rumitoid

Is this something for the US of A to consider? Does it fit our values?

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/mmw/2013/09/muslim-women-religious-neutrality-and-quebecs-charter-of-values/

AuntiE Loc: 45th Least Free State

You need to get out more rumitoid. Are you completely oblivious to the fact many local governmental entities are already subtly letting employees know religious jewelry is not acceptable? Did you miss the various stories about public employees not being able, without undue pressure, to read religious books on government property during lunch, etc? You missed all the recent stories about the Pentagon and the rules relating to religion? I thought you actually lived in community with access to the news.

If my statements seem harsh, trust me they are toned down from my original thoughts. The US is way ahead of Quebec on this subject. It simply does not include Eastern religious clothing practices.

rumitoid

AuntiE, why assume that I am so out of touch? How do you come to make those those comments? I presented an article about an actual law being passed to prohibit many of the things you noted, which is vastly different than "subtly letting employees know." And in polite Canada.

AuntiE Loc: 45th Least Free State

It was your phrasing concerning it relating to the US. As I said, we are way ahead of Canada on this topic. Religion is becoming persona non grata throughout this country in direct defiance to our rights to freely practice such. In many instance, it Is not so subtle and in others it is subtle to avoid personnel action against employers. It is evolving to the point religion is only acceptable on "traditional" church days. The remainder of the week you must put the subject in a closet.

God, guns and Veterans rights/benefits are VERY big hot buttons for me. You pushed one - adjust!

ABBAsFernando Loc: Ohio

ABBAsFernando Loc: Ohio

rumitoid

AuntiE, They are contemplating a LAW--again, big difference! You did not need to tell me what is going on in America. I work at a Christian TV station, as I have told you. I am well-aware of the problems. I did not expect insults from you, such demeaning assumptions.

AuntiE Loc: 45th Least Free State

I know you work at a Christian radio station, know your beliefs and positions, hence my complete dismay and "demeaning" comments. You better th/e/an almost everyone here on the Plaza are aware of the abysmal behaviors on this topic by our government and others to numerous to list. Personally, even "contemplating" such a law tells me, as I am sure it does you, it is a likelihood of happening. Governing bodies will not be happy until everyone is practicing religion in closets in the earliest hours of the AM.

On a religious note and your total recall of biblical texts and verses, my brain will not bring forth the text women in varying sects utilize for covering their hair. This would include all Eastern religions as well as... Ding..ding..Amish and Mennonite women. Does your encyclopedic knowledge have it?

Miss Brandi

I wear a crucifix and never take it off. And I dare anyone to politely or otherwise, law or no law, request that I remove it. They would find themselves in the middle of a nasty lawsuit. After all, this IS still the U.S. and at least for now, we still have first ammendment rights.
Screw Canada.

Homestead

NO! It would be like outlawing Hitler’s swastika while leaving Hitler’s N**i party free to continue to organize. In the meantime all historic religious references to the founding of this country would be banished.

And it would not stop the three stages of Jihad.

Three Stages of Jihad
http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_468896&feature=iv&src_vid=-SoXs0_rHY&v=ERou_Q5l9Gw

rumitoid

AuntiE, what do you think I was proposing when I did not state anything but asked two questions? Because I asked questions for readers to ponder, does not mean I am clueless or do not have an informed opinion. And on this topic, especially given where I work, I am very well-versed.

The article was there to show what happens in Canada may happen here. In other words, to bring attention to the same problems here that you accuse me of being ignorant. I have no idea what you were reading into this thread. If you're unsure ask a clarifying question instead of jumping to conclusions not in evidence...or thinking the worst of a person. How you came to totally misjudge me on this hurts. But that's 1pp. I should expect it.

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

In reality, your words are never too harsh they convey the emotion that the subject matter provokes.

When I was in the service, I received my first discipline action for wearing the Star of David which was very small and had slipped out over my T shirt while PTing. I could not fight the action, but my Commander (also Jewish) gave me a tap on the wrist and showed me ways of keeping it concealed. As a government employee, outward signs of religion was deemed inappropriate. Of course the Muslims could wear their traditional clothing, but a cross or star was reason for counseling. Bible study was considered ill-advisable, but they did not have rules at that time to forbid it. Now, I hear from friends that Bibles are forbidden to be in a military buildings. I suppose you saw the news article regarding Defense Spending and religion, here is the link if you want to review: http://www.religionnews.com/2013/07/09/conservatives-say-religious-freedom-is-under-attack-in-military/

The laws and rules placed on religion is becoming worrisome. If the tide is not stopped, actions such as those being taken in our own military and in Canada will engulf the "free" world. I use quotes on free, because we are becoming more and more restricted in what we once viewed as our God given rights that are now being taken away by mortal man.

rumitoid

BTW, her words that were too harsh were directed at me, not the subject matter. The link to the article I posted was to warn us, my fellow Americans, how far this seculariation (missing letter doesn't work) of society is going; somehow that was misconstrued to be the opposite of my intent or out of ignorance of the very problem that I was highlighting. It was from seeing the evidence of this trend everyday in my work. When assumptions are made, we can come to the diametrically opposed meaning behind someone's words.

Thank you for that link. It nicely backs up the point I was making.

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

I am fully aware to whom she addressed her comments as you should be aware that I addressed my opening comments to her.

I am glad I could add support to your argument as I understand you position.

Thinkmanvt

In a world where humans have so many (or none) versions of their God, who do you expect to enforce a right given you by your particular version?

We would be in better shape in the understanding and implementation of our freedoms if we would acknowledge that they come to us on a practical level from the forbearance of our fellow man/woman. What we choose within our freedom may be the discipline of this or that God and in that choice we may indeed be giving the strength to respect the rights granted (by Constitutional agreement) others to their own choice. The US Constitution said (says) that government cannot be the tool to force that choice and the federal, state, and local statutes even obligate the citizen to ignore religious difference in the public arena (but not private) for the sake of social harmony (and commerce).

It is the great secular compromise imposed on us by our Founders. Perhaps they saw fewer and shallower conflicts in religious doctrines and practices in their day. But they felt that the institution of churches were strong enough to handle matters in their domain without the assistance and coercion of government. They often resented the imposition of government into their worship and beliefs. Many "fled" their mother country to avoid government persecution on religious beliefs, if not in their generation, certainly within their known lineage.

It is an strange goal to regulate against causing peer pressure (or public friction) amongst persons who refuse to give their forbearance. The hiding of tokens of religion from public sight presupposes that someone will be "upset" or "coercively influenced" by seeing it. That is the mental problem of the viewer, not the wearer. There is a huge difference (in my mind) between a private person demonstrating his/her affiliation in a public place and a taxpayer-funded site/event being used to promote a religious practice (which the Constitution is interpreted to prohibit).