Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

I feel that he should do it. But it was stupid of him not to explain why he had the hood on.

At 9/20/09 10:37 AM, chidori0071 wrote: I feel that he should do it. But it was stupid of him not to explain why he had the hood on.

You try explaining to somebody that your a Jedi.

Religious belief or not, this guy wants to walk into public with a hood on, let him! I mean, if he's acting shady and standing in the most populated part of the store waving his arms around you sweep him for bombs real quick, but it's his right to dress however he wants to. I've gone into Walmart and forgotten to take the hood off when it's raining. It's just not that big a deal. It makes them harder to identify on camera, so what? You ask him the first time he comes in if you can get a snapshot of him with your friend. Now you've got a clear picture, something for your next Halloween card, and he's well aware of the fact that you know what he looks like. Simple, elegant, and non discriminatory.

Did anyone read Tesco's response? That was the funniest bit; I didn't know corporates has a sense of humour.

At 9/19/09 05:06 PM, fatape wrote: so free speech dosen't exsit in the u.k hun?

Correct.

Anyway, the lad in this case makes a good point, although there is another point he didn't make. He makes the point that if a Muslim woman can wear a hood/veil/whatever for religious reasons, then he should be allowed to wear his hood for religious reasons. I say religion should have nothing to do with it. Even if he's Atheist he should still be shown the same tolerance as is shown towards religious people. It's only fair.

Society needs to get over this ridiculous idea that just because something is religious or done in the name of religion that it is automatically deserving of unconditional empathy and respect. That to me is bollocks; if organisations want to appease the religious, they can stop picking and choosing which religious people to be nice to.

At 9/20/09 08:59 AM, lapis wrote: I'm not sure if I entirely understand the UK's legislative system but I get the impression that this amendment did not make it into the bill, going by what appears to be the text of the act that eventually went into force. Specific religions or belief systems no longer seem to be mentioned. Besides, that Mr. Grieve guy who proposed the list of included/not included religions himself mentions that the reference to Jedi Knights was a bit of a joke. The whole discussion in your link is interesting nevertheless.

Yes, I made the mistake. That was the discussion of the bill in the committee stage and I was going to post the very same link.

Still, I don't think that the government will give a damn about protecting trivial religions like Jediism, compared to the Abrahamic faiths.

At 9/19/09 05:06 PM, fatape wrote:

At 9/19/09 04:52 PM, ThePretenders wrote: I should state that the beliefs of Jedi Knights are not protected under the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill 2006, where it specifically mention Jedi Knights, along with Satanists, racists, sexists etc.

I'm sure that if he were to present a case, it would certainly be thrown out by the courts.

so free speech dosen't exsit in the u.k hun?

It isn't really anywhere anymore, and for good reasons, even in the US, you don't have 'total" free speech just like you don't have 'pure' Capitilism anymore. Same thing, if that speech was harmful to somebody like yelling "fire" in a movie theatre, then thats illegal, so are Death Threats and hate mail.

Am I the only one who finds it odd that Poxpower first compared Christianity to the Jedi Religion claiming they were essentially the same by being made up with 0 reason, only to go on in the next several posts to defend a Muslim woman's wearing of a veil while defending the translation of the "holy text" as "hotly contested" and "misconstrued"?

At 9/20/09 10:05 PM, Memorize wrote: Am I the only one who finds it odd that Poxpower first compared Christianity to the Jedi Religion claiming they were essentially the same by being made up with 0 reason, only to go on in the next several posts to defend a Muslim woman's wearing of a veil while defending the translation of the "holy text" as "hotly contested" and "misconstrued"?

You probably are the only one, considering that he was arguing that the Muslim religion does not require women to wear a veil in public.

At 9/20/09 10:15 PM, Elfer wrote:

At 9/20/09 10:05 PM, Memorize wrote: Am I the only one who finds it odd that Poxpower first compared Christianity to the Jedi Religion claiming they were essentially the same by being made up with 0 reason, only to go on in the next several posts to defend a Muslim woman's wearing of a veil while defending the translation of the "holy text" as "hotly contested" and "misconstrued"?

You probably are the only one, considering that he was arguing that the Muslim religion does not require women to wear a veil in public.

I know, that's the point.

He goes on rampage after rampage about every little detail of (really only) the Christian religion. Taking each and every translation at face value and using it to complain constantly about it.

But then here's the Muslim religion where almost all translations say "wear a veil" and he ends up claiming "contested issue".

I find it so amusing that it'll arouse me in my sleep.

I still say a Pastafarian should walk into a British convenience store dressed like a pirate. Let's see Parliament enforce their bill then.

At 9/20/09 11:23 PM, Dawnslayer wrote: I still say a Pastafarian should walk into a British convenience store dressed like a pirate. Let's see Parliament enforce their bill then.

That probably wouldn't bother anyone; they'd just think it was a bit weird. They are more concerned about people wearing hoods because there is an underclass of citizens in the UK known as chavs who often wear their hoods up while stealing things from shops.

well I think that (as a atheist) that all this crap by the governments of the world is disgusting. GOVERNMENTS CANT SAY WHATS A RELIGION OR NOT WE DO. All ya people that live there i dare ya to walk into the store with a jedi robe on :)

At 9/21/09 03:15 AM, maqgrounds wrote: (as a atheist)

represent!

actually just resent

At 9/20/09 10:28 PM, Memorize wrote:

But then here's the Muslim religion where almost all translations say "wear a veil" and he ends up claiming "contested issue".

The type of veil is what is contested. Some people claim that it refers to a specific item of clothing that demands all parts of the body be covered except the eyes but traditionally this was never a piece of clothing widely accepted or enforced over women.
Women are supposed to wear the same thing as men basically, plus the little head scarf.

Also: what the fuck are you talking about?
haha

At 9/21/09 07:12 AM, poxpower wrote: Women are supposed to wear the same thing as men basically, plus the little head scarf.

Not really. Men aren't allowed to wear silk or golden jewelry, which are permissible for women. On the other hand, men can wear jeans and other western clothes, whereas women are supposed to wear loose clothes that hide their body shape.

Like this. I saw this on a Muslim forum once.

:At 9/21/09 07:43 AM, AapoJoki wrote:

Not really.

Talking about the more traditional clothes.
People in the desert all used to wear long robes.

Like this. I saw this on a Muslim forum once.

Wow that's fucking horrible.
Also if nature is always more beautiful, then how come they're not naked?

And I love the "follows fashion blindly" comment. Yes, there's no one in better position than a religious zealot to tell others to not follow trends blindly.

WHY ARE THEY SO STUPID? SOMEONE HELP THEM BE LESS RETARDED

At 9/20/09 10:28 PM, Memorize wrote: But then here's the Muslim religion where almost all translations say "wear a veil" and he ends up claiming "contested issue".

I think his point, basically, is that it's stupid for people to be able to conceal their face in a store for religious reasons, and the muslim veil thing was tacked on at the end as the stupid icing on the stupid cake.

Okay, just a quick question... Has anyone else noted that the poster compares Muslim women not to the average American woman, but to American prostitutes? This brings two questions to mind... One, do these people really believe that there's no gray area whatsoever between the two extremes, and two, the possibility that the people who made that poster knows so much about the average American prostitute says what exactly about their credibility as a religious leader? XD

Forming the "Sithian Socialites".. please fill out an application.

please note that the following are required fields that you must answer:

1. Do you hate the Jedi religion (y/n)
2. Do you believe in power? (y/n)
3. Do you like Red lightsabers over any other colored lightsabers? (y/n)
4. Do you want your eyes to glow redish orange when you show your true form? (y/n)
5. Do you find lightning coming out of your finger tips exciting? (y/n)
6. Do you hate the Jedi religion? (y/n)

People will slam any other religion view as ridiculous until the religious group in question is powerful and/or influential enough for complete and successful retaliation. Think about any religious conflict you've ever heard of.