Poll: Religious garb or religious garbage?

[mikkel_the_dane]

And also a writing system, monumental architecture, &al.

A country can have the strongest, largest, most technically advanced military in the world, but if it lacks religious specialization or monumental architecture, it's not technically meet the requirements for a civilization.

Well, that is one definition. But I don't want to play the defintion game, so you win.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes, I know .. you live in France

I was talking to @mikkel_the_dane , and Christianity came to us much later.

And in Eastern Europe even later in some cases. And even in some cases a different version as even to the empire. What a mess.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Of course, relating to females, and with regards to Iran and Afghanistan, apart from many other countries too. And seemingly, mostly about Muslims and where there might be rules/laws enforcing any particular dress code.

* Poll option: In general, that is, if it doesn't apparently cause offence to others - like how it is legal to be nude in the UK as long as such doesn't cause offence, or sufficient people don't complain over this. But they often do. And is this sufficient reason for religious dress to be enforced - that some are offended?

So, the last option might take into account the feelings of others, but it is basically we who decide as to what we wear as long as such conforms to whatever laws that obtain in our country.

What are your views on this?

Bunch of silly costumes.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I didn't vote because I could find one close enough to my understanding.
These 2 in some sort of combination would do:

1. The popular vote should decide this
2. The popular vote should indicate preference but not affect such

And even then there are human rights and minority rights, and the courts.

Not hot on individual rights or anarchy then?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Not hot on individual rights or anarchy then?

There are no really individual rights. You don't have individual rights like you have an individual body. The one is social, the other is biological, but can also be viewed socially.

 

[muhammad_isa]

This is a load of twaddle.

Not completely.

Countries all around the world vary as to such things. Much of Europe have hardly had much of a problem with nakedness, possibly because religions tend to have less influence there..

On the contrary .. Europe has Christian roots, and being nude in public was considered imoral.
Both the Queen and now King of England would never DREAM of it.

Rant on all you like about 'civilisation' but Europe tends to be where civilisation is advanced the most, and where so many countries tend to top the polls as to human rights.

Now, that's interesting.
I would agree with you that when it comes to human rights issues, Europe is doing quite well atm.
I wonder if that will be the case when we become as poor as so-called 3rd. world countries.

It is more about the imposition of dress codes because of religious beliefs alone.

OK .. and what does that have to do with Europe, exactly?

 

[Twilight Hue]

I voted *
Unfortunately dome people would be offended by someone showing a bit of nose.

Remember the ankle measurements required of women to access beaches way back in the 20s and 30s ?

 

[Mock Turtle]

There are no really individual rights. You don't have individual rights like you have an individual body. The one is social, the other is biological, but can also be viewed socially.

True probably, even if some are enshrined in UN human rights acts. Especially if some countries don't recognise such.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights | United Nations

 

[loverofhumanity]

How is it a war crime?

Thats my own terminology to express just how evil it is. It is in fact a war against women.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

On the contrary .. Europe has Christian roots, ...

But not just that. Now theology is one thing, but history is another.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

True probably, even if some are enshrined in UN human rights acts. Especially if some countries don't recognise such.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights | United Nations

But that is a declaration. Not a fact. Hence it is social and indeed not just individual.

 

[Valjean]

Oh true true. But I am not that in need of seeing naked ladies out in the open so it's not really relevant to me. If it is to you, all power to you. I have different principles and needs.

I am only commenting to someone else that governments must oppress a part of the womenkind who wish to be a little different like in Switzerland and France. It's a great thing. Must take their rights away.

Modern French or Swiss dress would shock the French or Swiss of a century ago. It's all in what you're used to.

An Arab might say he has no need of seeing a woman's hair. An Edwardian era European or American would say he had no need of seeing a woman's arms or ankles. Some modern Polynesians would say they had no need to see a woman's thighs -- though legs and bare breasts are perfectly OK.
It's all cultural. No attire is intrinsically improper or provocative, and the reason we regard bare legs today as unremarkable is because people pushed the limits.

Pushing the limits harms no one. It's therapeutic. It keeps attitudes flexible.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Thats my own terminology to express just how evil it is. It is in fact a war against women.

Yeah, that is your opinion and indeed a rhetorical trick.

 

[Valjean]

We have a military and are part of an alliance of countries with militaries.

But it's not your military that makes you a civilization.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

But it's not your military that makes you a civilization.

I don't play definitions. I just use another one if it suits me.

 

[Valjean]

Like in France and Switerland, even clothing is offensive. So must oppress women who wish to wear some thing different.

You'll see topless women on French beaches, and naked hikers in Switzerland.
Is this what you're advocating?

 

[Valjean]

I don't play definitions. I just use another one if it suits me.

Without agreement on definitions, language itself is impossible.

 

[Mock Turtle]

On the contrary .. Europe has Christian roots, and being nude in public was considered imoral.
Both the Queen and now King of England would never DREAM of it.

We moved on from then. Not notice? Have you not travelled much through Europe? I doubt you will find many countries that don't have (designated) nude beaches, even if such is still a bit titillating for the less thinking and quick to arousal.

Now, that's interesting.
I would agree with you that when it comes to human rights issues, Europe is doing quite well atm.
I wonder if that will be the case when we become as poor as so-called 3rd. world countries.

That's for another thread no doubt.

OK .. and what does that have to do with Europe, exactly?

Well, I suppose it has to do with much of Europe because in the main religious dress codes are not a requirement and largely not imposed on any with religious beliefs. Dress codes are very much up to the individual apart from where they might interfere with the proper functioning of society. And hence why some countries do have certain regulations concerning such.

 

[Valjean]

Oh true true. But I am not that in need of seeing naked ladies out in the open so it's not really relevant to me. If it is to you, all power to you. I have different principles and needs.

I am only commenting to someone else that governments must oppress a part of the womenkind who wish to be a little different like in Switzerland and France. It's a great thing. Must take their rights away.

So it's repression and tyranny you're advocating.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Without agreement on definitions, language itself is impossible.

No, we can use different definitions in some cases and still understand each other.