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

85 years ago there was a country forcing people to wear identifying signs of their religion - even if they did not wish to do so. How terrible we thought. Now we're discussing passing laws that will force people to remove identifying signs of their religion. It might be thought that in the first case, there was no desire that this particular religious community integrate whereas in the second there is demand that the religious community or communities integrate completely. Not really though is it? What a mess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ID: 29   Posted (edited)

 

God being Maxwell of course!

Edited by Grouse
Problem posting image

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ID: 30   Posted (edited)

I do not believe "Religious" garb should be banned but the wearers of the Niqab and Burka should be required, by law, to remove the face covering any where that it is necessary for the wearer to be identified.  That is banks, courts, police checks, police stations, airports etc., or anywhere any other type of face covering is banned.  Those bans are in place for a reason, that is for the specific purpose of identifying the wearer, nothing more, nothing less.  Other than that, wear what you like, who really gives a toss. :wai:


 

Edited by Si Thea01

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, hawker9000 said:

Including atheism...

 

What a silly remark !

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, hawker9000 said:

Including atheism...

 

LOL

if religions are outlawed and non religion is outlawed , then everyone on earth would be outlawed. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ID: 33   Posted (edited)

7 hours ago, hawker9000 said:

Including atheism...

 

TVF going crazy again (multiple submission)

Edited by sirineou

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ID: 34   Posted (edited)

7 hours ago, hawker9000 said:

Including atheism...

 

TVF continues to go crazy

LOL (Sbmited my post three times)

 

Edited by sirineou

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well if you count hijab and other Islam clothing on their women as that then yes. But Islam actually doesn't have any symbols or tattoos etc. So it would only be a ban against all except Muslims. And the halfmoon, green colour etc is not a Islam thing, The only Religion that is against other beliefs is Islam. I can write more so you understand easier but I'll wait for some stupid comments untill I educate you further:p

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Si Thea01 said:

I do not believe "Religious" garb should be banned but the wearers of the Niqab and Burka should be required, by law, to remove the face covering any where that it is necessary for the wearer to be identified.  That is banks, courts, police checks, police stations, airports etc., or anywhere any other type of face covering is banned.  Those bans are in place for a reason, that is for the specific purpose of identifying the wearer, nothing more, nothing less.  Other than that, wear what you like, who really gives a toss. :wai:


 

In the UK anyone wearing a face covering of any kind is obliged to remove it for official identification purposes, such as passing through immigration, giving evidence in a court of law; even before taking a driving test!

 

It is up to individual banks and other commercial entities what their policy is.

 

The same for whatever dress code employers or schools wish to have. As long as they are not discriminatory and apply equally to all. MPs back temp worker’s campaign to end ‘sexist’ high heel policy and Worker wins case over wearing tie

 

But other than those situations, what someone chooses to wear is their own affair. Whether that choice is motivated by religion, fashion, allegiance to a particular youth cult or football team, or anything else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, The Deerhunter said:

The full hijab is a symbol of female oppression. PS.  I am a man.

 Do you mean hijab, burka, niqab chador or khimar? They are different.

 

Image result for difference between hijab burqa and niqab

 

Most Muslim women outside the Middle East who wear any religious clothing at all wear the Hijab.

 

What about other religions?

Image result for orthodox jewish women dress code

 

Some ultra orthodox Jewish women go further and wear burqas or niqabs; though they probably call them by Hebrew names rather than Arabic ones!

 

Of course, female dress codes are not exclusive to Islam or Judaism. Neither are male ones, come to that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NO!  The more laws we have the less freedom we also have.  We have enough laws already; let's take a timeout on making new laws...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do those cross necklaces count as clothing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In their private life people can do as they wish.

And I can associate with them or not, as I wish.

 

But if I go to a government office, I do not want to deal with a person that makes it clear to be jewish, muslim, red shirt, yellow shirt, gay, hetero, anarchist (like me.....), trumpist,  or whatever. That would give me the feeling that this person treats people differently according to their convictions.

 

At the private work place it is up to the employer, who will consider the effects on his customers.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Do those cross necklaces count as clothing?

No, but they are symbols.

Once again, a clumsily worded survey question.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Do those cross necklaces count as clothing?

The ECJ ruling which prompted this poll didn't ban religious clothing or symbols at work. What the ruling actually says is that employers are not breaking any anti discrimination laws if they impose a ban on visible religious or political symbols, clothing or otherwise, on all their employees; regardless of the employees religion or politics and the symbol concerned.

 

Muslim groups have protested the ruling; as have other religious groups: from The Independent

Quote

 

European rabbis said the court had worsened rising hate crime by sending a message that “faith communities are no longer welcome”.

The president of the Conference of European Rabbis, Chief Rabbi Pinchas Goldschmidt, said: “This decision sends a signal to all religious groups in Europe.” 

The United Sikhs advocacy group said the “disturbing” ruling allowed employers to override fundamental human rights.

From The Telegraph: Church of England attacks 'troubling' European court ruling which says employers can ban workers from wearing Christian crosses

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, farcanell said:

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

Ah, you're beginning to get it at last!  How can you stop someone from believing in God?  It's absolutely no different from trying to force them into believing in God, and history demonstrates the atrocity in that.  How do you "make them" believe or not believe except by the most radical and inhumane means?   Banning religious belief is simply a road no sane person wants to go down.  Would you really want to start exterminating believers, say, the way Hitler did?  (I don't really classify persons who are so tyrannically inclined as to actually support any such government efforts as rational or sane.)  And, as I said.  Non-belief in God is still just a "belief", and no more entitled to state endorsement than religion is.  Neither party "knows" or can prove the truth of his belief. 

 

Atheism, the belief that there is no god, is absolutely just as much, and nothing more than, a belief as religious belief is.  Why do you keep mindlessly suggesting that it's not a belief?  Of course and obviously it is.  Can you prove the truth of it?  No.  Has anyone ever shown YOU proof of it?  No.  Therefore it's merely "belief".  Yours is no better than theirs.  It's nonsense to keep parroting that it is. 

 

The theory behind not taxing religions is at least in part that they serve the public good.  Whine & moan all you want about the various historic evils some religions have inflicted, the fact is that they do in fact still perform charitable services.  Communities don't really want to lose that, and I doubt that in public referendums it would get majority support.  But crank initiatives like that do come along and taxpayer money then has to spent so the voters can vote them down if they manage to collect enough signatures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, oldhippy said:

Surprise!!!!! Many countries have a church tax Hawker.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_tax

 

Do you even know what a "church tax" IS??   It's a tax imposed by the church on its members, not a tax imposed by the state on the church, as farcanell is suggesting.

 

 

Share this post


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

Do you even know what a "church tax" IS??   It's a tax imposed by the church on its members, not a tax imposed by the state on the church, as farcanell is suggesting.

 

 

1/ Let us stay on topic - the topic is wearing religious symbols, how about a reply to my post #43?

2/ Yes I know what a church tax is, and it is certainly not a tax imposed by a church - churches do many things, but they do not impose taxes. You have not read the Wiki link, have you?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, oldhippy said:

1/ Let us stay on topic - the topic is wearing religious symbols, how about a reply to my post #43?

2/ Yes I know what a church tax is, and it is certainly not a tax imposed by a church - churches do many things, but they do not impose taxes. You have not read the Wiki link, have you?

 

 

LOL.  YOU brought it up!!!!

 

The church does not actually "collect" the tax.  The government does and then passes it along to the church to which that taxpayer belongs.  Pure technicality.  It is NOT, again as farcanell suggested (and you would understandably rather not address), a tax on the church or "religion" for the benefit of the state. 

 

It might be considered off-topic - it always is when somebody brings it up and opens the door, as you & farcanell have, but then can't handle hearing any rebuttal.   How lame.

 

 As for your #43, the discussion with farcanell, about which I was commenting, was about abolishing religion, not specifically displays in the workplace.  But as far as that goes, I'm not so insecure that I can't handle some govt employee wearing a Cross or Star of David or Star & Crescent or Buddha figure or pentagram around his/her neck or some picture or personal display that might be religiously oriented on their desk. That's a perfectly reasonable display & expression of religious preference and doesn't threaten or offend me or any reasonable person in any way whatsoever.  If it "makes you think" something, then do something about your own prejudices rather than try & impose them on others.  I see Mexican flags in govt workers' workspaces back in the states all the time, and I'm not supposed to have any problem with that!   I only draw the line at "expressions" or "displays" that interfere with public safety and law enforcement (face coverings & such) or obviously & specifically intended to offend. 

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 31 March 2017 05:33
Sponsors