The Persuasive - Research Paper Example

Females in Islamism). In either case, the ultimate result is an unnecessary disturbance in public life. So, it seems to me that it is highly necessary in this modern world to ban all religious dress codes and set a specific dress code for the nation. The first point in favor of the argument is that most of the time, discrimination and hate crimes are propelled by different physical appearance which enables the perpetrators to identify the religion, ethnicity or nationality of the victim. To illustrate, American psychological Association website points out that hate crimes are crimes “committed because of real or perceived differences in race, religion, ethnicity or national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or gender” (public Interest Government Relations Office Staff).

A perfect example of hate crimes based on dress and physical appearance is the recent attacks on Sikhs in the U.S. Sikhism has its origin in India and is known for its different outfits which resemble Islamism, and even more complicated. They wear a headgear and never cut their hair, sport a beard, and even have a sword-like weapon as a part of their religious dress code. Obviously, this religion is peace-loving and has nothing to do with terrorism as is evident from their teachings (Introduction to Sikhism).

However, these people fall prey to the hate crimes because of their dress code. Thus, the first obvious benefit is that a uniform dress code will reduce discrimination and hate crimes. Yet another vital benefit is that this can considerably improve public safety and reduce complexity at important public places where screening is required. The efforts being made by Transportation Security Administration to resolve disputes regarding passenger screening will prove that satisfying the dress-needs of various religious groups gives the agency more headache than dealing with Al-Qaeda and Taliban.

The mere fact to be remembered at this juncture is that government cannot, and should not, put public safety and money at stake to quench the unfounded demands of any religious group. Most people are aware of the fact that terrorists often use dress as a way to hide weapons and it is vey common for them to masquerade. No one can deny the fact that it is more important for the government to ensure a safe life for the common citizens than to allow dress codes which can play spoilsport. When nations around the world are spending sleepless nights devising ways to deter terrorism and billions of dollars developing new technologies, government should not leave this important stone unturned.

The fourth point in support of this argument is that it is highly necessary to ensure proper practice of secularism because a moderate response to such religious demands only exacerbates religious fanaticism. Richard Dawkins argues that religious moderates are, to a great extent, the reason behind violence in the name of religion in the world because they create such a situation where religious violence cannot be strictly suppressed (Dawkins 341). This claim is all the more true about secular governments too.

Evidently, secular governments create such a situation where religious practices are accommodated. However, problem arises when governments fail to clearly demarcate between what is harmful to public safety and what is not harmful. In addition, religious groups come out with allegations of