Germany: Mayor fires refugee project intern for wearing headscarf

[Deleted]

But this forces one group's beliefs on every th in else. The irony of it all, is that by trying to prevent something, th e at e doing they exact same thing They seek to avoid.

It's not irony, is a basic society rule in order to avoid bigger problems.

"Secularism" isn't an ideology or religion, it's not one group over other. It's the simple separation of the state from religion to protect everyone equally.

- - - Updated - - -

And the rules are also unnecessary and authoritarian.

Now you are entering on the idea of anarchy.

Rules are part of human society every single we left the trees (and even before).

[ranzino]

Why can't they simply keep it on?

- - - Updated - - -



And the rules are also unnecessary and authoritarian.

Do we need to quote every sentence 10 times for you ? Your religion has no place in your governmental workplace. Not for a single second, no "but, if, why, muh rights", period.
And nobody can complain, because it's the rule for everybody in government.

[Machismo]

It's not irony, is a basic society rule in order to avoid bigger problems.

"Secularism" isn't an ideology or religion, it's not one group over other. It's the simple separation of the state from religion to protect everyone equally.

- - - Updated - - -



Now you are entering on the idea of anarchy.

Rules are part of human society every single we left the trees (and even before).

But the existence of a rule is never a justification for it.

I u derstand why they came up with the rule. I simply fi d it to be unnecessarily restrictive. It bans an action which causes no harm.

- - - Updated - - -

Do we need to quote every sentence 10 times for you ? Your religion has no place in your governmental workplace. Not for a single second, no "but, if, why, muh rights", period.
And nobody can complain, because it's the rule for everybody in government.

I have no religion. On that note, if I'm going to demand that someone not force their religion onto me, then I cannot logically force my religion, or lack of a religion, onto them.

[Deleted]

But the existence of a rule is never a justification for it.

I u derstand why they came up with the rule. I simply fi d it to be unnecessarily restrictive. It bans an action which causes no harm.

It is necessarily restrictive because it protects the minorities. Which part of that you didn't understood? Really, that's the reason of the secular laws.

- - - Updated - - -

I have no religion. On that note, if I'm going to demand that someone not force their religion onto me, then I cannot logically force my religion, or lack of a religion, onto them.

Therefore, you make the state neutral, so no one can force you any religion.

[Machismo]

It is necessarily restrictive because it protects the minorities. Which part of that you didn't understood? Really, that's the reason of the secular laws.

- - - Updated - - -



Therefore, you make the state neutral, so no one can force you any religion.

It is not necessary. If it were, then absolutely every nation would have to have it.

It does not protext minoroties, it restricts individual freedom.

If it were truly neutral, there would be no rule at all.

[Themius]

It is necessarily restrictive because it protects the minorities. Which part of that you didn't understood? Really, that's the reason of the secular laws.

- - - Updated - - -



Therefore, you make the state neutral, so no one can force you any religion.

By forcing all those around you to not do anything that "may" make them appear to hold onto a believe that isn't "neutral" at all as you are forcing all those who may say wear shilocks or a headscarf to not wear shilocks or headscarves. You really are forcing your "non-religion" on them.

[Deleted]

It is not necessary. If it were, then absolutely every nation would have to have it.

Every single secular nation has it. The nations that don't have are religious.

It does not protext minoroties, it restricts individual freedom.

No, it permits for the individual to be represented by a neutral state and having his/her freedom outside the state.

- - - Updated - - -

By forcing all those around you to not do anything that "may" make them appear to hold onto a believe that isn't "neutral" at all as you are forcing all those who may say wear shilocks or a headscarf to not wear shilocks or headscarves. You really are forcing your "non-religion" on them.

It's not a religious issue, is a neutral issue. Why are we talking about secularism as some "non-religion ideological" issue?

Again, secularist rules took the many christian symbols and teachings from the secular states. It's not a question of "us vs. them".

Secularism reappeared in Europe because the power of the Inquisition during the 1600s and 1700s.

[Noradin]

And the rules are also unnecessary and authoritarian.

You think the rule that the state be neutral is unnecessary and authoritarian?
Do you know anything about history at all?

- - - Updated - - -

It is not necessary. If it were, then absolutely every nation would have to have it.

So you are just a fundamentalistic anarchist, fine we are done discussing rules with you then.

[Machismo]

Every single secular nation has it. The nations that don't have are religious.



No, it permits for the individual to be represented by a neutral state and having his/her freedom outside the state.

So, you admit that it is not necessary. And no, not every secular nation has it. The United States is secular, and does not have that rule. I've been in plenty of government buildings, and I've seen crosses, crucifixes, yarmulkahs, turbans, and even head scarves.

- - - Updated - - -

You think the rule that the state be neutral is unnecessary and authoritarian?
Do you know anything about history at all?

- - - Updated - - -



So you are just a fundamentalistic anarchist, fine we are done discussing rules with you then.

But it's not neutral. If it were, then it would not have made the rule.

I'm not an anarchist. I simply see no reason to place restrictions on actions that cause no harm.

[Deleted]

So, you admit that it is not necessary. And no, not every secular nation has it. The United States is secular, and does not have that rule. I've been in plenty of government buildings, and I've seen crosses, crucifixes, yarmulkahs, turbans, and even head scarves.

The United States can never be considered truly secular when the President takes the oath with his hand on the Bible.

I'm not an anarchist. I simply see no reason to place restrictions on actions that cause no harm.

It causes no harm because the rule is there, not the opposite.

Again, look at Turkey. The lack of secular rules leads to the slow control of a religion of over a state.

[Machismo]

The United States can never be considered truly secular when the President takes the oath with his hand on the Bible.



It causes no harm because the rule is there, not the opposite.

Again, look at Turkey. The lack of secular rules leads to the slow control of a religion of over a state.

Please explain how wearing a head scarf causes harm.

The President is not required to take his oath with a Bible.

[ranzino]

.....
On that note, if I'm going to demand that someone not force their religion onto me, then I cannot logically force my religion, or lack of a religion, onto them.

the governmental employees are NOT individuals, because they represent government. And the government has no religion.
And yes, my "freefom from religion" trumps employees "freedom of religion" every single second. Because "freedom of/from religion" is an issue between state and me and state itself decided in its wisdom for secularism. For the hours in office, the employees are expectet to be secular as a blank wall; usually they get along with the rule very well.

[Deleted]

Please explain how wearing a head scarf causes harm.

It leads to an exception. Other people will demand their rights of religious representation. Majority will take control of the decision offices of the state, making difficulty for minorities to be even heard. Do I really need to explain the human nature?

The President is not required to take his oath with a Bible.

Yes, but by doing it so, it creates a connection between a religion oath and a state oath.

[Machismo]

the governmental employees are NOT individuals, because they represent government. And the government has no religion.
And yes, my "freefom from religion" trumps employees "freedom of religion" every single second. Because "freedom of/from religion" is an issue between state and me and state itself decided in its wisdom for secularism. For the hours in office, the employees are expectet to be secular as a blank wall; usually they get along with the rule very well.

And that shows that you don't give a shit about freedom at all.

I love the irony of forcing your beliefs onto others... all out of fear of someone else forcing their beliefs onto you.

[Deleted]

Wearing a crucifix suddenly turns one into a radical Christian that wants to force religious rules onto the country?

Do I really need to give examples of religion and state connections throughout history?

Heck, I'm from a country where religion had power until 1974 and somewhat still controls small sectors of society.

Just because an employee takes of his cross doesn't mean he suddenly isn't Christian.
And if this woman would have taken off her scarf, she wouldn't suddenly stop being a Muslim.

Scarf, no. Cross... why a non-Christian would use a cross in the first place? He/she is supportive of roman crucifications?

[Machismo]

It leads to an exception. Other people will demand their rights of religious representation. Majority will take control of the decision offices of the state, making difficulty for minorities to be even heard. Do I really need to explain the human nature?



Yes, but by doing it so, it creates a connection between a religion oath and a state oath.

Then if you don't wnat to take the oath on a Bible, don't do it. I certainly wouldn't. That doesn't mean I'm going to try and force my beliefs onto another, by telling them they can't do it.

How does wearing a head scarf cause harm? Answer the question. The fact is, it doesn't cause any harm. What you are afraid of, is someone trying to force their beliefs onto you. So, to stop it, you want to force your beliefs onto them... how ironic.

[Deleted]

How does wearing a head scarf cause harm? Answer the question. The fact is, it doesn't cause any harm. What you are afraid of, is someone trying to force their beliefs onto you. So, to stop it, you want to force your beliefs onto them... how ironic.

... Do you even read what I wrote, or what you write? Secularism is not fricking believe or religion, it's the separation of religion and state.

I'm omnist, by the way.

[Noradin]

By forcing all those around you to not do anything that "may" make them appear to hold onto a believe that isn't "neutral" at all as you are forcing all those who may say wear shilocks or a headscarf to not wear shilocks or headscarves. You really are forcing your "non-religion" on them.

There is no "all those". The public is not forced in any way. The state has to abide by the rules the nation set for it.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not an anarchist. I simply see no reason to place restrictions on actions that cause no harm.

You are, according to your argument no rule anywhere is "necessary" thus your argument really is valid against all rules at all, anywhere.

[Machismo]

... Do you even read what I wrote, or what you write? Secularism is not fricking believe or religion, it's the separation of religion and state.

I'm omnist, by the way.

It is when you force others to abide by it, that's exactly what it is. Believing someone should dress and act a certain way, then forcing that belief onto them. How is that any different than what you claim to want to avoid?

Does wearing a head scarf cause any actual harm?

[Deleted]

Please do.
Then you can also explain how only a ban on necklaces and headscarves is saving us from becoming a theocracy.

Because it would open a precedent for more and more religious representation inside the state, leading the segmentation of the state itself by religious thinking. That's always the first step.