Europe

8488 readers

1 users here now

News/Interesting Stories/Beautiful Pictures from Europe 🇪🇺

(Current banner: Thunder mountain, Germany, 🇩🇪 ) 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

poVoq@slrpnk.net

France to ban female students from wearing abayas in state schools (www.bbc.com)

submitted 1 year ago by AbaixoDeCao@lemm.ee to c/europe@feddit.de

141 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Akasazh@feddit.nl 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Where I would draw the line with clothing and messages is when the messages are about other people. Wearing clothing showing you are a strict christian? Fine. Wearing a shirt that says: death to all non-vegans? Not fine. Even though I personally like vegans way more than christians.

Agree, but theres a nuance. For instance if I have a Bad Religion shirt with an upside-down cross or satanistic metal shirts (which people at my school definately wore) I don't mean that to kill or harm all people that are catholic. If I wear a swastika or an confedrerate flag then I'm probably getting sent home (for obvious reasons). Not all messages are the same.

Totally. But the rules should apply to everyone equaly. If there are no muslim signs, not even gestures like that dress allowed, then no crosses, no fishes, nothing christian should be tolerated either.

I agree fully.

I think that those two things are not comparable though. A religious building is dedicated to one specific religion. I would consider it offensive to go there uninvited and showing your disbelief in this religion.

I differ on this. In school one is explained the scientific method. Even if one is atheist, one would have to agree that that is a certain belief system, however different from theist belief it is. For this to work, one should al least respect the fundamentals of scientific thought. One can see in the USA how things go if you let religious nutcases get away with pruning the colloquia. A school is dedicated to that task, so needs to be afforded the same level of respect. So when in school one doesn't religion (of any kind)

That’s true, but it’s also a very human thing to do. I wouldn’t fault them for being a bit rebellious if they are staying inside the rules.

It is, however its also a bit of a lesson about how to learn hwo to behave . The rules need to be even, like you said, a catholic or jewish person can now technically wield a token solely to grieve their muslim co-students and that is unacceptable.

But I wouldn’t mind people showing that they are catholic, with the same restrictions as every other topic. Don’t actively annoy me with it

Ideally, sure. But if there is a signalling 'struggle' taking place between different groups, which sows division, I'd argue that that freedom is not earned yet.

[–] Killing_Spark@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Agree, but theres a nuance. [...] Not all messages are the same.

Oh most definitely! It's not easy to exactly define that line.

I differ on this. In school one is explained the scientific method. Even if one is atheist, one would have to agree that that is a certain belief system, however different from theist belief it is. For this to work, one should al least respect the fundamentals of scientific thought. One can see in the USA how things go if you let religious nutcases get away with pruning the colloquia. A school is dedicated to that task, so needs to be afforded the same level of respect. So when in school one doesn’t religion (of any kind)

I think you are mixing two things here: Showing your religious belief and letting people of that belief influence the colloquia (or any other important decision). Firstly: Just showing your religion does not mean you want to influence others to conform to your beliefs. Secondly: Hardliners can still influence the decision making even if they hide their beliefs. If anything it's easier to spot why someone does what they do, and more closely monitor their decisions, when they show colors.

It is, however its also a bit of a lesson about how to learn hwo to behave . The rules need to be even, like you said, a catholic or jewish person can now technically wield a token solely to grieve their muslim co-students and that is unacceptable.

Well as far as I understand it, they were already allowed to wear crosses and kippas so I don't see how that would make a difference.

But I wouldn’t mind people showing that they are catholic, with the same restrictions as every other topic. Don’t actively annoy me with it

Ideally, sure. But if there is a signalling ‘struggle’ taking place between different groups, which sows division, I’d argue that that freedom is not earned yet.

I don't think that signalling struggle is happening, and even if it were, just banning signalling from one side is definitely not the way to go, and I'd argue even banning all sides from signalling isn't the way to go, it's in my opinion not compatible with the right to express yourself freely.

[–] Akasazh@feddit.nl 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Firstly: Just showing your religion does not mean you want to influence others to conform to your beliefs. Secondly: Hardliners can still influence the decision making even if they hide their beliefs.

Sure. My point being more along the lines of respecting the institution. If there's certain rules set, one should abide by them, no matter what religion.

Well as far as I understand it, they were already allowed to wear crosses and kippas so I don’t see how that would make a difference.

I've read some more on this. Kippas are banned as well. Crosses as well, but they tend to be condoned, and in that lies the mistake. The same rules apply for every bit of signalling. Now a crucifix pendant is more easily hidden than an headscarf or a kippah, but that's an enforcement issue.

I’d argue even banning all sides from signalling isn’t the way to go, it’s in my opinion not compatible with the right to express yourself free

Ideaogically I'm in agreement. I mean wearing a bad religion shirt is ok in my book, hell even a Charlie Hebdo Mohammed pic would be ok for me, but the murder of Samuel Paty shows that those aren't the same. I think that last part weighs in on this whole discussion.

[–] Killing_Spark@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Sure. My point being more along the lines of respecting the institution. If there’s certain rules set, one should abide by them, no matter what religion. [ ... ] Crosses as well, but they tend to be condoned, and in that lies the mistake.

I guess but you cant fault people to try to get around the rules if other people are allowed to get around them. You yourself say that that is the original issue, so I don't think only adressing the abayas is a good way to go about things, it's at most fighting the symptoms.

Kippas are banned as well I'd be surprised if that is enforced, but I have a german viewpoint on this and we tend to be a bit touchier with restricting jewish habits than other countries. So it could very well be that only christians get to wear their crosses.

One interesting thing would be the traditional hair style jewish males might display. I'm honestly interested where you stand on that. Or lets take the face tatoos that some people of indigenous heritage might display. Just things that aren't easily changed or hidden. What would you do about that? I know the face tatoos are a thing that isn't likely to be an issue because they are rare but I wanted to give another example besides hair styles.

Ideaogically I’m in agreement. I mean wearing a bad religion shirt is ok in my book, hell even a Charlie Hebdo Mohammed pic would be ok for me

This strikes me as a bit odd. You don't want to allow people showing that they belong to a certain religion but you want to allow people to openly criticise peoples religions? It's still communication about religion but just in a different way right?

but the murder of Samuel Paty shows that those aren’t the same. I think that last part weighs in on this whole discussion.

I agree that extremistic views and actions of extremists are weighing on this discussion, and I'd agree that islamists are currently the bigger immediate threat, compared to other extreme religious groups. But I think we all should make a concient effort to separate violent extremists from normal religious people. The vast majority of muslims are peaceful people just like the vast majority of christians and atheists are peaceful people.