Yes clog, this is what ‘common sense’ comes up with. It also represents the blind spot found within any specific sense of identity. (nationalism, theological and/or wage slave in this case)
Taking your points one by one, and continuing to admit they are common memes, let us do an analysis. 1. “permissible” – Most workers do submit to the authority of their employers, thus in this sense you are absolutely correct. Yet, even here, IF the culture were one that did not submit so easily, any pretense of a ‘right to make a uniform mandatory…’ disappears in smoke. Cultures differ, memes differ, businesses differ. Even though there is a movement afloat to unify most cultures into a global one, even this need not be submitted to. 2. “reasonable” – To state that it is reasonable to insist on no symbols “religious or otherwise” in one breath and then in another breath say that flags are fine, expected by you and believed to be a sign of pride and respectability by you highlights how relative this notion of being ‘reasonable’ is. 3. “freedom” – The old saw of “no one is forced to….”, again is commonly believed and supported. Yet, when examined further, currently, within our specific cultures, most people do and must work. In this sense, to be able to eat and have clothing and shelter, a job is a necessity. So, there is less freedom here than first imagined. Looking even more closely, your supposition that there is and will always be a rainbow of differing business models, tastes and motivations is also commonly believed. Yet, it is clear that even today many countries (cultures) are experiencing upheaval of differing amounts when it comes to religious tolerance and control of cultural mores, laws and memes. Small example, in some muslem states, to wear, expose or even own most if not all religious icons is more than frowned upon. So, even though this is a specific and limited example, my point is that this sort of change can easily occur. This can easily be extended to nationalism and whether it is found to be respectable or not. Pick any country, say china and then pick any theology and see if there is a ‘fit’ or not. And, no, in most cases, the citizens do not have the ‘freedom’ to move to a different country let alone renounce the commonly held views of the day. 4. “logical conclusion” - So, yes, your ‘logical conclusion’ of any business being able to say ‘no’ to anything at all does follow your premise. This is one reason I oppose this. In our culture, most businesses are run as dictatorships in practice if not in theory. So, any draconian urge at all can and will be supported as long as there is compliance. Again, why I revolt. 5. “point of view” - Since the US is not your native country as I remember, I won’t go into the history and legal precedencies that run in opposition to your beliefs about the promotion of religion, politicians, nationalism etc. Also, I remember days when even being ‘off duty’ required a very limited choice of uniforms. 6. ‘code’ – See: http://www.ushistory.org/betsy/flagetiq.html and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Flag_Code . Such things are easily forgotten and ignored when nationalistic fervor approaches fever pitch. Also, if you have not been in the USA for more than the last decade or two, you may not have been privy to inner strength and sober nationalistic pride. Sadly, this sense of equilibrium no longer is the norm. As an analogy, I have heard that the majority of people in Nazi Germany felt their sense of nationalistic pride was just that and had nothing to do with fanaticism. It is all too easy to get swept up in the moment and emotions. So, while not the ‘norm’, I present a differing view along with some of the ‘whys’. On Oct 9, 2:32 pm, Clogtowner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi y'all - I think the question to be asked is if it is permissible > for a representative of a business to be wearing religious symbols > during work time and when servicing a customer. The business has the > right to make a uniform mandatory and that uniform reflects the image > of the company to customers or prospective customers. When looked at > from this perspective, it seems reasonable that the business should > insist on no symbols (religious or otherwise) as they may promote an > image that the business doesn't wish to. If we take this to its > logical conclusion, businesses should be able to say no turbans, veils > or burkas. I think I have to agree with this - no one is forced to > take the job. There will be some businesses that wish to promote a > particular religion or politician and thus appropriate regalia will be > permitted or even compulsory. > Of course, off-duty, dress is a matter of personal choice. > I'm not sure which code it is against to wear the flag and why it > should be described as fanatical nationalism. I would have thought > that any respectable business would be proud of their employees > wearing a flag if only to identify their nationality. > > On Oct 9, 2:29 pm, ornamentalmind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > The article isn’t so much ‘in your face’ as is the group headed by one > > person mentioned therein. > > > “The Rev Brian Allenby, national director of Christians at Work which > > promotes Christianity in the workplace, says displaying the cross is > > an important part of some Christians’ faith.” > > >http://www.christiansatwork.org/ > > > Christians at work. There exist UK associated sites and others. > > > Another person quoted at clog’s original site: > > “David Cannings, chairman of Christians in Politics, which encourages > > people in public office to make their faith part of their work, said > > religious imagery was becoming marginalised.” > > > I contemplate this stuff quite a bit. While on the surface, I don’t > > want others to ‘falunt’ their theology at least not in an evangelical > > way towards me, I’m not sure that wearing a piece of jewelry falls in > > this category. I do know that I don’t like the gratuitous cards placed > > on the food trays on one of the airlines, Hawaiian I believe. They are > > embossed with christian words of the day. I didn’t purchase a ticket > > for this. > > > On the other hand, for atheists and/or evolutionists, would being > > asked to remove one of the Darwin pins or necklaces be similar? How > > does the notion of universality enter into this? I wear a couple of > > symbols on a chain around my neck that some would call occult. I don’t > > mind keeping them in my shirt, but would feel a little imposed upon if > > asked to be sure to do so or remove them. > > > What about flag pins? Not only is it against code to wear the flag, > > (of the US) but it appears to be a form of fanatical nationalism. > > Should this be stopped? > > > It all seems to be cyclical and subjective. At least until the > > ultimate water boarding found in Salem of yore returns. > > > On Oct 9, 11:54 am, Clogtowner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Hi y'all - in your face religion > > > or..............?http://www.ivanfoster.org/article.asp?date=11/1/2006&seq=3-Hide > > > quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
