Category: News and Views
Hi all,
I just heard about this in one of my communication classes; apparently the province of Quebec has established some kind of charter which all government employees are obligated to follow. Basically, any religious expression is prohibited: no head scarves, no crosses, no turbans. This spawned a passionate discussion in the class in question, and I'm just curious as to what you all think. Does this limit peoples' rights rather than protecting them, as the charter aims to do? Or should none of us care and just keep going about our business? Is this the ideal situation?
I'm not convinced on this one either way, but my leaning is this.
People have proven they can't play nice about religion. They just can't. So limiting religious expression for all (no exceptions, no special privileges) might smarten people up. This reminds me of two or three kids fighting over a toy, and taking the toy away. Maybe supposedly unnecessary for adults, but the so-called adults are often proving that they can't leave one another alone otherwise.
In a government setting, I think it's ridiculous. In things like public work-force jobs, it should be either freedom to do as you like (wear a turban, wear a cross), or nothing for anyone. And that's where I'm on the fence.
You make a really good point. Humankind in general has proven in spades how badly they handle differences of religion.
The only thing I dislike about this is the idea that the government is telling you that you can't express yourself in a certain way. Sure it's a small thing now, you'll have to put your cross pendant away and leave your scarf at home. But how far would this go? Some part of me is picturing a society where everyone is forced into absolute conformity (that is, individual differences are stifled) for the sake of security. Probably a long shot--maybe I've been reading too many destopian novels--but it still freaks me out.
And that's another problem of humanity. Get a good idea and rape it.
Seriously. If we were able to practice moderation, as a species, we wouldn't be nearly as jaded as we are, nor as monumentally screwed long-term.
If I knew that it was only going to be religious expression suppressed, owing to the "if you can't play nice, then you can't play at all" thing, maybe that's not so bad, but it could start a distopian landslide, or could incite the fear of such a thing, and that latter might be worse.
Meglet, if I'm not mistaken, this is for government employees?
There are all sorts of things that we can and cannot do as part of the government. I have to wear a uniform as even a volunteer Coast Guardsman if I am on a mission, or even just on the base. I am not free to write about the government on my Facebook, since I'm a member of Homeland Security.
This isn't removing freedom of expression. We signed up for it.
People really mess this stuff up by thinkin it's government control. It would be if it were government control / thought police like 1984, or the way churches will enact thought control on their members, or political groups engage in severe groupthink. However, this is for a workplace.
And I agree with Shepherdwolf: if people can't manage themselves, they need to be managed, at least in a work or school situation. It's like your father may have told you, or I certainly have the daughter and nieces: "Either you fix it, or I'll come fix it for you." Religious people apparently can't fix it, so they need us rational types to fix it for them.
Leo, it's one short step from "government employees can't express themselves" to "none of you can in public". Just look at France?
And, yes, I do think people should be managed a bit. I did mention that in my previous post. But if you want to look at it another way: yes, this is within a workplace, within a very specific workplace. How many hate crimes (due to religion) take place at work? There's likely some discrimination there, but is it really going to make a lot of difference if employees simply can't wear their crosses or whatever to work? So by that logic, there's not a whole lot being solved by managing people during work hours. Not posting about work on facebook? That rule makes complete sense. But personally I think that if you want to cut down on religious-related hate or discrimination or whatever it is, you'd have much more impact banning it in public, period, than you would by banning it in a government workplace. So at best it's kind of ineffective, and at worst it hints at something I don't like. Again, I'm not a conspiracy theorist; I don't think that it's going to turn into an Orwell society. I'm just saying it's a bit unsettling.
Perhaps banning it in the government first is step one of a two-step plan to ban it in the wider world of Quebec itself. "See? We've been doing it, and we're all happy, so don't freak out. You can still believe whatever you want, we respect your right to freedom of religion, you just can't display any visible symbols of it."
Ironically, this trouble would never have started if one group of religious people hadn't gotten offended at another group's religious symbols.
Reminds me of the Christians out here in Portland over 20 years ago who got offended at the Buddhhist bells hanging in a mall, when they also wanted to display their own.
My how it makes me think of breaking up children's fights, and always the children say how unfair it is.
I don't like thought police either, and often this has been both the province of fundamentalist Christianity and fundamentalist feminism. It seems like a silly ruling in this case, but again, another old expression: "Who's fault is that?"
I don't actually object to the letter of the rule. I really do think people brought this on themselves. I just don't like the possibilities, I suppose.
I'm all for taking religion out of the public entirely and making it a privacy of your own home thing.
I lived in France 3 years of my life and this problems happen and happen again there! I remember when they did forbid religious symbols on public schools years ago with the argument the muslim girls were foorced to use veils.
I believe there is no perfect solution for those problems.
It's all about the perception that a gouvernment and that society itself have about religion.
In one hand you can't just think that it's normal you see crosses and religious symbols in public places and then you get chocked seeing girls using veils.
In the other hand you are stopping some girls to their right of education and health because they simply wont leave their homes and veils. So I don't know what to do but there is one thing I know is that the notion of connecting religion to comunities can not exist anymore because you have people from all sorts of religions in all countries.
For example in a country like France you simply can not stop muslim symbols because you have millions of them which the majority of muslims in France are french people, with french passports and they are born there so either you give some rights and obligations for all citizens or you risk of creating artificial divisions in one society!
For concluding I prefer to not to see symbols in a public place like school and gouvernment workers: I am very happy that there is total separation beetween state and religions. I don't want to see any religious ideas or religious group shaping the lahic society!