Banning religious symbols

[QUOTE]

[b]Zebonka12 wrote: [/b]

[QUOTE]





[b]magicalfreddiemercury wrote:[/b]







[b] However, when she arrives at my door, she's wearing black lipstick, thick eyeliner, a low-cut blouse, miniskirt and thigh-high boots, and she has a tattoo going from the side of her neck down her arm. Not one religious symbol adorns her body or clothing. [/b]





[/QUOTE] ... I'd buy that for a dollar!![/QUOTE]













Well... that's not exactly where I was going with that but... O. Kay. lol

I apologise, this isn't the thread for Robocop quotes.
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]I'll find a Jim Hutton one instead.  :D[/QUOTE]

Great post, magicalmercury, I agree with every word.

As for the police searching you, Yara, I am sorry. Police is not allowed to select ethnic groups for security checks but we know that they do it all the time, anyway. Mainly after the 2006 bombs planted into various trains by Islamists from the Lebanon (the bombs luckily did not blow off) they search mainly people looking like Muslims. Yes, we should take people for what they are and not for what they wear. Unfortunately, you will be judged for what you wear in many cases.

[QUOTE][b]YourValentine wrote: [/b]



Great post, magicalmercury, I agree with every word.

As for the police searching you, Yara, I am sorry. Police is not allowed to select ethnic groups for security checks but we know that they do it all the time, anyway. Mainly after the 2006 bombs planted into various trains by Islamists from the Lebanon (the bombs luckily did not blow off) they search mainly people looking like Muslims. Yes, we should take people for what they are and not for what they wear. Unfortunately, you will be judged for what you wear in many cases. [/QUOTE]

[/QUOTE]  Hey, you have nothing to be sorry about. It was not you doing the search and singling me out. As for the cop, well, he was doing his job - maybe the people instructing him may not be doing their job as well as they can; maybe they've been following an unwise political path. "Maybe" because all this can be argued and discussed. In fact, there's a German musician I know who thought that it was absolutely reasonable for the cop to search me and answer the way he did; he even thought that I was being very arrogant. Did he have tons of arguments we discussed? Yes, he did. And I discussed all them in a respectful way, trying to learn what was worth learning, and dismissing what I thought was not right.

One of my arguments were: Germany is one of Israel's major financial and military supporters, only losing to the U.S; Israel launched a vicious attack in Lebabon, and it had already done so in the 80's. Many German U-boats and weapons are seen by Lebanese as symbols of Israeli military ruthlessness. I said: "Well, Israel is not a good candidate for receiving high-technology weaponry and money right now; it's not really deserving it". That'd be a good way to dimish the risk of terrorism in Germany, though, of course, that wouldn't solve the problem. One of my best friends is from Lebanon; I've been there many times. Despite all the conflicts, most people don't care a jot about whether I'm Jewish or am wearing Jewish garment. I like the Lebanese in general. I had a terrific time there. I know people who didn't have such a good experience. It's life!  

Maybe, who knows, just as you said, the guy who did the search prevented me from being blown off in many other rides! Is it a fair argument that can be reasonably discussed? For sure. After many debates, I'd probably disagree with that, for a number of reasons, but I'm always looking forward, as I did in the case of that musician, to listen to what people have to say. 

There have been many people, police or not, who have mistreated me in Germany, including the lady in that store. It was just an example. She probably was thinking that I was going to hit her...or steal something. None of this is the "fault" or whatever of any German who was not directly involved, even if he, just as this guy, thinks this is right: he is entitled to his opinions as much as I am. He'd be actually responsible, in the full sense of the word, if, and only if, instead of voicing his opinion, he bullied me or hit me, just like the lady in the store or that cop. He treated me most kindly, even though we had disagreed bitterly on political issues. Not that I don't believe that people shouldn't be held accountable for their opinions in a democracy - they should, but not in all cases. There's a fine line here between forbidding dissent and holding people morally accountable.  
 
It's maybe time, I guess, for you guys to be less worried about the "Nazi" charges. There are probably as many different Germans as there are people - judging a whole people, largely composed of people who had barely, if at all, been born during World War II for the crimes comitted by the Nazis would be simply unfair and wrong, in my view.  

Let's hope that, in more peaceful times, things change for the better. I have things to improve on my side, for sure, Germans have their issues to work out too. Muslims have a lot of things to think about too!

Magicalfreddiemercury:

I hope you take it lightly, because I meant it this way: well, I do have the right to my vanity, my sense of proud and my ambitions! Some people change themselves to the point of getting almost unrecognizable by doing plastic surgery; some people have breast-implants; I wear a veil sometimes. Do I see any problem about people having their surgeries? No. I wouldn't do it, but I must admit that people who do it in a fine way start to look really better. The veil thing is funny because most of our industry is largely engaged in trying to turn people into something different than they are, physically and emotionally: it's one of the most profitable industries. It has its good and it has its bad aspects. Just like my veil. It has some good sides to me, it has its disadvantages.

We can't be so face-showing fanatics anyway, can't we? No plastic surgery, no make-up? Oh, come on. I want to have the right to resort at least to the latter without people charging me of "hiding the defects of my skin". Oh, but these charges inevitably come when people see you with, and then without, make-up. : )))

I don’t think this is a fair representation of what I’ve written. I never claimed that people should accept me or hire me for any job; no, not at all. On the contrary: I said that the Mr. Canadian from my example is…correct in his attitude! Do read it again more carefully. I even put Mr. Canadian’s words in capitals when I said that: “Teaching is not only imparting knowledge…”. And there’s a legitimate point here.
 
My point is about public policy. It’s the moment when the state starts to deny me certain rights under the assumption that the way I dress supposedly defies the values of a certain culture or put it under threat. And, as I said, these values are constantly being defied in much more aggressive ways, sometimes even through very practical statements translated into military operations, but when it comes to the peaceful observance of one’s tradition, a huge amount of prejudice steps in.

I never, even once, suggested that teachers should be allowed to cover their faces: I think women in burqhas should be accorded the same rights as other people as far as she’s holding on to her traditions in a peaceful way and within reasonable limits. I OPPOSED SARKOZY’S high-talk about teaching freedom to the “savages”. The way it was presented to the public – it sounded racist, it sounded offensive.   

Now, let's go to the answer. : -)))

I had to break it in two parts. : )

I’d never apply for a job defined by market-generated values which induce conformity and uniformity. I would never dream of applying for a job in this store. But, yes, I do make a point of being able not to wear a veil, but to dress myself in a way that I feel comfortable about and still be allowed to teach. I’d even accept people monitoring my classes, I wouldn’t mind – the issue is that there’s a point where the state starts to demand you to abandon so much of your tradition that you feel humiliated. There “were”, well, there still are, but there were times when, well, BLACKS were not really considered a good option to serve WHITE-COLLAR costumers. Is there AN ECONOMIC LOGIC ABOUT THAT? Yup. Is it still racist? Oh, yeah. Is it absolutely logical, economically speaking, TO INVADE IRAQ or being prejudicial about BLACKS? Of course! Sometimes the market demands exactly that – a certain degree of prejudice.

There’s no imperialism without two things: racism and xenophobia. It’s never happened. It probably never will. As YourValentine said: you'll be searched for looking like a Muslim. This is prejudice, of course. People feel safer because they regard it as a security measure. Fair play. But there's a generelization at play which follows the very same logic of racism. Fair play...racism and prejudice is in our everyday lives, not only in state actions. It's hard to think that such things will ever be effaced from society.

Do I think this is the ideal? Again, I don’t. Is this how the world works? As I said, yes. I don’t bang my head against the wall. But I try to stand up for rights I believe I have in certain circumstances. And my fight is a peaceful, legal one, not an armed struggle.

Notice that arrogance is not the same as making simple value judgments. You make the latter all the time. Everybody does. The way I express certain discomforts in my personal life takes on the shape of my cultural formation: in school, as a student, many times, or most often, I don’t have the option of simply getting away from people I don’t want to be with because they are either disrespecting me or being incredibly gross and rude, capable of a secular sexism which is far beyond anything I experience in my religious community.

Then, and only then, and not SOLELY for this reason, I use a veil sometimes, not as an act of arrogance, but as a result of a judgment I’m entitled to make, and the kind of which we can’t avoid if we want to even get up in the morning. I don’t have to read Hume or Kant to understand that we operate by doing all kinds of judgments involving facts and values. The way we express them, as long as it’s peaceful, should not be banned from the public sphere, to my mind. And, yes, we do feel shame for other people – it’s a common, natural, human emotion which we express in a lot of different ways. Mine is not worse than someone simply leaving the place without saying a word; I may have the right to be in that place and, still, not want people to see my face. They have PLENTY of things to look at.

This is not arrogance. These are situations where a woman, especially in very sexist cultures, as Brazil is in many ways, just wants to keep enjoying her rights without feeling utterly uncomfortable.  

The veil has other significances in my culture. I make rituals of purification – I don’t feel at ease about going out showing my face in the case I haven’t gone through them.

But one thing I’d never think about doing: THINKING THAT THE VEIL, BY ITSELF, IS A SOLUTION FOR MY PROBLEMS. No – if I act badly or wrongly, I don’t cover it all with a veil: I actually try to improve my behavior and be more gentle, patient, kind or whatever it is that triggered my error. That’s, again, what my religion and my elementary morals demand of me: the only difference is that I sometimes put a veil to feel comfortable about myself and in my relation to…God – I’m religious. I do think God exists. Do religious Jews are stimulated to talk about their religion? Not at all! On the contrary: hassidim are always advised to respect other people’s rights, and their sacred right to their own personalities and histories, and try to be as holy as possible WITHIN YOURSELF; and also by trying to do good in the world, including in our everyday lives.

This is my religion. So, when people equate me, in some way, with Bush or Bin Laden, why shouldn’t I take that for what it is – PREJUDICE? A generalization which results in prejudice.

If the prejudice is embedded in a culture – like in the shop you mentioned – there’s nothing much one can do about it.    
Ultimately, I think, as I just said, that people are just terribly afraid because, for one thing, they’re not very sure about their own values after so many years of wars, clever shifts in the ways of domination and exploitation, and so on.

YourValentine put it really well when she said that many Germans are still haunted by the Nazi heritage. It’s a heritage that brings shame and doubts about one’s own culture, even if the German, as most Germans, are opposed to Nazis as fiercely as a Holocaust survivor would be.

My point again: I DON’T DEMAND PEOPLE TO LOVE ME. I want to be accorded the same rights as other people – I think it is very unreasonable to deny me the right of teaching because of religious symbols, when I know perfectly well that the neutral point is often the authoritarian point. Do I go out of my mind about it? No! I look for jobs I can do, just the one I have now. For instance: I do work in a department of science. No one demands me to wear “neutral clothes” – why? Because that’s how a department of science works…it doesn’t matter a jot to people how I’m dressed as long as I can do the job. There are young people who work with computers who go to work wearing shorts and T-shirt and piercing and tattoo: do THEY COMPLAIN AGAINST ME? NO! Not at all. We get together really fine. Do I think they’re doing something wrong? Not at all, again.

So, in the store you mentioned, I’d be highly unwelcomed, for sure; in a Physics department, not so – I’ve already studied abroad, and I’m asked to return, and the question about dressing never came up.

This is all I’m saying. That’s the way the world goes round. Each one tries to make his or her living taking advantage of his or her qualities and trying to circumvent his/her negative points.

Most people are out there to live a peaceful and decent life. We follow our own, very peculiar ways, because, well, we’re different. And as long as we all try to do it peacefully and respectfully, then fine.

People who break the law should be punished. And when the State breaks the law, which happens quite often, it has to be held accountable to citizens – either because it fostered or promoted prejudice, injustice, harm, humiliation or destitution.

I fight for mine. I have been reasonably successful as far as the U.S, the country you live in, is concerned. There seems to be a positive exchange: I work and abide by the rules, people respect the way I dress.
Most of the time in New York people don’t even notice the way I’m dressed. It’s not an issue. They’re too busy leading their own lives.

In Europe, well, that’s not exactly so, even if, as anyone else, I want ENTER A SHOP AS COSTUMER, not asking for a job.

I could make a huge fuss about the way I was treated in FNAC at Les Halles once. I don’t. I don’t like victimizing.
I know there’s prejudice. I know there are tons of rationals for it. I do my best to overcome these barriers.

Nice discussion. Looking forward to read more about it from you guys, even if I may not have the time to answer anything. I'm past the time I should have left already!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Cheers you all, great topic.

Ban religion as a whole. It's all total bollocks. Believing in some so called deity who may or may not exist & then worshipping them for a lifetime? I have better things to do with my life thanks very much. I may be proven wrong, but I'm gonna have a blast before I shuffle off this mortal coil. Religion is & always has been the biggest cause of arguements, war & death in the history of the World. Get born, live life to the full, die. Why believe in something only to be proven after death?

To say the least, your posts were interesting and a very good read, Yara.  I'm not immune to changing my stance on any particular subject, but I'm still not convinced in this case.

You cover your face since you think it's too sacred for most people to see, but most of those people will judge you because it's highly unusual.  Sounds like a fair exchange to me.  Your life is your choice, so I can only hope you're truly happy with your decisions.

Magicalfreddiemercury said, "You feel others are sometimes not good enough for you and sometimes you are not good enough for them.  How morbidly archaic that thought process seems in this modern world."  I couldn't have said it better myself.  In fact, that entire post with the hypothetical workplace example was most excellent.

As for the 'Canadian in spirit' comment, I was referring to the ability to speak at least one of the official languages, not one's choice of attire.  Please don't twist my words for your advantage.  You almost sound like a politician that way.  I certainly don't think anyone is less Canadian for wearing something unusual.  As long as they're lawful, able to communicate with their fellow citizens, and contribute to society by working and paying taxes (save those who are not healthy enough to do so), then they have a place in this country.  I'm sure most of my fellow citizens would agree.

I'm going to start a Church of Floyd.
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]No one will stop me from wearing a picture of David Gilmour.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]

[b]Zebonka12 wrote: [/b]

I'm going to start a Church of Floyd.
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE] No one will stop me from wearing a picture of David Gilmour. [/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]
reply:
you konw that Jedi is an official religon in the UK?

Ha!  I remember when they tried to get that going here during a Census ....

This is such a serious and relevant thread, and being an Asian it is interesting to know the opinions of the common westerners on the subject. But the posts are so verbose, can y'all possibly make your  future posts less lengthier? Thanks!

[QUOTE]





[b]ParisNair wrote: [/b]



 This is such a serious and relevant thread, and being an Asian it is interesting to know the opinions of the common westerners on the subject. But the posts are so verbose, can y'all possibly make your  future posts less lengthier? Thanks!

[/QUOTE]
lol. Sorry. I know I tried to keep my responses to the point but I just couldn't make it happen.

To sum up my opinion - Everyone knows religion is a hot-button issue. It has divided people for centuries and continues to divide us today. While some people feel the need to express their religious convictions by dressing in a certain way, I think it is arrogant and dismissive of them to appear stunned by the way they are viewed. It's like wearing a hooded parker and gloves in summer and feigning surprise when others find it peculiar. I am offended by those who complain they are not permitted religious freedom while at the same time trying to limit the freedoms of those from other faiths or no faith.

I am not in favor of banning religious symbols but I am in favor of limitations - for ALL religious symbolism.

I agree with what Sir GH said in his last post: "I'm not immune to changing my stance on any particular subject, but I'm still not convinced in this case."

[QUOTE]

[b]More Cowbell wrote: [/b]

Ban religion as a whole. It's all total bollocks. Believing in some so called deity who may or may not exist & then worshipping them for a lifetime? I have better things to do with my life thanks very much. I may be proven wrong, but I'm gonna have a blast before I shuffle off this mortal coil. Religion is & always has been the biggest cause of arguements, war & death in the history of the World. Get born, live life to the full, die. Why believe in something only to be proven after death?
[/QUOTE]
Banning religion is one step closer to totalitarianism, and it restricts the very basic rights of people as individuals. Shoving any kinds of beliefs down people's throats is just plain wrong, and it doesn't make it any less extremist than the most fundamentalist of religious regimes. Stalin did everything in his power to ban religion, and I want to hear someone tell me how good did that go.

Truth is that religion is NOT the root of all problems as many would believe.
Intolerance is.

I could play the childish game of attributing claims that people never made or saying that they’re arrogant for a thousand of reasons: anyone is vulnerable to this kind of charge, of course, and the reduction of the opponent’s arguments to absurd and ridicule is just a way of avoiding the rational, very circumscribed debate about to what extent the State should be allowed to interfere with people’s identities, religious or not. To what extent the way a person is dressed should influence her legal status: I don’t get “stunned”, as it’s been suggested, by the fact that, well, many people think I’m weird; not at all. I get sad, and find a bit of a nuisance, that some people start to think that just because I dress differently they have the right to heap abuse on me; mistreat me in stores or other public spaces where I should be accorded the same rights as any other person; bully, push or hit me. All these things have happened to me in Europe, and, to a lesser degree, in my country as well.
 
Without understanding that the secular State, as it has been developed in modern industrial societies, is not an ATHEIST State – that’d be, for instance, Soviet Union under Stalin, perhaps -, but only a kind of power arrangement designed to ensure that people of all kinds of religious and non-religious convictions can live in peace, it’s very hard to make any advances in the debate.  
 
Every ideology divides people. But there’s something interesting here in the way that religion is singled out: Martin Luther King was not an atheist. A good deal of the power of his message came from his religion – and here you have a social movement, largely based on a certain Christian tradition, which ended up imploding an ideology which prevented blacks from enjoying the same rights and freedoms as whites. Much of this ideology was based on what was regarded as science: Social Darwinism and other pseudo-scientific rubbish. I’m not condemning science; it’s what I do for a living. Nor am I here to deny the gruesome acts done in the name of God.
 
It goes without saying that the history of the Black movements in the United States is closely connected with that of the Jewish community. The 20th Century witnessed enough enlightened violence against religious and non-religious people alike, in a probably unprecedented scale. That goes back in time. When Marquis de Pombal uprooted the Jesuits who were protecting the natives in South America in the 18th Century, he did that by the enlightenment book – he put Voltaire in action, so to speak. The result was dreadful both for the Natives and the Jesuits. The enlightenment brought about a lot of fundamental and important changes in society, but it promoted the very misguided notion of “history as progress”.  
 
Calling me arrogant for wearing a certain kind of cloth and refusing to be denied the same rights as other people is beyond the point. Denying me the right – as Sarkozy’s and other leaders’ speeches suggest - of reacting to what I see as sexism, gross injustice and rudeness in my own way is profoundly arrogant, if for no other reason because it takes as an assumption that, whenever I happen to feel uncomfortable in a situation, I must either endure it or protest in ways that have to be in agreement with one’s own worldview! I’m not entitled to express my own personality and identity in a peaceful way, but by dint of some magical property, I’m the one who’s being arrogant! : -))
 
There are other issues at hand as well, but that’d take far too much time and space to debate: the way States have been identified with “society” and “nation” again, despite, or as a result of, the globalization process. That’d be one, and it is in the heart of this debate.
 
I’m not debating my emotional bonds with people, or eventually, in some cases, the lack thereof; I’m debating public policy and public statements made by public figures. I’m not “stunned” for being regarded as different; I’m outraged for being regarded as a kind of savage by public figures who should be out there promoting equality, and not prejudice against certain kinds of perfectly peaceful religious manifestations.  
 
I said it in capitals: I don’t demand people to love me nor I expect them to. If it happens, well, it’s thrilling; if it doesn’t, life goes on. What I DO demand is that I’m accorded the very same rights of people who also make their statements in the public sphere by wearing other kinds of cloths and resorting to other kinds of discourses, which, interestingly enough, are regarded as neutral, when they’re anything but that.
 
Again, I never advocated the suppression of other people’s rights. On the contrary: my religion, quite differently from many secular ideologies, is based on the sacred principle that each person is entitled to her personality and history, and that this is not negotiable. As I said, I find it COOL, very nice really, that young people who wear piercings and have tattoos all over their bodies work in the same department as me in a peaceful, joyful way.
 
But I came to understand that these young people, often called immature or whatever because they refuse to succumb to whatever the pattern is thought to be, are much wiser than your average sober adult middle-class guy fraught with unconsidered prejudices and fearful of any kind of difference, even while they themselves are the ones pressing their boots on other people’s faces by invading and bombing other countries to supposedly bring them democracy or freedom.
 
As of now, and it’s been so for at least 100 years, if not ever since Napoleon’s invasion of Egypt, is the West which is denying the rights of either Muslims, Jews or Middle Eastern peoples in general. Not the contrary. And yes, I know that Egypt is in Africa. ; -))