpaining things to people with less kowledge.

Lot easier to pretend they are my words and try to browbeat me though - well, at least you think it is.

And if you had read my earlier posts properly you would know that I have said repeatedly that it is the sites you look at that are twisting things, not you.



Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> Please show where I ever stated I was the 'only person' who knows about the Quran?
> I never stated nor implied it


How about when you said


Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> if you don't even know these most basic of points


in response to something I had actually posted about ergo had knowledge about? Or how about:



Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> You also seem unaware of the principle used by all Muslim scholars when approaching the Quran - that of abrogation.


when nothing I had written could have led you to that conclusion. You just arrogantly assumed that I didn't know about abrogation - but you were wrong. (again)



Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> LOL LOL please tell me how Muslims themselves who critique Islam and ex Muslims from all ethnic groups can POSSIBLY be 'islamophobes'!!! I was waiting for you to resort to that charge - pitiful, frankly. If you'd bothered to read my posts, you'd see that earlier I showed how many of Islam's most vocal critics ARE ex Muslims, of every colour and ethnicity and country.


I said nothing about any other sites than Jihad Watch. I told you I am not following any of your links - when you use sites like Jihad Watch to try to prove your points, there is no point in following any link of yours. It's a pity if you have used some genuinely authentic sites but, well, you know the story about crying wolf? Well, you've done it too often. As for Jihad Watch, which was what my islamophobic comment was about, are you seriously trying to say that it is not an islamophobic site?

When I think about the way you read my posts - ie taking little bits here and there out of context, ignoring points you can't answer, pretending comments about one thing are comments about another, not recognising the difference between quoting and using my own words, inferring that I don't know about the subject because my opinion differs from yours, refusing to accept that I am disagreeing with your points rather than ignoring them - well, it comes as no surprise that you read islamophobic sites, pick out the bits that feed your obvious fears, ignore the rest, and infer that anyone who tries to tell you any different does not know what they are talking about.

And after all that, taking into acount all your fears about Sharia law, *there is still no link between M&S allowing staff of ALL religions concessions so that they can continue to do their work, and the spread of Sharia law*. And nothing you have said about Sharia law in the wider context has done anything to prove that.


----------



## grumpy goby (Jan 18, 2012)

Spellweaver said:


> <snip>
> And after all that, taking into acount all your fears about Sharia law, *there is still no link between M&S allowing staff of ALL religions concessions so that they can continue to do their work and the spread of Sharia law*. And nothing you have said about Sharia law in the wider context has done anything to prove that.


Basically this in a nutshell.

The allowance for staff of any religion, to practice their beliefs at work, by a major retail employer is not anyone forcing Sharia Law. It is an employers attempt to make their workplace fair and equal to all regardless of religion - in the same way one hopes it treats age, ethnicity & gender equally.

Just because one group has more rights than they did 10yrs ago, does not mean anyone else has less rights. It just means the gap is closer; perhaps making it _appear _that the majority is "losing" rights.


----------



## Waterlily (Apr 18, 2010)

Just bringing by some refreshments for ya all....Looks like a long night :yawn:


----------



## poohdog (May 16, 2010)

Waterlily said:


> Just bringing by some refreshments for ya all....Looks like a long night :yawn:


*I can see alcohol and ham there WL...now did you know that if.........................* 

.


----------



## Waterlily (Apr 18, 2010)

poohdog said:


> *I can see alcohol and ham there WL...now did you know that if.........................*
> 
> .


Its ok.....ive gloves :lol:


----------



## Guest (Jan 2, 2014)

Jobeth said:


> I think it is also interesting in that no matter what 'evidence' or arguments are presented everyone is still firm in what they believe in. I doubt anything discussed is going to change that. I do like reading other people's opinions though.


This fascinates me too.

Your well formulated argument against my beliefs has completely changed my view. Said no one ever 

But I think for a lot of us, the act of discussing these things is good mental exercise, helps us clarify our own views (and yep, maybe even change them though wed never admit that ), and honestly, its just plain fun to have a good old deep discussion about something.

I also think there is an element of solidarity too. I dont necessarily post to tell one poster theyre wrong, but to let another poster know that theyre not standing alone if that makes sense.

Sorry, totally off topic, but kind of on speaking of differences. Oh, I dont know! Back to your regularly scheduled programming


----------



## tashi (Dec 5, 2007)

Hope it's all staying nice in here :thumbup:


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

lilythepink said:


> we now have agencies within the UK police force.and in parts of scotland its a huge problem too.for forced marriages where a young girl goes away on holiday and comes back married and pregnant.


Young girls taken abroad for arranged marriages were tolkto put spoons in their underwear

Girls escape forced marriage by concealing spoons in clothing to set off metal detectors at the airport - Crime - UK - The Independent

Proves how very for these arranged marriages they were that does!
*not*


----------



## Jobeth (May 23, 2010)

According to the link I posted sharia law is against forced marriages. Arranged marriages are different.


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

- have posted in blue, within Spellweaver's post below, just because if I do it the other way I can't keep the points straight!



Spellweaver said:


> Well, you could try reading the post again and then you might realise that the "fundamental errors"  you are correcting were not comments made by me, but comments from other people - scholars of islam - in things I had quoted.
> 
> *If I see an error, I politely correct it. I don't really mind who made the error. You posted info that had errors about both the Jewish and the Muslim scriptures.*
> 
> ...


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

re 'islamophobia'

Ex Muslim Ali Sina makes some great points:

*"Islam is an ideology. Rejection of an ideology cannot be classified as phobia.* To call the opponents of an ideology phobic is a fallacy.

All ideologies have their critics and opponents but we do not hear Christians calling the critics of Christianity Christianophobe, communists calling their critics communitophobe or Hindus calling theirs Hinduphobe. The term "Islamophobia" is both technically and logically incorrect and misleading.

According to Dictionary.com Phobia is a persistent, abnormal, and irrational fear of a specific thing or situation that compels one to avoid it, despite the awareness and reassurance that it is not dangerous. Therefore the neologism "Islamophobia" implies that Islam is not dangerous and the fear of it is irrational.

*This claim has not been established and it is not universally agreed upon.** There are many who argue that Islam is indeed a dangerous ideology and they have their logical arguments to prove their claim.*

* Irrespective of whether the critics of Islam are right or wrong about whether Islam is dangerous or not, calling them phobic implies that their criticism has been already refuted and the irrationality of their fear of Islamic threat has been established. Therefore their disagreement with Islam is not logical but a mental disorder.*

All ideologies have their opponents. It is sheer arrogance to call criticism of any ideology, phobia. This implies that the truth of that ideology is already established and anyone opposing it is adopting an irrational position and is in need of psychological help.

The neologism Islamophobia makes absolutely no sense. It is derogatory and is used in a pejorative way to discredit the critics of Islam from the outset.'


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Insert inflamatory comment here


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> I f I see an error, I politely correct it. I don't really mind who made the error.


They weren't errors to begin with - they were quoted explanations from scholars explaining things to the less well educated. No reason for you to try to make out it was an error, and certainly no reason to try to make out I had made an error.



Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> II have tried to remain polite, if I came over as 'patronising'' - I apologise. But to accuse me of anything more is blatantly unfair.


Thank you for the apology. But when I wrote that Jihad Watch was an islamaphobic website, and then you try to make out I called every website you'd linked to islamophobic, and then called me pitiful for doing that, do you really class that as being polite?



Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> Also, I reject the absurd charge of 'islamophobia'


For the third time - the charge was not made at you, but at the Jihad Watch website



Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> since you admit you've ignored all of the links to all the stories, how on earth can you judge the veracity or not of my points


Ok - lets look at some of those links. I've already dealt with your erroneous claim about the Leyton Council, so let's look at some more.

From your post #630:
_Ali Gomaa, the grand mufti of Egypt, the highest Muslim religious authority in the world, supports murdering non-Muslims. In the daily Al Ahram (April 7, 2008), he said, "Muslims must kill non-believers wherever they are unless they convert to Islam." He also compares non-Muslims to apes and pigs.
source: Canada Free Press_

Looked on the Canada Free Press website. Searched for Ali Gomaa. The only link I could find was one where he was talking about statues. Couldn't find the quote above. BTW, you do realise that the Islamic Bortherhood in Egypt has been overthrown, don't you? That kind of renders this link worthless anyway, even if it HAD said what you proclaimed.

Again, your post #630:
_Muhammad Sayyid Al Tantawi, president of Al Azhar University (the most prominent and authoritative institute of Islamic jurisprudence in the world) also approves of killing and maiming Christians, Jews, and other infidels. He added, "This is not my personal view. This what the Shari'a Law says, the law of Allah, the only valid law on the earth.

Syed Abul Ala Maududi, founder of the Pakistani political party Jamaat-e-Islami, said non-Muslims have "absolutely no right to seize the reins of power in any part of God's earth nor to direct the collective affairs of human beings according to their own misconceived doctrines." If they do, "the believers would be under an obligation to do their utmost to dislodge them from political power and to make them live in subservience to the Islamic way of life."_
*source: Jihad Watch* Sorry, there is no pont in following links to a site reknowned for its islamophobia and its creation of conspiracy theories

Same post:
_The Chief Justice of Saudi Arabia, Sheikh abdullah bin Muhammad bin Humaid teaches that "at first fighting was forbidden, then it was permitted, and after that it was made obligatory." He clearly identifies two groups Muslims are obligated to fight: "(1) they who start fighting against Muslims, and (2) they who worship gods other than Allah_
source: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bzmy...it?pli=1&hl=en

The source you gave is a document about abrogation, from 2002 - nothing at all about the man above and what he teaches.

The rest of your quotes in that post have no links as to where you found them so are uncheckable.I tried googling the Al Watan Daily, but was unable to access it without a subscription.

So that one post is full of links that are not links and hence prooves nothing. So let's look at some moreL

Your post #606
You post two links:
One is his official website, which is no more than a marketing tool
Dr. Tawfik Hamid's Official Website- Part of the Potomac Institute of Policy Studies

The other leads to a discussion about the islamic brotherhood in Egypt - cpmpletely out of date and irrelevant now as the they have been overthrown by the Egyptians
http://www.tawfikhamid.com/opt-eds/

Not doing too well in your assertations about these links, are you? But still, let's persevere:

Your post #501:
No links given here at all, so we really have to dig:

Your assertations about the Leyton website have been proved wrong already.

Anjem Choudary is an extremist who does not portray anything at all to do with mainstream muslims.

FGM - please note that I think this practice is totally brutal and unnecessary. But once again, you have provided no links to support the figures you quote, and the only links I can find actually suggest that the first figure is higher (76,000 not 66,000), but the second figure much lower (7,000 not 22,000). 7,000 at risk girls is still 7,000 too many. But that does not negate the fact that, once again, your link was left wanting.
BBC - Ethics - Female circumcision

Census data - again you have provided no links, even when asked to by someone in another post. Without links, the figures are just so much hot air.

So, sadly, looking at numerous links from three of your posts, my suspicions about their veracity and usefulness have been proved correct. I have no intention of trying to follow any more of your links - in fact I should have gone with my gut feeling and not wasted my time in the first place.


----------



## Waterlily (Apr 18, 2010)

oh you guys, I cant contain my enthusiasm for this topic.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> The neologism Islamophobia makes absolutely no sense. It is derogatory and is used in a pejorative way to discredit the critics of Islam from the outset.


Oh I see - pick the definition of phobia that best suits your leanings and then contruct your argument around it?

Two can play at that game:

Islamophobia is a noun used to descibe a fear or hatred of muslims and their politics and culture.

Islamophobic is the adjective used to describe someone or something that displays islamophobia.

World English Dictionary
Islamophobia (ˌɪzlɑːməˈfəʊbɪə)

 n
hatred or fear of Muslims or of their politics or culture

Islamo'phobic

 adj 
Islamophobia | Define Islamophobia at Dictionary.com


----------



## mollydog07 (May 26, 2012)

Shetlandlover get your a** back here!....you start a post in 2013....and still going strong 2014! surely a record :lol:


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> All ideologies have their critics and opponents but we do not hear Christians calling the critics of Christianity Christianophobe, '


Don't we?

_ Islamophobia Vs Christianophobia
While browsing through the Internet to find Islamophobic related websites, I came across other religious-phobic sites such as Christianity. Christianity is another fastest growing religion and more and more people are being converted into this religion. As I walk down Oxford Street, I come across preaching of the Christian religion and I come across many Christian dominated websites. However, the question is, how does Christianophobia differ to Islamophobia?_
The increase of Islamophobia through the Internet...

_CHRISTIANOPHOBIA
December 28, 2012 By Philip Jenkins_

_I have just read Rupert Shortts impressive new book Christianophobia: A Faith Under Attack. I should explain that I got my copy direct from the UK, and I dont know exactly when it will be available officially on this side of the Atlantic. Very soon, I hope, as it is just an excellent study of anti-Christian persecution around the world._
CHRISTIANOPHOBIA

It would seem that we do 

Please note: *I am not posting these links because I agree with their content. I am just posting them to show that this chap quoted by Owned by a Yellow Lab has not got his facts right * Don't want to be responsible for stirring up feelings against christianophobes


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

mollydog07 said:


> Shetlandlover get your a** back here!....you start a post in 2013....and still going strong 2014! surely a record :lol:


She should be given an award


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

Waterlily said:


> Its ok.....ive gloves :lol:


Boxing Gloves


----------



## staffgirl (May 1, 2013)

DT said:


> Boxing Gloves


Nah - they'd make you ham fisted ...... erm.... oops....


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

Again my points in purple in a bid to try and make the points clear:



Spellweaver said:


> They weren't errors to begin with - they were quoted explanations from scholars explaining things to the less well educated. *No reason for you to try to make out it was an error, and certainly no reason to try to make out I had made an error. *
> 
> *For crying out loud. There *was* an error - the Jewish scriptures are the Tanakh, not the 'old testament'. I'm not 'trying' to do anything. I saw an error -* I corrected it. *Simple as that. Why can't you just accept there was at least one error IN what you quoted??? *[/COLOR]
> 
> ...


[/COLOR]


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

Spellweaver said:


> Oh I see - pick the definition of phobia that best suits your leanings and then contruct your argument around it?
> 
> Two can play at that game:
> 
> ...


???????????

You are failing to address the points made in my post in 'islamophobia'.


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

SPELLWEAVER

Since you deemed my previous links on FGM unsatisfactory, here are some more:

Millions of girls still at risk of FGM'
Report: Millions of girls still at risk of female genital mutilation - CNN.com

2007 report suggests some 66,000 women affected
BBC News - Study will update female genital mutilation figures

FGM in the UK:
Female genital mutilation: how prevalent is it? | News | theguardian.com

UNICEF - Child protection from violence, exploitation and abuse - New UNICEF report on female genital mutilation/cutting: Turning opposition into action

Childinfo.org: Statistics by Area - Female genital mutilation/cutting - Progress

More than 1,500 Muslim victims of female genital mutilation in shock statistics compiled by ONE hospital - Atlas Shrugs


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

By the way, just to note that when SPELLWEAVER states that 'Jihad Watch' is 'renowned' for being 'islamophobic' etc, that is not accurate. On the contrary, it seems many people respect what the author of the site, Robert Spencer, says:

Among other things, Robert Spencer has served as a contributing writer to Steven Emerson's Investigative Project on Terrorism. His articles on Islam and other topics have appeared in the Los Angeles Times, the San Francisco Examiner, the New York Post, the Washington Times, the Dallas Morning News, the New Criterion, the Journal of International Security Affairs, the UK's Guardian, Canada's National Post, Townhall, Middle East Quarterly, WorldNet Daily, First Things, Insight in the News, National Review Online, and many other journals.

*Spencer has discussed jihad, Islam, and terrorism at a workshop sponsored by the U.S. State Department* and the German Foreign Ministry. He has also appeared on the BBC, ABC News, CNN, FoxNews's O'Reilly Factor, the Sean Hannity Show, the Glenn Beck Show, Fox and Friends, and many other Fox programs, PBS, MSNBC, CNBC, C-Span, France24, Voice of Russia and Croatia National Televison (HTV), as well as on numerous radio programs including Bill O'Reilly's Radio Factor, The Mark Levin Show, The Laura Ingraham Show, Bill Bennett's Morning in America, Michael Savage's Savage Nation, The Sean Hannity Show, The Alan Colmes Show, The G. Gordon Liddy Show, The Neal Boortz Show, The Michael Medved Show, The Michael Reagan Show, The Rusty Humphries Show, The Larry Elder Show, The Barbara Simpson Show, Vatican Radio, and many others.

He has been a featured speaker at the University of California-Irvine, Temple University, Dartmouth College, Penn State University, the University of California-Los Angeles, Stanford University, New York University, Brown University, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the University of Virginia, State University of New York-Binghamton, State University of New York-Stony Brook, DePaul University, the College of William and Mary, Washington University of St. Louis, the University of Wisconsin at Madison, the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee, Boise State University, and many other colleges and universities.

Wow. Not bad for someone _'renowned'_ for 'islamophobia' !


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> Again my points in purple in a bid to try and make the points clear:
> ]


I do wish you would learn to quote and reply properly - taking the lazy way out by answering my posts in a different colour makes it very hard work to address the points you make 



Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> And I asked in my last post: who has proven that Jihad Watch is 'islamophobic'???
> That is your view.
> It is your opinion - not a statement of objective fact.


You are wrong: it is not just my oponion at all, Read this:

T_he Islamophobia misinformation experts
|
Center for American Progress
27
Chapter 2
The Islamophobia misinformation experts
A small group of conservative foundations and wealthy donors are *the lifeblood of the Islamophobia network in America*, *supporting a central nervous system consisting of a clutch of misinformation experts*. Just as Newt Gingrich relied on these experts' talking points to grossly mischaracterize the dangers of Sharia law in our country, t*he five men profiled in this chapter are responsible for orchestrating themajority of misinformation about Islam and Muslims in America today*. This small network produces talking points and messages relied upon and repeated by every segment of this interconnected network of money, grassroots leaders, media talking heads, and elected officials.*There are five key think tanks led by scholars who are primarily responsible for orchestrating the majority of anti-Islam messages polluting our national discoursetoday*:
•Frank Gaffney at the Center for Security Policy
•David Yerushalmi at the Society of Americans for National Existence
•Daniel Pipes at the Middle East Forum
*•Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch *and Stop Islamization of America
•Steven Emerson of the Investigative Project on Terrorism
*All five are actively promoting the deeply mistaken portrayal of Islam*-a religion of nearly 1.6 billion people worldwide, including 2.6 million Americans-as an inherently violent ideology that seeks domination over the United States and all non-Muslims._
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/08/pdf/islamophobia_chapter2.pdf

and this:

_WJW offers some *examples of the repulsive bigotry that has appeared on Jihad Watch*,
_Islamophobia Watch - Documenting anti Muslim bigotry - Watching Jihad*Watch

and this is yet someone else's opinion:

_Sheila Musaji of The American Muslim (TAM) has been keeping a close eye *on the loons who write for Jihad Watch*. *The chief loon of JW, Robert Spencer, *had initially been slated to debate David Wood, another Christian loon like himself. _
Jihad Watch | Islamophobia Today eNewspaper

In fact it is so islamophobic that this "mock" website has been created to parody it:

Loonwatch.com - "The Mooslims, they're heeere!"



Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> And who says Jihad Watch is 'renowned' for 'islamophobia'???
> Again: it is YOU stating this.
> It is your view. Not fact.


No, it is fact 



Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> At what point do you acknowledge that the Islamic ideology does inspire this violence?


When you post links that aren't so old. The couple of links that you managed to actually link to your references spoke of things that took place five or six years ago - and hey, look, we're still no coser to being under Sharia law.  :lol:


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> By the way, just to note that when SPELLWEAVER states that 'Jihad Watch' is 'renowned' for being 'islamophobic' etc, that is not accurate. On the contrary, it seems many people respect what the author of the site, Robert Spencer, says:
> 
> Among other things, Robert Spencer has served as a contributing writer to Steven Emerson's Investigative Project on Terrorism. His articles on Islam and other topics have appeared in the Los Angeles Times, the San Francisco Examiner, the New York Post, the Washington Times, the Dallas Morning News, the New Criterion, the Journal of International Security Affairs, the UK's Guardian, Canada's National Post, Townhall, Middle East Quarterly, WorldNet Daily, First Things, Insight in the News, National Review Online, and many other journals.
> 
> ...


:lol: Oh yes it is accurate - see my previous post. Of course Steven Emerson is going to give him a glowing report - he is one of the five major figures (along with Spencer) cited for spreading misinformation about Islam in the US.

So he's spoken at a lot of places - just means he's spreading his misinformation around a lot, that's all. You are easily impressed by a lot of nothing!


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

My points in purple beneath those of SPELLWEAVER, this is the quickest way for me to post as it's hectic here, my apologies if it isn't clear to those reading, I thought it would make it clearer if my points were directly underneath?!



Spellweaver said:


> *I do wish you would learn to quote and reply properly -* taking the lazy way out by answering my posts in a different colour makes it very hard work to address the points you make
> 
> *- I'm currently trying to look after three Labs as well as answer all your points. So I'm doing my best to make my responses clear and it seemed to me that putting my comments directly under yours would make it easier! Otherwise I really am in danger of missing some of your points. *
> 
> ...


----------



## Jonescat (Feb 5, 2012)

Can we just go back to FGM for a minute - won't take long -

This is the NSPCC factsheet on the matter - Female genital mutilation (FGM) | NSPCC

"Because of the hidden nature of the crime, it is difficult to estimate FGM's prevalence, but a study based on 2001 census data in England and Wales estimated that 23,000 girls under the age of 15 could be at risk of FGM each year; and nearly 66,000 women are living with its consequences (Dorkenoo et al, 2007)."

This is the view of probably the leading campaigning group on the links between FGM and Islam
FGM and Islam | FORWARD

Excerpt:
Dr.Muhammad Lutfi al-Sabbagh, Professor of Islamic studies at King Saud University in Riyadh states:

"Since all these risks are involved in female circumcision, it cannot be legitimate under Islamic law, particularly since nothing that recommends it is definitely established as said by the Prophet {Peace Be Upon Him}. It is, however, established that he has said: "Do not harm yourself or others". This hadith is one of the basic principles of this True Religion.

Female Genital Mutilation is therefore neither a religious requirement or obligation, nor a sunna[3]. This is the view taken by a great number of scholars in the absence of any hadith that may be authentically attributed to the Prophet {Peace Be Upon Him}."[4]

These are a couple of ways you can help :
Join Us: Get Involved with FORWARD's Work

Stop FGM in the UK Now - e-petitions

Thanks


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

Jonescat said:


> Can we just go back to FGM for a minute - won't take long -
> 
> This is the NSPCC factsheet on the matter - Female genital mutilation (FGM) | NSPCC
> 
> ...


Please see the links I posted on this topic.

British doctors are also reporting an increases in the number of FGM cases that they are seeing.

If you like I can show you support for female circumcision in Islam.


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

Spellweaver said:


> :lol: Oh yes it is accurate - see my previous post. Of course Steven Emerson is going to give him a glowing report - he is one of the five major figures (along with Spencer) cited for spreading misinformation about Islam in the US.
> 
> So he's spoken at a lot of places - just means he's spreading his misinformation around a lot, that's all. *You are easily impressed by a lot of nothing!*


Now now - play nicely.

My point was that Robert Spencer has been invited to speak at, and write for, a large number of universities and publications. That does rather contradict the nameless group you linked to who brand him an 'islamophobe'.

Do you have names for the people behind the group that condemn him? I'd be really interested to see who they are. As soon as I have time I will try and find the names myself.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> Now now - play nicely.
> 
> My point was that Robert Spencer has been invited to speak at, and write for, a large number of universities and publications. That does rather contradict the nameless group you linked to who brand him an 'islamophobe'.
> 
> Do you have names for the people behind the group that condemn him? I'd be really interested to see who they are. As soon as I have time I will try and find the names myself.


Just because I post several links to prove you are wrong does not mean I am not playing nicely. If you are impressed by a string of places where someone has gone to promote islamophobia, that's your prerogative. I am more discerning; it takes more than that to impress me. It takes the truth, in fact.

As for the names of those who condemn him, follow the links I posted  None of the groups were nameless; all of the authors were listed, and if you read the pdf file you will find it cites numerous references and names/

Here is the link to the pdf file again:

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/08/pdf/islamophobia_chapter2.pdf

and here are some choice quotes about him from there - even some from his alma mater scholars and an eminent professor who states that he has no academic knowledge of the subject: 

_Here's how Robert Spencer uses these funds to spread his anti-Muslim attacks
. Misrepresenting Islam
A prolific blogger, author, and commentator, Spencer is "the principal leader... in the new academic field of Islam bashing," a*ccording to Robert Crane, a former deputy director of the U.S. National Security Council and former adviser to President Nixon.* Spencer is the primary driver in promoting the myth that peaceful Islam is nonexistent and that violent extremism is inherent within traditional Islam. "Of course, as I have pointed out many times, traditional Islam itself is not moderate or peaceful," Spencer said in June this year. "It is the only major world religion with a developed doctrine and tradition of warfare against unbelievers."

*Spencer's views on Islam-and his credibility in discussing Islam at all-are chalenged by scholars at his own alma mater*. *He has "no academic training in Islamic studies whatsoever," according to Islamic scholar Carl W. Ernst, distinguished professor of religious studies and director of the Carolina Center for the Study of the Middle East and Muslim Civilizations at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill.* Instead, Professor Ernst says Spencer selectively uses textual, religious evidence to mainstream the claim that "Islam is not a religion of peace."Indeed, *Spencer gives misplaced credence to the "Sharia threat" argument that is then mainstreamed by the Islamophobia network*.

In reality, recent statements from moderate, mainstream Muslim religious authorities, such as the 2004 Amman Message, issued by the King of Jordan and reaffirmed in 2005 by Islamic scholars from more than 50 countries, show the dynamic, interpretive tradition of Islam in practice. The Amman Message, and the three-point ruling that followed, was issued by 200 Islamic scholars, amoderate Muslim proclamation aiming to publicize and unify Islamic scholars around a few key points regarding Islam in practice today. Today, more than 200 top Muslim scholars have endorsed the Amman Message, demonstrating a widely shared Sharia-based condemnation of violence from the world's leading Islamic authorities.[/COLOR]

Indeed, in recent years, Spencer's comments criticizing Islam have become so loathsome that fellow conservative Charles Johnson, founder of the popular, right-leaning blog Little Green Footballs, believes he has "crossed the line from simply criticizing radical Islamists to relentlessly demonizing all Muslims."
_

So it's no use your trying to pretend it's only my opinion, or the opinion of one or two people - surely the hero worship in your eyes cannot cloud out all the evidence.

btw - I hope the paragraph in red goes somewhat towards comforting you in your misplaced fear about the spread of Sharia law and its effects. It's not as bad as the islamophobes would have you believe.

ETA - if you read nothing else, read the Loonwatch site - it really is a hilarious take on Jihad Watch


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

I think we've exhausted this topic but before Dexter actually unplugs the computer....:



Spellweaver said:


> Just because I post several links to prove you are wrong does not mean I am not playing nicely. If you are impressed by a string of places where someone has gone to promote islamophobia, that's your prerogative.* I am more discerning; it takes more than that to impress me. It takes the truth, in fact*.
> 
> *Nice and comfy up on that high horse of yours...?
> 
> ...


----------



## Jonescat (Feb 5, 2012)

Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> Please see the links I posted on this topic.
> 
> British doctors are also reporting an increases in the number of FGM cases that they are seeing.
> 
> If you like I can show you support for female circumcision in Islam.


I had read your links. UK doctors are reporting an increase, as are midwives who may be the first medical practitioner a woman has contact with - but no prosecutions under the 2003 act as yet - I know that you can show me links between Islam and FGM. I can show you links between Christianity and FGM. I can show you evidence of Islamic Fatwas against it but it probably doesn't save many girls.

So I was just hoping some more people might like to sign the petition, because under 100,000 signatures makes me ashamed of my culture - what happened to protecting those without a voice?


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

Jonescat said:


> I had read your links. UK doctors are reporting an increase, as are midwives who may be the first medical practitioner a woman has contact with - but no prosecutions under the 2003 act as yet - I know that you can show me links between Islam and FGM. I can show you links between Christianity and FGM. I can show you evidence of Islamic Fatwas against it but it probably doesn't save many girls.
> 
> So I was just hoping some more people might like to sign the petition, because under 100,000 signatures makes me ashamed of my culture - what happened to protecting those without a voice?


I will sign the petition and hopefully lots of people if they read this thread will also sign 

I may be wrong but I think you would find FGM far more common in Muslim communities than Christian ones. Happy to be proven wrong though - I would rather have accurate info so by all means enlighten me


----------



## Jonescat (Feb 5, 2012)

Thanks 

I agree that there are numerically more Muslim women who have undergone this than there are in other cultures - but I do wonder if the perception of it as a solely Muslim issue makes it something that people are less willing to oppose.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> I think we've exhausted this topic but before Dexter actually unplugs the computer....:
> 
> You still haven't addressed my question: I have quoted from several *mainstream*, well respected, influential Muslim leaders - they all openly state that the aim of Islam is for non Muslims to submit to Sharia. I also quoted an expert in Islamic jurisprudence, and a number of ex Muslims. And they all said the same.


Yes I have. I quoted what was really happening in Islam today - I even put it in red for you. Don't know how you could have missed it.

_In reality, recent statements from moderate, mainstream Muslim religious authorities, such as the 2004 Amman Message, issued by the King of Jordan and reaffirmed in 2005 by Islamic scholars from more than 50 countries, show the dynamic, interpretive tradition of Islam in practice. The Amman Message, and the three-point ruling that followed, was issued by 200 Islamic scholars, amoderate Muslim proclamation aiming to publicize and unify Islamic scholars around a few key points regarding Islam in practice today. Today, more than 200 top Muslim scholars have endorsed the Amman Message, demonstrating a widely shared Sharia-based condemnation of violence from the world's leading Islamic authorities_
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/08/pdf/islamophobia_chapter2.pdf



Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> You haven't proven the 'truth' of anything you've written about Robert Spencer. For every person who denigrates him, I have mentioned several others/publications/etc that respect him.


:lol: For every person who respects him, I have mentioned several others/publications/webstes who denigrate him, therefore you have proved nothing about his respect. (Shrugs) You want to think he is worthy of respect - fine. You want to believe his misinformation and lie awake in bed at night fearing that you are going to wake up to a sharia law-governed Britain, fine. It's your choice. You want to believe that M&S allowing concesssions to staff of all religions is indicative of the spread of Sharia Lw in this country - fine. Believe the sites you want to believe and take no notice of the sites that tell you otherwise. Live in fear if you want to. It's your choice.


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

Jonescat said:


> Thanks
> 
> I agree that there are numerically more Muslim women who have undergone this than there are in other cultures - but I do wonder if the perception of it as a solely Muslim issue makes it something that people are less willing to oppose.


I don't think religion comes into this. Women see this mutilation done to other women, teenagers and little girls and are horrified by it all but when it is women performing the mutilation...as the documentaries have shown...what can you do to stop it.

I don't personally know any woman who had this done.I still find it horrifying.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

why is female genital mutilation worth so much outrage but male genital mutilation seems to be considered an acceptable practice?


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

lilythepink said:


> I don't think religion comes into this. Women see this mutilation done to other women, teenagers and little girls and are horrified by it all but when it is women performing the mutilation...as the documentaries have shown...what can you do to stop it.
> 
> I don't personally know any woman who had this done.I still find it horrifying.


Young women are begging to have it done. This was on this forum not so long ago, the women demanding the operation because it is what is done in their culture, be it Muslim or otherwise.



porps said:


> why is female genital mutilation worth so much outrage but male genital mutilation seems to be considered an acceptable practice?


Do you mean circumcision? Because FGM involves the removal of the clitoris plus other horrific things. It means a woman can no longer experience an orgasm/sexual pleasure, whereas circumcision, widely practised and shown to decrease diseases of the male genitalia, does not.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

cinnamontoast said:


> Do you mean circumcision? Because FGM involves the removal of the clitoris plus other horrific things. It means a woman can no longer experience an orgasm/sexual pleasure, whereas circumcision, widely practised and shown to decrease diseases of the male genitalia, does not.


I see, i suspected as much but thanks for the response. So i guess the objection is purely to the harm it causes, not the infringement of human rights (which is what i think it is when you mutilate someone without their consent). If they consent as adults i dont see how its anyones business, any harm that happens to them is their own stupid fault, just like any other self mutilation that goes wrong. But if its forced on them then absolutely, thats bad.


----------



## Jonescat (Feb 5, 2012)

If you aren't cut then in many parts of the world then you can not marry. If you can not marry then in many parts of the world you can not be sure you will eat, that your children will be supported or that you will be supported if you get to be old. You may be called names and outcast. You may not know any alternative. Young women are also begging not to have it done.

Women and girls die as a result of botched operations and infection. They also suffer chronic pain, chronic pelvic infections, development of cysts, abscesses and genital ulcers, excessive scar tissue formation, infection of the reproductive system, decreased sexual enjoyment and psychological consequences, such as post-traumatic stress disorder. Additional risks for complications include urinary and menstrual problems, infertility, later surgery (undoing it and redoing it) and painful sexual intercourse. More neonatal deaths occur as a direct result. In the Sudan where antibiotics are not available, it is estimated that one-third of the girls undergoing FGM will die.

Male circumcision has risks but the impact is not comparable. FWIW, I am not a fan of that either.


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

porps said:


> I see, i suspected as much but thanks for the response. So i guess the objection is purely to the harm it causes, not the infringement of human rights (which is what i think it is when you mutilate someone without their consent). If they consent as adults i dont see how its anyones business, any harm that happens to them is their own stupid fault, just like any other self mutilation that goes wrong. But if its forced on them then absolutely, thats bad.


Pretty sure that it's forced upon the young boys too, in the places where such customs exist. It's not done as a medical procedure, but in the same way as FGM - it is a barbaric, violent mutilation, often resulting in injury, infection, trauma and sometimes death as much for the boys, as for the girls, I believe.

Yes, some people want to have it done, because they have been brainwashed to believe it is an essential rite of passage in their culture and without it, they will never be able to marry or be accepted.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

porps said:


> I see, i suspected as much but thanks for the response. So i guess the objection is purely to the harm it causes, not the infringement of human rights (which is what i think it is when you mutilate someone without their consent). If they consent as adults i dont see how its anyones business, any harm that happens to them is their own stupid fault, just like any other self mutilation that goes wrong. But if its forced on them then absolutely, thats bad.


Wow, really? Their own stupid fault? See post below.



Jonescat said:


> If you aren't cut then in many parts of the world then you can not marry. If you can not marry then in many parts of the world you can not be sure you will eat, that your children will be supported or that you will be supported if you get to be old. You may be called names and outcast. You may not know any alternative. Young women are also begging not to have it done.
> 
> Women and girls die as a result of botched operations and infection. They also suffer chronic pain, chronic pelvic infections, development of cysts, abscesses and genital ulcers, excessive scar tissue formation, infection of the reproductive system, decreased sexual enjoyment and psychological consequences, such as post-traumatic stress disorder. Additional risks for complications include urinary and menstrual problems, infertility, later surgery (undoing it and redoing it) and painful sexual intercourse. More neonatal deaths occur as a direct result. In the Sudan where antibiotics are not available, it is estimated that one-third of the girls undergoing FGM will die.
> 
> Male circumcision has risks but the impact is not comparable. FWIW, I am not a fan of that either.


I think both are appalling. Yes, male genitalia infections are lowered, purely because there is o foreskin to become infected, but hey, teach your kid to clean himself properly and no problems!



Lurcherlad said:


> Pretty sure that it's forced upon the young boys too, in the places where such customs exist. It's not done as a medical procedure, but in the same way as FGM - it is a barbaric, violent mutilation, often resulting in injury, infection, trauma and sometimes death as much for the boys, as for the girls, I believe.
> 
> Yes, some people want to have it done, because they have been brainwashed to believe it is an essential rite of passage in their culture and without it, they will never be able to marry or be accepted.


Indeed, Muslim and Jewish baby boys obviously have no choice. IMO, no child should be forced into a religion or practice without consent at a couple of weeks old by having a bit of their body chopped off.

I've said it before, a mate who is fairly orthodox Jewish ended up taking both her boys to hospital with raging infections (her words) after their circumcision by a _dentist_-apparently common practise to use a dentist as opposed to a doctor! Youngest is 14, dunno if the use of a dentist has changed. She had to then sit upstairs with the screaming babies while all the menfolk celebrated downstairs with all the food she'd prepared. Bonkers and archaic (IMO). Unbelievable in this day and age.


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

RE MALE CIRCUMCISION:

- the only reason I don't object to this is because of the health benefits to women with circumcised partners, that are becoming more apparent as more studies are done.

SPELLWEAVER

No, you didn't 'prove' anything. You simply quoted from one site. I don't somehow think their words would mean very much to any of the many people who suffer under Sharia on a daily basis.

You wanted a more recent case? Here is a very recent concession to Islam in Denmark, where an ex Muslim blogger is now facing hate charges - purely for saying things about Islam. Presumably you won't be accusing him of 'twisting' things or being an 'islamophobe'...

Danish Muslim Apostate Faces Hate Speech Charges | FrontPage Magazine

Oh - and just to correct you: I don't 'live in fear'. I simply happen to be aware of the increasing number of concessions to Islam being made.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Lurcherlad said:


> Pretty sure that it's forced upon the young boys too, in the places where such customs exist. It's not done as a medical procedure, but in the same way as FGM - it is a barbaric, violent mutilation, often resulting in injury, infection, trauma and sometimes death as much for the boys, as for the girls, I believe.
> 
> Yes, some people want to have it done, because they have been brainwashed to believe it is an essential rite of passage in their culture and without it, they will never be able to marry or be accepted.


oh i've seen something about it now you mention it.. south african guy got ostracized from his tribe cos he didnt want to be circumcized (a custom necessary in his tribe for a boy to become a man). He's a rapper now thats the only reason i know anything about it 
"i dont wanna be a man...
Evil boy for life!"

But surely this guy mustve been raised with the same daft traditions and "brainwashing".. maybe at some point "it's tradition so i went along with it" loses it's value as an excuse for not thinking for yourself or taking responsibility for your own decisions.


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

cinnamontoast said:


> Wow, really? Their own stupid fault? See post below.
> 
> I think both are appalling. Yes, male genitalia infections are lowered, purely because there is o foreskin to become infected, but hey, teach your kid to clean himself properly and no problems!
> 
> ...


Sorry but that is absolutely not true. In fact in Judaism there are specially trained men called 'moehls' (not sure of spelling) who are the ones to usually perform male circumcision. Now it may be that some of these men are also dentists - I know that some are doctors.

Male circumcision is thought to have originated in Egypt and you will find it within both Muslim and Jewish communities. Many boys of neither faith also have it done, especially in America.

It's pretty rare for infections or other problems to arise. I grew up in an area with a high percentage of Jewish people - both Orthodox and non Orthodox, as well as many Muslims and various other faiths. I've also attended more than one 'bris' and have never been at one where the men are separately celebrating while the women are left literally holding the baby....


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> Sorry but that is absolutely not true. In fact in Judaism there are specially trained men called 'moehls' (not sure of spelling) who are the ones to usually perform male circumcision. Now it may be that some of these men are also dentists - I know that some are doctors.
> 
> Male circumcision is thought to have originated in Egypt and you will find it within both Muslim and Jewish communities. Many boys of neither faith also have it done, especially in America.
> 
> It's pretty rare for infections or other problems to arise. I grew up in an area with a high percentage of Jewish people - both Orthodox and non Orthodox, as well as many Muslims and various other faiths.


regardless of the health (non-)issues i dont think it's any more right than giving a child a tattoo which they have no say in and an appeal to its popularity as a practice is unlikely to alter that view.

There is something else i always wondered aswell... I mean, i could be wrong, but i always thought that people who worship a god tend to think of that god as being omnipotent, omniscience, infallible, perfect. Is this true of jews? Or do they worship a fallible imperfect god who makes mistakes?


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

*
Sharia law trumps American law:*
Advocates of Anti-Shariah Measures Alarmed by Judge&#39;s Ruling | Fox News

*Random House does u-turn on book - refuses to publish because it fears response from Muslims:*
Concessions to Islam: Random House Concedes

*
2010 report on Sharia Law in Britain:*
New Report


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

porps said:


> regardless of the health (non-)issues i dont think it's any more right than giving a child a tattoo which they have no say in and an appeal to its popularity as a practice is unlikely to alter that view.
> 
> There is something else i always wondered aswell... I mean, i could be wrong, but i always thought that people who worship a god tend to think of that god as being omnipotent, omniscience, infallible, perfect.* Is this true of jews? Or do they worship a fallible imperfect god who makes mistakes*?


There isn't really much of a doctrine of 'perfection' in Judaism - certainly not where humans are concerned.

But the view of god is that he is all wise, etc, yes 

I think that way back, the religious leaders realised that the Egyptians were sensible to circumcise male infants, for health reasons - and thus the practise was 'dressed up' in religious terms, in Judaism.

I would be utterly against it, were it not for the health benefits that apparently result - for women primarily (with circumcised partners)


----------



## MCWillow (Aug 26, 2011)

Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> There isn't really much of a doctrine of 'perfection' in Judaism - certainly not where humans are concerned.
> 
> But the view of god is that he is all wise, etc, yes
> 
> ...


Would you feel the same way about female circumcision if it primarily held a lot of health benefits for men?


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> Sorry but that is absolutely not true. In fact in Judaism there are specially trained men called 'moehls' (not sure of spelling) who are the ones to usually perform male circumcision. Now it may be that some of these men are also dentists - I know that some are doctors.
> 
> Male circumcision is thought to have originated in Egypt and you will find it within both Muslim and Jewish communities. Many boys of neither faith also have it done, especially in America.
> 
> It's pretty rare for infections or other problems to arise. I grew up in an area with a high percentage of Jewish people - both Orthodox and non Orthodox, as well as many Muslims and various other faiths. I've also attended more than one 'bris' and have never been at one where the men are separately celebrating while the women are left literally holding the baby....


Wasn't it you that told me this last time? I doubt that my friend is lying. Why would she? She's aware that I'm not religious and a bit of a sceptic, so I fail totally to see why she would lie to me. You weren't there, nor was I, I'm not going to tell my mate she talks crap. How old are you, cos as I already said, her youngest is 14, I think, possibly 15. Were you attending bris at that point?


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> There isn't really much of a doctrine of 'perfection' in Judaism - certainly not where humans are concerned.
> 
> But the view of god is that he is all wise, etc, yes
> 
> ...


Ah ok. Cheers for the info.. and i didnt even need to pose my next question, i guess you could see where i was going with it 

Note to self - be sneakier


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

MCWillow said:


> Would you feel the same way about female circumcision if it primarily held a lot of health benefits for men?


I don't think there are any benefits to anybody with female circumcision


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> There isn't really much of a doctrine of 'perfection' in Judaism - certainly not where humans are concerned.
> 
> But the view of god is that he is all wise, etc, yes
> 
> ...


I don't think it's right to circumcise children, just because it has a possible positive effect on female sexual health. Females need to take care of their own sexual health IMO. Fewer sexual partners would help, I think 

Presumably, a penis has a foreskin for a reason and it should only be removed if it is causing a problem for the boy/man?

Removing a part of one person for the possible health benefit of another in the future seems a very bazaar reason for approval :confused1:


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

MCWillow said:


> Would you feel the same way about female circumcision if it primarily held a lot of health benefits for men?


Good point.

Female circumcision is a lot more invasive.

But....you make a good point. Am thinking.....


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

porps said:


> oh i've seen something about it now you mention it.. south african guy got ostracized from his tribe cos he didnt want to be circumcized (a custom necessary in his tribe for a boy to become a man). He's a rapper now thats the only reason i know anything about it
> "i dont wanna be a man...
> Evil boy for life!"
> 
> But surely this guy mustve been raised with the same daft traditions and "brainwashing".. maybe at some point "it's tradition so i went along with it" loses it's value as an excuse for not thinking for yourself or taking responsibility for your own decisions.


Yes, but it's far more complicated I think. It is SO ingrained into the culture, as are all sorts of things that we would find totally ridiculous, that it will take a very long time before enough people have risen up against the tide before any real changes take place.


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

Just in case anyone is interested:

Benefits of male circumcision &#039;outweigh the risks&#039; - Health News - Health & Families - The Independent

Male circumcision reduces the risk that a man will acquire HIV from an infected female partner, and also lowers the risk of other STDs , penile cancer, and infant urinary tract infection.
For female partners, male circumcision reduces the risk of cervical cancer, genital ulceration, bacterial vaginosis, trichomoniasis, and HPV. Although male circumcision has risks including pain, bleeding, and infection, more serious complications are rare.

source: CDC - Male Circumcision - Research - Prevention Research - HIV/AIDS


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> Just in case anyone is interested:
> 
> Benefits of male circumcision 'outweigh the risks' - Health News - Health & Families - The Independent
> 
> ...


I haven't read the links, but doubt it would change my mind 

Just because something MAY happen in the future is no reason to circumcise any child, especially without anaesthetic.


----------



## tashi (Dec 5, 2007)

Just checking


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

Lurcherlad said:


> I haven't read the links, but doubt it would change my mind
> 
> Just because something MAY happen in the future is no reason to circumcise any child, especially without anaesthetic.


I don't think anaesthetic can be applied because certainly with Jewish and Muslim boys, they are too young.

If it's any consolation, having been present at a few 'brits' (for Jewish boys) and also one Muslim circumcision, in all bar one case the infants didn't so much as whimper. But I don't totally disagree with you. If I was a parent I would have to weigh up the health benefits really carefully, no idea what I'd do....


----------



## Guest (Jan 3, 2014)

tashi said:


> Just checking


LOL! Tashi popping in, making her presence known. Like mom banging a few pots in the kitchen to make sure the kids in the den know shes about 

Sorry, this cracked me up


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> I don't think anaesthetic can be applied because certainly with Jewish and Muslim boys, they are too young.
> 
> If it's any consolation, having been present at a few 'brits' (for Jewish boys) and also one Muslim circumcision, in all bar one case the infants didn't so much as whimper. But I don't totally disagree with you. If I was a parent I would have to weigh up the health benefits really carefully, no idea what I'd do....


I am a parent, of a boy - and I just wouldn't, not for religious reasons or for "just in case" either.

Off to bed - no doubt this will be going on until the wee small hours  :lol:


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> I don't think anaesthetic can be applied because certainly with Jewish and Muslim boys, they are too young.
> 
> If it's any consolation, having been present at a few 'brits' (for Jewish boys) and also one Muslim circumcision, in all bar one case the infants didn't so much as whimper. But I don't totally disagree with you. If I was a parent I would have to weigh up the health benefits really carefully, no idea what I'd do....


And what do you think of docking puppy tails?


----------



## MCWillow (Aug 26, 2011)

Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> Good point.
> 
> Female circumcision is a lot more invasive.
> 
> But....you make a good point. Am thinking.....


Oh I _know_ its a lot more invasive.

I just didn't think that it was right to agree with male circumcision,_ just_ because of the potential health benefits it could give future female partners.

My twin was circumcised aged 5, because he dropped the toilet seat on his willy and ended up with an infection. He doesnt remember it and was done in hospital and he was knocked out for it, had painkillers and lots of aftercare when it was done. I remember going up to the hospital to see him, he was in for at least a week. He doesnt remember it at all.

Female circumcision (for religious or tribal reasons) is usually done without anesthesia, somewhere not sterile, and without any medical personnel on hand. The same as male circumcision done for the same reasons.

Just cant get my head round why its deemed OK for boys, but not for girls. Its normally done to both sexes (for the reasons stated above) at an age where they are fully aware and can remember everything.


----------



## tincan (Aug 30, 2012)

Just because something MAY happen in the future is no reason to circumcise any child, especially without anaesthetic........ Or imo without a good medical reason .... My brother was circumsised age 5 his foreskin was 4 inches long , he kept getting infections .... so for me that's good , he needed it .... To mutilate sorry but that is how i see it , without good cause .... is abuse ...... incidentally my bloke isn't , nor is anyone in my family aside from brother .... std's will still be around as will Aids , whether there is a foreskin or not ... yet again my opinion only ...


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

cinnamontoast said:


> And what do you think of docking puppy tails?




I'm definitely going to bed now! :lol::lol::lol:


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

Lurcherlad said:


> I'm definitely going to bed now! :lol::lol::lol:


Why? I can post some cracking pics that Sleeping Lion originally put up of undocked injured tails.


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

cinnamontoast said:


> Why? I can post some cracking pics that Sleeping Lion originally put up of undocked injured tails.


Been there, done that - not getting sucked in again!

I predict a riot, I predict a riot ............ :lol::lol:

Night, night


----------



## MCWillow (Aug 26, 2011)

cinnamontoast said:


> Why? I can post some cracking pics that Sleeping Lion originally put up of undocked injured tails.


Undocked injured tails are a bit different to an uncut foreskin though


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

Not what I want, not going to push this one!


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

cinnamontoast said:


> And what do you think of docking puppy tails?


I'm against it.

Point taken


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

MCWillow said:


> Oh I _know_ its a lot more invasive.
> 
> I just didn't think that it was right to agree with male circumcision,_ just_ because of the potential health benefits it could give future female partners.
> 
> ...


I think it depends where in the world the child is?

e.g Muslim and Jewish boys in the western world and I think in Egypt, are really young so they are not fully aware and don't remember it happening.

RE DOCKING TAILS

Now I'll fully admit I don't know too much about this - can someone tell me if what I read is true: namely that if it's done when the pup is very young, they don't feel any pain because the nerve endings in the tail haven't formed? AM NOT saying this is correct - it's just what I read somewhere?


----------



## Mulish (Feb 20, 2013)

MCWillow said:


> Undocked injured tails are a bit different to an uncut foreskin though


Very different. You can post links to pics of mangled tails without getting the thread closed for a start 

The circumcision discussion is very interesting. I've never agreed with it being done to baby boys, either, but I admit it doesn't make me feel quite as revolted as what's done to young girls.

My hubby was circumcised at about 5 or 6 for medical reasons and he still remembers it well. He was so upset by it all that when our eldest son had the same symptoms as him (tight foreskin) he talked the GP into trying out all non-surgical options before he'd even consider us having him circumcised. Luckily the problem has been fixed and my other sons seem okay so far. My hubby isn't particularly sensitive as a general rule so I think it shows that, even though it's seen as a fairly simple op, it can leave lasting trauma to varying degrees.

I'm against anything being done for non-emergency medical reasons to anyone who can't give informed consent - whether that's due to their age, mental status or cultural/religious misinformation.

I have actually changed my view on tail docking a little bit since being on here, though. I used to be staunchly opposed but seeing the damage that can be done to working dogs who are undocked, I'm beginning to understand the reasoning. Although the fact it's done by people for their convenience still makes me uncomfortable. Don't like it for purely cosmetic reasons and loathe ear docking, still.


----------



## tashi (Dec 5, 2007)

Can I just ask to keep this one on topic and not to bring in a subject that is discussed time and time again. The debate up until now has been quite 'healthy' let's try to keep it that way


----------



## MCWillow (Aug 26, 2011)

Mulish said:


> Very different. You can post links to pics of mangled tails without getting the thread closed for a start
> 
> *The circumcision discussion is very interesting. I've never agreed with it being done to baby boys, either, but I admit it doesn't make me feel quite as revolted as what's done to young girls. *
> 
> ...


I agree, its a much more invasive procedure on a girl, which can cause all sorts of physical problems in later life, as well as psychological problems.

Any procedure done without anesthetic is barbaric IMO.

All the people that think its OK to slice of a babys foreskin without anesthetic - how would they feel if the surplus skin being removed was an earlobe, for example? Would that be OK as long as it was a religious minister doing the slicing?


----------



## Dingle (Aug 29, 2008)

StormyThai said:


> Personally I think Asda have the right idea, in that if someone doesn't wish to handle a product for religious reasons then they won't place them on the tills.
> 
> Why take a job that requires you to do things that disagree with your moral/religious compass?
> 
> I most certainly would not be happy to be told to wait to be served due to what is in my shopping basket


As above really... each to their own


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

Ahhhhhh ya just gotta love PF!!!! :lol:

I haven't looked at this thread since the first day it was put up and couldn't figure out why it was still so active.

From the selling / non-selling of meat & alcohol to male & female circumcision.... :scared: 

Ya gotta admit... That's a good one!!!! :thumbup:


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

MoggyBaby said:


> Ahhhhhh ya just gotta love PF!!!! :lol:
> 
> I haven't looked at this thread since the first day it was put up and couldn't figure out why it was still so active.
> 
> ...


Including a wholesale fear of Sharia law and docking puppies' tails along the way  ... bet Shetlandlover never thought her thread would encompass all that 

Thank you for letting it run Tashi and for monitoring it closely so people stayed nice :thumbsup:


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

Spellweaver said:


> Including a wholesale fear of Sharia law and docking puppies' tails along the way  ... bet Shetlandlover never thought her thread would encompass all that
> 
> Thank you for letting it run Tashi and for monitoring it closely so people stayed nice :thumbsup:


Perfectly rational to be scared of Sharia Law - as many of those who live under it will agree.

THANK YOU TASHI for checking up on us


----------



## myshkin (Mar 23, 2010)

I think SW and OBAYL should make it a regular thing - great to see a debate on such a contentious subject go on so long without nastiness.


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> I think it depends where in the world the child is?
> 
> e.g Muslim and Jewish boys in the western world and I think in Egypt, are really young so they are not fully aware and don't remember it happening.
> 
> ...


so.what if it wasn't a foreskin that can't be seen cos its covered up.what if it were the tip of a little finger.thats there for everybody to see and would cause the same amount of skin being taken....just a little snip....would that be classed as barbaric then.whether or not someone in a couple of hundred years discovered some vital health benefit of having this done?


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

myshkin said:


> I think SW and OBAYL should make it a regular thing - great to see a debate on such a contentious subject go on so long without nastiness.




It's really great that this all remained pretty pleasant - I think everyone behaved really well, bar one patch of tension that I think Tashi deleted 

SPELLWEAVER - what's the next debate topic gonna be then?


----------



## tashi (Dec 5, 2007)

You mean after 74 pages you are all done and dusted


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

tashi said:


> You mean after 74 pages you are all done and dusted


I *think* so......


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> It's really great that this all remained pretty pleasant - I think everyone behaved really well, bar one patch of tension that I think Tashi deleted
> 
> SPELLWEAVER - what's the next debate topic gonna be then?


It was fun, wasn't it?  I don't think either of us moved the other's position one jot, but how refreshing it was to be able to debate with someone who debated back properly.

As for the next topic - it'll probably rear its head before very long - you never know, we might both be on the same side of the argument in the Next Big Thread :lol:


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

Spellweaver said:


> It was fun, wasn't it?  I don't think either of us moved the other's position one jot, but how refreshing it was to be able to debate with someone who debated back properly.
> 
> As for the next topic - it'll probably rear its head before very long - you never know, we might both be on the same side of the argument in the Next Big Thread :lol:


Great fun 

lol - if we agree on the next topic we can team up and give the opposing side hell :devil: 

Thanks for the debate - looking forward to the next one


----------



## Guest (Jan 3, 2014)

I agree, Ive really enjoyed reading the debate and have learned a lot along the way, thank you to both of you OBYL and SW, thoroughly enjoyable read.



Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> lol - if we agree on the next topic we can team up and give the opposing side hell :devil:


LOL that IS a scary thought!


----------



## MCWillow (Aug 26, 2011)

Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> Great fun
> 
> lol - if we agree on the next topic we can team up and give the opposing side hell :devil:
> 
> Thanks for the debate - looking forward to the next one


Blimey if you two are on the same side I am staying WELL clear - would have no chance :scared:


----------



## tashi (Dec 5, 2007)

As a moderator can I thank you for keeping it civil, just that one blip which was someone intent on making trouble, nice when you only have to 'pop in' to check on the inhabitants


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

ouesi said:


> I agree, Ive really enjoyed reading the debate and have learned a lot along the way, thank you to both of you OBYL and SW, thoroughly enjoyable read.
> 
> *LOL that IS a scary thought!*


OUESI be afraid, be verrrrry afraid.........


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

You can just picture it:

OBAYL posts something

(Cue scary jaw's type music)

Der *der* ,,, der *der*

Spellweaver agrees .....

And the rest of the forum run away screaming :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

Spellweaver said:


> You can just picture it:
> 
> OBAYL posts something
> 
> ...


LOL LOL :thumbup:


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> RE DOCKING TAILS
> 
> Now I'll fully admit I don't know too much about this - can someone tell me if what I read is true: namely that if it's done when the pup is very young, they don't feel any pain because the nerve endings in the tail haven't formed? AM NOT saying this is correct - it's just what I read somewhere?


Afraid that's a myth, they squeal, they bleed, same as removing any other body part


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

I saw a litter of JRTs done once.cos I needed to see for myself if it was a big deal. They were 1 day old, they did squirm and squeal and went right back to feeding. Wasn't much blood...they dipped the stump in a powder....may have been flour, can' really remember.....may not have been but flour comes to mind.

Saw the pups the next day, stumps were a little bit scabby but nothing too much. saw pups again at a few weeks and they were fine..

They used to dock horses tails without anesthetic.now thats barbaric.and they also geld horses with hot irons.still goes on today and no anesthetic for that either.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

My old yard owner used to held the lambs by ringing them. They objected very loudly, walked oddly for a day then went back to ignoring it. I don't know if it's better or worse-less risky, I suppose, than surgical intervention. I'm grateful to say that I've only ever known colts to be gelded by the vet using the old surgical procedure! 

Horses sometimes have cancerous growths called sarcoids: they too are sometimes ringed simply by using thread tied very tightly. Again, better than surgical removal, I guess. It just drops off after a week or more.


----------

