11 2

If I cannot walk around naked without being arrested for indecency why should any of these people be able to walk around flouting their proclivities which I consider an affront to my eyes?

Québec protesters decry ‘discriminatory’ bill banning religious symbols on state workers (VIDEOS) []

FrayedBear 9 Apr 8

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account


Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.


They shouldn't be allowed to bring religion into their government job. Just like how there shouldn't be any confederate symbols on public or government grounds. These things should be private. You want a cross on your house or confederate flag, then knock yourself out and have fun. You want a cross or confederate flag on your shirt when you're outside then have fun. Government, religion, and schmucks who lost a racist slave war should remain separate.


I think it's ridiculous and going too far for no good reason (the ban, that is). Unless the person's religious belief affects how he/she performs his/her job, who cares what religious "symbol" he/she wears. I'm a Canadian. People wearing religious symbols do not in general cause problems in the rest of the country. Why would this be an issue in Quebec? Quebec has been known to impose laws that make you shake your head, like there was an issue with using the word "pasta" in your restaurant menu because it's not French (it has to be translated into a French equivalent). My take on the whole thing is that Quebec wants to preserve its French (and Catholic) culture, and originally wanted to ban anything that is not THAT. But it would be seen as discriminatory if they only ban religious symbols such as hijabs and turbans, so they included a ban on religious symbols in general (and only in the higher levels of public service). I may not approve of a person's religious paraphernalia but as long as it doesn't affect how they serve me in public, I can just ignore such objects. Persons not wearing/displaying religious symbols can still use their beliefs in a negative way towards others. In order to understand this ban, you have to have some sort of understanding of the history and culture of Quebec (not that I'm an expert either). I'm not against quebecois. I have friends in Quebec/from Quebec. But some things are just......well....I don't know.

That pretty much describes Quebec.


Having read the article my only comment can be

For fuck sake grow up you pathetic dick heads, if you want to wear a signal that you are subservient to your own imagination wear inside you clothes!

As my father taught me "the only person that you have to prove yourself to is yourself - no one else".

All gods are the product of the individual believer's brain. As for wearing symbols that is no different than colour gangs uniforms or animals marking their territory with their scent.

As used to be said about certain types of sexuality "why should anyone be bothered about your preferences provided that they take place between consenting adults and are done in private?"

@FrayedBear Haven't gone to bed yet

Good morning Len, you are up late.

@LenHazell53 ? I corrected myself with my earlier comment.


Freedom comes with duties and responsibilities to others and not just the fulfillment of personal desires. Laws give us freedom (Locke, J. Social Compact)
Being nude in public is not socially acceptable. The why, is the potential for the sexualisation of being nude. Paedophiles may well see children as sexual targets when outside in public. Misogynists leering at beautiful young ladies and so on.
Ideally I'd like people to be able to wander around without clothes on if they wish, but quite frankly I don't want people to be uncomfortable should accidental inappropriate body contact happen on crowded public transport happens.
As for symbols of religion, it is part of being a human being and shouldn't be infringed on, in the same way that should I decide to show my support for reason I could wear an atheist badge. Unless by donning said symbols it offends significantly or demands violence on others. An example symbol is the swastika.
Although of course we are all nude under our clothes if that's any consolation.

You are talking of the equivalent of the symbols of recognition having the same purpose as street colour gangs or Hitler's brown shirts.
To suggest that being nude is not socially admissible is imposing the created doctrine of control of others not freedom. Clothing is worn for the warmth of the wearer.
Your abhorrence of nudity is a learnt matter that has been imposed upon you. In places where no clothes are worn, people's nudity does not create the puerile thoughts mentioned by you.

@FrayedBear To continue with what is socially acceptable, extends beyond the small scale societies that happily wander around without clothes. There are people in society who cannot help but find the nude form alomost purely sexual. These people can lead good lives with support where we all wear clothes in public, but remove or reduce the clothing and they are a problem.

@Sofabeast Small scale? Which planet are you living on?

@FrayedBear I reside on Earth. There are not many socieites that practice public nudity as a norm, and those that do, tend to be rather small communites. The largest was probably Australia, but the groups were still quite small by European/Asain standards.
By the way, I have no abhorrence of nudity, but as a student of Sociology I must argue the points of why societies are as they are and the facts that humans create rules, norms, conventions, traditions and laws to live by.
Something to think about. How would your nudity infringe on others who find it unacceptable? Freedom carry responcibilies.

@Sofabeast Small communities now because effing religious nuts have invaded bringing their prudery with them. Get with reality please.
To me you sound like a control freak in need of getting a life concerned with the things that matter.


I think that's taking it too far. Unless they are actively trying to proselyte or wearing things that interfere with the job, they should be able to wear what they want. Someone's jewelry is no threat to me.

On the other hand, their nakedness might be.....

Why? Please read my reply to Sofabeast.


What you wear on you body does not offend me. Self expression is a right.

Deb57 Level 8 Apr 8, 2019

Provided it is my choice and not the dictate of others. Wearing symbolism is rarely for non abusive purposes and is always a form of proselytising.

Express yourself all you want, when you are on your own time. At work, you obey the rules and many companies have dress codes, codes covering facial hygiene.

Agents for a secular government must not engage in proselytizing, whether active or passive. Just as women don't want porn taped to locker or cabinet doors, Bibles, Qurans, and other expressions of religious pornography are rightly banned. Can you imagine a coworker posting those verses that advise raping, killing and child molestation? When you see a hijab, just remember that's what's really underneath.

@racocn8 You raise a very interesting topic of facial hygiene. I was recently operated on by a surgeon with a huge beard. Everytime that I saw him pre and post op his face was not masked. Post op he was bandaging my leg which had 50 staples in the surgery incision. 6 months on there is no sign of infection. Perhaps I was lucky, perhaps I have developed proper immunity in my body, perhaps the surgeon was more sterile than the inside of a 10,000 °C furnace and certainly one observation does not prove anything but . . .
Frequently competing profit motivations result in conflicting opinions on what is correct. I therefore refute your suggestion that facial hygiene is anything more than namby pambyism or control freak psychosis nowadays most probably driven by insurance companies preying on paranoid minds during lean economic times.

@FrayedBear In many industries, but mainly those with toxic or flammable materials, beards are forbidden because the prevent getting a seal when wearing a half-mask respirator. Then there are places like Disneyland, and that's more like the namby-pamby you mention.

The cleanliness of beards is greatly dependent on the hygiene of the wearer. Your note is interesting because I recall that surgical room attire will cover the hair on top, so some places do regard hair as a source of contamination.

I've seen a leg that was infected and the patient was a wealthy attorney who kept getting grafts of skin that was grown to cover. Then he'd get drunk and ruin his resistance. Hey, his money, I guess.

@racocn8 The lawyer anecdote sounds like beautiful karma - I favour Bill Shakespeare's preferred treatment of lawyers []

I still state that if you wish to wear a beard and your face mask no longer seals it is your problem and your death - just don't expect me the employer to pay for your body disposal or any medical and certainly don't expect me to waste money training you how things are supposed to be done

@racocn8 The idea that a hijab or a beard represents poor hygiene is ludicrous. Poor hygiene is a result of a failure to keep one's self and/or attire clean. Your comment smacks of a feeble attempt to rationalize your own prejudice.

Your comment smacks at a feeble attempt at reading comprehension.

@racocn8 well, aren't you witty?


@FrayedBear Please see the link from Deb57 above: []

@racocn8 Yeah, I'm sure that anyone can replicate such findings among the indigent. The research was to determine cross infection from dogs to humans via a scanner used for both dogs and humans and examined nasties harboured in a sample of men's beards and dog's necks. No mention is made of the selection process or who was paying for it and why.
Several years ago the BBC investigated research done into the topic of beards and hygiene. One piece of research into hospital workers found shaven men more likely to can't staph infection than bearded men.
"a new form of antibiotic found living on the bacteria in someone's beard . . . But what does the science say? Michael Mosley from the BBC points to a study published in the Journal of Hospital Infection that looked at samples taken from 408 hospital staff: the data showed that it was the clean-shaven staff members who were more likely to have "certain bacterial species" living on their faces.
In particular, those without beards were more than three times as likely to be harbouring methicillin-resistant staph aureus (MRSA) on their skin, a particularly notorious source of infections in hospital."



Apples & oranges really. I would allow for both myself.


Having never - nor do I ever expect the desire to do so to ever appear - seen you naked I'm going with "That's a good law". ?

1of5 Level 8 Apr 8, 2019

My sentiment exactly.


Law is supposed to be somewhat of a consensus. That's the difference.

Personally, I don't care what they wear. It is what is in their heads that troubles me more.

What is in their heads is of no concern to you or me until it leaks out and affects others.


It's a messed up law.

People ought to be able to wear whatever the fuck they want to wear.

cava Level 7 Apr 8, 2019

when i was in the navy i couldn't have a beard while on a ship b/c a gas mask wouldn't properly seal. ashore i could have my beard & also while in the air force.
if you want to draw a paycheck then you need to abide by the rules..even if they don't make perfect sense.


I agree. I don't think people in positions of power, such as teachers and government employees, and medical doctors should flaunt their religion.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:326849
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.