Germany: Mayor fires refugee project intern for wearing headscarf

[Noradin]

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

What 'others'?
The state has to abide by the rule of neutrality regarding religion, thus its representatives have to abide by it.
They are free not to take this job if they feel they cannot meet its requirements, in fact we insist on it.

They are also free to express their faith when they are not currently representing the state.

You do know the definition of "representation", do you?
And the difference between professional beliefs and personal ones?

- - - Updated - - -

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.

IT has been show to cause harm in the past and it is used to cause harm in the present in countries like Turkey.

[Deleted]

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?

Again? I already answered to your question several times.

And the fact that you keeping referring to the hijab as a "head scarf", it shows that you don't really care about what it means to believes of that person. You are just using this for your own agenda.

[Deleted]

Yep get rid of it all, get rid of those religious people thinking they are allowed to do whatever they please. Your religions are stupid.

- - - Updated - - -

Again? I already answered to your question several times.

And the fact that you keeping referring to the hijab as a "head scarf", it shows that you don't really care about what it means to believes of that person. You are just using this for your own agenda.

The fact that we still use belief as an excuse to do something is why Religion will always remain a disgusting prominant force. Belief is nothing but an excuse.

[Machismo]

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 - - -



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

You claimed it was necessary, but it clearly is not.

- - - Updated - - -

Again? I already answered to your question several times.

And the fact that you keeping referring to the hijab as a "head scarf", it shows that you don't really care about what it means to believes of that person. You are just using this for your own agenda.

But you haven't shown harm. You've stated a fear of religion in government. Wearing a head scarf clearly causes no harm.

- - - Updated - - -

What 'others'?
The state has to abide by the rule of neutrality regarding religion, thus its representatives have to abide by it.
They are free not to take this job if they feel they cannot meet its requirements, in fact we insist on it.

They are also free to express their faith when they are not currently representing the state.

You do know the definition of "representation", do you?
And the difference between professional beliefs and personal ones?

- - - Updated - - -



IT has been show to cause harm in the past and it is used to cause harm in the present in countries like Turkey.

Wearing a head scarf causes harm? How? Does it lash out and attack people at random? Does it catch on fire and burn buildings down?

If a state were to be actually neutral, then it wouldn't intervene at all. It wouldn't restrict a victimless action in order to protect people from the possibility of someone else trying to oppress or force someone else to do something.

It's tantamount to coming up on a fight. Being neutral would mean not intervening. What you suggest, is to intervene, and beat them both over the head equally.

- - - Updated - - -

Again? I already answered to your question several times.

And the fact that you keeping referring to the hijab as a "head scarf", it shows that you don't really care about what it means to believes of that person. You are just using this for your own agenda.

My agenda is freedom. I'm sorry you seem to have such a problem with it.

[tumppu]

Apparently, the woman basically told that she would not conform to the rules regarding dress code at work, so they fired her.

If there's a problem somewhere, I fail to see it.

[Noradin]

If a state were to be actually neutral, then it wouldn't intervene at all.

But if she is employed as representative of the state and dons a religious symbol (for example a head scarf) then the state she represents is not acting neutral. It is donning a religious symbol.
If the head scarf is not in fact supposed to be a religious symbol then I do not see where the problem is as then it is not protected due do freedom of religion laws anyway.

By the German definition (and that is the only one that matters here) the "state" is the "sum of its representatives", where you come from the "state" might be defined as some alotment of rules and regulations, but that is irrelevant.

- - - Updated - - -

My agenda is freedom. I'm sorry you seem to have such a problem with it.

Your agenda is the removal of (all) rules, which is the opposite of freedom. It is the destruction of rights and freedom.
Rules the government has to abide by is what makes freedoms possible.

[Machismo]

But if she is employed as representative of the state and dons a religious symbol (for example a head scarf) then the state she represents is not acting neutral. It is donning a religious symbol.
If the head scarf is not in fact supposed to be a religious symbol then I do not see where the problem is as then it is not protected due do freedom of religion laws anyway.

By the German definition (and that is the only one that matters here) the "state" is the "sum of its representatives", where you come from the "state" might be defined as some alotment of rules and regulations, but that is irrelevant.

No, German definition is not the only one that matters. Nobody is saying they don't have the authority to do it. They can impose whatever unnecessary laws they want, that's the shit that governments do all the time... that's why they exist.

My entire argument has been that the restriction is unnecessary, and is nothing more than people forcing their beliefs onto others. Wearing a head scarf causes no harm, so forcing her to take it off is a reduction in actual freedom. She's not oppressing anyone by wearing it, so forcing her to take it off is punishing a victimless action. Of cours,e that's all society wants to be, one group of people forcing its beliefs onto everyone else. The irony comes in when people try to justify forcing their beliefs onto others, as a protection against someone else possibly doing the same to them. The world is full of hypocrite,s I simply enjoy pointing them out.

- - - Updated - - -

But if she is employed as representative of the state and dons a religious symbol (for example a head scarf) then the state she represents is not acting neutral. It is donning a religious symbol.
If the head scarf is not in fact supposed to be a religious symbol then I do not see where the problem is as then it is not protected due do freedom of religion laws anyway.

By the German definition (and that is the only one that matters here) the "state" is the "sum of its representatives", where you come from the "state" might be defined as some alotment of rules and regulations, but that is irrelevant.

- - - Updated - - -



Your agenda is the removal of (all) rules, which is the opposite of freedom. It is the destruction of rights and freedom.
Rules the government has to abide by is what makes freedoms possible.

I have never said my agenda is the removal of all rules, you are lying.

I simply believe people should be free to do whatever they want, so long as it does not harm others. If you can figure out a way to allow for more freedom than that, then I welcome you to try.

[Deleted]

My agenda is freedom. I'm sorry you seem to have such a problem with it.

So, you are an anarchist and really don't care about the beliefs of the person used the hijab that was fired or the laws of the state. Gotcha.

[Machismo]

So, you are an anarchist and really don't care about the beliefs of the person used the hijab that was fired or the laws of the state. Gotcha.

No, I'm not an anarchist. I just believe people should be free to do whatever they want, so long as it does not harm others. Since wearing a head scarf clearly causes no harm, then it is a reduction of the most possible freedom attainable for the government to restrict it. I don't give a damn about someone's beliefs, so long as they don't try to force them onto others. You seem more than willing to force yours onto everyone else.

[Deleted]

I simply believe people should be free to do whatever they want, so long as it does not harm others.

Yep, utopian anarchism. Gotcha.

[Machismo]

Yep, utopian anarchism. Gotcha.

Anarchy is being free to do whatever you want. That last little part about "so long as it does not harm others" excludes the possibility of anarchy. You really should learn the definitions of words.

Furthermore, why shouldn't people be free to do what they want, so long as it does not harm others? Can you find a way to create more freedom than that? Any shift towards anarchy or authoritarianism would be a clear reduction in freedom, either from the state, or from individual actors.

[Deleted]

No, I'm not an anarchist. I just believe people should be free to do whatever they want, so long as it does not harm others. Since wearing a head scarf clearly causes no harm, then it is a reduction of the most possible freedom attainable for the government to restrict it. I don't give a damn about someone's beliefs, so long as they don't try to force them onto others. You seem more than willing to force yours onto everyone else.

You just spelled the definition of utopian anarchism word by word. Don't be afraid of the words, you are an utopian anarchist and no one is judging you for it.

But it doesn't mean that we have simply to agree that utopian anarchism works, because it simply doesn't work with the human species. If humans are free to do anything, people will get hurt and society will crash.

- - - Updated - - -

Anarchy is being free to do whatever you want. That last little part about "so long as it does not harm others" excludes the possibility of anarchy.

No, it excludes violence from anarchy, but it's still called anarchy. Utopian anarchy.

[Machismo]

You just spelled the definition of utopian anarchism word by word. Don't be afraid of the words, you are an utopian anarchist and no one is judging you for it.

But it doesn't mean that we have simply to agree that utopian anarchism works, because it simply doesn't work with the human species. If humans are free to do anything, people will get hurt and society will crash.

Here's the definition:

"a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority."

And another:

"absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal."

"a situation of confusion and wild behavior in which the people in a country, group, organization, etc., are not controlled by rules or laws"

Since I have never advocated for this, and find it to be mathematically impossible on any scale, and for any duration, you are full of shit.

You really need to learn the definitions of words.

[Deleted]

Here's the definition:

"a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority."

And another:

"absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal."

"a situation of confusion and wild behavior in which the people in a country, group, organization, etc., are not controlled by rules or laws"

Since I have never advocated for this, and find it to be mathematically impossible on any scale, and for any duration, you are full of shit.

You really need to learn the definitions of words.

Anarchy as an political philosophy, not as an adjective.

There is nothing wrong about being an anarchist, anarchism doesn't imply violence in any form at all. But humanity can't work without rules.

If you haven't read them yet, I recommend you authors like Proudhon and Kant. They called themselves anarchists.

[PassingBy]

If this headscarf is worn because of fashion taste, not a relegious choice - will it still be banned?
Do they ban non-religious clothing or jewelry choices with political meaning (let's say a rainbow colored bracelet showing your LGBT support, or a mcdonalds support the children band, or "Kosovo is Serbia" T-shirt)?

I'd understand if there was a rule, saying that no headscarves or hats are allowed at work if it was a dress code issue.
As well as no jewelry allowed, not just the crucifix.

Otherwise it is a clear attack on the persons religious freedom. Only because of his religious beliefs.

[Deleted]

The mayor is an idiot.

Crucifixes are not allowed, but hijab should be? Seems legit.

Double standards like these are the reason, among other things, for the turmoil in The West.

Crucifix = not okay
Hijab = okay

Racism towards POCs = unacceptable
Racism towards whites = acceptable

Special privileges for women who demand "equality" = Ok
Special privileges for men = NEVER okay

Excuses made for crimes committed by "underprivileged" people = YES
Excuses made for crimes committed by anyone else = NEVER

Woman who decides to have an abortion because she doesn't want children = Acceptable
Man who walks away from a pregnant woman because he doesn't want children and he can't tell her what to do with her body = NOT Acceptable

The list goes on and on. I could do this for days.

Faith in humanity? Decimated.
Hope for the future? NONE

You're what they call "a useful idiot". You fight for inequality and special privileges for those you deem "underprivileged" while completely ignoring what equality actually means and forever perpetuating the divide therefor destroying any real chance at peace.

Equality = everyone having the same basic human rights, access to societal benefits, and subject to the SAME expectations and criticism. It doesn't mean special privileges for the ones who whine the loudest.

[PassingBy]

Do they strip search their christian workers too?
Since the crucifix is worn under the clothes.

[Deleted]

Do they strip search their christian workers too?
Since the crucifix is worn under the clothes.

And why is worn under the clothes?

[Lex Icon]

religious customs should never be encouraged.. especially not when it comes to government.

[PassingBy]

And why is worn under the clothes?

I don't really know how are things among catholics, but in orthodox tradition it is customary to wear your crucifix under your clothes, so it touches your body.
It is even called crucifix "worn next to the skin" if you translate it.

And wearing it out is considered a faux pas.