Hi y'all - thanks for the differing view which I don't completely agree with.
First on the flag. I took your comment to be on flag pins. I do know about rules governing use of the flag. I see nothing wrong with sporting a flag pin to identify nationality and perhaps show a little pride in the first democratic country to preach separation of Church and State. If I didn't feel proud to be an American, I wouldn't be here, and I've no plans to become a fanatical patriot or to support any military advances. All my points were aimed at life in the USA. I have a differing view on business. My wife runs a small business and I've been involved in plenty. We tried many times during our first decade here to hire staff but non lasted more than a week. We didn't enforce a dress code but we did require punctuality and a fair day's work. Eventually we quit, and my wife remained as a one woman business - she is doing very nicely thank you. Business owners in this country have my sympathy. Freedom includes the right to sell one's labor or the right to labor for oneself. I see these freedoms spread liberally around this country and no reason to revolt against them. Every large store that I walk into has a computer and keyboard set up to take instant applications for employment. I tend to avoid the many restaurants that have the "now hiring" sign up, as I know they are short of staff. I don't know how the Govt. comes up with the unemployment figures - I do not accept them. I do believe that many people make themselves unemployable either by their work ethic (lack thereof) or their personal habits. I wonder why we have such diametrically opposed views? Why do you take such a hard line on businesses? The unpaid time spent on unnecessary paperwork alone should be enough to deter anyone but a commited masochist. On Oct 9, 6:02 pm, ornamentalmind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 > andhttp://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-Hidequoted > > > > text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
