[#bemorelikeeurope] EU Allows Employers To Ban Non-Sensical Religious Garb

I think the goal is to have the women themselves to be the ones to not tolerate it. That will happen more with being exposed to other ways and contrasting that with the oppression they face. Keeping them out of western work locations provides them less exposure and contrast not more.

I understand the gut instinct to simply not allow it, but I can also see that exposure might be more effective in accomplishing the goal of the women themselves casting off the oppression.

 

Yung-T, I like you. But no, you failed to see what I was trying to say ---which may fall on me for not dissecting the original post of contention. Its a matter of equivalence when offering an explanation. The later statement in your post I will not be able to address properly, since once again, your whole premise seems to be wrong. I get off in a couple, and will offer you the same time in responding that you gave me. --thanks

 

I would also like to add in my anecdote that she has kids. Now imagine a Muslim hijabi MD mom who goes to Zumba and Yoga with her colleges rasing children vs a hijabi Muslim womean who was isolated to stay at home and then started raising kids. Which set of kids are more likely to be raised to think in more secular terms?

Which method will actually disapate these practices more?

 

It wouldn't be the employers or anyone else keeping them out of western work locations. Let's not confuse the issue here. The perpetrators are the Muslim men.

 

Yes, I agree, but forbidding them work in their religious garments would keep them out of western work locations. I'm not talking about who is to blame, just which path would be more effective in bringing about change.

 

My wife (McGill U.)and sister (BCU PH.D maxillofacial surgery ,both are Dentists and do wear hijab, but they maybe wrong and should listen to what others may thinks it's right for them!

 

Here we go again with the "USA is so evil" and "you are hateful" instead of addressing the root of the issue. Like a broken record.

 

Here you go again not saying a damn thing. I told you: Islam, Christianity, and Judaism all find reasons to kill. They are all the same to me. Christianity should be the best, but in practice it's not. Christians are mistaken to believe "an eye for an eye." Jesus repudiated that. Wanna have a contest and see which religion does the most murders per day? I bet it's not Islam.

 

Already told you I'm not a fan of any religion, amazing how you continue with the "Yung-T hates Islam and is cool with every other religion" bullsh**.

And feel free to come up with the number of murders committed in the name of the religion, a pathetic "xy murders commited in the USA per day, which is a Christian country...sooo uh that's millions of crimes committed because of Christianity" doesn't fly.

 

My opinion is the less public display of religion, the better off we are as a society.

 

So you don't simply think Islam is "a pile of ****," but all religions are "piles of ****"? Kudos to you for your fairness!

I'm not trying to prove America is bad. I'm saying it's full of holier-than-thou a-holes like you.

 

Amazing how bad a person can be at reading comprehension. It's like you can only debate by making up things no one has said.

 

Look in the mirror.

 

Never said any different and I don't know how any person objectively looking at the Quran can feel like it isn't a terrible religion full of hate.

Again, your idiotic statement was "So you don't simply think Islam is "a pile of ****," but all religions are "piles of ****"?", which isn't what I've indicated in any post.

 

No, no, no.

There is a big logical flaw in this. Forbidding them work in their religious garments does not keep them out of western work locations. What keeps them out is the freaking ass backwards logic of their men who want to lock them up like prisoners if they don't cover their heads.

Your bolded sentence acts like there is a direct causal chain between not allowing them to work in their religious garments, and them not being able to work.

That is logically incorrect.

What is correct is:

Not allowing work in religious garments ---> a conscious decision is made by the person to obey the laws in the country and respect the rules of the employer, even if their oppressive husbands try to prevent this --> they can work

I understand that this brings friction to families like that of fchowd, and I empathize with that. I do respect his opinion.

But anything other than forcing the hijab out of public life means submitting to the rules made by the oppressors. It's about more than the hijab - for them and for us. Unless you force it out, they will keep forcing it on their women, and eventually will try to force their rules on everyone.

You have unconsciously already accepted it as the new normal, and as socially and morally acceptable. It is not.

P.S.: Yung-T, I don't know whom you are responding to, because I don't see the posts you are responding to, but I assume that you are wasting your time. Whoever it is, the person would not be on my ignore list if I had not already come to that conclusion...

 

Sure technically they could still work, but that's not how it works practically in real life.

If people wanted to have a Vegan integrate meat into their diet and someone was raised to be a vegan but some jobs had mandatory meat lunches, the Vegans wouldn't work there. Technically they still could and then just learn to eat meat. However, if a person really wanted the Vegans to eat meat, they would allow the Vegans to still go to work there, and serve delicious dishes featuring meat to expose them. The Vegan decides to try meat one day and they like it so they won't be hardcore Vegan after that.

 

You do not like a religion so much, that you don't care you are suppressing people. You know, doing the very things you hate about that religion.

 

The ones "suppressing" people are the followers of the religion, not those who do not tolerate the oppressive behavior.

 

That's a bad example. Whatever someone eats only affects them, and is their own choice. Wearing the hijab is something these women are brainwashed into, and it is an outward display of religion, which affects others.

 

I'm not talking about who it affects. I'm talking about what is more effective in getting rid of rigid dogma.

Replacing one dogma with a different form of dogma is less effective than allowing exposure and one's own discovery. If the change comes from within the person rather than from outside sources it will be more effective.