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

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

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

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 27 July 2017 10:02
Sponsors