UKIP - What is it they are going to do for you?

Part of Islamic religious observance is giving money to charity and not going into debt etc. A lot of UK banks offer accounts to enable them to do this automatically. Plus the bank promises not invest money from these accounts into immoral things which is (was) no different to you or me having an account with the so-called ethical Co-Op bank. A quick check on the Lloyds site shows that the account can't go into overdraft and it's quick clear that there are no charges 'if you stay in credit'.

 

I don't think using extreme cases counts as evidence, or else all white people want black people exterminated. If I could be bothered to google it, I could find 100's of pages of "hardcore christians" wanting XYZ religion banned in the country, and therefore "all christians are bigoted". A majority of Muslims actually enjoy Christmas, and celebrate it as atheists do, as a cultural festival where they get to spend time with their family, and just ignore the religious side to it. Expats all move to "English" areas abroad, and try, for example, to spend the whole time in America looking around towns for English pubs where they can have English chips with English people. Equally, a lot of British expats partake in local festivals such as Thanksgiving and so on. Clearly on both sides theirs tolerance and on both sides there is intolerance.

I don't see your point. Should everyone stay in their own country because they'd rather be with their "own kind"?

Aside from that, it says a lot about what UKIP represent when a thread about them as span off into a racism debate - it wouldn't happen to any other party but the BNP.

 

The real difference is between tradesmen and 'jobbers' but even the latter can't cut too many corners as building control is very keen compared to yesteryear. Now the chancers mostly get caught out by ignorance of the regulations where previously it was usually to skimp costs.

 

Not sure how a political discussion on UKIP progressed to religion related issues but here you go. Bearing in midn that this country is secular.

Religion is a set of values you chose to impose on yourself. The wearing of a cross or covering of arms is not a strict rule of a religion, neither is wearing the Burka. They are excepted practices adopted by some cultures and subsets of religions or based upon extreme interpretations of holy texts. If you chose to adopt these practices and there are valid reasons why you shouldn't in a job, then get another job.

I don't want a vegetarian refusing to serve me a quarterpounder because they decide eating meat is wrong.
I don't want a green activist refusing to serve me super unleaded petrol, simply because I chose to have a petrol powered car that doesn't work on vegetable oil.
I don't want a vegan refusing to sell me a leather jacket or shoes just because the are a member of PETA.

Religion is a choice. If the rules of your religion prevent you from doing a job, then the job as a whole should offend your ethics and you should get another job.

I'm not religious but I have a code of ethics with regard to my work. I am a very experienced customer support and call center manager. When I was made redundant (and not claiming benefits I might add) I point blank refused to apply for roles involving cold calling. It's my choice that I did not want to be involved in it, so a huge area of employment was closed to me. I had to turn down a couple of roles.

 

The Leicester Mercury probably couldn't report the Foxes' team sheet accurately. What you have posted are a couple nothing examples. The Hospital had a no jewellery policy so she can't wear her cross. It doesn't matter about the sleeve decision she should respect patient safety and be less of a cry baby.

With regard to the sleeves maybe there is a solution that satisfies the RCN who are the experts. But if there wasn't I'd be first to say obey the rules or it's not a profession for you.

And as for the library issue the number of complaints is pretty vague. I'd take a guess and say around one. It's of minor consequence whose fiction goes above whose. It's not a story in itself it's mischief.

 

I'm not Muslim but as much as I know about Islam and Islamic banking, it is due to the idea that you lend money to somebody who is in need of it (by definition, only people who are in need of money borrow money), and it's against their religion to "take advantage" of those in need, as I understand it. The way around this (in Western society where banks want profit), in the case of mortgages, is for the bank to buy a house for them, and for them to pay for the house in instalments above market rate, or something like that. I'm almost certain they get no better deal than the rest of us.

 

Is it? Someone better let the Defender of the Faith and established church know pronto!

 

I hadn't seen that. It's bit hilarious. Of course it's not discriminatory because anyone can have that account if they wish to forgo interest.

But that's freedom innit? To live as we choose and follow whatever belief system we choose however potty it seems to someone else? It's why I don't live in non-communist Russia.

 

Everything always seems to come down to religion, those who practice it want to force it on others, those who don't want to practice it has it forced on them. I don't ind anyone who is religious and will respect that unless it is extreme, but please let those who don't care, be left alone. All religions tend to be the biggest hypocrites of the lot. They boast about how great it is when it benefits them to and sweep other things under the carpet when its best ignored.

 

As an atheist myself, I find atheists push atheism onto theists as much as theists push religion onto atheists.

 

Your answer illustrates how your view is so incredible unbalanced. You just disbelieve (calling me a liar) or ignore anything you don't like, and just use unfounded guesses and opinion yourself. Not the slightest attempt at any substance in your views. Why do you bother?.;D

 

The reason it ends up around religion is that the central thrust of the UKIP argument is that the 'British People' (make of that what you will) are being systematically disadvantaged against 'others' within and without and that the main agent of this disadvantage is the European Union.

Btw your examples are a bit odd. I presume you are illustrating with random hypotheticals because non of those things ever happen. Perhaps the DM would enjoy it if they did.

 

ZZ every discussion with you ends in you offering some horse**** 'evidence' and claiming victory.

 

Hahahaha

 

Anyway I've got bigger problems to worry about. I'm on a train and the Frenchman (I believe) who served me a scone and jam at the station failed to put a knife in the bag he gave me. I too now doubt it is possible to live harmoniously with these continentals.

 

"I presume you are illustrating with random hypotheticals because non of those things ever happen".

Just a few similar examples for you Moose

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...ncer-can-refuse-to-sell-alcohol-and-pork.html

and it happened and M&S apologised, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25488259

....but Moose will still not believe it!

and another example...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/...-Convenient-Bank-refuses-to-serve-Christians#

 

I'm not claiming anything, it's perfectly clear to anyone. You offer no substance whatsoever!

 

You just changed my world view! Isolated cases of people doing things that are either stupid (kos/notary) or completely inconsequential (bbc/telegraph/m&s). I'm suitably shocked to my well-sculpted core

 

I didn't say I was against it. I didn't really see what the point was of it existing.

Are there any muslims on here? I've always wondered what the rules are about Burka's. I've met Muslims who don't wear one, I've met Muslims who do, I've met Muslims who wear the hijab? (The one which covers hair but not the face). What are the rules? Is it free choice?

 

I was responding to Moose who denied these things ever happen. The Alcohol and Pork example is hardly isolated or inconsequential, they are one of the largest and most respected retailers in the world and it was their policy.

 

Just made up illustrations on how someone could refuse to do aspects of their job because of their beliefs.
I would have offered diagrams but Carlos is much better than me and I couldn't be arsed to find any real life examples.

Disagreement is good. It keeps the forum active with discussion. Anything is better than another Tommy Smith returning thread.

 

There are a couple on here, Squibba usually offers a decent balanced view from that side of the fence so to speak, and I'm related to some.

I think like all religions, because of the nature and the age of what you're following, a lot of the 'rules' or following is essentially up to interpretation.

As an example, Jehovah's witness follow the Bible in it's literal sense, whereas modern Christians follow a more evolved version (I gather)

Islamic Banking is one thing I think even the most uppity SAVE BRITAIN followers can't really be agitated by, yet I'm sure some still will be. Fear-mongering, sensationalism etc from facebook groups, certain groups, certain newspapers obviously doesn't help.

 

Is he really?

 

It's similar with any religion, fundamentalists take the word literally and others to a lesser or greater degree often depending on what is practical. A distant relative of mine fought a lifetime battle to preserve Sunday for (Christian) worship only. No footie, no cinema, no pubs. A lot of Christians felt that way then, but these days they are too busy down the pub watching the footie.

Religion is not rational and people of all faiths are quite capable of getting in a flap about matters of little consequence to others and where they draw the line appears increasingly arbitrary. Ultimately it's not my problem and if it doesn't affect me it doesn't affect me.

 

Bingo.

 

These are just lolworthy examples of isolated stupidity. They don't prove your argument that people are trying to impose their culture upon you in any meaningful way.

And you cut the top quote from a reply to another post which is naughty.

 

No, I was using these articles as examples of the scenarios that Hornmeister came up with in his post, that you said were odd as those sort of things never happen. Now you know they do!

 

RE: "M&S Pork Scandal".

If you worked in China and somebody in the supermarket asked you to handle dog meat, the odds are you would turn it down both out of ethical reasons and the disgust of imagining that's what people eat. In the middle east nothing is seen as less sanitary than pork, so can you blame them for not wanting to handle it in M&S?

There are plenty of other people to handle pork. It's not as if they've said - "I'm not handling the pork, and I'm also not going to mop the floors instead. I'm instead going to go spray paint over Jesus statues whilst you pay me".

 

I would only work in a shop where i didn't have an objection to handling the goods. In the same way, I wouldn't take a job selling drugs (of the Class 1 and 2 variety). However, I can see a little bit of a "defence" with pork, as it is deemed unclean.

But what about the alcohol, they are only handling the bottles, or cans, they aren't drinking it, or touching it? The nonacceptance of alcohol has been a gradual affair within Islam over centuries and it is based on the harm consumption can do, including the social problems it causes and also the fact that being drunk could prevent the 5 times a day praying. There is no reason why they cant hold a bottle of wine.

To refuse to serve alcohol to someone is just being awkward in my view.

BTW I used to go to a college in Edinburgh and I couldn't get round the fact that the Iranian and Iraqi students there would complain about Pork being on the general menu, but would drink a beer with their meal and go out on the p*** at night..

 

we have different ideas of what is inconsequential i suppose!

having to queue up at a different till once every 10,000 visits to m&s is, to my mind, the dictionary definition of inconsequential (unless of course we're assuming that every single muslim/religous person working at m&s is now going to stop serving me pork (i'm a vegertarian) and alcohol (i'm cheap, so i buy it from tescos!), in which case i would have to queue up at a different till every 1,000 times. which yes, would have drastic and far reaching consequences to my way of life. so you're right! my world view remains change and i remain outraged!)

 

it's like people who protest gay marriage while happily continuing to be cordial with their divorced friends i suppose?

 

No I was referring to his odd Veggie/Green ones, so put the exclamation marks away.

It's like fan is saying one or two awkward people is inconsequential.

 

So your contribution to this political thread is to tell us you are having a dirty protest and to sarcastically attack something you think is inconsequential. :sign15:

Yet you fail to understand that the whole point of me mentioning the alcohol story was the fact that religious people feel strong enough about touching a can of beer in a supermarket that they want special treatment - when touching the can has no consequences to anyone. :doh:

Why dont you take stock and think about your priorities again.

 

i'm curious about the use of the word yet. are you saying that i fail to understand the magnitude and gravity of what you write despite me mailing my poo across the atlantic and being (on appearance) sarcastic about the ramifications of the check-out staffing policy of waitrose? if so, i wish to allay your concerns! i was being serious! not getting my m&s bacon in a timely fashion is worthy of serious political debate!

in any case, i am taking stock and thinking about my priorities.

 

Good.