My apologies. I missed the irony due to the actual endorsement prevalent in society of your second paragraph. I was on the same page as you in your first paragraph, and then you lost me in the transition.
'Charter Of Values' bans religious symbols
- Thread starter Gul Dukat
- Start date
My apologies. I missed the irony due to the actual endorsement prevalent in society of your second paragraph. I was on the same page as you in your first paragraph, and then you lost me in the transition.
It's ok, I could have been more clear. It was in the format of "This is silly and impractical [because]" and then I proceeded to give an example of why I see it as silly and impractical.
I could have used a few more words.
Edit:
Or basically irrelevant habits are irrelevant. There's no logical connection between what somebody wants to wear and their impartiality. That's part of their personal life and if they don't want to take a job because they can't wear a hat, that doesn't inherently mean they are biased or that they are a bad judge - it just means that you've successfully annoyed them on a personal level.
Last edited:
It's not your fault. It really is a bit of a paradox in that the arbitrary sign of clothing choice is being used to irrationally determine intent and purpose for either side.
As you said, a non-member can just as easily wear an article of clothing belonging to a certain faith as a member and hence does not determine membership, so likewise the reverse is also true that wearing secular forms of clothing does not make one secular nor is it an indicator of a person's intent or ability to perform public service.
Yet, that is what the argument seems to be revolving around. The association of an arbitrary article of clothing onto a person's intentions and abilities.
The paradox is really inherent in the difference between choice and principle. The principle being inherent in the ability to make choice rather than the choice itself.
Last edited: