The ArchBishop's Hypocrisy

AnyOldIron

AnyOldIron

Atheist Missionary
The Archbishop of Canterbury has entered the Muslim veil debate by saying people should be free to wear visible religious symbols.
Dr Rowan Williams said aiming for a society where no symbols such as veils, crosses, sidelocks or turbans would be seen was "politically dangerous".

It would treat the state as a "central licensing authority" which creates public morality, he told the Times.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6089988.stm

What hypocrisy! The church has been a "central licensing authority" which creates public morality for centuries.

This bitch is just pissed off that someone else is getting in on his racket.
 
i agree with him, government can not determine what you should wear or not wear, via laws.... and they never should be able to do this, outside of decency in public laws, for the protection of our children.

and sure the ''church'' has had its say on how their parishioners dress, but guess what? you don't get arrested for not following their church dress code requirements and with freedom of religion, you can change religion if you don't agree with them.
 
i agree with him, government can not determine what you should wear or not wear, via laws.... and they never should be able to do this, outside of decency in public laws, for the protection of our children.

This comes from a recent case where a Muslim class assistant was suspended for wearing a full veil whilst assisting with teaching children. When you wear a full veil, you cannot communicate properly, so she was damaging the children's prospects. She then through a wobbly fit, claiming descrimination as the religious always do.

Religion and religious concepts shouldn't be protected. They aren't like race, where an individual has no choice, they are a set of ideas and thus should be afforded no protection.

and sure the ''church'' has had its say on how their parishioners dress, but guess what? you don't get arrested for not following their church dress code requirements and with freedom of religion, you can change religion if you don't agree with them.

It is only since the rise of secularism that this has been the case. Until recently I could have been executed by the church for my views. I can still be arrested for blasphemy.

But that is beside the point. The Archbishop is being hypocritical, by stating that government shouldn't impose morality, when he and his church has been imposing their twisted morality for milenia.
 
I think the distinction teaching 'Assistant' is an important one . Would you have the same problem with a tape recorder being used to assist in teaching ??! Or would your argument be the same?
 
I think the distinction teaching 'Assistant' is an important one . Would you have the same problem with a tape recorder being used to assist in teaching ??! Or would your argument be the same?

Teaching Assistants have a specific role in the classroom, providing face to face support for children.

There is no comparison between the role of a tape recorder and a TA.

The majority of human communication is silent, conducted by body and facial language. This women could not have performed her duties as a TA whilst wearing the veil.
 
I have to wonder did you hear this TA explaining that she was happy to reveal her face in front of her students but not in front of male coworkers - of course if this was more publicised then I dont suppose we would all be able to get so worked up about it
 
I have to wonder did you hear this TA explaining that she was happy to reveal her face in front of her students but not in front of male coworkers - of course if this was more publicised then I dont suppose we would all be able to get so worked up about it

Then she still cannot do her job if she is assisting a male teacher.

She is also hypocritical, arriving for her interview (with males) for the job without the veil and only putting it on in classroom.
 
I would like to think that we could all be inclusive and flexible enough to work around this . I think the benefits to children of being exposed to a wide range of cultures and beliefs would far outweigh any minor scheduling issues that would arrise to allow this TA to work with female staff
 
I would like to think that we could all be inclusive and flexible enough to work around this . I think the benefits to children of being exposed to a wide range of cultures and beliefs would far outweigh any minor scheduling issues that would arrise to allow this TA to work with female staff

Cultures yes, beliefs no. Religion has no place in the classroom. The class was made up of children from a wide range of cultures anyway.

As for rescheduling, in small schools, this is not often not possible, and she shot herself in the foot by being inconsistent by arriving at her interview without the veil.

Besides, if I were a teacher or TA, I wouldn't be allowed to wear a mask in the classroom, no matter how strongly I wanted to. Schools have dress codes for staff.

Why should she be given a bye, simply because her opinions are classed as a religion?
 
Do you not think that banning religion from classrooms we are setting our society up for a fall .. when the next generation are released into an increasingly multicultural nation I cant help but think their ignorance of other beliefs will only cause further tension
 
Do you not think that banning religion from classrooms we are setting our society up for a fall.

Banning religion from the classroom would improve society, faith schools are little more than indoctrination camps for children...a form of child abuse.

Without religious interference children are free to challenge these 'beliefs', without the 'absolute truth' being drilled into them.

Religion is an anthropological study only, a branch of mythology.

Seems the majority of Brits agree....

http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thr...art=0&edition=1&ttl=20061027145054&#paginator

As for creating tension, the only thing that is causing tension is religion itself, with Muslims and Christians decrying freedom of speech whenever they feel slightly offended.
 
Religion is a family thing not a public education thing. Except that I think that some basic history dealing with religion should be taught. How religions cause tensions and wars in the world, that kind of thing.
 
Last edited:
I agree with him, but he is being a hypocrate as his institution has been doing the thing he complaines about the government doing for thousands of years.
 
Religion is a family thing not a public education thing. Except that I think that bome basic history dealing with religion should be taught. How religions cause tensions and wars in the world, that kind of thing.

Religion shouldn't be written out of the history books, and should be taught in anthropology classes, but the indoctrination of children through these 'faith-schools' should stop....
 
AnyOldIron said:
Religion is a family thing not a public education thing. Except that I think that bome basic history dealing with religion should be taught. How religions cause tensions and wars in the world, that kind of thing.

Religion shouldn't be written out of the history books, and should be taught in anthropology classes, but the indoctrination of children through these 'faith-schools' should stop....
Click to expand...


I agree, You say things much more clearly than I. Unfortunately it is moving the other way in the USA with the help of the republican party. ie school vouchers....
 
IN recient past in England this mans church WAS the government and they did just what he is bitching about!
 
Religion is cultural, one cannot have cultures in a classroom minus the religious beliefs of those that participate in those cultures.

Those same people born in India would more than likely be Hindu rather than Muslim or Christian and the religion effects the culture. Hence women with veils... The idea that we must somehow separate the two just for the classroom is silly. If we are to learn about cultures it is important that people should be allowed to adhere to their cultures.
 
Religion is cultural, one cannot have cultures in a classroom minus the religious beliefs of those that participate in those cultures.

Those same people born in India would more than likely be Hindu rather than Muslim or Christian and the religion effects the culture. Hence women with veils... The idea that we must somehow separate the two just for the classroom is silly. If we are to learn about cultures it is important that people should be allowed to adhere to their cultures.

It isn't silly. Communication isn't just conducted verbally, if this woman has her face covered she cannot effectively teach the children. If she can't effectively do her job, she should be let go.

She is also hypocritical insomuch as she attended her interview for the job without her veil, only insisting on wearing it in the classroom.

She is also a British citizen, her culture is British. Britain is, despite the CoE, a largely secular nation.
 
well, was there a dress code in writing that she signed on to when she was hired? If there wasn't and she feels it necessary to wear her veil and full dress, then she can not be fired for it anyold....she has rights too...

and I agree with damocles, this will help the children learn about different cultures and freedom of religion from our government.

Was she preaching her "religion" in the classroom? Or just robed in her cultural "dress"?

care
 
well, was there a dress code in writing that she signed on to when she was hired? If there wasn't and she feels it necessary to wear her veil and full dress, then she can not be fired for it anyold....she has rights too...

So, you are happy that these children's education will suffer just because she wants to 'exercise' her religious mental issues?

How about if I were a teacher and turned up in a mask, that restricted my communication and caused me to be unable to do my job, that would be ok?

You don't see it as hypocritical that she would attend the interview without the veil, without indicating she wore one, and then insisted she wore one in class?

and I agree with damocles, this will help the children learn about different cultures and freedom of religion from our government.

It doesn't help them learn, it merely restricts her ability to communicate with the children.

This isn't primarily a secularist issue, though the issue still stands about protecting government's freedom from religion.

Was she preaching her "religion" in the classroom? Or just robed in her cultural "dress"?

It restricts her communication.

If my job entailed constantly face to face communication and I arrived at work with my face covered, I wouldn't be able to do my job.
She deserved to be suspended, until she decided she could do her job properly...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top