Well, if he was my butcher, I wouldn’t. He can wrap my roast and place it on the counter and I’ll pick it up, no problem.
If he was a corporate lawyer, I would. Lawyers shake hands with their clients and with one another, it’s part of their job, silly as it may sound. If I was running the law firm, I wouldn’t run the risk of an insulted female client.
Can they touch girls? If my kid’s teacher couldn’t touch her, I’d have a problem with it - he should be the first responder if she falls, needs a pat on the shoulder in encouragement, or needs her jacket zipped up.
That’s the whole point, I think, of this dispute. Is seeing a teacher’s face neccesary for her job duties? I think the answer is yes. For coherency, for giving feedback, for discipline - these things all require, IMHO, a full view of the face.
Let me ammend that to if he was a corporate lawyer serving a goy community. Obviously, if his only clients are also Lubavitch, then he’s not risking insult because they know the rules and expect them.
I beg your pardon? Why does the veil imply any less willingness to “integrate” (which to me usually sounds like a mealy-mouthed version of “conform”) than, say, the sideburns of a Hasidic Jew? After all, this woman is apparently teaching and interacting with the children of this our beaudiful nashun wipes tear away. Surely that’s rather more of an indication of willingness than dress sense? The key difference here is that no-one is demanding that Hasidic Jews cut off their sideburns.
If the veil is genuinely interfering with her ability to teach, she should get a job at a girls’ school. But government ministers should not be demanding the sacking of people they don’t know, and haven’t had any contact with. And arguments about “willingness to integrate” have absolutely no place in this discussion. Why does this one woman’s case have to be a study for national religious integration policy? It’s her job, for fuck’s sake, not some abstract toy problem for thinktanks and focus groups - decide it on her ability, not some fucked-in-the-head conception about what people should do to fit in. That way lies France-esque laws about unpermissible religious expression, and I’m buggered if that’s making its way to the UK if I have anything to do with it.
That’s how upset this shit makes me; I’ve started two whole sentences with conjunctions. Fuck.
I would imagine there is no problem with touching children in any situation, but of course you dummy, he would touch, for example, your Wife if it meant moving her from in front of a car, pulling her from a burning buldng or something that threatened life or safety.
Gee! You think observant people are goofy?
Pardon me while I laugh my ass off. The Soviet Union lasted almost 30 years after the Cuban Missile Crisis, and things did not always go smoothly there. And two years after the USSR bit the dust, the World Trade Center was attacked. Two years later was the bombing in Oklahoma City. Was terrorism as big a concern? No, but I think you’ve forgotten a few things.
I have no idea of if she wishes Sharia law to become the law for all in England, but there are plenty who do - and in other countries also. Including some just blocks from where I live, at least before 9/11. And they’re not Saudis. And it is not like the Saudis are the only country with this restriction. If a majority of Christian countries, say, outlawed eating meat on Friday under pain of punishment, I’m not sure the particular sect would matter much. (Bad example, I know - I can’t think of any Christian laws even in history that are analogous to the veil issue. )
I think it should be just fine for people to wear them. But the problem here is that it represents a genuine impediment to her fulfilment of the role of teacher. A bit like (if I may put it so crudely) a Jewish person taking up a product testing role in a pork sausage factory. Expressing your religion is just fine, taking up a job where the expression of your religion renders you incompetent, is not fine.
I assume you’re from the US and take no interest in anything outside your own country, since otherwise you would know about these incidents:
‘1984: Tory Cabinet in Brighton bomb blast
There has been a direct bomb attack on the British Government at the Conservative party conference in Brighton. At least two people have been killed and many others seriously injured, including two senior Cabinet ministers.’
As for London:
'February 18, 1996: An improvised high explosive device detonates prematurely on a bus travelling along Aldwych in central London, killing Edward O’Brien, the IRA operative transporting the device and injuring eight others.
February 15, 1996: A 5 lb bomb placed in a telephone booth is disarmed by Police on the Charing Cross Road.
February 9, 1996: IRA bombs the South Quay Docklands railway station, killing two people.
April 24, 1993: IRA detonate a huge truck bomb in the City of London at Bishopsgate, killing two and causing approximately £350m of damage.
16 November 1992: IRA plants a bomb at the Canary Wharf, but is spotted by security guards. The bomb is deactivated safely.
October 12, 1992: A device explodes in the gents’ toilet of the Sussex Arms public house in Covent Garden killing one person and injuring four others.
April 10, 1992: A large bomb explodes in St Mary Axe in the City of London killing three people and injuring 91. Many buildings are heavily damaged and the Baltic Exchange is completely destroyed.
February 28, 1992: A bomb explodes at London Bridge station injuring 29 people.
February 18, 1991: A bomb explodes at Victoria Station. One man is killed and 38 people injured.
July 20, 1990: London Stock Exchange, the IRA exploded a large bomb at the London Stock Exchange causing massive damage.
May 16th 1990: Wembley IRA detonate a bomb underneath a minibus killing Sgt Charles Chapman Queens Regt and injuring another soldier. No one was ever convicted of Sgt Chapmans murder.
December 17, 1983: Harrods bomb by the IRA. Six are killed (including three police officers) and 90 wounded during Christmas shopping at the West London department store.
July 20, 1982: Two bombs in Hyde Park and Regent’s Park, London by the IRA kill 11 members of the Household Cavalry and the Royal Green Jackets. Seven horses are also killed.
October 10, 1981: a bomb blast on Ebury Bridge Road in London kills two people and injures 39.
A string of bomb attacks on targets in London by the Balcombe Street gang in 1973 and 1974. ’
Huh? My “position” makes sense to any number of people. Where did I say these women were stupid, brainwashed or wrong? I said wearing a veil that obscures the face is stupid.
Where did I say that I know what is best for these women or men?
jeebus-infer much? Get a grip on yourself. I am not the Big Bad Western Values Infidel come to wreak havoc on the Faithful.
but if a female can’t go to the market without her male relative-it’s a wee bit confining…especially when there may not be a close male relative who is willing to take the woman in.
MilTan --that is just sick. And it reminds me of that famous fire in Chicago-in a Catholic school-where the nuns just told the kids to stay at their desks and pray.
Gee, at least with the nuns, both genders died. :rolleyes:
To be fair to the nuns, the hallway was filled with smoke & heat, and the only way out was out the window (they were on the 3rd floor). The nuns thought the best course of action was to wait for the fire department to come to help them out. It was not because they thought praying was a better option than trying to escape, it was just unfortunately bad judgement that came from not understanding the direness of the situation.Cite. And it certainly is not analagous to people who think that children dying in a fire is preferable to letting them out on the street without being dressed properly.
