IS THE WEST BECOMING INCREASINGLY MAOIST?

user ballots

Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes

Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz

TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase

Discussion
Bug Report

political : IS THE WEST BECOMING INCREASINGLY MAOIST?

[+] serious ballot by xxxxxxxx
ACTIVE Sat Nov 18, 06 - Sun Nov 18, 07
I'm just getting really fed up with the way many Western nations are starting to put way too much restrictions on religious symbols.

In France, any religious symbol is banned in public buildings (not only Islamic, but one of ANY religion).

There has been an increasing sensitivity toward Christian symbols as well- such as the case where the BBC presenter Fiona Bruce got in trouble for wearing a crucifix on the news, and the other case where an airport employee got in trouble for refusing to cover up her crucifix.

All of this seems eerily Maoist to me, as it was part of Maoism that freedom of religious expression was restricted for the 'good of society.' And religious symbols were pretty much oppressed.

Do you also think this escalating oppression of religious freedom is becoming increasingly Maoist?

Yes
No

Ballot #105553 : SEE RESULTS

Comment:

show your vote with comment?

v 2.0 © BESTANDWORST.COM

smile bank:

similiar ballots:
61606. The viability of Isolationism & Nationalism in an increasingly Global World
122067. What weapon has become known as "the gun that won the west"?
122803. Best Slang from the Old West?
70640. How have you contributed to the fall of the west?
106575. Favorite Old West Outlaw?
119372. Favorite Mae West quotes?
28779. Do you think most Muslims have a victim mentality vis-a-vie the West?
60867. New East vs. West Cold War Brewing?
118597. Asia is more stressful than the West! Do you agree?
128574. Common misconceptions about West Virginia?

COMMENTS:
Voted : Yes
I dont care if people wear religious symbols as long as they dont use their platform to promote a religion.

I believe freedom of expression is just as valid as freedom of speech, but when reading the news the personal views (religious or other) of the newscaster should be private.

by Steelhamster on Sat Nov 18, 06 9:35am [+]

I think this is more an issue of the separation of church and state than a question of freedom of religion. I think the principle being upheld is that the State should operate separately from any religious organization. After the French revolution, religious symbols were prohibited from public or state-run buildings and operations. At the time it was mainly Catholic symbols, but the principle is still there and the practice has been broadened to include public expressions of all faiths, not just the Catholic one. Individuals have the right to practice whichever religion they choose in their personal lives, but the State does not publicly display or show allegiance to any one of them. The BBC is a public broadcaster - so in that sense I understand why a reporter acting as an agent or representative of a public institution in Britain, should not display any religious affiliation. Nothing stops her from wearing her cruxifix openly in her private life. From what I understand, these are constitutional issues that do not infringe in any individual's basic personal practice of a religion.

by Mithrandir on Sat Nov 18, 06 9:51am [+]

Voted : Yes
They shouldn't censor any religious symbols.

by skylab on Sat Nov 18, 06 10:14am [+]

"I think this is more an issue of the separation of church and state than a question of freedom of religion."

How is wearing religious symbols in public a question of seperation of church and state? Just because someone wears a religious symbol doesn't mean that their government endorses that religion specifically. Indeed, allowing people of different religions to wear symbols of their religions alongside one another reflects a distinct seperation of church and state.

by himself809 on Sat Nov 18, 06 1:17pm [+]

Mithrandir- I disagree with you. It is not about separation of religion and state. If anything it is a violation of the separation of religion and state. What it is supposed to be is that religions do not control governance, and ALSO that governments do not oppress individuals right to religion. The second is being violated, and thus the separation of religion and state also has been violated.

by xxxxxxxx on Sat Nov 18, 06 10:04pm [+]

Mao and Marx would be proud. IC_mrusa

by _Beelzebubba on Mon Nov 20, 06 9:59am [+]

About Us | Join Us | Privacy Policy | Contact