individuals regardless of whether they’re government employees or not should be allowed the freedom to display religious symbols on their person.

Sorry, chief, but I have to disagree on this one. I think the government is well within its rights to impose a dress code and enforce it and its ok to include “tilaks”. I know I’m gonna get brickbats for this one : but I think tilak/namam should not get the same protection that say Turbans get because they are not mandatory.IMHO, it is more professional not to wear them. Govt employees like all employees are free to dress however they want on their own time.In the office, its ok to enforce the rules.

. Why are we as a nation obsessed with suicide anyway?

Sad but true. I think its because unfortunately in India we do not encourage open discussion on mental problems and depression. One thing we can learn from America is definiely to understand that mental illness is illness like any other and deserves the same medical attention and care. Of course, I would like us to learn this and yet not go overboard in assuming that therapy or Dr.Phil will solve all our problems

Runa,
America is the exact opposite when it comes to mental health issues. I think they overdiagnose and overmedicate over here. But your point is true, they do definitely pay more attention and treat mental health problems way better in the US.

Dr.Phil will solve all our problems

Don’t even get me started on that quack.

I know I’m gonna get brickbats for this one

Nope. But you’ll certainly get some disagreements. I guess the argument comes down to whether devout Hindus are required to pray every morning. I will go ahead and say yes. If so, during or after prayers are they required to apply tilak/namam/vibhuti to their foreheads. As a general rule, yes. So unless you’re suggesting they should physically remove it before entering their workplace, I would say by default, they are required to adorn their foreheads with tilak/namam/vibhuti according to their religion.
I’m the last person to side with Hindu extremists but if the government makes a rule against that, I see it as discriminating against one religion.
I’ll throw another googly here by saying that if men cannot wear tilak/namam/vibhuti, it is (sort of) sexist especially if they allow women to wear bindis. I know I’m reaching on that one but still thought I’d throw it in there. Just something to think about

men cannot wear tilak/namam/vibhuti, it is (sort of) sexist especially if they allow women to wear bindis

Okay ,you got me on that one!My feminist heart doesn’t permit me to say the rules should be different but I can imagine the justified furore if they ban the bindi or “sindoor” for women employees ! slippery slope…

So unless you’re suggesting they should physically remove it before entering their workplace

Yes, that’s what I was suggesting

Yes, that’s what I was suggesting

Honestly, I’m not sure how I feel about that one. Seems a tad unfair to me. Just dramatizing here but bear with me:

Memo: New Dress Code.
Allowed clothing items … blah blah blah … turbans and burqas will be allowed in accordance with religious tolerance. However not tolerated will be tilaks/namams/vibhutis.

Quoting you (with your assumed permission, of course) “slippery slope”

Santosh,
Now I will make a reach myself and explain my inconsistency.

“Tilaks” in the office make me uncomfortable the same way that a “Whites Only” High school club makes me uncomfortable whereas a Hispanic club or Black club does not.Ditto a “whites only scholarship”…. Is this a logical objection? No - just an emotional one I think.

Hinduism is the major religion in the des and tilaks etc are quite often “caste marks” and not really a mandatory religious symbol that has to be worn always. I don’t think it behooves followers of a major religion to be so “in your face” about it.Again, I agree that my reasoning smacks of unfairness but as I said its not strictly logical.

Hinduism is the major religion in the des and tilaks etc are quite often “caste marks” and not really a mandatory religious symbol that has to be worn always. I don’t think it behooves followers of a major religion to be so “in your face” about it.

I get the “in your face” argument. I made a similar one in the “American Motels” post. I will say, in this particular case, that it is not fair to punish the innocent majority, who probably come to work from temples or praying at home, just so they can target these offenders who are but a small percentage of the whole.

That being said I don’t doubt for a second there are people who use such religious symbols as a medium of discrimination. Tough situation. IMO, just one more reason government should not touch religion with a 9 yard sari.

i thought someone would get a kick out of this.

i thought someone would get a kick out of this

I’m surprised Narendra Singh did not shove any bar dancers.