405
EU states can ban religious symbols in public workplaces (www.bbc.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/europe@feddit.de
357 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] 11 points 2 years ago (8 children)

I mean, it's more about code of vestment. Let's say the code of certain workplace say that you have to have your face fully visible, you can't wear anything that obstructs your face, if religious symbols were allowed you can justify yourself with "religious obligation", the "atheist headscarf" was banned from the start

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] -4 points 2 years ago (7 children)

    Headscarves don't obstruct the face they only cover the hair and the neck. Virtually no type of work is obstructed by this.

    Let's take it this to the extreme; if a workplace starts demanding everyone to work in a bikini would this be acceptable?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] 11 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    if a workplace starts demanding everyone to work in a bikini would this be acceptable?

    If the workplace is a bikini modelling agency or a beach bar probably yes. Most of those are not run by governments though.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] -2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    France recently banned the Abaya from schools which is just a long dress.

    If only short dresses are allowed in schools because "we need to ban religion" then following this exact logic they could just ban all dresses next.

    Following that just make all girls go to school in bikinis because "religious people wear clothes".

    In Africa there's tribes with women who aren't even wearing anything on their chest because that's where those women believe the line should be. From a secular point of view would you also accept it if teenage girls started going to school without clothes?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [โ€“] 4 points 2 years ago

    It is dishonest to claim the Abaya is "just a long dress" or the headscarf is just an accessory. Maybe it can be worn someday in the future like that. But right now it is a religious symbol and people wear it because of specific cultural and religious beliefs. It's that what the law is targeting.

    And maybe also in the future people can go naked wherever they like. But right now, we are not there yet but we already understand that it is not right to indoctrinate people into believing women have to go to great lengths to hide their bodies and if they don't do that they are less "chaste".

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [โ€“] 4 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Ah the slippery slope boogaloo. The laziest and most useless of arguments.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] -1 points 2 years ago

    There is no slippery slope. We are talking about clothes and your completely arbitrary interpretation of what is right and wrong. For which you do not seem to hold any logical moral consistency other than RELIGION BADDDDD

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent