SURVEY: Should clothing with religious symbolism be outlawed?

[joecoolfrog]

6 hours ago, hawker9000 said:

Including atheism...

 

What a silly remark !

[sirineou]

7 hours ago, hawker9000 said:

Including atheism...

 

LOL

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

[sirineou]

7 hours ago, hawker9000 said:

Including atheism...

 

TVF going crazy again (multiple submission)

Edited March 19, 2017 by sirineou

[sirineou]

7 hours ago, hawker9000 said:

Including atheism...

 

TVF continues to go crazy

LOL (Sbmited my post three times)

 

Edited March 19, 2017 by sirineou

[The Deerhunter]

7 hours 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 wrong can you be.  Theism is a faith in the belief (in the absence of tangible falsifiable proof) of a supreme supernatural "god-figure".  Atheism is simply an absence of that particular belief.  Atheism merely means we don't believe in anyone's gods.  Most religions require it's adherents to be atheist of all competing god figures.  We just say we don't believe in any.  To start inventing a code of things you think we have to believe in is just silly.  It simply means we do not believe in supernatural gods.  Apart from that we may be all different but we all (that I have met) seem to have

our own strict moral codes of ethics.  But I emphasise that they are individual personal codes not organised codes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[sead]

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

 

[sirineou]

1 hour ago, The Deerhunter said:

How wrong can you be.  Theism is a faith in the belief (in the absence of tangible falsifiable proof) of a supreme supernatural "god-figure".  Atheism is simply an absence of that particular belief.  Atheism merely means we don't believe in anyone's gods.  Most religions require it's adherents to be atheist of all competing god figures.  We just say we don't believe in any.  To start inventing a code of things you think we have to believe in is just silly.  It simply means we do not believe in supernatural gods.  Apart from that we may be all different but we all (that I have met) seem to have

our own strict moral codes of ethics.  But I emphasise that they are individual personal codes not organised codes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Atheism is a religion as much as abstinence is a sexual position 

[7by7]

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.

 

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.

[7by7]

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.

 

 

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

 

What about other religions?

 

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.

[212Roger]

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...

[Riggpig]

Just ban its all full stop

Sent from my SM-A710F using Thaivisa Connect mobile app

[Jingthing]

Do those cross necklaces count as clothing?

[oldhippy]

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.

 

[oldhippy]

43 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Do those cross necklaces count as clothing?

No, but they are symbols.

Once again, a clumsily worded survey question.

[7by7]

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

[hawker9000]

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.

[oldhippy]

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

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

 

[hawker9000]

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.

 

 

[oldhippy]

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?

 

 

[hawker9000]

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. 

[dave_boo]

I voted yes for 2 reasons.

 

First the medical community had to specifically exempt religion from the definition of schizophrenia. Otherwise believers definitely fit that!

 

Secondly religion is like a penis.  It's fine you have it. It's fine you're proud of it. But please don't wave it in the streets and definitely don't shove it down the kids' throats.

 

As far as the religious people on here trying to equate aethism with a belief system...really? A lack of belief in a made up fairy tale (and IF there was a God she would be celebrated by the oldest religion out there and not the heresies and blended crap that has been peddled since) does not necessarily mean that it's not true. The onus of proof is on the religious people to prove what they're selling. If you can't, than why don't you believe in Yoda? Books have been written about him. Movies made. Even has a church! Thus I find your lack of faith in the force disturbing. 

 

There's of course the fact that some claim that one has to believe there's no religion. This off course immediately presupposes that religion is real and atheists are simply refusing to believe it. That is circular reasoning. Atheists start with the presumption that facts have to be proven. This they ask for proof from religious people. None is provided except for "you just have to believe" and "you just have to have faith". Neither of those stances have any basis in facts;  only opinions. Religious people choose to believe the fairy tale. They demand no proof. They simply...submit. Excellent trait for a well trained pet. 

[Skeptic7]

17 hours 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.

 

 

 

555 calling Atheism a religion is the same as saying...

 

Not collecting stamps is a hobby 
Not playing golf is a sport
Not believing 13 is unlucky is a superstition
Nudity is an outfit
Off is a TV channel 
Healthy is a disease
Bald is a hair color

AND abstinence is a sex position! 

[Jingthing]

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. 

[farcanell]

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

[Jingthing]

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 March 20, 2017 by Jingthing

[csabo]

All religion should be banned asap.  There will never be world peace or anything near it until that happens.

[csabo]

23 hours ago, hawker9000 said:

Including atheism...

 

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

[csabo]

23 hours 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.

 

 

 

Your logic is flawed and a debate of the word belief is irrelevant.  You believe in magic and ghosts with no evidence. Atheists believe in provable realities.  There is no way you could possibly have a leg to stand on in any intelligent factual logical discussion on the matter because you were brainwashed at some point in your life by someone you trusted but was also speaking from ignorance or flat out lying to you.  Don't even bother replying until you open your eyes.  

[farcanell]

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)

[csabo]

20 hours ago, kowpot said: