Europe

8484 readers

1 users here now

News/Interesting Stories/Beautiful Pictures from Europe 🇪🇺

(Current banner: Thunder mountain, Germany, 🇩🇪 ) 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

poVoq@slrpnk.net

406

EU states can ban religious symbols in public workplaces (www.bbc.com)

submitted 1 year ago by CAVOK@lemmy.world to c/europe@feddit.de

355 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] plant_based_monero@lemm.ee 11 points 11 months ago (1 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

[–] Linkerbaan@lemmy.world -4 points 11 months ago (3 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?

[–] taladar@feddit.de 11 points 11 months ago (1 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.

[–] Linkerbaan@lemmy.world -2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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?

[–] ParsnipWitch@feddit.de 4 points 11 months 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".

[–] madcaesar@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago (2 children)

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

[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 1 points 11 months ago

It proves itself to be less of a fallacy that people make it out to be lmao

[–] Linkerbaan@lemmy.world -1 points 11 months 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