World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
That's not what they are talking about. Basically, you can go two routes when ensuring that the state stays neutral in religious matters
You can go the US route and allow exceptions for anyone to live their religion (which leads to the aforementioned issues), or you can go down the route the EU court has just ruled alongside, which is "the state does not give a fuck about your religion", thus not granting any exceptions from workplace rules for religions at all. In botn cases, the state does not favour any religion or oppress anyone.
There is a third route, and that’s what the US actually does. You’re allowed to follow your religion within the requirements of the job. If you won’t issue gay marriage licenses, that’s cool but you can’t accept a job that requires issuing marriage licenses. Mormons and Muslims alike aren’t allowed to refuse to issue liquor licenses. But if a Muslim wants to wear hijab while issuing liquor licenses then they’re protected from persecution based on religion.
Christians keep trying to push the limits here and sometimes they get their way, but that’s part of our decent into christofascism, not the way we run our country
So "no state employee may wear religious symbols whatsoever" is "oppression" to you? How?
yes. and they do not give a fuck either way. Be religious, be not religious, we don't care. Besides, the court's ruling is in the article, so I assumed people knew what was up and thus would detect my hyperbole as such.
That is a very false dichotomy.
No, it's not imho. For there to be a middle ground, there would have to be comparable things across religions or any ruling would become unfair. Think about it: You allow religiously motivated head scarfs. Now some really, really old school Christian comes in and wants to wear their penitential robe to work. Now, of course the orthodox jews want to wear their clothing as well, but their locks are dangerous at the worksite because they might get caught in some hard hat or something and you can't allow that. Now Christians and Muslims have a permission the Jews don't get. What do you give to the Jews instead? And if you give them something else, the others will claim they want something along those lines as well. So in order for the state to stay neutral in religious quesions, there are only two possibilities: Allow it all, or grant no special status whatsoever.
If there isn't a specific reason that something cannot be worn, such as a safety concern or an obstruction to others, then it should be allowed by default. A headscarf doesn't affect anyone. Same way a kippah doesn't affect anyone.
That is completely non-comparable to denying someone service on the basis of religion. And the idea that the only two options are allow religious people to discriminate on the basis of their religion, or ban all clothing that indicates religion, is a false dichotomy.
I think we have an issue at the very start. The underlying motive is: The state cannot be biased towards any religion whatsoever. Now there is a rule that employees aren't allowed to wear head coverings at work (for whatever reason)
So if one religion is allowed to claim special status for their head covering (Head scarf), can an orthodox jew wear their hat? Can someone believing in druidism wear antlers to work?
And what is with people who happen to have no religion they believe in. Why are they granted less rights by the state than the religious people?
So: Which other possibilities does a state have to resolve this besides
a) allow it all
b) deny "religion" as justification for any exceptions (Meaning "you cannot cite religious reasons for anything")
To be clear here: the second option is not "ban religious symbols alltogether", it's "we have our rules, there is no way for you to get an exception with the reason 'religion'"
And maybe that rule is the stupid one.
Except it isn't necessarily claiming a special status.
The argument can simply be that the headwear ban should be removed, unless there is good reason for it. So yes, anyone can wear any headwear, so long as it doesn't interfere with the task at hand or other people. The antlers would probably fall afoul of those requirements.
They wouldn't be. The removal of a ban doesn't somehow mean that atheists have fewer rights. They'd be allowed to wear their desired headwear too.
Still a false dichotomy here.
The option is not to allow "religion" to be used as an exception, but rather set rules that are permissive to everyone, including religious people, within the limits of the task at hand and inconvenience to other people.
A headwear ban is pretty clearly discriminatory towards Muslim people, and probably also to certain Jewish people though I'm not 100% sure of that. The goal should not be to give them exceptions, but rather rethink the headwear rule.
What you are describing is my variant number 2. If the rule by itself is dumb or not is another matter.
I tried to describe my second path poorly perhaps. Let's try with a made up dialogue.
First variant how a state can be fair towards all religions:
Employee: Hey boss, I want an exception for the "no hats" rule because a head scarf is my religion
Boss: Of course, "religion" is always a valid reason to get an exception, since I can't judge how much we'd interfere with your religion if we deny that
Second variant:
Employee: Hey boss, I want an exception for the "no hats" rule because a head scarf is my religion
Boss: Your religion you say? Yeah, that's not anything we care about, honestly. If your head scarf had a medical use, there'd be an exception, but "religion" is not what we accept. You cannot be allowed to wear a headdress because "it's your religion", our rules apply to everyone equally.
No. It's not another matter. It's the entire matter. That's my point.
I know what I described is your second option. But I'm deliberately putting the focus on the original rule, because that is where the problem lies.
The rule disproportionately affects people who wear headwear. The rule basically makes that job inaccessible to those whose religion requires headwear. The rule is discriminatory in its effect, even if not in its wording or intention. So the appropriate action is to rethink the rule. If there is no strong reason why the rule exists, and it has these discriminatory effects, then the rule should change.
Oh, I wholeheartedly agree that any rule that infringes on the freedom of expression of people should be able to be challenged and I agree that there are rules that only exist to please old "but in my time people still had manners" people and that those rules should go away immediately. Yet, that's not what the court was asked to decide here. The EU-court doesn't really decide on cases themselves usually, but it gets asked by lower courts to rule on matters of interpretation. So they didn't rule if the "no hats" rule should go, they were asked if such a rule - if it exists - is applicable to religious hats or if the right to religious freedom protects such symbols. So they rule on half-theoretical questions that are often narrower than the case itself.
A little addition:
The "no hats" rule in this case wasn't a "no hats" rule, but a "no religious symbols are allowed to be worn by anybody" rule. The court saw such a rule as justified because it did not discriminate against specific religions or symbols.
And I find that very structure harmful. Because by formulating the question asked of the court in a specific way, then limiting the answers it can give to only that question, you can force these kinds of discriminatory judgements while pretending that that wasn't the point.
The court should be able to say, as part of the ruling, that while exemptions should not be given on religious grounds, justification for rules that are considered to infringe on religious freedoms may be asked for.
We can easily give a reason why discrimination should not be allowed while serving the public, and similarly why antlers cannot be worn in a workshop.
Which is ridiculous because a hypothetical religion could use pants as a symbol of their faith and suddenly pants are banned.
We should absolutely do that! A rule like that is usually just not enforced at best and leads to utter confusion at worst.... idk what the people who made the rule thought they were doing.
They can absolutely do that. The court is not like "Yeah, we know this is bullshit but hey, they omitted that part in their question, so shrug". They ruled that the rule was okay, since the rule itself is not discriminating, since all religions are treated the same. They do absolutely look at the case itself, they will just not issue rulings on the case itself since that
a) is in the jurisdiction of the member state
b) depends on the specific norms of the member state the case was filed in which the EU court just may not know completely (they may be able to rule on the EU-wide laws, but they might not be able to judge how the punishment for someone should be in Spain or something)
So the structure is actually pretty beneficial if you look at the structure of the EU.
Or place reasonable scrutiny. “You can wear yarmulkes but no hair can extend below X location, the same applies for everyone and to head coverings. Also no flowing clothes for similar reasons this is a worksite and safety regulations must take precedence over religious garb”
"We don't care about your religion, but we DO care about requiring you to show your hair" seems like a silly stance to take...
Because it is, and the commenter you are replying to is making it seem like it's even remotely comparable to denying service to someone because of religious conviction (eg. Denying a marriage license to a same-sex couple).
Except it's not, unless people are somehow offended by a woman covering her hair.
It's not uncommon for a specific case to set a larger legal precedent; it's basically how the USSC works.
Yes, this particular case is about a head covering, but the ruling applies to visible religious paraphernalia in general.
Sorry, what is the USSC?
United States Ship California
It does, it just favors the dominant ethno-religous complex. Much of the western proffesional dress code has basis in christian ideals of modesty. These cultural signifiers don't occur to us though as they're so normalized. If you came to work dressed like Angela from the office you wouldn't be cited because the dress code was written with that attire in mind and people view it as normal. You'll be cited if you violate those ideas of modesty, eg. Showing midriff, or having different views on modesty, eg. A head scarf.
If you want to say it's completely neutral you'll have to exorcise all christian biases and assumptions from western culture, which they dont seem to be doing here.