Should religious clothing be discouraged in public?

[mojorising]

Don't know if this has been done before but anyway...

I find something annoying about people advertising their religious beliefs in public. Religious belief should be private matter between individuals and their 'gods'.

Common examples are the jewish skull cap, the turban and the various islamic female dress codes. Some christians wear crosses round their necks although this is more discreet than the other examples.

Obviously in more culturally backwards countries religious dress is still common but should people not be actively discouraged from advertising their religious beliefs in a progressive secular society?

Religious leaders such as priests and rabbis and imams would have to get a pass since it is more their job than a simple belief but what is the purpose of lay believers advertising which tribe they belong to?

The standard counter argument you hear from these people is 'why should I be ashamed of my religious beliefs?' but that argument does not wash. Not feeling the need to advertise beliefs does not imply that you are ashamed of them.

Advertising your beliefs also seems to suggest that you want people to know your religious beliefs before they interact with you but why? Do they expect to be treated differently?

If they have dietary requirements then they can be dealt with verbally when required. They do not need to be communicated by semaphore from a distance of 100 meteres.

If females need to cover their hair then there are many ways this can be done without making a religious pantomime out of it.

Removing religiously identifying dress would reduce friction between religious factions which is practical benefit of discouraging this tribalism but the more general principle of religion being a private matter is really what I am thinking about with this suggestion.

 

[bigfield]

You need a far better reason than 'it's annoying' to justify any kind of concerted effort to get people to stop wearing religious clothing and ornaments.

 

[funinspace]

Until person dons a t-shirt with something like "God says to kill the gays", I think the 'live and let live' attitude is far more appropriate. People like advertising all sorts of things via cloths or other bodily attachments, whether it is a politician, a social issue, or a political issue, or even silly stuff. Is promoting commercialism by wearing a Nike t-shirt a positive thing?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Religious belief should be private matter between individuals and their 'gods'.

I would tend to agree.

However:

Advertising your beliefs also seems to suggest that you want people to know your religious beliefs before they interact with you but why? Do they expect to be treated differently?

The yamulke is not just a public display of belief, though. It's not advertising. Wearing it is part of their beliefs, a practice connected directly to their belief that someone is above them. Their wearing it is a matter between them and their gods.

The standard counter argument you hear from these people is 'why should I be ashamed of my religious beliefs?' but that argument does not wash.

It washes just as well as the counter-question: What business is it of yours?
As i recall, you also want (or at least wanted) to outlaw the public display of affections when those affections bother you.

No where do you have a protected right to not be offended by the fact other people don't share your beliefs or practices or even your interpretation of what their actions mean.

 

[mojorising]

Well I think 'it's annoying' is a good starting point from which to explore the various reasons why it might make sense.

e.g.

1. Reduce friction between tribes
2. Speed up the phasing out of religion
3. Adjust society's perspective on religion to be more negative (like attitudes to smoking have been adjusted)
4. Help sufferers of religious belief to understand that their beliefs should be regarded as private

What are the benefits of advertising religious belief?

 

[mojorising]

The yamulke is not just a public display of belief

Hey Keith.

Yes but virtually every religious dress code is going to come with some flaky justification of why the wearer 'needs' to wear it:- "It is not a matter of choice"

If there is a long term goal to phase out religion and get people to understand that we are all just humans and there are no special clubs then people's toes are going to have to get stepped on a little bit.

 

[mojorising]

Is promoting commercialism by wearing a Nike t-shirt a positive thing?

'Just do it' isn't doing anybody any harm.

Believing that you are in a special club and you are going to a special afterlife but other lesser human beings will not be there and are therefore less valuable than members of your tribe is a diseased and dangerous notion and steps should be taken to actively counter such poisonous thought frameworks.

That is why Nike the greek goddess does not equal Nike the sportswear manufacturer.

 

[funinspace]

Is promoting commercialism by wearing a Nike t-shirt a positive thing?

'Just do it' isn't doing anybody any harm.

You don't think there is any harm in hyper consumerism or in "keeping up with the Jones's" or in "Chase what (doesn't) matters"?

 

[mojorising]

^ Compared to the problem of religion?

That is extremely small potatoes.

 

[funinspace]

Well I think 'it's annoying' is a good starting point from which to explore the various reasons why it might make sense.

e.g.

1. Reduce friction between tribes
2. Speed up the phasing out of religion
3. Adjust society's perspective on religion to be more negative (like attitudes to smoking have been adjusted)
4. Help sufferers of religious belief to understand that their beliefs should be regarded as private

What are the benefits of advertising religious belief?

Freedom of speech and belief. They are some of those funny things that a bunch of people a couple centuries ago thought were very important, as part of a compact of how people should organize so they could get along. Your notion may be the better of two evils, but it is not better.

Governments have tried to ban religion(s), and it has a pretty bad track record. Governments have tried all sorts of restrictions, and they rarely work out in the ways they expect or intend (porn, drugs, alcohol, music, types of sex, et.al.). Organized religion is already breaking down, and especially fast in Europe. The US is a few decades behind in this decline, but the trend is already clear. But trying to actually do what the right wing whack-o-nuts religionists claim is already happening may even backfire.

 

[ronburgundy]

I would tend to agree.

I would tend to disagree. Religion is not and never has been meant to be a private matter any more than any other beliefs about the world and how people should act in it. Religion is inherently social and political. It's main purpose is serve as the determinant of culture, both informal interaction and formal political ones. Any sincere believer would not seek to keep their beliefs a personal and private matter any more than the discoverer of the cure for cancer would do so.

Notions that religion should be private come only from non-believers, which includes many religious "moderates" for whom their "moderation" is just a reflect of their lack of certainty and commitment to their stated religious identity.

As a non-believer, I would much prefer a world without religion and where its believers kept their beliefs hidden and out of the public sphere.
But the greatest danger of religion and faith is the authoritarianism it breeds. So, trying to force its demise via authoritarian coercion defeats the main purpose of hoping for its demise in the first place. OTOH, I don't support any notion that their religious adornments or practices deserve any form of special protections from mockery or critique.

However:

Advertising your beliefs also seems to suggest that you want people to know your religious beliefs before they interact with you but why? Do they expect to be treated differently?

The yamulke is not just a public display of belief, though. It's not advertising. Wearing it is part of their beliefs, a practice connected directly to their belief that someone is above them. Their wearing it is a matter between them and their gods.

Its highly likely that the real motive underlying most such customs is precisely to identify the in-group from the out-group to determine how to treat them, with the absurd theological rationalizations being invented to hide this true purpose of delimiting worth, power, and social order, which is the purpose of most aspects of religion.

 

[mojorising]

Governments have tried to ban religion(s), and it has a pretty bad track record.

Ultimately religion will end. It is only a matter of when.

The trouble that it causes in the meantime could be reduced with some simple measures such as a requirement that anyone wishing to pursue such nonsense does so in a discreet manner.

That would simply entail no public demonstrations of religious allegiance.

It is a win win.

Nobody loses.

Not even god.

 

[4321lynx]

Well I think 'it's annoying' is a good starting point from which to explore the various reasons why it might make sense.

e.g.

1. Reduce friction between tribes
2. Speed up the phasing out of religion
3. Adjust society's perspective on religion to be more negative (like attitudes to smoking have been adjusted)
4. Help sufferers of religious belief to understand that their beliefs should be regarded as private

What are the benefits of advertising religious belief?

It's been tried, in a way in Mexico. Hasn't achjeved any of the effects you list. Hasn't made Mexico a better country, or changed many Mexicans.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

If somebody wants to dress a certain way, they should feel free to dress that way and to do so for whatever reasons they want to.

Note that the above doesn't apply to fatties who feel like wearing spandex. The government needs to step in and deal with that kind of shit.

 

[Keith&Co.]

The yamulke is not just a public display of belief

Hey Keith.

Yes but

Oh, what a surprise.

virtually every religious dress code is going to come with some flaky justification of why the wearer 'needs' to wear it:- "It is not a matter of choice"

Okay. But if you're going to say you champion their right to their belief, their relationship with god, then who the fuck are you to decide which parts of their religious beliefs are acceptable?

If there is a long term goal to phase out religion

Whose goal is that?
I mean, i know that almost any given religion wants to stamp out other religions and the lack of religion. But the progressives i know tend to think that any ideology stamping out other ideologies is a bad thing. Is it suddenly a good thing as long as it's OUR ideology we're putting in it's place?
Then we'd be as bad as any government that took the children of indigenous people to educate them in the proper religion.

I don't have a 'goal' to phase out religion.
I would HOPE that it'll continue to lose adherents and influence, but it seems to me that the internet's already doing that fine.

and get people to understand that we are all just humans and there are no special clubs then people's toes are going to have to get stepped on a little bit.

I would tend to say that if our plan involves stepping on people, we need to rethink the plan.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I would tend to agree.

I would tend to disagree. Religion is not and never has been meant to be a private matter any more than any other beliefs about the world and how people should act in it. Religion is inherently social and political.

By 'private' i did not mean to agree with Mojo's idea that religion should be like how he wants samesies to be: out of his sight and out of his mind.

I meant that it's a matter for the individual to decide, including the various options in the practice. The individual should own the decision whether to wear religious clothing daily, or only on holy days or only in temple or only on Samhain when the Great Pumpkin visits their pumpkin patch.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

She should have the right to wear her niqab wherever I can wear my ski mask. He should be allowed to carry his kirpan anywhere I can carry my swiss army knife. They should be allowed to wear the crosses around their necks anywhere we can wear pendants around ours. No special rules for or against clothing or accessories due to religion. That should be the rule. It is just as wrong to demand a ban on hajib as it is to demand you as an atheist say the lord's prayer.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

^ Compared to the problem of religion?

That is extremely small potatoes.

Compared to the problem of religion, religious clothing is extremely small potatoes. You're not making the idea of critical thinking more agreeable to others by caring about things like what clothing people wear. That's for religions to do.

 

[4321lynx]

^ Compared to the problem of religion?

That is extremely small potatoes.

Compared to the problem of religion, religious clothing is extremely small potatoes. You're not making the idea of critical thinking more agreeable to others by caring about things like what clothing people wear. That's for religions to do.

But Atheism IS the religion on some of the threads here.

 

[Bronzeage]

Well I think 'it's annoying' is a good starting point from which to explore the various reasons why it might make sense.

e.g.

1. Reduce friction between tribes
2. Speed up the phasing out of religion
3. Adjust society's perspective on religion to be more negative (like attitudes to smoking have been adjusted)
4. Help sufferers of religious belief to understand that their beliefs should be regarded as private

What are the benefits of advertising religious belief?

Would you require nature worshipping nudists to put on some clothes?