Yet another poor persecuted christian

MrPudding

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8676982/Christian-midwife-sues-over-order-to-wear-trousers.html

Should we have a sticky for christian persecution?

MrP

The_Minister

If Muslim women are having their religion respected, and hers is not, when the same level of consideration is required, then she has a point.

Now, if they can prove that her 'scrub dress' is more of an infection danger than a burka, then she might be in trouble.

MrPudding

The_Minister wrote: »

If Muslim women are having their religion respected, and hers is not, when the same level of consideration is required, then she has a point.

Now, if they can prove that her 'scrub dress' is more of an infection danger than a burka, then she might be in trouble.

Why mention the burka? She alleges that muslim midwives are allowed to wear “their own hijabs and tops.” There is no mention of a burka or any other kind of dress. So basically, the muslim women are being allowed to wear a top, that is covered by the standard scrubs or, a hijab which will have the effect of covering them up more and most of which will probably be covered by the standard scrubs, cap and mask.

I would love to know if she, in addition to not wearing men’s clothes, also does not wear cloths made of two materials, doesn’t eat shellfish etc.

MrP

MrPudding

Interesting comment and a couple more cases:

http://secular-europe-campaign.org/2011/08/06/uk-how-many-times-can-these-christians-cry-wolf-before-people-ignore-them/

MrP

meryem

This is quite funny thing. It happens when a person gets too much dissolved in religious sayings. His wisdom is taken over by some discreetly written words making no serious remark that it should be followed in any situation.

ShooterSF

What next? "Nurse claims religious discrimination after stoning doctor to death for working on a patient on the Sabbath"

The sad thing is that governments have made it harder for themselves by giving up ground in the first place.

gargleblaster

ShooterSF wrote: »

The sad thing is that governments have made it harder for themselves by giving up ground in the first place.

Which is just more ammunition for non-accommodationist type atheists.

I've searched but didn't find any discussions about accommodationism vs. non-accommodationism. Has that not really come up for discussion here in this forum?

MrPudding

gargleblaster wrote: »

Which is just more ammunition for non-accommodationist type atheists.

I've searched but didn't find any discussions about accommodationism vs. non-accommodationism. Has that not really come up for discussion here in this forum?

Why don't you start one?

MrP

MrPudding

ShooterSF wrote: »

What next? "Nurse claims religious discrimination after stoning doctor to death for working on a patient on the Sabbath"

The sad thing is that governments have made it harder for themselves by giving up ground in the first place.

I think there is some confusion over the legally protected right to hold a belief versus the contents of that belief, which is not legally protected.

MrP

Daftendirekt

In her defence, she was told that they'd accommodate her uniform requirements at the interview stage, and unless I'm missing something, it looks as though they did so up until recently.

If this is actually the case, I can understand her annoyance, but to call it intolerance is just over the top.

MrPudding

Daftendirekt wrote: »

In her defence, she was told that they'd accommodate her uniform requirements at the interview stage, and unless I'm missing something, it looks as though they did so up until recently.

If this is actually the case, I can understand her annoyance, but to call it intolerance is just over the top.

So what if it changed? Circumstances change all the time. People need to learn to deal with it. I have little time for people that claim religious persecution is case like this, I don’t really have a great deal more time for people who say “well it used to be like this, I don’t want to change.”

MrP

gargleblaster

MrPudding wrote: »

Why don't you start one?

MrP

Well it's a contentious issue which seemed to be fairly widely discussed among atheists, so I thought that it was most likely that it had been debated at length already, perhaps using different terminology.

Daftendirekt

MrPudding wrote: »

So what if it changed? Circumstances change all the time. People need to learn to deal with it. I have little time for people that claim religious persecution is case like this, I don’t really have a great deal more time for people who say “well it used to be like this, I don’t want to change.”

MrP

I can't disagree with this, I was just viewing it from her point of view.

But on my initial reading, I skimmed over the part about her standing to gain thousands in compensation if her complaint was upheld.

Which puts things a bit more in perspective.

The_Minister

MrPudding wrote: »

So what if it changed? Circumstances change all the time. People need to learn to deal with it. I have little time for people that claim religious persecution is case like this, I don’t really have a great deal more time for people who say “well it used to be like this, I don’t want to change.”

MrP

You apply for a job.
You are the best candidate.
You are offered the job.

You explain that due to your beliefs, you will need some small adjustments in working conditions.
The employer agrees and accepts this.

Years down the line, they do an about face and change your conditions of employment, making it impossible for you to hold the job in good conscience.



I do think she should be protected absent some evidence of a real health risk, as otherwise, in effect, the strictly religious, even if they have taken the trouble to lay out their needs, can be fired at will, by their employer simply altering their conditions to make their job intolerable.

If there is an actual practical danger to her conditions, then they can be changed, but if not, then they should be left.

ShooterSF

MrPudding wrote: »

I think there is some confusion over the legally protected right to hold a belief versus the contents of that belief, which is not legally protected.

MrP

Indeed but the state is often too happy to accommodate religious beliefs in trivial matters (and not so trivial, NHS and muslims?) which leads people to think that their right to hold a belief entitles them to have others bend over to let them do as that belief teaches. Even the original agreement to seemingly accommodate her shows this half and half approach to allowing people to bend the rules.

robindch

The_Minister wrote: »

I do think she should be protected absent some evidence of a real health risk [...]

I counter with:

This story appeared in the Daily Telegraph.

philologos

Meh, I kind of agree that this kind of stuff goes too far. I have a feeling it should be dismissed if not on the grounds that trousers aren't exclusively male clothing in 2011 thus not really violating the passage that is cited.

MrPudding

The_Minister wrote: »

You apply for a job.
You are the best candidate.
You are offered the job.

You explain that due to your beliefs, you will need some small adjustments in working conditions.
The employer agrees and accepts this.
You sign a contract of employment that will undoubtedly state that, from time to time, and for various reasons, elements of your job may change.

Years down the line, they do an about face and change your conditions of employment, making it impossible for you to hold the job in good conscience.



I do think she should be protected absent some evidence of a real health risk, as otherwise, in effect, the strictly religious, even if they have taken the trouble to lay out their needs, can be fired at will, by their employer simply altering their conditions to make their job intolerable.

If there is an actual practical danger to her conditions, then they can be changed, but if not, then they should be left.

I added a little bit to your post to cover off a step you missed in the employment process.

The fundamental issue here is a person's right to hold a belief is protected. The law cannot and indeed should not protect the contents of those beliefs. If the law had to protect every idiotic belief of the religious the country would be a mess.

No one has the right to get a job and not have it change in any way, ever. I would suggest that a person has a right to be consulted on changes to their job, and where possible agreement should be reached. Unfortunately recent cases have shown us that certain religious are not willing to agree to changes and believe they have some sort of legally protected right to discriminate against other people or not follow rules that other people need to follow.

If the hospitals procedure is to wear normal scrubs then people should wear normal scrubs. It really should be that simple.

MrP

MrPudding

philologos wrote: »

Meh, I kind of agree that this kind of stuff goes too far. I have a feeling it should be dismissed if not on the grounds that trousers aren't exclusively male clothing in 2011 thus not really violating the passage that is cited.

No. It should be dismissed because it is bollocks. Arguing that trousers are exclusive men's clothing is validating the belief and implying that the belief should be protected by the law, and but for the fact that trousers aren't exclusively male clothing the law might. The law should not do this.

It should be struck down because it is not impacting this woman's right to hold a particular belief.

MrP

philologos

MrPudding wrote: »

No. It should be dismissed because it is bollocks. Arguing that trousers are exclusive men's clothing is validating the belief and implying that the belief should be protected by the law, and but for the fact that trousers aren't exclusively male clothing the law might. The law should not do this.

It should be struck down because it is not impacting this woman's right to hold a particular belief.

MrP

The line of argument that I've presented, while considering the terms of the belief gets one out of the argument that Muslims are treated in a certain way, they as a Christian are not. Rather it says that it isn't even essential to the belief in the first place as to whether or not you wear trousers. That seems perfectly apt.

The other argument will simply dismiss it, but yet will bring up the argument that Muslims are treated specially and as a result they should be also.

The reasoning behind the hijab is on the basis of how essential it is to Islamic belief. Likewise that should be the terms in respect to this case. Arguing something else is bound to cause inconsistency.

I consider the first a significantly better way to deal with it by far.

MrPudding

gargleblaster wrote: »

Well it's a contentious issue which seemed to be fairly widely discussed among atheists, so I thought that it was most likely that it had been debated at length already, perhaps using different terminology.

Would you start a new thread about this? I would be interested in hearing about it.

MrP

MrPudding

philologos wrote: »

The line of argument that I've presented, while considering the terms of the belief gets one out of the argument that Muslims are treated in a certain way, they as a Christian are not.

I think the muslims being treated differently is a bit of a red herring. If you read the article the particular clothing mentioned is not dress like. They are talking about a top and a garment that covers the hair. Completely different form a skirt. That is like arguing that speed limits discriminate positively towards people who don't break the speed limit. I am not a medical expert, but I would think that the muslim garments in question would either be neutral to the operation of scrubs or possibly even enhance their effectiveness.

philologos wrote: »

Rather it says that it isn't even essential to the belief in the first place as to whether or not you wear trousers. That seems perfectly apt.

Who are you to decide what is essential to someone's belief? That is what the court is trying to avoid doing.

philologos wrote: »

The other argument will simply dismiss it, but yet will bring up the argument that Muslims are treated specially and as a result they should be also.

There is no muslim argument. As I stated above, you cannot argure they are getting special treatment when their clothing already conforms to the regulations. That is not special treatment. The same way a people who don't break the speed limit don't get special treatment.

philologos wrote: »

The reasoning behind the hijab is on the basis of how essential it is to Islamic belief. Likewise that should be the terms in respect to this case. Arguing something else is bound to cause inconsistency.

But the hijab does not break the requirement to have legs covered by scrubs.

philologos wrote: »

I consider the first a significantly better way to deal with it by far.

Of course you do. But again, who are you to decide what a person's belief should be?

MrP

philologos

I'm not deciding a persons belief. I'm deciding on whether or not it is reasonable using that passage as a basis to suggest that trousers shouldn't be worn.

It's the exact same criteria that's used to determine whether or not Muslims should be allowed to wear the hijab. I.E The essentiality of it to the particular belief system.

You can claim that's a red-herring, but it's the primary assumption that is used to permit the hijab.

We're both in agreement that there isn't a legitimate case for saying that there shouldn't be any issue with wearing trousers. I think dealing with it in terms of essentiality to belief is a good way to tackle it.

MrPudding

philologos wrote: »

I'm not deciding a persons belief. I'm deciding on whether or not it is reasonable using that passage as a basis to suggest that trousers shouldn't be worn.

You kind of are. It is not up to you to decide if an aspect of a person's belief is reasonable. And leaving that aside, it is not the place of the courts to analyse the bible to decide if a person claim is valid. The courts cannot and should not make determinations on an irrational basis.

philologos wrote: »

It's the exact same criteria that's used to determine whether or not Muslims should be allowed to wear the hijab. I.E The essentiality of it to the particular belief system.

No. it isn't the same criteria. If the muslim garments already comply with the regulations then it is not necessary to analyse them any further. Now, I am making an assumption based on my personal experience. I am assuming that the muslims in question are wearing scrubs in addition to their religiously mandated clothing. My experience of hospitals in the UK would lead me to believe that this is a reasonably assumption. I have seen many presumably muslim medics wearing the garments mentions in this article under their scrubs.

So again, the muslim dress is not relevant as it does not necessarily break the dress requirements. Now, if muslim nurses were allowed to where their religious garments instead of scrubs, then I would have an issue with that, but I really don't think that is what is happening here.

philologos wrote: »

You can claim that's a red-herring, but it's the primary assumption that is used to permit the hijab.

It is a red herring unless they are wearing the hijab instead of scrubs. There is no indication form the article that this is the case, and my personal experience is the hijab is worn in addition to scrubs.

philologos wrote: »

We're both in agreement that there isn't a legitimate case for saying that there shouldn't be any issue with wearing trousers. I think dealing with it in terms of essentiality to belief is a good way to tackle it.

Yes, we are in agreement as to what the outcome should be, but not in terms of how it should get there. Dealing with it in terms of essentiality to belief is absolutely not a good way to do it and should be avoided at all costs. The courts cannot be put in a position where they must rule on the validity of a persons beliefs. They interpret and enforce the law. If they had edwant to interpret bullsh1t then they would have done theology instead of law.

MrP

Undergod

philologos wrote: »

I'm not deciding a persons belief. I'm deciding on whether or not it is reasonable using that passage as a basis to suggest that trousers shouldn't be worn.

...

We're both in agreement that there isn't a legitimate case for saying that there shouldn't be any issue with wearing trousers. I think dealing with it in terms of essentiality to belief is a good way to tackle it.

I think that's getting dangerously close to a state body deciding what is and isn't valid, religiously. The court shouldn't care what the woman's religious beliefs are, and it should not get into a theological debate or a discussion of scriptural law. If they are causing her to act in violation of her workplace's safety rules, then the employers have a case.

I think this for two reasons: first of all, the state cannot be allowed to tell religious people what their beliefs are or how to interpret those beliefs, that's clearly not on; second of all, the state is based on legislative, not scriptural, law- arguments based on religious texts have no validity in this setting.

Zombrex

philologos wrote: »

I think dealing with it in terms of essentiality to belief is a good way to tackle it.

That is the issue though, what is an essential belief.

How is anyone to say that one belief is essential to someone, while another belief isn't.

A good example of this is the contrast between vaccination scares and religiously motivated absence from medical treatment.

People, quite rightly, are angry at people who spread false information about vaccines causing autism and other diseases. And they are angry at the rising of the disease supposed that are supposed to be prevented by these vaccinations. The statistics from America about the rise of child diseases such as measles and mumps is quite alarming.

So few tolerate such stupidity because they view this as just scare mongering and ignorant parents falling for money making schemes (the anti-vaccine industry makes millions each year).

Now just introduce a religious element. Oh it is my interpretation of the Bible. This is what God wants me to do to etc. Then all bets are off. Suddenly to criticize this is religious intolerance, suddenly not having any scientific or medical support for your position doesn't matter cause it is a religious belief, suddenly putting your child at risk based on an unsupported claim is perfectly socially acceptable.

This, particularly to an atheist and I hope to a Christian, is nuts. Why does have zero scientific support for your medical notions suddenly become a valid behavior just because you put "I think this is what God wants" in front of what ever crazy notion you arrive at.

I have no science to support this position but I think it is what God wants so I'm going to do it anyway.

is as valid a statement as

I have no science to support this position but I'm going to do it anyway.

They are the same statement.

robindch

philologos wrote: »

I think dealing with it in terms of essentiality to belief is a good way to tackle it.

Are you unhappy that Warren Jeffs was jailed for life for acting out his belief that it's ok to marry a 12-year old and shag her:

http://news.bostonherald.com/news/national/southwest/view/20110809warren_jeffs_sentenced_to_life_in_prison

I understand that Jeffs believed that shagging kids was "essential" for his religious beliefs.

gargleblaster

MrPudding wrote: »

Would you start a new thread about this? I would be interested in hearing about it.

MrP

Well seeing as how no one has yet confirmed that it has been discussed at length already, I am happy to to so.

philologos

robindch wrote: »

Are you unhappy that Warren Jeffs was jailed for life for acting out his belief that it's ok to marry a 12-year old and shag her:

http://news.bostonherald.com/news/national/southwest/view/20110809warren_jeffs_sentenced_to_life_in_prison

I understand that Jeffs believed that shagging kids was "essential" for his religious beliefs.

You have a knack for answering questions for which you quite clearly know the answer. The answer being that of course I'm not unhappy.

I think my point was pretty obvious in respect to this case. Instead of looking to the hijab looking to an example like this in the NHS quite recently would be enough. In that respect both should be scrapped.

Instead there are now two ways to argue against this:
1) It could be detrimental to others safety.
2) It is not essential to Christianity to not wear trousers if you're female.

Simple point.

Undergod

philologos wrote: »

Instead there are now two ways to argue against this:
1) It could be detrimental to others safety.
2) It is not essential to Christianity to not wear trousers if you're female.

Simple point.

She disagrees, and it's not for the court to tell her otherwise. Should the court tell, and should it be allowed tell, Christians whether transubstantiation is a part of their belief?

robindch

philologos wrote: »

Simple point.

Apparently not.

The crux of this matter is whether somebody can ignore state law simply because they believe it shouldn't apply to them.

I incline to the view that state law (ie, the common good) should be paramount. You, on the other hand, appear to incline to the view that somebody can do whatever they like, so long as they can produce a religious "reason" for it.

BTW, I've no idea whether you're being sarcastic about Jeffs or not -- Poe's law and all that. Bearing your post in mind, is it ok to assume that you're ok with 55-year old men having sex with 12-year-olds?

Penn

robindch wrote: »

BTW, I've no idea whether you're being sarcastic about Jeffs or not -- Poe's law and all that. Bearing your post in mind, is it ok to assume that you're ok with 55-year old men having sex with 12-year-olds?

I think you're misreading philologos' post (I did the same thing a few times)

You asked

robindch wrote:

Are you unhappy that Warren Jeffs was jailed for life for acting out his belief that it's ok to marry a 12-year old and shag her:

philologos replied

philologos wrote:

The answer being that of course I'm not unhappy.

Which means philologos is happy that he was jailed for life.

Though I agree with your point robindch. Both Jeffs and this woman are claiming that they are right due to their religious beliefs. But even other Christians disagree with this woman and think that it's okay to wear women's trousers. She is interpreting the Bible differently to them. Same way Jeffs interpreted his religion differently to others to mean he could marry and have sex with a 12 year old.

Both are varying degrees of the same point. Does the way a person interpret their own religion trump state law? And no, it cannot. Ever.

Now, I don't know if she was told she would never have to wear trousers and then the rules changed after she was employed or not, but working conditions change all the time. If having to wear trousers becomes a part of her job, she either has to accept that, ask to be given a different role where she won't have to wear trousers, or leave based on her religious beliefs. She isn't being persecuted because of her religious beliefs, she is being persecuted because she won't wear trousers. It just so happens that she won't wear trousers due to her religious beliefs

robindch

Barrington wrote: »

you're misreading philologos' post

Oops -- my mistake

In that case, why is phil happy that Jeffs was jailed?

In the post up above, he said that the criterion for whether an action should be acceptable is its "essentiality to belief". And in the FLDS belief system, shagging very young girls is an essential element of the religious belief.

Contradiction, no?

MrPudding

robindch wrote: »

Oops -- my mistake

In that case, why is phil happy that Jeffs was jailed?

In the post up above, he said that the criterion for whether an action should be acceptable is its "essentiality to belief". And in the FLDS belief system, shagging very young girls is an essential element of the religious belief.

Contradiction, no?

No it is not a contradiction because phil has decided that it is not essential to Jeffs' belief. It does not matter what Jeffs thinks is essential. In the same way that he decided that not wearing trousers is not essential to this woman's belief he has decided that not having sex with 12 year olds is not essential to Jeffs belief. No contradiction and really quite simple.

MrP

robindch

MrPudding wrote: »

No it is not a contradiction because phil has decided that it is not essential to Jeffs' belief. It does not matter what Jeffs thinks is essential.

Yes, I should have been clearer -- I was speaking from Jeffs view of Jeffs beliefs (underage sex is necessary), not phil's view of Jeffs beleif (underage sex is not necessary).

So, in that case, phil reckons it's ok for him to determine what are, and are not, essential elements of somebody else's religious beliefs.

Zombrex

philologos wrote: »

2) It is not essential to Christianity to not wear trousers if you're female.

It is not essential to a Christian to do ANYTHING Christian. They do it because they want to.

MrPudding

robindch wrote: »

Yes, I should have been clearer -- I was speaking from Jeffs view of Jeffs beliefs (underage sex is necessary), not phil's view of Jeffs beleif (underage sex is not necessary).

So, in that case, phil reckons it's ok for him to determine what are, and are not, essential elements of somebody else's religious beliefs.

Exactly. And because he is apparently quite capable and willing to do it then the courts should also be capable and willing to do it.

MrP

robindch

philologos wrote: »

I'm not deciding a persons belief.

Hmmm... Phil?

philologos

robindch wrote: »

Hmmm... Phil?

I'm not deciding on whether or not a person can believe X, Y or Z at all. I'm taking a stance on whether or not such a belief is essential to Christianity as a belief system rather than a belief held by a particular individual.

Deuteronomy 22:5 wrote:

A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor a man wear women’s clothing, for the LORD your God detests anyone who does this.

Actually, in this case it is easier to think about it because it comes down to asking:
Are trousers exclusively male clothing in Britain in 2011?

I think you're really clutching at straws here because we both agree as to what the outcome of this should be.

Genghiz Cohen

philologos wrote: »

Are trousers exclusively male clothing in Britain in 2011?

So what you're saying is that we have to read the bible, written ~2000 years ago, in the right context?:pac:

philologos

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

So what you're saying is that we have to read the bible, written ~2000 years ago, in the right context?:pac:

The logic is as follows:

1. The passage cited forbids people wearing the clothing of the opposite sex.
2. Trousers aren't either male or female clothing in Britain.
3. Therefore the passage doesn't forbid the wearing of trousers

Undergod

But can you see why that line of argument can't be used in court?

philologos

Undergod wrote: »

But can you see why that line of argument can't be used in court?

I don't see what's wrong about stating that it isn't essential to Christian belief.

Of course the main claim is that this will violate the safety of others but I don't see anything wrong with mentioning this.

ShooterSF

philologos wrote: »

I'm not deciding on whether or not a person can believe X, Y or Z at all. I'm taking a stance on whether or not such a belief is essential to Christianity as a belief system rather than a belief held by a particular individual.



Actually, in this case it is easier to think about it because it comes down to asking:
Are trousers exclusively male clothing in Britain in 2011?

I think you're really clutching at straws here because we both agree as to what the outcome of this should be.

Hardly. It's about looking at the bigger picture. If the courts dealt with the case in the way you are suggesting then there is justification for others to expect the courts to decide in such a way. This could be disastrous.

Giving my tongue in cheek comment above what if it actually happened weeks after a court decided that her claim was to be thrown out on the grounds that she was misinterpreting the bible. How about this passage,

"They found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day. ... And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones.... And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses."

You know that the right thing to do here is to ignore the bible and look to the law of the state because we don't allow such killings anymore (or the UK) but an argument cam be made that the courts only threw out a previous claim because the claimant had misinterpreted the bible and that the murderer should be afforded the same treatment. Th court would end up having to be versed in all manner of holy books.

The correct thing is to say state law developed by and passed by representatives of the public at large in a fair democratic state is the best compromise of all residents of the state irregardless of their personal beliefs on some laws (whether they get that opinion from a book or internally) and as such is the fairest set of laws for the nation to impose and follow and if one wishes to change the law they should seek support to change it not try and override it with their own belief.

Undergod

philologos wrote: »

I don't see what's wrong about stating that it isn't essential to Christian belief.

Of course the main claim is that this will violate the safety of others but I don't see anything wrong with mentioning this.

Because it amounts to the state telling people what they believe, and that is a threat to freedom of religion, and to the secularity of the state.

Genghiz Cohen

philologos wrote: »

The logic is as follows:

1. The passage cited forbids people wearing the clothing of the opposite sex.
2. Trousers aren't either male or female clothing in Britain.
3. Therefore the passage doesn't forbid the wearing of trousers

So if you could make any clothing for a woman, what's the point of the rule.
It's kind of like saying 'You naughty person, thou shalt not go where you are unable to go.'

And men decided that women could wear pants, are men smarter than God?

(No.)

philologos

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

So if you could make any clothing for a woman, what's the point of the rule.
It's kind of like saying 'You naughty person, thou shalt not go where you are unable to go.'

And men decided that women could wear pants, are men smarter than God?

(No.)

This is beyond the topic. I'm asking as to whether or not it is reasonable to use this passage to justify not wearing scrubs. The answer seems to me to be no.

As for why God commanded X that's a question for the Christianity forum.

Undergod: It is no more a violation than claiming that they shouldn't be allowed to wear a dress in the operating theatre. It isn't even constituting telling people what to believe. They can for all intents and purposes believe what they like.

Undergod

philologos wrote: »

Undergod: It is no more a violation than claiming that they shouldn't be allowed to wear a dress in the operating theatre. It isn't even constituting telling people what to believe. They can for all intents and purposes believe what they like.

How is it comparable to telling them they can't wear a dress? It is telling them their belief is invalid. And besides, do you see why the court of a secular country is not the place to interpret biblical passages?

philologos

Undergod wrote: »

How is it comparable to telling them they can't wear a dress? It is telling them their belief is invalid. And besides, do you see why the court of a secular country is not the place to interpret biblical passages?

How is it telling them their belief is invalid?

Condatis

How is a dress less hygienic than trousers?

MrPudding

philologos wrote: »

I'm not deciding on whether or not a person can believe X, Y or Z at all. I'm taking a stance on whether or not such a belief is essential to Christianity as a belief system rather than a belief held by a particular individual.



Actually, in this case it is easier to think about it because it comes down to asking:
Are trousers exclusively male clothing in Britain in 2011?

I think you're really clutching at straws here because we both agree as to what the outcome of this should be.

The outcome here is less important than the route taken to it.

Please read this case:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2010/B1.html

I mean seriously, please read it.

Condatis wrote: »

How is a dress less hygienic than trousers?

I don't have a medical background, but perhaps exposed skin or something like that...?

MrP