Please start with banning crosses as wall decoration in bavarian public authorities
That’s how I know this law will absolutely be used to target specific religions unless the fundamentalist Christians take it too far.
Would be too funny to see Markus Söder’s face if this would actually happen. “DeClInE oF tHe OcCiDeNt” or something like that.
I mean he did argue that they aren’t a religious symbol before. He later contradicted himself and said that they are but I would not be surprised if he made that stupid argument again.
I think they are already illegal by the Grundgesetz and Bavaria is just Bavaria and do whatever they want.
illegal by the Grundgesetz
Hm, what Article would that be?
Unfortunately the separation of state and church is not very thorough in Germany.And then there is Article 4
Article 4 [Freedom of faith and conscience]
(1) Freedom of faith and of conscience and freedom to profess a religious or philosophical creed shall be inviolable.
(2) The undisturbed practice of religion shall be guaranteed.Article 4 does indeed ban it.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kruzifix-Beschluss https://www.sueddeutsche.de/bayern/kruzifix-urteil-bayern-jubilaeum-1.4906155
Bavaria is indeed violating the constitution here. There’s merely not much done to enforce it here.
Lol no, they’ll take Quebec’s lead and claim that those symbols are part of their “unique cultural heritage” and therefore exempt
Wonder how they’ll cope here in rural Austria.
Banning american propaganda from european society?
How about crosses in public institutions? Asking for a (bavarian) friend.
Yes please ban those too
Ah, so France
Technically forbidden by law. However, say, a crucifix on a necklace, hidden under clothes, is in kind of a gray area. Also some exceptions apply to Alsace I think
or Portugal
In Italy I was a member of UAAR (The Union of Rationalist Atheists and Agnostics) and we supported the legal costs of people battling against crucifixes in the workplace, compulsory prayers and even acoustic pollution caused by the church bells. This was in the late '90s to early '00s.
acoustic pollution caused by the church bells.
I really, really wish religious people would finally switch to clocks and phone notifications for their niche events like everyone else. Many people also have an odd romantic notion of this noise pollution. Sort of like the idiots who think loud motorbikes or sports cars make them look cool.
I guess it’s cus everyone has a different standard of what pollution is for them. For me, the sound of windchimes calm me, I find industrial air vents relaxing, and church bells oddly peaceful, but can’t stand someone even driving near me, dogs barking, babies crying, or fluorecent lights flickering. But you know, people need to drive, dogs and babies need to talk, and the world goes on.
I think it has more value than lets say cars and trucks, loud parties and fireworks.
Church, and mosque, not as religious symbols but as a community centers reminds lonely isolated people that they can go now and they will find people there to chat a little bit with.
Phones for older generation doesn’t work and annoying as well.
deleted by creator
Even if they aren’t, there is very little gossip that gets as vicious as church gossip behind other community member’s back. Always “fun” to watch when visiting my grandparents in their small rural town.
Depends on church, I recently visited the babtism of a Lesbian couples’ child featuring readings by a trans lay-minister. This was CoE, rather than any ‘rainbow church’.
It’s true that almost every mainline Church denies the right of gays and poly’s to marry as they would wish. Beyond that single sacrement however there’s no need for exclusion. Many congregations are still full of assholes, absolutely, but you’d be surprised how often the views of the Church body diverge from talking heads like Calvin Robinson.
Trans-rights are an odd-space. There isn’t actually anything in the bible explicitly denying trans ontology (at least for binary trans people), so again it’s a matter of specific bigotry rather than institutional bigotry.
I know this is kinda off base, but the Temple of Satan has churches, and they’re absolutely pro gay and pro trans. They’re the anti mainstream religion, basically.
Yea ST is awesome but they aren’t the kind of place that has church bells. You might hear some death metal, though.
Sounds fair to me, we need less religion everywhere.
What I don’t get is the right wing pushing this and the left wing being against it, while the hero of the far left said ‘Religion is the opium of the masses.’
The left is generally against legislating what women are allowed to wear.
Then wouldn’t they be against Islam forcing women to wear the hijab??
Islam doesn’t force women to wear the hijab. There’s nothing about it in the Quran.
It’s a cultural thing, and while many women are pressured or even forced to wear it, many others wear it of their own free will.The state telling women they can’t wear it in their workplace doesn’t solve the issue.
And those women who are forced to wear it are effectively banned from working now, which makes the issue much worse.The “culture” is religious though, like we can’t pretend it’s a social thing, absent religious doctrine.
I mean yes there is the command to cover yourself in the quran, [24:31] for example (“… And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and guard their chastity, and not to reveal their adornments except what normally appears. Let them draw their veils over their chests, and not reveal their ˹hidden˺ adornment…”).
Still, the idea of women generally being forced to wear it by their family/social circle is wrong.There is over 14300 years debate material about if this specific order to a time where women were targeted because who the were, or a general islamic rule.
Regardless it is never, telling man what and what not to wear, but always telling women what and what not to wear.
If the really care about Muslims women being forced to wear it, the law should be:
- if you force female to wear or not wear anything then you go to prison. Then that would aolve the problem and gave people the freedom to wear or not wear religious symbols.
Ah where did this debate take place with ehich people? AFAIK all 4 sunni schools are unanimous in their intepretation, that people have to cover their bodies.
It is also very much telling men what and what not to wear. The specific body parts that have to be covered differ from school to school, for women and for men, but every muslim scholar says that every human has to cover certain parts of their body from the gaze of other people.Well this is factually not true as Islamic law prescribes men dress modestly but at least cover themselves from at **least their belly buttons to their knees. ** If the shorts get too short men do get called out for it.
Furthermore you are insinuating that a woman cannot, of her own free will, choose to wear a headscarf. So you the big important male must decide it for her. Which is not very feminist of you.
Yeah if you don’t wear it you get beaten… Totally not forced.
How many women wearing hijab do you actually know, to come to the conclusion they would all get beaten and forced to wear it?
Because from the women i know none of them is forced to do so. And given that noone is around that could force them, as they are expats and they are exposed to plenty women not wearing hijab, both nin religious and muslim, i am certain that they choose to wear hijab on their own accord.
I bet the male dominated and generally oppressive culture behind it has nothing to do with their willingness, out of their own volition, to decide to wear it.
Nothing at all.
Next time i’ll see her i’ll ask the researcher with a Phd in physics who lived in western countries since 15 years, if she is too stupid to realize the difference between the village she grew up in and the great European countries were millions of liberators like you are waiting to liberate her by forbidding her to wear a hijab at work.
I know enough women who were forced to wear hijab by their families and most of them nowadays have gotten away from their families and havent spoken to their families in years. Also one of the families tried to lure their daughter to Iran and another family were stopped at the airport after one of the women told border police that she was at the airport against her will.
A lot of women are totally forced to wear hijab.
The free will of women wearing the hijab comes from fear of gOd and social pressure of being impure. No person on its right mind would choose to wear it.
I for sure would prefer if women wouldn’t be forced to wear it. But lets be realistic: banning it doesn’t make things better, only worse. These women won’t stop wearing a hijab, they will just stop going outside. And now you made the situation even worse for them.
A group of iranian college students visited my town in the summer.
None of the girls used any sort of head cover and at some that came as a topic.
Even in Iran, as much as they can, every woman goes without it, unless the religious police is somewhere nearby.
The general, widespread view is that it is a form of repression and nothing else, yet their government/religious authority enforces it.
Although unpopular and understood as fascist, these decisions in european countries echoe impositions islamic countries make to foreigners.
Obviously, the ones who view it as a form of repression, would have already not been wearing headgarb in EU. The ones that do probably think different.
After all it’s not as if everyone belonging to one religion is viewing it in the same way.
I’m not going to even step into that debate.
They seem to be somewhat in denial about it. Which is quite sad
thats bad, but still not as bad as the government responding with mandates on what women are or are not allowed to wear, nor is this an answer to the problem
like, how do you reckon this is going to pan out? you reckon women who actually are coerced into covering up are going to take it off when they go to public buildings (including schools), or do you reckon the men in their life just wont let them go to public buildings (including schools) anymore?
the right either has not thought about this law or is completely disingenuous about why they support it
the right … is completely disingenuous about why they support it
Are they ever ingenuous?
the men in their life just wont let them go to public buildings (including schools) anymore
This one is the most likely outcome.
I think it would be hard to find a leftist who is not supporting the struggle of Iranians against being forced by law to wear a hijab.
And equally we are against Western governments forcing women to not wear a hijab.
Forcing people is the wrong doing. Easy to understand, isn’t it?
deleted by creator
The rest of the quote is: “Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.” Take from that what you will.
I also don’t know that most people who identify as or are called left wing would call Marx their hero.
Take from that what you will.
The only things anyone with a brain can take from it is that religion is a cancer, masquerading as a source of strength and hope when it in fact supresses those qualities, leading to an alienated population.
Opium is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of the heartless world, the soul of soulless conditions.
The answer to this by you is: Ban opium!
My answer would be: Fight oppression!
The fight is not about drugs, it is about self-determination, dignity, freedom. It is the fight against capitalism. And today the search is on how to prevent the socialist society from turning into an autocracy.
Children have questions, e.g.: Where is grandma now? Until we have a satisfactory answer to this, religion will exist. But in a free world it will no longer be addictive.
And everyone can put on or take off whatever they want. We should start with this immediately.
False dichotomy, you can do both, and in fact by doing both strengthen both positions.
An argument I’ve heard against it is that it’s overly harmful against non-western religions, specifically Islam. A pretty common tenet in Islam is some kind of head covering for woman. Banning that is a pretty sweeping reform. Christianity and Catholicism don’t have anything like that, and if you really wanted to wear a cross you could just hide a necklace under your shirt. And Judaism, most non -orthodox Jews don’t wear a yamaka 24/7. So in the end (typical) white religions aren’t affected while minorities are.
Personally for me I don’t care about wearing a religious symbol as long as you’re not pushing your agenda. I don’t care if my boss has a Bible on his desk any more than if he had a copy of dragon Ball z.
I would vastly prefer if my boss had DBZ rather than a Bible. BDZ is just literature, the Bible is a symbol of indoctrination, I don’t want my boss to be influenced by some made up nonsense
Nuns and priests would not be allowed to wear their religious clothes either, so I’m okay with that.
It is not the secular state’s fault that one religion chooses to be more backwards than the others by requiring religious clothing from all women, and is thus more affected by a ban on religious symbols.
Adapt to modernity or get the fuck out
And you expect that to be enforced?
Given that in one German state it was mandatory by state law to have a cross in every public building, from a party that is very overt about banning hijabs, i strongly doubt that.
The reality will be that this will target muslims everywhere and maxbe a few stry christians. But the vast majority of christian strongholds, like Germanys catholic south will simply not enforce it against christians.
So, we should just accept backwards superstition and archaic societal ideals because Bavaria is made up of Christian reactionaries?
Enforce it from Berlin then. Deploy personnel to monitor the application. If Bavaria tries to play favorites, big fines for each case.
As a german I am tired of conservative obstructionism, especially when it’s Bavaria, the german state embodiment of selfish and short sighted backwardness.
So, we should just accept backwards superstition and archaic societal ideals because Bavaria is made up of Christian reactionaries?
Enforce it from Berlin then. Deploy personnel to monitor the application. If Bavaria tries to play favorites, big fines for each case.
While i agree with your sentiment the reality is that christian fundamentalists (in appearance, in behaviour they are devilish unchristian) are still powerful in German politics and we see a resurgence in their popularity among the voters. The majority of the German people is happy with persecution of muslims and doesnt care about favoritism towards christians.
So, we should just accept backwards superstition and archaic societal ideals
No, we should fight that. With words. With arguments. And not by banning clothing.
Clothing is just a symbol and the meaning changes all the time and from context to context. People who want to ban clothing are just in favor of putting pressure on other people, on forcing others to be like them. It’s despicable.
I was a teenager with very long hair in the seventies. I loved my hair, it told the world that I was a free spirit. And it was a very powerful asshole-detector. Every now and then some backwarded adult would come up to tell me I would have been sent to concentration camp under Hitler. And it was quite obvious that they wished Hitler to come back and do so again. Just for me wearing long hair.
I don’t think you believe, but I am convinced that there are quite a number of young Muslimas here in Berlin who chose to wear a headscarf to uni while their mother says “Please, don’t risk your career!”
And they say: “Mother, this scarf tells them where I’m from. And if they keep me from having a career it’s not because of the scarf, it’s because they hate who I am.”
“All this pseudo-liberal, pseudo-tolerant, pseudo-feminist, pseudo-open-minded assholes, I would never detect them without that scarf! Now leave me alone, I’ve got a heritage to defend.”
You’re much closer to Söder than to a humanist.
So you whipped up a whole fictitious little story in which I’m the evil reactionary based on me being anti theist? Okay then.
And just for the record, you comment also illustrates perfectly the cognitive dissonance employed here. A muslim immigrant that is proud of their muslim heritage isn’t brave or admirable, it’s the same dumb shit as any german christian who would try to argue that.
I don’t want people to feel free to be ultra conservative religious quran thumpers because we are so liberal and tolerant. I want them to be taught that this shit isn’t welcome here and if they want to be they have to leave it behind.
The problem is that you have to treat religion equally and for a lot of European countries that would mean pushing Christian symbols out of public offices as well. Most Nordic countries, Greece and Malta have crosses on their flags for example. Many countries like Germany have parties, which are explicitly Christian. The Bundeswehr uses the Iron Cross as a symbol, which is in direct heritage from a crusader order.
The problem for those countries is that baning Islamic symbols is very often just racist rethoric to hit Islam, rather then a proper separation of state and religion.
It would be religionist, not racist. Islam is followed by many different races. But I get where you’re coming from. I’m all for getting rid of all the religious symbolism etc.
When the right talk about Islam they aren’t talking about the religion. They have no problem with the Muslims from Kosovo for instance. They are specifically targeting Arabs and Africans.
Kosovars rarely wear hijabs though. Same goes for Bosnians and Albanians and many Lebanese, Egyptian and Syrian Muslims. So not it isnt about race.
Removed by mod
No, you were the one brought up Arabs and Africans. You are the one stereotyping Arabs and Africans as the only Muslims who wear headscarves just to further your argument.
No one here has issues with Arabs or Africans. Headscarves and crosses are just inappropriate for public sector workplaces as they are supposed to be neutral and unbiased in secular societies.
You’re ignoring the context of why I brought it up. Right wingers who complain about religious hair dresses don’t give a shit about someone wearing a cross on their necklace. They know they can’t go after people because of race so they use Islam as a backdoor.
I am interested, what exactly constitutes a “religious symbol” for you?
Most Nordic countries, Greece and Malta have crosses on their flags for example.
Those crosses don’t carry any religious meaning, they’re simple historical artifacts. It’s akin to how I still say things like “oh my god” or “go to hell”, despite being a militant atheist.
Denmark, Iceland, Greece and Malta have some form of Christianity as their state religion. Norway only separated church from the state in 2017. Finland requires a change of the constitution to change the church law, which gives the local lutheran church special rights. Sweden is secular since 2000, but even today grants the local lutheran church special rights.
The right wing is pushing specifically for the banning of things like the hijab or other religious head coverings usually worn by women. They justify it by saying that these head coverings are a symbol of oppression against women, and have no place in a free society.
Thing is though, how free is a society if it feels it has to dictate what women can and can’t wear?
That’s the catch 22 isn’t it… “You’re not free to dictate that women must wear a hijab, because we are dictating they can’t wear one.”
However, this is only legislating public workplaces not everywhere, so it’s less dictatey than Islam.
There have been plenty of efforts and attempts to ban hijabs completely, in different European countries at different times. The debate started probably around the time the first Islamicimmigrants came to Europe.
Because banning something so petty like a hijab is just a dick move which serves no purpose other than cause more tension, if any women is wearing something by her choice, who the fuck are we to judge? Isn’t that the whole point of tolerance and being left wing?
I would hardly put a hijab in the category of ‘by her choice’…
I agree that forcing them is a problem, but a lot of these women themselves complained to the authorities, so i doubt in this particular case they are being forced, and how does outright banning it help the issue? People are forced to work with poor wages, why not ban all jobs?
It’s only banning in the workplace, not an outright ban.
There are plenty of Muslim females I have worked with who never wore a hijab in or outside of work, so if it’s no issue for them, why should it be an issue for these women?
How does it help the issue though, I have no idea.
I think you are missing my point here or yourself are confused, wearing a hijab these days in a modern society is very likely a choice, if a muslim women choses not to, it’s her decision
But banning it and calling it a religious symbol on top of that is a clear statement that they don’t support a personal harmless decision of an individual BECAUSE they follow a religion, and that in my opinion is just racism
And even a slightly controversial take of mine is that we shouldn’t really ban religious symbols either as long as they are not harmful, why would any sane person care if they see a women with a hijab or a burka? Or a person wearing a cross? No one unless they just don’t like anyone whose beliefs or ideology or opinion don’t match with them. The only thing these kinds of laws will do is potentially radicalize more people
The thing is we can’t bring all of humanity on an agreement on even a small issue, let alone something as complex as religion, however what we could do is try to set apart our differences and focus on the overall good for us. This law however is just a step in the opposite direction
It’s only banning in the workplace, not an outright ban.
Well, it’s a first step, isn’t it? The more Europeans don’t give a shit about freedom and democracy, the more we vote for rightwing extremists, the more we will be ready to put a crescent on the clothing of Muslims, don’t you think so.
Who would fight for their freedom, you?
so if it’s no issue for them, why should it be an issue for these women?
Because women are individuals, even Muslim women, who would have thought.
And we’re living in a culture that celebrates itself for protecting the freedom and the rights of the individuals.
Sounds kind of crazy, doesn’t it?
And who are you to tell what’s other people choices and what not. That’s unbelievably arrogant.
Wearing jeans (or any other iconic piece of clothing) isn’t your choice, it’s just normal where you grew up. You just adapted to the culture you live in. You’re just a conformist. Or a ‘Spießer’ as we say in German.
And this probably isn’t limited to dress codes. How about ideas, ideologies, worldviews different from yours?
If Muslim women no longer wore headscarves because they weren’t allowed to, how would you recognize the oppressed people you want to “liberate”.
See, now I know you either just didn’t read it or didn’t understand. It applies to all religious symbols, not just a hijab. Can you argue it’s unfair to non western religions like the above commenters? Yes and probably should. But what you said is wrong. They are not “banning something so petty like the hijab”.
“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread”
They are…, no other religion really has something like this like one of the comments here said,
almostall cases are about hijabsAlso how tf is hijab a ‘religious symbol’ anyway? It’s just a piece of clothing which is no different than those caps you find in jackets or hoodies
I see no point in doing something so stupid like this, why not ban cigarettes instead of discriminating for wearing a piece of clothing?
Edit: kinda misunderstood your comment, you called them out for discriminating non western religions, sorry its 4AM and i am cranky AF
There’s a rather considerable current of leftism that is libertarian. Over-regulation of what a person can do, especially with something as, well, personal as appearance, is at odds with left-libertarian values.
Left-authoritarianism is of course compatible with such regulations.
Almost like left ideologies are more complex than an just a yes or no, huh?
Wait until you notice they change over time as they evolve with society.
Good, fuck religion. The earlier we get rid of that shit, the earlier we can unify as a species.
That will never happen. If religion is erased from the equation, ideology or culture will take it’s place and cause friction
Religion is ideology and culture that has caused friction for many years now. Thats the whole point of removing it.
Please explain how banning religious symbols is getting rid of religion.
It’s not, but it’s a step towards that. By removing the religious symbols you make people think about it less, even just subconsciously.
If that was the case we wouldn’t have christians running around nowadays. Mainly cultures and empires throughout history have tried to ban some form of religious symbology, but it doesn’t ever work, and typically just makes the conflict worse.
Well, Christianity is in a swift decline outside of places where they do have enough power left to enforce social conformity. By my estimate in another 50 years Christianity will be a small niche in many countries along with the other major religions in the global North (is that a thing, basically western doesn’t work because of South America).
Right, but that’s more from people recognizing the internal contradictions within the religion. Not because we don’t have as much iconography around as op suggested.
I think you are right, it mostly has to do with education and access to knowledge. Just about every human today has access to all of the world’s knowledge through the internet. It makes it pretty difficult to avoid seeing those contradictions, even if you actively try to.
Honestly, I think it is mostly that the majority of people don’t care (and never did) and the people who do care lost the ability to push everyone who doesn’t care into it with social pressure.
Which is his point. Christianity is on the decline because society has let those people assimilate on their own. They did not ban Christianity.
Once you start banning or suppressing an ideology, the people will actually strengthen their beliefs because they have no way to assimilate with their beliefs into a society anymore.
You should study up on religion and Christianity, we banned plenty of their bullshit practices. The reason Christianity is mostly mild and meek now is because we’ve had to push it back into a corner. It had to get rid of most of its archaic customs to survive.
Islam needs to be beaten just the same way. Making women second class citizens and forcing them to wear beekeeper suits while the man gets to run around in shorts and flip flops is demeaning and unacceptable.
You should study up on religion and Christianity, we banned plenty of their bullshit practices. The reason Christianity is mostly mild and meek now is because we’ve had to push it back into a corner. It had to get rid of most of its archaic customs to survive.
This is a highly reductive and a backwards way to view the cause and effect of history.
Who is “we”, what era are you talking about, what archaic customs are you talking about? You are speaking about vague generalities and then making claims based on them.
Human progress does not advance because individual governments ban certain types of behavior. It’s a byproduct of changes in economics, and government systems. The attitudes and behavior of the church towards its populations was more influenced by technological changes and environment than any sort of government asserting its control.
Islam needs to be beaten just the same way. Making women second class citizens and forcing them to wear beekeeper suits while the man gets to run around in shorts and flip flops is demeaning and unacceptable.
No one is claiming that religion isnt problematic, were just saying that banning iconography or ideologies isn’t going to be effective at doing anything but stiring up sectarian violence.
By forcing Islamic women to wear bikinis and mini-skirts?
If you are against females wearing clothes because you must to see their naked bodies who is the oppressor and who is the oppressed? You are claiming to be in favor of female rights by RESTRICTING female rights to wear their desired clothes? And then claiming all women who don’t adhere to your ideology are forced to wear those clothes?
Do all western women also wear clothes because society forces them to do so? Should we just ban all clothes to show how much we care about female rights?
Many people see the France as an oppressive society that degrades women and treats them as second class citizens when they force women to remove their headscarves and dresses.
But they don’t do that. They don’t leave religion with their beliefs. If anything the vast majority still in the religion on paper doesn’t even have those beliefs any more.
No one is suggesting the perscution of anything. And the ban is just for public places. If people want to adore whatever mythical creature, they can do it a home, but that mythical creature dont get to dictate how others should act.
No one is suggesting the perscution of anything. And the ban is just for public places. If people want to adore whatever mythical creature, they can do it a home, but that mythical creature dont get to dictate how others should act.
“No one is suggesting the persecution of anything. And the ban is just for public places. If a man wants to adore another man, they can do it at home, but those homosexuals dont get to dictate how others should act.”
You see how problematic this can get with just a few words swapped? It’s almost like it’s difficult to police other people’s beliefs, and once you do it kinda leaves the door open for others people with other beliefs to do the same…
it’s not a ban or persecution though, if anything it’s a protection for everyone and mainly the separation of state and church, you are allowed to do your religion but not in the government buildings
anything it’s a protection for everyone and mainly the separation of state and church, you are allowed to do your religion but not in the government buildings
You do realize that banning a religion is the state inserting itself into religion, right?
The separation of church and state goes both ways. The church is not to influence the state and the state is not to influence the church. You are allowed to practice religious expression in a state building, but the state cannot demand that you do so, or regulate which religion you express.
If you define schools and other essential public facilities as “government buildings” you are not separating the state from the church, you are separating the civilians from the church.
It will reduce prejudice in one form: looks and clothing. The sooner we come together as a species, the greater we progress and bring fundamental changes in everything we care as a species.
Except wars were waged for political reasons, not religious ones(, some civil wars excepted).
And good actions were quite often done for religious reasons, which is why rejecting religions was(is) seen as rejecting the call for virtue, and to God.
You can have technologies or not, be in a communist/royalist/democrat/‘(“anarcho”-)capitalist’/republican/… state or not, it’s not enough to live in paradise, you’ll still find assholes, an environment including religions will( also) be made to improve ourselves. Not saying it didn’t failed there as well, since people in the past weren’t always “christians”, it only means it isn’t enough by itself for 100% of the population, not that it isn’t the way forward.
Downvote me all you want, i.d.c., but argue before doing so if you ever have time to learn by a mutual debate.
here is my argument, most of my friends are some flavor of christian, and christening’s are happening to their kids, if I suggested to them that their kids should be brought up rhe islam way, taught about it from the start etc, they would think I am trying to brainwash their kids, but ofc doing the same with Christianity is not brainwashing, it’s normal. as someone who was completely isolated from religious brainwashing I don’t think someone like you who I assume wasn’t can ever comprehend how fucked up religion looks from the outside, no different from any other cult.
Funny because i don’t think you understand my point of view either, especially if you’re equating all christians with literalists, if you read the Bible you’ll be forced to interpret it allegorically, which is why being raised in a nonreligious environment doesn’t prevent from having misconceptions either.
But sincere thanks for your polite answer though.
“unify as a species” aka “only unify under my belief, Athiesm”. That’s what Islamists thought and so did the crusaders. How is your belief any more important?
It’s not a belief at all
No that’s agnosticism
You believe that there is no god or gods, and that people shouldn’t believe in them either. That is a belief.
Stating that there’s no evidence for god is not any kind of belief. Now stating that there’s one even though the lack of evidence, that requires belief
Christians don’t state there’s no evidence for God, no idea where you pulled that one from. You’d have to believe that all of that evidence is invalid, and believing that religion in turn should be destroyed because you so whole-heartedly disagree with the evidence does require belief.
Christian evidence for God amounts to “because someone said so” + a vague sense that some force is working in their life. That’s just animism with extra steps.
The “story” aged thousands of years are several historical documents that popped up in the first century, all talking about a man who was born of a virgin, performed miracles, was crucified, died, was buried, then rose again and ascended into heaven over a month later. The earliest was written after at most 30 years of it happening and the latest regarded by all Christians was written at latest 70 years from it happening. Several of those were written by people who knew the guy, the rest were written by people who knew people who knew the guy. They don’t contradict and have marks of being an honest account. And then there are accounts which are not even from people who believe the guy. So this “story” which is about God coming down to earth in flesh, and rising from the dead was large enough to cause several of these documents to appear and then only a few hundred of years later have more archaeological evidence appear showing signs of an early church. It was big enough for us to start counting years from roughly when this Guy was born.
Now what about other people? Alexander the Great? Earliest source written 200 years later. Caesar? Two sources from when he was alive, one written by himself, other written by cicero, more sources will come hundreds of years later. Pompeii? Was likely witnessed by a quarter million people, saw many elite die in the Roman empire, has one source written by Pliny 30 years after the fact. We have archaeological evidence for these people and events, of course, like coinage and such. But what archaeological trace would Jesus leave personally? He lived a life in the same land, didn’t own an army, wasn’t a king, possibly didn’t even have a house. So the writings we have are obviously the best evidence for Him.
The “evidence” is a story in writings aged thousands of years… it is not something we can observe or have physical or visual proof of, all we have is words that go against all scientific evidence, so it’s not “evidence”. You have to actually believe in magic to believe in that kind of stuff, it holds as much salt as any other pseudoscientific garbage.
It’s laughable to say that you must respect the beliefs of people into astrology or flat earth or electric universe or anything of the sorts, and it’s just as laughable to say you have to respect the beliefs of people who believe in supranatural/divine beings. Because false beliefs actually cause harm, and religion especially has caused far more harm than any other pseudoscience (and the amount of good it may have done is extraordinarily outweighed), it is currently causing a lot of harm, and it will likely continue to cause great harm in the future.
I personally value the lives of hundreds of millions to billions of people more than appeasing some long outdated beliefs (and especially the people who exploit those beliefs for personal gain), but that’s just me. I’m agnostic, I don’t choose a belief, there might be some divine being or afterlife but I see that it’s completely insane to propogate any of said beliefs, it causes suffering and has set us back potentially hundreds of years progress-wise.
Honestly all of humanity would probably have much less suffering if it weren’t for organized religion and its consequences, including but not limited to either directly causing or being the biggest contributor to the far-right and fascism & corporatism, and a large amount of general imperialism/authoritarianism (divine right anybody?). Guys banging other guys was the norm in most of the world until Abrahamic religions came along and brainwashed the entirety of the west lol, then it became a heinous crime and caused a over a thousand years of suffering and oppression for gays, people of “heretic” religious beliefs, anyone that opposed the authorities of an organized religion, those who faced the wrath of most imperialism/conquest – which was generally propogated by religion (and would have been a lot less strong without religion scaring people with eternal damnation) in Europe and the Americas and even in Asia, and often in Africa, etc. etc. And now modern religion is once again making society try to regress.
On paper religion alone isn’t bad, but people can’t handle religion, up to this point humans just try to find things to hate each other for and religion is BY FAR the most successful & easy tool to use for that, nothing else comes even close, sure if religion was gone other things may go up in usage as reasons to arbitrarily hate others, but it won’t have even near the power of religion, nothing’s more effective than threatening people with fiery hell for them or their loved ones, or offering them eternal glory in the afterlife, or whatever, because that’s forever and Earth life is temporary!
The “story” aged thousands of years are several historical documents that popped up in the first century, all talking about a man who was born of a virgin, performed miracles, was crucified, died, was buried, then rose again and ascended into heaven over a month later. The earliest was written after at most 30 years of it happening and the latest regarded by all Christians was written at latest 70 years from it happening. Several of those were written by people who knew the guy, the rest were written by people who knew people who knew the guy. They don’t contradict and have marks of being an honest account. And then there are accounts which are not even from people who believe the guy. So this “story” which is about God coming down to earth in flesh, and rising from the dead was large enough to cause several of these documents to appear and then only a few hundred of years later have more archaeological evidence appear showing signs of an early church. It was big enough for us to start counting years from roughly when this Guy was born.
Now what about other people? Alexander the Great? Earliest source written 200 years later. Caesar? Two sources from when he was alive, one written by himself, other written by cicero, more sources will come hundreds of years later. Pompeii? Was likely witnessed by a quarter million people, saw many elite die in the Roman empire, has one source written by Pliny 30 years after the fact. We have archaeological evidence for these people and events, of course, like coinage and such. But what archaeological trace would Jesus leave personally? He lived a life in the same land, didn’t own an army, wasn’t a king, possibly didn’t even have a house. So the writings we have are obviously the best evidence for Him.
You refer to pseudoscience. Is this stuff like miracles and Jesus rising from the dead? We don’t believe that science can allow someone to rise themselves from the dead, rise others, turn water to wine, etc. Which is why it was kind of a big deal when Jesus did it.
Christianity has not set us back. In fact, quite the opposite. The Catholic church spurred on most early scientific research. Also worth noting that Athiests held back the idea of the big bang happening because the scientific consensus at the time was that the universe always existed and that the idea of a beginning was a Christian belief.
You say religion is the biggest factor relating to the far right fascism and corporatism. But that doesn’t make sense. Basically all capitalism goes against what Jesus said and is grounded in a belief in no god and only saying things to be popular, using cheapest labour, exploitation, etc. I fail to see how it has anything to do with religion except lack thereof. In fact, Cadbury’s was run by Christians and was known for basically being the start of the “fair-trade” idea with treating employees well. (Unfortunately it’s just another product of capitalism nowadays as it has abandoned it’s roots.)
I fail to see how Capitalism is any religion but the lack of one, or it’s own.
As for fascism, what?
Let’s list off the biggest propagators of Fascism:
Hitler - Claimed to be a Christian, but very much wasn’t. Was only doing it to try and appease. May have claimed islam was a better religion at one point. Imprisoned clergy for speaking out.
Mussolini - Was a big athiest, brutalised Priests and Catholics who opposed him.
Franco: - Roman Catholic, I’d give you that one. But I doubt it had anything to do with the faith and not power
Other states that caused mass murders?
Soviet Russia - Athiest. Maoist China - Athiest.
If anything, it’s quite the opposite.
Imperialism would have happened with or without religion. It’s still happening nowadays through capitalism.
So, back to the evidence based argument - How come the belief in these things which are actual ly perfectly reasonable to many should be destroyed. What makes your opinion that all of this didn’t happen outweigh that it did. How does your belief in whatever dismisses the evidence away outweigh those who don’t?
I could literally make the same argument for Athiesm causing harm. Does that mean that I should respond to you by saying “we should destroy Athiesm?”. Or should we realise that both of our religious-based beliefs should be tolerated.
Of course it is, and it’s an irrational belief if you’re unable to define God.
I’m a theist but i’m probably an atheist with your definition of the Creator/Light/Highness/‘absolute Existence’/…, which is probably some long-bearded man with superpowers that you can touch like in Marvel movies, or something like that, yes ?
it’s an irrational belief if you’re unable to define God.
There is literally an infinite number of things that do not exist. We do not need to define them to not believe in their existence.
In fact it is up to theists to define what they mean by God but conveniently it means a different thing every time it comes up, depending on what is needed to make the lunatic arguments that religious people come up with for God’s existence (e.g. ontological argument, Pascal’s Wager,…) work and to explain why there is never any evidence of God’s intervention in anything and to explain why somehow people should still care and structure their entire lives around the belief. Classic Motte and Bailey arguments by changing the definition around depending on how strongly their belief is being attacked.
“Everything that was/is/‘will be’” is the evidence of God’s intervention. There’re many definitions because the “First Cause” implies many other things, like the Past/Present/Future/End, the Existence/Reality, but also the Maximum/Perfection/Guide/Light, and at least a dozen of other things that i haven’t perceived and/or am too lazy to add to the list, negative theology is also very interesting.
Is your only argument the old one of the existence of bad things ? There’re many answers but my usual one is that a perfect world gets boring after a while, even if that’s the goal, there’s no meaningful purpose afterwards if you think about it.
Another old answer is that suffering comes from desire(, hence, i.m.h.o., i prefer to suffer than stop desiring, and can’t complain since i ‘am responsible for my own suffering’/‘can always decide not to desire’).Thanks for your answer though.
I don’t believe there is are gods, or unicorns, or green elephants. “Don’t believe” = “no belief”.
And personally I couldn’t care less what other people believe, as long as they keep it to themselves and don’t bother anybody.
I don’t believe that a God doesn’t exist, so therefore no belief either. Who says you get to be the default?
Occam’s Razor.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
What sort of evidence would you want?
as Ricky Gervais put it the difference between a Christian or Muslim and an Atheist is to believe in exactly one less god than them, there are over 2000 gods believed in by various people, Christians don’t believe in any of them, Atheists don’t believe in any of them +1
Ah yes the universe came from nothing and time started by itself. Don’t question it people or this man sends you to jail.
You clearly misunderstand what it is to be an atheist. The whole point is to question it. As new evidence (yes, it’s based on evidence) surfaces, we change our “beliefs” accordingly.
Atheism is not belief in the big bang, atheism is belief in whatever scientific theory is currently best supported by evidence.
Atheism means that you say you are 100% certain there is no god. A-Theism. It’s the word.
The problem is that there is still no clear evidence for the origins for time and the universe. You cannot start claiming god doesn’t exist without having clear evidence for it
If a god exists, they’re completely superfluous, unnecessary and not worthy of praise.
You say that, but you’re alive. So I’m assuming that you do somewhat appreciate being alive since you haven’t unalived yourself. You might even think it’s pretty neat.
Well if you insist on pedantry, “atheism” doesn’t mean a belief that gods don’t exist, it’s a lack of belief in gods. Think “asexual”: it’s not an aversion to sex, just a lack of sex drive. You are describing antitheism, and many self-described atheists are actually antitheists.
You cannot start claiming god doesn’t exist without having clear evidence for it
Incorrect, you are the one with the spectacular claim and the burden of proof lies on you. Prove that gods exist.
Agnoticism is the word you are looking for. or “being agnostic”.
A person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (such as God) is unknown and probably unknowable
This entire comment chain is focused on banning religion and being 100% certain that god doesn’t exist.
If you want to ban religion and claim god doesn’t exist then the burden of evidence to disprove god lies with you. But you can start by creating something from nothing or reversing time.
It’s scientifically close to impossible to prove the non-existence of something. Even green elephants.
As for time and space… I don’t see the slightest evidence of “god did it”. For me, the chance of finding a green Elephant seems way higher. Because it seems at least possible.
Green elephants are not a requirement for our existence.
The beginning of space and time are.
For that something outside of space-time must exist that created space-time.
Unless you are denying that we exist I am asking you to present another possible way that our universe has been created. Because according to thermodynamics energy cannot be created or destroyed.
Yet our universe does seem to contain energy so where did the energy come from? If you say energy can come out of nothing you’re disagreeing with everything we know about physics.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://www.piped.video/watch?v=vwzbU0bGOdc
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/uSwJuOPG4FI?si=vNQ18adlTjUocQWl
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
They were angry at Jesus because he spoke the truth
I’m not sure a hijab is a religious symbol. It’s just a covering worn for religious reasons. The hijab doesn’t have a fixed design or pattern that makes it significantly different from what western women wore in the fifties.
And if you can’t go out in public dressed like Sophia Loren, what even is the point of western civilization?
I’m not sure a hijab is a religious symbol. It’s just a covering worn for religious reasons.
The problem is, far rights won’t care.
They will start caring if women show up to meeting with messy hair.
This not about religion, because a Jewish men will be able to wear the head, and a Muslim will show up to bussinus meeting with prayer beeds. A sikh man will show up with a turban and other with Bindi.
I believe this is targeted at womens, next we will see a case where a company fire a female because she refuses to wear a skirt or wearing long jackets to cover her pants or something.
Hardcore christian germans do have silly hair covering rules and such as well though.
They’ll say that’s not a symbol.
Well then there’s no discussion to the hijab either.
But as they are right wings, they’ll probably say hijabs are religious symbols. I don’t know what they’re thinking but that’s predictable.
I’m not sure a hijab is a religious symbol. It’s just a covering worn for religious reasons.
Lol
Such a cogent and articulate reply.
I didn’t think it was particularly impressive but thanks
Good. Religion is like a penis, you don’t pull it out in public or at work.
Not pulling out your penis in public comes from Abrahamic religious tradition, just like crosses. We sometimes forget that our modern Western hangups come from Christianity tapering the “immodesty” of cultures like the Greek and Celtic
Why though? What danger does a person that is visibly religious pose to the public?
What danger does walking around with your dick out pose to the public?
It has predatory connotations. It makes people fear for their safety.
So it makes people uncomfortable. Just like religion.
People wearing clothes at all makes some people uncomfortable. Women not covering their hair is as bad to some people as “walking with your dick out”. People (of religions I don’t believe) being forced to remove attire makes me feel VERY uncomfortable and tyrranized. I’ve always been part of the movement to push back against dress codes and uniforms in workplaces because authorities having power of “style” is unacceptable to me.
Why do only a small number of people get a say on what everyone must do, and everyone else who feels uncomfortable or oppressed “needs to suck it up”?
If your goal is to make the fewest people uncomfortable, you let them wear their religious attire. If your goal is to make the most people uncomfortable… dicks out. If your goal is to discriminate against classes of people you don’t like, you shouldn’t be the one making decisions.
People that feel uncomfortable because they fear for their safety around openly Muslim people are islamophobes and their comfort does not matter more than the Muslim persons right to practice their religion.
Edit: in general enforcing a cultural nonreligious hegemony by banning any religious displays at work and in public goes against the freedom of religion. People feeling uncomfortable because their faced with something they don’t like is not a greater ill than people being free to practice their religion.
Removed by mod
I was raised christian in a majority Muslim country. I know exactly what these laws do, because I felt it myself. Hence me speaking up. The shoe being on the other foot does not suddenly make it right.
edit: also the laws of a country do not reflect the values of every person on earth that shares the same religion as the one which is predominant in that country. Or even of the religion itself. Thats an islamophobic red herring.
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
Many people fear for their safety around men. Should we ban men?
I’m a non-Christian who has feared for my safety around atheists before.
But I shouldn’t have a right to demand atheists act differently so I stop being scared.
I don’t have the right not to be offended. Nor do I have the right to have irrational phobias honored. Neither does anyone else.
Its completely irrelevant if it’s Islam or anything else.
Right, the comfort of people that feel uncomfortable around others simply because of their religion is of no importance, regardless of the religion they feel uncomfortable around because there is no actual threat. It “just happens” to be more prevalent around muslim people which is why I chose that example. My edit meant to clarify that.
in general enforcing a cultural nonreligious hegemony by banning any religious displays at work and in public goes against the freedom of religion.
Freedom of religion is stupid anyway. Freedom of speak and expression already allows people to believe any fiction they want, there is no reason why a certain selection of fictional ideas need a special status.
They are given a special status by being banned though. Freedom of expression extends to being free to express your religion through clothing, these laws exempt them from this right and give them a special banned status.
Considering most religions are death cults, openly religious people have very different priorities than I do, and many of them do not think my life has value. Some even think I am not truly alive without belief.
Not terribly comforting.
deleted by creator
I dont believe people should wear crosses or headscarves in public sector jobs. Public sector jobs are supposed to be neutral ideologically.
Why should your beliefs dictate whether another person has to choose between their religion and job? And why these two things in particular, what about Orthodox Jews, people with a bindi and so on?
Do you have any material reason to discriminate against people like this? Particularly since this discrimination will be felt by minorities more harshly than the rest of the populace.
There are tens of thousands (probably hundreds of thousands over the whole world) of people who got sexually harrassed by catholic personel. I think for them and their families a cross has quite strong “predatory connotations” and makes them “fear for the savety of their (or their children)”
So we should ban all displays of religion in public and at the workplace because of the actions of vile clergymen? I agree that religious symbols can be a trigger to people who have been subjected to harrassment and assault in a religious context. But I haven’t heard these people talk about a ban on religious symbols in general.
Someone felt aggravated by your words, apparently, yet it is pure good sense, regardless the colorful choice of words.
can they ban you for wearing a necklace with a cross? or a scarf around your head? This is madness, what bad does it do to other people, this is like banning lgbtq people from kissing outside cause it makes others uncomfortable.
This isn’t about banning people from wearing their religious merchandise in public. This is banning religious objects from workplaces. More precisely just public workplaces. Of course a secular state should also have secular workplaces. And the way labour rights are personal life can be completely banned from your workplace. Why would religion be treated differently?
Is that the workplace you want? Devoid of personal lives but mere drones who congregate to labour and then disperse into their personal lives where finally they are free to express themselves how they want?
If your personal life is 100% religion, you’re a drone anyway.
The ol strawman
No I want democratic workplaces. But also workplaces without religion nonetheless.
I think it gets pretty hypocritical, singling out religion like that. In the workplace, I can have memorabilia of my favorite sports team even though someone else hates it (unless perhaps it’s a Catholic School team that has a cross in its logo?). I can have the flag of a hostile foreign country because I’m proud of my heritige. I can have a picture of me kissing my wife even though it would normally be just outside the common no-tolerance Harassment policy. Unless it was taken at the wedding, or in/near a religious monument. I can wear gauge earrings, or just a little star… as long as it’s not a Star of David. Ditto with pendants, even new-agey wooowooo pendants, as long as it’s not a pentagram. There’s no path there that isn’t hypocritical.
Freedom of religion and freedom from religion go hand-in-hand, and it’s not always an easy relationship to figure out. Forced private secularism is its own anti-freedom problem, even when discussing the employee at a government workplace. It’s not really secular if I’m forbidden from wearing something for solely religious reasons. Even if the religious reason is that the thing I want to wear is religious.
I’d say there is a difference between politics and regular hobbies at the workplace. Religion is a very political issue, one about your worldview and beliefs.
From a political point of view, irreligion is religion. Telling every single person who works at a location how they are or aren’t allowed to peacably express their religious views or lack thereof is a religious action by government. By definition, not secularism.
It’s ok (-ish) to actively seek an atheist state, but it’s duplicitous to do it under the guise of secularism. The separation of Church and government (secularism) most accurately means that government “make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting its free exercise”. I hate to go all “Murica”, but the concept is secularism is often tied to that prior quote. How is telling people they can’t wear a cross or pentacle or anything in between anything but “prohibiting its free exercise”?
Is that a trick question? Because my answer is a resounding yes.
That’s what capitalism wants. They want their leaders and ceos to be their gods.
No they can not ban you, but they can ban your cross.
If you can’t live without your cross, that is on you.
Technically, covering your “naughty bits” is a religious taboo. Can they ban that?
Other people are calling that a slippery slope, but crosses as symbols absolutely transcend religions as much as clothing as a religious moral.
thing is most peoplenIknoew, when they wear a cross or smt, it’s not even a big deal for them, theyre just just wearing, doesn’t mean they are going to siddenly start talking to you about religion.
Those people aren’t the problem. The people who can’t even take that little step of taking the cross off are the problem. Religion should be kept out of matters of state.
Religion should be kept out of matters of state.
Demanding someone remove jewelry because you don’t approve of its religious connotations is not secularism. It’s the opposite.
If religion is kept out of matters of state, state needs to be blind to religion, not zealously purging all signs of it.
Just wear it under your shirt.
No, it’s not on you, that’s against the rules now
like banning lgbtq people from kissing outside cause it makes others uncomfortable.
We’re talking about bans in workplaces here. And I think that your example is fitting. If a workplace can ban people kissing (or wearing a pyjama then it should be allowed to ban religion affiliated clothing as well. That sad, I do be live that in most cases employers shouldn’t be allowed to ban these things. If you end up working with your boyfriend and occasionally share a short kiss, that’s not going to affect your work and if you’re able to do your job in your PJs, then you should be allowed to do so.
The title is false, it’s only a judgment in court on whether member states should be allowed to ban such visible signs for public servants or should be deprived of that right.
Yeah, it’s one less freedom for the citizens(, and more freedom for the member states), but as someone (still )living in France it’s probably for our security or whatever(, this says it’s our guarantee for freedom).
It’s not worse than when they killed the Church, religion is too important and now it’s gone, and our lives ~solely guided by/for virtue/‘(the city of )God’ with it, they can ban all religions now for all i care, religion’s places aren’t for the private lives only, it shine’s/d’ mostly when it’s the main pillar of our state. What is supposed to guide us when it’s gone, the “realism” of a selfish quest for power ? No consequences for sinning if you’re not caught(, since morality is relative/inexistant) ? Looking at “our” feet, satisfied, instead of the humiliating highness of the skies/Sky ?
What is religion if not realising we’ll never be enough because our eyes ‘look at’/‘are searching for’ Perfection/Maximum ? We killed our link with God and replaced it with idols, our downfall was announced and our decadence has been visible in the last centuries, poets were the first to disappear, we’re so decadent that we don’t even realize that people from the past wrote hundreds of time better than us, the scientific explosion was already unstoppable before the XVIIIth century, it isn’t linked in any way to our destruction of the benevolent Church.
It’ll just be one more deserved downfall after all, i wouldn’t cry over it if we didn’t try to bring others down with us, the sooner we disappear the better, we’ve long assumed our dishonesty in the name of “realism” or whatever, we’re not christians, nor are we even trying to be, it’s for irrealist goody-two-shoes, not for serious people, and i’m fed up currently, there are still a vast majority of good people but i’m angry, hopefully it’ll pass like all things, are we even trying to build a better world ? What’s our plan/vision ? What am i supposed to support here, capitalist “democracy” with depoliticized citizens and owned private medias, what else ? The “rule of law” that changes according to whoever obtained power/wealth ? What else, our innemurable murderous ventures in every single non-western country in the last 100 years, and irrecoverable cultural annihilation through colonisation before that ? Our propaganda against “unfree” “regimes” needing to be liberated ? What am i supposed to support if we’re not even aiming&acting for a better world for all ? It doesn’t seem like we’re trying, just a nationalistic “America/France/… first” all around, short-term visions and widespread fear&hate, not any ounce of love towards our designated enemies, no plan for living in a mutual peace, what makes us on the right side if not our pitiful/disdainful lies against our so-called enemies ? If we(sterners) don’t support humanity then why would i support us ? Our duty is to make a better world for all, not for our group, neo-colonialism is a shame, and we’re lying about it like with so many other things, it’s not clever to lie we’re so despicable, we should help each other, for real, we should f*cking change, now. If not our downfall is to be hoped for, and the rest of humanity should cheer for it if it means the advent of a better world for all of us.Shit tier take, with no nuance and a dashing of embedded prejudice.
what bad does it do to other people
Religion is a cancer, the quicker we kill it, the better society will be. In other words, religion does a lot of bad by being propagated.
Shit tier take, with no nuance and a dashing of embedded prejudice.
Religion is a cancer, the quicker we kill it, the better society will be.
Bruuh. I am not saying you are wrong, but you are criticizising what you are doing yourself by a much stronger margin.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Athiesm is a cancer, the quicker we kill it, the better society will be. In other words, Athiesm does a lot of bad by being propagated.
Listen to yourself. You’re no better than an Islamic terrorist wanting to slaughter infidels.
You need to learn to distinguish between belief and people holding that belief, but maybe you are getting that wrong on purpose.
No. I’m thinking logically. The only way to kill the belief would be to kill the people who hold it.
Have you heard of the concept of changing your mind or even changing your world view? Or even just the concept of preventing the people who currently hold the belief from passing it on to the next generation?
So does that mean you can change your world view too? 😂
Sure, give me some evidence that the world doesn’t work the way I think it does and I can change it.
Removed by mod
“It’s not religious, it’s just a nice shape”
Religious head scarves are worn in a distinct style that immediately give them away. You’re not disguising one of those as a simple accessory.
Removed by mod
In Spain religious symbols in public workplaces, official places and buildings are banned since years. You will see them only in religios buildings and churches, maybe in some old monuments.
So are headscarves for non-religious women going to be banned too? What about other modest clothing?
Are headscarves for men going to be banned?
I’m really curious to see what ends up getting caught in these laws.
Like Sikh turbans and Emerati ghutra? Yeah, I wonder too.
I assumed those were going to be banned in religious grounds too.
No, I just mean just a bearded hipster dude with a piece of cloth on his head looking all groovy and shit.
Are bandanas a trend again? Not really professional attire tbh but gen z is full of surprises.
“In the workplace” is the thin end of the wedge. Wait for “in government buildings” and “near schools”, before an actual honest to God ban.
Orthodox Jews banned from public workplaces is not a good look tbqhwy.
But they’re not banned, religious clothing is
These bans are making someone choose between their religious convictions and employment.
And a choice is not a ban.
Give me all your money or I kill you. It’s not a ban on your finances, coercion, extortion or whatever bad words exist. You can just choose not to live. It’s a choice, your choice : )
Its not a real choice. It is meant to reduce the number of people of certain religious affiliations from public workplaces aka ban them.
Consider if the “choice” given women was between presenting male and giving up their jobs. Or not to be considered for a job. It would in effect ban women because they would either have to give up their gender identity at least for the duration of the work or not work there.
Likewise here it would be allowed to make the denunciation of ones religious convictions a job requirement. It’s atrocious.
It’s stupid. I agree.
If an Islam woman not in hijab starts wearing headscarves everyday just as a fashion anyway, theoretically it’s not a religious whatever. So what’s the point those far right idiots are making.
I would love so much to see headscarves and hair wraps become a trend just to fuck with this law.
Are they religious symbols?
If I can’t judge women by their cover, I’m gonna need them all to get naked.
How could I tell apart an islamic and an atheist headscarf? My mother often wore one in the 1960s and 70s, as was the fashion back then.
I mean, it’s more about code of vestment. Let’s say the code of certain workplace say that you have to have your face fully visible, you can’t wear anything that obstructs your face, if religious symbols were allowed you can justify yourself with “religious obligation”, the “atheist headscarf” was banned from the start
Headscarves don’t obstruct the face they only cover the hair and the neck. Virtually no type of work is obstructed by this.
Let’s take it this to the extreme; if a workplace starts demanding everyone to work in a bikini would this be acceptable?
if a workplace starts demanding everyone to work in a bikini would this be acceptable?
If the workplace is a bikini modelling agency or a beach bar probably yes. Most of those are not run by governments though.
France recently banned the Abaya from schools which is just a long dress.
If only short dresses are allowed in schools because “we need to ban religion” then following this exact logic they could just ban all dresses next.
Following that just make all girls go to school in bikinis because “religious people wear clothes”.
In Africa there’s tribes with women who aren’t even wearing anything on their chest because that’s where those women believe the line should be. From a secular point of view would you also accept it if teenage girls started going to school without clothes?
It is dishonest to claim the Abaya is “just a long dress” or the headscarf is just an accessory. Maybe it can be worn someday in the future like that. But right now it is a religious symbol and people wear it because of specific cultural and religious beliefs. It’s that what the law is targeting.
And maybe also in the future people can go naked wherever they like. But right now, we are not there yet but we already understand that it is not right to indoctrinate people into believing women have to go to great lengths to hide their bodies and if they don’t do that they are less “chaste”.
Ah the slippery slope boogaloo. The laziest and most useless of arguments.
It proves itself to be less of a fallacy that people make it out to be lmao
There is no slippery slope. We are talking about clothes and your completely arbitrary interpretation of what is right and wrong. For which you do not seem to hold any logical moral consistency other than RELIGION BADDDDD
deleted by creator
Just hope the 60s and 70s don’t come back, I guess? Or not care?
Edit: Okay, I really need to stop posting things right after waking up. I’m sorry; I hadn’t read the article. Hadn’t realized it focused on those. I suppose my answer still kinda works, though. Partially sarcastically, maybe. Bring back 60s/70s fashions to troll the clothes-banners and expect them to chill? I’m having a really hard time caring about other people’s clothes at the moment and don’t see why people think they have a right to dress others.
I prefer the “not care”.
Get a picture and ask enough people to get a statistically significant result. The meaning of a symbols is defined by what people think it means and of course that can change with place and time. Hence in Europe the headscarf would be religious now but not back then.
From the article:
Conclusion In the light of the foregoing considerations, I propose that the Court answer as follows the questions referred for a preliminary ruling by the tribunal du travail de Liège (Labour Court, Liège, Belgium):
(1) Article 2(2)(a) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted to mean that a provision of a public body’s terms of employment which prohibits employees from wearing any visible sign of political, philosophical or religious belief in the workplace, with the aim of putting in place an entirely neutral administrative environment, does not constitute, with regard to employees who intend to exercise their freedom of religion and conscience through the visible wearing of a sign or an item of clothing with religious connotations, direct discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief, for the purposes of that directive, provided that that provision is applied
(2) Article 2(2)(b) of Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted to mean that a difference of treatment indirectly based on religion or belief arising from a provision of a public body’s terms of employment which prohibits employees from wearing any visible sign of political, philosophical or religious belief in the workplace may be justified by that body’s desire to put in place an entirely neutral administrative environment, provided, first, that that desire responds to a genuine need on the part of that body, which it is for that body to demonstrate; second, that that difference of treatment is appropriate for the purpose of ensuring that that desire is properly realised; and, third, that that prohibition is limited to what is strictly necessary.
deleted by creator
Religious symbols where they belong, in churches, temples and religious institutions, in public places, administrations, public libraries, schools and universities have absolutely nothing to do with, there they can result in offense or discrimination for people of another or no faith. Sad politicians making an oath on the Bible (in Spain they do it on the constitution, without additions like “with the help of God”). Religion is a true social backwardness, the proof is theocracies, there are none in the world where basic human rights are respected and where social progress is possible.
