[Norway] Star of David banned in school, but hijab OK

I certainly don't hold it against someone for their religious symbols, but frankly, I'd prefer not to see it. In any case, I'm just speaking the dirty truth - you're going to have an easier time if you don't try to stand out at work or school. You don't go to a business meeting wearing a spiked colar or your rasta hat - you dress differently. In any case, ultimately it penalizes those who choose to wear their believes literally on their sleeve.

 

In scope, yes they are obviously different. In principle they are not - they are all instances where governments DO regulate religions and in many instances they SHOULD do so. I don't think either peyote or pot consumption is comparable to Jonestown or cannibalism, for instance (in fact I don't even think they're bad ).

 

Except that the government doesnt justify regulating polygamy because it feels the need to regulate religion. They do it because the act itself inherently harms other people. Wearing a yamika or a scarf means absolutely nothing and affects only the person who wears it. No precedent has been set for government regulation of religion solely on the basis that a piece of clothing can be interpreted as a symbol of oppression.

 

ok.

Because it harms people, yes.

It is YOUR opinion that it means nothing. Do not mistake your opinion for fact. If it is harmful to someone then the government can regulate it.

There is plenty of precedent set for the government to regulate oppressive acts or practices - acts or practices that are inherently racist or sexist (for example).

 

Please do not look at europe as one whole, there are differences between the countrys actually a lot of differences.

I do agree that wearing religious things should not be banned. people should be free to wear whatever they want, people should not be offended so easily.

 

Too bad it doesn't seem to work out that way for you.

 

That depends on what you want. Not everyone is as shallow.

 

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

And is that a reflection of the individuals choosing to wear religious symbols or rather a reflection of our society?

I think we ALL would agree that conforming to the majority culture would make it easier for us in our daily lives. But does that mean you should do it? Should Black people go around bleaching their skins (as Michael Jackson probably did) so that they can have an 'easier' life? Do you think MJ would've ever had every European teenage girl screaming his name if he had kept his 'Afro-American' features? Is that really a positive development for our society or rather a backward step for race/ethnic relations?

The 'easier' road sometimes is not the right thing to do.

 

I agree. Why should his personal belief or taste offend anyone else, as long as it's not racist? People feel offended by other religions are not true believers. Coz in every religion, love and tolerance are part of that. If you truely believe your GOD is the real and true God, you would have known that HE is able to win those non-believers over. By trying political means to ban other religions or free-thinking and speech is a disgrace to any religion.

 

The jews, islamic and christians all believe in the same god anyway(the god of abraham). so why not have a little tolerance?

 

Communism is an economic system. What people mean is (secular)totalitarianism. Totalitarian communist governments are bad. True, communism generally leads to totalitarianism but it is still just an economic system.

 

Speaking of Fascism...

http://www.rense.com/general37/char.htm

Fourteen Defining
Characteristics Of Fascism
By Dr. Lawrence Britt
​

Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14 defining characteristics common to each:

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread
domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.

6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.

7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.

8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.

9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.

11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.

12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.

14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections

 

So it is in accordance with my assertion

Case CLOSED?

 

What case?! I didn't say you were wrong, it could very well be a communist government doing that. But isn't communism an economic model? I think you meant totalitarianism (secular or religious-based, such as Saudi Arabia).

Anyways, I do believe that you could have a secular fascist state. The bottom line is for the government to use the common culture (Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Atheism, or even secularism) and shove it down people's throats, all the while denouncing those who 'deviate' from society's norms.

The only reason why religion has been the tool used by fascist states the most is that the majority of citizens in a given society are religious, and therefore politicians cater to that.

Don't you think that you can have a secular state qualifying as a fascist one? (could be called extreme secularism)?

 

Sure, but not until I see an example of Godly Communism.

 

Doesn't have to be communism at all, it could be a secular fascist state (or corporatist state as some like to call it, which is much closer to capitalism than communism).

Agreed, there isn't many examples of those in history, but as I said, most people in a given society are religious.

However, it might not be too long until we start seeing this if the progress toward a 'secular world order' stays on course.

 

It is a reflection of humanity - and this isn't about race - it's about beliefs.

By your thinking, a person should be able to wear a Nazi Swastika on their shirt and walk into a Holocaust museum. I say again, political and religious symbols have no place in the workplace or school - places where people must go and don't have a choice to be exposed to other people's ridiculous ideas.

 

Well, communist states base themselves on Marxist-Leninist ideology.

Marxism, on the basis of dialectical materialism, views religion as a product of man's relationship to the means of production - a product of man's unhappiness with life and a product of man's lack of understanding of social and economic forces. Thus the Marxist position on religion has always been two fold: 1) that criticism of religion and the advance of science are important elements for combating religious views, and 2) that religion will never be fully eliminated until man has control over the economy and man is no longer alienated from productive forces.

Karl Marx wrote in 1844 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/df-jahrbucher/law-abs.htm):

Also, Lenin, wrote in his "Three Sources & Three Component parts of Marxism" in 1913:

Let's not get too carried away with the communism vs fascism discussion. I think this was NOT in gwayneco's mind when he started this thread. To reiterate my point, if you had to stretch the scenario discussed by NewYorker into some kind of extreme, you would more likely get into communism rather than fascism, given only these two options and based on their ideological views on religion.

 

You are missing the point of my critique. Thanks for telling me so much about Marx, though. I had never heard of him.