• LazyKoala@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    Sorry to burst your bubble, but people in other countries (like Germany) where they are allowed to display religious symbols are able to bond just fine. If you can’t “bond” with someone because they’re wearing a cross on a chain or cover their head with religious clothing, that sounds like a you-issue. Regardless of why they practice their religion, it’s not up to you or the state to tell them how to practice it. Sure some are forced into it by their parents, but banning religious symbols in schools isn’t going to fix that. What it does do however, is stop students from practicing a religion they freely chose.

    This law is made by people who are intimidated by things they don’t understand and that probably have their roots in racism and islamophobia.

    • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      People in Germany have trouble to “bond” though. Unless you want to ignore the multitude of troubles some immigrants (even second and third generation) face here. To deny these also have to do with religious conservatism isn’t helpful.

      That some of the children here are still forced into religion, sometimes living in a basically parallel society, is a problem that shouldn’t simply be brushed aside.

    • bermuda@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 months ago

      I agree. I’m American and live in an area with a large Indian immigrant diaspora and I’m able to “bond” with them just fine. Many of them wear religious symbols and wear every day, but they’re just normal people. They dress differently, but so do many non religious people also.

      • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 months ago

        The specific religious traditions matter though. The context and rules surrounding covering of girls and women are a more problematic matter. The same goes for other religious practices that are rooted in values that have no place in a secular and more or less egalitarian state.

        • LazyKoala@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          11 months ago

          You have a very odd understanding of what “secular state” means. It doesn’t mean that the state can dictate where or how you’re allowed to express you religion. It doesn’t mean that some parts of religion are to be tolerated, where as those that you see as bad can be forbidden at will.

          All it means, is that the state institutions, can’t force you to partake in a religion or activities related to that religion. Kids who voluntarily want to express their religion are free to do so. Whether that kid is forced into following that religion, is not an issue of a “secular state”.

          • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            It also means a certain collection of values. And having rules for girls and women that include them having to cover their hair and body “because religion” is going against those values.

            And yes, it absolutely does matter in a secular state whether people forcing their children into religious beliefs. At least in school the children should learn that these rules only exist in the minds of their parents or communities. Freedom also means to be free to choose. And grooming your children into religious practices is not freedom.