Headscarves in schools - recent update

Watch this thread
This discussion is closed.
Bigcnee
Badges: 11
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#141
Report 18 years ago
#141
(Original post by claire1985)
I was saying the idea of evil came from religion, hence the inverted commas. If you define evil by the laws we have in place, these laws come from the basis of the 10 commandments ( in Muslim states they come from Muhammed's teachings), therefore anything that is 'evil' from the basis of these laws, is evil by definition from religion, thus-religion is the root of all 'evil'-it coined the phrase, so to speak.
ok.
0
kildare
Badges: 8
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#142
Report 18 years ago
#142
(Original post by DoctorNO)
Like I said something that is a "part" is not necessarily a requirement. The hijab is optional. And some people do make an outward show to distract other people. And as you can see in this thread that some people are already distracted by the very idea of religious symbols in schools.
Yes it is optional in that religion is optional. However, many believe that it is an intergral part of their faith hence for them it is not 'optional'.
0
Howard
Badges: 5
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#143
Report 18 years ago
#143
(Original post by kildare)

Yes, democracy does mean that the majority choose the governement, it does not mean however that the minority forfeit their rights.

I didn't say it did.

As regards the vagaries of national/international law (although I thought you had already argued that the law did contravene European law, I may be wrong though but yes anyway...) I must profess ignorance and as such will only try to argue that the law infringes on basic rights and on the principles that the Republic was founded on.
Look it contravenes (in my view)

a) the French Constitution
b) The European Convention on Human Rights 1950 as ratified at or about that time and as incorportated into French law by whatever the hell is their equivalent to the HRA 1998.

Capiche?
0
kildare
Badges: 8
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#144
Report 18 years ago
#144
(Original post by claire1985)
This is pure subjectivity, where is your evidence? What about this country, the BNP are still allowed to run in a democracy-even though their policies sometimes contravene even the basic human rights
If the BNP ever came to power *shudders* they would not be allowed to pass any laws which contravened British law, regardless of public opinion.
0
claire1985
Badges: 0
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#145
Report 18 years ago
#145
(Original post by kildare)
Evil exists independant of religon. Eradicating religon certainly wouldn't eradicate evil/'evil people'.
But what is evil? who decides what is evil? Country law, which is derived from religion. So, evil is not independent of religion. I am not so stupid to argue that eradication of religion now would mean no more evil, i'm just saying-religion is interlinked with evil.
0
Bigcnee
Badges: 11
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#146
Report 18 years ago
#146
(Original post by claire1985)
This is pure subjectivity, where is your evidence? What about this country, the BNP are still allowed to run in a democracy-even though their policies sometimes contravene even the basic human rights
I'm simply saying that they should do.
If this was in practice, the world would be much different.
0
kildare
Badges: 8
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#147
Report 18 years ago
#147
(Original post by Howard)
Look it contravenes (in my view)

a) the French Constitution
b) The European Convention on Human Rights 1950 as ratified at or about that time and as incorportated into French law by whatever the hell is their equivalent to the HRA 1998.

Capiche?
Yes that was my suspicision. Cheers for confirming it though.
0
claire1985
Badges: 0
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#148
Report 18 years ago
#148
(Original post by kildare)
If the BNP ever came to power *shudders* they would not be allowed to pass any laws which contravened British law, regardless of public opinion.
If they came to power, they could pass what they damn well liked as they'd have a majority in parliament and the judges etc can do sweet f.a about it, or even if they could, they are so incompetent in the most part, they wouldn't bother.
0
kildare
Badges: 8
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#149
Report 18 years ago
#149
(Original post by claire1985)
But what is evil? who decides what is evil? Country law, which is derived from religion. So, evil is not independent of religion. I am not so stupid to argue that eradication of religion now would mean no more evil, i'm just saying-religion is interlinked with evil.
Well yes I suppose we're left with the task of defining 'evil' in that case then... What I was trying to say is that I think in modern day society that 'evil' or what society views as 'evil' exists, in the most part, independant of religion.
0
Howard
Badges: 5
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#150
Report 18 years ago
#150
(Original post by kildare)
I'd love it if the law was changed, the Islamic hierocracy are firmly implanted in Iran however, due in no small part to the actions of the Shah and his western sponsors in the years prior to the revolution. Perhaps that's a discussion for another day though...
*******s. The Shah was dragging the country into the 20th century. He was overthrown and replaced by the Ayatollah who preferred to reside in the 14th century.
0
kildare
Badges: 8
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#151
Report 18 years ago
#151
(Original post by claire1985)
If they came to power, they could pass what they damn well liked as they'd have a majority in parliament and the judges etc can do sweet f.a about it, or even if they could, they are so incompetent in the most part, they wouldn't bother.
The judges (or at least the law lords) can block any law which is 'passed' by the Commons. Whether or not they are incompetent...... hmm well I suppose that's a side issue.
0
claire1985
Badges: 0
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#152
Report 18 years ago
#152
(Original post by kildare)
Well yes I suppose we're left with the task of defining 'evil' in that case then... What I was trying to say is that I think in modern day society that 'evil' or what society views as 'evil' exists, in the most part, independant of religion.
I agree with you in so much as now that evil has been defined, it cannot be eradicated by removing religion.
0
Howard
Badges: 5
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#153
Report 18 years ago
#153
(Original post by Bigcnee)
I'm simply saying that they should do.
If this was in practice, the world would be much different.
I'm surprized at you Bicnee. You normally have something of value to contribute but here you are sounding like a 7 year old girl "If I was Prime Minister they'd be no war, everyone would have a nice house, and lot's of candy to eat........" You're not losing it are you?!
0
DoctorNO
Badges: 0
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#154
Report 18 years ago
#154
(Original post by kildare)
Yes it is optional in that religion is optional. However, many believe that it is an intergral part of their faith hence for them it is not 'optional'.
Then teaching is not for these fundamentalists.


(besides, if these fundies are so shallow as to think that certain fashion trends are god's requirement then how much more are their god's requirements to indoctrinate everybody under their wings? ah mere theories.)
0
claire1985
Badges: 0
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#155
Report 18 years ago
#155
(Original post by kildare)
The judges (or at least the law lords) can block any law which is 'passed' by the Commons. Whether or not they are incompetent...... hmm well I suppose that's a side issue.
Do you mean the House of Lords? I am not too up on the workings of all this-all i know is that in the Commons, bills have to pass 3 readings and then they are passed to the House of Lords, who, since 1911 thanks to them being obnoxious and Asquith threatening to flood the house with commoners, can only block a bill 2 times. Is there an extension on this that i don't know about or is it just through HofC and HofL and it's law?
0
kildare
Badges: 8
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#156
Report 18 years ago
#156
(Original post by Howard)
*******s. The Shah was dragging the country into the 20th century. He was overthrown and replaced by the Ayatollah who preferred to reside in the 14th century.
The Shah was dragging himself and a select bunch of cronies into the 20th century while at the same time ****ing the vast majority of his population off and subsequently causing them to search for an outlet for their expression which, as it was the only group which were totally seperated from the Shah became the Islamic hierocracy. I would never try to support the Ayatollah or his regime, I can certainly understand how me managed to come to power though.
0
Howard
Badges: 5
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#157
Report 18 years ago
#157
(Original post by kildare)
The judges (or at least the law lords) can block any law which is 'passed' by the Commons. Whether or not they are incompetent...... hmm well I suppose that's a side issue.
No they bloody well can't. Ever heard of a little thing called the 1925 Parliament Act? The commons can in fact force legislation through the upper house if they want.
0
kildare
Badges: 8
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#158
Report 18 years ago
#158
(Original post by DoctorNO)
Then teaching is not for these fundamentalists.


(besides, if these fundies are so shallow as to think that certain fashion trends are god's requirement then how much more are their god's requirements to indoctrinate everybody under their wings? ah mere theories.)
Hmmm, I'm not sure if that's offensive or just *******s, probably closer to *******s to be fair.
0
kildare
Badges: 8
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#159
Report 18 years ago
#159
(Original post by Howard)
No they bloody well can't. Ever heard of a little thing called the 1925 Parliament Act? The commons can in fact force legislation through the upper house if they want.
So the Commons could theoretically pass any law, regardless of its extremity/respect of legal precedent/regard of basic human rights?

*This is not a rethorical question by the way, I really am asking.
0
kildare
Badges: 8
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#160
Report 18 years ago
#160
Damn server...
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest

How confident are you that you'll achieve the grades you need to get into your firm uni?

I think I've exceeded the grades for my university offer (22)
17.32%
I think I've met the grades for my university offer (31)
24.41%
I think I've missed the grades for my university offer (69)
54.33%
Something else (tell us in the thread) (5)
3.94%

Watched Threads

View All