Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Religion

Jake Stern

(3,145 posts)

5. As long as the law covers all religious symbols (this one covers Christian symbols)

Reply to Eugene (Original post)

Tue Jun 18, 2019, 01:28 PM

Jun 2019

I have no problem with it.

The government of Quebec shouldn't be in the business of promoting garb that represents subjugation and oppression. If somebody wants to advertise their second class status they can do it on their time, not when they represent a secular government. This includes those goofy pioneer dresses that some fundie Christian women wear.

And before anybody gets off on the "but what about nuns!?!?" BS I volunteer with nuns frequently and not a one of the wears the habit outside the convent. They all wear street clothes when working.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

34 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Quebec law banning hijab at work creates 'politics of fear', say critics [View all] Eugene Jun 2019 OP

Sigh Sentath Jun 2019 #1

What a moronic law! MineralMan Jun 2019 #2

It might serve a purpose for some Major Nikon Jun 2019 #3

I see hijabs every time I venture out to do shopping. MineralMan Jun 2019 #4

A head covering worn for modesty is quite often coerced at best Major Nikon Jun 2019 #12

First-generation immigrants often retain MineralMan Jun 2019 #13

There is certainly some social enforcement of it. AtheistCrusader Jun 2019 #33

I'm not sure if is a battle worth fighting. MineralMan Jun 2019 #34

As long as the law covers all religious symbols (this one covers Christian symbols) Jake Stern Jun 2019 #5

The government should have nothing to say about individuals MineralMan Jun 2019 #6

I disagree Jake Stern Jun 2019 #7

A cross on a desk is not a matter of personal attire. MineralMan Jun 2019 #8

Oh bullshit Jake Stern Jun 2019 #9

I see. Well, never mind, then. MineralMan Jun 2019 #10

Not bullshit Major Nikon Jun 2019 #16

Exactly. People have freedom of expression. MineralMan Jun 2019 #17

Has to do with the 1st amendment Major Nikon Jun 2019 #18

It doesn't ban hijabs. Voltaire2 Jun 2019 #11

I tend to disagree... uriel1972 Jun 2019 #14

It is as much a religious symbol as a yamaka Voltaire2 Jun 2019 #15

I would say it's a grey area... uriel1972 Jun 2019 #20

But it actually does. guillaumeb Jun 2019 #21

No it requires certain public employees Voltaire2 Jun 2019 #22

If employees are prevented from wearing hijab, guillaumeb Jun 2019 #23

Well we are quibbling over the phrase Voltaire2 Jun 2019 #24

We are talking about the politics of fear. guillaumeb Jun 2019 #25

Oh I see you changed the subject. Voltaire2 Jun 2019 #27

This is the Religion Group. guillaumeb Jun 2019 #29

Clear as mud. Voltaire2 Jun 2019 #30

It was designed to create fear and mistrust. guillaumeb Jun 2019 #19

This was your shot to take a perfectly placed and totally appropriate jab at nationalism. Act_of_Reparation Jun 2019 #26

I did. guillaumeb Jun 2019 #28

Yeah, but Marois was PQ. Act_of_Reparation Jun 2019 #31

I think the name is quite ironic, guillaumeb Jun 2019 #32