Wearing of anything with religious symbols in public

[Frank Zipper]

I merely stated that if one bans a certain religious symbol from being displayed then one should ban all religious symbols from being displayed, rather than discriminating against a particular faith; however there should be exemptions allowed for religious symbols that are literally mandated by the person's faith, as the five Ks are for Sikhs.

I wholeheartedly agree with this approach.

[Old Tyrannia]

Freedom of religion is guaranteed in the constitutions of every Westernized nation in the world.

I depute this.

For one thing, Great Britain doesn't have a constitution.

We do have a constitution. We just don't have a codified constitution.

[New haven america]

Um... America's the 3rd most populated country in the world, and technically 80-90% of people here are Native Americans.

I honestly hate the term Native American, considering that anyone born and raised in NA and SA are natives. I just don't see why we can't use Aboriginal, but sure, let's just use the more contradictory term instead.

That's what "Indian" is for.

So what do we call the people who live here then?

[Stormwrath]

Since when has wearing a cross, use of the Ka'aba or wearing the star of David present a security issue?

Read my post better.
"this thing isn't allowed because we're not going to have sectarian strife on our premises"

So apparently I can trigger someone by wearing a crucifix around my neck.

Right.

[The Alma Mater]

Read my post better.
"this thing isn't allowed because we're not going to have sectarian strife on our premises"

So apparently I can trigger someone by wearing a crucifix around my neck.

Right.

Vampires are people too !

As are people who were molested by the priesthood, homosexuals who still suffer from the hatred of Christ , everyone whose ancestors were slaughtered by crossbearers etc.

The question is if we should care. But that the cross can be seen as a symbol of hate that can trigger is quite true.

[Khalisako]

That's what "Indian" is for.

So what do we call the people who live here then?

Oh oh...


Ayy-rabs. *nods*

[Grave_n_idle]

Read my post better.
"this thing isn't allowed because we're not going to have sectarian strife on our premises"

So apparently I can trigger someone by wearing a crucifix around my neck.

Right.

Is that hard to believe?

I mean - I don't think that was the point, I think you're completely misusing the word 'trigger' - but is it hard to believe?

In fact - is it hard to believe, even if you were not completely misusing the word?

[Salus Maior]

The question is if we should care. But that the cross can be seen as a symbol of hate that can trigger is quite true.

So can rainbow flags, Communist symbolism, the flag of any given country or political party, transgender symbolism, etc.etc.

You can't ban all things that can trigger people. Maybe people should just accept that such groups exist, instead of becoming emotionally compromised at the mere thought that the world isn't their ideal fantasy.

[Salus Maior]

Read my post better.
"this thing isn't allowed because we're not going to have sectarian strife on our premises"

If someone's going to go into a violent rage at the sight of jewelry or a piece of clothing, then the issue is with that person, not the wearer.

[Salus Maior]

There is no Quranic requirement for Muslims to wear the hijab. It's a cultural, not religious, requirement. /discussion.

Except the Quran isn't the entirety of the Muslim faith and teachings unless you're a Quranist.

Same goes (to a much greater degree) for Christians and the Bible.

[USCGC James]

If someone's going to go into a violent rage at the sight of jewelry or a piece of clothing, then the issue is with that person, not the wearer.

In a perfect world, you can trust that everyone you meet will not be set off like a bull seeing red. But this world is far from perfect, and precautions are needed to avoid tripping fuses. A content-neutral restriction (which is what a ban of all religious symbols would be) does not favour any particular faith or denomination, and is not an excessive burden for patrons entering an establishment. A non-religion example would be some public schools banning gang colours (e.g. red for Bloods, blue for Crips), or biker bars forbidding the wearing of 'colours' (motorcycle club insignia). Sometimes the need to protect public safety is greater than the need to make a personal statement. For some individuals, symbols or patterns of colours are the visual equivalent of 'fighting words' like "come fight me bro".

[Soyouso]

People should be allowed to show their alleigance to any religion they want. Of course there'd be limits like having to wear other things for safety or certain uniforms. The place where religious tolerance should stop is when they want to do things that hurt other people, like the laws in several religions that say to stone people, rape, or anything else that is a human rights violation. But as far as wearing religious clothing and symbols, go ahead. If people don't like it they don't have to believe in it. Just make sure you don't neglect your safety/formality requirements for your job, and don't shove it in people's faces.

[The Liberated Territories]

People should be able to wear anything they want. I do not see, wearing a cross for example as representative of anything of that individuals own beliefs, so it does seem discriminatory for a government to bar these symbols. For me, freedom of speech and freedom of religion are two sides to the same coin, and should be protected as such.

[New haven america]

So what do we call the people who live here then?

Oh oh...


Ayy-rabs. *nods*

But they're not related to Arabs (As far as we know) though...

[Uxupox]

Oh oh...


Ayy-rabs. *nods*

But they're not related to Arabs (As far as we know) though...

Honestly what we call them (Where I live anyway) is Hindus.

Hindues.

[Ifreann]

People should be able to wear anything they want. I do not see, wearing a cross for example as representative of anything of that individuals own beliefs, so it does seem discriminatory for a government to bar these symbols. For me, freedom of speech and freedom of religion are two sides to the same coin, and should be protected as such.

"The government" isn't barring anything. Employers are being allowed to have dress codes without religious exemptions.

[Steffan]

Reading the original post, I find it hard to believe that people get offended by crosses to the extent that they're asked to remove them. I live in one of the most liberal places in the U.S and i've never heard of this happening. I personally don't care what people wear, be it a cross or some other religious symbol. As long as it wasn't something blatantly offensive like a swastika, i don't care. Why do so many people care about this s***? Just let people be themselves

[Stratarin]

Open a poll in here about it! Polls are fun, and provide quick access to data.

[New haven america]

But they're not related to Arabs (As far as we know) though...

Honestly what we call them (Where I live anyway) is Hindus.

Hindues.

But Hinduism is a religion, and there are multiple Hindu people who aren't Indian.

You see, this is why I prefer the terms American Aboriginal or Amerindian, they're straight and to the point.

[Ashlak]

As someone whose views on religion could be described as "anti-theistic", I honestly don't care if someone wants to walk around wearing a cross, or a pentacle, or whatever symbol they want. Freedom of expression and all that.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

Four of the five largest Christian nations are Brazil, Mexico, the Philippines, and Nigeria. The United States is the only one in the top five to be "white", and much of it's Christian population is Black or Hispanic.

And what do you mean that it "cannot stand?" Do you have actual reasons for such blatant discrimination, beyond, apparently, a racist idea that it is "white and European" and thus must be destroyed?

Racism only exists when whites discriminate against blacks. I am not being racist when I say that traditional European values must change.

As others have pointed out, your argument is like an equine racing farm - full of horseshit. Anyone can be racist, just as anyone can be biased, bigoted, etc. We just don't have to be.

Your initial argument of 'everyone except those assholes I don't like' is a prime example of all of that. You illustrated it beautifully, trolling or not. That's the attitude we need to shitcan. That's the issue we need to address. Either it is 'everyone has a right and we can all just live and let live' or it isn't. The concept of cherry-picking which ones the powers that be approve of is what's old and outdated, and what society can do without.

If anything, it's the pagan types who've got their finger on it, with the 'do no harm, and you do you' idea. Got plenty of folks who could learn from that if they'd take the time and cut the crap, neh?