You really don't understand the difference? Firstly, naturalists have been partaking in the removal of clothes for milennia, and not once have they even tried to claim it as religion. Naturalists seem fairly comfortable with themselves, and I really couldn't see a load of irate naked people suddenly deciding that they want to be able to be naked in the streets and in schools.

Finally, you can't just claim yourself a religion and have access to religious freedoms. There are conditions that need to be met in order to receive religious benefits. There is a name for a group of people that get together and claim they are a religion, and that is cult.

I am an anti-theist, I neither believe in, nor want any religion, but I'm arguing to allow religious freedom, I'm arguing to allow complete civil liberties, and if religious dress crosses over, then they have the right to wear what they want, be it a veil, or a beard.

what about rastafarians? i know here in America rastafarians in prison have tried to be allowed to smoke pot as part of their religion. Also there are some South American religions that use hallucinogenic drugs in their rituals. How far does religious freedom extend?

I'm a social libertarian, so I believe they should be allowed to smoke what they want, regardless of any religious issues/freedoms.

I'm less interested in religious freedom, than personal freedom, and I know that's odd living in the CCTV nation.

We fundamentally disagree here again; I'd be more inclined to say "there's a name for a cult with more than a few thousand members. It's called a religion.". I personally find it ridiculous that one load of fairytales and nonsense can be considered "more legitimate" than another, purely on the grounds that more people happen to believe it.

I'm not necessarily saying that people would be lying about their beliefs in order to manipulate freedoms. I'm saying that, feasibly, there hypothetically COULD be a group of people who believe that hiding the naked body, supposedly the pinnacle of God's "work", could be considered blasphemy. It's a perfectly justifiable religious logic, much moreso than covering it, debatably. And if that group did exist, and was to be considered a "real" religion, would it not then follow that those people could claim the right to be naked wherever they want to be naked, on religious grounds?

but you can understand how having hundreds of violent prisoners tripped out on hallucinogens might be difficult to manage? i'm just saying, there has to be SOME restrictions on religious(and personal) freedom. just out of pure practicality.

That being said, I agree that how someone wears a head scarf or their facial hair is completely a non-issue when you are talking about school kids. I think even school uniforms are ridiculous.

I think we sort of agree, it's just a bit clouded. All religions are cults is something that we can definitely agree on. I also agree that one set of fairy tales shouldn't be given more credence than another, but it just is, and it's purely a function of historical time. The Abrahamic religions have ruled the world for centuries, so they permeated the psyche. It's only the last couple of hundred years that secularism has got any kind of foothold, and it's a long path ahead that science and rationalism will continue to erode long after the time that you and I exist.

Apart from that, your example is hyperbole, and not very realistic. Where is this religion coming from? Is it a sect of a an existing religion? The bible says you should kill cheeky children, or not eat shellfish, murder your brother for cleaning his car on a Sunday. Would I argue that a member of a religion should be allowed to stone his cheating wife to death? No, of course not.

However, wearing a veil, or growing a beard isn't hurting anyone, and if we're not confident/secure enough as a people to tolerate difference, then that says far more about us, than it does about a young woman who wishes to hide her head under a veil, away from her imaginary friend.

Isn't the whole point of prison to remove people from society, thus restricting freedom?

well exactly, but technically the prison is also their home. and they do deserve some individual rights in their own home, even in prison. So it's a balance. Same for schools on a much less intense scale, schools are also institutions where there needs to be a certain level of control. It's a large group of people being governed by a small number of people. Anytime there are large groups of epople there are certain rules you need just to keep the peace, in a large group you are no longer just an individual, you are also part of the group. being part of a large group, you have to accept that you are not just an individual any more.

Anyways, i'm rambling now. My main point is there should be one rule for all. If these to girls are allowed to cover their faces, everyone should be allowed to, wear masks, or sun glasses or whatever they want, my only real point is there should be 1 rule for everyone, and religious people should not get special exceptions.

They have some individual rights, and they shouldn't be refused religious texts, or the opportunity to pray, but the government should have no compunction to provide substances that are still classed as illegal, however much I disagree with the fact that they are illegal.

School should only ever be about learning, and people are individuals. Individuals learn in different ways and react better/worse to different approaches. I don't agree with a one size fits all approach to education.