4 ms·

"ramming your religion down people's face" is what a LOT of religion are doing. Take for example hidjab (muslim scarf). We even have a law at some point in fran

by bsaul 3y ago

"ramming your religion down people's face" is what a LOT of religion are doing. Take for example hidjab (muslim scarf). We even have a law at some point in france to prevent religion from intruding special places like school, but i was under the impression that was considered discriminatory in the US..

jleyank 3y ago
I suspect misogyny underlays much of the “ohh, teacher in hidjab” bs.
- friend_and_foe 3y ago
  Yeah, being required to cover your hair because you're a woman is very misogynistic.
cholantesh 3y ago
>prevent religion from intruding special places like school With a rather conspicuous exemption for crosses.
- bsaul 3y ago
  there are no cross in public schools, only private catholic ones.
  - jleyank 3y ago
    Not sure about Quebec, but there are public Catholic schools in Ontario. Bothers the crap out of me...
    - bsaul 3y ago
      i don't know about quebec either, I was actually only speaking about france. I have the feeling france really has something unique with its relationship to religion ( and multi-culturalism in general) that could really benefit a lot of modern western societies. Unfortunately for now the influence goes the other way, we're the ones being influenced by the craziness happening in the US..
  - cholantesh 3y ago
    Except the ones worn on one's neck. The ban specifically allows for them, but not for kippahs or the hijab.
    - bsaul 3y ago
      yes , it makes sense i think. Those necklaces are barely visible and very often are hidden by your shirt. They're hardly comparable to something that covers half your head.
      - cholantesh 3y ago
        Kippahs cover a very small portion of your head; I work daily with a guy who wears one and rarely notice it. Hijabs are more conspicuous, but like...so what? The intent of the 1905 law is abjuring the promotion or the degradation of religion, and simply wearing something on your head is not promoting anything, any more than being gay or, god forbid, indicating that gay people exist, is promoting homosexuality.

by bsaul 3y ago

jleyank 3y ago

I suspect misogyny underlays much of the “ohh, teacher in hidjab” bs.

friend_and_foe 3y ago
Yeah, being required to cover your hair because you're a woman is very misogynistic.

cholantesh 3y ago

>prevent religion from intruding special places like school With a rather conspicuous exemption for crosses.

bsaul 3y ago
there are no cross in public schools, only private catholic ones.
- jleyank 3y ago
  Not sure about Quebec, but there are public Catholic schools in Ontario. Bothers the crap out of me...
  - bsaul 3y ago
    i don't know about quebec either, I was actually only speaking about france. I have the feeling france really has something unique with its relationship to religion ( and multi-culturalism in general) that could really benefit a lot of modern western societies. Unfortunately for now the influence goes the other way, we're the ones being influenced by the craziness happening in the US..
- cholantesh 3y ago
  Except the ones worn on one's neck. The ban specifically allows for them, but not for kippahs or the hijab.
  - bsaul 3y ago
    yes , it makes sense i think. Those necklaces are barely visible and very often are hidden by your shirt. They're hardly comparable to something that covers half your head.
    - cholantesh 3y ago
      Kippahs cover a very small portion of your head; I work daily with a guy who wears one and rarely notice it. Hijabs are more conspicuous, but like...so what? The intent of the 1905 law is abjuring the promotion or the degradation of religion, and simply wearing something on your head is not promoting anything, any more than being gay or, god forbid, indicating that gay people exist, is promoting homosexuality.