U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-03-2013, 11:46 PM
 
Location: Hyrule
8,398 posts, read 9,902,143 times
Reputation: 7441

Advertisements

Clothing and jewelry is really nothing I care about at all. As a matter of fact it reveals more about the users personal life to me which allows me forethought before I open my yapper.

I enjoy my freedoms as long as it doesn't apply to harming ones child or elderly parent. My son is happily intact as well. I think taking away a child's choice in such matters shouldn't be going on. Yes, I could choose not to but others can choose to wack the little guy if they want. I don't think that's appropriate.

On the other hand I value freedom, that is what sets us apart. (or at least it use to) Banning everything under the sun with an American HOA gets utterly ridiculous at times. The last 20 years have been a hay day of bans and restrictions I don't think are necessary. You want to Burka up, then that's your problem. We can't protect the stupid forever, some people are just going to have to sink or swim. IMO, of course.

I'm a bit sick of being a "fear driven" country. Let the chilaxin begin. No harming the children, and no monopolizing my right to fair business practices away from me and I'm pretty good to go. Although, I do think we should take the profit out of health care. (the one thing I differ from my friends on)vJust pitch in and split the bill. Some eat more and some eat less but it evens out in the end. Or, I'd be happy with capping prices so we just pay cash again, and go back to the original care of our health, cutting out the middle insurance companies altogether. Put it into a savings account instead, and manage it yourself. Running our lives with fear of this, fear of that is getting a bit to dramatic for me as of late. We are afraid of something all the time. It gets tiring.

So no, I don't think we should be afraid of religious clothing, hats or neck wear. I do think we should stop the government drama and this issue would just ad to it. You can smoke right next to me in your Jewish garb and I'm good with it. But, you can't harm the kids because God or Satan told you it was a good idea. That's a bit much. To me this should be a no brainer but, Some evolve further than others.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-06-2013, 10:30 AM
 
Location: The backwoods of Pennsylvania ... unfortunately.
5,846 posts, read 3,361,010 times
Reputation: 4056
Generally, I agree with allowing people the freedom and the right of choice. It is that choice that is the foundation of liberty.

HOWEVER, having said that, there is one issue I have with religious clothing, jewelry, etc. As an example, in some school districts, teachers aren't allowed to have beards and mustaches --- UNLESS you wear one for religious purposes.

When certain people are exempted from following the rules/laws while everyone else must obey them, we end up with second class citizens. When Person A has more freedoms than Person B, we start having problems.

Now, I'm not in support of a carte blanche ban on all religious clothing; I don't feel that individual expressions of faith by a government employee is affirming the entire government's endorsement of a religion. Returning to my example, though, I do feel that if a school is going to let one person have a beard, everyone who wants one should also be free to wear a beard. I don't believe that there should be special dispensations handed out to the religious.

Therefore, if an industrial shop says no necklaces due to safety reasons, that means, no, you can't wear a cross necklace just because it is a religious symbol. By the same token, if you give the religious the right to wear a beard, then everyone should receive that right.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-08-2013, 12:03 AM
 
Location: Canada
4,699 posts, read 8,501,190 times
Reputation: 4898
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garethe View Post
As far as what some of the other countries have done, I have no opinion, I have been to Europe, and they need to do what is best for their citizens. They have their own laws, needs, cultures, customs, and unique histories to put the issue in a perspective that can't be compared to other places like America.
The thing is, Quebec isn't Europe, it's an American nation, and one that isn't coming from a French secular tradition as it was cut off from France years before that was a thing, secularism in Quebec only dates back to the Quiet Revolution of the 1960's and mostly came from a Marxist-Ethnic Nationalist perspective. This is deeply unpopular amongst Quebec Anglos like myself as its seen as another rejection of the other, another exclusion of non-French Canadians from a public sector in which we are under represented, and most importantly as an attempt by a Separatist government new to power and in a weak minority government to enact a law that speaks to that history of revolt against the Church particular to French Canadians and repudiates the principle of multi-culturalism that is a cornerstone value of the Canadian state, which is still quite young in a post colonial form, in a ploy to undermine it.

If you want a really nuanced discussion on this, check out our thread in the Canada forum, it has some unique local voices on the matter. Keep in mind that while Quebec may seem like France to an outside eye, its important to remember how little France has effected it since 1763, and how much being a New World immigrant nation and a part of the British Empire and Canadian federation has shaped thought, as well as its recent experiences with internal ethnic conflict, competing identities and nation building paradigms.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-08-2013, 12:25 PM
 
Location: Gatineau, Québec
21,961 posts, read 27,397,138 times
Reputation: 8613
Quote:
Originally Posted by BIMBAM View Post
The thing is, Quebec isn't Europe, it's an American nation, and one that isn't coming from a French secular tradition as it was cut off from France years before that was a thing, secularism in Quebec only dates back to the Quiet Revolution of the 1960's and mostly came from a Marxist-Ethnic Nationalist perspective. This is deeply unpopular amongst Quebec Anglos like myself as its seen as another rejection of the other, another exclusion of non-French Canadians from a public sector in which we are under represented, and most importantly as an attempt by a Separatist government new to power and in a weak minority government to enact a law that speaks to that history of revolt against the Church particular to French Canadians and repudiates the principle of multi-culturalism that is a cornerstone value of the Canadian state, which is still quite young in a post colonial form, in a ploy to undermine it.

If you want a really nuanced discussion on this, check out our thread in the Canada forum, it has some unique local voices on the matter. Keep in mind that while Quebec may seem like France to an outside eye, its important to remember how little France has effected it since 1763, and how much being a New World immigrant nation and a part of the British Empire and Canadian federation has shaped thought, as well as its recent experiences with internal ethnic conflict, competing identities and nation building paradigms.
Excellent post as usual from BIMBAM but I don't think that Quebec (or perhaps French Canada, which comprises the majority of Quebec society - and what drives its politics, which is what this is all about) is really a New World immigrant society. Or at least, not in the sense of the U.S. and (English) Canada, which is probably what most people have in mind when they think of this term.

Yes, Quebec was cut off from the evolution of France for about 200 years but in that time what remained and evolved was almost a snapshot of the old France of yore but with influences British, American, and even aboriginal.

Somewhat ironically, the type of New World immigrant society that is being described here (and really similar to US and English Canada) only took root in Quebec in the English-speaking community, and I am sure than BIMBAM won't mind me saying that he himself is a product of this phenomenon! The anglo community was once 15% of the population (maybe even 20%) but is now under 10% roughly.

So in a sense, the larger francophone society here is not that dissimilar to most European societies, who have always had some modest measure of diversity, but historically these people were hyper-integrated, changing their names to more "local"-sounding ones, etc., and melding seamlessly and unnoticeably into the majority. Francophone Quebec, up until 20-30 years ago, was like this as well. There were smidgens of other origins mixed in amongst the French Canadians but today in many cases even their names sound French (Riel, Tisdelle, Myre, Scraire, Rodrigue, Phaneuf, Sylvestre, Anctil, Crégheur, etc.) to the point that most people don't even realize the origins that lie behind them.

Whereas in the US and much of the rest of Canada, you've had large-scale settlement of areas by persons of "other" origins going back much further, from Germans in southern Ontario around Kitchener and of course in Pennsylvania, to Scandinavians in the northern Midwest to Ukrainians on the Canadian Prairies.

You don't really have this anywhere in Europe or in Quebec really. Hence the commonality. At least on that front, what with the new migration realities of the late 20th and early 21st centuries.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-09-2013, 01:15 AM
 
7,802 posts, read 5,286,683 times
Reputation: 2973
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandman249 View Post
What thoughts do atheists on this forum have about such policies/bans?
My thoughts on such things are mostly contextual. I have few rules I think should be followed like a blanket across all cases, places and contexts.

However I do feel that religion is no excuse to deviate from a uniform for example. If you enter into employment where the employees are expected to follow a uniform code then that is the code you must follow. Editing it on religious grounds should not even be considered, let alone allowed.

If employment comes with expected standards of dress then they should be adhered to or the employee should not BE an employee.

Further in government positions where the roles involve dealing directly with the public I feel that employees are a representative of the government. And since the government should not be promoting any one religion therefore the employees should not be either in their roles as ambassadors for the positions they hold. So yes religious apparel in my view should not be allowed for people in such roles. People have to remember that they are not just employees in such cases, but representatives of the organisation and chair that they hold. The old adage that the King is not the rules but merely a servant and representative of the people/throne.

Also places of security such as banks often have rules like "Customers MUST remove motorcycle helmets and balaclavas before entering the premises" and I see no reason AT ALL to think muslim head dresses etc should be any exception to this rule. If a woman in a burka wants to go into a bank and conduct a transaction then by all means let her. But she must remove the head gear first.

But blanket across the board in all cases bans of ALL religious iconary? No I am not for that. As I said: Context is key any lazy legislating will help no one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-09-2013, 09:31 AM
 
Location: Northeastern US
14,197 posts, read 9,097,133 times
Reputation: 6081
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo View Post
If employment comes with expected standards of dress then they should be adhered to or the employee should not BE an employee.
Well since we are talking about context ... the real answer is that someone who really thinks it's important to wear, say, a Burqa, should not leave countries where such dress codes are imposed and required. It is no more acceptable to expect a predominantly Christian society to tolerate Burqas than it is for a predominantly Islamic society to tolerate halter tops and short skirts.

It is also disingenuous to demand that much openness and tolerance when you come from a society with little to no such openness and tolerance for its own people -- and from a mindset that, if it had its way, would not demonstrate such openness and tolerance here, either.

If you visit a mosque in a predominantly Islamic country (and probably sometimes, even in the West) you are expected to have your arms and legs covered, at a minimum, and you either don't go in or wrap yourself in shawls they provide you with. You're also expected to leave your shoes at the door. If they feel justified in imposing these things on visitors, they should be equally okay with staying out of certain kinds of institutions, or checking their Burqas at the door.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-09-2013, 11:48 AM
 
Location: Type 0.7 Kardashev
10,577 posts, read 7,288,390 times
Reputation: 37479
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant View Post
Well since we are talking about context ... the real answer is that someone who really thinks it's important to wear, say, a Burqa, should not leave countries where such dress codes are imposed and required. It is no more acceptable to expect a predominantly Christian society to tolerate Burqas than it is for a predominantly Islamic society to tolerate halter tops and short skirts.
First, I couldn't care less what is socially 'acceptable'. There are a lot of things I would deem 'socially unacceptable' that I do not want to see banned.

Second, my expectations for what is acceptable in the United States is not based on what is acceptable in, say, Iran. Not. At. All. The very thought that we should look to religious theocracies for cues on our behavior is repugnant. At least to me.

Quote:
It is also disingenuous to demand that much openness and tolerance when you come from a society with little to no such openness and tolerance for its own people -- and from a mindset that, if it had its way, would not demonstrate such openness and tolerance here, either.
Since when do we burden the individual with the faults of the society from which they come? Even if they endorse those faults, by what logic is lowering ourselves to their faulty levels of behavior any sort of intelligent response?

Quote:
If you visit a mosque in a predominantly Islamic country (and probably sometimes, even in the West) you are expected to have your arms and legs covered, at a minimum, and you either don't go in or wrap yourself in shawls they provide you with. You're also expected to leave your shoes at the door. If they feel justified in imposing these things on visitors, they should be equally okay with staying out of certain kinds of institutions, or checking their Burqas at the door.
The private property of a mosque is irrelevant to the public square in the United States. Even if we are talking of a mosque owned by the government in an Islamic country, a better analog in the U.S. would be some sort of hallowed ground here - the Tomb of the Unknowns, for example. Which, again, is irrelevant to the American public square.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-09-2013, 01:18 PM
 
Location: Northeastern US
14,197 posts, read 9,097,133 times
Reputation: 6081
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unsettomati View Post
First, I couldn't care less what is socially 'acceptable'. There are a lot of things I would deem 'socially unacceptable' that I do not want to see banned.
I wasn't talking about "socially acceptable" but "ethically or morally required". The rest of your responses talk right past me and I have no desire to go round and round about it. I'm not suggesting we take our cues from religious theocracies in any way, I'm simply drawing parallels. And I think they are valid if you don't overdraw them. Islamists want us to accommodate their beliefs in their countries -- and to an extent we should, at least if we want to go to certain places. The same, then, should be true here. If I should be uncomfortable walking barefoot on everyone else's foot fungus and wearing what amounts to a dress because they can't stand the sight of my kneecaps, and make sure I don't aim my feet in certain directions, then they can, in turn, be uncomfortable in various ways out of respect for OUR sensibilities. Whether these taboos and proscriptions engage in the exact same types of places in both instances is beside the point. The point is that in both cases, requirements are being imposed that are arbitrary from the point of view of an outsider.

If you don't like being an outsider, then don't be one. Stay in your religious or ethnic ghetto. World travel is clearly not for you if you can't show deference and respect for the sensibilities of the locals.

I didn't particularly care for the things I had to do to see the inside of, say, the Blue Mosque in Istanbul, but I didn't complain about it or cry foul either. It's Turkey's prerogative to place restrictions on visitors and my only recourse is not to give them my travel dollars and/or not to move to their country. My only point is the same thing applies to Turks visiting the US. They can't expect to go everywhere in Burqas even if they wish to. It's no more unreasonable that they refrain from wearing them in areas we might decide to forbid them, than it is for me to follow their customs when visiting in their country.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-09-2013, 02:13 PM
 
Location: SC
2,967 posts, read 4,195,070 times
Reputation: 6836
I feel that banning religious garb or jewelry is a violation of a person's rights.

However, I do feel that a religious person (or any person for that matter) should not be allowed to wear a face mask and head covering in gov't buildings, or other places such as airports, or jobs that require a photo badge and security clearance. To me this is common sense and has nothing to do with religious oppression, just like people wearing a Halloween mask would not be allowed in for obvious security reasons.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top