Most pagan religions predate Christianity, yes. But my sources tell me the word 'pagan' itself can be traced back to around 1350, so definitely Christian times and used by Christians to refer to others. Though it does come from an earlier Latin word which didn't have religious connotations.

About agnostics, they are people who do not have faith in God's existence, but don't deny the possibility that God -could- exist. In other words, material evidence neither proves nor disproves God's existence, so why worry about it. Atheists, on the other hand, are people who believe after a fashion, they believe in God's nonexistence.

I'm not sure if I'd call neopagans agnostics. Belief in some form of supernatural guiding force, even if divorced from a single all-powerful Creator still counts as faith, to me. But I'm not the best person to talk about neopaganism, it hasn't really caught on where I live. Ask about 'root' paganism and I can answer you, there's plenty of that here.

And Catholocism isn't ostentatious and doesn't make wild claims? Islam is sedate and unassuming? ALL religions make wild claims, if you don't believe them. Wicca is marketed at teens because it's the most well known and has the easiest catch phrases with the Rede and such. That doesn't mean they're all idiot teens.

Are you at all able to try to understand people who aren't the majority? I'm not sure whether to be offended by your comments, or just absolutely terrified that real people can think that way.

I love this. You bitch and moan about stereotypes and then proceed to spread one of your own.

A large majority of the Wicca you see is American teenagers, and yes, they're idiots. However, the real Wicca is completely different. The majority of Wicca is completely different. Yes, Gardener essentially pulled the idea out of the air, however I have hardly seen the majority of Wiccans run their belief as a marketing ploy. The majority of Wiccans you wouldn't even know are Wiccans unless they told you, which they probably wouldn't. You seem to know as little about Wicca as you're bitching about someone else knowing. Yes, there are a few idiots who try to make money off teenagers, but that's the same in any situation in which its possible to make money. Christians do it, Satanists do it, and Aetheists do it. The bottom line is to define an entire religion by its greedy sector is stupid, and I find it completely amusing that as you defend other stereotypes, you blindly and hypocritically propogate a completely false one.

As always, I find these forums very refreshing, in that we can have a savage argument, then band together the next instant over something else. Always nice to see that rancor over a topic doesn't extend to the people involved.

I would put "systems of thought" and such choices on a completely different level than the choices one makes about their presentation to the world.

Choices about what you do and how you look should not be compared to choices about one's inner thoughts.

They may affect eachother, however but I don't think they are in the same realm when it comes to other people's influence on you. I.e. Judge me all you want when I go and DO something you think is dumb, but don't if you think I am thinking something dumb.

I wanted to just make a few comments and discuss my opinion. Let me just say, to begin with, that I have no piercings whatsoever. I have no tattoos. I have no intentions to get either-- not something I'm interested in for myself.

That said, I'm going to start by disagreeing with Callia. I understand that it is *essential* to have a group of well-bonded people who respond well to orders without much in the way of hesitation in the military department. Your lives depend on each other, and there is a heck of a lot of experience to be gained in that area that can translate into the working world once you leave the military. However, you need to understand that it is not the *only* way to achieve good results. While it may be the best for some people, it is not the best for everyone. My example (though I'm having some trouble finding an online source to link to in the short time I've got available): General Leslie Groves, who oversaw the Manhattan Project, did not treat the scientists as extensions of the military as other officers had desired. He gave them their lead, put Oppenheimer in charge, and did his best not to stifle them with rules and regulations.

As Daganev pointed out, some rules and regulations are essential. Basic things, such as a general time to work, will make a business/society much more efficient. That does not mean that there is no cost on the individual, however. Fallen is very fixated upon the "if you feel that you need to dress differently / look different from someone else or you lose your individuality, then you are a very weak-willed individual". I also have to disagree with this assertion. The entire point of school uniforms, for example, is to strip away that individuality and try to make the student act like a student instead of a young kid in a room with a bunch of other young kids. An attempt to make them act more maturely by stripping away distinguishing clothing.

Thus, trying to say that isn't also part of the concept of work-uniforms is untrue. Oh, it's definitely not the whole concept-- after all, you want to convey a professional image to your customers as well, and that's likely the bulk of the reason for most companies. I suppose this could just be viewed as an (un)pleasant side effect.

Now, on to piercings and tattoos. I'm going to have to disagree with Sylphas as well (I'm not doing a whole lot of agreeing here, am I?) when he states that piercings aren't a form of clothing. I view clothing choices (or lack thereof) as a choice of expression. I choose what I wear because I feel it suits me. I view piercings and tattoos in the same manner (though yes, tattoos are much more permanent). They are expressions of who you are-- or at least, who you feel you are.

That leads us to my next point. Businesses do have the right to request you wear certain clothing if you wish to work for them. I can understand it on a basic level-- you desire to present a professional front to the public, so they feel safe and secure shopping with you. However, most of the businesses around here that have a uniform (restaurants and chain stores) also allow small touches to their uniform. A small piece of cloth wrapped around the waist, a pin, a small bit of jewellery-- something that is important to the employee and helps keep their morale up (after all, if your employees are just droning on about the specials list or the new computer, instead of excitedly trying to sell you on it and capture your interest/wallet, you're making less money). Something small, something tasteful, something that isn't really offensive to the customer at all.

A small, tasteful facial piercing fits this category for me. Something large, something gaudy, something designed to capture attention and command the customer to look at your piercing-- no thanks. Multiple piercings all over your face-- yes, that's also excessive in a business environment. However, one small piercing that is tastefully chosen? I don't see an issue with that. I actually find it can sometimes be somewhat cute.

The issue with that, however, is who decides whether it is tasteful or not? The 80-year-old customer who comes in, notices, and complains? The manager? The employees? Most businesses would choose either the manager or the customer, I believe. The manager then has to make a tough choice between potentially alienating someone with more conservative views on what people "should be wearing," or between the happiness of their employees. It's easier by far for a business to just say, "We don't allow facial piercings at all," and then the manager can point at the rules and say, "It doesn't matter how tasteful that is, it's not allowed here." Reduces the need to make a potentially damaging decision.

Unfortunately, it's not easy. I think some facial piercings are fine. I think others are grotesque. I don't actually run a business or have any employees. While I'd like to think I'd not restrict them from small statements, I do have to acknowledge that it would depend somewhat on location and clientele. Both sides have an understandable point. In the end, I have to agree with Sylphas' overall initial statement-- management *should* allow employees the option, based on the manager's discretion of what is appropriate. It opens up the door to some issues, yes, but I personally feel that it's worth it.

Pin-cushion.
Taste.



It's all in the eye of the beholder, no?

I'm all for piercing, but I'd be sorely tempted to punch that guy for looking like a total jackass. Is he BLIND?