"sofern internet vorhanden" da haben wir schon mal ein Problem. 5GB mobiles Volumen sind ach ell aufgebraucht und da kommt die Downloadfunktion von Spotify sehr gelegen. Die app ist auch einiges bequemer zu navigieren als Youtube im Browser :/
Interessant, schau ich mir gleich mal an!
Im Berliner "Tatort" spielt Mark Waschke Kriminalhauptkommissar Robert Karow, der erstmals 2015 eine Sex mit einem Mann hatte (queer.de berichtete).
Wo bekomme ich so eine Sex her? Wollte die auch immer schon mal probieren.
Surfshark worked well for me for a long time. Lots of servers, works well for unlocking region blocked content and it's pretty cheap. If you're into full privacy, I recently moved to AirVPN who accept payment through crypto, so you don't have to hand over user data except for an email (which doesn't have to be a real one, you can delete it later).
That's literally what freedom of religion means though. To be able to express your religion in both public and private, without the state interfering. Every EU country has committed itself to the "EU Guidelines on the promotion and protection of freedom of religion or belief". Freedom of religion does not mean that people are free to follow their religion behind closed doors or in places that you or the state allow them to practice it.
You left a whole bunch of other stuff out when it comes to the discussion about secular states.
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.
It goes beyond your private life and touches laws and values that are part of the state.
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.
The abaya isn't just a headscarf, though. It only leaves the face uncovered and I have seen kids who also additionally cover parts of their face with it.
I just googled it and it's literally a fucking dress. Sure it's often combined with a headscarf or (I guess this is what most people have a problem with, a Niqab), but how can you tell women (and often also men) not to wear a dress?
You're right about the homeschooling (not so much on the private schools, but that's not really relevant to the point), but that doesn't stop religious radicals to pull their kids from schools so they can better indoctrinate the kids themselves. This was a common problem during the pandemic, where parents who didn't agree with the state policies pulled their kids from school and it's a common problem in counties where homeschooling is legal (like the US), where strictly religious or conservative parents pull their kids from school because they're learning about gender identity and receive sex education.
Personally I think we need to do more to push back against conservatism, not less.
Something we agree on for once. I'm not religious and I hate to see religion being pushed on to kids. However, I'm a all a strong believer in democracy and the freedoms it gives us. That dies mean though, that we have responsibilities as well. You can't pick and chose when to apply the rules we set up for a better world and when not to. The EU has committed itself to the "EU Guidelines on the promotion and protection of freedom of religion or belief" and we can't throw that out of the window, because we don't like how Muslim people dress.
That's very interesting, I didn't know that.
I wasn't talking about Frances interpretation though, as I'm obviously not well informed on that. I was more thinking about the EU commitment to freedom of religion as stated in the "EU Guidelines on the promotion and protection of freedom of religion or belief", in which all EU member states commit to protijg the freedom of religion in the EU (and even outside if possible, see OSCE).
Just as a small excerpt:
(b) the freedom to manifest one's religion or belief, individually or in community with others, in public or private, through worship, observance, practice and teaching.
This includes the duty to rescind discriminatory legislation, implement legislation that protects freedom of religion or belief, and halt official practices that cause discrimination, as well as to protect people from discrimination by state and other influential actors, whether religious or non-religious
So the state has a responsibility to protect the freedom of religion, within it's territory.
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:
A secular state is an idea pertaining to secularity, whereby a state is or purports to be officially neutral in matters of religion, supporting neither religion nor irreligion.[1] A secular state claims to treat all its citizens equally regardless of religion, and claims to avoid preferential treatment for a citizen based on their religious beliefs, affiliation or lack of either over those with other profiles.[2]
Prohibiting people from expressing their religions is strictly anti secular.
Im not denying that there are problems with integration. I'm not denying that some kids are forced into religion.
I'm saying that taking away the liberty to express your religion, won't change anything about that. All it does is appease people who are offended or threatened by religion (Islamophobia, anti semitism etc.).
A kid that is forced into religion won't become an atheist if it can't wear a headdress or a cross chain in school.
LazyKoala
joined 1 year ago
Es ist aber auch einfach komisch sowas zu fordern, wenn der aktuelle Antrag der Grünen quasi genau das Gegenteil steht. Hier der Antrag.
Weniger "sichere Herkunftsländer", bzw komplette Abschaffung des Begriffs. Keine Kürzung der Sozialleistungen. Längere Gültigkeit von Aufenthaltstitel und Arbeitsgenehmigungen. Mehr individuelle Betrachtung bei Ausweisungen.
Ich verstehe die Aufregung gerade nicht? Geht es darum dass sich die Grünen dafür aussprechen, dass massiv straffällig gewordene mit Asylstatus ausgewiesen werden können? Ist das wirklich eine unpopular Meinung in der Grünen Jugend?