Special Privileges? Always The Religious Demand Exemption…

Cross-posted @ the Atheist Oasis
In my not-so-humble opinion, the religious tend to pretend to be persecuted, which is very much a display of pounding the floor with fists and feet while caterwauling about some imagined slight.

Case in point:

Christian care worker goes to appeal court over right not to work on Sundays

A Christian children's worker has mounted a test case at the court of appeal for the right not to work on a Sunday.

Celestina Mba, 38, said she was forced from her job at a children's home in south-west London after it refused to allow her to observe the sabbath as a day of rest.

In a case expected to have far-reaching consequences for faith in the workplace, three of Britain's most senior judges will decide whether employers have a duty to provide a "reasonable accommodation" for the beliefs of Christian workers.

Employment lawyers believe that a ruling in Mba's favour could pave the way for followers of other religions to not work on their holy day.

Speaking outside the court of appeal on Wednesday, Mba said: "I'm here hoping to have my individual right to worship. It's a relationship between me and God and no one can determine what that is between us.

"I think people have forgotten common sense and how to accommodate people. This shouldn't be happening. A reasonable accommodation of people's beliefs would make life so much easier."

Mba has become a cause célèbre for campaigners who believe that the courts have refused to protect "core components of Christian practice" in the workplace, while granting protection to other faiths.

Andrea Minichiello Williams, a barrister whose group, the Christian Legal Centre, is supporting Mba, said: "Celestina's case continues a trend where we are seeing secular courts ruling on core components of Christian practice.

"However, the courts have acted to protect the Kara bracelet, Afro 'cornrow haircuts', the wearing of the hijab and a Muslim's right to fast, but have refused to grant protection to the cross or the Christian Sunday.

"Celestina's offer to work for less and work unpopular shifts, even when others had offered to work in her place on Sundays, was clearly a reasonable accommodation that her employer could, and should, have provided."

Mba said she was forced to resign from her job at Brightwell children's home in Merton when the council declined her request to observe the sabbath as a day of rest.

Mba's employer, Merton council, is said to have refused to rule out rostering her to work some Sundays at the 24-hour children's home, despite Mba's offer to work night shifts and for less money instead.

Mba wants to use the judgment to overturn an earlier employment appeal tribunal ruling which decided that Merton council was justified in refusing to permit Sundays off.

There’s so much wrong with this. I don’t even have to address the supernatural folderol.

"However, the courts have acted to protect the Kara bracelet, Afro 'cornrow haircuts', the wearing of the hijab and a Muslim's right to fast, but have refused to grant protection to the cross or the Christian Sunday.”

None of those people demanded a day off.

"Celestina's offer to work for less and work unpopular shifts, even when others had offered to work in her place on Sundays, was clearly a reasonable accommodation that her employer could, and should, have provided."

It’s the employer’s decision. Leave. (Which she did.) I’d be willing to bet there’s dozens of facts that were curtailed in lieu of a sound-bite. Being a Christian is zero guarantee of being honest.

Mba said she was forced to resign from her job at Brightwell children's home in Merton when the council declined her request to observe the sabbath as a day of rest.

Anybody who knows their shit knows that ‘sabbath’ was originally on a Saturday, but got changed in order to blend in with Roman culture. Duh!

Mba wants to use the judgment to overturn an earlier employment appeal tribunal ruling which decided that Merton council was justified in refusing to permit Sundays off.

This thing wouldn’t even have had any legs, had the religious tripe been introduced. More whiny carping about having the expected free pass refused.

As I like to say: no free passes. The days of special dispensation should be over – someone’s superstition no longer be a mitigating circumstance.

Till the next post, then.

Read More...

Summary only...

More On The Madness Of Muslims: The Non-Sacrifice Honored

Cross posted @ the Atheist Oasis
October 13th and 14th marked an Islamic event - Eid al-Adha. What does this mean, you ask?

It is specifically, the

Eid al-Adha (Arabic: عيد الأضحى‎ ʿīd al-aḍḥā, "festival of the sacrifice"), is also called Feast of the Sacrifice, the Major Festival, the Greater Eid, Kurban Bayram (Turkish: Kurban Bayramı; Albanian and Bosnian: kurban-bajram), or Eid e Qurban (Persian: عید قربان‎), is an important religious holiday celebrated by Muslims worldwide to honour the willingness of the prophet Ibrahim (Abraham) to sacrifice his young first-born son Ismail (Ishmael) as an act of submission to Allah's command and his son's acceptance to being sacrificed, before Allah intervened to provide Abraham with a Lamb to sacrifice instead. In the lunar Islamic calendar, Eid al-Adha falls on the 10th day of Dhu al-Hijjah and lasts for four days.

Or to put it more frighteningly:

According to Islamic tradition, approximately four thousand years ago, the valley of Mecca (in present-day Saudi Arabia) was a dry, rocky and uninhabited place. Allah instructed Abraham (ʾIbrāhīm in Arabic) to bring Hājar (Hāǧar), his Egyptian wife, and Ismā'īl (Ishmael), his only child at the time, to Arabia from the land of Canaan.

As Abraham was preparing for his return journey back to Canaan, Hājar asked him, "Did Allah order you to leave us here? Or are you leaving us here to die." Abraham turned around to face his wife. He was so sad that he could not say anything. He pointed to the sky showing that Allah commanded him to do so. Hājar said, "Then Allah will not waste us; you can go". Though Abraham had left a large quantity of food and water with Hājar and Ishmael, the supplies quickly ran out, and within a few days the two began to feel the pangs of hunger and dehydration.

Hājar ran up and down between two hills called Al-Safa and Al-Marwah seven times, in her desperate quest for water. Exhausted, she finally collapsed beside her baby Ishmael and prayed to Allah for deliverance. Miraculously, a spring of water gushed forth from the earth at the feet of baby Ishmael. Other accounts have the angel Gabriel (Jibrail) striking the earth and causing the spring to flow in abundance. With this secure water supply, known as the Zamzam Well, they were not only able to provide for their own needs, but were also able to trade water with passing nomads for food and supplies.

Years later, Abraham was instructed by Allah to return from Canaan to build a place of worship adjacent to Hājar's well (the Zamzam Well). Abraham and Ishmael constructed a stone and mortar structure —known as the Kaaba— which was to be the gathering place for all who wished to strengthen their faith in Allah. As the years passed, Ishmael was blessed with Prophethood (Nubuwwah) and gave the nomads of the desert his message of submission to Allah. After many centuries, Mecca became a thriving desert city and a major center for trade, thanks to its reliable water source, the well of Zamzam.

One of the main trials of Abraham's life was to face the command of Allah to devote his dearest possession, his only son. Upon hearing this command, he prepared to submit to Allah's will. During this preparation, Satan (Shaitan) tempted Abraham and his family by trying to dissuade them from carrying out Allah's commandment, and Ibrahim drove Satan away by throwing pebbles at him. In commemoration of their rejection of Satan, stones are thrown at symbolic pillars signifying Satan during the Hajj rites.

When Ismā'īl was about 13 (Abraham being 99), Allah decided to test their faith in public. Abraham had a recurring dream, in which Allah was commanding him to offer up for sacrifice – an unimaginable act – his son, whom Allah had granted him after many years of deep prayer. Abraham knew that the dreams of the prophets were divinely inspired, and one of the ways in which Allah communicated with his prophets. When the intent of the dreams became clear to him, Abraham decided to fulfill Allah's command and offer Ishmael for sacrifice.

Although Abraham was ready to sacrifice his dearest for Allah's sake, he could not just bring his son to the place of sacrifice without his consent. Ishmael had to be consulted as to whether he was willing to give up his life in fulfillment of Allah's command. This consultation would be a major test of Ishmael's maturity in faith; love and commitment for Allah; willingness to obey his father; and readiness to sacrifice his own life for the sake of Allah.

Abraham presented the matter to his son and asked for his opinion about the dreams of slaughtering him. Ishmael did not show any hesitation or reservation even for a moment. He said, "Father, do what you have been commanded. You will find me, Insha'Allah (Allah willing), to be very patient." His mature response, his deep insight into the nature of his father’s dreams, his commitment to Allah, and ultimately his willingness to sacrifice his own life for the sake of Allah were all unprecedented.

When Abraham attempted to cut Ishmael's throat, he was astonished to see that Ishmael was unharmed and instead, he found a dead ram which was slaughtered. Abraham had passed the test by his willingness to carry out Allah's command.

This is mentioned in the Quran as follows:

"O my Lord! Grant me a righteous (son)!" So We gave him the good news of a boy, possessing forbearance. And when (his son) was old enough to walk and work with him, (Abraham) said: O my dear son, I see in vision that I offer you in sacrifice: Now see what is your view!" (The son) said: "O my father! Do what you are commanded; if Allah wills, you will find me one practising patience and steadfastness!" So when they both submitted and he threw him down upon his forehead, We called out to him saying: O Ibraheem! You have indeed fulfilled the vision; surely thus do We reward those who do good. Most surely this was a manifest trial. And We ransomed him with a momentous sacrifice. And We perpetuated (praise) to him among the later generations. "Peace and salutation to Abraham!" Thus indeed do We reward those who do right. Surely he was one of Our believing servants.

As a reward for this sacrifice, Allah then granted Abraham the good news of the birth of his second son, Is-haaq (Isaac):

And We gave him the good news of Is-haaq, a prophet from among the righteous.

Abraham had shown that his love for Allah superseded all others: that he would lay down his own life or the lives of those dearest to him in submission to Allah's command. Muslims commemorate this ultimate act of sacrifice every year during Eid al-Adha.

To put it all in a nutshell: what a load of horse manure.

For one thing, it is highly unlikely that old pimp Abram ever actually existed at all (horrors!). Secondly, the origin story featured Isaac not Ishmael. Thirdly, the whole narrative is derivative syncretism – it borrows willy-nilly from the original, and injects piles of horseshit into it. The original also stipulated that Isaac would be a king, and the seed of kings would spring from him, so the likelihood that good old Abe was a raging psychotic just hearing bloodthirsty voices (let me qualify that, at all times), and even if prophecies were ever real, it’s a solid-state contradiction in terms. If indeed Ishmael ever existed, he was an idiot for being willing to proffer his throat to dear old demented dad.

I was raised (as most of you were, I suspect) to be in awe of this story (in whatever incarnation), to see this as some sort of inspirational milestone in the bible (or whatever), but the truth of the matter, it’s horrific and scary instead. A deity asking for child sacrifice? Never mind the imaginary sky daddy in question reneged (something today’s Republicans would term ‘flip-flopping’) – the mere suggestion should send civilized shudders down anyone’s spine.

Allah, Jehovah, Jesus – it’s all a load of bullocks, as our cousins across the pond would say.

Till the next post, then.

Read More...

Summary only...

Allegories Gone Wild: To Russia, With Hate

Cross posted @ the Atheist Oasis
There is just no excuse for this horseshit:

Anti-Gay Riot In Tblisi Tests Balance Between Church, State

While gay rights have been gaining ground in the West, they've been facing a strong backlash in many countries of the former Soviet Union.

Russia recently passed a law that makes it a crime to give information about "non-traditional sexual relationships" to minors.

Gay-rights advocates say the wording of the law is so vague that it can be used to ban gay-pride parades or, in fact, any public discussion of same-sex issues.

Homosexuality was a crime in the former Soviet Union, and it remains so in former Soviet republics such as Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan.

The former Soviet republic of Georgia is contending with the aftermath of an episode of mass violence that took place in May. In Georgia's capital city, Tblisi, a mob of thousands attacked a small group of people who were staging a protest against homophobia.

The leaders of the attack? Georgian Orthodox priests.

The episode raised issues about human rights in a religiously conservative country, as well as questions about the balance of power between church and state.

Priests Among Violent Attackers

The incident began when members of Georgia's lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community and their supporters obtained a permit to hold a vigil on the steps of parliament.

They planned to mark the International Day Against Homophobia on May 17.

When some leaders of the Georgian Orthodox Church heard about it, they urged their congregations to come to a counterdemonstration, which was promoted as a peaceful and family-oriented event.

When the day came, it was anything but peaceful.

Led by Orthodox priests, the crowd overwhelmed the police barrier around the small group of anti-homophobia demonstrators. Video from the clash shows a priest brandishing a stool as a weapon; other priests are heard to curse and yell "Kill them! Kill them!"

Nino Kharchilava was part of a small group of demonstrators that never even made it to the parliament steps. They were surrounded by counterdemonstrators and threatened until police hustled them into a minibus in an effort to get them away from the mob.

Kharchilava is a project assistant for the Women's Initiatives Supporting Group in Tblisi. She says the bus, too, was overwhelmed by attackers, who smashed most of the windows and thrust their hands through the broken glass to get at the demonstrators inside.

"One guy was like, hitting [at] me, and I just tried to communicate and tried to say 'What are you doing?' " she recalls. "And when I saw the blood around, and I couldn't figure out whether this blood is mine, or not, and then I realized it's not my blood, it's their blood."

"You know, they were ready to kill themselves [in order to kill] us," Kharchilava says. "It was really insane."

Church Does Not Punish Participants

The Rev. Mikael Botkovali, a spokesman for the Orthodox Church, brought members of his own congregation to the demonstration.

On a recent day, he sits in the calm baptistery of his church, surrounded by saints painted in the Byzantine style.

Botkovali says the church opposes homosexuality, but it doesn't seek to interfere with what gay people do in private. Where the faithful must speak out, he says, is when LGBT people seek to spread what he calls "homosexual propaganda."

"Religion obliges us to talk to these people and to show them that they're wrong, they're sinners," he says. "Even in the Bible, it's written about these people that, all of them, they will go to hell."

But Botkovali condemns the violence and says the priests who led it were rightly punished under civil and church law.

When pressed, he concedes that the church punishment consists only of suspending the priests from serving for a while and sending them to a monastery outside the city until they confess their errors.

After the violence, Georgia's prime minister, Bidzina Ivanishvili, said that those who promoted the violence would be punished.

A Test For The Rule Of Law

But gay-rights activist Irakli Vacharadze says that so far, the civil punishment hasn't been strong enough to show that Georgia's new government is willing to apply the rule of law to such a popular and powerful institution as the church.

Vacharadze is the executive director of an LGBT organization called Identova, or "Identity," and he was at the May 17 demonstration. He says that key members of Georgia's parliament, including the head of the Committee on Human Rights, have declared themselves subservient to the patriarch of the Orthodox Church.

"What does it mean," Vacharadze asks, "when the chair of the human rights committee says that 'our statement on the human rights violations will not go over what the patriarch has said'? It's a theocracy. It's quite dangerous. We don't want to turn Georgia into next Iran."

Lasha Bakradze, the head of the Georgian Literature Museum in Tblisi, helped organize an online petition against homophobic violence. He says more than 12,000 people signed the petition in its first two days online.

The mass violence on May 17 isn't just about sexual orientation and traditional values, Bakradze says, it's a demonstration of power by extremists who have made their way into the higher levels of the church.

"I think that the church in Georgia has shown to the government how powerful [it is] ... and it's dangerous, and it's against Georgian statehood," he says.

But Archil Kbilashvili, Georgia's chief prosecutor, says the case is not over, and that priests who were involved in the violence still face charges that could require them to serve jail time.

And, he says, no matter what the outcome, the case will serve as a key precedent.

"We cannot remember when our prosecution office introduced charges against some spiritual leaders," Kbilashvili says.

LGBT rights groups say they're still waiting for proof that the government will hold those spiritual leaders to account under the law.

These people sicken me. As always they mask their hypocrisy behind piety, claiming it’s for ‘souls’, hollering about love and gawd, but their true colors are there for all to see, uneducated, xenophobic little pissants hiding behind the ultimate bullshit: religion.

Till the next post, then.

Read More...

Summary only...

More On The Madness Of Muslim: The Body Count Rises

Cross posted @ the Atheist Oasis
For a ‘religion of peace’, it sure seems to be a violent ideology:

Scores Are Killed by Suicide Bomb Attack at Historic Church in Pakistan

PESHAWAR, Pakistan — A suicide attack on a historic church in northwestern Pakistan killed at least 78 people on Sunday in one of the deadliest attacks on the Christian minority in Pakistan in years.

Pakistanis grieved over the coffins of their relatives who were killed in a suicide bomb attack on an old church in the city of Peshawar on Sunday.

The attack occurred as worshipers left All Saints Church in the old quarter of the regional capital, Peshawar, after a service on Sunday morning. Up to 600 people had attended and were leaving to receive free food being distributed on the lawn outside when two explosions ripped through the crowd. “As soon as the service finished and the food was being distributed, all of a sudden we heard one explosion, followed by another,” said Azim Ghori, a witness.

Interior Minister Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan, who arrived in Peshawar on Sunday evening, said that 78 people had been killed, including 34 women and 7 children. “Such an attack on women and children is against humanity,” he said.Akhtar Ali Shah, the home secretary of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province, said that more than 100 people had been wounded. Mr. Khan said that 37 of those were children.

The dead included two Muslim police officers who had been posted outside the church. Witnesses reported scenes of mayhem as rescue workers ferried victims from the church, which was scattered with body parts, shrapnel and bloodied clothing.

On Sunday afternoon, the bodies of 45 victims were placed in coffins and moved to the nearby St. John’s Church, the oldest church in the city. The coffins were placed in the church playground as dozens of grieving relatives and mourners gathered. A large contingent of police officers was deployed outside the church, and mourners were allowed to enter the compound after a thorough security check. Ambulances were allowed to enter the compound one by one as dead bodies were then placed in vehicles to take them to the morgue.

Shafqat Malik, a senior official of the bomb disposal squad, said in an interview that evidence collected from the church confirmed that two suicide bombers had carried out the attack. “Each bomber carried six kilograms of explosives,” he said.

The attack coincided with a broader wave of attacks on religious minorities, including Shiite Muslims this year.

It is readily apparent over the decades of bad press and atrocities, that religion improves no one.

At this juncture, we can only hope for a collective epiphany (yes the irony of the use of that word doesn’t escape me) of the species, so that we can cast down the imaginary friends that psychopaths hide behind.

Till the next post, then.

Read More...

Summary only...

Allegories Gone Wild: Obama Is The Antichrist? Pull The Other One Please…

Cross posted @ the Atheist Oasis
Sometimes my eyes hurt from popping out in disbelief, especially when the wankers start spewing this ass-nonsense:

Lively: Obama Is The Antichrist, Working With Satanic Gays To Bring About The Apocalypse

Scott Lively, the pastor behind anti-gay laws from Uganda to Russia, appeared on TruNews yesterday to reveal to host Rick Wiles the identity of the Antichrist: President Obama. While he refused to mention Obama by name, he said that the Antichrist is the person “heading the largest superpower of the world today.” Lively explained that the Antichrist (read: Obama) will cancel all of the world’s debts in 2015, end the Mideast conflict with a peace treaty between the Israelis and Palestinians and introduce a one-world economic system and secular humanist religion.

Lively: Regional war breaks out and at the same time, because of that, the global economy collapses, crashes. That begins the serious pain for the entire world that the globalists actually want to prepare them for the global, one-world system. They already have the economic system to bring in; just nobody is ready to accept it. So at the right time, after there’s been enough pain, what happens is the Antichrist—I won’t name any names here but he is heading the largest superpower of the world today—steps in at the right time and does three things. He declares a global jubilee in which all the debts of the world are eliminated, this is after there’s been massive numbers of people who have died—
Wiles: Scott, I told people, I told our audience years ago, I’m going to say 2008, I said on this program this global financial crisis will be so bad that at some point in the future a world leader will say the only solution is biblical, we will have to cancel all the debts and we are going to have a global jubilee.
Lively: Amen. And we just happen to have one coming up, September 23, 2015.
Wiles: And the politician who does it is going to be hailed as the greatest man on the planet.
Lively: The hero of the world, right? This is the guy that also is going to be able to do what no one else in the history of the Middle East conflict could do. He’s going to have brought a peace treaty between the Palestinians and the Israelis; the Palestinians get their two-state solution and the Israelis get the permission to build on the Temple Mount. And who is the hero? It’s the guy that I’m not going to mention his name.
Wiles: And a lot of Christians when they see the Temple going up are going to hyperventilate, thinking this is a great thing and they have no idea that Antichrist is coming.
Lively: Only because it’s a symbol of what’s coming. Here’s the one other part that’s been missing, you’ve alluded to it and we’re very close on this that at the same time he introduces the new global system but here’s the other missing component. What’s the religion of the Antichrist? The religion of the Antichrist is secular humanism.

[As Lively explained, the imminent apocalypse is the result of homosexuality, which he said is “at the heart of the Antichrist kingdom” (along with Islam). He repeated his claim that homosexuality caused Noah’s Flood and the destruction of Sodom, arguing that gay rights is the issue that “portends the End Times” and is backed by the Devil.]

What is the issue that God is using to divide the sheep and the goats right now? It’s not whether Jesus Christ is Lord. It’s where do you stand on homosexuality? You know why? He gave us the warnings about that. From Genesis to Revelation, he has given us the advance notice that this issue portends the End Times and that when you see these things happen you’ll know that is the context that you are in. That’s the issue that is dividing the church right down the middle, of all the issue that God could’ve chosen. And the people who are going to the world’s side and the Devil’s side on that question are completely blind to its importance as a biblical topic; they think it is unimportant, that God doesn’t care about that when He gave us the only sin associated with the destruction of cities with fire and brimstone, the only sin associated with a reprobate mind in Romans 1, the thing that the rabbis said was the last straw before God brought the Flood, the issue that seems to be the heart of the Antichrist kingdom in Revelation 11 when it says that the two witnesses are struck down in the city that is mystically called Sodom and Egypt: homosexuality and Islam.

[Lively argued that only Vladimir Putin is the world’s last hope, and called for other nations to follow in his footsteps in implementing stringently anti-gay laws.]

We don’t want to gloss over the problems that we have with Mr. Putin but by the same token he’s the only world leader capable of standing up to the West and he is championing the traditional marriage and Christian values regarding the central moral issue of our time that no one else has the capability to do what he’s doing. Really there’s a chance here for him to inspire all the morally conservative countries of the law to adopt a similar law that he just adopted, his country just adopted and really have a chance maybe to roll some of this terrible agenda back.

Really, Lively and Wills are just going to have to stop sucking on that glass pipe – religion seems to have the same effect on rational thought as crack cocaine.

Obviously Tweedle-dee and Tweedle-dum are futurists – that is to say, they believe that all the alleged ‘prophecies’ will occur in the not-too-distant future at an unspecified time. As opposed to preterists and historicists.

This nonsense has been going on for far too long. So many people have pointed the finger at prominent figures –from popes to presidents.  Religious people are such children – they live in a comic book world of extremes, and they love to point and call names at someone they disagree with.

Jesus never existed, there is no devil, no antichrist, all of that folderol is the invention of a bunch of Iron Age shepherds who pretty much do what today’s Republicans do – pull their info straight out of that orifice-that-shall-not-be-named.

No wonder religion appeals to those assholes…it’s the oldest con-game in the book, and all it requires is the steady stare of the psycho and the spittle of the passionate ranter to convince all those sheeple.

Till the next post, then.

Read More...

Summary only...

Veiled Threats: No More Niqabs….

Cross posted @ the Atheist Oasis
Very intriguing:

Nick Clegg has backed schools that tell Muslim pupils to remove religious veils in the classroom.

The Deputy Prime Minister said that he can “totally understand” why people say that children should not to be allowed to wear full-face veils during lessons.

Mr. Clegg said that teachers “want to be able to make contact” with their pupils.

His comments came after he said that he was “uneasy” about Birmingham Metropolitan College’s decision to ban Muslim students from wearing the niqab, a veil that leaves a slot only for the eyes.

The college has ordered all students, staff and visitors to remove any face coverings so individuals are "easily identifiable at all times".

The move led to claims that Muslim students were being discriminated against.

Speaking during his weekly Call Clegg programme on LBC 97.3 radio, the Deputy Prime Minister appeared to disagree with the college’s policy.

He said that he was "not intuitively supportive of what the university have decided to do".

However, he said that there are “exceptional circumstances” under which women should be made to remove veils.

“I can totally understand, of course, if you’re passing through security checks at airports, say, of course for those reasons you need to make sure that the security staff can do their job,” Mr. Clegg said.

“I can totally understand in the classroom, this is more about full veils - that you want to be able to make contact, certainly eye contact and face contact with your pupils.

“But as a general principle other than those rather exceptional circumstances I’m really quite uneasy about anyone being told what they have to wear.”

In 2007 the Labour government issued new guidance allowing schools will be able to ban pupils from wearing full-face veils on security, safety or learning grounds.

Birmingham Metropolitan College’s policy was disclosed to one prospective Muslim student at the start of the new term last week.

The 17-year-old girl, who did not want to be named, said: "It's disgusting. It is a personal choice and I find it absolutely shocking that this has been brought in at a college in Birmingham city centre when the city is so multicultural and so many of the students are Muslim.

"It upsets me that we are being discriminated against.

"I don't think my niqab prevents me from studying or communicating with anyone - I've never had any problems in the city before."

Personally, I’m all for this. Self-imposed dress codes usually have a solid psychological basis, and in this case, it’s the fact that I’ve repeated multiple times here: Islam is a rape culture. The women are habitually forced (or brainwashed) into wearing piles of clothing, because…drum roll please…the men can’t be trusted to not rape the woman. And of course, if that happens, it’s woman’s fault, even when it’s obviously not her fault.

It’s a good old-fashioned double-standard bias against gender.

Sure, there’s a subconscious bias in the West: usually people who hide their faces are hiding something: a disfigurement, on the run from the law, or just plain old criminal intent.

In the case of female veils, it’s just plain cultural sexism and chauvinism. And if it incorporates either or both of those aspects, an I could give a rat’s fart in a whirlwind if it’s ‘part of the culture’: it’s just plain wrong. On every level.

Till the next post, then.

Read More...

Summary only...

Christians? Being Discriminatory? Say It Ain’t So!

Cross posted @ the Atheist Oasis
I always attribute the ability of people to say one thing and do another to the contrariness of the species and our innately remarkable ability to lie to ourselves. Religion may not be responsible for this perverse trait, but I doubt anyone could argue that religion tends to mollycoddle the feebler minds.

Case in point:

Faith schools cannot continue their immoral policy of discrimination

The London Oratory has been ordered to change its admissions policy. Segregating children based on faith is unacceptable

The London Oratory school in Fulham, west London, which was criticised for breaching the schools admissions code. 'Spending time in church to gain a place has become the religious equivalent of paying cash for honours.' Photograph: Fiona Hanson/PA

"How are the mighty fallen!" is a biblical verse that will not only be well-known by the Roman Catholic state school, the London Oratory, but now applies directly to them. The school – famously chosen by both Tony Blair and Nick Clegg for their sons – has just been criticised by the Office of the Schools Adjudicator for breaching the schools admissions code and ordered to change its policy.

The school's criteria for entry included parents participating in church life for at least three years beforehand through activities such as singing in the choir, serving at the altar or arranging flowers. There is nothing wrong with these practices – and many would consider them very worthy – but they should be pertinent only to the individual concerned, not determine whether the children of such parents qualify for a place in a state school.

This case was specific to the London Oratory, but the issue is much wider, for such breaches are endemic to the way faith schools operate. Unlike any other state-funded institution in society, they are allowed to base admission on belief. Spending time in church to gain a place has become the religious equivalent of paying cash for honours.

It would be unthinkable – not to mention illegal – for entry to hospitals or libraries to depend on a person's faith. Why should schools be privileged? It is a legal anomaly that is immoral and should be rectified. The fact that such discrimination is permissible because of specific exemptions in the Equality Act speaks volumes and effectively says: we know this departs from our normal standards.

Equally remarkable is that it is such a religious own goal, for it reverses the original mission of churches to embrace the whole of society, not withdraw into itself and cater for a particular constituency. Alongside these theoretical objections are the negative practical consequences, which apply also to schools of other faiths: they segregate their children, isolating them from those of a different background. That is not healthy for the children concerned, nor for society as a whole.

The better faith schools will teach about other belief systems, but that is no substitute for the children interacting on a daily basis. It is tragic that the last 20 years have seen an explosion in schools from the minority faiths – especially Jewish and Muslim, but now also Hindu and Sikh. Children that used to grow up alongside each other, are now becoming strangers. The more multifaith and multiethnic Britain becomes, the more schools should be where children mix and meet and learn about each other in the interests of social cohesion.

From an educational point of view, it is a perverse lesson that we are teaching children – saying everyone is equal, yet then separating them by faith groups and thereby creating an "us and them" culture. Yes, it was churches that pioneered schools in Britain centuries ago – and all credit to them for doing so – but that is no argument for maintaining a socially divisive educational policy today. The Fair Admissions Campaign has recently been formed to tackle the issue, uniting both religious and secular groups who object to its continuing presence.

Faith should have a role in schools – with multifaith studies taught both as an academic subject and to advance understanding of one's different-faith neighbour – but it should not be allowed to discriminate between children.

In contrast to the Oratory, some Church of England schools in the Diocese of London have decided that while they will maintain a particular ethos, they will be open to all in their local area. I bet God prefers them.

In the 21st century, why is this still an issue?

Because humanity is basically a collective infancy, and the crowds prefer an imaginary friend who echoes their hysteria and vacuous homilies, rather than the real world.

Till the next post, then.

Read More...

Summary only...