• frostbiker@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    59
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I’m all for letting people wear whatever they want. What is the harm?

    Here in Canada I’ve seen police officers wearing turbans. Works for me. Nude beaches? Sure thing. I’ve seen people in my neighborhood wearing Saudi-style niqabs and Afghan-style burqas.

    Who am I to tell people what they should or shouldn’t wear? How could it be my business?

    I’m also for people burning the Qur’an if they so please. Or the bible, or the rainbow flag, or the national flag if that’s how they want to protest. Ideas are there to be challenged.

    I draw the line at threatening or harming people.

    • Leax@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      35
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      France is a secularist Republic. Freedom of religion is guaranteed but every religious sign is banned in the public space.

      • frostbiker@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        31
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        I understand that’s how things are, but I don’t think that is how they should be. And while I’m an atheist, I also understand many people aren’t. Why force my irreligiosity on them?

        So while students should not be indoctrinated on any particular religion in school, I don’t see the harm in letting both teachers and students wear whatever they like, including religious symbols.

        In fact, it would be great if we taught all students the basics of multiple world religions in school and let people of different faiths talk to each other about what is important to them.

        • Square Singer@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I really like this stance. Understanding other people is absolutely important. You don’t have to agree with them, but you do have to understand them and see them as people.

          • frostbiker@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Precisely! We have more in common than not. And I sincerely believe that we become more tolerant by talking and trying to understand each other, even if we find areas where we disagree.

            Remaining in our own little information bubble is what radicalizes people.

        • Turun@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I can see where you are coming from. How can we forbid clothing if the goal is to not dictate what to wear?

          But consider that in a community, be that at school or in the neighborhood, classmates and neighbors can uphold unregulated, religious rules. Is it free choice of clothing if the law doesn’t forbid anything, but only girls with (insert appropriate clothing) are allowed to join in the play? And there is plenty precedent of religion that causes precisely such group behavior.

          • frostbiker@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            There is plenty of precedent of non-religious informal rules around clothing. E.g. men wearing skirts, dresses, or soft “feminine” colors. Do those informal rules bother you as well? Should we change the law accordingly, or are we okay with informal norms of conduct in that case?

            • Turun@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              In general, yes I do think that we should get rid of such informal rules. And I would appreciate a law that e.g. ensures an employer can not discriminate against men wearing dresses or skirts. For what it’s worth, there have been protest by bus drivers, who are not allowed to wear shorts in the summer, who showed up in skirts on a hot day.

              If we change the garment from abayas to pants it would be “to ban male students from wearing pants in school”, meaning they’d be forced to wear skirts or dresses. But two points make this different from the OP:

              1. Since this is not linked to religion it has a slightly different spin. I can’t put it into words that well, but a guy choosing to wear a skirt is just that, a clothing choice. But Islam is pretty explicit that women should cover themselves. So if a guy goes against the informal law people would make fun of him. If an Islam woman wears short clothes she is not only made fun of, but can also get in trouble with her entire community.
              2. While dresses/skirts are almost exclusively worn by women, pants are worn by men and women. So a guy wearing pants is not the outlier, he is wearing the gender neutral clothing. If abayas are also worn by a significant fraction of male students in France I would heavily oppose the proposed ban, but I found nothing that would indicate such a practice.
          • Syndic@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Well if that really were the fears of people proposing such bans, then there would be a lot of better ways to achieve this. At the very least they would try to support such bans with flanking policies such as better infrastructure to support such women who are oppressed in a religious ways as for example better integration courses and public information.

            And for some reason it’s always only about Muslim women! Other religions which can also coerce or force family members to follow a certain dress code, not a single word about them.

            • letmesleep@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              And for some reason it’s always only about Muslim women! Other religions which can also coerce or force family members to follow a certain dress code, not a single word about them.

              Because right now and in Europe those are rather rare. Afaik there’s some Christian groups where women always wear long skirts, but those groups tend to get called “cults” (“Sekten” here in Germany) so I don’t really see a double standard there.

              That said, there are surveys regarding why women wear hijabs and - at least in Germany - those say that the vast majority wears them voluntarily.

              • Syndic@feddit.de
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Because right now and in Europe those are rather rare.

                So were Muslim women wearing Burqas and yet several countries have made laws against them. So the rarity of the oppression doesn’t seem to matter that much.

                But regardless, if this is a legitimate problem, then the law should be secular and apply to all religions.

        • Syndic@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I understand that’s how things are, but I don’t think that is how they should be.

          Don’t take that guy just at his word. France does force secularism on their government buildings and workers, including teachers. But public wearing of religious symbols or garnment is perfectly fine. They recently banned face covering, with the obvious target of Muslim women wearing burqa or niqabs, but everything else is perfectly legal to wear in public.

          • frostbiker@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I don’t see harm by them not being allowed to wear it…

            How would you feel about somebody banning your favorite attire? What right do they have to tell you what to wear?

            And you should talk about all religions, but only in a negative way.

            Why? Even though I’m an atheist, it’s also clear that religion is often a source of comfort and community to many people, especially during times of hardship. And by learning a little about different religions we can learn to be more tolerant of people who see the world differently.

            • CookieJarObserver@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              1 year ago

              How would you feel about somebody banning your favorite attire? What right do they have to tell you what to wear?

              Its not a favorite attire when its a religious thing that is forced on people.

              Why? Even though I’m an atheist, it’s also clear that religion is often a source of comfort and community to many people, especially during times of hardship. And by learning a little about different religions we can learn to be more tolerant of people who see the world differently.

              Nope. We don’t need to tolerate things that preach intolerance. There is nothing positive about religions in general.

              • frostbiker@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                7
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Its not a favorite attire when its a religious thing that is forced on people.

                Am I asking that we force women to cover their hair? No, I’m saying that they should be allowed to choose by themselves. Not coerced to cover it, not banned from doing so either. Let them choose.

                We don’t need to tolerate things that preach intolerance. There is nothing positive about religions in general.

                The only intolerance we are seeing here is your own.

      • tryptaminev 🇵🇸 🇺🇦 🇪🇺@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Every sign being banned in public? So what about all the crosses on the churches, or the ringing of their bells? What about people wearing crosses and nunns wearing the traditional dress? What about the easter processions in some places?

        Sorry, but claiming that this would be in line with a secular policy doesnt work. It is target against muslims and muslims specifically without any actual bearing on secularism

        • Ziggurat@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          These laws have been made to kick of the priest out of the school. If you’re a nun or a priest and attend school you have to wear civil clothe.

          I am fine saying that these laws are over used against Muslim,but religious signs are banned in school and for government employee

          • tryptaminev 🇵🇸 🇺🇦 🇪🇺@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            While i support it for government employees in schools or other jobs with the public, i think we also need to look at the role of the attire. Priests and Nunns wear specific attire to their religious role.

            It is not day to day clothing for normal people. for the Abbaya, or we had the same discussion in Germany for Hijab or any scarf around the head i always found it absurd since my areligious grandmother wore a scarf covering her head all the time and she preffered clothing that weren’t emphasizing her body shape. For day to day clothing or accessoires it becomes muddled quickly. is the cross on the wristlet a sign of religious affiliation, or just looking cute? Are the semi-moon earrings only worn by muslims, or does Anna-Sophia just like how it emphasizes her face? What about Marcs metal-band shirt with a cross on it? The only surefire way to “solve” it, would be to define a mandatory school uniform.

      • Syndic@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Freedom of religion is guaranteed but every religious sign is banned in the public space.

        No it’s not! Thousands of people walk around with religious symbols and garnments in public all the time in France.

        Secularism is enforced in government offices and employed people.

      • Franzia@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        As an American this is difficult to comprehend. I’m feeling culture shock. Maybe the first xenophobia I’ve experienced in years.

        • tal@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          France doesn’t have the First Amendment. I mean, I don’t much think that this is a good idea either, but different country, different system of government.

          • Turun@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            14
            ·
            1 year ago

            For what it’s worth, As a German I don’ t particularly like the right to free speech as it exists in the US. It allows way too much, including harmful things. E.g. in Germany it is not allowed to glorify the Holocaust. I’m pretty sure such a thing would be allowed as free speech in the US.

            • idiomaddict@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              I’m an American living in Germany. It’s not honestly much different in effect. In the US I could insult a police officer as much as I want (but you know… if I choose the wrong one they’ll fucking kill me), whereas it’s illegal in Germany. There’s a lot of things like that, where there’s technically the freedom to do something but it doesn’t really mean freedom

              • letmesleep@feddit.de
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Yeah, you kinda privatized speech control. It*s interesting that in the US people can get easily fired over things they said on social media. In Germany that’s harder. Not just because of legal protections (there are some, but they’re not that strong) but also because there’s an understanding that what can and cannot be said shouldn’t be decided by people on Twitter/X but by the law.

                • idiomaddict@feddit.de
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Yup. There’s also a much stronger line between your work life and your private life. It’s wild to me (not bad, just very unexpected) that people with drug possession charges don’t lose their jobs here, even office workers or teachers

              • anlumo@feddit.de
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                There are entire YouTube channels dedicated to people who film themselves screaming profanities at police officers in the US to get them to do something illegal.

                This group of people calls themselves First Amendment Auditors.

    • BestBouclettes@jlai.lu
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It’s a smoke screen to get right wing voters on their side once again. Public services in France are in shambles, our education is getting noticeably worse by the decade and this is what these fucks focus on.

      • frostbiker@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        That makes sense. Here in Canada they use similar tactics to distract people from stuff like the astronomical cost of housing, crumbling health care, underfunded education, etc.

        • alex [they, il]@jlai.lu
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah, last year the conversation was about banning crop tops and this year it’s long dresses, every September there’s something to talk about in french schools.

      • DessertStorms@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Exactly this, and it’s the perfect example of how “progressives” (that aren’t really that) enable fascism.

        • Deceptichum@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          No one is calling Frances government “progressive” so why are you attaching that label to this?

          This is an example how right wing capitalists enable fascism.

        • BestBouclettes@jlai.lu
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Our government hides it less and less. They are basically proto fascists that would do anything to help their rich friends keep their power.

    • letmesleep@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Nude beaches? Sure thing. I

      In other words: Nudist “clothing” is banned from the entire public safe very few exceptions.

      • frostbiker@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        In Spain you are allowed to walk around naked on any public spaces, with very few exceptions. It doesn’t happen very often in practice, but it’s allowed.

        • letmesleep@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Yeah, that is how you actually let people decide to wear what they want. Afaik Spain also doesn’t have burqa ban or anything similar (at least not in general, there may be rules in special cases).

          I’m just always a bit annoyed when US-Americans criticise it when European countries ban certain clothing. They have rather draconian laws at home as well. And of course we’re talking about schools here, hence school uniforms provide another relevant and rather widespread example of infringements on clothing-freedom.

          • lud@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Being nude in public is technically legal (but only kinda*) in my country but I don’t think forcing people to wear any clothes is comparable to banning specific types of clothes.

            *It’s basically legal as long as you’re not offending anyone. So walking around naked around town might be legal, but anything you do could suddenly make it illegal.

            This means that the law doesn’t really have to be changed overtime since it’s just based on what the general population thinks should be okay and not.

            • letmesleep@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I don’t think forcing people to wear any clothes is comparable to banning specific types of clothes.

              There are differences, but I’d actually argue that only banning very specific clothing is a lesser infraction on liberty. If you really want to be nude, you have to ditch clothing altogether. With specific garments there tends to be some wiggle room. E.g. you might try to adhere to your religious rules by wearing a wig and baggy clothing.

              Edit: I agree with you that it’s based on the “offending portion” but that’s the case with religious clothing in France. A lot of people there are offended by it.

    • DessertStorms@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      I draw the line at threatening or harming people.

      Except these bans are harming people.
      Anyone dictating what others can or cannot wear is harming people.

      All this “enlightened” centrism bullshit does is enable oppressors.

  • Renacles
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    64
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    1 year ago

    You know, the solution to women being told what to wear is not to tell them that they cannot wear it.

    • tal@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I don’t agree with this prohibition, and I doubt that it’s likely going to achieve much, but if my experience looking at past government restrictions on things that people want to do is predictive of the situation here, it’ll mean that someone will sit down and figure out the exact limit that the French government prohibits and then figure out a garment or combination of garments that accomplishes as much of the original aims as possible without crossing whatever specific garment line is there.

      I mean, what’s a women’s garment that does the head and neck? The bonnet?

      googles

      Hmm. Apparently it actually did have some religious background.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonnet_(headgear)

      Bonnets remained one of the most common types of headgear worn by women throughout most of the 19th century. Especially for a widow, a bonnet was de rigueur. Silk bonnets, elaborately pleated and ruched, were worn outdoors, or in public places like shops, galleries, churches, and during visits to acquaintances. Women would cover their heads with caps simply to keep their hair from getting dirty and perhaps out of female modesty, again, in European society, based upon the historical teaching of the Christian Bible. In addition, women in wedlock would wear caps and bonnets during the day, to further demonstrate their status as married women.

      But, as far as I know, they aren’t banned. So someone says “Okay, so people can’t wear (religious) abayas, but can wear (secular) trenchcoats? This new garment isn’t an abaya. This is a bonnet and trenchcoat.” Or, you know, whatever.

      • Syndic@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Wanna know why this whole thing isn’t about a pupil wearing something that shows their religion? They sure as hell don’t ban the kippah, sikhi turban or buddhist and hindu garnments.

        For some reason it only goes after Muslims and there mostly after women with the guise of “protecting them from oppression! ;-)”. And it never involves actual talk with the “oppressed” women in question, it’s always the assumption, that of course these women can’t decide for themself and obviously all are forced to wear such garnments.

        It started with the burqa and niqab but the people in favor of that promised that it’s just about the face covering, that there is no reason go after the hijab or similar garnments. Surprise surprise, only a few years later here we are and they still fight against “oppression” by limiting what Muslim women can wear. One would think that fighting oppression really was the goal of these people they would ask for actual support measures like providing education campaigns about personal rights and better support network for women. But no, these people think or pretend that such bans will magically solve the issue without any flanking measures. And that tells you all you need to know about their sincerities regarding this topic. It’s not about the girls and women, it never was and never will be.

  • denny@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    69
    arrow-down
    21
    ·
    1 year ago

    “When you walk into a classroom, you shouldn’t be able to identify the pupils’ religion just by looking at them,”

    Sir I’m sorry but a abaya doesn’t prove someone is religious. You can wear one if you so please even if you’re not Islam. It’s just a dress.

    • Turun@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      36
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Sure, and you an atheist could wear a cross and speak a prayer every morning. They just usually don’t and until we can telepathically determine what someone actually believes such insignia are the best way to show support for religion.

      • Rozaŭtuno@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        But the abaya is not a religious symbol, it’s literally just a fucking dress like any other, it’s just what they wear typically in that part of the world. It’s like saying that pants are a christian symbol because all Europeans wear pants, and Europe is majority christian.

        • Llewellyn@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Do you really think those girls wear abaya inside school not because of religion?

          • Toine@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I think some of them at least do it as a sign of protest against the French society. It’s normal when you are a teenager to want to defy your teachers and the school system. Of course this is somewhat used by religious preachers to gain power. But these types of law will not make the girls want to wear these clothes less, and may pressure them more into religion. Also, the extreme religious kids don’t usually go to the secular public school, there are religious schools in France. The true response to this issue is more social workers, more information about women’s rights for young girls, actual solutions for women who are attacked or pressured into religion, and a better economic and social integration of these population, regardless of the clothes they are wearing.

        • Turun@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m not an expert on religious clothing, but the Wikipedia article is pretty clear that it is strongly connected to Islam.

          Your comparison is flawed, because while “christian” -> “probably wears pants” is true, the opposite is not. If I tell you I saw someone wearing pants, you would not think about their religion. They could be Hindi, Atheist, etc. But if I tell you I saw a girl in a full body dress, you’d be able to tell their religion pretty accurately.
          Also, we are talking about France. If the Abaya is “what they tyipcally wear in that part of the world” then “all Europeans wear pants” is a contradiction.

      • CleoTheWizard@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think saying this largely denies the cultural implications of many religiously associated garments and symbols.

        Most religious symbols are not just that, they’re cultural ones. People adopt them, change them, redefine them. Drawing lines between religion and culture is very difficult so attempting to stop someone dressing some way is just a restriction of freedom, regardless of religion.

        • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Many of these girls are brought up to believe it is wrong to not cover your body as a girl and woman. How is that freedom?

            • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              When they got addicted it may very much give them freedom.

              These veils are not chosen by girls out of freedom. No 10 year old girl suddenly stands up and thinks “Better to cover my body, otherwise I may tempt the men around me”.

              • CleoTheWizard@beehaw.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                It does not matter if a vice is chosen or unchosen. Smoking is a great example. You may not choose a tobacco addiction.

                Situation A: you have the freedom to choose to quit or not. Quitting results in more freedom. Not quitting results in less. The total freedoms available to you at any time are the freedom TO quit and the freedom OF quitting

                Situation B: You have no freedom to choose to quit. Your total freedoms are: freedom from quitting.

                So your freedoms have decreased in situation B. We have to ask if personal freedoms are preferable to better outcomes.

                The difference is that freedom is independent of opinion. You are either free to do so lawfully or not. But if I say “it would be better for you to not have that freedom”, I need to demonstrate what “better” means. And there everyone often disagrees.

                • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  If you really want to take smoking as an analogy the situation would be like this: Your parents forced you into a tabacco addiction. You are growing up being told that you can’t go anywhere without smoking and those around you who do not smoke are doing a bad thing.

                  Is it good or bad if these children have a place where their parents have no power to force them to smoke?

    • Throwaway@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      But pretty much only devout muslim women wear them. Might as well be a hijab at this point.

  • Wirrvogel@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    The problem with religious clothing is that the more people who wear it, the more pressure can be put on children to wear it or stand out/be condemned. It gets worse when the clothing is gender-specific.

    It also puts children in a situation where their religious background can be seen from afar, making them Christian/Muslim/Jew etc. first and citizen second, when in a secularised country it should always be the other way round.

    It is twice as bad when teachers wear religious clothing, because how can you not wear it if your teacher is wearing it. And when children wear religious clothing and have to defend wearing it, they get into a situation where they may have to defend it and wear it and even be part of peer pressure because there is no way out, you are either pushed from one side or the other and many choose to then rather push themselves.

    Religious freedom is a double-edged sword: Freedom to live your religion, but also the freedom to live without religion, and especially children who are brought up in a religious family need the school as a place where religion isn’t a thing, so that they have a place to even think about what it feels like to live without it. Religion needs to be a personal choice and only if you have a place to check what it means to be without it you can choose.

    If your religion can not give children a place to be without it so they can then freely choose, there is something severely wrong with that religion. Unfortunately I have yet to find a religion that does allow it.

    • Teritz@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I can understand you thought process buts its more of a Theoretic then this happening in Realf Life in many Families they do not care that much about it.

      Kids only wear it if they are Praying or after getting older.

    • ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      how can you not wear it if your teacher is wearing it

      What logic is this? Just make everyone know that a school is a safe space where nobody is made to wear or not wear anything unless it’s offensive (such as profane, racist or too revealing).

      • Wirrvogel@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Because a teacher is a role model and if your teacher is a role model for religion in a place that should be the one place free from it, then that’s not working.
        School can only be a safe place for children to take a breath from a religious background if religion stays completely out of it.
        You think it can be a safe space when the girl gets told by its parents “look the teacher is wearing this, so you need too” even if the teacher isn’t saying it?

        Unfortunately religious clothing isn’t just clothing like every other and religions of this world (not just one specific) are not about safe spaces, they want to be everywhere and they want to occupy school too. A secular country can not allow that.

        • ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          …Also I was in a school with a strict dress code (light shirts only with no print) as well as one where a “MOTHERFUCKER” hoodie was apparently permitted. I don’t really care either way but I don’t see how prohibiting religious attire would help.

        • ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I literally said that nobody is [forced] to wear or not wear anything […] - as in “total freedom unless offensive”. You’re implying I said the opposite.

          • HerbalGamer@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            But where does offensive start? People in my youth would’ve called some of our metal band shirts to be offensive.

            • ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yeah, defining that is a bit of a problem. However, I am pretty sure most schools have had prior incidents that set a precedent. I guess some even have specific blacklist (hard curse words, depictions of nudity, revealing armpits etc.) or even a whitelist (sports gear in PE, clothing of major religions)