View Full Version : Veils, Crucifixes, what next?

7th Oct 2006, 16:38
In the same week as the Jack Straw veil story is running and running, I noticed an item in one of the papers about the following:

Newsreader Fiona Bruce has been noticed wearing a small cross on her necklace whilst reading the News. Apparently a BBC meeting discussed whether this should be allowed as it could indicate that she favours one religion over another and this might cause offence or impact upon the supposed impartiality of the BBC.

Has this country finally gone mad that full face veils are acceptable because it's a religious requirement and there is free choice, but that wearing a discreet piece of jewellery is not allowed in case it offends others including those who choose to wear veils?:ugh:

7th Oct 2006, 16:43
S'funny, I don't remember any veiled newsreaders.

tony draper
7th Oct 2006, 16:48
Well yer wouldn't expect the Baghdad Broadcasting Company to be very fond of crosses would you?

7th Oct 2006, 18:27
Funnily enuff, the g/f wears a five pointed star in a circle, which sits quite nicely on her bosum.:ok: It covers the "Five Elements, and the Circle of Life"
She has been asked fairly often "Are you Jewish, then"
"No that has six points"
"Oh, what's that, then?"
"A Pentagram"
Some peeps go quite pale when she explains the "Symbology" :eek:

7th Oct 2006, 21:15
Here in France they recently banned all ,overt, religious symbols in education establishments run by the State. No headscarves, no crucifixes, no skull caps no nothing. The best way to get rid of religious symbolism is to start with the children and work up. If you want the state to pay for your childrens education in France then it's going to be in a secular environment, if you don't like that you can pay for a private education. If you don't pay for the private education but withold your kids from attending school then you'll be prosecuted by the authorities. I think the French have got this one absolutely correct.

For info France, unlike the UK, is a republic and officially a secular state. In the UK the Head of State is also the head of the Church of England.

There are also precedents for secular states in predominantly muslim countries, like Turkey for example. When Ataturk founded the Turkish Republic it was, and still is, a secular state, he banned the wearing of headscarves by women (and the fez by men), in fact it was a capital offence to wear a headscarf and anyone caught doing so was hanged from the nearest tree without trial or recourse. This was obviously barbaric but you can't say that in Turkey as it's an offence to criticise Ataturk or 'Turkishness' Ataturk died in the 1930's from alcoholism, though it's also an offence in Turkey to phrase it like that....

7th Oct 2006, 22:34
I think the French have got this one absolutely correct.

Agreed, and that's the way it should be in the UK.

Doubt any of the mainstream parties would have the guts.

Howard Hughes
7th Oct 2006, 22:50
S'funny, I don't remember any veiled newsreaders.
Interestingly, I haven't even seen any on Al Jazeera!:ok:

Veils that is.

7th Oct 2006, 23:06
I agree 100% Frostbite, the Brits should definately follow the same road. I also agree that none of the mainstream parties would have the guts to do so.

With regard to Turkey, a secular country but with about a 98% muslim population, today it is still prohibited for women to wear headscarves in public buildings. Ataturks methods were extreme (and it should be remembered that the value of life in the 1920's and 30's was somewhat different than today's) but his idea of where a predominantly muslim country should stand in the world had immense vision, it's unfortunate that the leaders (dictators) of some present day muslim countries are unable to demonstrate similar vision.

8th Oct 2006, 03:41
he banned the wearing of headscarves by women (and the fez by men), what? even for Tommy Cooper? :confused:

8th Oct 2006, 11:41
Why is it (I'm an Atheist btw) that I can't help thinking about all of these religions in terms of the "naughty schoolboy"? I think that they're all just as bad as each other. This re-enforces my belief that the State & the church (which ever one it is) should be separated completely. Then if all of these religions can't behave & be nice to each other then we'll have none! - said in a slightly patronising & school masterly way!?!?!

Now ducks for incoming flack! :E

tony draper
8th Oct 2006, 12:48
One sincerily hopes will not stop us abductees wearing our tinfoil caps.
:uhoh: :rolleyes:

8th Oct 2006, 13:36
its a pity the weak livered politicians cannot do summat more serious like banning the barbaric practice of mutilating young boys in the name of religion. ie circumcision.
rather than piss about banning veils etc...

my egyptian friend, told me of his own horrific circumcision when he was about 11 yrs old. i was absolutely appalled.

words cannot describe how i feel about this stone age practice.

8th Oct 2006, 18:00
Ask any politician! - they'll cut off their nose to spite their face in a moment - especially if there are votes in it!

8th Oct 2006, 18:30
Now, as a "minority"...[a motorcyclist] I am "required" to remove my headgear when going into a bank or even paying for petrol [with CASH] :ugh:
Do I have a "Human Rights" case that the Wicked Witch will take up on my behalf, do I :mad: :mad: