Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all, we have some important news to share. Please follow the link here to find out more!

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058419143/important-news/p1?new=1

Valid Expression of Faith?

13»

Comments

  • #62
    JC 2K3
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,794 ✭✭✭JC 2K3


    Jakkass wrote:
    I meant demanding that Christians aren't allowed to wear anything in school or work. I think that's too secular for my liking.
    More nudist than secular.


    And I dunno, faith should be more of a private thing IMO. There's no need to broadcast one's faith to the world. There's no reason someone should feel the need to express their faith outside private occasions or public occasions specifically dedicated to personal expression.


  • #63
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Jakkass wrote:
    I meant demanding that Christians aren't allowed to wear anything in school or work. I think that's too secular for my liking.

    Its the only fair way of doing it

    Your requirement that people can wear what they like so long as it "doesn't imped communication" is not a fair way of handling, as that is just an abritary requirement. What if it is a religious requirement that communication such as eye contact is impeded, as in the case of the burka? Why is it fine then to say "No, you cannot wear that?" Muslims would say that women have been wearing burka's for hundreds of years and they manage fine, and it is after all a persons choice.

    To say that you would allow all religious attire, just not this one this one and this one, is ridiculous. The point of secularism is that sometimes the only fair way to treat all religions equally is to not allow them all, equally. Anything else is just cherry picking, often with bias on the part of the person deciding what is or what isn't allowed.


  • #64
    Fallen Seraph
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 443 ✭✭Fallen Seraph


    JC 2K3 wrote:
    And I dunno, faith should be more of a private thing IMO. There's no need to broadcast one's faith to the world. There's no reason someone should feel the need to express their faith outside private occasions or public occasions specifically dedicated to personal expression.


    I dunno about that; I would have thought that expressing something about yourself in your appearance was a very basic human impulse, which everyone engages in? As cool a sci-fi story as it would make, a world in which no-one did so would be very dull indeed.


  • #65
    JC 2K3
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,794 ✭✭✭JC 2K3


    Fallen Seraph wrote:
    I dunno about that; I would have thought that expressing something about yourself in your appearance was a very basic human impulse, which everyone engages in? As cool a sci-fi story as it would make, a world in which no-one did so would be very dull indeed.
    Well, religion is hardly fashion.

    But a multitude of different people all openly expressing different beliefs in close contact with each other is kinda looking for trouble. It should be restricted in some cases.


  • #66
    Acid_Violet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,295 ✭✭✭Acid_Violet


    JC 2K3 wrote:
    Well, religion is hardly fashion.

    Unless you're a scientologist :p


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Wicknight wrote:
    Its the only fair way of doing it

    Your requirement that people can wear what they like so long as it "doesn't imped communication" is not a fair way of handling, as that is just an abritary requirement. What if it is a religious requirement that communication such as eye contact is impeded, as in the case of the burka? Why is it fine then to say "No, you cannot wear that?" Muslims would say that women have been wearing burka's for hundreds of years and they manage fine, and it is after all a persons choice.

    To say that you would allow all religious attire, just not this one this one and this one, is ridiculous. The point of secularism is that sometimes the only fair way to treat all religions equally is to not allow them all, equally. Anything else is just cherry picking, often with bias on the part of the person deciding what is or what isn't allowed.

    It's fair to say a Sikh can wear a turban and a Christian can't wear a cross? I don't think so.


  • #68
    Fallen Seraph
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 443 ✭✭Fallen Seraph


    JC 2K3 wrote:
    Well, religion is hardly fashion.
    But surely the associated attire is?

    JC 2K3 wrote:
    But a multitude of different people all openly expressing different beliefs in close contact with each other is kinda looking for trouble. It should be restricted in some cases.

    Well, not really, for the most part people are capable of wearing burkas and crucifixes side by side without so much as a comment. It happens everyday in Dublin. Obviously it's better for your health not to wear a "Jesus>Mohammed" t-shirt to the hajj, but this is an exception rather than a rule. And I'd definately go so far as to argue that it is much better for tolerance to express your beliefs openly; fear of the unknown etc...

    And moreover, I don't see why this wouldn't be generalised to sport and bands?

    edit: I might just be boxing at shadows here; I'll certainly admit that there are certain situations where restriction is appropriate.


  • #69
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Jakkass wrote:
    It's fair to say a Sikh can wear a turban and a Christian can't wear a cross? I don't think so.

    That is exactly my point.

    The only fair way of doing it is the secular way, both of them have to wear the same exact same uniform that is decided on secular grounds (ie nothing to do with any one particular religion). The Sikh cannot wear his turban and the Christian cannot wear his cross.

    Otherwise you will eventually reach a situation where you say "religion X, Y, Z" can wear what they like but we don't want "religion Q" wearing this. That might be a burka, it might be an upside down cross with "Satan" written on it. It doesn't really matter. There are no fair grounds to disallow these while still allowing X Y and Z to wear that they like.


  • #70
    Sleepy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,595 ✭✭✭✭Sleepy


    Jakkass wrote:
    It's fair to say a Sikh can wear a turban and a Christian can't wear a cross? I don't think so.
    Even though I'd be in favour of banning all forms of religious icons, symbols etc from a place of education I can see the argument the school are making tbh.

    If Boy A, a Sikh, removes his turban, he is in essence renouncing his faith.

    If Girl B, a Christian, removes a chastity ring (or even a crucifix), she remains a Christian.

    (in the eyes of their respective religions.)

    If we're going to respect religious beliefs in schools, I think there's a clear distinction between these cases and as such, it's fair to make rules which ban discretionary articles of clothing when creating a school uniform policy.


  • #71
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Then again, the Christians always lose out in that situation because it's not an essential part of their faith. However they should be allowed to if they choose.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    Medina
    Closed Accounts Posts: 390 ✭✭Medina


    Wicknight wrote:

    Can she decide "Ok, I believe in everything else, I'm just not going to wear the scarf" and still be accepted by the religion?

    The depressing answer is "Of course not" In fact such a question would probably be met with puzzlement by theists even non-Muslims. Religion doesn't work like that they would no doubt say.

    Im glad you understood my previous point about free will versus requirement.

    Also for Asia, I meant that the cultural thing is making all females (whatever age) to wear it, whereas in Islamic law only girls over the age of puberty and who are not elderly are asked by their religion to wear it.

    Wicknight with regard to your quote above, do you mean should the person still be accepted by the religion? If the answer is yes then they are still Muslims. It is not for religion to accept people but for people to accept religion. and there are 5 fundamental beliefs in Islam if you want to call yourself Muslim and hijab is not one of them. That is why so many Muslim girls do not wear hijab. It is still required though but they choose not to wear it. That is why it is a necessity.


  • #73
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Sleepy wrote:
    Even though I'd be in favour of banning all forms of religious icons, symbols etc from a place of education I can see the argument the school are making tbh.

    If Boy A, a Sikh, removes his turban, he is in essence renouncing his faith.

    If Girl B, a Christian, removes a chastity ring (or even a crucifix), she remains a Christian.

    (in the eyes of their respective religions.)

    If we're going to respect religious beliefs in schools, I think there's a clear distinction between these cases and as such, it's fair to make rules which ban discretionary articles of clothing when creating a school uniform policy.

    So expressions of faith will only be permitted where the person belongs to a faith that dictates what he can and cannot wear? That is a recipe for disaster, promoting more dictatorial faiths over those that allow more personal freedom.


  • #74
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Medina wrote:
    Wicknight with regard to your quote above, do you mean should the person still be accepted by the religion? If the answer is yes then they are still Muslims. It is not for religion to accept people but for people to accept religion.

    Well I think we both know that in reality that doesn't happen.


  • #75
    Sleepy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,595 ✭✭✭✭Sleepy


    Jakkass wrote:
    Then again, the Christians always lose out in that situation because it's not an essential part of their faith. However they should be allowed to if they choose.
    Why do you see the Christian as 'losing out'? They're being denied the same right to freedom of expression as everyone else in the school. The wearing of a turban isn't an expression of faith but rather an adherance to one.
    PDN wrote:
    So expressions of faith will only be permitted where the person belongs to a faith that dictates what he can and cannot wear? That is a recipe for disaster, promoting more dictatorial faiths over those that allow more personal freedom.
    As I said above, there is a distinction between expressing one's faith and adhering to it. I can't help but get a sense of 'my religion's better than that one' from your post tbh. IMHO, a faith is a faith. I don't care if your religion requires you to wear a red clowns nose tbh.

    The issue here is really one of whether or not an individual should be allowed to express their faith in a public school rather than whether they should be allowed to practice it. There is a discrete difference between the two imho. For example, if the girl in question was being prevented from saying a quiet prayer before an exam, the school would be denying her the right to practice her faith. However, if a Muslim student was being asked to remove a t-shirt reading "He that chooses a religion over Islam, it will not be accepted from him and in the world to come he will be one of the lost." (Q 3:86) he would be being denied ther right to express his faith.

    The former of these examples I would find objectionable as it would violate that girl's human rights. The latter I would not as it merely requires that the student conforms to the school's dress code.


  • #76
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Sleepy wrote:
    Why do you see the Christian as 'losing out'? They're being denied the same right to freedom of expression as everyone else in the school. The wearing of a turban isn't an expression of faith but rather an adherance to one.

    Some Christians could consider the wearing of a crucifix to be integral to their faith. (Thank God these rules aren't implemented in Ireland yet). Just another excessive draconian measure, and as I said.


  • #77
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Jakkass wrote:
    Some Christians could consider the wearing of a crucifix to be integral to their faith.

    Could a Muslim not say the same think about a Burka?

    Is there any attire you would object to?


  • #78
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    if there was a uniform in the school there might be a bit of an issue with the burqa covering the whole thing. However if there were no communication issues between student and teacher, I wouldn't see any problem with it.

    The crucifix is insignificant in size compared to the burqa though and I don't see how it could cause fuss in a school situation.


  • #79
    Sleepy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,595 ✭✭✭✭Sleepy


    Jakkass wrote:
    Some Christians could consider the wearing of a crucifix to be integral to their faith. (Thank God these rules aren't implemented in Ireland yet). Just another excessive draconian measure, and as I said.
    Genuine question: what Christian faith requires that it's adherants wear a crucifix?


  • #80
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    just because it's not required doesn't mean Christians shouldn't be allowed to represent their faith with a small cross necklace or a ring when the other faiths can wear headscarves and turbans. In terms of religious equality it's only fair.


  • #81
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,466 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    So, what happens when somebody's religion involves making rude comments about somebody else's religion? Like, imagine that somebody came into school with a tee-shirt that made extremely derogatory comments about Jesus. Would you be happy to sit next to the guy that wore that?


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    Sleepy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,595 ✭✭✭✭Sleepy


    Jakkass wrote:
    just because it's not required doesn't mean Christians shouldn't be allowed to represent their faith with a small cross necklace or a ring when the other faiths can wear headscarves and turbans. In terms of religious equality it's only fair.
    No, I'm afraid it's not. You're comparing apples with oranges. Expression of one's religion and adherance to one's religion are two completely different things. As such, it is entirely fair for a rule to be enforced in a dress code outlawing one whilst accomodating the other.

    Try to take your own faith out of the equation and you'll see that this is the case. I'm not saying I agree with allowing burkhas / crucifixes / chastity rings or turbans in schools. In fact, if it was up to me, I'd ban all forms of religion from places of education (and outlaw religious schools) as to me, accepting something on faith is completely against the spirit of education. My viewpoint being likely to cause riots, I can accept that drawing the line at allowing students to adhere to the laws of their faith whilst in a place of education is a reasonable compromise.


  • #83
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Jakkass wrote:
    The crucifix is insignificant in size compared to the burqa though and I don't see how it could cause fuss in a school situation.

    As i've said, that isn't the point.

    Would you allow someone to wear something that does effect communication between teacher and student?

    If the answer is no then you are saying that that person doesn't really need to wear that. They can survive without it.

    If a Muslim can survive without a burqa then surely a Christian can survive without a cross.

    There are no fair grounds to say that one person needs to wear something for their religion but someone else does not.

    (btw I'm not arguing on the same side as Sleepy. I disagree with his point above, in case you thought our points were interchangeable)


  • #84
    Sleepy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,595 ✭✭✭✭Sleepy


    On what facet would you disagree Wicknight?


  • #85
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Sleepy wrote:
    On what facet would you disagree Wicknight?

    Because it requires an external assessment of whether or not a religion "requires" a particular item or not.

    Since at the end of the day religion is a person decision this is ultimately unworkable. The external assessment that an item is not required by a religion will have no sway over the followers who believe that it is. So you are back to square one


  • #86
    Sleepy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,595 ✭✭✭✭Sleepy


    While I see your point, I can't see how anyone could expect leeway for their own individual interpretation of religion, however if one is a member of an organised religion who's church dictates adherance to a certain dress code to their members, I think that's a reasonable indication that something is a 'required' part of that faith.


Advertisement