"For the same reason the French do. The wearing of religious symbols is VASTLY different in meaning from wearing a tie. The tie is a ludicrous fashion-statement. However, the Burkha, Turban, Mitre, dog-collar are worn as a statement about the religious 'values' of the wearer. It's intended to demark the diferences between those who are 'in' a faith and those who are NOT! The tie carries NO statement of 'moral value', it's merely a sily fashion item."
That's not quite true though is it? Football shirts are worn to fit in with certain groups. The tie is worn to fit in with certain groups. Whilst it may not carry "moral" value, it certainly does carry certain societal values.
"Items worn as a DELIBERATELY inflamatory symbol (as worn by ALL the religious sects) are anathema to people like me. I don't think ANYBODY shouil;d be displaying sysmbols with the aim of declaring: 'My Noral Values are ghigher than ANYONE who does NOT choose to wear thios symbol'. Dress it anyway you like, but that really IS the intention of religious clothing!"
That's an interesting argument that has some merit. I would argue that such items can only be inflammatory of you are willing to be inflamed. To that end I say again, why do you care? Clearly, religious clothing is worn to make you identifiable to your group, but how is that different to any other clothing worn to make you identifiable to your group? Again, religion has no monopoly on such behaviour.
The dangerous part of religion isn't the strange customs and rituals, it's the concept of faith itself.
|
|