Zulu wristband spat 'racist'

[Moederloos]

I think he should be driving a car from an African automotive company, of which there are none. Maybe a bicycle? And dress in some nice African garb made in Africa by Africans and not some Italian (Western) design company.

The wheel is also a western evil.
Perhaps he should just walk.

 

[Sherbang]

it wasn't properly cured so in a sense, it was 'rotting'

That was in the article?
This is what they look like
http://www.artthrob.co.za/03oct/images/gallery003_magwa_a.jpg

 

[Kimosabe]

What do you mean. Democracy is a western ideal, political parties are a western ideal, cell phones, roads, sanitation, planes, cars, tv, radio, brick buildings, everything that Africans seem to forget when the time chooses.,

 

[Mephisto_Helix]

Biltong? Anyone?

so that's why you were gnawing on a Zulu's arm

 

[coolio24]

I wasn't aware of the sacred value at the time of writing that. It's still a mountain out of a molehill imo. Blasphemy it might be if the intent was there i.e if the manager knew the value associated with the band. Otherwise, it's a case of ignorance, and nothing more...

While it is not outrightly clear in the article, it seems that the Manager first asked her to remove the wristband, at which point the woman must have explained why she couldn't, he then would have known the religious value of the item, therefore, removing the wristband would have been clearly blasphemous, as blasphemy describes an action, and is not a belief structure as some would like us to believe.

If we want religious tolerance in the country, we must be prepared to have tolerance, we would all be just as upset, if we were told we can't wear crosses, or yamukkahs, or kurtas

I believe the proper course of action, would have been for the manager to remove her from the food section, to do something else

 

[DJ...]

link?

Doesn't need one. That is nonsense and I'm sure as an intelligent person you don't believe that yourself...

 

[Mila]

Where did she work?

 

[Moederloos]

I believe the proper course of action, would have been for the manager to remove her from the food section, to do something else

Naive.

Then she would have been "racially discrimated against". Or "singled out".
Or "targetted", "humiliated", or "alienated".

 

[PeterCH]

Apparently you can claim any religion you like. This country is secular and doesn't recognise any particular one.

The state recognises religions. It recognises trade unions and professional affiliation bodies too. Being a minister or sangoma is a legit occupation. There may also be tax benefits for churches. The secular bit you quote comes in that we have follow secular and not ecclesiastic law. Ancient Hebrews for instance followed a law which was ecclesiastic, hence you could get killed by the state for blasphemy.

The state very well recognises freedom of religion and freedom from persecution in practice of religion.

People post weird stuff on MyBB these days.

 

[Stephen]

Man I think one of my New Years resolutions is to cry "racism" for anything. I have experienced a lot of black racists in my time

 

[Slaine73]

Where did she work?

Some Pick & Pay or another

 

[coolio24]

Naive.

Then she would have been "racially discrimated against". Or "singled out".
Or "targetted", "humiliated", or "alienated".

I may be wrong, but I don't think that people are hired to work in specific areas in PnP, so she couldn't complain about being discriminated against, and I don't think she was doing a skilled job in any case.

 

[semiautomatix]

While it is not outrightly clear in the article, it seems that the Manager first asked her to remove the wristband, at which point the woman must have explained why she couldn't, he then would have known the religious value of the item, therefore, removing the wristband would have been clearly blasphemous, as blasphemy describes an action, and is not a belief structure as some would like us to believe.

Lets make this clear: the manager wouldn't have been committing blasphemy, but the female employee would have.

If we want religious tolerance in the country, we must be prepared to have tolerance, we would all be just as upset, if we were told we can't wear crosses, or yamukkahs, or kurtas

I believe the proper course of action, would have been for the manager to remove her from the food section, to do something else

Perhaps he was religiously intolerant but not racist and sexist. After all, it is also his job on the line, but clearly she was incapable of understanding this.

 

[CyraxHB]

What is happening here is that we are witnessing a massive lack of understanding of the matter by some of the people who participate in this forum...
The romans wear rosaries (that cross thing) around their necks and some are not allowed to cover them or tuck them in, would that also be considered unhygienic?

I just think that the employee should have just been requested to cover it up and not told to remove it completely...

Anyway in this country and employee who packs food in a PnP does not matter! I just wish that people stopped ridiculing other people's beliefs so much..

The fact is that it is unhygienic and it is blatantly obvious that it cannot be worn near food preparation.

This whole thing has nothing to do with peoples beliefs, it has to do with PnP not wanting people who eat their food to die.

 

[semiautomatix]

The state recognises religions. It recognises trade unions and professional affiliation bodies too. Being a minister or sangoma is a legit occupation. There may also be tax benefits for churches. The secular bit you quote comes in that we have follow secular and not ecclesiastic law. Ancient Hebrews for instance followed a law which was ecclesiastic, hence you could get killed by the state for blasphemy.

The state very well recognises freedom of religion and freedom from persecution in practice of religion.

People post weird stuff on MyBB these days.

I am not talking about a legal matter, the state recognises religious organisations, but not a particular religion itself. You can form a religion, if you so wish, it does not have to be registered but others must be tolerant of your beliefs, if that is your choice.

e.g. Catholicism isn't registered, but the Roman Catholic Church is. You do not have to be a member of any particular RCC church to be a Catholic, either - which is what you would be implying.

Yeah, its weird when people think that others beliefs are law.

 

[coolio24]

Lets make this clear: the manager wouldn't have been committing blasphemy, but the female employee would have.

If she had removed it herself, she would have been committing a sin ( according to her beliefs) But because he removed it he was being blasphemous

Perhaps he was religiously intolerant but not racist and sexist. After all, it is also his job on the line, but clearly she was incapable of understanding this.

I agree, calling it racist or sexist is pushing it too far, but if he romoved it himself, he could be charged with harassment as well, or accused of infringing on her human rights ( freedom of religion, expression, etc. ) he should have thought about it better before doing anything like that

 

[PeterCH]

I am not talking about a legal matter, the state recognises religious organisations, but not a particular religion itself. You can form a religion, if you so wish, it does not have to be registered but others must be tolerant of your beliefs, if that is your choice.

e.g. Catholicism isn't registered, but the Roman Catholic Church is. You do not have to be a member of any particular RCC church to be a Catholic, either - which is what you would be implying.

Yeah, its weird when people think that others beliefs are law.

The state recognises religion but is not meant to favour or discriminate anyone
of them. What you imply is that the state is oblivious to the existence of religions. Judging by their recognition of religious organisations and even religious holidays this suggests otherwise.There is no registry body for religions though (or maybe there is). However, if there are tax benefits or special benefits of being a religious organisation some sort of
criteria are used to decide if a body is a religious organisation or not.

 

[Moederloos]

I may be wrong, but I don't think that people are hired to work in specific areas in PnP, so she couldn't complain about being discriminated against, and I don't think she was doing a skilled job in any case.

Someone hired as a cashier, would not be moved into a butchery position (unless of course, they went and became butchers via the normal method).
So, people are most likely hired for a position. It probably states in their contract what they are expected to do.

 

[semiautomatix]

If she had removed it herself, she would have been committing a sin ( according to her beliefs) But because he removed it he was being blasphemous

No wrong, he was being religiously intolerant. You can't be blasphemous if you don't believe in the sacredness of the item.

I could just as well claim that she (the employee) is being blasphemous because, in my religion, I believe that "there shall be no other God but [mine]"; yet she worships her ancestors and such. Understand?

 

[semiautomatix]

The state recognises religion but is not meant to favour or discriminate anyone
of them. What you imply is that the state is oblivious to the existence of religions. Judging by their recognition of religious organisations and even religious holidays this suggests otherwise.There is no registry body for religions though (or maybe there is). However, if there are tax benefits or special benefits of being a religious organisation some sort of
criteria are used to decide if a body is a religious organisation or not.

Yes, but I could start a cult worshipping the "Sun God" tomorrow and you would have to respect my religious beliefs regardless of whether it is a religion recognised by the State or not. As such, the State recognises no one religion, which is what I posted.