What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Religion: Communion Toast Crunch

At what point does an article of clothing become a religious symbol vs. an obvious religious accessory like a crucifix or cross worn around the neck? Is it fair to deprive an observant Islamic woman of her hijab or niqab when, say, a Mormon would obviously have no issue wearing their required temple underwear under their outer garments? Or a Christian could wear a cross under their shirt?

Like an experienced Techie, I'm obviously JAQing off here. Because as much as I oppose someone else's religious beliefs running my life, there's a line to be drawn between desiring secularism in government affairs and forcing all citizens to be officially atheist in their professional and public lives.

I don't want joecct running the country, but I don't want to force him to live a lie either.
 
Last edited:
Does_Your_State_Have_More_Jews_Or_Muslims.jpg
 
MissThundercat said:
Quebec is working to implement a more strict secularism law. Would ban public prayer and other outward displays of religion in public.

www.bbc.com

Quebec moves to expand secularism law, limit public prayer

A new bill introduced in the Canadian province expands on a 2019 religious symbols law with new measures including a ban on face coverings in daycares.
www.bbc.com www.bbc.com
Click to expand...
When someone inevitably asks “But where do you draw the line?”, the answer is somewhere before this point.
 
I am very much against this.

The Court of Session in Edinburgh heard how the 14-year-old girl had told medics that she did not consent to a transfusion even in the event of an emergency because of her religious beliefs.

However lawyers for a Scottish health board had sought an order to allow the procedure to go ahead if the girl's life was at risk. Judge Lady Tait granted the order, saying she was satisfied it was in the child's best interests "giving appropriate weight to her views".

According to the religious community's website, Jehovah's Witnesses refuse blood transfusions, saying both the Old and New Testaments say to abstain from blood. A report submitted to Lady Tait assessed the child as having "capacity" and having a full understanding of the implications of her decision.
Click to expand...

1. Her body, her choices. I don't want the state having that power.

2. FAFO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top