this post was submitted on 28 Nov 2023
401 points (97.0% liked)
Europe
8484 readers
3 users here now
News/Interesting Stories/Beautiful Pictures from Europe πͺπΊ
(Current banner: Thunder mountain, Germany, π©πͺ ) Feel free to post submissions for banner pictures
Rules
(This list is obviously incomplete, but it will get expanded when necessary)
- Be nice to each other (e.g. No direct insults against each other);
- No racism, antisemitism, dehumanisation of minorities or glorification of National Socialism allowed;
- No posts linking to mis-information funded by foreign states or billionaires.
Also check out !yurop@lemm.ee
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
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.
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.
-π€‘
good talk
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.
There is nothing wrong with banning dangerous ideologies and their symbols.
So you want religion banned across the board? If its a dangerous ideology surely simply banning it in public workplaces is insufficient but any religious institution, place of congregation, text or item ought to be confiscated and rooted out
Edit: also lets be clear here, by dangerous ideology you are not referring to all religions because these bans affect some religions more than others and very conveniently not the predominant one, but the one constantly maligned and singled out as a "dangerous ideology".
No, just dangerous ideologies (which include all major religions). Religions like pastafarism or the satanic temple are totally fine.
What means dangerous in this case? And what makes the major religions dangerous?
Just it's regular textbook definition.
Claiming a monopolity on truth, indoctrinating people with lies, promiting homophobia, xenophobia, rape, violence, slavery, etc.
Most governments indoctrinate their people with lies. Christianity and islam and strongly against xenophobia (I don't have much knowledge about judaism, so can't speak for or against it). Same goes for rape. Slavery is legal to this day in the USA for example.
I hope you can see my point, that standing on the moral basis of the modern western societies can make it seem like people, who live their lifes following different rules, may be "backwards" or "morally inferior" but you are lacking the logical foundation to claim something like that.
I agree, but one wrong doesn't justify another one.
Not sure there is much of a point. Morality in an entirly human invented concept, no one has any fundation for it other than their personal believes. If I believe people that follow religious rules are backwards that claim is just as logical founded as a religions person thinking I'm am infidel that will burn in hell. It's all made up. Some of the made up stories are just way stupider than others.
If you agree that humans alone can't claim what is universally right and wrong, then that is a first step towards religion, but I will leave that aside.
It seems like you agree that you have no basis on which to claim, with a degree of authority, that someone has to adjust their actions in your vicinity. If you don't contest this then I will leave this discussion, as you have confirmed, that you can't just forbid others from dressing in a certain way.
If you do not agree then I would like to understand how you can say that "morality is an entirely human inventes concept, no one has any foundation for it..." and then go on to say that somehow you can in fact impose your morality on others, as I understood it because their "made up stories are just way stupider than others"? According to which scale? One that does suddenly pop out of nowhere and is absolute for all humans?
I've read most of your respones in this thread and have deemed them thoroughly thought out.
So religions are not inherently dangerous ideologies but some of them are.
By what criteria should a government decide which religions should be banned?
I'd start with looking through their club charters and apply general hate speech rules.
But we are talking about banning an entire religion and any symbol or item associated with it from the public and workplace, not some clubs and their signage. My question is how should a government decide if e.g. christianity as a religion is a dangerous ideology, and should therefore be banned, or whether it isn't? We are not talking about banning some clubs here, but your claim that some religions are inherently so dangerous that any religious display or symbolism should be banned from the public and workplace. And presumably since they are so dangerous probably ought to be banned in entirety.
Same way they decide which terrorist groups and nazi organisation are dangerous. You look at their fucking charters/book/scripture and the actions of their members.
Do all of the organisations of that religion need to be dangerous to warrant a ban on the entire religion or just some clubs? The biggest clubs, the most clubs, whats the criteria here? What about people practicing that religion that do not belong to any religious organisation?
Again you are proposing banning an entire religion, that means places of worship, religious texts and items and removal of any public display of these religions because they are deemed as dangerous as nazis. So it stands to reason that any building or statue that displays the same religious symbols ought to be demolished or vandalised to the point where it can no longer be recognized as a building of that religion.
How should a government judge a religion as worthy of such persecution as the nazis?
edit: maybe via an example. Tell me which religions you want the government to ban and why.
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.
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.
Why should someone bring their religious beliefs to work?
Why not? If you are looking to diminish someone's right you need a better reason than "I don't like it". If you are looking to restrict someone's rights you need to give a reason not the other way around.
Let me give you an example of what I would think would be a good argumentation. I think we should illegalize circumcision. While this would restrict a parents right to raise their children with the religion of their choosing, circumcision goes against the childs right to be free from bodily harm which trumps the parents right to raise their children in the religion they see fit. The protection of a third persons rights is in my opinion a valid reason to diminish someones right.
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.