Faith is quite a deep-rooted and important thing for some people (you may have noticed this) - that’s probably the biggest reason that people are allowed more freedom of expression in that particular area, but we don’t allow any expression of faith - it just doesn’t make much sense to take action against those that are not disruptive or dangerous.
If your faith compelled you to carry a sword at all times, you’d have big problems fitting into a society that regards them as unacceptably dangerous; as far as I know, though, black dresses aren’t dangerous.
Either are tank tops and short shorts.
We’re talking about an expression of self. That’s all religion is in a secular society. It’s no more “important” than a KKK-er’s expression about his deeply rooted beliefs.
Perhaps not to the individual expressing it, however (unless I’m much mistaken), the expression of a KKK-er’s deep-rooted beliefs will tend to impinge upon the rights of others.
It’s all too easy (and I suppose entirely understandable) than non-believers would lump religion into the category ‘utter crap I don’t subscribe to’, without ascribing any differential owner’s value to the items within ‘utter crap’ - being (for example) a Muslim and, say, writing ‘Jedi’ in the ‘religion’ box on your census return are two rather different things.
Sorry, that was a bit incoherent due to inline editing; in short, religion is a compulsion for many people; what’s more effective? - trying to restrain the compulsion, or allowing it to be expressed (in cases where that doesn’t cause any harm)? Not everything has the same value, or is analogous.
A KKK-er’s clothing no more impinges on a Jew’s or black’s rights than a pair of Nike sneakers would. If a person feels so passionately that he must wear a costume to “adhere” to the tenets of his faith, his personal expression should hold no more status than a skinhead, Nazi or Moonie wearing his uniform.
There are plenty of people who may be offended by a Nazi uniform, but there are plenty of people offended by religious symbols, too. If one group has the right, they should all have th right.
Sez you. I hold no more value to the right for a Muslim to wear a beekeeper suit than I do a neo-Nazi to don the jackboots and pith helmet. It’s a manner of expression and nothing more. Does a Muslim lose their faith if they don’t wear the beekeeper suit? Of course not. It’s not what’s on the outside. Those are symbols. The faith, which can ONLY be internal, doesn’t change when the means of expressing that faith changes.
I’m sure you’re not actually qualified to make that sort of assertion; some faith place very high importance on outward expressions; the outward expressions aren’t important in your estimation; but (and please forgive me if I’ve misinterpreted the implication of your position) is that surprising when you think the faith itself is also superfluous?
But in any case; if you want to wear a propeller beanie to school as a passionate expression of your inward beekeper, and you’re prepared to defend that position with a reasoned argument that stands up as strongly as the religious ones (that draw upon centuiries of tradition and culture), and you’re prepared to defend your beanie rights as far as it takes, then go ahead; knock yerself out! - I’ll applaud and even defend your newly-asserted rights.
but the odd thing is that nobody does that, do they? whereas with religious expressions, it happens quite often. Doesn’t that mark these religious affectations as something that rather stands apart from all these strained beekeeper suit analogies?
The point I’m making is that it’s not the costume; it’s the faithful devotion to the particular religious concept that is important. Catholic women were required to cover their heads in church years ago. Not so anymore. Does that make them any less Catholic? Of course not.
Yes, pomp and circumstance are important in most religions. But who are you to say that religion (and particularly mainstream religion) is a more important means of self-expression than anyone else who feels the need to flaunt their cause?
It is yet another case of religious supremists pushing their brand of propriety on the rest of society. It is a case of freedom of expression; not religion. The religious fanatics may want you to THINK this is an invasion of religious freedom, but it’s not.
Do you feel that neo-Nazis have the right to march through Jewish neighborhoods? If they’re allowed to do that, they should be allowed to wear their clothing in school. Especially if other religious expression in clothing is allowed.
Actually, people defend their right to wear “unimportant” clothing all the time. Kids who are told they can’t wear a particular t-shirt, kids who can’t dress in drag at the prom, kids who aren’t allowed particular hair-dos. Piercings. Tattoos. They fight the bullshit laws and they frequently win.
I don’t think that’s a particularly useful analogy; you’re saying that it should be OK for one group to behave in a completely and deliberately offensive and aggressive manner, expressing their hatred of others if another group has been allowed the right to inoffensively express their personl faith. The reason it is such a poor analogy is that the difference in third-party impact and offensive motive is precisely the reason I would stop the nazis, but allow the above mentioned forms of religious dress.
I’m not sure I have anything more to say at this point, as you’re driving the discussion toward an absurd extreme that I do not occupy and will not defend.
Allowing it to be expressed where it doesn’t cause any harm would fall under the rubric of “governed by practical considerations” in my book. I have no big problem with people wearing yarmulkes, crucifixes, headdresses or whatever so long as it doesn’t start causing problems like gang colors do in some school – or unless it becomes a covert way to pressure others to conform to whatever the majority religious belief is – which is what I think most of this prayer in school bullshit is all about.
O…kay.
Iit was re-opened about seven months ago, but this is irrelevant. Could you answer my question please? It remains the same: how is clamping down on the public expression of these people’s religion going to put off or avoid any problems? I think it’ll create more of them, since you’ll be proving to the fanatics how anti-Muslim the UK is and making non-fanatics feel like outsiders.
I beg to differ. I am an atheist and I HATED wearing a school uniform. I do not see why imposing it onto atheists is any better or worse then imposing it onto anyone else. I was no less upset about having to wear things I considered ugly and uncomfortable then a religious person was over those ugly and uncomfortable things not matching their belief of what they should wear. The idea is that it’ll make people equally miserable. That way they’ll be angry at the State(which has very thick skin) rather then each other (which leads to abuse/discrimination/etc…). If you need a gay marriage parallel it’s more like: “No one at all may get married at state funded schools; learning and getting married are two separate things, the latter is to be engaged in elsewhere”.
Ummm… I’m outta here; my absurdity meter just broke.
I was not proposing to just clamp down on muslims, but on all forms of overt religious expression in schools. If they feel they are being singled out that’s their problem. You may be right that people may feel alienated by this act (which, lets face it, is purely hypothetical and has as much chance of being made law in this country as I have of suddenly sprouting wings), but I feel alienated and threatened by religous extremeists, who’s looking after my rights?
As far as the Statue of Liberty remark is concerned I apologise for getting my facts wrong, the documentary I saw last week must have been out of date (Dan Crookshanks “Around the World in 80 Treasures” for the record).
It doesn’t matter if it’s just Muslims or not. You’re proposing singling out religious people, so they’d be correct.
You don’t have a right not to feel alienated or threatened by someone’s extremism. Your rights are protected as far as I know. I get pissed off by many examples of nutty religious behavior, but it’s my problem. It’s not the government’s job to get rid of things I don’t like.
It’s not absurd in the least. The Nazis defended their right to march through Skokie…a predominantly Jewish suburb of Chicago. Yes, they are being deliberately offensive. It’s not against the law to be obnoxious. Freedom of speech, my friend. It is challenged and defended all the time. In America, everyone’s freedom of speech is protected by the constitution. For you to say that the “goddy” ones are more protected than the offensive ones is unAmerican, unconstitutional, and presumptuous.
Got to admit, I had not thought of it that way. Question for you though, where do we draw the line of religious tolerance?
Do we tolerate any belief no matter how crazy or fucked up, just because we should? Do we allow bikinis, severed (fake) goats heads, etc in schools as expressions of religious freedom?
What happens when there are two mutually exclusive belief systems being tolerated by the same institution and conflict arises between practitioners of those beliefs? Say for example a pupil from a hypothetical religion who can only wear/eat pork products is placed alongside Muslim or Jewish pupils who would be offended by this practice. which one gains precedence? If you say the majority then you oppress the minority, which should not happen in a civilised country.
If we afford special privileges to any one group then we undermine democracy, and if we treat all points of view as equally valid then we are back to the question of what happens when the beliefs contradict each other? Do we just agree to differ? Which is fine in an ideal world, but in the real world opposing religious fundies tend to reach for the gun rather than the olive branch.
Sorry for all the questions, but I look forward to your remarks.
You draw it where it infringes the rights of other people, and in the case of schools at least, a line is drawn where that expression would create a disturbance. Which I do think our hypothetical bikinis and goat heads would do, but not a guy wearing a crucifix or a girl wearing a jilbab.
Neither. The state’s job is to stay out of it. The onus is on the students to get along, not on the school to make them get along by removing all potential points of conflict. If one of the students is being a problem, you deal with that.
Correct.
I don’t think you can have democracy without agreeing to differ. I’m not sure what part of this solution involves giving anyone “special privileges.” I see phrases like that getting bandied about in the US by people who, in my opinion, just don’t want to extend equal rights to other people. If people always agreed to get along that’d be great. They don’t, but that doesn’t mean you stop doing things the right way.
Offensive is protected by the constitution. If you’re offended, you have the right to look away, go to a different school, or grin and bear it. You can’t please everyone.
I don’t believe it’s a matter of majority vs. minority. It’s all about the constitution. The constitution doesn’t change (or at least shouldn’t) change because the majority wants it to. These basic concepts are written into it because they are understood to be the right thing to do; not necessarily the most popular.
I have a suggestion about this. I can not seem to see the other side’s point of view. I have just as much free speech as you, in a current society, in print, and in speech, and you are free not to listen to me. However, I underestimated the willingness of people to keep arguing with me, long after people were sick of it, so:
It is very simple, research historical precident of your opinon. It’s safe, it’s smart, and it’s the law.
Let’s say that I, or someone like me, participates in a public conversation. When and if I begin to simply state opinions that I have not researched, but simply believe makes sense, I get fined. The same thing should happen to those who do the same thing with their preferred religious book.
Note that I am not suggesting this for the forum, for I would soon run out of money, but instead for this hypothetical society. Also note that I did not talk about soap boxes, or public debates, but simply street corner debate.