• bermuda@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    I agree. I’m American and live in an area with a large Indian immigrant diaspora and I’m able to “bond” with them just fine. Many of them wear religious symbols and wear every day, but they’re just normal people. They dress differently, but so do many non religious people also.

    • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      The specific religious traditions matter though. The context and rules surrounding covering of girls and women are a more problematic matter. The same goes for other religious practices that are rooted in values that have no place in a secular and more or less egalitarian state.

      • LazyKoala@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        You have a very odd understanding of what “secular state” means. It doesn’t mean that the state can dictate where or how you’re allowed to express you religion. It doesn’t mean that some parts of religion are to be tolerated, where as those that you see as bad can be forbidden at will.

        All it means, is that the state institutions, can’t force you to partake in a religion or activities related to that religion. Kids who voluntarily want to express their religion are free to do so. Whether that kid is forced into following that religion, is not an issue of a “secular state”.

        • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          It also means a certain collection of values. And having rules for girls and women that include them having to cover their hair and body “because religion” is going against those values.

          And yes, it absolutely does matter in a secular state whether people forcing their children into religious beliefs. At least in school the children should learn that these rules only exist in the minds of their parents or communities. Freedom also means to be free to choose. And grooming your children into religious practices is not freedom.

          • LazyKoala@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            You actually have no idea what you’re talking about, sorry.

            I’m glad we finally landed on Islam though, it shows that this law is supported by islamophobes and people like you are the perfect way to show this to the world.

            Just a one minute Google search and you could have saved yourself from this absolutely embarrassing answer. Here let me do it for you:

            A secular state is an idea pertaining to secularity, whereby a state is or purports to be officially neutral in matters of religion, supporting neither religion nor irreligion.[1] A secular state claims to treat all its citizens equally regardless of religion, and claims to avoid preferential treatment for a citizen based on their religious beliefs, affiliation or lack of either over those with other profiles.[2]

            Prohibiting people from expressing their religions is strictly anti secular.

            • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              You left a whole bunch of other stuff out when it comes to the discussion about secular states. I am not even sure if you even are interested in a discussion since you already brought up your first dead-end argument by trying to insult me. But I try anyway.

              A secular state is a group of values that aren’t set in stone but are loosely based on the idea to separate state and religion. So the question isn’t whether someone is an islamophobe or not. It’s whether or not you consider certain religious practices and symbols as crossing that line in certain contexts. The context here is schools, which aren’t your private home but a state institution.

              To give you examples what is not endangering this separation: Celebrating Ramadan, Christmas and other religious holidays, going to prayers in temples, mosques, churches, etc.

              What is definitely crossing the line in a secular state: Demanding that restaurant aren’t allowed to sell cow meat because of your religious beliefs, demanding that people have to go on a fast on Easter weekend.

              Stuff that gets discussed over an over again because it isn’t clear cut: Teaching girls that they need to hide their hair and bodies because of religion, circumcision of baby boys because of religion, forcing children to do a confession for their communion.

              For these and similar points you will find people who see it either way. Personally I think all of these shouldn’t be allowed in a secular state because it forces children into religious beliefs and all of these are potentially harmful or are a tool to separate “believers” from “non-believers”. It goes beyond your private life and touches laws and values that are part of the state.

              • LazyKoala@feddit.de
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                You left a whole bunch of other stuff out when it comes to the discussion about secular states.

                Yes I didn’t quite the entire Wikipedia page, but I think my quote should already point out the incompatibility between banning religious clothing and committing yourself to secularism. Just to be clear: I brought up the idea of secularism in context of the state pushing religion on its people. I wouldn’t even use it as an argument in this case. The best argument to make here is that France as a member of the EU has committed itself to freedom of religion and thus should have no say in how people dress in their public and private life. There have been valid exceptions (such as banning covering your face at protests, banks etc.) for safety reasons, but this clearly doesn’t apply here.

                Yes you’re right, imposing your views on others, does cross the line of a secular state. No one is asking that students have to cover their hair, it’s only demanded that they are allowed to do so. Equally crossing the line is the opposite, the state forcing it’s belief onto it’s people, by telling them they can’t express their religion in the form of religious clothing.

                It goes beyond your private life and touches laws and values that are part of the state.

                Apart from me mostly agreeing that the religious practices you mentioned suck, it doesn’t matter if it goes beyond your private life. Freedom of religion, me as you are free to express you religion in private **and public. ** You’re free to dislike it, but that’s what it is. Seeing people wearing Burkas, prayer beeds, crosses or whatever does not impact your freedom, even if it makes you uncomfortable. As I already mentioned, laws are a different issue. Of course religion is not above the law and of there are valid security concerns such as covering your face in a bank or a protest, there is no reason why the law should interfere with religion. A person wearing a dress at school, is definetly no such concern.

                • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  So you think parents should be allowed to impose rules onto their kids because of religious beliefs and we shouldn’t do anything about it? That is where I disagree. Kids don’t cover their bodies because they decided they want to. It’s a sexist and deeply conservative rule imposed onto them by their religious nutjob parents.

                  I don’t care whether grownups decide to follow whatever type of religious practices they wish. But indoctrination of children with sexist beliefs shouldn’t be allowed.

                  That’s my point you are completely missing in your mission trying to paint me as some kind of intolerant islamophobe.