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

MineralMan

(147,623 posts)
6. The government should have nothing to say about individuals
Tue Jun 18, 2019, 01:35 PM
Jun 2019

wearing religious symbols. Period. Here in the USA, wearing such symbols is protected by the First Amendment. I don't know about Canada.

Freedom of religion is simple. It means you can dress as you like, wear what you like as jewelry or hats, and worship as you choose, if you choose to worship in the first place.

Banning the wearing of religious clothing, like the kippah, for example, infringes on a person's freedom of worship. It is not up to the state, and should not be up to the state, to limit such expression.

Why would anyone care? I am harmed in no way by someone wearing a cross necklace or pin. A pin with the mogen david causes no harm. Nor does a piece of jewelry depicting a wiccan pentacle. Nor am I harmed by someone carrying a rosary in their hand. Nor by someone wearing a hijab. No harm is caused by such things, and they represent the religious belief of the person wearing them. The government should have no role in such decisions.

There is no reason to restrict such things, so there should be no law doing so. I do not wear any of those things. I am an atheist. But they cause me no harm when someone does wear them.

Feh!

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
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Religion»Quebec law banning hijab ...»Reply #6