Hacker News Reader

Comment by Bayart | Hacker News Reader

I would feel extremely comfortable banning those head coverings from all universities, if not all public venues. Religious vestment simply has no place outside of ritual occasions. But then again, I'm from the country Atatürk took after. From our point of view, allowing religion to exist is treating it with tolerance. Acknowledging religion as something that deserves any sort of deference by the State isn't acceptable. And I say that as an otherwise religious person myself (don't take it as the stance of some rabid atheist).

View on HN

> I would feel extremely comfortable banning those head coverings from all universities, if not all public venues...From our point of view, allowing religion to exist is treating it with tolerance.

If saying "either stop adhering to your religion or you cannot go to university/exist in public" is tolerance, what is intolerance? Is everything short of prison, internment camps, torture, and execution tolerance in your point of view?

Also, if a government tells religious people "we are going to make your life very difficult, but you should really be thankful to us that we are not outright destroying you", they should not be surprised when they don't end up being thankful and instead vote for the other guy. That's one of the reasons Erdogan is now in power.

The assumption that asking for the removal of what is essentially discriminatory somptuary laws amounts to asking for apostasy is your own. Internal religious regulations have no bearing on the law and whether or not they're essential to religious practice is of no consequence to civil society. Keep in mind I'm referring to a system where universities are public institutions, emanations of the State, rather than private foundations as is usually the case in the US.

Why would your secularism turn you into fashion police?

Why cannot a person wear a headscarf (it does not obscure their mouth or eyes so does not inhibit communication) if they want to? For what ever private reason they feel they want to?

I know people who wear them for non-religious reasons. Will they be exempt from your rules about fashion?

People get told all the time that what they wear is unacceptable by others in power, and it is an abuse of power. This is particularly true for women and a "headscarf" ban another example of blatant misogyny.

What is particularly offensive is it is said it is one for "liberating" those women. Often (usually not always) it is non Islamic people lecturing Islamists.

The fight against misogyny in Islam is a fight for Islamic women. When there is a cry from Islamic women for non-Islamists to set fashion laws for Islamic women to obey (and not just the odd lone voice) then maybe, possible you might have a point. Is that ever going to happen?

I do not think that Islamic women need misogynist, sexist, Islamophobic, theophobic, bigoted, and patronising rules and punishment. To liberate them, no less! Perhaps they need the opposite

This kind of nationalism is way more "religious" than wanting to wear a headscarf. Between one person who wants to dress in a certain way and another person who wants to control how a large number of other people dress because they perceive it as a threat to their ideology, who is more extreme?

> Religious vestment simply has no place outside of ritual occasions.

Where would you draw the line between religious and cultural? I assume you would have no problem with people wearing traditional clothes? What about traditional amish clothing? Would a buddhist be allowed to wear a rakusu? Could a Scandinavian raise a maypole even though it was a design that was meant to christianize a previously pagan religion but is now not seen as religious? Would file-sharing not be allowed since kopimism is an official religion in some countries? Would symbols not originally rooted in religion but later adopted by them be allowed?

I'd be really interested to know where you draw the line.

Allowing people to dress how they please is hardly deference.

There are no countries that allow people to dress how they please. There is no way that the state letting people walk around, say, naked, in the univeristies they operate _wouldn't_ be considered as deferring to the views of a particular nudist subculture.

The state in question has "not showing this kind of deference toward religions" as one of its founding principles: in fact, as founding principle number one. It states that certain personal lifestyle choices, such as religion, do not belong the public sphere. In the public sphere each individual should appear as a simple citizen, and not seek to distinguish thenselves from other citizens along religious lines.

>> Acknowledging religion as something that deserves any sort of deference by the State isn't acceptable.

What next, enforce a communist uniform on everyone and strictly control their freedom to express their thoughts? Do you realise how ludicrous you sound? I note you're French and your religious expressions laws are not made in the name of secularism, rather specifically intended to discriminate against a sizeable minority.

Presumably your also include a Christian Cross necklace? What about a symmetric cross that's visibly a cross but not a traditional cross? A cross at an angle?

You're entitled to express your point of view, of course, but please be more convincing and informed than a nationalistically ideological charlatan (how ironic).

>What next, enforce a communist uniform on everyone and strictly control their freedom to express their thoughts? Do you realise how ludicrous you sound?

You're making leaps in logic that don't make sense to me. You're the one being ludicrous, as far as I can tell.

>I note you're French and your religious expressions laws are not made in the name of secularism, rather specifically intended to discriminate against a sizeable minority.

At the time those laws were made, the absolute majority of the country was made of church-going Catholics. That at the present day they're mostly invoked in relation to a religious minority doesn't make any difference.

> Presumably your also include a Christian Cross necklace?

Sure.

> What about a symmetric cross that's visibly a cross but not a traditional cross? A cross at an angle?

Is it a token of belonging to a religious organization ? If so, keep it private. I don't see what's complex about that.

> You're entitled to express your point of view, of course, but please be more convincing and informed than a nationalistically ideological charlatan (how ironic).

I'm informed about the political and religious history of my own country, and as such transversely familiar with the framework Atatürk tried to put in place in Turkey. I'm less familiar with the ways it started breaking down. And frankly, you're not in any position to demand better argumentation on my part if you're not doing as much yourself.

> I would feel extremely comfortable banning those head coverings from all universities, if not all public venues.

Good thing you're not in a position to make such a call then.

> Religious vestment simply has no place outside of ritual occasions

The Hijab is not merely a "religious vestment" as the seculars and atheists foolishly seem to think. It's a way of life, a way of showing purity and piety.

> Acknowledging religion as something that deserves any sort of deference by the State isn't acceptable. And I say that as an otherwise religious person myself (don't take it as the stance of some rabid atheist).

I'm going to assume you're a Christian, and I'm not surprised, your religion has been relegated to the sidelines when it comes to anything relevant in terms of running society. And they convinced you to keep it that way.

Let me ask you this: do you have an issue with homosexuals and transexuals showing their propaganda in public?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com