People in streets and in public we see
in different attires and typical looks.
Hindus are seen sporting cross-threads across their chest.
Christian are found to flaunt cross around the neck.
Sikhs wear colourful turbans over their heads as a mark of religiosity.
Muslim women are dictated to wear burqa when they venture out and Muslim men sport long beards and caps.These
Religious dress codes are followed as a mark of identity. In the process people get segregated on religious lines and this leads to immediate alienation. Therefore we see that people, instead of moving around as human beings, are found to walk in the streets as Christians , Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs etc by wearing peculiar dresses of their respective religion. The right way to distinguish is by following the religious tenets faithfully. Peculiar dress culture will lead only to an immediate alienation from one another, which may and can promote undesirable frictions.
Why not we roam around in public
simply as humans sans alienating dress code?

I agree, although in many cases it might be people waiting for the clothes they came in to wear out, and they are just thrifty. Where I live, I see old people waddling about in exotic attire, in the company of their young families who are in Western dress. Much of it is not so much 'religious' as it is what everyone wears we they came from. Sikh turbans are really the only overt sigh of a religion; but, if you are going to import all sorts of people, you can't expect them to deny their religion in a country that is committed to freedom of religion.

Just another of the "joys" of multiculturalism that we never voted for I'm afraid.

I forgot the most annoying religious symbol, head scarves on Muslim women, although not all Muslim women wear them in the West where they don’t risk being stoned or executed for it.

But, again, our useless political class - the people who forced all this nonsense on us - have bent over backwards to keep people different and at odds with one another. The just love to create differences and strife to keep us on edge and feeling vulnerable so that they can control us.

I know what you mean. I went to Brisbane last year to watch the Swans play the Lions and there were all these people walking around wearing Lions guernseys and similar paraphernalia such as scarves and hats. It was very triggering and intimidating.

I think these type of religious outfits ought to be banned since they enhance tribalism.

Of course, I and Mrs mhaze were wearing Swans paraphernalia - but that's different.

I was shocked when out shopping at our local supermarket I happened upon a group of 4 white women with head coverings, dressed from head to toe in brown with ropes around their waist. It was only latter that I learnt they were catholic Carmelite nuns. How dare they flaunt their religious affiliations.

Hi Ezhil,

I feel that the real beauty of this country lies not
in its fauna and flora, or its spectacular scenery - but
in the greatest resource any country can have: its people.

The story of Australia is the story of its people. The
Australian people define Australia, create it, and represent it.

Without people, Australia would not be Australia.

Clothing has changed in this country. When the first Fleeters
arrived they considered themselves British. And the fact
that they were on the other side of the world did not stop
them from feeling that way or from wearing totally inappropriate
clothing for the climate.

I still remember what men and women wore during the hot summer
months - in play, and to work, in the sweltering heat. When women
wore hats amd gloves to go to the city.
When summer school uniforms were not available
at all schools and winter uniforms were enforced.
Those horrible black stockings and
tunics, and heavy blazers, and felt hats.

People today are far more flexible, Yes we see differences in
what people today wear - be it according to religion, sport,
culture, or what they feel comfortable in. The choices appear
to be wide and varied and of course there are some choices
that we're not used to and find intimidating and confronting
because they are alien to us. While others are - immodest
to the point of cringing. Apparently some people don't have
mirrors.

But that's life. And the only objection that I have - is -
in the case of modesty. Bare bums and other appendages should
be restricted to set areas, like beaches, and not in our streets
or shopping malls or out in public. What is work at private
functions is a different matter. As in clubs, and drag shows.

We're always going to find things to complain about.
I just wish that I still had my young body today - and the
choices available to young people today.
Sigh.

One thing I do have to admit - I do feel far more
comfotable talking to a priest wearing his collar
than to one without the collar - wearing casual clothes.

But that's just me.

I forgot to add that in Australia the Constitution protects
the freedom to practice any religion, including the right
to wear religious clothing or sumbols. This right is
also covered by international humanitarian treaties.

There are some limitations - due to health and safety issues
but religion is a freedom that is protected in this country.

No religion preaches segregation and alienation. Constitutions are not gospel truths. As we evolve We must make changes in the constitution too.

Let us follow the religious preachings honestly and we find that the physical culture associated with the religions comes in handy to conceal one's shortcomings. This is dangerous to a peaceful society.

The dress codes we are discussing here are for the common citizens and not for clergies,mullahs or priests. Religious dress codes should not show the seeds of hatred among the general population.

Ezhil,

I think that the problem is not religious dress - but
you.

Why do you associate religious dress with hatred?

I don't.

perhaps you should look within yourself first before
making judgements about others.

Which religious dress do you have in mind that you associate
with hatred.

Remember it's not the dress or religions that cause problems
but usually the people and their interpretations of their
religions. And fundamentalists exist in all religions. They
are a small minority. Most people are not "card carrying"
fundamentalists or extremists.

Don't you love it when multi-faiths come together for
certain occassions in all their splendour. It's quite
wonderful. And makes one realize that we're all humans and
that we don't have to kill each other in the name of the
one god.

Dear Ezhil,

«Religious dress codes are followed as a mark of identity.»

Those who do it for that reason are foolish, but most do not.
For most who do, it is a religious injunction, something to do between themselves and God, not themselves and others.

Jewish men for example are supposed to wear Tzitzit, which are four strings dangling in a particular way - their purpose is to help the wearer to remember God at all times and has nothing to do with how others seeing them. Same exactly for the Hindu sacred thread worn diagonally across the chest. Muslims have beards because the Quran does not allow them to shave completely. Sikhs are not allowed to cut their hair - just imagine how else they could walk around otherwise, with uncovered 6-meter-long hair dragging behind.

In a different example, a woman in my family, having recently married, discovered that by wearing a "religious" head-cover she no longer receives unwanted sexual attention from men. While she does not believe that God wants her to cover her hair, she finds it quite useful.

«In the process people get segregated on religious lines and this leads to immediate alienation.»

It is not segregating unless you wish so.
I recently saw a woman in the street, completely covered by a Muslim dress, walking hand in hand with a White/Western/Australian man in shorts. That was beautiful.

I am not alienated by it - if you feel alienated, then the problem is with you and you need to ask yourself why.

Everyone should be free to wear whatever they like, or nothing at all for that matter, that is nobody else's business!

Perhaps we should try to find out what type of dress those who are currently attacking Jewish buildings in Sydney's eastern suburbs are wearing.

Methinks its unlikely to be budgie smugglers or King Gee shorts.

Religion has no reason to dictate dress codes for people. It is the fanatic religious people who compel to wear a typical dress. Can any one say the benefit of wearing a religious dress? In fact it invites the wrath of other fundamental groups by the very sight of the dress. I am at a loss to understand how you people favour such an unwanted practice which had caused many a strife. As I have already said the religious people should follow the religious dictats seriously rather than basking on physical appearances for the practice of religion.we can also say that people who cannot practice religious disciplines in reality tend to show their religion by physical appearances. That is the reason why problem arises between different religious denominations.
Let us practice religion in our minds and not in our dresses.

Dear Ezhil,

«I am at a loss to understand how you people favour such an unwanted practice which had caused many a strife.»

But who ever suggested that people should employ unwanted practices and be dictated to or compelled to wear something they do not want?

There is no mention of it in your opening post - we were, so far, discussing people who WANT to wear this or the other religious dress, or have you changed the subject?

«we can also say that people who cannot practice religious disciplines in reality tend to show their religion by physical appearances»

THEIR religion? If they cannot in reality practice some given religious disciplines, then these disciplines are clearly not a part of their religion
- they could of course be a part of other people's religion, but not theirs!
Are we then changing the subject again to talk about pretenders?

The topic is pretty serious. It appears that it is too difficult for you to understand.

Let us practice religion in our minds and not in our dresses.

Dear Ezhil,

«Let us practice religion in our minds and not in our dresses.»

For some people, their dress, along with various other physical routines, support their mental religious practices. Some people need this support.

Perhaps you personally are beyond that stage and no longer need it, perhaps your mind is already so concentrated on God without any need for peripheral support - I don't know you personally.

Overall, people are very selective on this issue and only pick out what they like and leave out the rest.

As a person who went to a conservative, private, religious school we were forced to wear and cover our bodies in a very restrictive school uniform.

Not always pleasant to wear and not overly fashionable or to my liking!

I would see other people around wearing whatever they wanted and I had to wear a school blazer with tie and follow strict guidelines on hairstyles for example. The guidelines were worse for female students. Our parents were sent a whole guidebook on how we were meant to look, present ourselves, how our hair should look, what shoes to wear etc.

I'm sure some here will say "Oh but that's schooling...."

A few times we had a uniform free day, which we had to pay for with funds going to a charity we had no say on. Whilst a uniform can remove competition in terms of who has the best brand name clothes, really our schooling shouldn't be about clothes and what fits in with the dogma of a conservative education system. It should be about the quality of the teachings of which it is not.

I see many people with tattoos. I personally don't like them, but respect free choice, just as I do with clothing, particularly as a person forced through a long time of youth wearing things I did not enjoy or like!

I think we should be very grateful as adults in Australia we have in principle free choice on what we wear and how we look. I do feel for those under 18 denied such freedoms at conservative private schools. I find it to be akin to a violation of the rights of the child in terms of the United Nations.

Talking about dress codes of those who vantalize synangogues?

Vile actions such as these are done by extremists . They
should be arrested and punished.

Luckily they are a minority.

Elon Musk caused a controversy at the US Presidential
inauguration with his Nazi salute. And he was not wearing
a religious garb.

Perhaps it was not meant as a Nazi gesture but simply
an enthusiastic one. If he was in Australia doing that
he may have been arrested.

" If he was in Australia doing that he may have been arrested."

Luck for him he was in a country that still values free speech.

Also lucky for Obama, Hilary and Kamala.

http://tiny.cc/pvu6001

Foxy, I see that we are going to spend the next four years of you falling for every lie and piece of BS put out by the dying legacy media and me pointing out that you've fallen for yet another piece of BS put out by the dying legacy media.

Some would see that as burdensome but I'm going to relish it.

mhaze,

Every year I fall for the breathtaking fireworks,
for festivals and parades, sport competitions,
flowers in the spring, fresh summer fruit,
seafood, and family gatherings. But not for any
BS.

I don't relish BS. And in that respect - we are different.

Sikhs it might be remembed wear a dagger as a religious adornment.
Remember the fuss about a Sikh schoolboy that was kicked up when he
wore the dagger to school.
I think it was resolved because it was illegal.
Take it off or go to gaol.

Dear Bezza,

This dagger is not for religious "adornment" but for religious observance. It is not a whim - a Sikh has to carry it whether they like it or not, and going to gaol (if necessary) for refusing to remove it is a great and purifying act of devotion.

The practical solution for the dagger, which is actually done on planes, is to have a very small dagger encased by a protective metal case that cannot be opened by hand without proper tools. Airlines will issue this box upon request and schools could too.

If I walk around in speedo's, thongs and sunscreen (Australian attire) how many of these religious people will I be likely to offend?

It is not a whim
Yuyutsu,
So, if we go to the land of the Sikh & walk in with shoes on we'll be allowed to do so because in Australian culture this is acceptable ? Will someone from the Amazon where they chew & spit food into a bowl for others to eat be allowed into their kitchen ?

Dear Indyvidual,

I can't see the connection - you do not have a religious obligation to wear shoes, nor are the Amazonians religiously obliged to chew and spit into your bowl. You do in fact take off your shoes sometimes anyway and the Amazonian would probably find it a pleasant surprise if they came by well-cooked food that does not require pre-chewing and spitting to be ready.

A small ceremonial dagger that is encased in a hard metal box which cannot be easily opened, poses no danger to anyone, nor is unhygienic. I can see no reason for objecting to it other than spite.

Guide dogs for the blind are relatively more dangerous and unhygienic and yet many venues make exceptions for them where other dogs are not allowed.

small ceremonial dagger that is encased in a hard metal box
Yuyutsu,
What's the point in carrying it then in Australia ? There's no cultural requirement for it here !

Dear Indyvidual,

There is indeed no point of "carrying it in Australia" - the only point is just "carrying it".

You happen to be in India - you carry it; You happen to be in China - you carry it; You happen to be up in a plane 30,000 feet high - you carry it; You happen to be in a submarine 3,000 feet low - you carry it; You happen to be in Australia - you carry it; You happen to be on the moon - you carry it...

You happen to like the feeling of carrying it - you carry it; it feels uncomfortable and heavy - you carry it too; the girls like you because of it - you carry it; the girls won't come near you because of it - you carry it too; carrying it makes you feel proud - you carry it; carrying it makes you feel embarrassed - you carry it too...

You carry it in summer, you carry it in winter, you carry it in autumn, you carry it in spring - you just carry it, all the time.

If God or the Guru said "carry this", then you carry this - you obey God and your Guru, wherever you are, whether you enjoy it or suffer it.
If "this" happens to be a dead mouse, then you carry a dead mouse, wherever you are.
In the case of Sikhs, "this" happens to be dagger - OK, so you carry a dagger.
In the case of Jews, "this" happens to be a zizith - OK, so you wear a zizith.

You respect God, you respect your Guru, you observe what they ordained and that is what makes it a religious point rather than just cultural. Wearing shoes or chewing and spitting food, on the other hand, are not ordained but only a matter of custom, convenience or whim, thus they are not on a par with the Sikh dagger.

Yuyutsu,
That sounds rather self-centred to me !

Talking about being self-centred?

Carrying a phone, wallet or a gun, can also
be considered as being "self-centred" by some.
While others consider these things as being
just tools and should be treated as such.

It all depends on the context in which they're
involved.

Foxy,
That was a most pointless contribution ! If you're so thick that you can't see a difference between a physical weapon & the commodities you mentioned then you really should seek help !

How dare they flaunt their religious affiliations.
Aries54,
Deliberately disregarding context for an argument is Paul's domain, leave it to him, it, they her, them, their.
Whilst I find all religious attire nothing short of silly a Nun is at least not totally covering herself unlike those who can actually hide behind total cover. They both represent organisations with cruel past & even questionable present & they both could hide weapons for all we know. It has actually been done on many occasions.
The one effective & actually most effective weapon people should be allowed to show & express in public is a sound mentality however, recent & present Woke orientated authorities have banned this ! Switzerland has a weapon in every home, could you imagine that in English speaking countries ?

Dear Indyvidual,

«That sounds rather self-centred to me !»

I agree.

Religious acts are indeed performed with intent to benefit oneself.
To bring oneself closer to God.
To make oneself a better person, more worthy of God's grace.
To purify one's own soul.
Nothing else can be more beneficial for oneself.

It is just not possible for anyone to purify another's soul,
or to make someone else a better person,
like it or not, that is a fact,
one may possibly be able to give advice, but it remains up to the recipient of that advice whether to follow it or not.

Yes, the spiritual journey is self-centred.
One starts the journey perceiving oneself as a small and limited individual person, requiring help,
but when the journey is complete, one realises their identity with God,
them being infinite, limitless, eternally blissful,
with all wounds healed and all suffering ceased forever.

Anything wrong with that self-centred goal?

Anything wrong with that self-centred goal?
Yuyutsu,
As a straight forward question, No ! As in visitors demanding the host to adapt to the visitor, No ! We all have to look after Nr 1 ! There's nothing more basic & natural than the sense of self preservation.
Greed is in the same line as most demands & is natural however, there's also a perfectly natural defence mechanism to greed in the human & even many animal psyche. The natural method to balance the two is whoever is stronger either mentally or physically or both. A weak crowd will invariably overpower any strong minority. We see that playing out now with the Woke.
Self-centred goals are admirable within the confines of decency but abhorrent when to the detriment of others ! Because people are prone to overstep the mark, societies have put in place rules. Selfish people are constantly rebellious to rules hence stronger rules have to be put up ! Rules start off as guide lines but the nature of the selfish necessitate the stepping up to rules !

Dear Indyvidual,

You just opened up so many new topics at once, really interesting topics and there is lots I could say on each, but for shortage of time, please allow me for now to keep to the original topic:

The Sikh dagger, at least in its symbolic miniature and locked-up form, poses no risk to anyone's self-preservation, is neither indecent nor abhorrent, nor a detriment to others.

Let us practice religion in our minds and not in our dresses.
Ezhil,
Well put !
I remember when every Chinese person depicted in China wore the same outfit. They started to change when they commenced international travel.
When the highest achieving people think it right why can't others as many do ? Surely, people have more to offer than apparel that requires a potential weapon to be part of it !

Dear Indyvidual,

«Surely, people have more to offer than apparel that requires a potential weapon to be part of it !»

A locked-up tiny dagger, no bigger than standard nail-scissors, where the wearer does not even have the key to unsheathe it, is not a potential weapon, less so even than one's teeth.

This dagger is used for one's private religious observance, not as apparel - it is not meant as an offering to others nor needs to be displayed.

Yuyutsu,
A dagger for religious observance ?

Dear Indyvidual,

Carrying the dagger at all times IS ITSELF the Sikh religious observance - they don't have to do anything else with it, only to carry it, and it is even acceptable for Sikhs if it is carried inside a closed, hard, metal case. Some airlines allow Sikhs to do so, have the crew keep the key to the case and only open it once the flight has landed.

Yuyutsu,
Religion that requires a weapon for its symbolism ? A torture rack is already too much in my book !

Dear Indyvidual,

A surgeon's knife can also be used as a weapon - but it is not.

The Sikh dagger is never being used as a weapon, but not only that - it can be arranged so that it CANNOT be used as a weapon.
(how? by making it small enough, a miniature of the original, and by enclosing it in an unopenable case)

As an object, the Sikh dagger serves no purpose, not even as a symbol (as it can be concealed if necessary):
the sole purpose of carrying it is to do as God or the Guru instructed - in the case of Sikh people, Guru Nanak, the founder of Sikhism.

A surgeon's knife can also be used as a weapon - but it is not.
Yuyutsu,
That'd make an interesting thread !

re the dagger; if it's that miniature I won't query it any longer ! Cheers !