132
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 27 Aug 2023
132 points (95.8% liked)
Europe
8324 readers
1 users here now
News/Interesting Stories/Beautiful Pictures from Europe ๐ช๐บ
(Current banner: Thunder mountain, Germany, ๐ฉ๐ช ) Feel free to post submissions for banner pictures
Rules
(This list is obviously incomplete, but it will get expanded when necessary)
- Be nice to each other (e.g. No direct insults against each other);
- No racism, antisemitism, dehumanisation of minorities or glorification of National Socialism allowed;
- No posts linking to mis-information funded by foreign states or billionaires.
Also check out !yurop@lemm.ee
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Sorry to burst your bubble, but people in other countries (like Germany) where they are allowed to display religious symbols are able to bond just fine. If you can't "bond" with someone because they're wearing a cross on a chain or cover their head with religious clothing, that sounds like a you-issue. Regardless of why they practice their religion, it's not up to you or the state to tell them how to practice it. Sure some are forced into it by their parents, but banning religious symbols in schools isn't going to fix that. What it does do however, is stop students from practicing a religion they freely chose.
This law is made by people who are intimidated by things they don't understand and that probably have their roots in racism and islamophobia.
I agree. I'm American and live in an area with a large Indian immigrant diaspora and I'm able to "bond" with them just fine. Many of them wear religious symbols and wear every day, but they're just normal people. They dress differently, but so do many non religious people also.
The specific religious traditions matter though. The context and rules surrounding covering of girls and women are a more problematic matter. The same goes for other religious practices that are rooted in values that have no place in a secular and more or less egalitarian state.
You have a very odd understanding of what "secular state" means. It doesn't mean that the state can dictate where or how you're allowed to express you religion. It doesn't mean that some parts of religion are to be tolerated, where as those that you see as bad can be forbidden at will.
All it means, is that the state institutions, can't force you to partake in a religion or activities related to that religion. Kids who voluntarily want to express their religion are free to do so. Whether that kid is forced into following that religion, is not an issue of a "secular state".
It also means a certain collection of values. And having rules for girls and women that include them having to cover their hair and body "because religion" is going against those values.
And yes, it absolutely does matter in a secular state whether people forcing their children into religious beliefs. At least in school the children should learn that these rules only exist in the minds of their parents or communities. Freedom also means to be free to choose. And grooming your children into religious practices is not freedom.
You actually have no idea what you're talking about, sorry.
I'm glad we finally landed on Islam though, it shows that this law is supported by islamophobes and people like you are the perfect way to show this to the world.
Just a one minute Google search and you could have saved yourself from this absolutely embarrassing answer. Here let me do it for you:
Prohibiting people from expressing their religions is strictly anti secular.
You left a whole bunch of other stuff out when it comes to the discussion about secular states. I am not even sure if you even are interested in a discussion since you already brought up your first dead-end argument by trying to insult me. But I try anyway.
A secular state is a group of values that aren't set in stone but are loosely based on the idea to separate state and religion. So the question isn't whether someone is an islamophobe or not. It's whether or not you consider certain religious practices and symbols as crossing that line in certain contexts. The context here is schools, which aren't your private home but a state institution.
To give you examples what is not endangering this separation: Celebrating Ramadan, Christmas and other religious holidays, going to prayers in temples, mosques, churches, etc.
What is definitely crossing the line in a secular state: Demanding that restaurant aren't allowed to sell cow meat because of your religious beliefs, demanding that people have to go on a fast on Easter weekend.
Stuff that gets discussed over an over again because it isn't clear cut: Teaching girls that they need to hide their hair and bodies because of religion, circumcision of baby boys because of religion, forcing children to do a confession for their communion.
For these and similar points you will find people who see it either way. Personally I think all of these shouldn't be allowed in a secular state because it forces children into religious beliefs and all of these are potentially harmful or are a tool to separate "believers" from "non-believers". It goes beyond your private life and touches laws and values that are part of the state.
Yes I didn't quite the entire Wikipedia page, but I think my quote should already point out the incompatibility between banning religious clothing and committing yourself to secularism. Just to be clear: I brought up the idea of secularism in context of the state pushing religion on its people. I wouldn't even use it as an argument in this case. The best argument to make here is that France as a member of the EU has committed itself to freedom of religion and thus should have no say in how people dress in their public and private life. There have been valid exceptions (such as banning covering your face at protests, banks etc.) for safety reasons, but this clearly doesn't apply here.
Yes you're right, imposing your views on others, does cross the line of a secular state. No one is asking that students have to cover their hair, it's only demanded that they are allowed to do so. Equally crossing the line is the opposite, the state forcing it's belief onto it's people, by telling them they can't express their religion in the form of religious clothing.
Apart from me mostly agreeing that the religious practices you mentioned suck, it doesn't matter if it goes beyond your private life. Freedom of religion, me as you are free to express you religion in private **and public. ** You're free to dislike it, but that's what it is. Seeing people wearing Burkas, prayer beeds, crosses or whatever does not impact your freedom, even if it makes you uncomfortable. As I already mentioned, laws are a different issue. Of course religion is not above the law and of there are valid security concerns such as covering your face in a bank or a protest, there is no reason why the law should interfere with religion. A person wearing a dress at school, is definetly no such concern.
So you think parents should be allowed to impose rules onto their kids because of religious beliefs and we shouldn't do anything about it? That is where I disagree. Kids don't cover their bodies because they decided they want to. It's a sexist and deeply conservative rule imposed onto them by their religious nutjob parents.
I don't care whether grownups decide to follow whatever type of religious practices they wish. But indoctrination of children with sexist beliefs shouldn't be allowed.
That's my point you are completely missing in your mission trying to paint me as some kind of intolerant islamophobe.