No hijabs need apply.

54and56

end of the road wrote: »

how do you know the candidates applying for an imaginary job in your imaginary business don't see what you are up to, and lie and tick "no" .

Because I imagine the imaginary candidates applying for imaginary jobs in my imaginary business would adhere to the doctrine professed by the imaginary being they believe in and tell the truth when completing the imaginary job application form and I imagine should they be successful and be granted an imaginary job in my imaginary business and it turn out at a later point I can't currently imagine that they do in fact confirm their belief in an imaginary being through the wearing of some image or other imaginary symbol I imagine I'd retrieve their imaginary job application form from my imaginary filling cabinet and use where they lied on the imaginary form to fire their imaginary ass.

Imagine that!!

end of the road wrote: »

but you don't know you aren't hiring people who believe in imaginary beings, because they will be clicking no on your question form or whatever it is you have

Imagine making the same silly point twice in the one post?

Samaris

The whole thing is daft and illogical, but okay, whatever floats your boat. Unless you're the head of Atheist Ireland, which is one of the few places I can see one's belief or lack thereof in a deity being remotely relevant.

Getting back to stuff that's actually happening, if it's the headscarf being banned rather than the full-body burqa, I'm more against that. I don't agree with the face-coverings in the context of our society, but hair-coverings have been part of our society for centuries. It's only fairly recently they've fallen out of favour. The hijab doesn't hurt anyone and is far more comparable to a kippah or even a crucifix than the other is.

Neh, I'm back on the other side of the debate. If people want to wear small emblems of their religion or something else important to them, doesn't bother me. It's when it's actively getting in the way of interacting with and being part of society that it's more of a problem. The headscarf doesn't, any more than the crucifix does.

(This doesn't remotely change that I would prefer religion out of public life, mind. Just I'm not going to attack or even think less of someone who wants to quietly get on with their own religion and isn't harming anyone doing so.)

Widdershins

Samaris wrote: »

The whole thing is daft and illogical, but okay, whatever floats your boat. Unless you're the head of Atheist Ireland, which is one of the few places I can see one's belief or lack thereof in a deity being remotely relevant.

Getting back to stuff that's actually happening, if it's the headscarf being banned rather than the full-body burqa, I'm more against that. I don't agree with the face-coverings in the context of our society, but hair-coverings have been part of our society for centuries. It's only fairly recently they've fallen out of favour. The hijab doesn't hurt anyone and is far more comparable to a kippah or even a crucifix than the other is.

Neh, I'm back on the other side of the debate. If people want to wear small emblems of their religion or something else important to them, doesn't bother me. It's when it's actively getting in the way of interacting with and being part of society that it's more of a problem. The headscarf doesn't, any more than the crucifix does.

(This doesn't remotely change that I would prefer religion out of public life, mind. Just I'm not going to attack or even think less of someone who wants to quietly get on with their own religion and isn't harming anyone doing so.)

Hair coverings fell out of favour when society realised women weren't an underclass and stopped expected them to dress like one. With the hair coverings, went a lot of other oppressive and subjugating nonsense and we're well rid of it. Sadly a few people think the prevalence of dressed down teenagers on a Saturday night is indicative of a need to go back forty years to a culture we've left behind for the better.
The hijab is far less worrying or oppressive than full coverings but it's not true at all to say it does no harm. I've already pointed to Iran and similar societies where the hijab is the tip of the iceberg.

As for the ''trauma'' of being asked to remove the hijab. Look at WHY it should be traumatic. No girl should be brought up to believe her chastity or modesty or respectability lies with the concealment of her hair, as if she's shameful with it on show. Let alone should they grow up to be women who cannot leave their house to go to a job because of the ''shame'' and ''trauma'' they've been brainwashed and had inflicted on them by the over importance placed on a bit of cloth! Nor should they ever feel in danger or at risk if they're not covered up ''modestly, as is the case in stricter regions. The idea is despicable!

Comparing it to the distress of having a bald head uncovered after losing hair to a medical condition is not right. It's perfectly natural to feel distressed at the effect of an illness on your appearance. It's basically the opposite of what's happening to women shamed into having to wear hijab. How can other women not see this?

In many cultures women are proud of their hair and they bloody well should be, too.

Samaris

I agree that women should be able to show their hair if they want.

On the other hand, I agree that women should be able to show their breasts if they want. Seriously, what's the issue? They are not really sexual organs, certainly not in the same way that genitalia are, and in looks are just larger versions of what men are freely allowed to show for the most part. But try getting that through in Ireland! And then try legistlating that women must always have their breasts bare. Apart from the idiots, most people would feel that that was a ridiculous imposition on the daily lives of people who should be allowed to cover their damn breasts if they want.

But we don't. Because, amongst other things (and relatively few things at that), modesty.

And when we go to their original countries and experience their local customs regarding our appearance, we oblige them... that's the price of being there. Why is it so difficult to expect the same thing here?

I don't see any mad rush for them to accept western cultural behavior in their homes. Why this rush to accept all forms of foreign culture in Europe?

Shenshen

Deleted User wrote: »

And when we go to their original countries and experience their local customs regarding our appearance, we oblige them... that's the price of being there. Why is it so difficult to expect the same thing here?

I don't see any mad rush for them to accept western cultural behavior in their homes. Why this rush to accept all forms of foreign culture in Europe?

I don't know about you, but I prefer to live somewhere that doesn't dictate how I dress. And doesn't dictate it to anyone else, either.

That's why, generally, people in the Western world can either run around in torn jeans with one bollock hanging out, or wrapped up in an abaya. I don't want to force people to undress any more than I want to force them to cover up.

Widdershins

Samaris wrote: »

I agree that women should be able to show their hair if they want.

On the other hand, I agree that women should be able to show their breasts if they want. Seriously, what's the issue? They are not really sexual organs, certainly not in the same way that genitalia are, and in looks are just larger versions of what men are freely allowed to show for the most part. But try getting that through in Ireland! And then try legistlating that women must always have their breasts bare. Apart from the idiots, most people would feel that that was a ridiculous imposition on the daily lives of people who should be allowed to cover their damn breasts if they want.

But we don't. Because, amongst other things (and relatively few things at that), modesty.

Well breasts are secondary sexual organs. Their primary purpose is to feed babies and we can do so uncovered in our society, with no objection except from more old fashioned people, but still no repercussions from society or family. In some cases there are repercussions for women expected to cover their hair, as has been said already r.e going to work. So compare like with like. We have some unwritten modesty rules, but we don't need to start treating women as a whole as sexual objects to be covered up. Or men as lacking in control at the sight of uncovered women. That would be regressive. Some Western women believe there should be no modesty rules around breasts, see: free the nipple type marches and campaigns. Comparisons to men being allowed to go shirtless.

Just editing to add I don't want people to be forced to uncover either. But I object to the thinking behind the covering up. And I object when women are pressured to cover.

end of the road

Deleted User wrote: »

And when we go to their original countries and experience their local customs regarding our appearance, we oblige them... that's the price of being there. Why is it so difficult to expect the same thing here?

I don't see any mad rush for them to accept western cultural behavior in their homes. Why this rush to accept all forms of foreign culture in Europe?

because europe is democratic and respects freedom for all. that includes the freedom not to be forced into taking part in local customs and traditions and being forced to appear in a certain way without good reason. IE a job requires it or a school uniform would be good reasons. i don't like it wouldn't be a good reason. it also allows people to take part in almost whatever they want to, as long as they don't harm others.
it's not just "they" whoever "they" are who don't accept western anything, some western people don't accept certain things belonging to western culture either. some not accepting something doesn't justify the rest of us behaving in the same way.
also, "their" original countries are in some cases, european countries, having been born here.

Widdershins wrote: »

Well breasts are secondary sexual organs. Their primary purpose is to feed babies and we can do so uncovered in our society, with no objection except from more old fashioned people, but still no repercussions from society or family. In some cases there are repercussions for women expected to cover their hair, as has been said already r.e going to work. So compare like with like. We have some unwritten modesty rules, but we don't need to start treating women as a whole as sexual objects to be covered up. Or men as lacking in control at the sight of uncovered women. That would be regressive. Some Western women believe there should be no modesty rules around breasts, see: free the nipple type marches and campaigns. Comparisons to men being allowed to go shirtless.

Just editing to add I don't want people to be forced to uncover either. But I object to the thinking behind the covering up. And I object when women are pressured to cover.

i also object to women being forced to cover up and the thinking behind it. i always have done so. it's wrong. you won't find anyone disagreeing on that. however, i also recognise that some women do wish to fully cover up for whatever reason and they should be able to do so. it has to be up to them. if any evidence of pressuring is going on, then insure there is a law to deal with it. but things like birqa banns and any other nonsense are not the answer and are counter-productive as they actually cause more issues to the people they are designed to help, assuming they are actually designed and put in place to help people rather then simply being put in place for racial and discriminatory reasons.

biko

Any Irish working in UK can relax.
Breixt means that staff can still wear religious symbols there.

Shenshen

Shenshen wrote: »

I don't know about you, but I prefer to live somewhere that doesn't dictate how I dress. And doesn't dictate it to anyone else, either.

And you are already living in such a place.

That's why, generally, people in the Western world can either run around in torn jeans with one bollock hanging out, or wrapped up in an abaya. I don't want to force people to undress any more than I want to force them to cover up.

Ditto... however I do consider that western cultural habits should be the rule of thumb for Europe... Dress per the national customs. That's generally the case in most countries I've travelled to.

But I remember the districts of Frankfurt where the Turks lived which didn't have german writing, and everyone there spoke a different lanaguage. I've seen the same in other European cities... and with the increased migration, I see that happening more often. With worldwide migration set to increase, and no real plan of how to stop it, I see many more migrants coming to Europe.

So, when do we decide that integration is needed? After we've given them all the freedoms/rights they want? Taking away a right/freedom is far more difficult than stopping it from happening in the first place.

I see the regulation as a step towards seeking integration. A measure towards integration happening peacefully, and then the rules can be relaxed over time.

ohnonotgmail

Deleted User wrote: »

And you are already living in such a place.



Ditto... however I do consider that western cultural habits should be the rule of thumb for Europe... Dress per the national customs. That's generally the case in most countries I've travelled to.

But I remember the districts of Frankfurt where the Turks lived which didn't have german writing, and everyone there spoke a different lanaguage. I've seen the same in other European cities... and with the increased migration, I see that happening more often. With worldwide migration set to increase, and no real plan of how to stop it, I see many more migrants coming to Europe.

So, when do we decide that integration is needed? After we've given them all the freedoms/rights they want? Taking away a right/freedom is far more difficult than stopping it from happening in the first place.

I see the regulation as a step towards seeking integration. A measure towards integration happening peacefully, and then the rules can be relaxed over time.

so on one hand you think you live in a place where people should not be dictated to on dress yet a couple sentences later you want to dictate how certain people dress?

ohnonotgmail

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

so on one hand you think you live in a place where people should not be dictated to on dress yet a couple sentences later you want to dictate how certain people dress?

Nope. Native Europeans wouldn't be affected much by this. I've accepted that lifestyle in 7 different nations which had social or legal laws against types of behavior. It's not that much of an inconvenience if you really want to live in that environment. Seems reasonable to me.

But then we're on opposing ends.

ohnonotgmail

Deleted User wrote: »

Nope. Native Europeans wouldn't be affected much by this. I've accepted that lifestyle in 7 different nations which had social or legal laws against types of behavior. It's not that much of an inconvenience if you really want to live in that environment. Seems reasonable to me.

But then we're on opposing ends.

so its thinly veiled discrimination then? Unless you think we should ban nuns from wearing their habit in public?

end of the road

Deleted User wrote: »

And you are already living in such a place.



Ditto... however I do consider that western cultural habits should be the rule of thumb for Europe... Dress per the national customs. That's generally the case in most countries I've travelled to.

But I remember the districts of Frankfurt where the Turks lived which didn't have german writing, and everyone there spoke a different lanaguage. I've seen the same in other European cities... and with the increased migration, I see that happening more often. With worldwide migration set to increase, and no real plan of how to stop it, I see many more migrants coming to Europe.

So, when do we decide that integration is needed? After we've given them all the freedoms/rights they want? Taking away a right/freedom is far more difficult than stopping it from happening in the first place.

I see the regulation as a step towards seeking integration. A measure towards integration happening peacefully, and then the rules can be relaxed over time.

assuming you are talking about the recent court ruling, the "regulation" always existed, and the ruling was simply a clarification of it. there is no new regulation.

Shenshen

Deleted User wrote: »

And you are already living in such a place.



Ditto... however I do consider that western cultural habits should be the rule of thumb for Europe... Dress per the national customs. That's generally the case in most countries I've travelled to.

But I remember the districts of Frankfurt where the Turks lived which didn't have german writing, and everyone there spoke a different lanaguage. I've seen the same in other European cities... and with the increased migration, I see that happening more often. With worldwide migration set to increase, and no real plan of how to stop it, I see many more migrants coming to Europe.

So, when do we decide that integration is needed? After we've given them all the freedoms/rights they want? Taking away a right/freedom is far more difficult than stopping it from happening in the first place.

I see the regulation as a step towards seeking integration. A measure towards integration happening peacefully, and then the rules can be relaxed over time.

So we should all be free to choose what to wear, as long as we choose to dress per the national costume? I'm not sure you've really grasped the concept of "choice" there.

Since you chose Germany as an example - when travelling there, you will also see writing in Gothic print, you may well even come across some Sutterlin. Some people might be able to guess at the Gothic, but Sutterlin will be a challenge for many. Yet both form part of the culture of the place, as does some Turkish, some Russian, etc.

I am German myself, and being from the South I've had moments when I seriously (and I mean SERIOUSLY) struggled to understand locals in Cologne and Hamburg. Northern German in particular has more in common with Danish and Dutch than with Southern German. And I'm not even going into the South-Western and Swiss language families.
It's part of the fabric of society, multiple languages are a fact of life, they are cherished and valued and bring colour and vibrancy.

ohnonotgmail

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

so its thinly veiled discrimination then? Unless you think we should ban nuns from wearing their habit in public?

Yup.

ohnonotgmail

Deleted User wrote: »

Yup.

why? what do you think that would achieve?

Graces7

Samaris wrote: »

The whole thing is daft and illogical, but okay, whatever floats your boat. Unless you're the head of Atheist Ireland, which is one of the few places I can see one's belief or lack thereof in a deity being remotely relevant.

Getting back to stuff that's actually happening, if it's the headscarf being banned rather than the full-body burqa, I'm more against that. I don't agree with the face-coverings in the context of our society, but hair-coverings have been part of our society for centuries. It's only fairly recently they've fallen out of favour. The hijab doesn't hurt anyone and is far more comparable to a kippah or even a crucifix than the other is.

Neh, I'm back on the other side of the debate. If people want to wear small emblems of their religion or something else important to them, doesn't bother me. It's when it's actively getting in the way of interacting with and being part of society that it's more of a problem. The headscarf doesn't, any more than the crucifix does.

(This doesn't remotely change that I would prefer religion out of public life, mind. Just I'm not going to attack or even think less of someone who wants to quietly get on with their own religion and isn't harming anyone doing so.)

Thank you so very, very much.

No employer has the right to ask about my faith etc. All a good employer should ask is about my skills,my qualifications for the job, my references and history in the work.

Anything else is private, personal, and a quiz such as is suggested is automatically discriminatory.

And any person with any sense being presented with i that ? Tear it up and head for the door. And report them to the proper authorities

Graces7

222233 wrote: »

it's to do with an employment situation though, it's not an attack on an individuals circumstances if a business have a dress code, granted I'm sure in certain situations they may be lenient with staff like in the case you described where you would feel degraded. But in some jobs it just can't be allowed, I can't wear a hat to work, no one where I work can wear a hat because of the nature of our job, sometimes I would like to dress a certain way or maybe wear a hat but I just can't and so I don't thats how it is.

In terms of hygiene that's dependant on the material and the personal hygiene of the person wearing it.

I think you have misread and misunderstood what I wrote. I hope so

ohnonotgmail

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

why? what do you think that would achieve?

Oddly enough. You got me. All the arguments I had didn't seem so... I definitely need to think more on this. Cheers.

Samaris

Widdershins wrote: »

Well breasts are secondary sexual organs. Their primary purpose is to feed babies and we can do so uncovered in our society, with no objection except from more old fashioned people, but still no repercussions from society or family. In some cases there are repercussions for women expected to cover their hair, as has been said already r.e going to work. So compare like with like. We have some unwritten modesty rules, but we don't need to start treating women as a whole as sexual objects to be covered up. Or men as lacking in control at the sight of uncovered women. That would be regressive. Some Western women believe there should be no modesty rules around breasts, see: free the nipple type marches and campaigns. Comparisons to men being allowed to go shirtless.

Just editing to add I don't want people to be forced to uncover either. But I object to the thinking behind the covering up. And I object when women are pressured to cover.

What is the thinking? Modesty? Taking it down to its most basic, it is -intended- to be something between a Muslim woman and her God and if it's freely worn, that's fine by me. You can't ban a religious symbol worn by someone who chooses it and expect the response to be "gosh, I was being repressed, thank heavens for these enlightened Westerners to strip me of a piece of clothing I feel exposed without and telling me it's for my own good and to be proud of my hair", which is rather the opposite of modesty on top of it! (I definitely wouldn't expect the "gosh" anyway.)

That breasts are "secondary sexual characteristics" doesn't actually mean much. It just means they develop during puberty. Sure, it indicates a physical ability to be sexually active, but it's only one indication. So is the woman's general shape after puberty (or a man's if it comes to that). Body hair is a secondary sexual characteristic and we don't all faint if we see someone's hairy legs!

That women cover their breasts in our society is a societal general choice for the sake of modesty (and in our climate, warmth) and not really a hundred miles from covering the hair for modesty. It's not even really by "choice", it's just one of those things.

I don't believe that women in Europe should be -forced- to cover their hair. I also don't believe that women in Europe should be -forced- to uncover their hair, particularly when it means something more to certain women than others. The burqa is a rather different matter as it puts a physical (and societal) barrier between a woman and being part of European society. And I worry that doing it fast and harshly, just banning it suddenly, is counter-productive and also would never have happened if it wasn't for the acts of ISIS and the general mistrust of Muslims on the heels of it. Now it's particularly a push against Islam - you can stay if you show as little indication that you follow this religion that scares me. It's worse when it's being done while people are calling for a complete ban on Muslims, or a ban on Islam being practiced. It really just ends up looking like an attack on these women and I would, in their place, not be able to help feeling nervous about what the next step is. Doesn't matter if we don't actually have one, it's very understandable to see it as a first step to getting rid of Islam (or Muslims) altogether in the current climate, especially since the reasoning just doesn't apply to many Muslim women currently living in Europe. Read the news from the perspective of a Muslim woman that's just getting on with her life and isn't being oppressed. You might feel like oppression's coming by the time you're done.

For every woman it "frees"*, it merely embarrasses or humiliates another. And it won't solve the problem of women being forced to be subservient, it might even make it worse in the short to middle term.

*If by "frees", you mean place someone in an awkward situation where they break their own (pretty harmless) societal custom in front of their own people to conform to ours under threat of punishment, yet ignore any of the more harmful issues that may be mixed in around it, leaving them to face disapproval from either their own people, ours, or both, whatever they do about it. Especially when our religious women (nuns) do the same thing, only with something that looks like a burqa too!

Widdershins

Samaris wrote: »

What is the thinking? Modesty? Taking it down to its most basic, it is -intended- to be something between a Muslim woman and her God and if it's freely worn, that's fine by me. You can't ban a religious symbol worn by someone who chooses it and expect the response to be "gosh, I was being repressed, thank heavens for these enlightened Westerners to strip me of a piece of clothing I feel exposed without and telling me it's for my own good and to be proud of my hair", which is rather the opposite of modesty on top of it! (I definitely wouldn't expect the "gosh" anyway.)

That breasts are "secondary sexual characteristics" doesn't actually mean much. It just means they develop during puberty. Sure, it indicates a physical ability to be sexually active, but it's only one indication. So is the woman's general shape after puberty (or a man's if it comes to that). Body hair is a secondary sexual characteristic and we don't all faint if we see someone's hairy legs!

That women cover their breasts in our society is a societal general choice for the sake of modesty (and in our climate, warmth) and not really a hundred miles from covering the hair for modesty. It's not even really by "choice", it's just one of those things.

I don't believe that women in Europe should be -forced- to cover their hair. I also don't believe that women in Europe should be -forced- to uncover their hair, particularly when it means something more to certain women than others. The burqa is a rather different matter as it puts a physical (and societal) barrier between a woman and being part of European society. And I worry that doing it fast and harshly, just banning it suddenly, is counter-productive and also would never have happened if it wasn't for the acts of ISIS and the general mistrust of Muslims on the heels of it. Now it's particularly a push against Islam - you can stay if you show as little indication that you follow this religion that scares me. It's worse when it's being done while people are calling for a complete ban on Muslims, or a ban on Islam being practiced. It really just ends up looking like an attack on these women and I would, in their place, not be able to help feeling nervous about what the next step is. Doesn't matter if we don't actually have one, it's very understandable to see it as a first step to getting rid of Islam (or Muslims) altogether in the current climate, especially since the reasoning just doesn't apply to many Muslim women currently living in Europe. Read the news from the perspective of a Muslim woman that's just getting on with her life and isn't being oppressed. You might feel like oppression's coming by the time you're done.

For every woman it "frees"*, it merely embarrasses or humiliates another. And it won't solve the problem of women being forced to be subservient, it might even make it worse in the short to middle term.

*If by "frees", you mean place someone in an awkward situation where they break their own (pretty harmless) societal custom in front of their own people to conform to ours under threat of punishment, yet ignore any of the more harmful issues that may be mixed in around it, leaving them to face disapproval from either their own people, ours, or both, whatever they do about it. Especially when our religious women (nuns) do the same thing, only with something that looks like a burqa too!

Sorry, what is ''it''? A burqua ban?


I wasn't aware anyone was discussing forcefully making anyone unveil, or banning things?

I'm confused as to what you mean but no, I don't think this ruling is a ''push against islam''. It's supposed to apply to all religions and their symbols and uniforms.

54and56

Samaris wrote: »

What is the thinking? Modesty? Taking it down to its most basic, it is -intended- to be something between a Muslim woman and her God and if it's freely worn, that's fine by me. You can't ban a religious symbol worn by someone who chooses it and expect the response to be "gosh, I was being repressed, thank heavens for these enlightened Westerners to strip me of a piece of clothing I feel exposed without and telling me it's for my own good and to be proud of my hair", which is rather the opposite of modesty on top of it! (I definitely wouldn't expect the "gosh" anyway.)

That breasts are "secondary sexual characteristics" doesn't actually mean much. It just means they develop during puberty. Sure, it indicates a physical ability to be sexually active, but it's only one indication. So is the woman's general shape after puberty (or a man's if it comes to that). Body hair is a secondary sexual characteristic and we don't all faint if we see someone's hairy legs!

That women cover their breasts in our society is a societal general choice for the sake of modesty (and in our climate, warmth) and not really a hundred miles from covering the hair for modesty. It's not even really by "choice", it's just one of those things.

I don't believe that women in Europe should be -forced- to cover their hair. I also don't believe that women in Europe should be -forced- to uncover their hair, particularly when it means something more to certain women than others. The burqa is a rather different matter as it puts a physical (and societal) barrier between a woman and being part of European society. And I worry that doing it fast and harshly, just banning it suddenly, is counter-productive and also would never have happened if it wasn't for the acts of ISIS and the general mistrust of Muslims on the heels of it. Now it's particularly a push against Islam - you can stay if you show as little indication that you follow this religion that scares me. It's worse when it's being done while people are calling for a complete ban on Muslims, or a ban on Islam being practiced. It really just ends up looking like an attack on these women and I would, in their place, not be able to help feeling nervous about what the next step is. Doesn't matter if we don't actually have one, it's very understandable to see it as a first step to getting rid of Islam (or Muslims) altogether in the current climate, especially since the reasoning just doesn't apply to many Muslim women currently living in Europe. Read the news from the perspective of a Muslim woman that's just getting on with her life and isn't being oppressed. You might feel like oppression's coming by the time you're done.

For every woman it "frees"*, it merely embarrasses or humiliates another. And it won't solve the problem of women being forced to be subservient, it might even make it worse in the short to middle term.

*If by "frees", you mean place someone in an awkward situation where they break their own (pretty harmless) societal custom in front of their own people to conform to ours under threat of punishment, yet ignore any of the more harmful issues that may be mixed in around it, leaving them to face disapproval from either their own people, ours, or both, whatever they do about it. Especially when our religious women (nuns) do the same thing, only with something that looks like a burqa too!

The issue being discussed here relates to religious symbolisim in the workplace and the employers right to define what clothing staff must wear or not wear including jewellery etc. No one is suggesting (that I'm aware of) that in their own free time people shouldn't be free to wear what they like.

Let's assume I decide tomorrow that I wish to dedicate my life to Clíodhna the Irish goddess of love and beauty and to express my devotion to her I'm going to strap a 12" dildo onto my head. Should I have a right to wear my chosen religious symbol when serving customers in McDonalds?

Mountainsandh

Also, religious Muslim head coverings have now become political statements.
When the burkini debate was emerging in France, I think this became more obvious. Women who previously would have had no inclination to wear a burkini at the beach clamoured they were being repressed. How do I know that ? Because I spent my childhood and early adulthood summers frequenting beaches in the South of France where young ladies of all creeds would wear bikinis. The only odd people you'd see covered would have been older ladies).

I'm always reminded of the images of Iranian ladies and gents up until the 1970s whenever these discussions arise.

I think this political dimension is strong, and part of the reason why tolerance for such displays is low in France and continental Europe ATM, especially so in a professional setting.

Samaris

I may have confused threads - there had been talk about a ban having come in. It is possible that this was another thread though.

Widdershins

Samaris wrote: »

I may have confused threads - there had been talk about a ban having come in. It is possible that this was another thread though.

I think I read somewhere that an Austrian town had banned the wearing of the Burqa recently

pilly

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

I don't ask anyone what their religion is. I ask if they believe in a selection of imaginary beings one of which is loosely described as "god". Anyone ticking any of the boxes doesn't proceed any further in the interview process. I don't discriminate between people who believe in the loch ness monster, leprechauns or god.

I don't want any employees who blindly believe in something for which there is no evidence. I need to be able to trust that they will assess situations based on the available evidence and make decisions which will impact (positively or potentially negatively) my business. End of.

People who are happy to make decisions based on some form of "trust me" are of no value to me.

You mean you actually do this or in your imagination you do?

Personally if someone asked me to fill in such an absurd questionnaire I wouldn't bother sitting through an interview process. I'd imagine 95% of people would feel the same.

Literally, I would sit in the waiting room thinking "is this guy cracked in the head, I'm out of here". And that's whether I believed in any or all of the options.

Widdershins

pilly wrote: »

You mean you actually do this or in your imagination you do?

Personally if someone asked me to fill in such an absurd questionnaire I wouldn't bother sitting through an interview process. I'd imagine 95% of people would feel the same.

Literally, I would sit in the waiting room thinking "is this guy cracked in the head, I'm out of here". And that's whether I believed in any or all of the options.

I wouldn't fill out the part of a questionaire asking about religious beliefs,for a job, but I'd keep any religious or symbolic items discretely hidden or I wouldn't wear them, because religion does not need to be expressed in the workplace, schools, hospitals or in public, it should be a private matter unless you are a nun attending to religious patients in a hospital or the community, in which case naturally your uniform is part of the job.
There is no grounds to complain about employers asserting the right to refude to allow religious attire or jewellery (if ostentaitous or prominent, if invisibly worn under a blouse, that's different) in their workplace. It's not an infringement of rights in any way and not an attack on any religion. This is a fuss about nothing.

More than 30 people were either killed or crippled or injured a couple of days thanks to religion and what it has made some people think, that's something to complain about. We don't need religious beliefs shoved down our throats, it should be private.

challengemaster

Samaris wrote: »

And while that is so, the ability to accept that people are different and private beliefs have no impact on the job done makes for a much more successful workplace.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/acp.3248/abstract

The results showed that religious and paranormal (supernatural) beliefs correlated with all variables that were included: low systemizing, poor intuitive physics skills, poor mechanical ability, poor mental rotation, low school grades in mathematics and physics, poor common knowledge about physical and biological phenomena, intuitive and analytical thinking styles, and in particular, with assigning mentality to non-mental phenomena. Regression analyses indicated that the strongest predictors of the beliefs were overall physical capability (a factor representing most physical skills, interests, and knowledge) and intuitive thinking style.

The researchers concluded, “Nonscientific ways of thinking are resistant to formal instruction…” adding that this can “affect individuals’ ability to act as informed citizens to make reasoned judgments in a world that is increasingly governed by technology and scientific knowledge.”

That sounds like something that might have an impact on a job.

54and56

pilly wrote: »

You mean you actually do this or in your imagination you do?

Personally if someone asked me to fill in such an absurd questionnaire I wouldn't bother sitting through an interview process. I'd imagine 95% of people would feel the same.

Literally, I would sit in the waiting room thinking "is this guy cracked in the head, I'm out of here". And that's whether I believed in any or all of the options.

I only employ people who make decisions based on the evidence in front of them. People who either confirm they believe in makey uppey beings or don't answer the question are of no use to me. People reacting as you have outlined means the question is dong it's job nicely. It helps to weed out people I would otherwise have wasted my time interviewing.