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.
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.
Removed by mod
Oh most definitely! It’s not easy to exactly define that line.
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.
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 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.
Removed by mod
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.
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.
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?
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.
Removed by mod