River 127,317 Posted June 19, 2019 Share Posted June 19, 2019 3 hours ago, Didymus said: What do you want to be respected for, though? You don't believe in God, great. You have no atheist traditional dress, rituals, morals, mythologies, events,... What can religious people respect but your lack of religious beliefs? What are you asking? Nothing. You're just frustrated. Because you don't own public space. If you're seriously demanding that people change their whole behavior because you want your opinion to be the silent standard then you're a lot more like religious fundamentalists than you probably realize. If you want to own a public platform through atheism, then do it. Create your own non-religion and demand respect. Wow, you are talking about religious people like they are a hunted minority. to remind you that they are the majority and the atheists are the minority? to remind you that we live in a religious world? The church bells once a hour, the religious hours in public school in some countries, on Saturday there’s no public transportation in Israel, hell, god is even present in the money abd national anthem in the US and let’s not start with the laws that now forbids women to fo an abortion in many place in the world and the list go on and on so yes, my little delicate atheist soul is asking for a bit of respect and that in public offices, it will neutral and equal. It’s always amaze me how atheists always look like the bad guys, feels a bit how the world treated lgbtq+ In the past. So sploosh your juice all over me you Riverboy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Didymus 34,380 Posted June 19, 2019 Share Posted June 19, 2019 57 minutes ago, River said: Wow, you are talking about religious people like they are a hunted minority. I did no such thing. 58 minutes ago, River said: to remind you that we live in a religious world? We live in secular countries, the absolute minority of which are affected in terms of legislation by religious groups. Now I'm not saying that's perfect (far from it) but you also can't pretend that religious people are running the world now. Bans like this one show they're not. In any case, you didn't respond to my point. You are already being respected by being able to be proud of your atheist beliefs without any possible consequences. You're asking for respect but you can't specify how that respect should look like because somewhere deep down you know it's not about respect and just frustration about religion coming from you. But whatever. If you think I'm making you look like a bad guy by saying that (totally not my intention) I guess I can better stop. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
River 127,317 Posted June 19, 2019 Share Posted June 19, 2019 56 minutes ago, Didymus said: I did no such thing. We live in secular countries, the absolute minority of which are affected in terms of legislation by religious groups. Now I'm not saying that's perfect (far from it) but you also can't pretend that religious people are running the world now. Bans like this one show they're not. In any case, you didn't respond to my point. You are already being respected by being able to be proud of your atheist beliefs without any possible consequences. You're asking for respect but you can't specify how that respect should look like because somewhere deep down you know it's not about respect and just frustration about religion coming from you. But whatever. If you think I'm making you look like a bad guy by saying that (totally not my intention) I guess I can better stop. Yeah we better stop, no hard feelings we both trying to make things better at the end. it’s just my experience in this thread was bad because of a certain user so I became more protective, if you felt that I was too much harsh with you than I’m sorry! Please accept my apology, I consider you as a great person here! So sploosh your juice all over me you Riverboy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Didymus 34,380 Posted June 19, 2019 Share Posted June 19, 2019 22 minutes ago, River said: I consider you as a great person here! Same, actually Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guillaume Hamon 6,981 Posted June 20, 2019 Share Posted June 20, 2019 23 hours ago, Didymus said: There is nothing inherently religious about people demanding privilege because they think they can. That's obvious and nobody said the opposite. And since I don't want any privilege to be given it includes privilege in the name of a religion. 23 hours ago, Didymus said: people objecting to visible piercings and tattoos in public sector jobs, as if those are a breach of "neutrality", indicative of a wild, irresponsible lifestyle. See? Standards of neutrality are never neutral. Piercings don't includes a certain philosophy/ ethics/ visions while religions obviously do so I don't think it's a very fair comparison. 23 hours ago, Didymus said: The underlying logic is that if you're being yourself, this interferes with your job. That is the bottomline that everyone is missing when they are supporting bans like this. I don't think folks are missing it. They just agree that a workplace is not always a place for you to express what you feel/ believe in etc. 23 hours ago, Didymus said: Be yourself on your own time, you're here to work!", that is the face of Western "neutrality" and none of us would seriously subscribe to that if they would think about it for just a minute because it doesn't do anything good for us. Many people did think about it and still disagree with you. It actually does good things for people. I explained higher why starting to be "open" always open the door to endless demands. The example of smokers you gave is excellent. Once they can ask for a smoke break while others have to work you can be sure more of them gonna ask for two smoke breaks and so on lol. Then pissed off workers will start thinking "well why can't we also do something we like while being paid several times a day just like they do?!" and it will make drama and to be really fair you'll have to paid everybody to do something else than their job a few times a day... Same with political views. Imagine a end of campaign with many people from the same company having "MAGA" hat or "Love Trump Hate" hat lol. Let's not pretend it wouldn't have big chances to create tensions between workers. Even the clients would feel like not lining up for the counter with the Maga hat dude and it would mean one counter has a long line up and the other doesn't have any one using it or BS like that lmao. More reasons that make me think it's better to keep it about working in general imo. 23 hours ago, Didymus said: since the only religious symbols usually on public display are Islamic. There goes your neutrality. A kippa is also visible and not an islamic symbol. Rosary and wedding rings are often on display as well and they would have to be hidden with this law. People say it's specifically anti-Islam but we all met people of different religion with signs on display. 23 hours ago, Didymus said: The message is clear: when you're doing your job, you have to completely empty yourself of personality.. "completely emptying yourself" seem a bit strong to describe of not having a sign of a certain belief on display imo but I respect your opinion. 23 hours ago, Didymus said: A lot of people in the West need to grow some balls (no misogyny intended) and start caring about actual issues. We're fighting useless and counter-productive wars in the Middle East and, oh wait, we're also in an environmental crisis. They can have a different opinion on this subject and still care about these issues, as much or more than you do. It's not adversarial. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Didymus 34,380 Posted June 20, 2019 Share Posted June 20, 2019 8 minutes ago, Guillaume Hamon said: Piercings don't includes a certain philosophy/ ethics/ visions while religions obviously do so I don't think it's a very fair comparison. It's a very fair comparison because they are both frequently banned in public sector jobs because they are not "neutral". It's by looking at other examples of the same procedure that we can discover underlying logics instead of just concluding this is only about religion, which it's not. It's about what counts as "neutral" and why. 9 minutes ago, Guillaume Hamon said: The example of smokers you gave is excellent. Once they can ask for a smoke break while others have to work you can be sure more of them gonna ask for two smoke breaks and so on lol. Then pissed off workers will start thinking "well why can't we also do something we like while being paid several times a day just like they do?!" and it will make drama and to be really fair you'll have to paid everybody to do something else than their job a few times a day... Same with political views. Imagine a end of campaign with many people from the same company having "MAGA" hat or "Love Trump Hate" hat lol. Let's not pretend it wouldn't have big chances to create tensions between workers. Even the clients would feel like not lining up for the counter with the Maga hat dude and it would mean one counter has a long line up and the other doesn't have any one using it or BS like that lmao. Why is all this a bad thing though? This is what happens in a society, people have different views and we have to live with that. If we can only deal with political subjects in our lives on social media, we end up with the political disasters taking over the world right now. By banning politics from the public sphere you actually end up creating more damage, in my opinion. It's important to know that that lady with the headscarf behind the counter, who is always so nice to you, gets affected when you vote for certain political parties. It gives people a chance to talk to those Trump supporters and see their humanity. Yes, some of that will create tension, but this tension is exactly there because we're so not used to seeing politics play out in our daily lives, when it should. It's only by condemning politics to be a "private issue" that we all end up with tunnel vision about political subjects which stands in direct connection with the growth of far right parties, 'cause we never have to own up to our politics in public or question our beliefs, or connect them to actual people. Not at all, we can silently be racist, homophobic, neo-Nazi,... in our own time, protected from public debate or scrutiny, so we can surprise everyone when these parties suddenly emerge as the winners. That's not democracy. Politics does affect us, daily. We should be confronted with that fact if we are to call ourselves a democracy. If we're afraid of the consequences of showing our political colors, then what the **** are we doing? Then the system is not working. Why should we only be afraid of what happens when a Trump supporter wears a Trump hat to work, and why shouldn't we be afraid of that same person ending up voting for Trump and electing him president? Makes no sense. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guillaume Hamon 6,981 Posted June 21, 2019 Share Posted June 21, 2019 23 hours ago, Didymus said: It's a very fair comparison because they are both frequently banned in public sector jobs because they are not "neutral". But piercings don't include any philosophy/morals etc unlike religions so I wouldn't put that in the same case. I doubt that the problem with piercings wasn't mainly about how it was and sometimes still is judged unprofessional rather than it being conform with the neutrality of opinions/ beliefs etc. 23 hours ago, Didymus said: If we can only deal with political subjects in our lives on social media, we end up with the political disasters taking over the world right now. I don't think people only did deal with it on social medias to get Trump imo. People often talked about the last election with their friends, families, at bars, around the table etc. I really don't think it's banned from the public sphere in general, just eventually from the workplace according to the country. US are often not closed to the idea of people expressing it at their job yet the political division seems greater there than in some countries refusing in and wanting more neutrality etc. To say it doesn't fix tunnel visions. 23 hours ago, Didymus said: Yes, some of that will create tension, but this tension is exactly there because we're so not used to seeing politics play out in our daily lives, when it should. I personally believe that you actually hear a lot about politics in our daily life from the radio when you got to work to your workmates talking about it ( whatever they can "show signs" of politic support or not ) to the tv news when you're back from home to your lover family discussing it on sunday during the dinner and so on and on haha. That's why I'm not against the idea of workplaces not being a place where you can have to see trump face on a Tshirt all day along in front of you lol. To me the "let all live together with our different views" is already in place and at this point it's already thrown at us a lot so... I don't feel like refusing other views but rather trying to just keep some neutral spaces/ moments. I'm a political so I do care but not to the point of thinking it should be all around 24/7. Life looks like an endless political debate for months around elections and I don't want things to be this way all the time haha. Talking about it endlessly is not the way to avoid a Trump imo. It's rather a good choice of words to convince people to not vote for him rather than a repeated questioning of their views that will bring "results" to me. 23 hours ago, Didymus said: It's only by condemning politics to be a "private issue" that we all end up with tunnel vision about political subjects I don't it's private at all now tbf. People can and do discuss it in many public spaces. 23 hours ago, Didymus said: cause we never have to own up to our politics in public or question our beliefs, or connect them to actual people. Not at all, we can silently be racist, homophobic, neo-Nazi,... But someone will never be forced to publicly own up to his opinion. Even if you can discuss it/show it on your workplace you can always chose to not do it so nobody will have to own up to his view because it's okay to discuss at his job. Btw folks will probably often decide to not divulge it to avoid to lose friends at their job etc. 23 hours ago, Didymus said: Why should we only be afraid of what happens when a Trump supporter wears a Trump hat to work, and why shouldn't we be afraid of that same person ending up voting for Trump and electing him president? Makes no sense. Who said we weren't afraid of this person voting for Trump? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACT2 3,267 Posted June 21, 2019 Share Posted June 21, 2019 WHAT? THIS IS BULLCRAP! WHY WOULD YOU NOT LET A WOMAN WEAR HER HEADSCARF TO COVER HERSELF? ITS HER CHOICE NOT URS That's Gossip Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guillaume Hamon 6,981 Posted June 21, 2019 Share Posted June 21, 2019 On 6/19/2019 at 10:58 AM, Poissonche said: It's funny how fast the CAQ was to ban people from wearing stuff on their own body, but how hard they refuse to remove the crucifix from the parliament. That's sad indeed. The best way to make tensions is to create a double standards and make a law that you only applied to certain groups. It's unfair af and can't give good results. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hurem 17,801 Posted June 21, 2019 Share Posted June 21, 2019 Good. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Didymus 34,380 Posted June 21, 2019 Share Posted June 21, 2019 1 hour ago, Guillaume Hamon said: But piercings don't include any philosophy/morals etc unlike religions so I wouldn't put that in the same case. I doubt that the problem with piercings wasn't mainly about how it was and sometimes still is judged unprofessional rather than it being conform with the neutrality of opinions/ beliefs etc. A headscarf doesn't automatically express a certain philosophy or morality either and yet it's banned for that reason all the same, just like tats and piercings. You may act like people don't have negative associations with tats and piercings but they do, and their associations are "dirty", "vulgar", "uneducated", "lack of intelligence", "potentially violent". For the same reason people might avoid getting their movie theater tickets from a woman in a headscarf, people might also avoid getting tickets from a guy full of piercings in his face. That's why the comparison does matter and why they're in the same category. 1 hour ago, Guillaume Hamon said: To me the "let all live together with our different views" is already in place and at this point it's already thrown at us a lot so... I don't feel like refusing other views but rather trying to just keep some neutral spaces/ moments. I get that but what you're missing is that a headscarf is not necessary a breach of political neutrality. Headscarves and religious symbols have almost nothing to do with politics, so based on your own argumentation only Trump hats and rainbow t-shirts should be banned but not religious symbols because they don't promote any specific political point of view. Yet that's not what you're saying. 1 hour ago, Guillaume Hamon said: People can and do discuss it in many public spaces. Where? And no, among friends and family obviously doesn't count because that's not public, that's private. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guillaume Hamon 6,981 Posted June 22, 2019 Share Posted June 22, 2019 On 6/21/2019 at 11:39 AM, Didymus said: A headscarf doesn't automatically express a certain philosophy or morality either Well it shows that you believe in a belief systems including certains morality/ philosophy so... Logically you agree with these when you join the religion. Of course some people will believe in a religion and not apply each thing in this religion but joining the religion and having signs of it is logically showing support to the values it includes. It's not only for a headscarf btw, the same goes for a rosary or a kippa etc. On 6/21/2019 at 11:39 AM, Didymus said: You may act like people don't have negative associations with tats and piercings but they do, and their associations are "dirty", "vulgar", "uneducated", "lack of intelligence", "potentially violent". Yeah but that would be clichés and assumptions of what the person is. As I said with a religion/ philosophy it's you showing you adopt a religion that include certain values so it's not about assuming the person is a certain way it's about seing what he/she shows support to. On 6/21/2019 at 11:39 AM, Didymus said: For the same reason people might avoid getting their movie theater tickets from a woman in a headscarf, people might also avoid getting tickets from a guy full of piercings in his face. I told you higher why I don't see it as the same reasons for both cases. On 6/21/2019 at 11:39 AM, Didymus said: I get that but what you're missing is that a headscarf is not necessary a breach of political neutrality. Well I don't think I miss it just like you don't miss anything neither, we just disagree on that. On 6/21/2019 at 11:39 AM, Didymus said: Where? And no, among friends and family obviously doesn't count because that's not public, that's private. Where to discuss that? Well we're discussing it rn and internet as plenty of place where you can publicly express your views, debate etc. Also you can talk with people in public places like bars. People already do discuss it out of their home. With the internet people often did it online a lot but if you want to meet people in real life and discuss it you can make a club for that or organize public debates as well. Usually folks do it spontaneously. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Didymus 34,380 Posted June 22, 2019 Share Posted June 22, 2019 1 hour ago, Guillaume Hamon said: As I said with a religion/ philosophy it's you showing you adopt a religion that include certain values so it's not about assuming the person is a certain way it's about seing what he/she shows support to. And how is that assumption of what those people support not a cliché too? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adorno 484 Posted June 22, 2019 Share Posted June 22, 2019 Good riddance. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guillaume Hamon 6,981 Posted June 23, 2019 Share Posted June 23, 2019 21 hours ago, Didymus said: And how is that assumption of what those people support not a cliché too? It's not a cliché, it's logical. If you have a che guevara tshirt you don't present yourself as the biggest capitalist there is. Maybe you actually are but then it's simply incoherent. The difference is people who wear a che guevara tshirt can do it "lightly" without caring for the meaning even if it's a bit silly. People with sign of a religious sign normally don't wear it without agreeing with the messages it includes except maybe for a very tiny proportion of people that wouldn't be respectful with the religion. But I don't think the folks we were talking about were this handful of idiots. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Featured Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.