SURVEY: Should clothing with religious symbolism be outlawed?

[Scott]

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

[wwest5829]

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.

[manarak]

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.

 

[Moonlover]

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.

[NoshowJones]

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.

[Jimeo47]

All religions should be outlawed. Or taxed.

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

[joecoolfrog]

No

[farcanell]

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

[abrahamzvi]

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.

[farcanell]

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,

[Pepper1959]

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.

[hawker9000]

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...

 

[NoshowJones]

9 minutes ago, farcanell said:

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

[farcanell]

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

[farcanell]

5 minutes ago, possum1931 said:

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

[hawker9000]

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.

 

 

 

[farcanell]

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 March 19, 2017 by farcanell

[jesimps]

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.

[elgordo38]

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. 

[The Deerhunter]

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.

[Andaman Al]

44 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.

 

 

 

Atheism is NOT a belief system. That is a desperate argument from the religious who try to spin anything to say that they are in the same set of circumstances as non believers, just to justify what they 'believe in'. A bit like the multitude of  papers that have been written by religious folks trying to convince us of the argument that when the Bible mentions twice that homosexuality is abhorrent and about 7 times that eating shrimp is abhorrent that God really never meant that about shrimp and you can eat them with gay abandon ( ooh a pun), yet the two times mentioned in the bible about homosexuality is very serious and is against Gods laws. It is all rubbish and once again shows the purpose of religion, to control the masses for the sole purpose of amassing money and power. Remember religious dudes, next time you chomp down on that shrimp, as far as God is concerned you may as well be taking it up the jacksy ! You can't pick and choose what is in your book and you can't interpret it - it is the word of God.

 

Regarding symbolism on clothing it is difficult. You can't ban it in the 'work place' as then if your work place is as a priest in the local church it would cause an issue. The yes/No answer can't work as it is too rigid. Full head to toe/face covered should be a no no as it says nowhere in the Quoran  that this should be the dress standard for women. It simply says that 'women should dress modestly'. For the masses, religion should become like smoking, do it in your own home but not in public places, as just like smoking, religion is cancerous, anti social and harmful to the well being of humans.

[55Jay]

I don't care about the word "atheism" anymore.  No need for a label.  Keep it simple.  I heard the story, flipped through their bible book and decided it was utter nonsense.  So I simply disregard it because it doesn't warrant further consideration.

[sanukjim]

Not if the girl is a nudest.

[IMA_FARANG]

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 March 19, 2017 by IMA_FARANG
correct typo

[tartempion]

Including atheism...
 

Atheism is not a fairy tale.


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

[Neurath]

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.

[kowpot]

50 minutes ago, tartempion said:

Atheism is not a fairy tale.


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

 

[farcanell]

20 minutes ago, kowpot said:

 

Atheism has nothing to do with anything in your post.... but I'm sure you know this and just saw it as a funny piss take...

 

 

[Grouse]

 

God being Maxwell of course!

Edited March 19, 2017 by Grouse
Problem posting image

[Si Thea01]

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.

 

Edited March 19, 2017 by Si Thea01