Magnifying trifles whilst trifling with magnitudes. Fascist apologist.</p> Come the glorious day you'll be up against the wall the BNP</p>
I know that .... ... but the next time I get a bollocking and have 'hurt feelings' will I get £1100? or do I need to convert to Islam or Buddism or Shinto or be a member of the Holy Order of Wednesday Optimists to get a payout first?</p> What a barmy, f*cked up country we live in eh?</p>
RE: OI! WINDY...... We haven't met and I don't normally enter into religious debates but... your statement "personal freedom as if Islam has the faintest idea of the concept" has to be questioned. The Muslim faith like all other organised religions (including Christianity) has as long as it has existed been 'hijacked' by people wishing to use it as a means of control and gaining power over others. Mullahs, ayatollahs, Popes, Pharisees, Egyptian priests...you name them.. throughout the centuries they have manipulated and interpreted various religious texts bible/koran etc to suit their own purposes. They often rely on the ignorance and/or social structure of societies to manipulate the masses. The fact that for whatever reason, muslims etc seem more susceptible to manipulation and indoctrination is far too complex to go into here, suffice to say ANY society is capable of being manipulated regardless of race creed colour. e.g. 1930s Germany Hitler vs Jews. That is why I shun any organised religion. Religion has very little to do with the scriptures/koram etc.)and certainly nothing to do with God) both of which, like most other main religions preaches tolerance and respect for other men/women. The concept of 'fatwahs', 'infidels' martyrdom etc.etc. is a corruption of the teachings of both the Bible and Mohammed. Those who advocate violence are twisting the written word for their own ends.
No of course they don't. Because they want to jump up and down outraged by her winning the case when she didn't actually win the case. Sorry you judge it "pedantic" to actually want to point out the facts rather than an assumption.
RE: OI! WINDY...... Agreed 100% </p> Religion is a wholly human invention and a device for human control through fear, deception and lies. The sooner it's universally exposed and debunked the better.</p>
RE: No of course they don't. I'm delighted she lost and hope that this precedent follows on elsewhere, but to give her a shed load of money for 'Hurt Feelings' well f*ck me dead!</p> Perhaps she'll pay the tribunal costs from it eh? No, thought not. Tell you what I'll chip in some of my taxes.</p>
I'm confused.. Isn't wearing a veil and act of extremism?</p> Why would a council want to employ religious extreemists?</p>
I was with you up until your last sentence. We can ignore the calls to convert or kill that fill the Q'ran and fantasise about what Islam is supposed to be like all day long but the fact remains that, in the real world, it's the most dangerous right-wing organisation mankind has ever been threatened by and it's happening now.</p>
Tell you what. You and your mate carry on mumbling over the minutae and leave the debate to those with periphery vision eh?
Most of us are Christians. Whether we realise it or not all of what we see as acceptable behaviour in our society is based on a Christian value system.</p> It's not perfect but it's 1000% times better than anything bloody Islam has to offer.</p>
Don't tell me that... ....victimisation does not produce hurt feelings.</p> Next thing you'll be saying is that there isn't a problem.</p>
RE: Most of us are Christians. I'm no Christian but I have to say that I'd hold with Christian style ideals.</p> Apart from the coverting my neighbours ox as I'm sure he hasn't got one.</p> It's this Jesus is the son of God crap that bothers me. This surely is the biggest, most fundamental lie ever told in the history of mankind.</p>
RE: One thing I wondered about this Veil Woman Very, very hairy.</p> No Brazilian down there, probably not even a Palastinian either.</p>
RE: Tell you what. You mean the debate about how a racial discrimination case was thrown out because it was not deemed discrimination. I would have thought you'd be pleased at the outcome.
RE: It wasn't for hurt feelings I'm clearly missing something here....</p> "Mrs Azmi, 24, lashed out despite winning £1,100 of taxpayers’ cash for having her feelings hurt when she was suspended from a Church of England school."</p> I realise it's the Sun however so ......</p>
I agree. What I'm saying is the legacy of centuries of Christianity is the value system we all enjoy today.</p> We've questioned the religion but we don't question what we believe to be the fundamentals of right and wrong. That'll do for me.</p>
It was for victimisation Dunno if that was fair or not as I'm not too familiar with the case, but that was the ruling. It wasn't for 'hurt feelings' as reported in The Sun. Here's the story from a more reputable news site: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6069012.stm