http://sheikyermami.com/2009/09/16/wilde...d-rag-tax/

I know its a dubious site, but the article is correct (and in English so you can read it too). Geert Wilders was arguing in favour of a "kopvoddentax" or head-rag-tax of 1000 euros (890 British pounds/1470 us dollar) for any muslima that wants to wear a hijab in public.

I love your country

In an ideal world, we wouldn't get religions that are so intolerant to women...in an ideal world we wouldn't have religion!!

EvF

Sure, but besides the issue. How would you feel if the forums t-shirts would be taxed 890 pounds a year because of the way others look at them?

No matter what, I think tax (let alone an insanely high tax) for wearing a head scarf is insane to say the least.

Besides the issue? Well if it's besides the issue then we're living in a completely different world!

If what women wear in Islam wasn't a symbol of how they're treated so unjustly, we'd be living in a different world. It wouldn't be Islam.

How would I feel if the same for the forum T-shirts? Bad. They're not a symbol of oppression! Nor do they advertise delusional unsupported potentially harmful beliefs that commonly lead to such oppression! They're secular.

EvF

So what if they are secular? They are the exact same thing. They propagate your stance on religion.

Yeah, and the difference is the issue of false-advertising and the potential harm that can come from it.

E.G: "God exists" needs support.

"I don't believe in God"/"Atheism rules"/the 'scarlet A' symbol - doesn't.

Threats about going to hell can do harm. Religious symbols are not only delusional but can cause harm if they are believed, as you know (the Steven Weinberg quote for starters).

So it's not exactly the same. It's about what's best for people overall that matters, and religion does a lot of harm, is delusional, and the delusional aspect of it is part of ( a big part of) what does the harm.

EvF

"not exactly the same"

So how is an atheist shirt, a cross around your neck, or a turban on your head any different? And dont give me that no delusion BS, only atheists see it that way so that makes no sense as a defense against any taxation.

Any religious or non religious garment says nothing on whether the belief is justified or not. There is no "false advertisement", only the statement what a person believes or doesn't believe. That does not warrant any taxation, its ridiculous.

edited for clarification.

leo-rcc Wrote:only atheists see it that way

??

So the matter is only one of opinion and there could just as easily be evidence for God, but we just 'don't see it that way' since we atheists personally just see no evidence? I don't think so! That matter is not one of opinion.

I'm talking of ideals here, it may not make sense as a defence because the religious won't say it that way, it won't work, etc, But it is not merely my opinion that there's no evidence for God, and it's indeed no delusion unlike with religious promotion. I stand by that.

It may not make sense to the religious. But atheism is indeed very different, it's not a belief system or a religion and it can't be false advertising unless it's Gnostic atheism, nor is promoting any ideology in any way. It supports no potentially harmful delusional beliefs without evidence, it supports no beliefs at all. It is not spouting delusional promotions everywhere, unlike religion. Religion is basically promoting delusion, and it's also very often, (at least potentially) harmful delusion at that. It's far worse than astrology and even that does harm from being delusional anti-science.

EvF