 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 17:05:23 -0500, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospam com> wrote:
>> That's easy. If the safety rules conflict with one's religious rules,
>> then there are two options:
>
>> 1. You go by the food safety rules
>> 2. You find a different job
>
> Tell that to the politically-correct multicultural-friendly courts of
> law of western Europe...
I think you'll find that food safety will trump. People getting sick is
*bad*.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Got some wacko that took this to an extreme and now has her company on
> the verge of being embroiled in a lawsuit. She was a nurse and had been
> "accidentally" tugging out IUD (Inter-Uteran Devices) from female
One should not impose their religious beliefs on others. Period. Of
course this goes well beyond that ...
It is OK for you to tell me you believe in the majesty of the great and
powerful flying spaghetti monster. But it ends there. I do not want to
be told that I will boil in a vat of hot marinara sauce because I do not
believe the same, nor should you insist on attempting to recruit me to
your particular brand of religion. If I show an interest and ask
questions, answer those questions. But if I say, "That's nice" and begin
to walk off, this is not a cue for you to start shoving pamphlets at me
to go on lecturing me about the grace of His noodley appendage. I'm not
interested and I'm not listening.
Quite honestly, I believe it is rude for someone to go advertising their
religion as if it were a product.
What you described is exceptionally, unacceptable and intrusive. What
people decide to do with their own body is their decision and their
decision alone.
Anyway... I'll go back to my usually nerdy self playing with numbers,
and computers and the like.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
>
> Now guess if this has been a real case, and guess what the court of
> law (in a western European country) ruled.
>
Sounds plausible. They sided with the long-sleeve wearing religious
didn't they?
I have images of sleeves dipping into dripping raw meat, then into the
special sauce. Hope no one gets sick.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Got some wacko that took this to an extreme and now has her company on
> the verge of being embroiled in a lawsuit. She was a nurse and had been
> "accidentally" tugging out IUD (Inter-Uteran Devices) from female
> patients, and explaining it as "accidental", never mind that a) they are
> hard to remove, b) painful to put in, never mind remove, and c) if done
> wrong can threaten the patient with infection or sterility. But, in her
> mind, despite being also ignorant to the point of stupidity about their
> actual function, they "prevented impregnation", therefor where "morally
> unacceptable".
>
> This is the future people. Its only a matter of time with this kind of
> BS being passed for some court case to crop up some place, where the law
> is vague about "what" they can deny, and some bozo refusing to put in a
> pace maker, or taking one out, on the same grounds, or any of a long
> list of other stupid things, all based on their "religious" conviction
> that you shouldn't "prevent pregnancy", "sustain life artificially",
> "over eat", "under eat", smoke, not smoke, or who the hell knows what
> their "conscience" would make them object to on the grounds of some
> personal "faith".
>
A fine argument against public medicine.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> On the other hand, it's a fine line between freedom of religious
> expression and, sometimes, safety regulations.
>
> For example, if in some kind of food preparation establishment there's
> a rule, related to food hygiene and safety, that all workers handling the
> food must not wear long-sleeved shirts (because long sleeves may touch
> the food products, increasing risk of contamination), and someone has the
> religious conviction that he must wear long-sleeved shirts (I suppose I
> don't have to mention such religion by name), which one in this case should
> be imposed, the freedom of religious expression, or the safety rule?
Here's another interesting one:
Apparently in the UK, if you're unemployed, you can obtain unemployment
benefits. But if you get offered a job and you turn it down, they can
cut off your benefits.
Now suppose you get offered a job in a porn shop, and you morally don't
approve of porn. Do they have the right to take away your benefits?
OTOH, you could try to make up any flimsy excuse that *any* job you're
offered conflicts with your "morals", so you never have to actually get
a job and can just sit taking benefits...
That's an interesting balancing act to get right.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Now suppose you get offered a job in a porn shop, and you morally don't
> approve of porn. Do they have the right to take away your benefits?
Simple, don't apply at the porn shop in the first place ..
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 19:08:52 +0000, Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>
>Now suppose you get offered a job in a porn shop, and you morally don't
>approve of porn. Do they have the right to take away your benefits?
"They" can't offer you a job in a porn shop. The sex industry is not allowed to
advertise at the dole, or what ever it's called this week.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 26-Jan-09 1:08, somebody wrote:
> "andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
> news:497### [at] hotmailcom...
>> On 25-Jan-09 22:51, somebody wrote:
>>> "somebody" <x### [at] ycom> wrote in message news:497cdd31@news.povray.org...
>
>>> Also, of course, such a "book based" policy would arbitrarily
> discriminate
>>> against cultures whose traditions are more oral than written. The
> judicial
>>> system should not be in the business of deciding which religions are
> more
>>> legitimate than others, or which parts of a religion (pork) are from
> god,
>>> which parts (headscarves) from man.
>
>> But they do already. Everytime a woman complains that she is
>> discriminated against because she has to wear that scarf, the judge when
>> ruling in her favor effectively rules that a scarf is a religious and
>> not a cultural phenomenon. I don't think any judge or politician has
>> enough guts to rule or pass a law recognizing the fact that the lady in
>> question was lied to and naively believed what she was told.
>
> What if it's cultural? Does it make it any less important for the wearer?
Not to the wearer, but it does (sorry, should do IMHO) to the system.
There is freedom of religion but not freedom of culture. One of the
major (again IMHO) problems that we have here in the Netherlands with
some groups with a certain background is that foreign cultures have been
introduced that run contrary to the main stream culture in many
different and vital aspects. The introduction was possible and is still
defended because the pretext was used that they were religious customs.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 26-Jan-09 1:19, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> On 25-Jan-09 22:51, somebody wrote:
>>> "somebody" <x### [at] ycom> wrote in message news:497cdd31@news.povray.org...
>>>> "andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
>>>
>>>>> I disagree. The refusal of jews and muslims to eat pork or obeying
>>>>> Ramadan or sabbath is firmly established in the books. Your point that
>>>>> the books were written by humans may be true but is irrelevant. For
>>>>> the
>>>>> believers it is *provably* part of their religion.
>>>>> OTOH you have things like women to have to wear hats on sunday when
>>>>> going to church as is the practice in some circles in the Netherlands.
>>>>> This has no basis in the script but rests on an interpretation of
>>>>> (IIRC)
>>>>> Timothy 2:9-10 (no don't ask me how they do that). The common cultural
>>>>> idea that women have to wear headscarfs or worse also rests on such an
>>>>> interpretation of similar words by Mohamed.
>>>
>>>> It's also written in the "books" that it's just dandy to kill infidels,
>>>> homosexuals... etc. And that headscarves may not be in the books
>>>> doesn't
>>>> mean Muslims don't feel as strongly about it as pork.
>>
>> If you add 'many' between 'mean' and 'Muslims' you have exactly the
>> reason why I choose the example.
>>
>>>> Either way, granting
>>>> rights, priviledges and exceptions based on certain view that some
>>>> people
>>>> wrote or did not write in some books, and inconsistenly at that, at
>>>> some
>>>> point in history, is a bad, bad idea.
>>>
>>> Also, of course, such a "book based" policy would arbitrarily
>>> discriminate
>>> against cultures whose traditions are more oral than written. The
>>> judicial
>>> system should not be in the business of deciding which religions are
>>> more
>>> legitimate than others, or which parts of a religion (pork) are from
>>> god,
>>> which parts (headscarves) from man.
>>
>> But they do already. Everytime a woman complains that she is
>> discriminated against because she has to wear that scarf, the judge
>> when ruling in her favor effectively rules that a scarf is a religious
>> and not a cultural phenomenon. I don't think any judge or politician
>> has enough guts to rule or pass a law recognizing the fact that the
>> lady in question was lied to and naively believed what she was told.
>
> Actually, in the US, the basic rule, due to the same establishment
> clause that protects the rest of us, in theory, "from" them, is that,
> "If they say its religious, it is, since the courts **may not** make any
> distinction as to what is and isn't "religious" for any group." The
> determining factor then becomes if the behavior can be presented as so
> egregious as to constitute a recognizable threat to someone, and thus
> not protected, even "if" it is religious, i.e., something like human
> sacrifice, or what some groups *call* polygamy, when what they are
> "actually" doing is little better than brainwashing, combined with
> slavery, and often child molestation. But, its a stupidly fine line, in
> which, for example, courts have ruled that some old man that got sick
> could be: a) deprived of retirement pension, b) thrown out of his home,
> c) fired from his position and d) denied return to his prior position.
> All of this on the basis that he got really sick for a few months, and
> the "church" decided, as a matter of internal operations, to throw him
> out in the gutter, rather than wait for him to recover, or pay him
> retirement. And, this was one of their own priests they did it to. The
> courts where "forced" by law and precedent, to deny his claims, on the
> grounds that they could not interfere with internal church matters,
> despite the fact that if it had been "any other" organization, they
> could have ordered payment of the retirement, all legal fees, and
> possibly even penalties for being such assholes.
>
> Basically, unless its either a) currently seen as some terrible
> injustice that most of society "thinks" needs to be fought (real or
> imagined), or b) people are dying, churches can do pretty much any damn
> thing they like, including things they would also sue other
> non-religious groups for doing, and win. Makes me sick some days.
>
I understand the US court point of view. Sort of. I think there are two
major holes in this theory. 1) what to do if someone claims that
something is not religious, do you have to believe him too? 2) what to
do with atheists, can they make up there own religious statements or is
on the contrary their statement less worthy than of someone that says he
does believe in god?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 26-Jan-09 20:08, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>
>> On the other hand, it's a fine line between freedom of religious
>> expression and, sometimes, safety regulations.
>>
>> For example, if in some kind of food preparation establishment there's
>> a rule, related to food hygiene and safety, that all workers handling the
>> food must not wear long-sleeved shirts (because long sleeves may touch
>> the food products, increasing risk of contamination), and someone has the
>> religious conviction that he must wear long-sleeved shirts (I suppose I
>> don't have to mention such religion by name), which one in this case
>> should
>> be imposed, the freedom of religious expression, or the safety rule?
>
> Here's another interesting one:
>
> Apparently in the UK, if you're unemployed, you can obtain unemployment
> benefits. But if you get offered a job and you turn it down, they can
> cut off your benefits.
>
> Now suppose you get offered a job in a porn shop, and you morally don't
> approve of porn. Do they have the right to take away your benefits?
>
> OTOH, you could try to make up any flimsy excuse that *any* job you're
> offered conflicts with your "morals", so you never have to actually get
> a job and can just sit taking benefits...
>
> That's an interesting balancing act to get right.
It has happened here in the netherlands, although as I remember it was
by mistake. Someone got offered a job in a brothel (just after they
became legal again) because that fitted her educational level. Refusal
to accept would by law indeed have cut her benefits. The rule is
apparently that these jobs should go in a special file and should never
be offered to random unemployed ladies. I assume the same goes for jobs
in e.g. the slaughterhouse. I think the sane way out is that not only
the education is used to see if a job fits but also psychological
factors are taken into account. I assume they do normally.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
