Secularists--Would You Eliminate All Religion, If You Could?

[dogsgod]

I understand why religious people would like to see all people be religious, and I get the feeling here that it's the other way around as well. Secularists would like to see us all be secularist. Is that true, and why?

True. A secularist favours secular laws which are by definition neutral laws allowing for all religionists the freedom to practice their religion, without the laws or government allowing for the favouring of any one particular religion, and for the non-religious to not have to take part in religious ceremony in public places, and for the religious to not have to take part in religious ceremony in public places of a differing religion than that of their own. By this definition, many secularists are religious people of various stripes, and some are not religious. So, yes, many secularists would like us all to be secularists.

 

[yossarian22]

But it isn't the same thing as freedom of speech, which is in the Constitution. Speech is speech--verbal, written. We see "expression" crossing over into forms of art, dress, pornography, and just about anything.
I admit it bothers me to hear "freedom of expression" quoted as if it comes from the Constitution. Often it's just an excuse to be lewd.

Not the letter of the law, the spirit...
Speech is nothing more than a form of communication, the spreading of an idea.
Whatever spreads an idea can be considered communication.
By your logic, political cartoons are not protected by the first amendment
But political cartoons are clearly attempts at communication. Can the government censor cartoons they dislike? Of course not, nobody would agree with that. So where do we draw the line? We can't without being utter hypocrites, so we don't draw a line. Ever.
The FCC might prohibit the broadcasting on certain frequencies, but never all frequencies. National security is a whole different game.

 

[gnostic]

I considered myself to be secularist, in a way that I like to see the separation of state and religion, of state laws and religious laws, of education and religion, of science and religion, of business (or profession) and religion, etc.

Religion should have no say of government, laws, education and workplace, just as these should have no say of religious matters.

As to eliminating religion, I would say no. Every individual can believe what they believe or not believe in religious or spiritual matters in their own free, PERSONAL time. Religion should be restricted in religion.

So wearing religious symbols, like the crucifixes and headdress should be banned in working environments, if the business have such dress codes; it is up to upper management.

 

[Storm]

So wearing religious symbols, like the crucifixes and headdress should be banned in working environments, if the business have such dress codes; it is up to upper management.

I don't think infringing on the free expression of religion is the way to go.

 

[Smoke]

I don't think infringing on the free expression of religion is the way to go.

Almost every place I've ever worked has had a dress code. Why is religion always considered a valid excuse for ignoring the rules that everybody else has to follow?

 

[Storm]

Almost every place I've ever worked has had a dress code. Why is religion always considered a valid excuse for ignoring the rules that everybody else has to follow?

How do religious symbols violate the dress code?

EDIT: ... unless the dress code specifically bans religious symbols, in which case we're back to infringing on free expression of religion.

 

[yossarian22]

How do religious symbols violate the dress code?

You can't wear anything besides your uniform?

 

[TaraMoon]

A better question would be, "Would you eliminate proselytizers if you could". My answer would be, "not directly". I would bring back the coliseums and all proselytizers would be thrown in and the doors locked. No lions, no spectators. The proselytizers would surely kill each other and the rest of us could live in peace.

 

[Storm]

You can't wear anything besides your uniform?

In which case, I don't think that exceptions should be made. I just don't think that religious expression should be singled out.

 

[Smoke]

How do religious symbols violate the dress code?

It depends on what the symbol is, and what the dress code is. Some workplaces forbid jewelry, and some kinds of religious dress might fall outside some dress codes, too.

 

[Storm]

It depends on what the symbol is, and what the dress code is. Some workplaces forbid jewelry, and some kinds of religious dress might fall outside some dress codes, too.

I refer you to post 109

 

[gnostic]

I don't think infringing on the free expression of religion is the way to go.

I am not infringing on free expression at all.

All I am saying is that there are time and place for religion, and in the work place or when students are in schools, religion is the wrong place and time. I am not asking people to give up religion, just find a different time and place for it.

 

[Storm]

I am not infringing on free expression at all.

All I am saying is that there are time and place for religion, and in the work place or when students are in schools, religion is the wrong place and time. I am not asking people to give up religion, just find a different time and place for it.

If you're talking about outright banning it, yes you are. Students especially are allowed to express everything else about themselves, why not their religion?

 

[Magic Man]

Secularism isn't about not having anything religious in public. It's about not promoting any one religion through the government. People could still wear religious symbols to work or anywhere else, as long as they fit in with the dress code.

For instance, on Ash Wednesday, Christians have ashes smudged on their foreheads, and they're supposed to keep them there all day. This means they go to work that way. There's no way to keep them on, and not show them off at work, but not allowing it at work would be religious discrimination. On the other hand, allowing employees to work like that isn't promoting Christianity, it's allowing the employees to freely express themselves through something in which they believe.

 

[Autodidact]

How do religious symbols violate the dress code?

EDIT: ... unless the dress code specifically bans religious symbols, in which case we're back to infringing on free expression of religion.

Well, I know some employers have had a problem with dreadlocks, which are religious for a Rastafarian.

 

[Magic Man]

Well, I know some employers have had a problem with dreadlocks, which are religious for a Rastafarian.

But that's just an aesthetic or health thing. It's not because they're religious symbols. I'm not saying it makes it right, but the banning of it has nothing to do with religion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So wearing religious symbols, like the crucifixes and headdress should be banned in working environments, if the business have such dress codes; it is up to upper management.

Personally, I don't think employers should have any right to make demands of their employees that have nothing to do with their job.

If a manufacturing company has a rule against dangling jewelry to prevent it from getting caught in machinery, I think that's okay... even if they ban crucifix or Star of David necklaces along with every other type of jewelry that's hazardous in that environment. However, businesses should not have rules on appearance that have nothing to do with job requirements (and I would include "looking professional" in this category) or workplace hazards.

Frankly, if an inside sales rep who only deals with clients over the phone comes to work wearing a 5-pound wooden crucifix around her neck and has "I (heart) Jesus" tattooed across her forehead, but she fulfils her job description and the employee policy handbook to the letter, the employer has no valid complaint, IMO.

 

[Autodidact]

But that's just an aesthetic or health thing. It's not because they're religious symbols. I'm not saying it makes it right, but the banning of it has nothing to do with religion.

Right, the policy would be nuetral, but the employee might want to claim a religious exception. Another example might be if there was a rule against hats, and an Orthodox Jewidh manor Muslim woman wants to claim an exception.

 

[Magic Man]

Right, the policy would be nuetral, but the employee might want to claim a religious exception. Another example might be if there was a rule against hats, and an Orthodox Jewidh manor Muslim woman wants to claim an exception.

That's fine. Then allow all of the exception, too.

 

[Smoke]

However, businesses should not have rules on appearance that have nothing to do with job requirements (and I would include "looking professional" in this category) or workplace hazards.

Frankly, if an inside sales rep who only deals with clients over the phone comes to work wearing a 5-pound wooden crucifix around her neck and has "I (heart) Jesus" tattooed across her forehead, but she fulfils her job description and the employee policy handbook to the letter, the employer has no valid complaint, IMO.

However, when an employee deals with clients in person, "looking professional" is a job requirement. What that means varies from occupation to another, of course.