Poll: Religious garb or religious garbage?

[mikkel_the_dane]

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

Well, we also practice that in Denmark.

 

[stvdv]

And my experience tells me men couldn't care less what women wear.

True. More or less

But

Less is more

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I am proud of living in a country where decent women are free to wear anything, even a miniskirt and fishnet stockings. And my experience tells me men couldn't care less what women wear.

But you are not all men and I am not your man.

 

[stvdv]

What are your views on this?

Bottom line:
I like my cloths, very comfortable and easy
I don't want the POTUS or king to dress me

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Bottom line:
I like my cloths, very comfortable and easy
I don't want the POTUS or king to dress me

Or the majority.

 

[Valjean]

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

Straw men rarely facilitate understanding. We'd be talking past each other and each concluding the other is hopelessly obtuse.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Straw men rarely facilitate understanding. We'd be talking past each other and each concluding the other is hopelessly obtuse.

Well, different definitions for same words is a fact. Religion is e.g. such a word.

 

[sayak83]

I voted "The state (or authority in power) has the right to dictate such".

It is an essential part of our civilisation.
Does anybody really think that we should all go about our business in the nude?

There is no problem with going nude. Its just cultural conditioning. A clothing optional society is a perfectly legitimate way of social living.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

There is no problem with going nude. Its just cultural conditioning. A clothing optional society is a perfectly legitimate way of social living.

With some limitations in practice for the transition.

 

[sayak83]

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?

None of these. A dynamic position on allowed and not-allowed social practices should happen through democratic consultative processes that should keep on adapting and changing as new situations, new ideas and new movements come and go in society.

 

[sayak83]

With some limitations in practice for the transition.

yes.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

None of these. A dynamic position on allowed and not-allowed social practices should happen through democratic consultative processes that should keep on adapting and changing as new situations, new ideas and new movements come and go in society.

Well, yes in one sense and no in another.

 

[muhammad_isa]

There is no problem with going nude. Its just cultural conditioning. A clothing optional society is a perfectly legitimate way of social living.

Sounds like hell to me..

I couldn't agree with my wife going around displaying herself.
I would rather not have a wife, if that were the case.

..but it isn't.
God has made some women who believe in the One God as well.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Sounds like hell to me..

I couldn't agree with my wife going around displaying herself.
I would rather not have a wife, if that were the case.

..but it isn't.
God has made some women who believe in the One God as well.

Yeah, but as long as you lwt me and my significant other out of it, you and your wife can do as you want and so in reverse for me and my significant other.

 

[firedragon]

Not up to me or as to what I might want. If people want to go naked, that is their right as far as I'm concerned. Quite simple, because I have no issues with such - not associating sexuality with nakedness, for example. Perhaps that is just a part of 'growing up'.

The issues I can see as to religious attire, and as to why so many countries seem to enact laws as to such - the security aspect (hiding the face, for example, or the possible concealment of weapons), the 'in your face' attitude of thrusting a religious belief upon others (obviously being recognised as having some particular religious belief) and which might tend to cause friction, and lastly, as to possibly displaying their subjugated nature (forced to wear such by whoever or whatever), given it is not obvious as to such. So, more about challenging the freedoms within a country by possibly imposing dress codes, or seemingly doing so. Given that many countries where such dress codes are mandatory are certainly not equivalently free as the countries you mention.

Yes. I agree with you. Must oppress some women who wish to be different. Agreed.

 

[sayak83]

Sounds like hell to me..

I couldn't agree with my wife going around displaying herself.
I would rather not have a wife, if that were the case.

..but it isn't.
God has made some women who believe in the One God as well.

You can decide to cover yourself top to bottom. Its unclear what moral right you have to force others to do the same.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes. I agree with you. Must oppress some women who wish to be different. Agreed.

Well, to me that is not just my country who does that.

 

[firedragon]

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.

Arabs in their own country is irrelevant to Switzerland and France. Unless you believe that their laws are based on what others do and a tit for tat attitude.

So If you are for oppressing women, I am with you. It's good for women to oppress some of them. Right? Great.

 

[syo]

Anarchy.

 

[firedragon]

Well, to me that is not just my country who does that.

Many countries oppress a part of their citizens. I agree.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Arabs in their own country is irrelevant to Switzerland and France. Unless you believe that their laws are based on what others do and a tit for tat attitude.

So If you are for oppressing women, I am with you. It's good for women to oppress some of them. Right? Great.

Yes, because those in some of the other countries aren't really humans.