There really is no way to prove a religion right or wrong. It is reasonable to prevent people from hurting others, but clothing is not something that affects that. You can't force people to stop believing in something without disrespecting their rights as human beings
Religion should simply be limited by what is commonsense law: If my religion allows for the murder of innocent people, should I be allowed to kill people?
Your example is related to the law and the justice system, which is different from a matter of clothing. Wearing whatever clothes you want is a freedom, and I don't see what could possibly go wrong with that.
We already have examples of government banning certain types of clothing. For instance, try wearing a shirt that says "GOD HATES GAYS" at a public school.
Besides, saying it's invalid because law is silly because the other person is using freedom of religion (law) as an argument.
I'm saying it's invalid because using religious laws based on one religion would take away the rights of people within the same criminal justice system who do not believe in those religious laws or any religion at all. Hence, freedom of religion.
My whole point is, every one of us (in US, anyways) has our individual rights and freedoms, the same rights and freedoms. One person's rights end where another person's rights begin. You can wear red if you like, but you can't say anyone who doesn't wear red is inferior. You can believe in the
sources:
Flying Spaghetti Monster and show your support for him, but you can't say everyone else who don't believe in the FSM should still live by and be held accountable according to the justice code outlined in the FSM's holy book or something. (Wild example, not sure if the FSM even has a justice code lol) (And I'm not even religious)
Hate speech is different because in that instance, the clothing is not a harmless personal choice. The law intervenes when another person's rights & freedoms are encroached upon-in this case, gay people. Wearing a cross/hijab doesn't take away the rights of others, but falls within religious freedom
So you're saying that we should ban parents from making their children wear religious clothes because gov't already bans hate-speech filled clothing from schools even though hate speech is technically "legal" in adults? What? Are you saying that the clothing shouldn't be banned in schools?
sources:
I think this has deviated from the main argument. And as my original premise argued, hate-speech filled clothing is different from a cross, niqab, the garb of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, whatever. I think this example of hate speech is only tangentially related to the point anyways.
No, what I'm saying is that in some situations the government has a compelling interest to restrict the speech of children. In this case there is a compelling interest to keep children from wearing a niqab at school for the same reason they have a compelling interest to ban hate-speech clothing.
Also just to clarify and not to single out any religion, everything from crosses to Jewish caps to Buddhist beads should, by your logic, be banned for children??
I don't see how wearing a niqab is the same as hate speech? What is the government's "compelling" reason against people wearing a harmless head covering?
I'm not saying it is equivalent, I'm giving another example where speech is banned. The idea is that a niqab (though not a headscarf) would be sufficiently distracting both to the wearer and their (student) peers as to be a nuisance (like hateful clothing). And again, it would only be in schools.
sources:
You can make the argument "but they should be more tolerant", and you would have ground, but part of teaching *is* teaching people to become more tolerant, so you must start from some less-extreme point.
Hate speech is much more serious than a "nuisance" or a distraction. However, I'm trying to see your perspective, and I can see the argument for a full body covering being somewhat similar to a school's dress code (if tank tops are not allowed etc.).
sources:
In that case though, the issue becomes much more specific than just "we should ban religious clothing," but specifically clothing that covers the face/full body. Another quagmire, for sure, because it specifically discriminates against one religion, and it's so arbitrary for someone to decide that the fully decent clothing is "distracting." To assume behind our keyboards that it is to both the wearer and those around her is just ignorant imho. I personally don't know enough, but I can imagine the public outcry. And honestly, if it just becomes an issue of being a distraction, is it seriously that big of a problem?
Seriously, you think there would be public outcry over a non-Christian religious group getting discriminated against? You're much more optimistic about the American people at large than I am.
I would hope that there would be enough decent, unbigoted people left in the country. In any case, there sure would be an outcry among the Muslim American community, which would only cause deeper divides in our society, just what we don't need right now.
Except you ARE saying they're the same. Another example of how "speech" is banned? One is hate speech and the other is freedom of religion. One is directly hurtful to others (taking away their right to feel safe) while the other is a personal choice. This is my point, and you're not getting it, sir.
sources:
Nevertheless, I enjoy the discussion and thank you for responding promptly and sincerely.
Again, not only is this not my position, I'm also not saying they are equivalent. I am *only* saying that they are equivalent in that, among young children, they can cause distractions. I do think there's something to the argument that a child forced to wear religious clothing is harmed, but the key
Obviously we can't agree on the trivialization of hate speech as a "distraction" on the same level of a school's dress code.
So do you think that a child wearing a cross is being harmed?
On the point of "forced," children have few legal rights -and what does a 3 year old know about religion?
sources:
so it's fundamentally problematic to define what is "forcing" a child to do something and what is, you know, parenting. Like forcing your child to eat their broccoli or not pee on the bed. There are more premises on this map about this issue if you want more in-depth arguments.
Also, interesting how the goal posts shift again.
I'm not trying to trivialize hate speech. I'm giving the only constitutionally allowed reason to ban it on a school. This is the same reason that schools themselves give when they get taken to court over this. To pretend otherwise would be silly.
I was arguing from a more idealistic, idea-driven point of view. Of course there are certain schools that do that, and I recognize that it's a bit of a fuzzy area in terms of "distraction." I'm just saying we shouldn't ban all religious clothing from all schools as a policy.
I would say no. There are already efforts protesting the dress code, especially those specifically for "female modesty." But we're nowhere near that progressive as a society yet. So ideally, no, but practically, it will at least take some time. But I'm certainly against adding *more* restrictions.
sources:
From what it sounds like, the case of your friend is a bit ridiculous and I feel for her.
No. I think there's a rather obvious difference between wearing a silly ornament and being forced to cover yourself from anyone who might ever look at you.
But is it hurting anyone? It all falls under parents' right to raise their children however they see fit, unless it is proven that there is actually child abuse.
Also, we're straying further and further from the original point of this discussion, which was about children wearing religious *clothing*. Circumcision is another controversial topic which would be interesting to discuss, but let's keep on topic for this one first.
Missing the point that its children that we are talking about and some thing 'forced' is wrong because doesn't involves a sane consent. Debate should rather be about the children being unaware and innocent to make a wise informed choice with regard to following a dogma of religious clothing.
Again, my point was that "something bad forced upon children" is your opinion. I agree, children are not capable of making informed decisions regarding religion. But they are under the guide of their parents, and it's ultimately up to the parents to make such decisions.
sources:
Unless you want to single out religion as something the parents are by law forbidden from schooling their children on, in which case I ask, where do we draw the line and where do we stop? How different is religion from political views, or way of life etc.
The problem with having children wear religious clothes is like having a child wear clothes that promotes a particular political ideology; You are telling the child **what** to think, not **how** to think, which leads to ignorance.
Raising the kids in ISIS camps turns them into terrorists. Kids are extremely vulnerable to ideas at that age, and drilling anything in their brain at that age should be illegal. If you truly believe in god, then wait until your child can make his own decision, and then teach him religion.
While I agree with you, that idea is a personal belief and can never be practically implemented. Parents have the right to raise their children however they wish to. It's like saying parents should be banned from pushing their world views or lifestyles on their children: it just isn't practical.
That's true, but in this case it's fundamentally problematic to find where to draw the line between what's considered "drilling an idea into children's heads" and what's just normal parenting.
Not every muslim is a member of ISIS. If you truly believe that religious clothing has a meaning, then you'd believe that children should be wearing it too. It is ok though to let children be aware of the idea of religious freedom but every parent can teach them what they believe is right.
I never said every Muslim is in ISIS. My example was merely to show how vulnerable children are to ideas at that age and how it effects the rest of their lives. Parents should not be allowed to take advantage of that to drill nonsense into their kids' brains.
As long as they let the children be aware of the different religions there are in the world, parents wouldn't be doing abything wrong by teaching them what they believe is the right set of values.
Kids are not going to evaluate what is being told to them, they know nothing about this world, and they're just going to believe in what the parents say, regardless of how absurd it is. You can teach them the values of a religion (honesty, love, sharing...) without all the superstitions.
But in taking away part of their religion is obstructing their religious freedom. Plus, kids grow up and one day will be able to evaluate what they are told. Looking in schools today, atheism is taught to children without care- why is that okay? Atheism is a religion becuase you can't prove it
You keep missing my entire argument sir. No they will not be able to evaluate it once they're old enough, just like you can't. Why do you think the vast majority of people follow the same religion as their parents? what about my ISIS example? why didn't those people re-evaluate their beliefs?
In doing so are you not indoctrinating them in atheism? Which is technically a religion as it is impossible to prove there is no God, just as it is impossible to prove there is one
Indoctrination is one thing. But the "people" you mentioned are children, and therefore have no legal rights to decide anything for themselves. They have no legal right to make a "choice" whether they want to wear religious clothing or not. It's just parenting.
sources:
"Your children are not allowed to be forced to wear crosses or hijabs" is the same as "your children are not allowed to be forced to behave, or eat their vegetables, or stop peeing on the bed" . Inevitably, parents have power over how their children are raised, and many children hold the same beliefs as their parents as a result.
diogenes
