State and Religion: Religious symbols while in government-uniform?

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

Realitycrash:

Bentusi16:

Realitycrash:

I'm sorry but; Though luck? State and religion have separated. It's an uniform, representing a neutral state, and it has been modified specifically for some people with personal religious belief. If they value their religious belief more than the neutrality of the state, then they can't work for the state.

So, you do realize that the 'seperation of church and state' is meant to prevent a state religion from being founded right, it's not supposed to be about preventing anyone who works for the government from having religion.

'Displaying a religious symbol' doesn't suddenly make a person more religious then when they aren't displaying it. Displaying it or not they are still going to play favorites if thats what your worried about. All the display does is sort of show who they are going to favor more openly, IF they favor people.

'neutrality' is an illusion. There is no such thing. If someone is a christian and is going to favor a christian, stopping them from wearing a cross is going to do nothing to make them 'more neutral'.

It isn't about religion per se, it's about having your personal beliefs displayed on what should be a neutral uniform. I'd be just as much against political patches on the uniform or anything that signals a personal opinion.

How does someone wearing a turban while wearing a uniform - when you know for a fact they're wearing the turban as a personal thing rather than it being a state requirement - give you the impression the state is not being neutral?

If the uniform demanded that every individual wear a religious symbol THEN it would definitely be a problem but as it stands nobody is being forced to adopt a religious symbol or is being denied a required individual religious symbol. That sounds like the epitome of "neutral".

Abomination:

Realitycrash:

Bentusi16:

So, you do realize that the 'seperation of church and state' is meant to prevent a state religion from being founded right, it's not supposed to be about preventing anyone who works for the government from having religion.

'Displaying a religious symbol' doesn't suddenly make a person more religious then when they aren't displaying it. Displaying it or not they are still going to play favorites if thats what your worried about. All the display does is sort of show who they are going to favor more openly, IF they favor people.

'neutrality' is an illusion. There is no such thing. If someone is a christian and is going to favor a christian, stopping them from wearing a cross is going to do nothing to make them 'more neutral'.

It isn't about religion per se, it's about having your personal beliefs displayed on what should be a neutral uniform. I'd be just as much against political patches on the uniform or anything that signals a personal opinion.

How does someone wearing a turban while wearing a uniform - when you know for a fact they're wearing the turban as a personal thing rather than it being a state requirement - give you the impression the state is not being neutral?

They're expressing a personal belief while in uniform, to which they really shouldn't. I can't make this much simpler. I don't see why we should allow any form of political or religious belief, that is personal, affect a displayed uniform which in my mind shouldn't show any personal opinion at all.

Realitycrash:

Abomination:

Realitycrash:

It isn't about religion per se, it's about having your personal beliefs displayed on what should be a neutral uniform. I'd be just as much against political patches on the uniform or anything that signals a personal opinion.

How does someone wearing a turban while wearing a uniform - when you know for a fact they're wearing the turban as a personal thing rather than it being a state requirement - give you the impression the state is not being neutral?

They're expressing a personal belief while in uniform, to which they really shouldn't. I can't make this much simpler. I don't see why we should allow any form of political or religious belief, that is personal, affect a displayed uniform which in my mind shouldn't show any personal opinion at all.

Because even religious people gotta eat too, ya know.

A majority of the time it's just their hair and how it's kept. It doesn't affect the way they do their job. They would wear it no matter what. Employees of the government are still people - you don't slip on the uniform and suddenly lose any individuality or belief.

Is EVERYONE in the uniform wearing a turban? Are people who are wearing the uniform and are not Muslim required to wear a turban? The state is separate from the religion - being allowed to wear the mandatory headwear of your religion while in government uniform is the government RESPECTING the religion, not promoting or granting it any special benefit. This is an individual enjoying their religious freedom in a way that harms nobody while still being able to live their lives as both a member of their religion and a productive member of society.

I don't even like religion, I think its an ancient power-play used on the uneducated for political reasons that still hasn't been shaken off. Doesn't mean I'm going to tell someone they can't get a job somewhere because they were unfortunate enough to be brainwashed by someone (probably their parents) when they were a mentally impressionable state.

Abomination:

Realitycrash:

Bentusi16:

So, you do realize that the 'seperation of church and state' is meant to prevent a state religion from being founded right, it's not supposed to be about preventing anyone who works for the government from having religion.

'Displaying a religious symbol' doesn't suddenly make a person more religious then when they aren't displaying it. Displaying it or not they are still going to play favorites if thats what your worried about. All the display does is sort of show who they are going to favor more openly, IF they favor people.

'neutrality' is an illusion. There is no such thing. If someone is a christian and is going to favor a christian, stopping them from wearing a cross is going to do nothing to make them 'more neutral'.

It isn't about religion per se, it's about having your personal beliefs displayed on what should be a neutral uniform. I'd be just as much against political patches on the uniform or anything that signals a personal opinion.

How does someone wearing a turban while wearing a uniform - when you know for a fact they're wearing the turban as a personal thing rather than it being a state requirement - give you the impression the state is not being neutral?

If the uniform demanded that every individual wear a religious symbol THEN it would definitely be a problem but as it stands nobody is being forced to adopt a religious symbol or is being denied a required individual religious symbol. That sounds like the epitome of "neutral".

It could be seen as the state showing favoritism by allowing people of one religion to wear stuff while everyone of other religions can't.

Xan Krieger:

Abomination:

Realitycrash:

It isn't about religion per se, it's about having your personal beliefs displayed on what should be a neutral uniform. I'd be just as much against political patches on the uniform or anything that signals a personal opinion.

How does someone wearing a turban while wearing a uniform - when you know for a fact they're wearing the turban as a personal thing rather than it being a state requirement - give you the impression the state is not being neutral?

If the uniform demanded that every individual wear a religious symbol THEN it would definitely be a problem but as it stands nobody is being forced to adopt a religious symbol or is being denied a required individual religious symbol. That sounds like the epitome of "neutral".

It could be seen as the state showing favoritism by allowing people of one religion to wear stuff while everyone of other religions can't.

What COULD happen but ISN'T happening is irrelevant to the conversation until it actually DOES happen.

If it did happen then it would be an example of favoritism provided the denied religious dress was adhering to the same standards the allowed religious dress also adhered to. Is the religious dress REQUIRED by your religion to be worn at all times in public? Would you wear that item of clothing in every other public setting? If the answer to both is yes then incorporate it into the uniform as best you can. If the answer to either is no then you do not get to incorporate it into the uniform.

Someone wearing a turban and someone wearing a Jedi Robe are not the same thing.

Abomination:

Xan Krieger:

Abomination:
How does someone wearing a turban while wearing a uniform - when you know for a fact they're wearing the turban as a personal thing rather than it being a state requirement - give you the impression the state is not being neutral?

If the uniform demanded that every individual wear a religious symbol THEN it would definitely be a problem but as it stands nobody is being forced to adopt a religious symbol or is being denied a required individual religious symbol. That sounds like the epitome of "neutral".

It could be seen as the state showing favoritism by allowing people of one religion to wear stuff while everyone of other religions can't.

What COULD happen but ISN'T happening is irrelevant to the conversation until it actually DOES happen.

If it did happen then it would be an example of favoritism provided the denied religious dress was adhering to the same standards the allowed religious dress also adhered to. Is the religious dress REQUIRED by your religion to be worn at all times in public? Would you wear that item of clothing in every other public setting? If the answer to both is yes then incorporate it into the uniform as best you can. If the answer to either is no then you do not get to incorporate it into the uniform.

Someone wearing a turban and someone wearing a Jedi Robe are not the same thing.

What we have here is a lack of equality, everyone else has to wear their religious stuff off the clock, the only reason for an exception would be for something medical like a brace or something, other than that this is not right. If they can't wear the uniform then perhaps it's not the job for them.

Xan Krieger:

Abomination:

Xan Krieger:
It could be seen as the state showing favoritism by allowing people of one religion to wear stuff while everyone of other religions can't.

What COULD happen but ISN'T happening is irrelevant to the conversation until it actually DOES happen.

If it did happen then it would be an example of favoritism provided the denied religious dress was adhering to the same standards the allowed religious dress also adhered to. Is the religious dress REQUIRED by your religion to be worn at all times in public? Would you wear that item of clothing in every other public setting? If the answer to both is yes then incorporate it into the uniform as best you can. If the answer to either is no then you do not get to incorporate it into the uniform.

Someone wearing a turban and someone wearing a Jedi Robe are not the same thing.

What we have here is a lack of equality, everyone else has to wear their religious stuff off the clock, the only reason for an exception would be for something medical like a brace or something, other than that this is not right. If they can't wear the uniform then perhaps it's not the job for them.

Who is 'everyone else' being denied wearing their required religious stuff? Give me some examples here, at least.

We are talking about religious dress codes that are mandatory for people of that faith. Not someone not being allowed to wear a cross. What denomination of Christianity requires members to wear a displayable cross at all times? (This is just an example.)

Abomination:

Xan Krieger:

Abomination:
What COULD happen but ISN'T happening is irrelevant to the conversation until it actually DOES happen.

If it did happen then it would be an example of favoritism provided the denied religious dress was adhering to the same standards the allowed religious dress also adhered to. Is the religious dress REQUIRED by your religion to be worn at all times in public? Would you wear that item of clothing in every other public setting? If the answer to both is yes then incorporate it into the uniform as best you can. If the answer to either is no then you do not get to incorporate it into the uniform.

Someone wearing a turban and someone wearing a Jedi Robe are not the same thing.

What we have here is a lack of equality, everyone else has to wear their religious stuff off the clock, the only reason for an exception would be for something medical like a brace or something, other than that this is not right. If they can't wear the uniform then perhaps it's not the job for them.

Who is 'everyone else' being denied wearing their required religious stuff? Give me some examples here, at least.

We are talking about religious dress codes that are mandatory for people of that faith. Not someone not being allowed to wear a cross. What denomination of Christianity requires members to wear a displayable cross at all times? (This is just an example.)

What about jewish people who would wear that little round hat whose name I can't properly spell? And you talk about things being required, well what if it was required that they not wear it on the job? If you're religion and job have dress codes that don't match up then find a job that does fit your life.

Xan Krieger:
What about jewish people who would wear that little round hat whose name I can't properly spell? And you talk about things being required, well what if it was required that they not wear it on the job? If you're religion and job have dress codes that don't match up then find a job that does fit your life.

If the Jewish person was of a denomination that required them to wear it at all times then they would be allowed to wear it while working. If their denomination does not require it to be worn at all times then they would not be allowed to wear it while working. I don't see how that's a difficult distinction to make or understand.

Religious dress codes are hardly invasive or impractical except for the few situations in which they are. In those cases health and safety standard should obviously trump required religious dress code. If it doesn't clash with health and safety standards what is the harm in allowing it?

Abomination:

Xan Krieger:
What about jewish people who would wear that little round hat whose name I can't properly spell? And you talk about things being required, well what if it was required that they not wear it on the job? If you're religion and job have dress codes that don't match up then find a job that does fit your life.

If the Jewish person was of a denomination that required them to wear it at all times then they would be allowed to wear it while working. If their denomination does not required it to be worn at all times then they would not be allowed to wear it while working. I don't see how that's a difficult distinction to make.

Religious dress codes are hardly invasive or impractical except for the few situations in which they are. In those cases health and safety standard should obviously trump required religious dress code. If it doesn't clash with health and safety standards what is the harm in allowing it?

The harm is like I've said, you're treating people differently without a good enough reason. If you're gonna have a dress code then don't make exceptions unless it's something like a medical reason.

Xan Krieger:
The harm is like I've said, you're treating people differently without a good enough reason. If you're gonna have a dress code then don't make exceptions unless it's something like a medical reason.

It is REQUIRED for their religion, how is that not a good enough reason? It isn't comparable to a cross, because Christians aren't required to wear a cross whenever they're in public, so they don't have to choose between having a job, where everyone must look the same or the government is supporting that person who looks slightly different, and adhering to their completely legal religious beliefs.

What you're advocating isn't government neutrality, because no (or few) other religions require their practitioners to wear particular clothing at all times. No one else has to limit their religion because of a dress code except these people you have such a huge problem with, so cracking down on them would be (or look) very discriminatory and basically bar them from ever applying for government jobs. Even if it wasn't right to allow them based on some idiotic ideas about what government workers must look like, disallowing them would appear like an attack on anyone holding these religious beliefs, causing a shitstorm that isn't worth anywhere near enough to care that some of them are wearing hijabs or turbans.

LifeCharacter:

Xan Krieger:
The harm is like I've said, you're treating people differently without a good enough reason. If you're gonna have a dress code then don't make exceptions unless it's something like a medical reason.

It is REQUIRED for their religion, how is that not a good enough reason? It isn't comparable to a cross, because Christians aren't required to wear a cross whenever they're in public, so they don't have to choose between having a job, where everyone must look the same or the government is supporting that person who looks slightly different, and adhering to their completely legal religious beliefs.

What you're advocating isn't government neutrality, because no (or few) other religions require their practitioners to wear particular clothing at all times. No one else has to limit their religion because of a dress code except these people you have such a huge problem with, so cracking down on them would be (or look) very discriminatory and basically bar them from ever applying for government jobs. Even if it wasn't right to allow them based on some idiotic ideas about what government workers must look like, disallowing them would appear like an attack on anyone holding these religious beliefs, causing a shitstorm that isn't worth anywhere near enough to care that some of them are wearing hijabs or turbans.

Because there is no harm is telling them to take it off. It's not gonna hurt them at all. They can always put it back on when they get off work.

Xan Krieger:
Because there is no harm is telling them to take it off. It's not gonna hurt them at all. They can always put it back on when they get off work.

They have a problem with it because their religion is fucking important to them. Forcing them to break their religious doctrine if they want the job (or firing them for not adhering to new policy) would be seen as a discriminatory attack on them, because it kind of is. Forget your opinion on it, what's the reaction going to be when something like that happens? How do you think the community is going to react when Muslim's are basically banned from government jobs so long as they adhere to their religion?

LifeCharacter:

Xan Krieger:
Because there is no harm is telling them to take it off. It's not gonna hurt them at all. They can always put it back on when they get off work.

They have a problem with it because their religion is fucking important to them. Forcing them to break their religious doctrine if they want the job (or firing them for not adhering to new policy) would be seen as a discriminatory attack on them, because it kind of is. Forget your opinion on it, what's the reaction going to be when something like that happens? How do you think the community is going to react when Muslim's are basically banned from government jobs so long as they adhere to their religion?

Not all muslims would be banned from government, just the ones who refuse to comply with the dress code. Just the same as not all jewish people wear those round hats, not all muslims are gonna insist on wearing something.

Xan Krieger:
Because there is no harm is telling them to take it off. It's not gonna hurt them at all. They can always put it back on when they get off work.

If they're wearing them for religious reasons then they have a real and sincere belief that not wearing it will cause them harm, a great deal of harm for many religions. Now you may not agree with what they believe but it is not the states place to force them to abandon such beliefs or lose their job.

In the case of a burka then there is an argument to be made that wearing it can prevent them being able to do certain jobs. However a Hijab? Unless it's neon pink then they're generally very discrete and I can't see how it would impede their job. Saying they can't wear them is forcing them to choose between their beliefs and employment for no good reason.

Abomination:

Realitycrash:

Abomination:

I'm sorry but; Though luck? State and religion have separated. It's an uniform, representing a neutral state, and it has been modified specifically for some people with personal religious belief. If they value their religious belief more than the neutrality of the state, then they can't work for the state.

So, you do realize that the 'seperation of church and state' is meant to prevent a state religion from being founded right, it's not supposed to be about preventing anyone who works for the government from having religion.

'Displaying a religious symbol' doesn't suddenly make a person more religious then when they aren't displaying it. Displaying it or not they are still going to play favorites if thats what your worried about. All the display does is sort of show who they are going to favor more openly, IF they favor people.

'neutrality' is an illusion. There is no such thing. If someone is a christian and is going to favor a christian, stopping them from wearing a cross is going to do nothing to make them 'more neutral'.

Is EVERYONE in the uniform wearing a turban? Are people who are wearing the uniform and are not Muslim required to wear a turban? The state is separate from the religion - being allowed to wear the mandatory headwear of your religion while in government uniform is the government RESPECTING the religion, not promoting or granting it any special benefit.

Which is part of my problem - I doubt they would allow other signs of personal belief. Would they allow a party-political sign (Social Democrat / Conservative)? Would they allow a Star of David? I doubt it. Just because your religion has it as mandatory to wear a piece of cloth doesn't mean we should allow personal representations of belief among state employees that are supposed to represent an objective, neutral law.

I get your argument - We need to respect these peoples religion and/or choice in life. But why can't they respect that they can't wear a certain piece of cloth which holds specific connotations while they are in uniform?
To be even more dramatic - Can I wear a gay-pride patch on my uniform? And no, you can't answer "No, because it's not a religion". Having a religious law give me an imperative to do or wear something is NOT more important than any other cultural or ethical system.

Realitycrash:

Abomination:

Realitycrash:

So, you do realize that the 'seperation of church and state' is meant to prevent a state religion from being founded right, it's not supposed to be about preventing anyone who works for the government from having religion.

'Displaying a religious symbol' doesn't suddenly make a person more religious then when they aren't displaying it. Displaying it or not they are still going to play favorites if thats what your worried about. All the display does is sort of show who they are going to favor more openly, IF they favor people.

'neutrality' is an illusion. There is no such thing. If someone is a christian and is going to favor a christian, stopping them from wearing a cross is going to do nothing to make them 'more neutral'.

Is EVERYONE in the uniform wearing a turban? Are people who are wearing the uniform and are not Muslim required to wear a turban? The state is separate from the religion - being allowed to wear the mandatory headwear of your religion while in government uniform is the government RESPECTING the religion, not promoting or granting it any special benefit.

Which is part of my problem - I doubt they would allow other signs of personal belief. Would they allow a party-political sign (Social Democrat / Conservative)? Would they allow a Star of David? I doubt it. Just because your religion has it as mandatory to wear a piece of cloth doesn't mean we should allow personal representations of belief among state employees that are supposed to represent an objective, neutral law.

I get your argument - We need to respect these peoples religion and/or choice in life. But why can't they respect that they can't wear a certain piece of cloth which holds specific connotations while they are in uniform?
To be even more dramatic - Can I wear a gay-pride patch on my uniform? And no, you can't answer "No, because it's not a religion". Having a religious law give me an imperative to do or wear something is NOT more important than any other cultural or ethical system.

A gay-pride patch is essentially advertising support for homosexuals.

A hajib advertises nothing.

The example you've given shows exactly why certain things are not allowed to be part of one's uniform, and others are.

Realitycrash:
[I get your argument - We need to respect these peoples religion and/or choice in life. But why can't they respect that they can't wear a certain piece of cloth which holds specific connotations while they are in uniform?

Because the very notion that a religious command, something which is supposedly direct instruction from the creator of the universe and the source of all ethical guidance and morality is in way to be superseded by a government dress code is absurd.

Look nobodies asking you to agree with their beliefs, you can think that their beliefs are utter nonsense if you want. But claiming to respect those beliefs while saying they aren't allowed to practice them as government employees is well a self-delusion at best. If you truly believe that discrimination on religious grounds is wrong then you have to allow people to dress according to their religions dictates and that's really all there is too it.

Although why the hell do you even care? Some customs officers are wearing Hijabs. How does this affect you? How does this bring the slightest harm to any human being whatsoever? Do you think it impedes their ability to be customs officers?

I mean life is hard enough without worrying that the government isn't applying it's dress code with total consistency.

Axolotl:

Realitycrash:
[I get your argument - We need to respect these peoples religion and/or choice in life. But why can't they respect that they can't wear a certain piece of cloth which holds specific connotations while they are in uniform?

Because the very notion that a religious command, something which is supposedly direct instruction from the creator of the universe and the source of all ethical guidance and morality is in way to be superseded by a government dress code is absurd.

Look nobodies asking you to agree with their beliefs, you can think that their beliefs are utter nonsense if you want. But claiming to respect those beliefs while saying they aren't allowed to practice them as government employees is well a self-delusion at best. If you truly believe that discrimination on religious grounds is wrong then you have to allow people to dress according to their religions dictates and that's really all there is too it.

Although why the hell do you even care? Some customs officers are wearing Hijabs. How does this affect you? How does this bring the slightest harm to any human being whatsoever? Do you think it impedes their ability to be customs officers?

I mean life is hard enough without worrying that the government isn't applying it's dress code with total consistency.

They are allowed to practice them, at home just like everyone else. See that's the whole point, this is about treating everyone regardless of religion equally. It's not right to give one religion more respect than the others.

Xan Krieger:
They are allowed to practice them, at home just like everyone else.

It's not a fucking hobby it's a religion, it's something that permeates every part of the practitioners life, it's a fundamental part of who they are, it isn't something to be done part time. Either they're allowed to practice it or they aren't. if their religion requires them to wear hijabs all the time then if you aren't letting them wear them all the time, you aren't letting them practice it.

See that's the whole point, this is about treating everyone regardless of religion equally. It's not right to give one religion more respect than the others.

Who the fuck is saying they should respect one more than others? Allowing Muslim workers to wear Hijabs isn't in any way whatsoever respecting them more than others all it's doing is allowing them to be workers in the first place.

Of course this brings up my earlier question to Realitycrash which I now address to you. Why the hell do you care that a government might not be being enforced properly over such a petty detail?

Axolotl:

Xan Krieger:
They are allowed to practice them, at home just like everyone else.

It's not a fucking hobby it's a religion, it's something that permeates every part of the practitioners life, it's a fundamental part of who they are, it isn't something to be done part time. Either they're allowed to practice it or they aren't. if their religion requires them to wear hijabs all the time then if you aren't letting them wear them all the time, you aren't letting them practice it.

See that's the whole point, this is about treating everyone regardless of religion equally. It's not right to give one religion more respect than the others.

Who the fuck is saying they should respect one more than others? Allowing Muslim workers to wear Hijabs isn't in any way whatsoever respecting them more than others all it's doing is allowing them to be workers in the first place.

Of course this brings up my earlier question to Realitycrash which I now address to you. Why the hell do you care that a government might not be being enforced properly over such a petty detail?

They just can't practice it on the job, as soon as they are off work they can put it right back on. As for them being respected more than the others, they're allowed to wear their religious stuff while other's aren't and that's not fair to those who aren't allowed to wear it. As for why it matters, I'm against injustice no matter where in the world it is.

Xan Krieger:

Axolotl:

Xan Krieger:
They are allowed to practice them, at home just like everyone else.

It's not a fucking hobby it's a religion, it's something that permeates every part of the practitioners life, it's a fundamental part of who they are, it isn't something to be done part time. Either they're allowed to practice it or they aren't. if their religion requires them to wear hijabs all the time then if you aren't letting them wear them all the time, you aren't letting them practice it.

See that's the whole point, this is about treating everyone regardless of religion equally. It's not right to give one religion more respect than the others.

Who the fuck is saying they should respect one more than others? Allowing Muslim workers to wear Hijabs isn't in any way whatsoever respecting them more than others all it's doing is allowing them to be workers in the first place.

Of course this brings up my earlier question to Realitycrash which I now address to you. Why the hell do you care that a government might not be being enforced properly over such a petty detail?

They just can't practice it on the job, as soon as they are off work they can put it right back on.

I've already addressed this. But I'll say it again. Religion is not a part time thing, if you want to respect peoples religious beliefs then you have to actually let them practice what their religions tells them they must do.

And before you just repeat yourself again allowing them to be Muslim only as long as they don't do it around you isn't enough.

As for them being respected more than the others, they're allowed to wear their religious stuff while other's aren't and that's not fair to those who aren't allowed to wear it.

Aren't they? Please can you show some examples of when the Swedish Customs officers who are allowing people to wear Hijabs are firing people for wearing other items that their religions require of them.

Of course even if you can show that this is happening then the problem isn't that employees are allowed to be Muslim it's that the other religions are being hurt.

As for why it matters, I'm against injustice no matter where in the world it is.

By what possible standard could some customs officers wearing Hijabs be an injustice?

Axolotl:

Xan Krieger:

Axolotl:
It's not a fucking hobby it's a religion, it's something that permeates every part of the practitioners life, it's a fundamental part of who they are, it isn't something to be done part time. Either they're allowed to practice it or they aren't. if their religion requires them to wear hijabs all the time then if you aren't letting them wear them all the time, you aren't letting them practice it.

Who the fuck is saying they should respect one more than others? Allowing Muslim workers to wear Hijabs isn't in any way whatsoever respecting them more than others all it's doing is allowing them to be workers in the first place.

Of course this brings up my earlier question to Realitycrash which I now address to you. Why the hell do you care that a government might not be being enforced properly over such a petty detail?

They just can't practice it on the job, as soon as they are off work they can put it right back on.

I've already addressed this. But I'll say it again. Religion is not a part time thing, if you want to respect peoples religious beliefs then you have to actually let them practice what their religions tells them they must do.

And before you just repeat yourself again allowing them to be Muslim only as long as they don't do it around you isn't enough.

As for them being respected more than the others, they're allowed to wear their religious stuff while other's aren't and that's not fair to those who aren't allowed to wear it.

Aren't they? Please can you show some examples of when the Swedish Customs officers who are allowing people to wear Hijabs are firing people for wearing other items that their religions require of them.

Of course even if you can show that this is happening then the problem isn't that employees are allowed to be Muslim it's that the other religions are being hurt.

As for why it matters, I'm against injustice no matter where in the world it is.

By what possible standard could some customs officers wearing Hijabs be an injustice?

Like I've said before, the problem is they are getting special treatment. If they're allowed to do this then they should be fine with any other religious person wearing the signs of their religion, someone with a big cross necklace for example. If they would treat everyone as equals that would solve it, no matter what religion you are you can't wear the stuff while you're at work. If they can't comply with that then they should seek a job that's not in government.

Xan Krieger:
Like I've said before, the problem is they are getting special treatment. If they're allowed to do this then they should be fine with any other religious person wearing the signs of their religion, someone with a big cross necklace for example. If they would treat everyone as equals that would solve it, no matter what religion you are you can't wear the stuff while you're at work. If they can't comply with that then they should seek a job that's not in government.

Why do you think that not letting Muslims work for the government is in any way a preferable solution to just letting people wear what their religion tells they have to?

Axolotl:

Xan Krieger:
Like I've said before, the problem is they are getting special treatment. If they're allowed to do this then they should be fine with any other religious person wearing the signs of their religion, someone with a big cross necklace for example. If they would treat everyone as equals that would solve it, no matter what religion you are you can't wear the stuff while you're at work. If they can't comply with that then they should seek a job that's not in government.

Why do you think that not letting Muslims work for the government is in any way a preferable solution to just letting people wear what their religion tells they have to?

Muslims can work for the government so long as they follow the same rules as everyone else. If they want to wear what they want then let everyone else wear what they want.

Xan Krieger:

Axolotl:

Xan Krieger:
Like I've said before, the problem is they are getting special treatment. If they're allowed to do this then they should be fine with any other religious person wearing the signs of their religion, someone with a big cross necklace for example. If they would treat everyone as equals that would solve it, no matter what religion you are you can't wear the stuff while you're at work. If they can't comply with that then they should seek a job that's not in government.

Why do you think that not letting Muslims work for the government is in any way a preferable solution to just letting people wear what their religion tells they have to?

Muslims can work for the government so long as they follow the same rules as everyone else. If they want to wear what they want then let everyone else wear what they want.

They are following the same rules as everyone else, and the rules say if your religion requires you to wear a Hijab then you can.

Axolotl:

Xan Krieger:

Axolotl:
Why do you think that not letting Muslims work for the government is in any way a preferable solution to just letting people wear what their religion tells they have to?

Muslims can work for the government so long as they follow the same rules as everyone else. If they want to wear what they want then let everyone else wear what they want.

They are following the same rules as everyone else, and the rules say if your religion requires you to wear a Hijab then you can.

And that's a bad rule because it gives one religion an advantage over the others. We've gone round and round on this issue and neither of us made any progress so I guess it's one of those where we will have to agree to disagree.

Axolotl:

Realitycrash:
[I get your argument - We need to respect these peoples religion and/or choice in life. But why can't they respect that they can't wear a certain piece of cloth which holds specific connotations while they are in uniform?

Because the very notion that a religious command, something which is supposedly direct instruction from the creator of the universe and the source of all ethical guidance and morality is in way to be superseded by a government dress code is absurd.

Look nobodies asking you to agree with their beliefs, you can think that their beliefs are utter nonsense if you want. But claiming to respect those beliefs while saying they aren't allowed to practice them as government employees is well a self-delusion at best. If you truly believe that discrimination on religious grounds is wrong then you have to allow people to dress according to their religions dictates and that's really all there is too it.

Although why the hell do you even care? Some customs officers are wearing Hijabs. How does this affect you? How does this bring the slightest harm to any human being whatsoever? Do you think it impedes their ability to be customs officers?

I mean life is hard enough without worrying that the government isn't applying it's dress code with total consistency.

'My religion says so' isn't a valid excuse in my mind, not when you're working. At least it is not any more a decent excuse than 'my political affiliation says so'. It's a personal belief, equal to all other personal beliefs, and they shouldn't be represented while in state uniform.

So no, I don't think that argument works. What I DO think might be a valid argument is accept that some special treatment if acceptable if the consequences merit it. Same as with gender-discrimination. We need more women in the work-force, and we need more minorities. So we are cutting them a break, even though it's an arbitrary one.

The purpose of state and religion being separate is so that people's personal beliefs aren't forced onto people who may disagree. It's so that laws will be defined by what is legal rights and wrongs, not religious ones. That being said, there is quite a difference between someone making laws around their religious beliefs, and simply wearing a religious symbol. Just because someone wears a hijab, or a cross, doesn't necessarily mean that their religious influences their politics, it just means that they have a religion.

Politicians, just like any other individuals, are allowed to have personal beliefs, no matter how silly those beliefs they may be. If it really bothers you so much that a politician wears a piece of cloth on their head, then don't vote for them.

Axolotl:

Xan Krieger:
Why do you think that not letting Muslims work for the government is in any way a preferable solution to just letting people wear what their religion tells they have to?

Muslims can work for the government so long as they follow the same rules as everyone else.

This is a bit like arguing that it's legal for gays to marry so long as they marry someone of the opposite gender. Techncially it's true, but in practice you're just preventing them from getting married.

Sure, a Mulsim could technically get a government job by not wearing the hijab--but since this would be a violation of their relgious rules it's not going to happen, and the end result is just the same as if you said "no Mulsims allowed".

In response to the opening question, I don't have a problem with anyone displaying a symbol of their religion on a civilian uniform as long as it doesn't detract from the uniform or the job they're supposed to be doing. However I feel it needs to apply to all religions with no special attention paid to minority

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked