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

ID: 91   Posted (edited)

2 hours ago, oldhippy said:

To 7by7:

 

>>> About court rooms: we are not talking specifically about the UK, so what is your point?

I do not have your apparent experience of courtrooms around the world; so please tell us in what countries you find courtrooms

 

12 hours ago, oldhippy said:

decorated with pictures of Manchester United or holy crosses, buddhas, or tooth fairies

or anything else. I am sure that you'll find some countries which have religious symbols in their courts, such as crucifixes in Catholic countries; I doubt you'll find any which have pictures of Manchester Unite!

 

2 hours ago, oldhippy said:

>>> About taking oaths: Did you hear the end of Trump's inauguration?

No; didn't watch any of it.

 

When taking the oath, some presidents have added the words "So help me God" to the end of their oath; but this is not compulsory. The only compulsory wording is; "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

 

From your remark, I assume Trump chose to say "so help me God" or similar at the end.

 

Although Trump, and most other presidents, swear on the Bible; this again is a matter of choice. Theodore Roosevelt did not use a Bible when taking the oath in 1901.Both John Quincy Adams and Franklin Pierce swore on a book of law, with the intention that they were swearing on the constitution.

 

Source of above

 

So if you are ever elected president of the USA, you will not be forced to swear a religious oath; you can choose to swear a secular one.

 

But as we are not talking specifically about the USA; what's your point?

 

2 hours ago, oldhippy said:

>>> About me imposing my beliefs: I admit, you are 100% right...

Well at least you are honest! But what gives you that right in a free society?

 

2 hours ago, oldhippy said:

that is, if not believing is a belief. But it is not.

You believe there is no God; that is a belief. But we can say 'choice' if you prefer.

 

The childish cartoon in your subsequent post only proves that some atheists simply cannot stand the fact that others do not agree with them.

 

It is also irrelevant as I have previously said several times in various topics that I am an atheist (though maybe not in this one; can't remember, can't be arsed to check).

 
Edited by 7by7

Share this post


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

 

There are no pictures on the walls of courtrooms in the UK.

 

The only display of any kind is the Royal Coat of Arms above the bench as a symbol that justice comes from the monarch; and even that isn't in every court; magistrates courts in the City of London, for example.

 

Witnesses do have to take an oath; this can be either a religious or secular one; their choice.

 

As for the rest of your post; like others you seem to be saying that you do not want to have people 'impose' their particular belief on you by wearing an item of religious clothing or jewellery; instead you want to impose your belief on them by banning such!

 

Exactly!  But atheists actually believe they have the right to do this!  Arrogant, self-centered, and juvenile.  The mere sight of a religious symbol gets them all teared up.

 

BTW, speaking of coats of arms, I guess atheists never actually read the part about where monarchs supposedly derive their "right" to govern...    Word of advice to all atheists - you really don't want to go anywhere NEAR a coronation...   And no, they're not going to change all those city names and rewrite all the history books just to sooth your tender oversensitivities  (St. Petersburg, St. Louis, San Diego, etc., etc., etc.). 

 

I personally think all atheists should pay an atheist tax on their "beliefs" everytime they start spouting off with their proposed "bans" on religion.

 

"Never gonna' happen!"?   LOL.  NOW you're getting it...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I particularly like the fact that you mention St Petersburg. That name WAS changed once before - by atheist devils.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ID: 94   Posted (edited)

let it rip. 

 

let them cover their eyes too. 

 

won't work for orange robes... they are already as bright an orange as can be while still being orange... but school uniforms, can do. not more black or white.... put "student" in bigger letters. that would work........ off topic??? schools are not religious? sure seems to be.... it keeps folks away from reading secular books such as novels and science stuff.... unless they are required somehow to do so.... and how would that work? seems like somehow it's a religion of some kind to me.

 

 

Edited by maewang99

Share this post


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

Exactly!  But atheists actually believe they have the right to do this!  Arrogant, self-centered, and juvenile.  The mere sight of a religious symbol gets them all teared up.

 

BTW, speaking of coats of arms, I guess atheists never actually read the part about where monarchs supposedly derive their "right" to govern...    Word of advice to all atheists - you really don't want to go anywhere NEAR a coronation...   And no, they're not going to change all those city names and rewrite all the history books just to sooth your tender oversensitivities  (St. Petersburg, St. Louis, San Diego, etc., etc., etc.). 

 

I personally think all atheists should pay an atheist tax on their "beliefs" everytime they start spouting off with their proposed "bans" on religion.

 

"Never gonna' happen!"?   LOL.  NOW you're getting it...

 

Ok, no ban, just eliminate their tax exempt status.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And stop subsidizing them.

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

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.

 

 

Pursuit of knowledge is hard wired I would agree but technology fills that void not fantasy.  Its a fact that there are still indigenous tribes today that have no contact with the outside world or any religious texts or teachings in places like the amazon.   These people believe that there are spirits in everything and there is a magic man in the sky also.  This should tell you that people who live in the modern world and still believe in the same fairy tail are doing so with primitive thinking and are failing to evolve intellectually thereby contributing the lack of progress by society as a whole.

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

Exactly!  But atheists actually believe they have the right to do this!  Arrogant, self-centered, and juvenile.  The mere sight of a religious symbol gets them all teared up.

 

BTW, speaking of coats of arms, I guess atheists never actually read the part about where monarchs supposedly derive their "right" to govern...    Word of advice to all atheists - you really don't want to go anywhere NEAR a coronation...   And no, they're not going to change all those city names and rewrite all the history books just to sooth your tender oversensitivities  (St. Petersburg, St. Louis, San Diego, etc., etc., etc.). 

 

I personally think all atheists should pay an atheist tax on their "beliefs" everytime they start spouting off with their proposed "bans" on religion.

 

"Never gonna' happen!"?   LOL.  NOW you're getting it...

 

You just lost the plot.... 

 

christianity renamed places, dates and events to suit themselves.... it is the way of the "victor"

 

arguably one significant event, would be the destruction of the library of Alexandria, which was a pagonistic enclave, and contained immeasurable amounts of collective world knowledge.... torched by the christians (though this is arguable... some blame the Muslims, amongst others)

 

another example of the victor rewriting history, is the depiction of Richard the third, as a hunchback.... now disproved

 

when Christendom falls, the history books will again be rewritten.... but at the moment, I know not of an atheist call to rewrite (or correct) history... yall can call things whatever you want... it doesn't matter

 

but... it is significant to note, that Christianity rewrote things to suit themselves... a prime example is December 25th.... it was the feast day of the dominant pagan religion (Mithraism), but became, post emperor constantines rule, the birth of Christ.... what?

 

And Sunday... the day of worshipping the.... you got it.. SUN.... became the sabbath... the day god rested... what?

 

this all to destroy paganism, in a pragmatic way... pagans still had their feast days, but the reasons for them was changed by the duplicitity of the "church"... and there are many such examples

 

post Constantine, and the destruction of pagan writings, pagans were threatened with having their hand chopped off, if caught rewriting pagan texts... so much for a benevolent god!

 

as for the divine right to rule... come on... that was invented by the church... rulers post Constantine (not Constantine himself) were given the right to rule by the nailed god.... in fact, the emperor was god, much as the Egyptian pharaoh was a god, before this time.... and this custom goes back a whole lot longer than kings being given the right to rule by the nailed god... so to assume this will ever be the same is foolery.... when Islam dominates, they will rewrite history, and rename "St. whatever the Fug"  to plain old "whatever the Fug"... you can take that to the bank.

 

 

Share this post


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

Exactly!  But atheists actually believe they have the right to do this!  Arrogant, self-centered, and juvenile.  The mere sight of a religious symbol gets them all teared up.

 

BTW, speaking of coats of arms, I guess atheists never actually read the part about where monarchs supposedly derive their "right" to govern...    Word of advice to all atheists - you really don't want to go anywhere NEAR a coronation...   And no, they're not going to change all those city names and rewrite all the history books just to sooth your tender oversensitivities  (St. Petersburg, St. Louis, San Diego, etc., etc., etc.). 

 

I personally think all atheists should pay an atheist tax on their "beliefs" everytime they start spouting off with their proposed "bans" on religion.

 

"Never gonna' happen!"?   LOL.  NOW you're getting it...

 

 

Lots of exclamation points and laughing out loud are the typical signs of ignorance.  You seem to think you speak from such and intellectual high ground with regards to monarchies and cities names but I don't here you denouncing things like Christmas.  I sure hope you are not a christian and celebrating that pagan nonsense.  If you are you need to refocus your research on your self not others.  Debating you is like debating a five year old.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Farcanell, I'm not going to deal with all of your post, some of which is logical argument; but there are two parts which I would like to dispute because in the first you are oversimplifying something and in the second you are wrong.

 

4 hours ago, farcanell said:

arguably one significant event, would be the destruction of the library of Alexandria, which was a pagonistic enclave, and contained immeasurable amounts of collective world knowledge.... torched by the christians (though this is arguable... some blame the Muslims, amongst others)

No one knows for sure how, when or even if the library was destroyed; The destruction of the Great Library of Alexandria; concludes 

Quote

While it may be convenient to blame one man or group of people for the destruction of what many consider to be the greatest library in the ancient world, it may be over-simplifying the matter.  The library may not have gone up in flames at all, but rather could have been gradually abandoned over time. If the Library was created for the display of Ptolemaic wealth, then its decline could also have been linked to an economic decline. As Ptolemaic Egypt gradually declined over the centuries, this may have also had an effect on the state of the Library of Alexandria. If the Library did survive into the first few centuries AD, its golden days would have been in the past, as Rome became the new centre of the world.

 

 

4 hours ago, farcanell said:

another example of the victor rewriting history, is the depiction of Richard the third, as a hunchback.... now disproved

How Twisted Was King Richard III's Spine? New Models Reveal His Condition

Quote

Shakespeare called him a hunchback, but a new three-dimensional model of King Richard III's spiraling spine shows his true disability: adolescent idiopathic scoliosis

 Was Shakespeare's description of him as a hunchback propaganda to please his Tudor queen, Elizabeth I? Or is it simply indicative of attitudes to and knowledge of disabilities at the time? Examination of his now discovered skeleton suggest it's the latter

 

He did, after all, definitely have a twisted spine.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 7by7 said:

Farcanell, I'm not going to deal with all of your post, some of which is logical argument; but there are two parts which I would like to dispute because in the first you are oversimplifying something and in the second you are wrong.

 

No one knows for sure how, when or even if the library was destroyed; The destruction of the Great Library of Alexandria; concludes 

 

 

How Twisted Was King Richard III's Spine? New Models Reveal His Condition

 Was Shakespeare's description of him as a hunchback propaganda to please his Tudor queen, Elizabeth I? Or is it simply indicative of attitudes to and knowledge of disabilities at the time? Examination of his now discovered skeleton suggest it's the latter

 

He did, after all, definitely have a twisted spine.

Love it... very good.... very good.

 

point one is definitely oversimplified, but I did intentionally state that this was arguable.... I simply grabbed a commonly known example, an example that has no real definitive answer (probably Ceaser, IMHO), but It shows how events can be described differently, by different people, for different purposes...lol... im doing it right now

 

point two... a twisted spine does not a hunchback make.... yes, it seems he had scoliosis, but he did not have kyphosis.... which is what causes a hunchback, and experts agree that his disability would not nessesarily have been apparent, especially in his armor, or well tailored clothing. 

 

Herein my point was that history was written to portray him badly, and it does, but facts prove that he was not noticeably disfigured, as Shakespeare's would have us believe... (Shakespeare's went over the top, and negatively influenced people opinions for hundreds of years) so I'm not nessesarily wrong.... but your right to call me out on this

 

the significance of the entirety of the post, is that atheists did not misconstrue events or facts, religious or political groups did.... and do

 

taking it further, atheists did not go crusading... religous groups did... atheists did not conduct inquisitions... religouse groups did... etc etc

 

atheists are not self nessesarily more prone to be arrogant, self centered or juvenile... nor are they prone to tears when seeing a symbol of religouse significance (that would be religouse folk, railing against symbology of other religions... frothing at the mouth and so forth)

 

But... again... good post, I enjoyed it... thanks

 

 

 

 

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎19‎/‎03‎/‎2017 at 9:59 PM, 7by7 said:

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.

Sounds like the Poms are smart, no like the DA's in Australia.  Down there the minority are being give a free reign.  If they don't change soon they will rue the day they didn't.:wai:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL.  Theophobes still ranting about their fantasized right to ban religion...  What the heck are they so scared of?  Do they actually think some priest is going to attack them in a dark alley and drag them into a church service or what?  Some missionary is going to tie them down and inflict the water torture until they join up?  Maybe if they spent a little more effort resolving their prejudices, and on learning to conquer this irrational fear and angst at the mere sight of totally benign religious symbolism, they might regain some measure of sanity.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/20/2017 at 10:53 PM, Moonlover said:

No I am not. Atheists who take the time to consider what atheism really means will discover that there are varying degrees of atheism. that is something one would quickly discover if they became involved in a theosophical society.

 

Agnostics on the other hand do not accept any of form deity or spirituality. They are actually the true 'none believers'.

 

 

They are actually the true 'none believers'.

Are you sure about that?

 

An agnostic is a person who believes that the existence of a greater power, such as a god, cannot be proven or disproved; therefore an agnostic wallows in the complexity of the existence of higher beings. 

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=agnostic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2017/3/18 at 9:07 PM, Jimeo47 said:

All religions should be outlawed. Or taxed.

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

I am so tired of religion. Why don't people be more intelligent, yes, God exists but he or she certainly didn't go around writing holy books to give to some chosen people to spread the religion. God doesn't speak to anyone at all, as far as I know.

One hand hold the bible one hand playing the penis of little boys.

Some religion tell you to kill yourself with bombs strap around your buttocks.

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 June 2017 08:58
Sponsors