this post was submitted on 27 Jul 2024
179 points (97.4% liked)

Canada

7130 readers
387 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Communities


🍁 Meta


πŸ—ΊοΈ Provinces / Territories


πŸ™οΈ Cities / Regions


πŸ’ SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


πŸ’» Universities


πŸ’΅ Finance / Shopping


πŸ—£οΈ Politics


🍁 Social & Culture


Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 month ago (9 children)

That is not unfair.

You work for the government, you can't show religious involvement, any at all. Separation of church and state as such. If your religion doesn't allow you to be without religious clothes or artefacts then maybe you shouldn't work for the government.

[–] n2burns@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 month ago (6 children)

Can I ask why?

I've heard some people argue it's because religious views can conflict with a job, but if that's the case, the issue is the employee's not doing their job not their religion. Lots of beliefs can conflict with a job, and if that's the case, a person has to decide whether they want to keep their job or not.

Another argument is that simply the presentation of religious symbols in public is offensive to some, but that seems to be an extreme version of "Safe Spaces" while just skipping over tonnes of preceding steps.

Also, it seems convenient the whiter the religion, the less likely their are to require their worshipers to wear expressions of faith. On the other hand, religions like Islam and Sikhism that just happen to be practiced by more brown people require outward expressions of their faith. So a Christian who is super faithful, goes to mass daily and spends all their free time in prayer can work for the government as long as they keep their cross under their shirt, while a Sikh who might not be all that religious has to decide if they want to risk being shunned from their community.

P.S. Separation of church and state means those organizations shouldn't influence each other, not that individuals can only be involved in one or the other.

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (5 children)

Because frankly, religions are made up nonsense. I stopped believing in Santa Claus with I was 8 or so. Why are there still adults believing in magical sky beings? More importantly, why do we all act as if this is normal, actually still the norm, and all agree that it's something untouchable even when it's clearly evil and not for the betterment of humanity?

Seriously, if you think about it for even a second, it makes no sense. What does make sense is that religions are widely and pretty much exclusively used by those in charge to control those that follow the religion.

The church of the flying spaghetti monster (FSM) exists for a reason: It shows how easy it is to make up some nonsense and fly with it. You want to allow religious clothes? Then you have to allow me to wear a spaghetti strainer on my head as it's the official wear for followers of FSM.

What, you don't allow it because FMA is made up nonsense? Well, I got bad news for you... Christianity is also made up, same as Islam, same as Scientology, same as Hinduism, same as all religions. If you start looking at religions you can see how one influences the next, and so on.. The stories of Jesus and Horus are really very similar.

Simple fact: there is exactly zero scientific evidence that any supernatural person or entity exists, there is tonnes of evidence that we have all made it up, and continue to believe in it for... Reasons?

And yes, religion always exerts its influence. Merely displaying religious wear is to show what you think and want. Do you think I'd be able to have a free discussion about human rights for women with a government official wearing a burka?

So with all that in mind, do I have to sit and look at your religious wear because you somehow failed to grow up? How far should we let that go? I've seen multiple arguments that Muslim women should be allowed to wear burkas. Are you going to sit at a government office in front of somebody you can't even see because she is 100% covered, even the eyes? Should we allow it a step further, allow that in class rooms (yes, I've seen cases for that too)? How about then the next step where they will demand that they can only interact with women because their god demands it?

You might think that these are edge cases but that is what's att he core of this issue. If you allow one, you HAVE to allow all. I say: allow none. If you wan tto work for the government, if you want to work at a school, you wear and express no religion, period. It's the easy and fair solution. Again, if your religion doesn't allow you, that's on your religion, not your government.

And if you allow your fantasy wear, then you have to allow mine too, or start defining what religion is real and what not and I would LOVE to see that debate...

[–] Splitdipless@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 month ago

I'd argue the opposite for one reason only - so that I can identify idiots, bigots and terrible people on sight. Any person in government that is causing me problems and showing religious garb? Kick it up to a supervisor if I think I can tie it to poor decision making based on goat-herder values from over 2000 years ago.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)