SURVEY: Should clothing with religious symbolism be outlawed?

[csabo]

14 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 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.

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.

[thaibeachlovers]

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.

[Andaman Al]

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

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. 

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.

[rockingrobin]

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

[Jingthing]

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.

[Moonlover]

15 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

How does atheism compare to Theravada Buddhism

The latter is a religion, the former is not. Simple as that. There really is no comparison.

Edited March 20, 2017 by Moonlover
Additional paragraph

[farcanell]

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.

[Moonlover]

On ‎3‎/‎19‎/‎2017 at 0:38 PM, hawker9000 said:

 Atheism involves a "belief" in something no mortal can possibly know, and involves "expression" just as much as any organized religion does. 

Sorry wrong! Atheism does not and does not need, to believe in anything for its continuance. On the contrary, it is religion, all religions including Buddhism, that believe in something no mortal can possibly know. Because the beliefs of religions can never, ever be proved.

Edited March 20, 2017 by Moonlover

[Jingthing]

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.

 

 

[Andaman Al]

9 minutes 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.

 

 

But belief systems are not hard wired into our biology. I do not believe and neither to many many millions of others. From hundreds of thousands of years ago the 'praise' or as it was 'thanks' to the things that kept humans on the thin string of survival - food, water, sun morphed into something far more sinister by the first humans who wanted to exercise large scale control and dominance over others. The easiest way for that control was not with the sword but by convincing others that you were in touch with an entity that provided for all (an excellent warning of what can happen with an apparently innocuous religion was portrayed in the last series of Game of Thrones with Chief 'Sparrow' - Kings and Army's became inconsequential'). As language developed, -  cue God. It is manufactured. It is like saying eating meat is hard wired into our biology. It is absolutely not, but someone tried it, threw it on a fire and before long we are all drooling over the thought of a roast rib of beef. It was/is social conditioning. There is a big difference giving thanks in your mind for the warmth of the sun, plants, food, clean water and shelter than there is in believing in some malevolent being that will burn you for eternity in hell for some minor misdemeanour or burn babies in hell for ever if they are not baptised. Religion is sicko, BUT each to there own wear what you want providing it does not interfere with any due legal process or the requirement to be easily identified.

[Andaman Al]

1 hour ago, rockingrobin said:

How does atheism compare to Theravada Buddhism

It doesn't .

[dick dasterdly]

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.

[Skeptic7]

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

[tartempion]

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

[Moonlover]

23 minutes ago, tartempion said:

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

If you were to put a gathering of the different religious groups together in a room, it wouldn't be long before they were arguing as to who's religion is right.

 

If you were to put a bunch of atheists in a room together, it wouldn't be long before a discussion took place as to what atheism really means. The definition of atheism can be somewhat elastic, but at least it does not become antagonistic.

 

I choose to be the latter and I am very grateful that I'm free to make that choice. Many millions don't have that opportunity.

Edited March 20, 2017 by Moonlover

[dick dasterdly]

9 minutes ago, Moonlover said:

If you were to put a gathering of the different religious groups together in a room, it wouldn't be long before they were arguing as to who's religion is right.

 

If you were to put a bunch of atheists in a room together, it wouldn't be long before a discussion took place as to what atheism really means. The definition of atheism can be somewhat elastic, but at least it does not become antagonistic.

 

I choose to be the latter and I am very grateful that I'm able to make that free choice.

"If you were to put a bunch of atheists in a room together, it wouldn't be long before a discussion took place as to what atheism really means."

 

I doubt it as atheists know what being atheist means, and therefore are free to discuss everything else going on in the world.

 

Are you confusing agnostics with atheists?

 

Edit - The discussion with the odd agnostic I've met has been v short (the same with atheists) as we don't disagree when it comes to religion -  so the conversation quickly turns to other issues.

Edited March 20, 2017 by dick dasterdly

[Moonlover]

14 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

are "If you were to put a bunch of atheists in a room together, it wouldn't be long before a discussion took place as to what atheism really means."

 

I doubt it as atheists know what being atheist means, and therefore are free to discuss everything else going on in the world.

 

Are you confusing agnostics with atheists?

 

Edit - The discussion with the odd agnostic I've met has been v short (the same with atheists) as we don't disagree when it comes to religion -  so the conversation quickly turns to other issues.

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'.

 

 

Edited March 20, 2017 by Moonlover

[dick dasterdly]

1 minute ago, 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'.

 

 

Either you or I are very wrong in our definitions of atheist and agnostic.

[farcanell]

18 minutes ago, 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'.

 

 

Agnostics do not commit themselves to the fact that there is, or is not a god... they want proof, either way... they are fence sitters... a "doubting Thomas" in waiting.

 

atheists "disbelieve" in the existence of a God... any god

Edited March 20, 2017 by farcanell

[Andaman Al]

43 minutes ago, Moonlover said:

If you were to put a gathering of the different religious groups together in a room, it wouldn't be long before they were arguing as to who's religion is right.

 

If you were to put a bunch of atheists in a room together, it wouldn't be long before a discussion took place as to what atheism really means. The definition of atheism can be somewhat elastic, but at least it does not become antagonistic.

 

I choose to be the latter and I am very grateful that I'm free to make that choice. Many millions don't have that opportunity.

I agree, except that if you put a group of atheists in a room it wouldn't be long before they started talking about football, or politics or life and the universe, you know the things that really effect us on a day to day basis, instead of blaming the woes of the world on some kind of retribution from a very unloving and cruel deity. If we are Gods children and their is a universal police force then God would be charged with child abuse.

[Moonlover]

8 minutes ago, Andaman Al said:

I agree, except that if you put a group of atheists in a room it wouldn't be long before they started talking about football, or politics or life and the universe, you know the things that really effect us on a day to day basis, instead of blaming the woes of the world on some kind of retribution from a very unloving and cruel deity. If we are Gods children and their is a universal police force then God would be charged with child abuse.

Good point. But I have also sat many times with a disparate religious group and discussed a great variety of topics. (but not football!) The level of education and openness in the prevailing society also come into play.

 

Hey, we're a long way from religious clothing aren't we?

Edited March 20, 2017 by Moonlover
Additional paragraph

[Andaman Al]

24 minutes ago, Moonlover said:

 

Hey, we're a long way from religious clothing aren't we?

I thought exactly the same when I made my last post, and figured that there is clearly a need for people to discuss these issues. Whether we partake in religion or not it has a profound impact on our every day life and here we are on a thread about religious clothing giving people the mechanism to discuss what they need to. It is healthy. One thing for sure, I would rather sit in a pub and have a beer and a chat with the likes of Richard Dawkins and people like Christopher Hitchins (we miss you Hitch) than the Billy Grahams or Al Sharptons of this world.

Edited March 20, 2017 by Andaman Al

[Skeptic7]

47 minutes ago, Andaman Al said:

I thought exactly the same when I made my last post, and figured that there is clearly a need for people to discuss these issues. Whether we partake in religion or not it has a profound impact on our every day life and here we are on a thread about religious clothing giving people the mechanism to discuss what they need to. It is healthy. One thing for sure, I would rather sit in a pub and have a beer and a chat with the likes of Richard Dawkins and people like Christopher Hitchins (we miss you Hitch) than the Billy Grahams or Al Sharptons of this world.

Wish I could give your post MULTIPLE "Likes"! 

Edited March 20, 2017 by Skeptic7

[oldhippy]

I couldn't care less whether people believe in gods or not.

 

But they should keep their believes private. Or share them only with like minded believers.

 

I do not want to go to a courtroom that is decorated with pictures of Manchester United or holy crosses, buddhas, or tooth fairies - or swear in that courtroom on somebody's holy book - or deal with government officials that wear religious symbols.

 

 

[Moonlover]

51 minutes ago, Andaman Al said:

I thought exactly the same when I made my last post, and figured that there is clearly a need for people to discuss these issues. Whether we partake in religion or not it has a profound impact on our every day life and here we are on a thread about religious clothing giving people the mechanism to discuss what they need to. It is healthy. One thing for sure, I would rather sit in a pub and have a beer and a chat with the likes of Richard Dawkins and people like Christopher Hitchins (we miss you Hitch) than the Billy Grahams or Al Sharptons of this world.

And with a VERY cynical nod to Billy Graham, Amen to that!

 

When I was quite young and following a discussion about jazz with a girl I'd got to know, she mentioned that she'd been to see Billy Graham. I asked her what instrument he played. Funny that, it took me a while to work out why I never saw her again!

 

Wow, that's going back some.

 

 

[tartempion]

What instrument Billy Graham played?

Good one.

I did not read far into Richard Dawkins God delusion.,

When I learnt about his scale and he gives himself a 6, that ended my reading.

Since I give myself 7 I don't bother anymore.

 It's not religion that should be outlawed, I am rather convinced mankind is an error of evolution, Henry Gee wrote a book "The Accidental Species" I need to buy that book, maybe we have the same idea?

Religion lives in the brain, probably only humans are affected.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

 

 

 

[7by7]

7 hours ago, Andaman Al said:

If we are Gods children and their is a universal police force then God would be charged with child abuse.

As flies to wanton boys are we to th' gods,
They kill us for their sport.
 

King Lear, Act 4, scene1, 36-37

 

[7by7]

6 hours ago, oldhippy said:

I couldn't care less whether people believe in gods or not.

 

But they should keep their believes private. Or share them only with like minded believers.

 

I do not want to go to a courtroom that is decorated with pictures of Manchester United or holy crosses, buddhas, or tooth fairies - or swear in that courtroom on somebody's holy book - or deal with government officials that wear religious symbols.

 

 

 

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!

 

[oldhippy]

To 7by7:

 

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

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

>>> About me imposing my beliefs: I admit, you are 100% right... that is, if not believing is a belief. But it is not.

[oldhippy]

logic - style 7by7