actually a baseless argument (to an extent), for muslims a 5 y/o can dress like any other 5 y/o w/ sleeveless dress and short short skirt showing legs -- all that comes stuff comes at puberty.
now otoh, some strict muslims might have an issue with pictures...so how do you handle that, uk passport office.
---
No one said anyone gave any thought to this idea! Clearly they didn't. -rc
Posted by
Greg in Seattle on August 4, 2008:
Thing is I've been in Israel in the summer, and my sister was asked not to enter certain "holy" places because she was wearing shorts.
Now, if the British government has a mandate wherein passports must meet certain guidelines so that all countries will accept a British passport, then this is not quite as blindly PC as one might think. It's a policy to ensure that no one rejects a British passport out of hand. It's for maximum usability.
But passports have silly rules in general. I once was told some countries require you to smile in your passport photo because they don't want foreigners to think their people are unhappy.
But now, in the wake of September 11th, multiple countries have enacted rules that prohibit various forms of smiling in passport photos. I kid you not. Apparently, though, in the UK, babies under 1 year old are allowed to smile (or even sleep) in their photos.
Posted by
Joe, New York on August 9, 2008:
Here's my favorite definition of PC:
"Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
Posted by
Mark, Prescott, AZ on August 9, 2008:
There are lots of ways to express an anti-religious bias. If your criticism was balanced in both directions, it would be understandable. There are many opportunities to criticize religious bigots that you do not take. Charles Dawkin's book is so unbalanced, other atheists have criticized it, and there are many people who are of Dawkin's mindset, so there should be plenty of fodder to expose intolerance on the other side.
Mark (a Zoroastrian)
---
My purpose isn't to equally criticize every possible permutation of belief, but rather to entertain -- and provoke thought and discussion. I don't know what Dawkin has to do with anything, as he isn't discussed on this page, which is not here to discuss religion, but rather the ridiculous depths of political correctness. -rc
Posted by
Colin, Mancester on August 11, 2008:
Greg in Seattle wrote, "Thing is I've been in Israel in the summer, and my sister was asked not to enter certain "holy" places because she was wearing shorts."
There is a great difference between that request and the UK's passport. In his sister's case, she was entering areas where it was known for certain that religious people who frequent these locations would be offended by 'immodest' dress. In such a case, the request is reasonable and compliance a matter of courtesy.
The UK passport situation differs. There the concern is that one "might travel" to where somebody "might be offended". This is where PC kicks in. It has nothing to do with real events. Instead it seeks to stop a theoretical offense to an unknown person later when you aren't even going to be there.
Posted by
Jon, UK on August 11, 2008:
Hey, Mark, is that Charles Darwin or Richard Dawkins you're criticising? In case of doubt: the first had a beard and is dead; the second didn't and isn't.
Define "Political Correctness" - Comments
Posted by nic, usa on August 4, 2008:
actually a baseless argument (to an extent), for muslims a 5 y/o can dress like any other 5 y/o w/ sleeveless dress and short short skirt showing legs -- all that comes stuff comes at puberty.
now otoh, some strict muslims might have an issue with pictures...so how do you handle that, uk passport office.
---
No one said anyone gave any thought to this idea! Clearly they didn't. -rc
Posted by Greg in Seattle on August 4, 2008:
Thing is I've been in Israel in the summer, and my sister was asked not to enter certain "holy" places because she was wearing shorts.
Now, if the British government has a mandate wherein passports must meet certain guidelines so that all countries will accept a British passport, then this is not quite as blindly PC as one might think. It's a policy to ensure that no one rejects a British passport out of hand. It's for maximum usability.
But passports have silly rules in general. I once was told some countries require you to smile in your passport photo because they don't want foreigners to think their people are unhappy.
But now, in the wake of September 11th, multiple countries have enacted rules that prohibit various forms of smiling in passport photos. I kid you not. Apparently, though, in the UK, babies under 1 year old are allowed to smile (or even sleep) in their photos.
Posted by Joe, New York on August 9, 2008:
Here's my favorite definition of PC:
"Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
Posted by Mark, Prescott, AZ on August 9, 2008:
There are lots of ways to express an anti-religious bias. If your criticism was balanced in both directions, it would be understandable. There are many opportunities to criticize religious bigots that you do not take. Charles Dawkin's book is so unbalanced, other atheists have criticized it, and there are many people who are of Dawkin's mindset, so there should be plenty of fodder to expose intolerance on the other side.
Mark (a Zoroastrian)
---
My purpose isn't to equally criticize every possible permutation of belief, but rather to entertain -- and provoke thought and discussion. I don't know what Dawkin has to do with anything, as he isn't discussed on this page, which is not here to discuss religion, but rather the ridiculous depths of political correctness. -rc
Posted by Colin, Mancester on August 11, 2008:
Greg in Seattle wrote, "Thing is I've been in Israel in the summer, and my sister was asked not to enter certain "holy" places because she was wearing shorts."
There is a great difference between that request and the UK's passport. In his sister's case, she was entering areas where it was known for certain that religious people who frequent these locations would be offended by 'immodest' dress. In such a case, the request is reasonable and compliance a matter of courtesy.
The UK passport situation differs. There the concern is that one "might travel" to where somebody "might be offended". This is where PC kicks in. It has nothing to do with real events. Instead it seeks to stop a theoretical offense to an unknown person later when you aren't even going to be there.
Posted by Jon, UK on August 11, 2008:
Hey, Mark, is that Charles Darwin or Richard Dawkins you're criticising? In case of doubt: the first had a beard and is dead; the second didn't and isn't.
Read the article that everyone's commenting on, or post a comment about it.