Welcome to Atheist Discussion, a new community created by former members of The Thinking Atheist forum.

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Religious signs in State employees and society in general
#26

Religious signs in State employees and society in general
(10-09-2019, 02:07 AM)epronovost Wrote:
(10-09-2019, 01:54 AM)brewerb Wrote:
(10-09-2019, 01:27 AM)epronovost Wrote: Right now I would say yes or at least obtuse as to what is a religious sign considering that religious tradition established very clearly what are religious signs and how they should be worn independantly of secular laws.

Cool, troll it is.

But not obtuse, intentionally absurd. Like this law. 

Can you tell me the clearly established religious traditions on what is, and how to wear, a cross?

Here you go, start with this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifix#Usage

Then you can make some research on christology, christian symbolism, history of religion, history of the art, etc.

You should also ask relevent authorities on the subject like priests and theologians. Religious doctrine is their field of expertise afterall.

The wiki page addresses crucifix, not crosses, and the research you suggested does not address how modern day people wear crosses (like ear rings, stick pins, belt buckles, on shoes, .....). Some would say it's art, others religious, ...........and we're back to subjective. 

Are priests and theologians going to be the ones making the judgement call while attempting to enforce this new law?

If you can't tell, I'm going to continue to be absurd.

Edit: Something tells me that this law won't be enforced on many(any) of the cross wearers.
Being told you're delusional does not necessarily mean you're mental. 
Reply
#27

Religious signs in State employees and society in general
(10-09-2019, 02:28 AM)brewerb Wrote: If you can't tell, I'm going to continue to be absurd.

Why?

PS: The research would have answered all of those point and more lazy bum Tongue
Reply
#28

Religious signs in State employees and society in general
(10-08-2019, 09:07 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:
(10-08-2019, 08:01 PM)Szuchow Wrote: While in function seems to be a keyword here. I have no problem at all with this law, religion should be left of the office, even in the form of jewelry or part of the attire.

The thing is, Muslim women mostly all wear an hijab. Most of them who work in the US are allowed to wear a head scarf.
They're everywhere here on the West Coast. Who cares. Hell, many women wear head scarves and it has nothing to do with religion.
Christian nuns have, for centuries been allowed to wear their religious habits which, until recently, included a veil.  
I can see that wearing a niqab which covers the face would not be allowed.

Why is it that men think they need to tell women how they must dress ?
All I care is, does the person doing a job do the job. I don't care what they're wearing.

Then I guess they will have to wear something else while in function. As long as it keeps religion further from state I don't much care.
The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
The following 1 user Likes Szuchow's post:
  • Tres Leches
Reply
#29

Religious signs in State employees and society in general
We're currently facing a similar scenario here in Australia.  The state government recently authorised the
wearing of turbans by Sikhs, and hijabs by Muslim women, for on-duty officers in the Victorian police force.

And just to remind people what we're talking about (as there's been a lot of confusion about female Islamic
clothing terminology in Australia)...

[Image: EGvddhLQ6dHijabs.jpg]

Personally, I'm against any outward form of personal religious expression, and I also oppose the wearing of
Islamic rags in public in a secular Australia.  Thankfully, where I live, I'd be lucky (or unlucky?) enough to
see even one hijab in the streets in a year, and I've not once seen a turban on our streets.

I recently complained about former Australian bishop George Pell being allowed to wear his clerical garb—as
a convicted criminal—when in court appealing his case.  He repeatedly wore his Roman collar and black
clergy shirt.  Obviously this was intended to create the image of unimpeachable authority in the minds of
witnesses and jurors in his original sex abuse trial.  Why he was allowed to wear these after being convicted
is unknown beyond the possible personal leniency and/or Catholicism of the three appeal judges.

—And as one local wag said, we need to let these women wear their
religious garb... at least then we can watch out for potential terrorists.     Big Grin
I'm a creationist;   I believe that man created God.
Reply
#30

Religious signs in State employees and society in general
I have no love of religion but spineless politicians branding their bigotry as secularism is utterly repulsive.

(10-09-2019, 01:50 AM)epronovost Wrote:
(10-09-2019, 01:29 AM)Paleophyte Wrote: It is, it's just that most people don't know that anymore so it's "traditional". Of course everybody's religion is traditional, so that's a load of horseshit. The Quebec flag is white fleur de lis (symbolizing purity) on a blue background (symbolizing heaven) pulled straight from banners honouring the Virgin Mary with a big damned white cross painted slap down the middle. The entire thing is Catholic heraldry and should be banned by the new law if there was any pretense that it would be applied evenly or was actually about religious symbols. The enormous crosses on Mount Royal and several other prominent peaks that are funded by public dollars would also have to go. Those are traditional too though. 

Like the French laws that inspired it, this is just another piece of thinly veiled "no brown people" bigotry. The bulk of it was debated in the Quebec National Assembly underneath a bloody great crucifix that was removed only after a long, bitter debate on how it was also traditional. It's legislated pure laine hypocrisy and discrimination with only the slightest attempt to disguise it.

As mention earlier, heraldy is secular not religious even when it's used by religious people in the same fashion latin isn't religious in and on itself even if it's the official language of the Vatican.

Heraldry isn't secular when it's a tribute to the Virgin Mary and a big damned cross. The history and symbolism couldn't be more purely Roman Catholic if it tried.

Quote:I would also like to mention that the law only concerns a specific set of employee of the State for very specific sets of reason. It doesn't cover religious symboles in the public space or by other people who are free to do as they please.

Which just goes to show the true intent of the law. They'll gleefully ban the wearing of religious symbols on the one hand while simultaneously funding an enormous cross atop Mount Royal from the public coffers. Laicity of the State my ass.

Quote:Of course, like any other place in the world, Canada and Quebec have laws to protect the cultural and architectural heritage of the Province which is, of course, going to count a lot of religious sites and artwork, but that's a much more complex question.

Our traditions good. Your traditions bad.

Quote:The debate over the crucifix of the National Assembly, while related, wasn't part of the debate of the Law 21.

"Related" fails to underscore the hypocrisy inherent in the members of the National Assembly fighting to keep that crucifix while passing Act 21.

To give our Murican readers some context, this is Canada. In terms of secularism we're similar to Australia and most of the more sensible European nations. Our conservatives start getting worried if a politician is too overtly religious. Most people are quietly religious or quietly non-religious and nobody knows or cares which is which. Secularism simply isn't an issue that needs to be legislated.

The giveaway that this is just a nasty piece of bigotry and a wedge issue is the lack of opposition that it gets from Andrew Scheer. Scheer is our local Conservative leader and panders shamelessly to the right wing's deplorables. Known for dangling the possibility of reopening the abortion debate and proudly not participating in Pride Parades, Scheer would be all over Act 21 if it was ever actually intended to reign in religion. He isn't because it's just an ugly bit of anti-immigrant bigotry, which Scheer's fine with.
Reply
#31

Religious signs in State employees and society in general
(10-09-2019, 01:27 AM)epronovost Wrote: @TheGentlemanBastard

In the case of this specific law though all those State employes are basically those you cannot choose to interact with or not. They are imposed upon you and have a measure of authority (except teachers who were put on the list for other and more dubious in my opinion reasons)

While I was making a point about the type of law in general, to your point, it is still advantageous to know where their fealty lies, whether you can choose among them or not. My defense would be different in a Roy Moore court than it would be if I were facing a less biased judge.
[Image: Bastard-Signature.jpg]
Reply
#32

Religious signs in State employees and society in general
I wonder how that law would go in the US ?

Could it possibly run up against the First Amendment?

viz:

"The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. It forbids Congress from both promoting one religion over others and also restricting an individual’s religious practices. It guarantees freedom of expression by prohibiting Congress from restricting the press or the rights of individuals to speak freely. It also guarantees the right of citizens to assemble peaceably and to petition their government. "

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution..._amendment
The following 1 user Likes grympy's post:
  • mordant
Reply
#33

Religious signs in State employees and society in general
(10-11-2019, 05:28 AM)grympy Wrote: I wonder how that law would go in the US ?

Could it possibly run up against  the First Amendment?

viz:

"The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition.  It forbids Congress from both promoting one religion over others and also restricting an individual’s religious practices.  It guarantees freedom of expression by prohibiting Congress from restricting the press or the rights of individuals to speak freely.  It also guarantees the right of citizens to assemble peaceably and to petition their government.  "

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution..._amendment

The Canadian and Quebec Bills of Rights both have protection for freedom of religion and expression. The law was under a derogation to that law which was of course brouht before court to establish if it's a reasonnable and defensible derogation or not. It's unlikely in my opinion that the law will survive the challenges intact. I would bet that teachers will have to be removed from the list, but that judges and police officers might stay in so there is a chance that the core of the law could apply in the long term.
Reply
#34

Religious signs in State employees and society in general
(10-08-2019, 09:07 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote: The thing is, Muslim women mostly all wear an hijab. Most of them who work in the US are allowed to wear a head scarf.
They're everywhere here on the West Coast. Who cares. Hell, many women wear head scarves and it has nothing to do with religion.
Christian nuns have, for centuries been allowed to wear their religious habits which, until recently, included a veil.  
I can see that wearing a niqab which covers the face would not be allowed.

Why is it that men think they need to tell women how they must dress ?
All I care is, does the person doing a job do the job. I don't care what they're wearing.

I missed the part where this law was gender-specific.

Myself, I think in certain governmental jobs -- law enforcement mainly -- ostentatious attire should be avoided or minimized, in order to avoid even the appearance of bias in treatment. Also, other jobs may require eschewing religious garb -- firefighters, for instance, where religious headwear or a religious beard, might impair the ability to properly wear breathing apparatus.

@brewerb makes a great point about careful definitions, though.
"What senses do we lack that we cannot see or hear another world all around us?" -- Frank Herbert
Reply
#35

Religious signs in State employees and society in general
(10-09-2019, 01:50 AM)epronovost Wrote: On the other hand the idea that children need to be "protected" from religious indoctrination or that teachers are some sort of representatives of the State appears to me profoundly ridiculous. 

How so? Teachers wield an enormous amount of power over the impressionable minds of their students. In a secular school, religious symbols worn by educators should be discreet, in my view. It is not any teacher's job to impose awareness of their faith upon my children, unless they are teaching at a privately-funded religious school and I have hired them specifically to do so. Teachers at private religious schools should of course be able to wear symbols of their faith.

But in a secular public school, outlandish religious displays should not be permitted.
"What senses do we lack that we cannot see or hear another world all around us?" -- Frank Herbert
The following 3 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post:
  • brunumb, SYZ, Tres Leches
Reply
#36

Religious signs in State employees and society in general
(10-11-2019, 06:56 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: How so? Teachers wield an enormous amount of power over the impressionable minds of their students. In a secular school, religious symbols worn by educators should be discreet, in my view. It is not any teacher's job to impose awareness of their faith upon my children, unless they are teaching at a privately-funded religious school and I have hired them specifically to do so. Teachers at private religious schools should of course be able to wear symbols of their faith.

But in a secular public school, outlandish religious displays should not be permitted.

Proselytizing is already a professional fault for a teacher and its taken fairly seriously especially in urban centers where there is wide variety of religious beliefs as well as a certain anti-clericalism within the Catholic majority. Preventing teachers from wearing religious symboles for fear of religious indoctrination implies that one believes that the simple presence of a religious symbole is enough to constitute a form of proselytism which is, in my opinion, fairly pointless. The only quality of such law would be to push out of teaching jobs religious fundamentalists who would categorically refuse to remove, even temporarily, a sign of their faith. The idea that religious fundamentalists make for poor, or even less ethical, teachers is far from proven and my strong personnal discomfort toward them is mostly due to my own irreligiosity and my humanist and feminist beliefs. I don't think that personnal feelings and opinions like mine should form the basis of an exclusionary law. It's just a too flimsy justification.

Furthermore, considering the level of professionnal authonomy of teachers, we can hardly present them as "representative of the State" and thus obligated to represent and imbody the value of an institution over their own personnal beliefs. This is why I think the prohibition of religious symboles in teachers is an overeach while it appears reasonnable for police officers and judges.
Reply
#37

Religious signs in State employees and society in general
(10-13-2019, 05:15 AM)epronovost Wrote: Proselytizing is already a professional fault for a teacher and its taken fairly seriously especially in urban centers where there is wide variety of religious beliefs as well as a certain anti-clericalism within the Catholic majority. Preventing teachers from wearing religious symboles for fear of religious indoctrination implies that one believes that the simple presence of a religious symbole is enough to constitute a form of proselytism which is, in my opinion, fairly pointless.

We certainly disagree. You don't seem to remember how young children look to their teachers with admiration -- or dread. Either way, it is not the business of the teacher to use their status to impress young children with their faith.

 
(10-13-2019, 05:15 AM)epronovost Wrote: The only quality of such law would be to push out of teaching jobs religious fundamentalists who would categorically refuse to remove, even temporarily, a sign of their faith. The idea that religious fundamentalists make for poor, or even less ethical, teachers is far from proven and my strong personnal discomfort toward them is mostly due to my own irreligiosity and my humanist and feminist beliefs.

This is a straw-man. At no point did I assert that the religiously fundamentalist make poor teachers.

Please reply to my arguments, and not your false reconstruction of them. Thanks in advance.

 
(10-13-2019, 05:15 AM)epronovost Wrote: I don't think that personnal feelings and opinions like mine should form the basis of an exclusionary law. It's just a too flimsy justification.

Neither do I. As I pointed out above, and which you assiduously avoided mentioning, here in America our public school system is secular, per SCOTUS interpreting the Establishment Clause.

I note that you do think religious symbols should be allowed in schools because ... wait for it ... your personal feelings and opinions.

(10-13-2019, 05:15 AM)epronovost Wrote: Furthermore, considering the level of professionnal authonomy of teachers, we can hardly present them as "representative of the State" and thus obligated to represent and imbody the value of an institution over their own personnal beliefs. This is why I think the prohibition of religious symboles in teachers is an overeach while it appears reasonnable for police officers and judges.

American courts disagree with you, thankfully.
"What senses do we lack that we cannot see or hear another world all around us?" -- Frank Herbert
Reply
#38

Religious signs in State employees and society in general
(10-13-2019, 12:54 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: We certainly disagree. You don't seem to remember how young children look to their teachers with admiration -- or dread. Either way, it is not the business of the teacher to use their status to impress young children with their faith.

Children and teens will have many teachers of many types in their lives. I don't think children are particularly impressed by religious symboles behind some mild curiosity if its one they have never seen before. Considering that the Law 21 doesn't cover their fellow students, the support personnel inculding kinderguarden employees, I doubt they would react that strongly to the sign of a cross from an Opus Dei member or a hijab.

Quote:At no point did I assert that the religiously fundamentalist make poor teachers.

Indeed you did not. That's my personnel impression. I have an inner suspition of religious fundamentalist as 


Quote:Neither do I. As I pointed out above, and which you assiduously avoided mentioning, here in America our public school system is secular, per SCOTUS interpreting the Establishment Clause.

So are public schools in the Province of Quebec since the Parent Report in the early 60's.

Quote:I note that you do think religious symbols should be allowed in schools because ... wait for it ... your personal feelings and opinions.

Actually, it's based on the Canadian and Quebec Bill of Rights that guaranty freedom of religion to individual. If I want to put a hard limit to it, I need a pretty solid reason.
Reply
#39

Religious signs in State employees and society in general
(10-13-2019, 03:31 PM)epronovost Wrote: Indeed you did not. That's my personnel impression.

You should make it clear to the reader when you do that. Not doing so seems a bit sketchy.

I get that you and I disagree. Having raised my son, I'm aware of how others carried influence with him. Children are impressionable. The more respect and authority a person wields, the bigger the impression they make upon children, even in unspoken matters.

If you think otherwise, I don't know what to tell you.
"What senses do we lack that we cannot see or hear another world all around us?" -- Frank Herbert
Reply
#40

Religious signs in State employees and society in general
Starting today, I'm propagating my religion that says all males age 13 and up must wear hot pink sparkly shirts and leather pants every time they're out in public. When they're home with their women relatives, they can wear what they want but when they're out and being seen by other women - sparkles and leather at all times. 

Everyone will know that these outfits are symbolic of the Religion of Tres Leches, a religion that was handed down many centuries ago from god herself.

If a man wants to work anywhere outside the home including public schools, he must still wear the sparkles and leather or we'll label him sinful and ostracize him.

Woe to anyone - especially other men - who might tell our men they could wear something different. They're blasphemous apostates; don't ever listen to them. 
Going outside the home without sparkles and leather is sinful and this goes against our totally-not-made-up-and-definitely-written-by-a-divine-being Holy Book.

How dare anyone impinge on our freedom to tell our men they may only wear sparkles and leather.

-Teresa
There is in the universe only one true divide, one real binary, life and death. Either you are living or you are not. Everything else is molten, malleable.

-Susan Faludi, In the Darkroom
The following 2 users Like Tres Leches's post:
  • grympy, julep
Reply
#41

Religious signs in State employees and society in general
People will pay me to not leave the house.
  [Image: pirates.gif] Dog  
The following 2 users Like Gawdzilla Sama's post:
  • Tres Leches, mordant
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)