Rant First Eruopean/Islamic woman with a headscarf in parliament

[Chronictank]

Would it be a problem then if some MP came to work wearing a nazi uniform? By your logic: no. The things we wear send a message and in this case the wrong one. And that is that his actions will be affected by religion - which should not be the case in a secular country.

no it wouldn't, you would lose your seat as you wouldn't be very popular but there is nothing wrong with it provided it is formal
Whether it breaks other rules however..

 

[tris-]

I reckon it would certainly be a problem.
The ginger one of the royal family did it in fancy dress didnt he?
That was ages ago and were still talking about it

 

[noblok]

Why do you think it was introduced in the first place? To make it clear that religious differences have no place in the parliament.

I don't see any reason why they have no place in the parliament. On the contrary: I see plenty of reasons why they do have a place in the parliament (cf. my previous posts). Feel free to explain your reasoning, though.

It's interesting how a muslim lady could stand as a member of a christian party but then I read just yesterday that in England there's a law against political parties discriminating against candidates who wish to stand for office on the grounds of race, creed, religion, sexuality etc.

It's no longer a really Christian party though. It's the centre democrate humaniste or democratic humanistic centre. And as there would be an outrage if a muslim party would join the elections, it's not all that far-fetched that a humanistic party with roots in the Christian tradition is the one she feels most connected with.

 

[Gorbachioo]

I don't see any reason why they have no place in the parliament. On the contrary: I see plenty of reasons why they do have a place in the parliament (cf. my previous posts). Feel free to explain your reasoning, though.

Because we realised centuries ago that "gods will" is not a good reason to do anything. That is why we separate the church from the state. Thats why Europe is secular.

I find it very disturbing that so many people in this forum are willing to throw away the greatest thing that has ever happened to this continent - secularism.

 

[Chronictank]

Because we realised centuries ago that "gods will" is not a good reason to do anything. That is why we separate the church from the state. Thats why Europe is secular.

I find it very disturbing that so many people in this forum are willing to throw away the greatest thing that has ever happened to this continent - secularism.

I hate to break it to you but the only people willing to throw away hundreds of years of fighting for freedom is people like you

You see even the briefest mention of religion and turn on your blinkers, the religious aspect of this has little to no bearing on the case other than the press building it up as that.
It is entirely about expressing personal freedom within the regulations put in place for that place of work.
If they told every woman there to wear a skirt, even if they didnt want to nor felt comfortable doing, would you support it to the same extent?
Of course you wouldn't, if you actually read her interview it is very evident she didnt not persue this as a religious matter

On the broader aspect of representing a community and putting forward their views be it based on religious beliefs or simply a common cause it is the job of an MP to do this.
That is how a parliment is supposed to work not a situation where the will of the public they are representing is completely ignored for sake of a neutral image.
A secular government is not one completely devoid of representation, it is one of religious indifference

 

[Vintersorg]

I hate to break it to you but the only people willing to throw away hundreds of years of fighting for freedom is people like you

You see even the briefest mention of religion and turn on your blinkers, the religious aspect of this has little to no bearing on the case other than the press building it up as that.
It is entirely about expressing personal freedom within the regulations put in place for that place of work.
If they told every woman there to wear a skirt, even if they didnt want to nor felt comfortable doing, would you support it to the same extent?
Of course you wouldn't, if you actually read her interview it is very evident she didnt not persue this as a religious matter

On the broader aspect of representing a community and putting forward their views be it based on religious beliefs or simply a common cause it is the job of an MP to do this.
That is how a parliment is supposed to work not a situation where the will of the public they are representing is completely ignored for sake of a neutral image.
A secular government is not one completely devoid of representation, it is one of religious indifference

Granted, but look at it like this:
Yesterday, I've read in the newspaper that a public school in Antwerp also forbid the wearing of headscarfs in class, for the simple reason that it isn't allowed by the dresscode...I mean autochtonous children can't enter class with a cap either...
Half of the Muslim pupils threatened to leave the school (silly threat though, since they'd be the only ones losing, as they would have to do over their academic year), citing religious reasons. Now I'd like a Muslim to make it clear to me...Is the headscarf a religious symbol or not? because I have the impression some Muslims tend to twist this to suit their personal needs...

 

[TheBinarySurfer]

What i don't get with the whole religion issue is why we take these nuts seriously! There's no proof, not a shred of it - in fact if you take christianity as an example, there's actually a fair bit of proof that the story of jesus is largely a fabrication based around a few fairly ordinary historical events.

I don't see special consideration being given to the skitzo guy who hears voices or the guy having a breakdown who has an imaginary friend. It's just as real to them as to the people sitting in a long building on a sunday talking to two pieces of wood nailed at right angles to each other, and there's exactly the same absence of proof that either exists.

In both cases, you're talking to your imaginary friend who (supposedly) is there in times of need.
Someone explain the difference between one imaginary friend and another? That's right, there is none - the only difference is that more people believe one than the other. That's the key word here - belief - there is no more proof as to the existance of ANY god than there is of the voices in someone's head.

Religion is popular because thousands of weak-willed saps need to believe their empty, pointless and petty little lives have some greater purpose or that in time they won't end up as meat rotting in the ground like everyone else. Their minds can't comprehend the fact they get one shot at this and then it's over - when you die the only reward is oblivion. There is no respawn button, no release timer, no action replay, no chance to retire from the field and watch others play.

My point (and i knew i had a point somewhere) is that religion affects the way you view the world, and therefore affects your decisions (and when you look at it objectively, is effectively a mass delusion).

Personally, i'm all for a complete ban of any individual who is active or seriously believes in any religion from any elected public office or public consulting position for life.

 

[Thorwyn]

What i don't get with the whole religion issue is why we take these nuts seriously! There's no proof, not a shred of it - in fact if you take christianity as an example, there's actually a fair bit of proof that the story of jesus is largely a fabrication based around a few fairly ordinary historical events.

Problem with "proofs" is, that the word is often used as a replacement for "I *want* to think it´s like that". I hear they even started wars based on "proofs" in the past.

In both cases, you're talking to your imaginary friend who (supposedly) is there in times of need.
Someone explain the difference between one imaginary friend and another? That's right, there is none - the only difference is that more people believe one than the other. That's the key word here - belief - there is no more proof as to the existance of ANY god than there is of the voices in someone's head.

I think you can´t argue like that. Religion is about something that´s out of our imagination. Just because the human mind has no proof of something doesn´t mean that this something doesn´t exist.

My point (and i knew i had a point somewhere) is that religion affects the way you view the world, and therefore affects your decisions (and when you look at it objectively, is effectively a mass delusion).

Everything affects the way you view the world. Everything has an influence on your views, your feelings and your judgement. Money, health, power, love, hate. For some people, even their OS is a form of religion.

 

[aika]

What i don't get with the whole religion issue is why we take these nuts seriously! There's no proof, not a shred of it - in fact if you take christianity as an example, there's actually a fair bit of proof that the story of jesus is largely a fabrication based around a few fairly ordinary historical events.

I don't see special consideration being given to the skitzo guy who hears voices or the guy having a breakdown who has an imaginary friend. It's just as real to them as to the people sitting in a long building on a sunday talking to two pieces of wood nailed at right angles to each other, and there's exactly the same absence of proof that either exists.

In both cases, you're talking to your imaginary friend who (supposedly) is there in times of need.
Someone explain the difference between one imaginary friend and another? That's right, there is none - the only difference is that more people believe one than the other. That's the key word here - belief - there is no more proof as to the existance of ANY god than there is of the voices in someone's head.

Religion is popular because thousands of weak-willed saps need to believe their empty, pointless and petty little lives have some greater purpose or that in time they won't end up as meat rotting in the ground like everyone else. Their minds can't comprehend the fact they get one shot at this and then it's over - when you die the only reward is oblivion. There is no respawn button, no release timer, no action replay, no chance to retire from the field and watch others play.

My point (and i knew i had a point somewhere) is that religion affects the way you view the world, and therefore affects your decisions (and when you look at it objectively, is effectively a mass delusion).

Personally, i'm all for a complete ban of any individual who is active or seriously believes in any religion from any elected public office or public consulting position for life.

All religion does it just bring another reason for a group of people to think another group (another religion/atheists/etc) is different from them, thus just creating more separation and hatred.

The bible has more violence and atrocities than Clockwork Orange.

 

[`mongoose]

*stuff*

From your post you appear to have no comprehension of how intrinsic religion is to some cultures, what's worse is that you appear from your post to be rabidly intolerant of anyone who differs from your perception of the world. Isn't that precisely what you find so annoying about "believers"?

As regards wearing headscarves in school, what's the big deal? Honestly do we live in a world where a head scarf is such a crime?

There are christian sects that believe in ladies covering their hair when in public but I don't see those being criticised with such stridency. I work with alot of nationalities. We have all sorts and all ages and they're all looking to get the best that they can and they'll use any rule or law to do so. Just like we would. I really don't care if that means I'm surrounded by 30 muslim ladies in head scarves, it's never really bothered me. I find it a little wierd but if it makes them comfortable and helps them get an education - good. That, at the end of the day is the most important thing about any school/college/university. Learning should be the key and if a dress code get's bent to further that then more power to it.

If we really want an integrated liberal society then it must start with acceptance of all aspects of our society. I realise that this acceptance and tolerance is not reciprocal in many cases, but that's the cost of us having a largely secular and inclusive society. It's also at the heart of most of the conflict we've had in the last 100 years.

M

 

[TheBinarySurfer]

Problem with "proofs" is, that the word is often used as a replacement for "I *want* to think it´s like that". I hear they even started wars based on "proofs" in the past.

I think you can´t argue like that. Religion is about something that´s out of our imagination. Just because the human mind has no proof of something doesn´t mean that this something doesn´t exist.

Everything affects the way you view the world. Everything has an influence on your views, your feelings and your judgement. Money, health, power, love, hate. For some people, even their OS is a form of religion.

That's correct, absence of proof is not proof of absence.

Equally, absence of proof is not proof of something beyond our understanding.

The human mind, (by definition) cannot grasp something beyond it's understanding in any way, so therefore it is entirely speculative and based on no proof with regard to religion.

I do not believe you have refuted my point - god is just another imaginary friend until you can show me some tangible proof or a working theory that has not been largely disproved by science (e.g. creationism vs the big bang - i think we all know who won that battle of the theories).

What particuarly frustrates me is people saying that everything affects your perception. That's right - it does. However MOST things that affect one's perception isn't based on a 2000 year old book that has no real corroboration, that was based on a 2nd hand account, and has been re-written completely at least 5 times. Most things that affect one's perception are tangible and real and have some proof.

All religion does it just bring another reason for a group of people to think another group (another religion/atheists/etc) is different from them, thus just creating more separation and hatred.

The bible has more violence and atrocities than Clockwork Orange.

I agree. Also, it has been used as a political compliance tool for a long, long time (particuarly by christianity in the middle ages).

Estimated deaths from the Inquisition alone number into the hundreds of thousands, and then factor in that even the most conservative estimates of the crusades place the deaths well into the 1.5-2.5m range from fighting alone, let alone the surrounding deaths from the destruction and poverty caused by them.

 

[Vintersorg]

From your post you appear to have no comprehension of how intrinsic religion is to some cultures, what's worse is that you appear from your post to be rabidly intolerant of anyone who differs from your perception of the world. Isn't that precisely what you find so annoying about "believers"?

As regards wearing headscarves in school, what's the big deal? Honestly do we live in a world where a head scarf is such a crime?

There are christian sects that believe in ladies covering their hair when in public but I don't see those being criticised with such stridency. I work with alot of nationalities. We have all sorts and all ages and they're all looking to get the best that they can and they'll use any rule or law to do so. Just like we would. I really don't care if that means I'm surrounded by 30 muslim ladies in head scarves, it's never really bothered me. I find it a little wierd but if it makes them comfortable and helps them get an education - good. That, at the end of the day is the most important thing about any school/college/university. Learning should be the key and if a dress code get's bent to further that then more power to it.

If we really want an integrated liberal society then it must start with acceptance of all aspects of our society. I realise that this acceptance and tolerance is not reciprocal in many cases, but that's the cost of us having a largely secular and inclusive society. It's also at the heart of most of the conflict we've had in the last 100 years.

M

Fact: the school forbids any kind of headdresses in class, be it baseball caps, headscarfs, turbans or the jewish cap-thingy.
Fact: No-one makes a fuss about the dress code, except some Muslims. they've already organised demonstrations at the school's gates to rebel against this. You don't hear any Jews complaining, or indians. They just don't put on the headdress. Rules are there for everyone.

Their is freedom of religion, but the fct remains that a vocal minority of one religion is trying to enforce it's way of life onto the others.

Face it, the same Muslims that requested Christmas decorations to be removed from the courthouse (because it was supposedly an insult to them), are the first to claim that they are being discriminated when it's their sacrificial feast and we dare to complain about remains of gutted sheep being put in bins on the sidewalk (making the whole place stink of the rotting carcass).

That's the heart of the entire problem: a minority of them doesn't want to make any concessions as far as integration is concerned, and that same minority trashes the place up when they don't get what they want.
It's that minority that unjustly sours the relationships between Muslims and others. And it's because of stuff like that, that people here tend to react strongly about the headscarf debate.

 

[TheBinarySurfer]

Estimated deaths from the Inquisition alone number into the hundreds of thousands, and then factor in that even the most conservative estimates of the crusades place the deaths well into the 1.5-2.5m range from fighting alone, let alone the surrounding deaths from the destruction and poverty caused by them.

And yes, i'm aware the crusades were about plenty of things in addition to religion, see my above comment about a political tool...

 

[`mongoose]

That's the heart of the entire problem: a minority of them doesn't want to make any concessions as far as integration is concerned, and that same minority trashes the place up when they don't get what they want.
It's that minority that unjustly sours the relationships between Muslims and others. And it's because of stuff like that, that people here tend to react strongly about the headscarf debate.

I agree wholeheartedly with your concerns there but I still feel that the school is being unnecesarrily inflexible. I'd argue the case for any other religious minority too if I'm being honest. A Cap, Turban, Crucifix, Headscarf does not (imo) represent a drastic change in school uniform.

I'm amazed they get away with the whole sheep carcass thing. iIve never seen that happen in blighty.

M

 

[TheBinarySurfer]

It's that minority that unjustly sours the relationships between Muslims and others. And it's because of stuff like that, that people here tend to react strongly about the headscarf debate.

Exactly - it's the constant "i'm special because of my religion", "i'm special because of my skin color", "i'm special because i don't speak the language" etc etc that gets up peoples noses. It's effectively saying "do what i want or i'll throw my toys out of the pram" and is an attitude i'd expect from a 6 year old child, not an adult.

What would make you special is not expecting special treatment because you have an imaginary friend, or happen to have had ancestors 10000 years ago in Africa (for example). Getting your head down, and working hard and building a decent life for yourself, your family, your constituency without holding your hand out and saying "give me because i'm xyz"

As i've said once before - i don't dislike others based on skin color or religion or sex. I dislike them based on behaviour, and while i accept many Muslims integrate well, they are by overshadowed by the constantly vocal, needy, attention seeking, self-important minority who don't.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Binary Surfer, also it can't be proven as people who want this proof, wouldn't accept any proof(even if legite) as anything but "something i can explain by xyz".

Even if god trotted down on a flaming cloud made of poo and turned all the french into jam, people still wouldn't believe.

This atleast from what i've heard of a few non-religion people.

 

[TheBinarySurfer]

Youre missing the point if you think i believe the headscarf itself is the problem.

You are being awkward deliberately there, and you know as well as i do the headscarf is not the problem. In thise case, it symbolises a much wider problem - the continuing growth of the notion that a belief makes you special or entitled to special treatment.

From your post you appear to have no comprehension of how intrinsic religion is to some cultures, what's worse is that you appear from your post to be rabidly intolerant of anyone who differs from your perception of the world. Isn't that precisely what you find so annoying about "believers"?
M

Thanks for judging me.

I'm not rabidly intolerant of other's beliefs, quite the opposite in fact.

My post was deliberately at an extreme to mirror the hardline position on the other side of the fence (it was intended to be both informative as to my position and heavily sardonic, but obviously missed the mark with you ).

Let me be clear: I personally, do not give a flying fuck if someone believes in little green men, jesus, allah, the flying dutchman etc. They are free to do so and it is a matter of complete indifference to me what they personally believe.

What i do care about is when someone tells me i must treat them a certain way based on a completely theoretical belief system, or that they can do whatever they want as a result, or that they deserve special treatment at every turn as a result.

As i've said once before, i treat each individual on their own merits and behaviour not because of what they believe, and not because of my own individual views on religion.

What i object strenuously to is the notion that they should be treated preferentially (which is often what they expect) or with deference because of a belief.

If people want their own culture thats fine - but realise that you do not have a right to make everyone else bend over backward to accomodate you and your beliefs.

 

[TheBinarySurfer]

Binary Surfer, also it can't be proven as people who want this proof, wouldn't accept any proof(even if legite) as anything but "something i can explain by xyz".

Even if god trotted down on a flaming cloud made of poo and turned all the french into jam, people still wouldn't believe.

This atleast from what i've heard of a few non-religion people.

The second someone shows me definitive proof i'll believe. After all, who wouldn't in the face of irrefutable proof in an omnipotent supreme being.

The fact that 2000 years of christianity, (let alone the older religions) has failed to prove this speaks volumes to me personally.

 

[Vintersorg]

I agree wholeheartedly with your concerns there but I still feel that the school is being unnecesarrily inflexible. I'd argue the case for any other religious minority too if I'm being honest. A Cap, Turban, Crucifix, Headscarf does not (imo) represent a drastic change in school uniform.

I'm amazed they get away with the whole sheep carcass thing. iIve never seen that happen in blighty.

M

Luckily, not all muslims let these carcasses rot on the street, but in some big cities, they do just that. It improved since the law forces them to go to slaughterhouses to do this, but there are always minorities who refuse to do this.
And because of this we've reached an impasse: why would we adapt to their needs, if they don't even show basic consideration towards us?

 

[old.Tohtori]

The second someone shows me definitive proof i'll believe. After all, who wouldn't in the face of irrefutable proof in an omnipotent supreme being.

The fact that 2000 years of christianity, (let alone the older religions) has failed to prove this speaks volumes to me personally.

Then you're an exception to a rule, good for that.

Just a quick question; what would you define as proof of, say god?

Certainly no david copperfield level, but say, write "yes i'm real" in stormclouds would do?

The thing with most people is, they don't accept any level as proof because it "might be proven otherwise", which is kind of funny 'cause that's the whole basis of science that it can be disproven.

 

[noblok]

What i object strenuously to is the notion that they should be treated preferentially (which is often what they expect) or with deference because of a belief. If people want their own culture thats fine - but realise that you do not have a right to make everyone else bend over backward to accomodate you and your beliefs.

In the case of the original post they aren't being asked to be treated preferentially. In fact, they're just demanding equal rights: to be able to engage in politics without having to cloak their world-view. A socialist probably has a different outlook on life than a liberal, but you wouldn't ask either of them to pretend they aren't socialist/liberal, would you? Both of these philosophies rest on non-objective value judgements which are an inspiration to engage in politics. Religion can function in the same way, so why is it being discriminated against?

Because we realised centuries ago that "gods will" is not a good reason to do anything. That is why we separate the church from the state. Thats why Europe is secular.

I don't agree that God's will isn't a good reason to do anything. However: I do agree that in a multicultural public sphere it is no good argument. Not because the argument is intrinsically worthless (in a closed community where everyone shares the same beliefs it definitely has it's worth), but because it doesn't even try to appeal to everyone in the public sphere.

However: just because you engage in politics out of a religious inspiration doesn't mean that "God's will" is the only argument you can give. Humanists and religious people share many value judgements, even though there is a difference in that for the religious this value judgement will often be imbued with some element of divinity. This being marked by a religious stamp does not make the whole argument worthless though. If you keep an open mind, you can get something out of it: even though you may not agree with the religious aspect of it, the underlying value judgement may appeal to you as well.

 

[old.Tohtori]

On the topic, more then, i don't see why there's a problem with religions items.

Afterall, that's who they are, part of them, etc.

There's no dresscode for the rest of the people there, is there?

They can wear personalised outfits, like different ties and suits that look good on them.

 

[Vintersorg]

In the case of the original post they aren't being asked to be treated preferentially. In fact, they're just demanding equal rights: to be able to engage in politics without having to cloak their world-view. A socialist probably has a different outlook on life than a liberal, but you wouldn't ask either of them to pretend they aren't socialist/liberal, would you? Both of these philosophies rest on non-objective value judgements which are an inspiration to engage in politics. Religion can function in the same way, so why is it being discriminated against?

It's not being discriminated against, IMHO.
It's a religious symbol; There is separation of Church and State.
So, no religious symbols in parliament.

 

[noblok]

It's not being discriminated against, IMHO.
It's a religious symbol; There is separation of Church and State.
So, no religious symbols in parliament.

But I don't get why wearing a Hijab would endanger the separation of Church and State. It's not like they're making it a law for all women to wear one, is it? It's simply on person chosen to represent a certain religious/cultural group, wearing a religious/cultural symbol. Banning religious symbols is not a neutral decision at all.

You need to differentiate between the state and the representatives in the parliament. The state is an empty structure. This 'empty place of power' then needs to be occupied by particular people. I don't see why some of these can't be openly religious, especially not when taking into account how important religion is for some people.

 

[TheBinarySurfer]

In the case of the original post they aren't being asked to be treated preferentially.

You are quite correct - they aren't.

But the reason people react negatively is that so many of their fellows ARE.

However, church and state should stay firmly separated. Allowing one compromise in such a situation leads to another, and another and before we know it we have various religious symbols up on the wall...

The road to ruin is paved with good intentions and compromises.

Lets say Chris the Christian is standing for public office. Wins a seat in parliment. Chris has stood on his policies rather than his religion and won.

Now Chris is a very devout Christian, and most of his moral compass is based around Christianity and it's teachings.

How is Chris able to separate Church and state if he becomes party leader? Oh that's right he's not.

How is Chris able to make objective decisions regarding abortion, women's rights or ethics? How is he able to carry out voter's wishes that contradict the basic teachings of his religion?

That's right, he's not since his moral compass is largely guided by a belief system that pre-disposes him to certain answers that are helpful to the belief system.

You only have to look at Bush and the whole abortion or stem cell messes to see why religion and politics is a recipe for disaster and policies that are in the interest of the individual/religion, and not the country and it's people.

Now do you get why having particuarly religious people in politics is bad? You lose your objectivity and your moral decisions are guided by something other than your own experiences.

It's not the headscarf i give a damn about - it's what it represents and indicates about the wearer.

I don't agree that God's will isn't a good reason to do anything. However: I do agree that in a multicultural public sphere it is no good argument. Not because the argument is intrinsically worthless (in a closed community where everyone shares the same beliefs it definitely has it's worth), but because it doesn't even try to appeal to everyone in the public sphere.

Sorry, but it is actually. Firstly "because it's gods will" is just another way of saying "because i said so / because our religious order says so.

I prefer to live my live according to logic and reason mostly, not based on the supposed whims of a (likely) ficticious supreme being, that has been reinterpreted and rewritten by people umpteen times since it was supposedly dictated by the supreme being.

Finally, every time i've had a reasoned, logical debate with people on religion they trot out "you have to have faith", or "you just have to believe in god" or "because it's god's will".

Resorting to a purely speculative, emotive appeal is the mark of someone who has no real argument or facts to back it up.

 

[CorNokZ]

This

 

[noblok]

However, church and state should stay firmly separated. Allowing one compromise in such a situation leads to another, and another and before we know it we have various religious symbols up on the wall...

See my previous post. I would object to religious symbols up on the wall, precisely because the buildings symbolise the empty structure of the state. If people would just make this clear distinction between the state as an entity and the people fulfilling certain functions within the state, this wouldn't be a problem.

How is Chris able to separate Church and state if he becomes party leader? Oh that's right he's not. How is Chris able to make objective decisions regarding abortion, women's rights or ethics? That's right, he's not since his moral compass is largely guided by a belief system that pre-disposes him to certain answers that are helpful to the belief system.

But atheists differ as well in their stance on abortion. Everyone's moral compass is guided by non-objective value judgements. There is no one objective truth in cases like this. There obviously are more and less reasonable stances to take, but when one's outlook on life is radically different, there's no purely rational argument which can sway him to the other side. Or rather, there could be, but in that case it most likely would be because the rational argument reveals a more subjective truth.

If Chris were asked why he's against abortion and answered with a Bible verse, he'd be wrong in my opinion (see my previous post: authoritative religious argument only have value in a closed religious community, not in an open public sphere). However, were he to say something along the lines of "I believe in the worth (holiness) of life and that this should be protected from the very beginning," he would make a statement inspired by his religion, but which can also be understood by non-religious people.

Basically my points are these:
1. I'm against authoritative religious arguments in the public sphere, but religion can be an inspiration for opinions which can be expressed in terms which may appeal to non-believers as well.

2. A result of this is that I'm for the separation of Church and State (a union would be close to the authoritative way of reasoning), but I think that people who engage in politics out of a religious inspiration should be allowed to show their inspiration.

 

[Ch3tan]

Lets say Chris the Christian is standing for public office. Wins a seat in parliment. Chris has stood on his policies rather than his religion and won.

How is Chris able to separate Church and state if he becomes party leader? Oh that's right he's not.

How is Chris able to make objective decisions regarding abortion, women's rights or ethics? How is he able to carry out voter's wishes that contradict the basic teachings of his religion?

Not entirely true, the ideal of democracy is that the people elected represent the community (be it local or national) that voted for them. Now if Chris ran on his policies then surely his policies would not violate his moral compass in the first place, surely his campaign would have included the fact that he was a devout Christian, whether he had a family or not.

You have to face the reality that a lot of people do not care about the policies so much as they do for voting for someone who represents their ideals - a family man, a religious man, a lawful man, a scientific man, a well educated man. The fact is that in your example, Chris would not have been elected on his policies alone, and thus his Christian moral compass would most likely be shared by a good majority of those that voted for him -making his feelings on those issues representative of his community.

You are trying to make everything black and white, but it is not that clear cut, and you know it.

 

[Vintersorg]

But I don't get why wearing a Hijab would endanger the separation of Church and State. It's not like they're making it a law for all women to wear one, is it? It's simply on person chosen to represent a certain religious/cultural group, wearing a religious/cultural symbol. Banning religious symbols is not a neutral decision at all.

You need to differentiate between the state and the representatives in the parliament. The state is an empty structure. This 'empty place of power' then needs to be occupied by particular people. I don't see why some of these can't be openly religious, especially not when taking into account how important religion is for some people.

Again, Separation of Church and state. If we agree to this now, they'll ask for something else. and then something else again. (not only Muslims, mind you. Christians, Hindus, or whatever religion will all claim their piece of the pie, so to speak).
these rules are their for a reason, you know.

 

[noblok]

Again, Separation of Church and state. If we agree to this now, they'll ask for something else. and then something else again. (not only Muslims, mind you. Christians, Hindus, or whatever religion will all claim their piece of the pie, so to speak).
these rules are their for a reason, you know.

I do separate Church and State. People are to quick to think that every sign of something religious in the political sphere endangers the separation of Church and State. The fact that we have national holidays on days important to the Christian religion is more of an infringement than a member of parliament wearing a Hijab.

The reason why State and Church were separated was because the Christian Church wasn't democratically elected and had no legitimate authority over non-Christians. However, if a religious person is democratically elected, she has a legitimate claim to express her religiously inspired view in the parliament. On the condition of course, that she attempts to argue in terms which are understandable for people who don't share her religious presuppositions as well.