Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
@drivel wrote:
@cas wrote:
Madonna is sensationalist, controversial, she enjoys being it too.
Like someone here said, can’t remember who, she’d have been less hassled I suspect and more admired, had she thrown But she chose one, wonder how that made the rest of those poor unfortunates feel :roll: [/color]
So she should take them all or none – is that what you are saying !!!!!!!!!
I said Drivel!! it’s more a shame that she didn’t throw some of her millions at the orphanage so that ALL!!! of the children there would have a better life.What?? 5 mill or so,,,,,,,,,pocket change to her i’d suspect :roll:
Madonna is sensationalist, controversial, she enjoys being it too.
Like someone here said, can’t remember who, she’d have been less hassled I suspect and more admired, had she thrown some of her millions at the orphanage to help ALL of the children have a better life there. But she chose one, wonder how that made the rest of those poor unfortunates feel :roll:
@tommy wrote:
I don’t care if it’s racist.
Everyone in the world speaks English. And if they don’t – They bloody well should! o/
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Tom, trust you lol.
Malta, a place I love, would love to live there one day. The people are lovely. ENGLISH is a language taught in their school, it’s a compulsory part of their education.
There are some who are going to say that this girl was being racist. The teacher spoke english, the teacher wasn’t taking part in the particular discussion group he’d placed her in though was he!! Out of the whole discussion group, only one other person spoke english. How is it supposed to be a discussion group when the majority of the group can neither speak or understand the language!!! So call her racist if you want, but I for one think she has a point and probably would have done the same, and asked to be moved…
@esmeralda wrote:
What a freak-circus the whole Malawi trip has proven to be..with Mrs. G. Ritchie believing her wealth entitles her to flout the laws of the country..the laws that would be applied to anyone else. And yes..as Bad Manners points out..the baby WAS chosen from a line-up like a commodity. Further..the baby is not even an orphan..he still has a father and a grandmother..who desperately love him. Were Madonna’s concerns truly for the child..it would be a simple matter to provide his remaining family with the wherewithall to raise him in comfort and in his own environment..
The first wealthy self-publicist to adopt a baby dying of aids..in need of love and comfort in its dying days..or an older child..abandoned to a lonely death in a Romanian orphanage [Eastern European children are just sooooo not in fashion this year]….then I’ll be impressed. Oh and btw..we have plenty of orphanages here in Britain..with an assortment of children in a variety of colours..but..I guess that’s just not exotic or eye-catching enough for the ‘material girl.’
Well said Esme =D> =D> =D> =D>It doesn’t happen often, but on this particular occasion I agree with what PB has said too.
@Mr Bigstuff wrote:
Some muslim women see it as obligatory to wear a veil just like some Christians see it as obligatory to fast during Lent (my point being that not all people do it). So the wearing of a full veil (niqab I think it’s called) is seen by some muslim women as something that has to done. It’s futile to try to examine the Koran for teaching about wearing a veil. Even if it’s not in the koran it can still be part of the faith just like some aspects of Christian dogma are not in the Bible.
As I already stated, it doesn’t need to be worn with young children. Apparently the woman has now said that she wants to wear it if a male teacher is present which makes more sense. Personally, I think she would be better off teaching in a muslim school then she wouldn’t have these problems. As things stand it’s not a very practical situation for her to work there unless she wants to wear the more common muslim headscarf (hijab).
The BA case is different because wearing a cross is not a religious obligation and the dress code at BA says that all necklaces and other types of jewellery must not be visible. So this would apply to a necklace with a cross on it, a Star of David on it or a crescent. They probably allow staff to wear simple rings, so maybe she could just wear some kind of ring with a cross engraved on it or some kind of Christian writing.
Firstly Mr B. I havent examined the Koran, I work with a muslim woman, apart from the many press details lately, she too told me that nowhere in the Koran does it say women have to cover their faces. Yes sometimes it is dictated by the man, sometimes it just a choice some muslim women make themselves.
As Pats pointed out, this womans husband has said she wears it out of choice, he’s made no demands on her wearing it. I’m sorry if it offends some, but I really do think it’s just something else for SOME of them to moan about and has been blown out of all proportion.
As for the BA case, I said before, this woman has worked for them for 7 years. No one has made it clear whether this woman wore it where it could be seen as a ‘statement’ so to speak, or if BA are only making an issue out of it because of these recent events, it’d be interesting to find that one out.
As a matter of interest, in the area where I live, you would not believe! the amount of muslim women who are now walking around with not only just their eyes showing, but none of their faces showing at all, full veils!!! I cant believe i’m that blind in that I just haven’t noticed before.
@sunny wrote:
We are here to help lol 8)
We all very helpful and obligin in here Popeye, aint we Suns :wink: Welcome, hope you have fun.
i look forward to meeting the in errrr question
:- :- :- :mrgreen: lmfaoooooo
*runs like feck**********[/color]
@token_male wrote:
Shes in the wrong and it will be found out aswell, she wont get money from it maybe she may teach again in another school somewhere who knows.
as for the BA woman is it within her faith to wear a cross? not really but why didnt she wear it under her shirt? somewhere not visible, she worked there for years she shoudof known the rules surely?
both as bad as each other im afraid
Yea but that was my point Token, had she only just started wearing it, had she only just started to wear it visibly to make a statement so to speak, if she had then yea, i’d agree with you, she knows the rules and flouted them. If tho, BA have only taken issue with it because of recent events, then theyre the ones in the wrong.
As for the teacher and her not winning her case, well in today’s society, who knows. Remains to be seen :roll:
@becky wrote:
I think a lot of all this “wearing” of things to do with religion is OTT so many people will now be accused of being a racist and it will all kick off out of control. The world IS going mad.
Think it already has Becky :roll: :wink:Like Cath55 tho, (hiya cath) I wear a cross and chain too, it’s not mine actually it’s my sons, he got two, both christening presents, he’s worn one and iv’e worn the other ever since. The only times iv’e ever taken it off is when iv’e been in hospital for op’s, other than that I wear it all the time. If these people are offended by it then it’s their problem, not mine. There are plenty of these veiled women where I live, I don’t demand that they remove them, so I don’t see why anyone would, or should, demand that I remove my cross, simple as :wink:
Emma……….if you were to attack a blamange with a hammer it’d disintegrate………….if on the other hand you tried the same thing with a feather, it’d make very little difference to the blamange.
:roll: :roll: :roll: get a life!!!
Aishah Azmi has stated herself……..”The only thing I insisted on was that I was allowed to wear it when I was with a male colleague, as my religion clearly forbids that”
We’ve all been made aware this week by many people, that NOWHERE in the Koran does it say that women have to cover their faces, it’s personal choice made by them. So maybe Ms Azmi, would like to point out where and how her religion clearly forbids it.
As for the cross and chain incident, maybe she did it deliberately, maybe not. If though, this woman has worked for BA for 7 years, why has it suddenly become an issue, or has she only just begun to wear the cross, cos I can’t find anywhere thats made it clear.
I can’t remember where I read or saw it, but it was this week. Fiona Bruce, a newsreader on BBC was asked by her bosses not to wear her crucifix as it may cause offence to some. Who are these some? well we don’t really need to ask do we. I think Pats is right, just one more jumping on the bandwagon on the back of what Jack Straw said just a few days ago. Christ you’d think he’d asked them to disrobe completely the way some of them are carrying on!!! and ASK! being the operative word here, no demands were made, just a simple request. I think Ms Azmi, and the rest of them up in arms, need to get a life!!!
