2 ms·

> It wouldn't target a particular religion This makes it sound like it is indeed targeting a particular religion: > An anti-LDS government official in control

> It wouldn't target a particular religion This makes it sound like it is indeed targeting a particular religion: > An anti-LDS government official in control of education in some state (say, California) could take those findings and use them to justify a new policy that all LDS children are required to attend sex-ed classes in school If what you meant was "all children, including LDS children" I think it could've been phrased a bit more clearly, because it sounds very targeted. That's the part I objected to. But yeah if you mean, "secretly/implicitly targeting" like the hijab ban in France that's nominally a religious symbol ban, I could see that happening.

LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
> the hijab ban in France that's nominally a religious symbol ban A hijab is an extreme religious symbol, so it makes sense that it would be overrepresented in a ban of religious symbols. That's like an American calling a law racist because its impact is coincidentally not racially balanced.
- TulliusCicero 4y ago
  The intent of the law was obviously to get rid of hijabs. That's the context, and nobody really disputes that, even though the text of the law doesn't explicitly target any particular religion. I'm not sure I'd call it an extreme symbol, exactly, but I'm not a fan of the culture behind sexist cultural policies like that, where women are treated radically differently from men.
  - LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
    Are hijabs focused on beyond what would be expected from the fact that they are extreme - they cover the user blocking identification, they prevent socialization, they stigmatize the wearer, and unlike some symbols (ex: a Sikh turban) they're forced upon the wearers by non-wearers - they signify the wearer is a possession who must be kept "clean" for her purchaser. It's reasonable that hijabs would have been the straw that broke the electoral camel's back, and the focus of most of the enforcement, while the law is a general law without undue focus on hijabs. Hijabs are regressive in a way yarmulkas are not.

LawTalkingGuy 4y ago

> the hijab ban in France that's nominally a religious symbol ban A hijab is an extreme religious symbol, so it makes sense that it would be overrepresented in a ban of religious symbols. That's like an American calling a law racist because its impact is coincidentally not racially balanced.

TulliusCicero 4y ago
The intent of the law was obviously to get rid of hijabs. That's the context, and nobody really disputes that, even though the text of the law doesn't explicitly target any particular religion. I'm not sure I'd call it an extreme symbol, exactly, but I'm not a fan of the culture behind sexist cultural policies like that, where women are treated radically differently from men.
- LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
  Are hijabs focused on beyond what would be expected from the fact that they are extreme - they cover the user blocking identification, they prevent socialization, they stigmatize the wearer, and unlike some symbols (ex: a Sikh turban) they're forced upon the wearers by non-wearers - they signify the wearer is a possession who must be kept "clean" for her purchaser. It's reasonable that hijabs would have been the straw that broke the electoral camel's back, and the focus of most of the enforcement, while the law is a general law without undue focus on hijabs. Hijabs are regressive in a way yarmulkas are not.