Gollywogs - is this guy for real?.

[scoots]

"i'll laugh at rasict jokes, sexist joke, blond jokes. bearing in mind, these are only rasict of sexist if someone finds them that."

 

But they're only jokes if they make you laugh. And, in almost every instance I can think of, these "jokes" make people laugh because they demean or denigrate or highlight a difference in others. Yeah, Bernard Manning and Roy "Chubby" Brown should be right up there with Chaplin/Laurel & Hardy/Billy Connolly/pick your comedy hero....

 

Of course they shouldn't. They are two horrible crass men, "products of their background" no doubt (crap! They were/are just hateful bigots and misogynists. My grandfather came out of the pits, worked hard for a scraping of a living all his days, and never spoke like or acted like these morons. His upbringing and life were a damn sight harder than theirs!).

 

True comedy pokes fun at everyday things that we can all laugh at, it doesn't single the individual out. Or if it does, it snaps back on the comedian, to make fun of his/her own standing or difference.

 

As a society, we grow, we learn, we expand our knowledge and sensibilities and we should respect our neighbours. It doesn't mean we can't laugh at them, as long as they're laughing too! This is the difference between "Sons of the Desert" and "Love thy Neighbour", Billy Connolly and Jim Davidson, among many others. Timeless vs time-bound, a (thankfully) long gone example of a more ignorant, intolerant and saddening society.

 

As for racist or sexist jokes only being racist or sexist if someone finds them do...? No. Sorry. Tell a "joke" about "Ni***rs", "K*kes", "Ra*-H**ds", "Bi***es", "Sl*gs", "Sl*ts", and any other variation or example of such labels, and they ARE racist and sexist, whether or not YOU believe them to be.

 

Honestly... the old "I'm not a racist..." prefix is NOT merely an urban myth or for the Daily Mail Readers Letters then, it seems.

[Redrobbie99]

So a cross or a crucifix is just another peice of jewallery .I would guess that a few roman catholics would disagree with that .The point is other religions are allowed to wear religious things eg sikhs wear the turban and rightly so no one is offended . No it seems only the christians in this country are getting a hard time for some reason.

[I.S]

"So a cross or a crucifix is just another peice of jewallery .I would guess that a few roman catholics would disagree with that."

 

Why?

 

As a Roman Catholic, I haven't the faintest idea what you are on about. Are YOU Roman Catholic? If not, your ignorance of requirements of our branch of the Christian faith is almost as wide as your knowledge of Sikhism. If you are, you are seriously misinformed. A priest or nun might choose to wear a crucifix day to day. However, outwith certain rites, they are not required to do so by their faith. Nor are rank and file Catholics expected or required to wear the crucifix (a cross would be insufficient, technically).

 

It's already been posted here that the cross (or crucifix) is worn through personal choice, NOT as a requirement of the Christian faith - and certainly not of Roman Catholicism! The same cannot be said for the turban with Sikhs. It IS a requirement. For further explanation, please see:

http://sikhism.about.com/od/religioustolerance/a/Sikh_Turban.htm

which should explain it to you.

 

 

Never mind, I expect the Druids said the same sort of thing, in their day... "Flippin Romans, telling us what we can and can't do and say! Next thing, we won't be allowed to dance around naked and burn animal sacrifices! Tsk!"

[Shetland_boys]

Makes Interesting Reading

 

 

Proud to be White

 

 

 

Michael Richards makes his point......

 

 

 

Michael Richards better known as Kramer from TVs Seinfeld does make a good point.

 

 

 

 

 

This was his defense speech in court after making racial comments in his comedy act. He makes some very interesting points...

 

 

 

Someone finally said it. H ow many are actually paying attention to this? There are African Americans, Mexican Americans, Asian Americans, Arab Americans, etc.

 

And then there are just Americans. You pass me on the street and sneer in my direction. You call me 'White boy,' 'Cracker,' 'Honkey,' 'Whitey,' 'Caveman'.... and that's OK.

 

 

 

But when I call you, , Kike, Towel head, Sand-, Camel Jockey, Beaner, Gook, or Chink .. You call me a racist.

 

 

 

You say that whites commit a lot of violence against you... so why are the ghettos the most dangerous places to live?

 

 

 

You have the United Negro College Fund. You have Martin Luther King Day.

 

 

 

You have Black History Month. You have Cesar Chavez Day.

 

 

 

You have Yom Hashoah. You have Ma'uled Al-Nabi.

 

 

 

You have the NAACP. You have BET... If we had WET (White Entertainment Television), we'd be racists.. If we had a White Pride Day, you would call us racists.

 

 

 

If we had White History Month, we'd be racists.

 

 

 

If we had any organization for only whites to 'advance' OUR lives, we'd be racists.

 

 

 

We have a Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, a Black Chamber of Commerce, and then we just have the plain Chamber of Commerce. Wonder who pays for that??

 

 

 

A white woman could not be in the Miss Black American pageant, but any color can be in the Miss America pageant.

 

 

 

If we had a college fund that only gave white students scholarships... You know we'd be racists.

 

 

 

There are over 60 openly proclaimed Black Colleges in the US . Yet if there were 'White colleges', that would be a racist college.

 

 

 

In the Million Man March, you believed that you were marching for your race and rights. If we marched for our race and rights, you would call us racists.

 

 

 

You are proud to be black, brown, yellow and orange, and you're not afraid to announce it. But when we announce our white pride, you call us racists.

 

 

 

You rob us, carjack us, and shoot at us. But, when a white police officer shoots a black gang member or beats up a black drug dealer running from the law and posing a threat to society, you call him a racist.

 

 

 

I am proud.... But you call me a racist.

 

 

 

Why is it that only whites can be racists??

 

 

 

 

I agree, i always thought this!

[unlinkedstudent]

"So a cross or a crucifix is just another peice of jewallery .I would guess that a few roman catholics would disagree with that."

 

Why?

 

As a Roman Catholic, I haven't the faintest idea what you are on about. Are YOU Roman Catholic? If not, your ignorance of requirements of our branch of the Christian faith is almost as wide as your knowledge of Sikhism. If you are, you are seriously misinformed. A priest or nun might choose to wear a crucifix day to day. However, outwith certain rites, they are not required to do so by their faith. Nor are rank and file Catholics expected or required to wear the crucifix (a cross would be insufficient, technically).

 

It's already been posted here that the cross (or crucifix) is worn through personal choice, NOT as a requirement of the Christian faith - and certainly not of Roman Catholicism! The same cannot be said for the turban with Sikhs. It IS a requirement. For further explanation, please see:

http://sikhism.about.com/od/religioustolerance/a/Sikh_Turban.htm

which should explain it to you.

 

...

 

I believe you are actually wrong or your link is. As you can glean from my previous posts, I used to live in East London. I remember the case re the jewellery back in 2006. Now if my memory serves me correctly, she got sent home from her job at British Airways for refusing to cover up her necklace with set cross on it yet others were not asked to remove turbans, etc. I had several neighbours of various religious backgrounds - Muslims, Jews, Sikhs, Catholics, etc. Indeed, I was quite close to a Sikh family and helped out in their building business from time to time. They advised me that it was NOT a requirement to wear the turban but it would be frowned upon to remove the bracelet (can't remember what it is called). British Airways didn't ask/demand that the Sikhs remove those (Well, that is how it was reported on the television local evening news).

 

Even if your link is correct, it may well be that the Sikhs I know have chosen not to follow it but I'll go with what is from the horses' mouths, so to speak.

[Dratsy]

It's already been posted here that the cross (or crucifix) is worn through personal choice, NOT as a requirement of the Christian faith

As the whole religion thing could be said to be a matter of personal choice then your argument does not hold water

[hjasga]

Really, though, don't accuse me of being out of my element when you appear to be having such difficulty with basic reading comprehension.

 

Don't make me get ShetlandPeat down here to defend folks who don't read so good, tis a forum for all. I got what you were saying you just don't like the responses, it's quite common on Shetlink. One question on the above, are you being ironic?.

 

The Little Britain argument came about as "yeah well why does nobody complain about this?" insinuating that it is homophobic, which it isn't. If Scorrie wasn't making that link, he might as well have asked why nobody complains the Teletubbies are homophobic/racist/sexist.

 

It's been explained how a little britain sketch could be perceived as homophobic as it doesn't suit your agenda to see it then you make no attempt to make the connection. BTW everyone knows the teletubbies are subliminal marketing for devonshire custard and not homophobic (they are racist though).

 

I suggest instead of jumping in two footed with condescension and silly images you actually read what's being typed.

 

You being ironic now or continuing with the obtuse approach, or is there a hint of sarcasm mixed with irony?. How very dare you calling Walter silly, he fought in nam.

 

You seem eloquent enough that I doubt you're actually misinterpreting, so I'll chalk you down as a wind up merchant and be on my way.

[Gibber]

As the whole religion thing could be said to be a matter of personal choice then your argument does not hold water

 

Exactly! Why is it that people should only be allowed to advertise these religious choices at work when backed by an obligation from that relevant religion?

 

The argument doesn't add up. You're not allowed to wear religious symbols at work.....unless that very same institutionalised man made religion says you have to, in which case wear whatever religious symbols your religion tells you to, that's fine with us!

 

If people are going to believe in god I'd rather be on the side of the individual displaying their faith (even if that is faith in the tenets of a religious institution) than a religious institution dictating to individuals and by extension, it seems, the commercial companies they work for that they have to do so.

[Infiltrator]

And just in case anyone missed this ridiculous story that seems to sum up the mess of the modern day UK society trying to cope with multi-race, multi-cultural and multi-religions and trying not to upset anyone.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9105788/Fireman-Sam-creator-detained-at-airport-for-veil-comment-at-security-gate.html

 

Last I heard about the above, the Gatwick mgt were refusing to apologise for detaining the poor chap.

[I.S]

Dratsy, there IS no argument. The Roman Catholic faith does NOT require you to wear a cross or crucifix. The Sikh faith (at least the orthodox faith) DOES require BAPTISED Sikh men to wear a turban. Much as Hasidic Jews wear shtreimel, this is a law or dictate of their religion. Some Sikhs do not do so. You will invariably find that these are younger men, who may also style, trim or even shave their facial hair. To do any of these is forbidden to a baptised Sikh. Their hair is consecrated and must not be polluted or contaminated. The Dastar (the Sikh turban) is an essential part of this and is a core of the five Ks that form their religious requirements.

 

So, Dratsy and Gibber, as the Sikh is allowed, in law, the religious freedom to wear this core requirement of his faith, where is the problem? If it WAS a core requirement of the Christian faith, I think you'd find that would be allowed by the same laws and rights.

 

What's the problem with that? How does it affect YOU?

 

You are legally entitled to wear the sgian dhubh AND the dirk, when dressed in full Highland dress. This is an exemption from the legislation on carrying of knives and offensive weapons, hard-won by (amongst others) a notorious Highland solicitor who dressed this way almost every day of his adult life. That right is now legislated for. What's the legal difference, creed aside, in providing for the preservation and respect of the culture of another?

 

No argument. Just you arguing for the sake of it, I'd say.

[Redrobbie99]

Regarding that story in the Telegraph Islam is a religion not a race so the term muslim is racially neutral.People of every race follow the muslim faith.

[Scorrie]

And just in case anyone missed this ridiculous story that seems to sum up the mess of the modern day UK society trying to cope with multi-race, multi-cultural and multi-religions and trying not to upset anyone.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9105788/Fireman-Sam-creator-detained-at-airport-for-veil-comment-at-security-gate.html

 

Last I heard about the above, the Gatwick mgt were refusing to apologise for detaining the poor chap.

 

 

That's what happens when you give civvy clowns a 'security' job. I'd love to see their reaction if somebody stuck a Browning 9mil up their shnozzle when they attempted to 'detain' them for a valid comment.....

 

Cornershop commandos.

[scoots]

What power or authority do these idiots have to detain anyone? Is that not why police are on patrol in most airports? We've even got one here I believe. This reads like illegal detention to me. These clowns can't charge anyone, can they? (They'd be lucky to charge their mobile phones, most of them!) I've often looked at the load of them that stand around down there, looking down their noses & snapping at folk between their daily gossip, wondering if it's a new Government scheme, like the Yoppers & YTS to take down unemployment figures!

 

It's really quite funny sometimes to watch them asking to search ladies handbags or babies pushchairs, just to tick their boxes. Anyone who knows how to search someone (or even whose seen an episode of CSI!!) can see they don't have a clue. But give them the slightest excuse to (ab)use their powers and... this sort of thing happens.

 

Time the whole thing was looked at in depth. They aren't employed by the airport, they're on contract. So who do they answer to? Not Dept of Transport, it seems. They seem to answer to themselves. And they "interpret" DoT guidelines to suit themselves. No wonder they twist things like this and turn molehills into Everest! After all, in the absence of a threat up here, they need to justify their existence somehow, don't they?

 

Fact.

[Dratsy]

my point being that all religion is a matter of choice so choosing to be a Sikh or whatever is just that a choice, so they choose to were the turban just like the lady chose to wear the cross, to display to the world their choice of religion.

 

So why is the white christian made to remove her symbol of choice?

[scoots]

Because for her it's just that. There are two choices involved here, Dratsy. She chooses to follow the Christian faith, which needs or requires no outward displays, paraphernalia or regalia to accomplish this and maintain her faith. She then chooses to wear the cross. It's extraneous to her faith, which is more concerned with the sacramental then ornamental. It's also deemed a safety hazard, I believe, as with most hanging jewellery, because she wears it openly and outwardly (on top of her clothing on a long chain) where most wear it inside clothing, unless of clergy. She wears it as jewellery, in effect.

 

For the Sikh, there is only one choice to be made. The Sikh chooses to follow his faith. However, in order to do so, he must wear the turban, and observe the other strict requirements of his faith. If he does not do so, he is not a Sikh and the single choice he has made is worthless to him.

 

I think that's what others are trying to get across, and it's pretty clear to me, at least. But then, I've known Sikhs almost my whole life.

 

PS fundamentalist Christians (and staunch strict Catholics, I believe) would frown upon wearing a cross as this woman does. To them, the crucifix has its place in Church, with the clergy, in household shrines and on rosaries for observational prayer. Anywhere else, and worn as jewellery like this - whether as a show of her faith or not - and it's verging on idolatry. That's not a good thing for a "serious" Christian, I wouldn't have thought.