this post was submitted on 28 Nov 2023
406 points (97.0% liked)
Europe
8484 readers
3 users here now
News/Interesting Stories/Beautiful Pictures from Europe ๐ช๐บ
(Current banner: Thunder mountain, Germany, ๐ฉ๐ช ) 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Which is his point. Christianity is on the decline because society has let those people assimilate on their own. They did not ban Christianity.
Once you start banning or suppressing an ideology, the people will actually strengthen their beliefs because they have no way to assimilate with their beliefs into a society anymore.
You should study up on religion and Christianity, we banned plenty of their bullshit practices. The reason Christianity is mostly mild and meek now is because we've had to push it back into a corner. It had to get rid of most of its archaic customs to survive.
Islam needs to be beaten just the same way. Making women second class citizens and forcing them to wear beekeeper suits while the man gets to run around in shorts and flip flops is demeaning and unacceptable.
This is a highly reductive and a backwards way to view the cause and effect of history.
Who is "we", what era are you talking about, what archaic customs are you talking about? You are speaking about vague generalities and then making claims based on them.
Human progress does not advance because individual governments ban certain types of behavior. It's a byproduct of changes in economics, and government systems. The attitudes and behavior of the church towards its populations was more influenced by technological changes and environment than any sort of government asserting its control.
No one is claiming that religion isnt problematic, were just saying that banning iconography or ideologies isn't going to be effective at doing anything but stiring up sectarian violence.
By forcing Islamic women to wear bikinis and mini-skirts?
If you are against females wearing clothes because you must to see their naked bodies who is the oppressor and who is the oppressed? You are claiming to be in favor of female rights by RESTRICTING female rights to wear their desired clothes? And then claiming all women who don't adhere to your ideology are forced to wear those clothes?
Do all western women also wear clothes because society forces them to do so? Should we just ban all clothes to show how much we care about female rights?
Many people see the France as an oppressive society that degrades women and treats them as second class citizens when they force women to remove their headscarves and dresses.
Makes sense. If you really want to fight religion with regulation, ban mosques and churches, ban public religious speeches. It still won't work, but at least it's consequent with your logic.
But banning hijabs and stuff is probably not going to help anyone.
While I agree that this law is dumb, I don't think these clothes are the 'desired clothes' that most women would choose on their own with no outside coercion. Many Islamic women wear these kind of clothes because of the intense pressure put on them to do so from their friends, family, and peers. If they dress differently, they are shunned and shamed.
I will concede that some woman out there would maybe choose to wear that on their own with unlimited choices, but the rest of the world and history has shown that women don't tend to want fully cover themselves from head to toe when given other options, unless it's cold out.
This law will do nothing to help that problem at all, though, and it will probably only act to make that pressure stronger as a pushback. It's not just Islam that does this, either. Many other religious institutions put this pressure on their women.
But they don't do that. They don't leave religion with their beliefs. If anything the vast majority still in the religion on paper doesn't even have those beliefs any more.
No one is suggesting the perscution of anything. And the ban is just for public places. If people want to adore whatever mythical creature, they can do it a home, but that mythical creature dont get to dictate how others should act.
"No one is suggesting the persecution of anything. And the ban is just for public places. If a man wants to adore another man, they can do it at home, but those homosexuals dont get to dictate how others should act."
You see how problematic this can get with just a few words swapped? It's almost like it's difficult to police other people's beliefs, and once you do it kinda leaves the door open for others people with other beliefs to do the same...
Being homosexual is not a belief, we exist, and so we deserve rights.
Religion is a belief, the things that religion teaches are based on stories that one can decide to belive or not.
Right, but laws aren't based on reality. They are based on what people believe is reality.
I whole heartedly agree that homosexuality isn't a belief, and that they deserve rights....... But there are plenty of people who don't, and those people have the ability to pass laws.
If progressive people started policing metaphysical ideas like religion, conservatives are going to start policing things based on their metaphysical understanding of their shared reality.
Just because something isn't real doesn't mean you can't legislate it to be legally true. America has a long history of basing laws on nothing but hate and fear mongering.
But that's exactly why religion should be banned from politics, literally you explained why.
And how would we realistically go about doing that?
The problem is that there is no way to realistically separate religious perspectives from religious people. Their beliefs are inseparable from what they believe to be the foundation of our shared reality.
Legality and reality are not the same thing, the reality that the government enforces isn't decided by scientists or our greatest thinkers. It is argued by lawyers, decided by judges, and enforced by the police.
I would love for our legal and political bodies to be regulated by sane and logical people, but that's never been the case. If we start putting limitations on things that these people believe to be inherently true, they will retaliate by attacking people they already have a prejudice against.
One example is same sex couples. There is absolutely no reason for them to not have the same rights as opposite sex couples other than religion.
Literally there are many aspects that were/are the way they are because of religion.
I'm not rebutting that, I'm rebutting the claim that banning religious expression now would fix it.
The whole point of the converstation is to ban religion from political decisions, which yes, it would fix that.
it's not a ban or persecution though, if anything it's a protection for everyone and mainly the separation of state and church, you are allowed to do your religion but not in the government buildings
You do realize that banning a religion is the state inserting itself into religion, right?
The separation of church and state goes both ways. The church is not to influence the state and the state is not to influence the church. You are allowed to practice religious expression in a state building, but the state cannot demand that you do so, or regulate which religion you express.
religion isn't banned, overt expression of it is, those are two different things.
That's pedantic, it's still the government involving itself in policing religious expression.
You can't use the excuse of separating church in state if you are utilizing the state to police the church.
except the church is literally not policed, how does it affect the church if your governnent employees can't wear crosses to work?
get a fucking grip.
You do know when the constitution mentions the church, they aren't being literal...... The "church" is the institution of religious beliefs, which is made up of people. You are policing people's rights to freely express their beliefs.
Are you harmed by someone wearing a cross when they work?
yes i am, it burns,it offends me, it's a hate symbol.
That sounds like more of a personal problem than an actual depiction of a problem in reality.
I'm an atheist/agnostic, someone believing in some fake metaphysical being doesn't affect me at all. What does affect me is when those people try to force their beliefs on me, and you seem to be hellbent on paving the way for them to do so.
you are right I am personally paving the way, because what I say on this platform dictates policy, lmao
Lol, if you are now claiming your opinion holds no value or influence.....why make a rebuttal in the first place?
If you define schools and other essential public facilities as "government buildings" you are not separating the state from the church, you are separating the civilians from the church.
schools are government buildings as long as they are funded and/or owned by the government... I mean you are religious so maybe I don't have to ask, but do you live in some kind of delusion land where that's not the definition?
You are ignoring his point..... The whole point of separating Church and state is to both protect the government from the influence of the church, but also to prevent the government from controlling your freedom of expression.
People are allowed to express their religious beliefs so long as it does not inhibit others from expressing their own beliefs.
You don't have to be religious to understand the consequences of giving the government the ability to police self expression. If we made rulings that handed power over expression to the government, you honestly think conservatives wouldn't utilize that when they eventually came to power?
you last argument idls that of a slippery slope which is almost exclusively a fallacy.
as for your first, keyword is, inhibit, do you categorize feeling uncomfortable as inhibiting someone's rights for example?
let's say I am a lone satanist, working at a government building, I am fetting judgy looks all day by Christian coworkers wearing crosses and it drives me away from the job, isn't thst inhibiting me?
let's say I am a public facing worker, couldn't me displaying my satanist symbols be inhibiting the public looking for whatever government service?
isn't it easier and better for everybody involved to leave that shit at home and keep the workplace free from all that?
Ahh yes, legal precedent. Famously always fallacious....... Also, the slippery slope fallacy requires a series of actions leading to a negative consequence. This is just a direct consequence of a single action.
You are attempting to establish a law that is preventing people from expressing their legally protected beliefs. You don't think setting that precedent isn't going to have consequences?
Lol, where in the legal system does it claim that you have the right to be comfortable at all times?
You have every right to display satanic symbology. How does this prevent members of the public from looking for a government service. Plus, logically if you are the government worker, they already have found the government service.....
Let's change the scenario slightly. Let's suppose you are a person of color working for the government, and a member of the public is wanting service, but is racist. Is hiring a person of color inhibiting his rights? Of course not.
Can you have sex in front of class in schools? Not legally? Huh, that's oppressive. People should be allowed to have threesomes during parliament.
The argument is silly when you apply it to other things, but religion, oh that's different. As if wearing religion-mandated clothing somehow deserves more protection than e.g. the ability for people to be nude.
Man's out here comparing people wearing a piece of cloth around their head to sexual intercourse.