It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Muslim husbands with more than one wife to get extra benefits as ministers recognise polygamy

page: 16
4
<< 13  14  15   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheoOne


I don't get it.


I thought UK was a non-muslim country, plus does that mean we can get extra wives if we're not muslim?

p.s. Having multiple wives are nice though, I think lol.

www.dailymail.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)
Mormon will immigrate to the UK if this story is true.




posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211
Maybe things work that way in the year 5008 or whenever you're from, but not here in 2008. Spouting utopian BS hardly serves to solve any of these problems.


Time is an illusion.

This is nirvana.

Open your mind and there are no problems.

I am,

Sri Oracle



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 05:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
Should we compare that isolated incident with the number of times someone of color walks into a government or business office and told to go screw? Not in so many words of course, but through placing their name at the bottom of the list or by saying 'we'll get back to you'.



Have a word would you, any able non white is snapped up like a golden nugget in government offices and large businesses.

FACT is affirmative action is STATE sponsored discrimination against whites






Quite simply, the white, heterosexual male doesn't face the same hardships that minorities do in the world.


grade a divisionist bs- why should some dirt poor white male farmer from Virginia allow, for example, Oprah to be a "victim" purely because she has black skin and does not possess male genitalia.

No sale here with your shroud of victimhood.

I love this "in the world" guff as well, what, in Sudan (black on arab violence), in Japan (how does big bad white man dominate there) etc
etc

You are, ironically, a bigot


[edit on 7-2-2008 by blueorder]



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 05:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by budski
That's something all those "trendy" liberal arts graduates from the sixties never understood - turning it around does not make it less racist.
It focusses the racism on a different ethnicity is all.

I understand the idea, I just don't understand the muddy unrealistic thinking behind it.

It puzzles me.


indeed, one can see this in action with the Obama campaign, being trumpeted as a great things and an agent for "change" because he happens to be half black half white- how the hell does that make it "change", focus on the policies not the skin colour.

We seem to be regressing in our race studies........



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 06:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by blueorder
Have a word would you, any able non white is snapped up like a golden nugget in government offices and large businesses.

FACT is affirmative action is STATE sponsored discrimination against whites


And yet, most companies I work with, and have worked for, still have a 90-95% white employees. As a matter of fact, I'm one of 3 black people working for my company, and I was hired on merit.






grade a divisionist bs- why should some dirt poor white male farmer from Virginia allow, for example, Oprah to be a "victim" purely because she has black skin and does not possess male genitalia.


I think you know that your analogy is BS. The dirt poor white male farmer from Virginia wouldn't likely be applying for the same job. If they were, with the drastic difference in skill set would make sure that the best qualified would be hired.

Unless Oprah was applying for a job as a farmer, in which case I doubt she'd be hired solely based on affirmative action.

I don't know how many jobs you've applied to where you've lost out to a black person, or a woman, or a dwarf, or whatever, but if you have, have you ever thought it was because they were better at doing the job than you? Affirmative action doesn't come into play until there's a dead heat tie.

Too often an incapable person will blame affirmative action for their own incompetence. It's an easy scape goat.



I love this "in the world" guff as well, what, in Sudan (black on arab violence), in Japan (how does big bad white man dominate there) etc
etc


Then I'll specify the western world.


You are, ironically, a bigot


And you sir, are a sea monkey.

(I figured since we're throwing out insults with nothing substantial to back it up......)



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 07:01 AM
link   
Since when has race got anything to do with religion?
I thought this thread was about people being treat differently in law due to their religion.
Race is irrelevant to the arguement.

I'm sure Cat Stevens is white and Mo was an Arab.



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 07:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420

And yet, most companies I work with, and have worked for, still have a 90-95% white employees. As a matter of fact, I'm one of 3 black people working for my company, and I was hired on merit.



Some companies are over subscribed with non whites, c'est la vie






I think you know that your analogy is BS. The dirt poor white male farmer from Virginia wouldn't likely be applying for the same job. If they were, with the drastic difference in skill set would make sure that the best qualified would be hired.


Unless Oprah was applying for a job as a farmer, in which case I doubt she'd be hired solely based on affirmative action.


The overall point of victimhood purely on race and gender was being referred to, and the ridiculing of it, the farmer/oprah analogy fitting nicely- the victimhood agenda dehumanises people and actually, imo, keeps certain "groups" from achieving




I don't know how many jobs you've applied to where you've lost out to a black person, or a woman, or a dwarf, or whatever, but if you have, have you ever thought it was because they were better at doing the job than you? Affirmative action doesn't come into play until there's a dead heat tie.


yes, and when affirmative action comes into play it discriminates against whites purely because of their skin colour




Too often an incapable person will blame affirmative action for their own incompetence. It's an easy scape goat.


not me, Im self employed in the financial services sector and doing nicely (God willing)- affirmative action is an easy escape clause which sanctions racism




Then I'll specify the western world.


you mean, for example, Europe, where the white race is the "indigenous" / host race, you mean, I dont think whites would expect an easy ride in African and Asian nations, for a myriad of reasons, easy to blame bad whitey, which is inherently racist




And you sir, are a sea monkey.

(I figured since we're throwing out insults with nothing substantial to back it up......)



I like that term



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 08:02 AM
link   
I'd like to point out that Oprah came from a dirt poor background with very little helping her on her way to money and fame. But she is also obviously not the standard. Not everyone is Oprah.

And when it comes to that tie-breaker, I have to point out a simple fact about the business world.

People like to be comfortable while working. I'm currently mentoring a young man who's interning at my company. He's very smart, capable and has skills that surpass previous interns. He also happens to be a 260 pound 6 ft tall black man from Brooklyn. He speaks well, but you can tell that he's not from the suburbs.

The many people in my company are visibly uncomfortable around him. They know they shouldn't be, but it comes across in their interactions. If he were to apply for an entry level position tomorrow, and we had one available, he probably wouldn't be hired even though he's capable.

In the end hiring often comes down to 'gut feelings'. If someone has a 'gut feeling' about someone and it's based solely on deep seeded racial prejudices, then affirmative action is one of the ways to pass that by.

I'd like to mention that personally, I think AA has just about seen his last day. The state of racial relations has reached a level that is very accepting of minorities. I'd suggest that this is because of policies like AA forcing people who have lived in a bubble to work with and interact with minorities resulting in real life experience negating any prejudices people may have gained. Both black and white (and green and red and little people).




However, we've gone so far off topic that it's scary.



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
I'd like to point out that Oprah came from a dirt poor background with very little helping her on her way to money and fame. But she is also obviously not the standard. Not everyone is Oprah.


her kids then



And when it comes to that tie-breaker, I have to point out a simple fact about the business world. People like to be comfortable while working. I'm currently mentoring a young man who's interning at my company. He's very smart, capable and has skills that surpass previous interns. He also happens to be a 260 pound 6 ft tall black man from Brooklyn. He speaks well, but you can tell that he's not from the suburbs.

The many people in my company are visibly uncomfortable around him. They know they shouldn't be, but it comes across in their interactions. If he were to apply for an entry level position tomorrow, and we had one available, he probably wouldn't be hired even though he's capable.



you are interpreting peoples' reactions, perhaps, on your own racial stereotypes and preconceived notions




In the end hiring often comes down to 'gut feelings'. If someone has a 'gut feeling' about someone and it's based solely on deep seeded racial prejudices, then affirmative action is one of the ways to pass that by.


that is a big and unquantifiable "if" and certainly not justification for state sanctioned racialisation of selection procedures (even at a supposed "tie break)




I'd like to mention that personally, I think AA has just about seen his last day. The state of racial relations has reached a level that is very accepting of minorities. I'd suggest that this is because of policies like AA forcing people who have lived in a bubble to work with and interact with minorities resulting in real life experience negating any prejudices people may have gained. Both black and white (and green and red and little people).


I don't think it should ever have been introduced- funny how people focus on black employment but neglect the higher living standards (and employment) of east asians compared with whites........





However, we've gone so far off topic that it's scary.


agreed



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


Happened to me. I was refused (illegally I later found out) council tax benefit when i requested it. It was the only thing I asked for, as being on £12k/annum at the time, after rent and food, I didn't have enough to pay the tax, so asked for a reprieve. I was refused and I was told that was because I wasn't a minority or emergency case. I was only 19-20 at the time, so just accepted it and lived in poverty until i worked my way up the coporate ladder.

Now I pay exoborant amounts of tax (Income tax and NI come to as much now as I was getting paid after tax back then!!) and I see the Government still hell bent on pandering to minorites whilst ignoring massive issues that they really should be focussing on.

All the above has happened since Labour took power. Bring on 2009 and Cameron!!

Anyone heard of this latest story too?

The Archbishop of Canterbury - Sharia Law in the UK "unavoidable"



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
Happened to me. I was refused (illegally I later found out) council tax benefit when i requested it. It was the only thing I asked for, as being on £12k/annum at the time, after rent and food, I didn't have enough to pay the tax, so asked for a reprieve. I was refused and I was told that was because I wasn't a minority or emergency case. I was only 19-20 at the time, so just accepted it and lived in poverty until i worked my way up the coporate ladder.

Now I pay exoborant amounts of tax (Income tax and NI come to as much now as I was getting paid after tax back then!!) and I see the Government still hell bent on pandering to minorites whilst ignoring massive issues that they really should be focussing on.

All the above has happened since Labour took power. Bring on 2009 and Cameron!!




I agree with your comments, however, the last bit, be under no illusion, Cameron will be just the same in practice as Brown (and Blair before him)- much of these issues were just continued by New labour having been initiated under the previous Tory administration





Anyone heard of this latest story too?

The Archbishop of Canterbury - Sharia Law in the UK "unavoidable"


that man is a pathetic excuse for a UK Christian leader



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 05:02 PM
link   



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by winterass


What a "*insert slur here*'?


mod edit: quote & slur removed



[edit on 7-2-2008 by Duzey]



posted on Feb, 8 2008 @ 11:35 AM
link   
Has anyone considered just how sexist the British government must be to recognize polygamy (polygyny) at all?



posted on Feb, 8 2008 @ 05:07 PM
link   
Anthropologically speaking....

Having multiple wives is quite common in our world. Again, the key idea here is that you do not have any more than you can afford-which has let to its downfall throughout generations (inheritence problems obviously)

I think anyone should be allowed to have multiple wives in the U.S or U.K or any other country for that matter. It is done anyway behind the back of the government. It should not be outlawed.

But the idea of giving extra money to those who choose to do so....

Outrageous.



posted on Feb, 9 2008 @ 10:26 AM
link   
Sublime....

Then do you thing tax benefits should be denied for those who take a single spouse?



posted on Feb, 11 2008 @ 09:35 AM
link   
The issue is whether one sect of people should be able to break the law (polygamy) of the land. It seems to me, this decision makes that possible. If a Christian Brit cannot have more than one wife because it's against the law, then no other religion should be able to have more than one wife.

If anyone can have more than one wife, then anyone should be able to have more than one husband. (I say outlaw marraige!)

Affirmative action made it possible for people of every sex, race or ethnicity to work in certain jobs. The federal government gave contracts to certain companies and those companies hired only white men (the road construction industry, for example.) Because they had federal contracts they had to turn over lists of employees and the discrepancy of sex/race workers was noted. There are many more women and minorities working in this industry now. And making comparable wages (for the most part--women still make only about 75% of men's earnings in the US). It's a good thing. So white men have to share the job market...poor babies.

To deny white privilege is just silly.

It's like saying women have just as many rights as men do in our culture.

We don't.

When I go to a football game in warm weather, men all around me are shirtless. If I were to try to exercise the same freedom I would be arrested --ticketed at least--and probably thrown out of the stadium. Not because it's illegal for a woman to be topless (it isn't everywhere) but because the reaction of the men to the topless woman could incite a riot. (This is the answer I got from the police, when I called to ask if I could be arrested for shucking my shirt).

Inciting a riot IS illegal. So my rights are restricted by someone else's reaction.

Sorry--got carried away!



posted on Feb, 11 2008 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by themillersdaughter
If anyone can have more than one wife, then anyone should be able to have more than one husband. (I say outlaw marraige!)


And I say that government should get out of the marriage business and leave it up to the people which way they decide to live and handle their relationships. Sure you will find women trapped in abusive relationships, whether in the context of religion/tribalism or not. But for fairness, leave the state out of personal relationships, and that also means no privileges (such as tax breaks) for people of certain marital status.



It's a good thing. So white men have to share the job market...poor babies.


Those poor millionaires with their yachts and Swiss bank accounts!

You really think it's the country-club WASP types that suffer the most from PC and AA? Not a chance. They make the laws, and the loopholes, and it's to their advantage they can prop up the spoon-fed liberal darlings of colour and let the devil take the poor white working stiffs. Working class poor white people? Oh, my, they actually exist?



To deny white privilege is just silly.


To deny neurotypical privilege is even worse.
To make neuro-atypical white males bear most of the brunt of white guilt is one of the worst injustices of the NT world.



posted on Feb, 12 2008 @ 03:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by themillersdaughter

Affirmative action made it possible for people of every sex, race or ethnicity to work in certain jobs. The federal government gave contracts to certain companies and those companies hired only white men (the road construction industry, for example.) Because they had federal contracts they had to turn over lists of employees and the discrepancy of sex/race workers was noted. There are many more women and minorities working in this industry now. And making comparable wages (for the most part--women still make only about 75% of men's earnings in the US). It's a good thing.


it does not such thing, it demeans those hired on the basis of this form of racial discrimination (which is what AFFIRMATIVE ACTION really is), makes them lesser employees.

It also state sanctions racism



So white men have to share the job market...poor babies.


Idiotic comment, strangely enough before this form of state sanctioned racism was enforced, the market was not made up entirely of "white men"

East Asians managed to do ok without affirmative action.

"Poor Babies"- the only ones treated like kids are those hired on the basis of state enforced racism, how does that grab ya



To deny white privilege is just silly.


to use the term is nauseating self hatred and idotic




It's like saying women have just as many rights as men do in our culture.


legally you do, and in fact, you have additional rights in many areas of our legal system




We don't.


you do- poor babies



When I go to a football game in warm weather, men all around me are shirtless. If I were to try to exercise the same freedom I would be arrested --ticketed at least--and probably thrown out of the stadium. Not because it's illegal for a woman to be topless (it isn't everywhere) but because the reaction of the men to the topless woman could incite a riot. (This is the answer I got from the police, when I called to ask if I could be arrested for shucking my shirt).


Dear me, send in the suffragettes- what utter tosh, the law applies EQUALLY to men and women, and the fact that you have breasts is the difference, AND strangely enough, Ive spoken to several females about the above scenario, and THEY would not be happy about you exposing yourself in this manner, quid pro quo



Inciting a riot IS illegal. So my rights are restricted by someone else's reaction.



inciting a riot is illegal for men too



posted on Feb, 27 2008 @ 02:27 AM
link   
I've heard of somewhere in the world where the women are the ones who get more than one husband!




top topics



 
4
<< 13  14  15   >>

log in

join