Germany: Mayor fires refugee project intern for wearing headscarf

[Ravenblade]

Bald monks are the only exapmple you can come up with? Jesus christ, I thought education was good in Germany?..

Christians have it easier since the early followers had to learn to live in secrecy, so the cultures pretty much built upon the existing cultures. Hence Christians are a bad example for display but display of religion in general applies to them as well. There's zealous Christians who say work at the tax office and would like to have a small picture on the desk displaying a quote from Matthew 22:21 while wearing a cross. But they are generally not allowed to.

[Kapadons]

I've had jobs that will fire you for refusing to tuck your shirt in. I personally have no issue with this. If they have a dress code, you abide by it or you don't have a job any more.

[ranzino]

I failed at nothing, it's ridiculous to ban the personal wear of religious attire. That's not a stance of neutrality, it's a decision to force one's beliefs onto others. If you don't like a head scarf or a crucifix, then don't fucking wear one.

the state is oligated to be neutral as possible, means also his employees are neutral while on duty. you are not a private person while posing as government, simple fact.

[Machismo]

the state is oligated to be neutral as possible, means also his employees are neutral while on duty. you are not a private person while posing as government, simple fact.

Allowing everything would be the truly neutral path to take.

[Noradin]

correct. for bald monks: usually they do not roam Luckenwalde's town hall. bald head is ok, because it's not exclusive to monks.

In the townhall, yes, in the army? No. Why? Due to exactly the same rules.

[Daymanmb]

Yes. They do.

Well, not actually as it seems. They make people hide them. There lies the difference. Some religious symbols cant be as easily hidden as a neckless can hide in a shirt.

- - - Updated - - -

Allowing everything would be the truly neutral path to take.

I agree /3more

[Ayla]

the state is oligated to be neutral as possible, means also his employees are neutral while on duty. you are not a private person while posing as government, simple fact.

How does wearing a headscarf change a person's actions to be more neutral? A Muslim is a Muslim, so unless you are going to only hire Agnostics, neutrality is hard. Can't have Atheists, it's not neutral enough.

[Noradin]

Allowing everything would be the truly neutral path to take.

No, that would be the liberal path to take it wouldn't be the neutral path, because in Germany the state is the sum of all of its representatives, not the theoretical institutions as written down on some paper somewhere. If the representatives do not represent neutrality when on duty then the state is not neutral (the dress code might be, but that is irrelevant, since the constitution demands the state be neutral, not just some of its laws).

[TrumpIsPresident]

You know... You know what I've noticed? Nobody goes into a state of hysterical outrage when things go "according to plan." Even when the plan involves an actual trampling of a clearly defined right or law. If, tomorrow, I tell the press that, like, a variation of the AR-15 will be banned, or a critical government office will be sold to the highest donor, nobody panics, because it's all "part of the plan". But when I say that one little old headscarf will have to come off inside a government building, well then everyone losses their minds!

[Noradin]

Well, not actually as it seems. They make people hide them. There lies the difference. Some religious symbols cant be as easily hidden as a neckless can hide in a shirt.

You aren't forced to accept that job if you think you cannot meet its requirements during worktime.
You cannot demand a job in a pork factory knowing the moment you are hired you will refuse to work on religious grounds (yes, that has been tried before).

[Machismo]

No, that would be the liberal path to take it wouldn't be the neutral path, because in Germany the state is the sum of all of its representatives, not the theoretical institutions as written down on some paper somewhere. If the representatives do not represent neutrality when on duty then the state is not neutral (the dress code might be, but that is irrelevant, since the constitution demands the state be neutral, not just some of its laws).

Doing nothing is the neutral path. By restricting something, they have ceased to be truly neutral.

If you see two people fighting, is it more neutral to ignore it, or to beat them both up?

[ranzino]

How does wearing a headscarf change a person's actions to be more neutral? A Muslim is a Muslim, so unless you are going to only hire Agnostics, neutrality is hard. Can't have Atheists, it's not neutral enough.

Because "Thou shalt not display your religion". Yes, it also means hiding your necklace with little crucifix for christians and it is much much easier than the impossible "hiding" of headwear for muslims. Not the fault of christianity their symbols are easy hidden, sorry. Assumed it is not a necklace but a crucifix as tattoo ? cover it or you are not fit for public affairs in town hall.

Government is not religious, therefore you as representative of said government are also also void of display of any religion.

[Deleted]

Haha wait, hold up, did you just call me a noob and then tell me to grow up? I guess this is what happens when your intelligence levels drop to 0.

I see you have no arguments lefts.

Thank you for the discussion and may you finally grow up

[Dextroden]

Doing nothing is the neutral path. By restricting something, they have ceased to be truly neutral.

If you see two people fighting, is it more neutral to ignore it, or to beat them both up?

Is it neutral to make an exception for only one religion?

[Combatbutler]

Doing nothing is the neutral path. By restricting something, they have ceased to be truly neutral.

If you see two people fighting, is it more neutral to ignore it, or to beat them both up?

State and religion are divided, so it is only natural that the people working for the state have to leave their religion at home.

[Machismo]

State and religion are divided, so it is only natural that the people working for the state have to leave their religion at home.

A state can remain impartial, and still allow their employees to be religious. Doing nothing is impartial.

[ranzino]

1. No, clearly not. Because other parties are already saying there is no basis for this decision.
2. See point 1. Just because some random mayor says something doesn't mean she has the right to say it.

AFAIK it is in town hall's discretion to act. For example Berlin's Rotes Rathaus has the same rule; it was challenged, i think but the verdict was in favor of the city. Would mean: as long as you say so beforehand, a "no religion in the place" is ok.
Other parties may disagree here in the Luckenwalde case, but nobody waves a law around.

[Machismo]

Is it neutral to make an exception for only one religion?

Why would you make any rules at all? If there were no rules, then there would be no need to make an exception.

[Combatbutler]

A state can remain impartial, and still allow their employees to be religious. Doing nothing is impartial.

That is not how it works there, no one is allowed to display their religion, so that means there is already equality for all and if that special little snowflake cannot swallow that pill she is not suited to work there and I'll say it again Religion has absolutely zero place in state business.

- - - Updated - - -

Why would you make any rules at all? If there were no rules, then there would be no need to make an exception.

Religion has no place in state affairs, for example if a law exists that contradicts a religious belief, the law is always more important after all.

To put it simply State > Religion.

[Machismo]

That is not how it works there, no one is allowed to display their religion, so that means there is already equality for all and if that special little snowflake cannot swallow that pill she is not suited to work there and I'll say it again Religion has absolutely zero place in state business.

- - - Updated - - -



Religion has no place in state affairs, for example if a law exists that contradicts a religious belief, the law is always more important after all.

To put it simply State > Religion.

I get how it works, but it is unnecessarily restrictive. I'm not a big fan of restricting any action which doesn't cause any actual harm.

How people dress is not "state affairs." Otherwise, you could also justify banning all religious people from working for the government. Why stop there, why not ban all religions? Clearly religious people should not be involved in the state in any form, right?