Hacker News Reader

Comment by currymj | Hacker News Reader

adding the crucifix ban is a ridiculous fig leaf, as there's no obligation to wear an enormous crucifix in any Christian sect that I know of. whereas there is clearly an actual obligation to wear a kippah, headscarf, or turban. the bill is obviously targeted at Jews, Muslims, and Sikhs. if there were any special dress requirements for mainstream Christian groups, these bills would never have been proposed.

View on HN

That headscarf is there for one and one reason only. To shame other women. If the catholic church jumped out of the history books to demand the right for its believers to wear it in office- you would rightfully tell them no. Because what that scarf yells at all those who do not wear it, through the voice of all the "believers" is "harlet, wrench, slut". If that thing was pushed by the catholic church, or evangelicals, you would be on the barricades by now. But it is by a supressed minority? Well that minority is not supressed in over 40 countries. In fact its the majority there, and supresses anyone not wearing a headscarf. Want to see what happens if you do not wear a headscarf there?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/05/egypt-women-ra...

That machoism is very real in the middle east- and the headscarf is part of the dividing and conquering. Nothing less. Cause there is always the mother and saint who wears it and the "cheap" whores free to hunt who dont.

May be that for some, this clothing has already lost its symbolism, like the white-wedding dress lost the symbolism of virginity it once held for christianity. If it has no symbolic value, why make such a fuzz about wearing it at all?

But in that case, i rather be safe then sorry.

> Because what that scarf yells at all those who do not wear it, through the voice of all the "believers" is "harlet, wrench, slut".

That's a problem with that religion-dominated subculture, not with the symbolism itself. The notion that women should be shamed for the mere act of wearing a particular piece of clothing shuch as a headscarf is just as toxic as the one you're reacting to in your comment.

It shouldnt matter. But that dream is for another paradise edition of earth yet to come.

Its really difficult to find out wether a piece of clothing was a personal choice or something chosen/force upon a person to define in and outgroups. Basically, it boils down to detecting a thought-crime against open society.

So why not agree on some middle ground. Transparent Headscarfs? Headscarfs made from hair-extensions? Something like that?

> So why not agree on some middle ground. Transparent Headscarfs? Headscarfs made from hair-extensions? Something like that?

Are you intentionally trying to sound like you're writing a South Park episode, or is that accidental?

You know what - seperation from society, aka the public plaza from any religion and attempts to impose religion like dogmas/rules/systems.

It really is the most easy way out. Nobody gets to errect his borderwalls of textile or lack thereof in main street. We vote on a standard, and thats it. That way all those warmongers steering the soupkitchen of hate cant warm on the heat of the debate. The only solution is not to play.

> and attempts to impose religion like dogmas/rules/systems

So why do you want to impose Christian religious standards of bare heads on Muslims?

Bare heads is our default, is it not?

Bare everything is our default, but you don't see society forcing people to go around naked.

the law also targets male Jews and Sikhs, though, so the idea that it’s about liberating women doesn’t make much sense.

> "harlet, wrench, slut"

LOL. Also, keep your nuts covered or you're screwed.

A Yarmulke/Kippah is not large by any reasonable standard.

Seems like the bill is just trying to justify the headscarf ban.

Most jews dont wear the kippah in most countrys anyway, because its bound to attract harassment.

What about nuns? In Québec, education was a religious matter until the early 60s. Which meant some catholic schools required teachers to be nuns. When schooling became government-run back then, many nuns left their congregation when they could now teach in civilian clothes. This left a profound mark on Quebec's catholic population and its perception of itself.

I'm not saying it excuses or changes anything. But the fact of the matter is that at least in Quebec, there was a large group of Catholic women who abandoned their religious garbs to teach because they didn't have to be nuns to do so.

You forgot to mention Mormon underwear, although that would be difficult to enforce anyway.

This is how I see it as well...

I'm more hesitant to say it's targeting any group in particular outside of the "other".

There's sadly a lot of fear floating through various circles perpetuated and amplified by online social groups. If those didn't exist I wonder if this pandering bill would have been tabled.

No enormous crucifix? I've seen Christian Orthodox priests that wear them. Like 25 cm long, and either the normal cross or the double cross.

Why add the word 'enormous'?

I don't know about this version of the bill, but previous versions allowed small religious symbols.

> there is clearly an actual obligation to wear a kippah, headscarf, or turban

There is no obligation to wear anything. There is an "obligation" for some sects of Islam. But that does not mean anything in the domain of secular government.

The truth is, most Muslims do NOT wear any special clothing. And even those that feel obligated to are not obligated to really; they are obligated to try, if possible. If they are not permitted to do it, they are spiritually off the hook. If it's a choice between wearing a headscarf and not providing for your family, you are most likely a bad muslim for not providing for your family. So, by banning it explicitly, we are actually making things easier for them by giving them an excuse not to do it.

> there's no obligation to wear an enormous crucifix in any Christian sect that I know of.

Who are you to say that I can't wear a giant pope-hat to work? I'm "obligated" to by my obscure sect of Catholicism. Perhaps I can carry around some lit incense and clanking metal jewelry. We have to draw the line somewhere.

The idea that this is to make life easier for Muslims by allowing them to escape their obligation, is laughable. I suppose we should make it illegal to not eat pork, so they can escape dietary laws. Or forbid Christians from going to church on holy days, so they don't feel guilt when they don't go. Or make it illegal to wear clothes that are spun from one form of cloth, so Jewish people don't feel like they need to wear clothes from one kind of cloth.

People deserve freedom of choice, religion, and clothing. That is the help you need to give people.

Sorry, but your post is completely ignorant of Islamic rulings.

The Quran never mentioned the hijab or any other specific veiling. It only mentioned modest dress. This has been mutated and distorted as applying only to women by despotic regimes and certain countries.

Dressing modestly includes the veil. Furthermore, there are authentic Hadiths, as well as accounts of the Companions that are used for litigation. We know for certain that women used to cover their hair by narrations and historic accounts, and they did that because it was part of the religion.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com