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

Atheism is closer to a religion than agnosticism. Human beings are biologically wired to have a belief system so most people in all societies feel a deep need to fill that hole. A strong "belief" in atheism would work and so would a "belief" that the scientific method makes belief in God irrational, though of course probably most scientists also have some kind of religious faith. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Do those cross necklaces count as clothing?

Not for the purposes of this survey, as deligniated by the OP.

 

just clothing or costumes pertaining to religious practices, which would include all religions... including those funny hats worn by Jews.

 

that said, my vote was option three... apply restrictions.... specifically against covering of the face, as that disguises ones identity.

 

i also went further by saying that hoodies should also be banned, as these too, disguise identity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ID: 55   Posted (edited)

I'm not getting it.

If the purpose is mask religious identity why allow religious jewelry but not head stuff?

They both show religious identity even though yes sometimes crosses and stars are just fashion statements.

Let's get real, in Europe, it's most targeted at Muslims. Might as well be honest about it. 

You're not ever going to see a law targeted at the Christian majority as long as they are the majority. 

Edited by Jingthing
1 person likes this

Share this post


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

Including atheism...

 

Atheism is not a religion.  The non-delusional should rule the world of reality..  

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

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. 

Wait one.... farcanell did not bring atheism into this... you did in post 12, which was the first post in which "atheism" was mentioned.

 

farcanell did not bring taxation into this, jimeo47 did in post 6, to which you responded.

 

but... your right in how you qualified my position on taxing the church (any church), as I did indeed mean that the church should pay tax to the state, especially as the Catholic Church is one of the richest businesses in existence... and, as a money making machine, it is a business... a really big business.

 

that said... ostensibly my position, as an atheist, is the same as yours, as a god bothered of some description, in that you say (above).... "I only draw the line at expressions or displays that interfere with public safety and law enforcement ( face cover and such) or obviousely and specifically intended to offend"

 

i believe, given this, that you, like me, must have chosen option three. (Common ground... yay)

 

as to your post 46.... very clever.... but... atheists ( to the best of my knowledge) don't go about trying to force their views on others ( or at least I don't, though I do sometimes try to get non atheists to justify their beliefs, in order to get them thinking about the incongruity of said belief), nor do they suggest exterminating believers... they just don't believe in a higher god figure

 

you bring hitler to the table... I'm not sure why... he was a baptized catholic and banned atheism.... which (in modern times) is not endorsed by a "state", unlike mainstream religions. (And in some places, like the US for example, non mainstream religions)

 

atheists do not believe... they disbelieve in a god... sure... it's semantics at play, but that's the definition, and admittedly, a weak argument to your assertion that this in itself is a belief... but a "belief" is an acceptance that something is true... atheists do not accept that religion is a truth.... therefore they do not have a belief in anything religious, which is not, in itself, a belief... but more a viewpoint or position on the matter

 

this is an old chestnut that can be kicked back and forth ad infinitum, but only proof, of which there is none to date, will change an atheists POV, as they will never accept an unsubstantiated fairy tale ( and for my part, certainly not one as new as Christianity, when there are older gods to consider, who's followers were actively persecuted, and near annihalated (think celts or heretics), by the followers of the nailed god, much like Hitler did to the Jews. ( oh look, I just turned that suggestion about exterminating people back onto you... and there's proof of that one... lol)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, kowpot said:

 

atheism.jpg

 

Screen Shot 2017-03-20 at 12.29.11 PM.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 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.

I am sure god created beautiful lustrous hair for women to be covered or shaved off.  Yeah I'm sure thats what god wanted.  And the tip of my cock back also.  Yeah definitely makes sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/19/2017 at 4:50 PM, Moonlover said:

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.

I didn't vote at all, because it is pretty impossible to say what is "religious" and what is cultural. I'm not referring to religious leaders garb ( it's pretty obvious that the Pope is wearing religious garb ), but to what people wear in their everyday life. In a perfect world, there would be no cultural difference and people would wear whatever they like, but we live in an imperfect world.

Whatever, full face covering should not be allowed in public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Andaman Al said:

Sorry but that makes no sense. Atheism cannot be termed a religion in any logical discussion. It is an argument pushed out by the religious trying to compare their main threat to themselves. It does not hold water and is clutching at straws. Atheists simply do not believe and have no need to gather together to praise that disbelief or to pray and worship their disbelief, it makes zero sense to associate atheism with a religion. Agnostics have no idea and stick by the principle that you cannot prove the existence of God or not and until you can they remain indifferent.

How does atheism compare to Theravada Buddhism

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree atheism is not a religion but I've met some extremely dogmatic atheists. My comment about humans being hard wired for belief systems is a provable anthropological fact. Go to any human society on the planet no matter how remote and its always there. I am not anti atheist at all. In fact that's how I identify.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

How does atheism compare to Theravada Buddhism

Atheism does not follow a common code amongst non believers in religion, nor does it have teachings, traditions or rituals.

 

buddism... is not a religion in the classic sense, as it does not have a god figure, but it does have a common code, which includes teachings, traditions, regular gatherings and rituals (making it religion like).

 

its a great question.... which philosophers continually debate.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because belief systems are hard wired into our biology I still think a lack of belief in any deities is also a belief system. It is debatable. As humans we are generally going to have a stance on such things.

 

 

Share this post


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

How does atheism compare to Theravada Buddhism

It doesn't .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Andaman Al said:

Sorry but that makes no sense. Atheism cannot be termed a religion in any logical discussion. It is an argument pushed out by the religious trying to compare their main threat to themselves. It does not hold water and is clutching at straws. Atheists simply do not believe and have no need to gather together to praise that disbelief or to pray and worship their disbelief, it makes zero sense to associate atheism with a religion. Agnostics have no idea and stick by the principle that you cannot prove the existence of God or not and until you can they remain indifferent.

As an agnostic (leaning heavily towards atheist) I'm open to the idea that there may be a god out there - although it would have to be a sadistic or, at best, unempathetic god.  Certainly not a deity that I'd wish to follow!  As I've said for decades, if there is a god and I get to meet 'him' - I'd spit in his eye.

 

Back on topic, its a difficult one as free speech/freedom of expression is so important.

 

On the other hand, I seriously dislike religious dress being enforced by parents on children - so IMO it should definitely be banned from schools.

 

Facial coverings in public (apart from when necessary for safety) should also be banned for security reasons - but where do you draw the line?  Much as I dislike hoodies, it starts bordering (at best) on authoritarian when banning anything covering the head that could also obscure the face if they keep their head down.

 

Work-wise, it makes sense for the individual businesses to be able to decide whether religious clothing/ornamentation are acceptable.

Share this post


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

I agree atheism is not a religion but I've met some extremely dogmatic atheists. My comment about humans being hard wired for belief systems is a provable anthropological fact. Go to any human society on the planet no matter how remote and its always there. I am not anti atheist at all. In fact that's how I identify.

While mostly correct, one can go to The Piraha of South America as an exception even still today...don't have nor have ever had any religious or deity belief. Do have spirits though, but no religious nor deity dogma.

 

https://www.ibcsr.org/index.php/institute-research-portals/quantifying-religious-experience-project/529-south-american-society-offers-insight-into-spiritual-experience

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because belief systems are hard wired into our biology I still think a lack of belief in any deities is also a belief system. It is debatable. As humans we are generally going to have a stance on such things.
 
 

This is completely wrong.
Believe systems are education bound.
I was raised in the breast of the Catholic Church, I doubted all the insane things I was forced into. I do not "think" there was a "Creation"
My daughter is raised by her mother as a limited Buddhist (the Thai way). I will make sure she won't drown in the believes of kharma, réincarnation, monks and lottery numbers (as her mother does).




Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect
2 people like this

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 05:34
Sponsors