Debating Islam is now illegal in England

[animeotaku99]

Goig in the opposite direction then the Swiss England has prosecuted and charged a Christian couple for debating Islam with a Muslim. They are in danger of losing their hotel business for speaking the truth

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2009/October/Muslims-Complaint-Sparks-Charges-on-Christian-Couple/

[Bernard_Monsha]

Aside from garbage source and alarmist poster what are these people being prosecuted for making someone butthurt?

[The Million Dollar Prons]

according to Mike Judge


He sure came a long way after Beavis and Butthead

[tenshi_a]

There's another report here:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/6211604/Christian-couple-face-losing-hotel-after-criminal-charges-for-offending-Muslim-woman.html

Mrs Vogelenzang, 54, is understood to have described Muslim dress as putting women into “bondage” while her husband, 53, allegedly described the Prophet Mohammed as a “warlord”.

I think that's about it...?

[animeotaku99]

They pretty much are. Rights are being eroded away in England to make way for Islam. Call it alarmist if you want. I am just providing news reports on what are (as far as I knwo) actual events

CBN is not a reliable source?

[Arnold]

The fact that this is coming from a source that isn't terribly unbiased makes me think that there just might be more to this story. Since when is a difference of opinion illegal? As long as they're not disturbing the peace I really don't see how any sane person could pursue legal action.

I'd really like to hear the other side of the story before rendering any kind of judgment.

[Bernard_Monsha]

There's another report here:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/6211604/Christian-couple-face-losing-hotel-after-criminal-charges-for-offending-Muslim-woman.html



I think that's about it...?


So making someone feel butthurt is illegal in the UK.

[Soluzar]

I think all religions have the same protection under British law. Not that I accept this story at face value, but whatever protection Islam has, Christianity, Judaism and all the rest have the same.

[Bernard_Monsha]

I think all religions have the same protection under British law. Not that I accept this story at face value, but whatever protection Islam has, Christianity, Judaism and all the rest have the same.

Yeah but the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Does anyone remember the asshat (http://www.thenational.ae/article/20090510/FOREIGN/705099879/1013/NEWS) who refused to cook or handle bacon or sausage for breakfast because he was a Muslim.

[Bradster]

They pretty much are. Rights are being eroded away in England to make way for Islam. Call it alarmist if you want. I am just providing news reports on what are (as far as I knwo) actual events

CBN is not a reliable source?

No. Believing CBN is reliable in a Christian vs Muslim story is like believing Edison is reliable in talking about how evil AC current is.

[tenshi_a]

So making someone feel butthurt is illegal in the UK.

Well not as such, but if it comes under hate crimes related to religion or racism, that's illegal.

Yeah but the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Does anyone remember the asshat (http://www.thenational.ae/article/20090510/FOREIGN/705099879/1013/NEWS) who refused to cook or handle bacon or sausage for breakfast because he was a Muslim.

No but I do remember a muslim guy who tried to sue the supermarket he worked for, because they got him to drive a forklift truck to shift around crates of alcohol, and he was somehow really religiously offended. It didn't go anywhere in court - I think he lost and had to pay a bunch of money or something.

The same thing might happen here; the worst I see happening is that someone might end up getting a fine or that kind of thing.

See how it turns out after it goes to court next week.

By the way, those two people running the B&B really don't sound like very hospitable people to stay with. Getting them arrested for Jesus-fanboyism seems like overreacting a touch, though.

[Bernard_Monsha]

Well not as such, but if it comes under hate crimes related to religion or racism, that's illegal.

Being Dutch probably did not help either.

[tenshi_a]

Oh yeah, if it turns out that they were arrested down to racial profiling, or it's like "well, Mr B&B owner kinda looks like a Neo-Nazi skinhead so we decided to arrest him to be on the safe side", that's going to go down well. :)

[taily]

How about those moronic Christians who refused to drive buses with atheist adverts on the side?

[Bernard_Monsha]

How about those moronic Christians who refused to drive buses with atheist adverts on the side?

Or atheist suing because there is a crèche on display at Christmas. Fake baby Jesus is obviously repressing them.

[Caster13]

So making someone feel butthurt is illegal in the UK.

It's practically illegal in the US too.

[Leader Desslock]

Aside from garbage source and alarmist poster what are these people being prosecuted for making someone butthurt?
Well, according to the article, they're being "prosecuted for a public order offense". So whatever transpired, it appears that it wasn't just limited to each side exchanging their theological opinions in a calm, mutually respectful fashion. I'd guess it probably escalated all the way up to Words Being Exchanged in a fashion that caused a Disturbance Of The Peace.

So yeah, essentially, someone felt butthurt because someone else disagreed with them loudly.

What I don't get is why any B&B owner except for Basil Fawlty would be daft enough to discuss matters of theology with customers in any way other than to say "Really? Isn't that fascinating. Well, it takes all kinds, as they say..." What kind of an idiot tries to proselytize a different faith to his paying guest? They didn't pay for a sermon, they paid for a room. If it bothers you that they believe in a different version of God than you do, then go in the other room and quietly pray for them to see the light. Until they begin the ritual slaughter of goats in your parlour, calling your customers beliefs into question is Business Suicide.

While this may be a frivolous case with no legal merit whatsoever, the B&B owner was in the wrong for making his customer feel like his beliefs were not respected. It has nothing to do with theology and everything to do with Business Common Sense.

[superplough]

Pffffft religion should be illegal not prtected by law

[Holy Knight]

^ That's a lot of stuff you're banning.

Concerning Islam, the next few years are going to be interesting. So long as it doesn't break out into WWIII, the current culture clash should prove beneficial in the long term, with Islam getting de-radicalized to some extent. No idea what's going to come out of that, though.

[Fobb]

Yeah but the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Does anyone remember the asshat (http://www.thenational.ae/article/20090510/FOREIGN/705099879/1013/NEWS) who refused to cook or handle bacon or sausage for breakfast because he was a Muslim.

He's an asshat because he refused to do something that he was expressly given permission from HR not to do? So it's okay for a bed and breakfast owner to call Mohammad a 'warlord', but it's total asshatery for someone to refuse to do something that he was given permission not to do.

Interesting. I bet if a Union worker was forced to work a second over his shift, the company he worked for would have hell to pay, because it was specifically stated in his contract that he get a 1 hour shift with 10 hour break, which is paid for. And it'd be the totally righteous thing to do.

[Soluzar]

Yeah but the squeaky wheel gets the grease.
There's probably something to that, I can't remember when I last heard a Christian organization or individual in Britain seek legal intervention on behalf of their religion. They can be pretty militant in their own way, but taking it to the law doesn't seem to be part of that way.

Does anyone remember the asshat (http://www.thenational.ae/article/20090510/FOREIGN/705099879/1013/NEWS) who refused to cook or handle bacon or sausage for breakfast because he was a Muslim.
Not at all. However, I must ask if you'd view him the same regardless of his faith? There are proscriptions regarding food for Jews and Hindus as well, for example. I think it's an unfortunate situation, but if your book says you don't come into contact with pork it is hardly negotiable.

My view of such situations is that people should apply more common sense before taking a job. Just because your job title is Catering Manager, it's still a food related job, and pork might be part of that. Just save yourself the hassle and get a job somewhere you know is suitable for you.

[Bernard_Monsha]

He's an asshat because he refused to do something that he was expressly given permission from HR not to do? So it's okay for a bed and breakfast owner to call Mohammad a 'warlord', but it's total asshatery for someone to refuse to do something that he was given permission not to do.

He was not given permission not to do his job?

he was refused permission not to handle pork when he took a job as catering manager at a police headquarters in west London.

BAWWWW I have to touch a pig, I will sue for being butt hurt coz I has letter saying its not so. FYI the UK is not Karachi, Nouakchott, or Tel Aviv. Different places different rules, do you understand. If he does not want to handle pork run a falafel stand.

It is not the B & B owners job to not call Mohammad a warlord, he is getting hung by his petard business wise suing him over extra butthurt because you lose a theological argument is being an asshat.

[Soluzar]

The point is that being unable to reach agreement with the force on terms of employment, he should have looked elsewhere. It's not Utopia, it's England. If the job calls for you to handle pork, they need someone who'll do that. So sorry, but... what's the point in hiring someone who can't take care of what appears to be an important part of the job?

I have sympathy for his desire to not handle pork, but in that case he is in the wrong job.

[earsofdoom]

What year is this now? oh yeah 2009!

and to think we are still having issue's like this I just want us to find alien life and that be the end of all this.

[Jatz]

What year is this now? oh yeah 2009!

and to think we are still having issue's like this I just want us to find alien life and that be the end of all this.

Nah.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hf92aHEwYT87J1XPP4JrIusKBT-AD9BSTO1G1

[CrossboneGundam]

CBN is not a reliable source?

.... :facepalm:

I assume you think Pat Robertson is a widely respected intellectual known for his well-reasoned, valid arguments and respect for opposing points of view.

[Soluzar]

and to think we are still having issue's like this I just want us to find alien life and that be the end of all this.
...and the start of a whole new set of problems. C'mon you've probably watched or read enough good sci-fi to know it won't be Star Trek's utopia.

[l0k1]

Well there goes my plans for this weekend.

[Rurouni Saiyan]

Pffffft religion should be illegal not prtected by law

Um, no. As someone said, a lot of stuff would be banned.

If you don't like the religion, then fine, don't drink the kool-aid. Just go about your business.

[Fobb]

BAWWWW I have to touch a pig, I will sue for being butt hurt coz I has letter saying its not so. FYI the UK is not Karachi, Nouakchott, or Tel Aviv. Different places different rules, do you understand. If he does not want to handle pork run a falafel stand.

I suggest you read the article again, and rephrase that.

“I had a letter from the human resources department saying that I would not be required to cook any pork."

I'm sure if he knew that he would be forced to handle pork, he would have 'run a falafel stand', whatever you may be implying with that statement.


It is not the B & B owners job to not call Mohammad a warlord, he is getting hung by his petard business wise suing him over extra butthurt because you lose a theological argument is being an asshat.
Again you neglect to read the article.

"As a result of this case and the criminal charges that have been put against these Christians, the hospital has decided not to send its outpatients there anymore,"
I'd go as far as to say the owner was the dumbass here. If he didn't want to lose his business, he would have run a BUSINESS, not a church.

He should have realized the consequences of what he was doing, and maybe then he wouldn't need thousands of letters from Christians world wide supporting his bad business decisions.

[Bernard_Monsha]

I suggest you read the article again, and rephrase that.

Do you actually work? It is obvious that management did not consider not handling the most popular item on the breakfast menu a reasonable concession.



I'm sure if he knew that he would be forced to handle pork, he would have 'run a falafel stand', whatever you may be implying with that statement.

No he still would have sued because they hurt his feelings. Just like the people who sued the hotel owners, who gather and protest every little thing as offensive to Islam and scream "This is an outrage"


Again you neglect to read the article.

I read it, I just don't have a religious jaundice to color my view. I would be just as pissed if the owner was a Hindu, Buddhist, or atheist or the roles reversed.


I'd go as far as to say the owner was the dumbass here. If he didn't want to lose his business, he would have run a BUSINESS, not a church.

I have no problem with them loosing business over this, I have a problem with them being prosecuted for being a kafir and daring to speak to a Muslim in such a manner.

I just realized these people got fined twice as much as the two outstanding citizens who decided it would be fun to serve chocolate cake sprinkled with poo to those people who do not belong to a certain religion.

[Fobb]

Do you actually work? It is obvious that management did not consider not handling the most popular item on the breakfast menu a reasonable concession.
I do actually work. Maybe it's different where you work, but something I've confirmed ahead of time takes precedent over what a manager tells you to do on the fly.


No he still would have sued because they hurt his feelings. Just like the people who sued the hotel owners, who gather and protest every little thing as offensive to Islam and scream "This is an outrage"


“I was threatened that management would sack me if I did not follow instructions. But I never enrolled to cook pork. I refused to do it. I never did it and I never would.
Jee, maybe he's suing for wrongful termination? NOOO! Couldn't be! Because every Muslim is a ninny who won't stand for a kafir not bending to his rules!


I read it, I just don't have a religious jaundice to color my view. I would be just as pissed if the owner was a Hindu, Buddhist, or atheist.I highly doubt that, but okay, lets continue.

I have no problem with them loosing business over this, I have a problem with them being prosecuted for being a kafir and daring to speak to a Muslim in such a manner.
What happened to "I just don't have a religious jaundice to color my view" that you were talking about just a little while earlier? As it was stated earlier, the law would apply to anyone of any religion, but if a Muslim is the victim of the law (no matter how much you may disagree with the law itself), it automatically turns into a case of the butt hurts?

[Bernard_Monsha]

I do actually work. Maybe it's different where you work, but something I've confirmed ahead of time takes precedent over what a manager tells you to do on the fly.

Not if your job description changes, which can happen quite often.

Jee, maybe he's suing for wrongful termination? NOOO! Couldn't be! Because every Muslim is a ninny who won't stand for a kafir not bending to his rules!

No he specifically says he is suing because he was "forced" to handle pork, which puts him in the latter class.


What happened to "I just don't have a religious jaundice to color my view" that you were talking about just a little while earlier? As it was stated earlier, the law would apply to anyone of any religion, but if a Muslim is the victim of the law (no matter how much you may disagree with the law itself), it automatically turns into a case of the butt hurts?

Show me another religion that has a habit of using legal means to stifle criticism. Also why is this man and his wife not being prosecuted for denying the divinity of Christ or calling him a minor prophet? I think I could accept this if the law was applied equally but alas, it only applies to kafir.

[Fobb]

Not if your job description changes, which can happen quite often.A manager decideing not to honor a guarantee that HR made to him isn't a change in job description.

No he specifically says he is suing because he was "forced" to handle pork, which puts him in the latter class.He was being "forced" to handle pork when he was told that he wouldn't have to. And that if he didn't comply, he would be 'sacked'. I'd definitely categorize that as wrongful termination.

Show me another religion that has a habit of using legal means to stifle criticism. Also why is this man and his wife not being prosecuted for denying the divinity of Christ or calling him a minor prophet? I think I could accept this if the law was applied equally but alas, it only applies to kafir.I'm sure if you looked hard enough you would find one.

I don't remember anywhere in the both articles where the Muslim couple was stated to be so adamant on throwing around the phrase kafir (a little like you at the moment) or doing anything but discussing religion. In fact, even that Christian news letter didn't try to deny that the white couple instigated the whole thing by calling Mohammad a 'warlord' and calling the customary dress 'bondage'. I'm sure CBN would have loved to have jumped all over it if the Muslim couple had started the argument. But alas, they didn't.

[tenshi_a]

Show me another religion that has a habit of using legal means to stifle criticism.

Well I can't give you any links at the moment but I would say that the incident you're talking about runs parallel with something that happened a few months ago where a professional woman (gah, I can't remember her job) got fired for not doing her job when dealing with gay people due to homophobia and then she sued her ex-employer for unfair dismissal, claiming that it was religious discrimination because she's Christian and being a hateful person is her religious duty.

I think she was a lawyer or doctor or something. I can't remember how it turned out, either. :/

[Soluzar]

Interesting. I also had not heard of any similar cases. I suspect she found very little support for her claim, since I don't recall that it's a specific religious duty to either not talk to, or be rude to gay people. I'd love to know exactly how it would arise, in any case. Do lawyers or doctors typically ask people about that?

[tenshi_a]

I just found this article about something really similar:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/4177427/Christian-sex-therapist-refused-to-counsel-gay-couples.html
->
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2009/11/30/christian-counsellor-loses-appeal-over-gay-couples/

but I am just about certain that the article I saw before was about a woman... so I guess it was either a smilar case, or I'm just mistaken.

Anyway, point is, people of religions other than Islam sometimes try to sue their employers on religious grounds too.

[Jatz]

I just found this article about something really similar:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/4177427/Christian-sex-therapist-refused-to-counsel-gay-couples.html
->
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2009/11/30/christian-counsellor-loses-appeal-over-gay-couples/

but I am just about certain that the article I saw before was about a woman... so I guess it was either a smilar case, or I'm just mistaken.

Anyway, point is, people of religions other than Islam sometimes try to sue their employers on religious grounds too.

Like pharmacists that won the right to refuse to give out birth-control pills.

[Fobb]

And Christians who won the right not to allow gays to have a civil union,

And athiests who used the flying spaghetti monster to block religion from being taught in schools.

etc. etc. etc.

[Soluzar]

I must admit, it seems like a really tangled mess these laws put companies in. I support everyone's right to freedom of religion, but... I don't see why you should be excused responsibilities that go with the job as a result of that. If you're unable to do the job properly, it goes to someone who can. Right?

Nobody will force you to handle pork, counsel gay people or whatever... but if you can't do it, then how exactly are you suitable for the job? You couldn't possibly claim at interview or on your résumé to be ideally suited for the position if you only intend to do part of it.

Like pharmacists that won the right to refuse to give out birth-control pills.
This is the right not to be required to do something yourself. There are other pharmacies, other sources of birth control. I wonder if they also refuse to sell condoms? Perhaps they should also avoid selling lube, since it only encourages people to have sex. Maybe they should require proof of marriage.

block religion from being taught in schools.
This is the right to determine what your tax dollars pay for, and what your children are taught in schools. Also, I think you'll find it is only creationism that is the contentious issue. Comparative religion classes are fine. So long as you teach all sides.

And Christians who won the right not to allow gay people to have a civil union
This is preventing someone else from doing something which does not affect you in any way, just because you think it is wrong. I'm waiting for someone to tell me how I'm wrong and it does affect them terribly on account of how it gives them the heeby-jeebies, but hey... you always get strange people like that.

You see the difference between the first two and the last one, right? Even if the second is more contentious than the first, you see how they stand separate from the last one? Please tell me you do, for the sake of my sanity.

[Tom Servo]

Pffffft religion should be illegal not prtected by law
I dunno about you but these people aren't what I'd call religious.

[Fobb]

I must admit, it seems like a really tangled mess these laws put companies in. I support everyone's right to freedom of religion, but... I don't see why you should be excused responsibilities that go with the job as a result of that. If you're unable to do the job properly, it goes to someone who can. Right?

Nobody will force you to handle pork, counsel gay people or whatever... but if you can't do it, then how exactly are you suitable for the job? You couldn't possibly claim at interview or on your résumé to be ideally suited for the position if you only intend to do part of it.

Ideally, we're supposed to not even work at places that requires you to distribute pork or wine. My friends father gave up his Circle K because of it, even though it was easier on him. But if the exception is given, then why not? These aren't the best of times, for either the employee or employer.

[Soluzar]

Ideally, we're supposed to not even work at places that requires you to distribute pork or wine. My friends father gave up his Circle K because of it, even though it was easier on him.
I commend him for that, I think it was a bold choice to go with his chosen way of life.

But if the exception is given, then why not? These aren't the best of times, for either the employee or employer.
No absolute reason why not, if the employer is happy with that. However, an applicant who would happily handle pork would probably be hired in preference, all other things being equal.

[Fobb]

No absolute reason why not, if the employer is happy with that. However, an applicant who would happily handle pork would probably be hired in preference, all other things being equal.

Absolutely, I agree 100%. It is a business after all, not a kumbaya, and that's something both sides should have taken into consideration.

[Shiroiyuki]

This is the right to determine what your tax dollars pay for, and what your children are taught in schools. Also, I think you'll find it is only creationism that is the contentious issue. Comparative religion classes are fine. So long as you teach all sides.

Then explain why there are schools which serve as temporary Mosques.

That right there is a reason I hate America. Double standards, catering to one group but not the other. Usually it's us native citizens who get dumped on, more or less.

[l0k1]

Usually it's us native citizens who get dumped on, more or less.


Native Americans?

[Shiroiyuki]

Native Americans?

Did I say that? I said native citizens as in, non-immigrants. People born here, raised here, and with American citizenship.

[Fobb]

This is the right to determine what your tax dollars pay for, and what your children are taught in schools. Also, I think you'll find it is only creationism that is the contentious issue. Comparative religion classes are fine. So long as you teach all sides.Something tells me the same thing would have happened even if it were to be a comparative religions class, but lets leave speculation out of this.


You see the difference between the first two and the last one, right? Even if the second is more contentious than the first, you see how they stand separate from the last one? Please tell me you do, for the sake of my sanity.I just used whatever example came to my head first, of course I see the difference in them.

[taily]

Or atheist suing because there is a crèche on display at Christmas. Fake baby Jesus is obviously repressing them.

Yes, all beliefs have morons.

[Bernard_Monsha]

Well I can't give you any links at the moment but I would say that the incident you're talking about runs parallel with something that happened a few months ago where a professional woman (gah, I can't remember her job) got fired for not doing her job when dealing with gay people due to homophobia and then she sued her ex-employer for unfair dismissal, claiming that it was religious discrimination because she's Christian and being a hateful person is her religious duty.

I think she was a lawyer or doctor or something. I can't remember how it turned out, either. :/

She should have been fired without question.

Native Americans?

As I am one I now use my minority status to call anyone who disagrees with me racist and Choctaw-phobic.

Yes, all beliefs have morons.

But some have a tendency to produce bumper crops

[Soluzar]

Then explain why there are schools which serve as temporary Mosques.
Because the system sometimes fails people, my dear Dances With Banhammersr! ;)

As I am one I now use my minority status to call anyone who disagrees with me racist and Choctaw-phobic.
Really now? Where did I get the idea you were Mexican? Not that it matters, but I completely pulled that one out of my rear end.

[Bernard_Monsha]

Really now? Where did I get the idea you were Mexican? Not that it matters, but I completely pulled that one out of my rear end.

My mother is Choctaw with some Kickapoo and some Scottish (like first half of the 19th century) my dad is Mexican mostly jungle folk from Chiapas originally.

[Soluzar]

My mother is Choctaw with some Kickapoo and some Scottish (like first half of the 19th century) my dad is Mexican mostly jungle folk from Chiapas originally.
It's good to know my memory doesn't fail on this occasion. That's one heck of variety pack of heritage you have there. Must make for some interesting family gatherings.

[Pessimist]

Then explain why there are schools which serve as temporary Mosques.


Could you please elaborate that sentance of yours?

Yes, all beliefs have morons.
Atheism - a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Frankly, I would prefer not seeing such nonsense during the holiday of increased energy consumption. I really can't stand bad plays that are repeated year after a year.

[taily]

Pessimist and his ****ing dictionary, obviously I was talking about the belief that there is no god.

[Pessimist]

Actually it's Collins'.

And what makes you think it is a belief?

[CrossboneGundam]

Show me another religion that has a habit of using legal means to stifle criticism.

Scientology is legally recognized as such...

Frankly, I would prefer not seeing such nonsense during the holiday of increased energy consumption. I really can't stand bad plays that are repeated year after a year.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqfZUX5svCg

[333jeffery]

I use to love England. Traveled there extensively as a child. Sad to see it go downhill so much over the last 20 years....

[Soluzar]

Scientology is legally recognized as such...
I note with approval that you chose your words carefully.

[KatayokuのTenshi]

Rights are being eroded away in England to make way for Islam.

...

What I don't get is why any B&B owner except for Basil Fawlty would be daft enough to discuss matters of theology with customers

I was thinking the same thing.

"Really? Isn't that fascinating. Well, it takes all kinds, as they say..."

That actually sounds like something Basil Fawlty would say when he's being insincere.

I think she was a lawyer or doctor or something. I can't remember how it turned out, either. :/

I have a feeling that I heard something similar... but I can't remember any of the specifics.

I just found this article about something really similar:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/4177427/Christian-sex-therapist-refused-to-counsel-gay-couples.html

Christian Sex therapist? I know I shouldn't laugh but still...

Then explain why there are schools which serve as temporary Mosques.

...Because they ran out of Mosque space? I think we need some more information about this incident. What happened? Was a public building hired out after-hours to some particular group? Gasp and Alarm! Or was it something actually untoward? (I'm having trouble thinking what it might be.)

Usually it's us native citizens who get dumped on,

Do you really want to go down that road?

Atheism - a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Antitheism - a belief that there is no God.
Maltheism - a belief that there is a God or gods and that they are cruel bastards. :P

[Leader Desslock]

Atheism - a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
Not exactly.

Atheism isn't a lack of belief in deities. Atheism is a definite belief in the nonexistence of deities.

Might be a semantic point, might not be. The difference would be summed up as "Nah, I don't think there's a Flying Spaghetti Monster" versus "There is no Flying Spaghetti Monster".

The atheist position is the the nonexistence of deities is logically provable, while the agnostic believes that the existence/nonexistence of deities is unprovable.


Not that this has anything to do with debating Islam in England, but it's always best to be clear on such points.

[Jatz]

This is the right not to be required to do something yourself. There are other pharmacies, other sources of birth control. I wonder if they also refuse to sell condoms? Perhaps they should also avoid selling lube, since it only encourages people to have sex. Maybe they should require proof of marriage.


I must admit, it seems like a really tangled mess these laws put companies in. I support everyone's right to freedom of religion, but... I don't see why you should be excused responsibilities that go with the job as a result of that. If you're unable to do the job properly, it goes to someone who can. Right?

Nobody will force you to handle pork, counsel gay people or whatever... but if you can't do it, then how exactly are you suitable for the job? You couldn't possibly claim at interview or on your résumé to be ideally suited for the position if you only intend to do part of it.
There you go. If you never wanted to give out birth-control then you shouldn't have become a pharmacist.
Not exactly.

Atheism isn't a lack of belief in deities. Atheism is a definite belief in the nonexistence of deities.

Might be a semantic point, might not be. The difference would be summed up as "Nah, I don't think there's a Flying Spaghetti Monster" versus "There is no Flying Spaghetti Monster".

The atheist position is the the nonexistence of deities is logically provable, while the agnostic believes that the existence/nonexistence of deities is unprovable.


Not that this has anything to do with debating Islam in England, but it's always best to be clear on such points.

Now I really want spaghetti.

[Pessimist]

Might be a semantic point, might not be.

I do like semantic points. Those are often the point of contention found in these discussions.

Anyhow, I do find the definition quite exact. Otherwise I would not have dared posting it. One of the definitions set for the word 'belief' is religious faith, while the word 'lack' is a word used to state absence of something.

The difference between the two definitions is that the first one can also be used as a definition for agnostics. In all fairness, it could also be used as a definition for people who can scientifically prove the existance of gods or God.

There is no need for such definition, however. :]



But regarding the article at hand, bondage is just villeinage. Semantics.


And thanks for CrossbowGundam for posting that heart warming video. I've not felt such peace and contempt in years.

[Jo Sama]

I don't know if anyone is still interested in this but here is a little more information in regards to what the couple allegedly said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lancashire/8401685.stm

[Fobb]

I don't know if anyone is still interested in this but here is a little more information in regards to what the couple allegedly said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lancashire/8401685.stm

Nice interesting turn of events from that original "civilly discussing religion"

[tofuman]

The Hotel owners have been found not guilty.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/merseyside/8404212.stm

[tenshi_a]

Well I guess this is going to make animeotaku and Bernard Monsha most displeased, isn't it? :P

[Bernard_Monsha]

Mrs Tazi, who converted to Islam 18 months ago, spent a month at the hotel in Church Avenue while attending a course at Aintree Hospital.

There was the problem right there. Nothing worse than a new convert with a chip on their shoulder. Plus I vote she should wear a Burqa. She looks like a fat Keith Richards stuffed in a sock.