- cross-posted to:
- canada@lemmy.ca
- cross-posted to:
- canada@lemmy.ca
You must log in or register to comment.
I agree that everything else on the list was shit, but Quebec… banning religious symbols for public sector workers honestly sounds like a good idea to me as long as it’s fairly applied. If they use it to disproportionately target muslims or something and allow Christian shit, then yea I’d agree it’s bad - but a blanket ban on religion while you’re representing the government sounds great to me.
It unfairly targets religious headdresses.
And here I was, planning to wear my wimple to work….
I wish I had enough faith in our governments to be surprised by this news
That is not unfair.
You work for the government, you can’t show religious involvement, any at all. Separation of church and state as such. If your religion doesn’t allow you to be without religious clothes or artefacts then maybe you shouldn’t work for the government.
Just because you’re wearing a turban or hijab for your religion doesn’t mean you can’t work a government job.
Exactly.
You just have to take it off.
If you don’t, you’ll also have to allow full burkhas, and sorry, not sorry, that is so far over the line that the line becomes a dot.
If you’re stuck in believing faerytales, that’s fine, to each their own poison, but you don’t get to display it in government positions. Or school positions, for that matter.
Can I ask why?
I’ve heard some people argue it’s because religious views can conflict with a job, but if that’s the case, the issue is the employee’s not doing their job not their religion. Lots of beliefs can conflict with a job, and if that’s the case, a person has to decide whether they want to keep their job or not.
Another argument is that simply the presentation of religious symbols in public is offensive to some, but that seems to be an extreme version of “Safe Spaces” while just skipping over tonnes of preceding steps.
Also, it seems convenient the whiter the religion, the less likely their are to require their worshipers to wear expressions of faith. On the other hand, religions like Islam and Sikhism that just happen to be practiced by more brown people require outward expressions of their faith. So a Christian who is super faithful, goes to mass daily and spends all their free time in prayer can work for the government as long as they keep their cross under their shirt, while a Sikh who might not be all that religious has to decide if they want to risk being shunned from their community.
P.S. Separation of church and state means those organizations shouldn’t influence each other, not that individuals can only be involved in one or the other.
Because frankly, religions are made up nonsense. I stopped believing in Santa Claus with I was 8 or so. Why are there still adults believing in magical sky beings? More importantly, why do we all act as if this is normal, actually still the norm, and all agree that it’s something untouchable even when it’s clearly evil and not for the betterment of humanity?
Seriously, if you think about it for even a second, it makes no sense. What does make sense is that religions are widely and pretty much exclusively used by those in charge to control those that follow the religion.
The church of the flying spaghetti monster (FSM) exists for a reason: It shows how easy it is to make up some nonsense and fly with it. You want to allow religious clothes? Then you have to allow me to wear a spaghetti strainer on my head as it’s the official wear for followers of FSM.
What, you don’t allow it because FMA is made up nonsense? Well, I got bad news for you… Christianity is also made up, same as Islam, same as Scientology, same as Hinduism, same as all religions. If you start looking at religions you can see how one influences the next, and so on… The stories of Jesus and Horus are really very similar.
Simple fact: there is exactly zero scientific evidence that any supernatural person or entity exists, there is tonnes of evidence that we have all made it up, and continue to believe in it for… Reasons?
And yes, religion always exerts its influence. Merely displaying religious wear is to show what you think and want. Do you think I’d be able to have a free discussion about human rights for women with a government official wearing a burka?
So with all that in mind, do I have to sit and look at your religious wear because you somehow failed to grow up? How far should we let that go? I’ve seen multiple arguments that Muslim women should be allowed to wear burkas. Are you going to sit at a government office in front of somebody you can’t even see because she is 100% covered, even the eyes? Should we allow it a step further, allow that in class rooms (yes, I’ve seen cases for that too)? How about then the next step where they will demand that they can only interact with women because their god demands it?
You might think that these are edge cases but that is what’s att he core of this issue. If you allow one, you HAVE to allow all. I say: allow none. If you wan tto work for the government, if you want to work at a school, you wear and express no religion, period. It’s the easy and fair solution. Again, if your religion doesn’t allow you, that’s on your religion, not your government.
And if you allow your fantasy wear, then you have to allow mine too, or start defining what religion is real and what not and I would LOVE to see that debate…
I’d argue the opposite for one reason only - so that I can identify idiots, bigots and terrible people on sight. Any person in government that is causing me problems and showing religious garb? Kick it up to a supervisor if I think I can tie it to poor decision making based on goat-herder values from over 2000 years ago.
Wow. That is quite the vitriolic rant.
Then you have to allow me to wear a spaghetti strainer on my head as it’s the official wear for followers of FSM.
Let’s be honest, if you want to wear a colander, I’m not sure I see an issue with it. Just remember, by Quebec law, Pastafarians can’t follow their traditions, yet Christians can.
Are you going to sit at a government office in front of somebody you can’t even see because she is 100% covered, even the eyes? Should we allow it a step further, allow that in class rooms (yes, I’ve seen cases for that too)?
I’m not seeing how this is an issue, like at all. And even if it was, what’s the issue with other religious garb?
How about then the next step where they will demand that they can only interact with women because their god demands it?
You’re making a straw-man argument here. No, we do not allow people to hold positions if they can’t fulfill the requirements. Sometimes, we have to review whether the requirements are ethnocentric, but I think it’s good that we question rules and regulations to decide whether their accurate to the requirements. In the case you’re laying out, I’m almost certain they would be considered unsuitable for the job.
In general, your argument seems to be, “I hate religion, so I approve of any law that screws over practitioners.” That doesn’t seem very logical. Can you put your emotions aside, and actually explain why government workers should be banned from wearing religious garb?
You read it all yet completely missed or ignored the point.
Religions are ALL make belief, sometimes based on nonsense written thousands of years ago, sometimes nonsense written just a few decades or even years ago. There is zero evidence of any supernatural part of any religion nbeinh even remotely true or having happened.
Religions have not brought a net positive to this world. The majority of wars have been over religious differences, it leads to discrimination and suppression. It has been used to justify the most terrible horrors this world has seen, it has been and is continues to be used to control people.
These two facts combined makes it something that may not ans cannot even remotely touch government, education, healthcare and other areas of civil life.
Religions people either mix their religion one way or another into their work because that is what religion dictates. I do not want your stone age or modern myths and fables in a class room, I don’t want to have to talk about humna rights to someone whose religion requires him to suppress the rights of other (that would be just about every religion out there)
Call is a vitriolic rant.if you will, I’m still right. That straw man argument actually is based on news reports about doctors not wanting to treat certain patients. Same in the US there are loads of doctors who are unable to disentangle their religious nutjob beliefs from their professional duty and use religion to discriminate.
Do I really need to make a more comprehensive list of the negative effects of religion on humanity? Don’t make me go there.
If you work at the government, medicine, schools… You shouldn’t be allowed to display any religious symbols, and if it were up to be I’d require those jobs to be atheist only. If you still haven’t passed the stage where you’re 5 years old and make belief fables are real to you, then you have no place in auch jobs. Grow. Up.
Oh man, reading your comment just gave me 90s vibes. That was the peak when atheism was quite controversial. Nowadays, it is a bit weird if someone does practice a religion. Religious beliefs are not an innate trait, but a choice, at least in the West. We should be actively discouraging people from being religious in the same way we discourage misogyny, racism, etc. I’m very uncomfortable with some of the comments in this thread that suggest that discouraging the wearing of religious symbols is some form of crypto-racism. Religion is a completely different category and we need to be able to criticize it harshly and relentlessly without the suggestion that it is a type of racism.
I grew up with the four Horsemen of the apocalypse, Dennett, Hitchens, Dawkins, and Harris. Voices of reason that still linger, even though two of them passed away.
Given the Quebec flag is covered in Christian symbols and still flies at government buildings, no it’s not being applied fairly.
The fleur de lys is religious?
In addition to what @Openopenopenopen@lemmy.world said, if you look at the fleurs-de-lis wikipedia article, there’s a whole section titled “Religion and art”.
There is an argument that, “The Fleurdelisé is more cultural than religious,” but separating those two is extremely difficult. IMHO, it’s pretty ethnocentric to think symbols like that have become so ingrained in our culture that they are no longer religious, while assuming symbols like hijab are purely religious.
I looked up the wiki article on the flag. It looks like it is a Christian symbol. At least according to the article.
“The Fleurdelisé takes its white cross over a blue field from certain French flags of the Kingdom of France, namely the French naval flag as well as the French merchant flag. Its white fleurs-de-lis (symbolizing purity) and blue field (symbolizing heaven) come from a banner honouring the Virgin Mary;[6]
Any government banning any tax break for religion gets my vote forever.
:rips bong: huh
And I thought the beverton was just a satire website…
