Scott

SURVEY: Should clothing with religious symbolism be outlawed?

SURVEY: Should items of clothing with religious symbolism be outlawed?   115 members have voted

  1. 1. Should items of clothing with religious symbolism be outlawed?

    • Yes, all clothing with religious symbolism should be outlawed in public.
      34
    • No, they should be permitted in public.
      50
    • There should be restrictions on wearing clothing with religious symbolism in the work place.
      25

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

105 posts in this topic

SURVEY:   Should clothing with religious symbolism be outlawed?

 

There has been a fair amount of discussion about clothing, such as the hijab, the yarmulkes and even the Sikh Turban.   In your opinion, do you believe that items of clothing with religious symbolism should be outlawed in public?   This survey does not include items of jewelry which may include necklaces, broaches, or earrings which may be religious in nature.

 

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/973635-eu-headscarf-ban-ruling-sparks-faith-group-backlash/#comment-11711878

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I voted no. As with many things, the devil is in the details. Freedom of thought, expression should be limited only when clearly trampling on the equal rights of others. So wear your headscarves, crosses, etc. As to the full coverings making personal facial recognition blocked? No. In today's society, full facial recognition can be argued as the greater value. Thus, no motorcycle helmets, ski masks, etc in the banks, airports or any public spaces. Business dress codes present a more involved question...still, human rights do not stop at the door of the workplace. More complicated but I would start from this understanding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I voted no, except for the workplace. I would extend that to include activity as part of any organization. The wishes of management regarding dress code have to be followed, especially for civil servants.

Another point is school - I think religious clothing should not be accepted in public schools, nor should pupils be excused from swimming or sports or any other course on religious grounds.

 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although I voted no I would like to see two exceptions. No full face covering. Despite all the claims, it is not a religious requirement. And swimming attire only in a swimming pool. Anything else is unhygienic.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I voted no, any government of any country who allow people to walk about in public with their faces covered are showing contempt for the safety of any people who are in that country, motor bike helmets should be taken off apart from when the rider is using the bike, and there is that Muslim thingy that hides the face of women with only the eyes being seen, it has been proved before that it can disguise criminal and terrorist activity. But crosses, or Buddah things etc, are harmless and should be left alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Impose restrictions.... certainly in the workplace, but other areas may also warrant some form of restrictions (in banks?). Restrictions could impose modifications to outfits, such as ensuring faces must be uncovered (for security reasons)... but this would perhaps also mean the removal of "hoodies" from clothing, as they too, cover the face

 

a no vote removes certain freedoms that have always existed, only making a ban on "religious " clothing is discriminatory. "Uniforms" are symbolic of belonging to a group, such as a school, or branch of armed forces, or similar.... and these groups won't loose their unique clothing style, so it just isn't fair

 

i would howerever, vote yes, to ban football hooligans dressing up in their clubs colors, as a rallying point for violent actions and the likes

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People can and should exercise their religions at home and should not exhibit these in public. I have no objection to people wearing crosses, Stars of David or other insignia  indicating a religious belief, but I feel that otherwise nothing further should be demonstrated in public. This applies to all religions with the exception, of course, of people exercising duties in their religions, i.e. Monks, priests, Rabbis Imams etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, possum1931 said:

I voted no, any government of any country who allow people to walk about in public with their faces covered are showing contempt for the safety of any people who are in that country, motor bike helmets should be taken off apart from when the rider is using the bike, and there is that Muslim thingy that hides the face of women with only the eyes being seen, it has been proved before that it can disguise criminal and terrorist activity. But crosses, or Buddah things etc, are harmless and should be left alone.

Possum .... lol.... Your comments suggest you should have voted yes,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who has the right to tell another person that their religious beliefs ie clothing are outlawed? If this is the case, then outlaw foods, buildings etc and so the list can and should go on. If this is to occur and then ultimately we ban religions, which many would like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jimeo47 said:

All religions should be outlawed. Or taxed.

Religions were invented to control the masses through fear and oppression.

Including atheism...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, farcanell said:

Possum .... lol.... Your comments suggest you should have voted yes,

:sorry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, hawker9000 said:

Including atheism...

 

Atheism is a disbelief, or lack of belief in a religion... and there is no "code of conduct" involved. One simply follows ones moral compass.

 

ergo, there is nothing tangible about it that can be banned.... in fact, quite the opposite, as history has seen non believers persecuted, and forced to accept (or outwardly admit) to a religious belief

 

the same goes for communism or other forms of socio politically induced/enforced cultures, as these are not religions or beliefs

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, possum1931 said:

:sorry:

Lol... now you need to revote twice, to offset your previous 👍

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, farcanell said:

Atheism is a disbelief, or lack of belief in a religion... and there is no "code of conduct" involved. One simply follows ones moral compass.

 

ergo, there is nothing tangible about it that can be banned.... in fact, quite the opposite, as history has seen non believers persecuted, and forced to accept (or outwardly admit) to a religious belief

 

the same goes for communism or other forms of socio politically induced/enforced cultures, as these are not religions or beliefs

Atheism involves a "belief" in something no mortal can possibly know, and involves "expression" just as much as any organized religion does.  Most organized religions "deny" other  organized religions; atheism merely denies them all and substitutes denial of the other beliefs as ITS "belief".  Neither the faithful NOR the non-believers can do anything but "believe" in what they're expressing (unless you know somebody who's back from the dead with a firsthand account).   "Ergo", there IS something tangible about atheism, certainly no less "tangible" than religious belief.   Neither sides "knows" what its talking about; both sides simply believe what they're saying.

 

So.  Ban someone else's religion?  OK.  Let's ban yours, too.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ID: 17   Posted (edited)

29 minutes ago, hawker9000 said:

Atheism involves a "belief" in something no mortal can possibly know, and involves "expression" just as much as any organized religion does.  Most organized religions "deny" other  organized religions; atheism merely denies them all and substitutes denial of the other beliefs as ITS "belief".  Neither the faithful NOR the non-believers can do anything but "believe" in what they're expressing (unless you know somebody who's back from the dead with a firsthand account).   "Ergo", there IS something tangible about atheism, certainly no less "tangible" than religious belief.   Neither sides "knows" what its talking about; both sides simply believe what they're saying.

 

So.  Ban someone else's religion?  OK.  Let's ban yours, too.

 

 

 

How?

 

how can you ban, or stop someone from not believing in a god?

 

Make them believe in a god?

 

atheism is the "belief" ( as you suggest) that there is nothing to believe in... ie... an absence of belief... banning this, means they have to therefore believe in something... which is what the poster (@6) said should be banned.

 

i do not see atheism as a religion... there is nothing being worshipped, which is what a religion does (worships)... by being an atheist, I simply choose not to believe in god(s) or any religion

 

post 6 suggests an alternative though... tax religions... that would work for me, too.

 

worshipping religions makes money for that faith... tax it.

 

atheism doesn't make money... so that's all good with me, if you insist that not believing in a god (nonbelif), is actually a belief

Edited by farcanell
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say yes, providing it doesn't include face covering and that it doesn't offend the main religion of the country. All visitors, asylum seekers MUST comply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did not vote as there is such a large differential. On one side is the whole Muslim attire granted mostly on the females which designates them as Muslim then there are Hindu's etc. that wear large turbans and others that do not come to mind. To go to the point of banning these would be well an excercise in futility. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Complicated issue.  For example the Sikh turban denotes his religion and also the Items every Sikh man must carry at all times including a knife.  But generally Sikhs are very polite and innocuous. The full hijab is a symbol of female oppression. PS.  I am a man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ID: 24   Posted (edited)

wTo ban clothing with religious symbols on them means telling  Catholic priests not to wear crosses on their robes, as well as Catholic Nuns not to wear a Nuns habit

Once you start down the slippery slope of stopping people from wearing the clothes they wish you also can't stop anyone from wearing any clothes no matter how insulting their clothes are  to another group.

For that reason we can't start going there, we must stay away from that area or we can ban anything another person doesn't like.

I don't want to live in that kind of country.

 

Edited by IMA_FARANG
correct typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

BANGKOK 24 March 2017 17:06
Sponsors