World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
This is BS
Let people wear what they want. If they want to wear religious clothing, let them. It’s not hurting anyone. This law, while technically applying equally to all religions is very clearly targeted at a single group that has been persecuted for this before
Giving religion safe spaces in society normalizes it. Normalizing religion does hurt people. It hurts the mind's ability to think rationally, not to mention all the intolerance that seems to come from it.
I disagree. I’m an atheist, and we shouldn’t restrict anyone’s ability to practice their religion unless it actually harms others. This isn’t a safe space, it’s simply persecuting a single religion because the population dislikes Muslims.
Religion is not an exclusively bad thing. It has done harm, but it also does have good effects.
Agree to disagree I guess. I think we're better off without sky fairies, regardless of whether they're named Zeus, Jesus, Allah, whatever. The society that I'd want to live in would discourage public practices of religion.
Another point I should have made above. As Dawkins says, normalizing religion gives the especially nutty and violent ones room to breathe. They don't stick out so badly when their neighbor believes and practices 90% of what they do.
As you are a minority population member who supports democratically limiting the religious beliefs of members of the population, I have to ask if you've ever considered that such beliefs may backfire spectacularly against you?
Maybe I lack imagination. What backfire should France expect with this limitation of public practice of religion?
Well, you are wrong that religion is a good thing when people do good in spite of religion rather than because of it. If someone's belief system is aligned with a particular religion, they can just adopt the practices of that religion without professing faith in it.
Whatever makes them less susceptible to manipulation from religious leaders is a win in my book.
I'm not sure where I come down on this issue, but teaching women to be ashamed of their bodies is harmful to the young women.
Absolutely. And that behaviour should be condemned. But punishing people for their choices of clothing is not the way to go. Target the harmful ideas, not people's personal expression.
Ok but how does a school do that? You have young women being raised in a harmful faith where they are taught harmful things. The school can't stop that. They can prohibit wearing harmful clothing in school.
I support encouraging kids to express themselves, but schools can set limits to what is appropriate and what is prohibited expression. And the abaya is the opposite of freedom to express themselves. It represents shame, conformity, and the subjucation of women, backed by a faith that tells them they are less than men.
First off, the abaya is not a burka. It's a fairly standard clothing item. The idea that an abaya in itself is harmful is absurd.
The harm comes from limiting the freedom of self expression. And that's what France is doing now. Most Muslim girls in the west are fairly progressive, they don't feel that they're being forced to wear what they wear. So what happens then when the government actually infringes on their self expression? It's not gonna make them look kindly on the institutions that will teach them western values, they will gravitate more to the institutions that will teach them Muslim values.
If you want rid people of their conservative ideals, you do that through education. If you try to force people to conform, you'll get blowback and people only get more radical.
An abaya is a long outer gown or robe, covering the legs to the ankles, the arms to the wrists, to be worn over clothing. It can be worn by men or women, but women are required to dress modestly and cover their skin. It's not commonly worn in France except by muslim women conforming to the modest dress code.
Kids aren't allowed to wear any religious adornments in French schools. No caps, crosses, or satanic tee shirts. That ban has been in place for almost 20 years, along witb burquas, niqab, and other ostentatious displays of religious expression.
I'm really glad all the smug atheists came over from reddit too
Why don't you pray about it?
Because I'm an atheist. I just don't think being one means I'm smarter or more civilised than religious people.
One of us! One of us!
It sucks, I beleave this was the wrong move because its a government acting as a parent to school kids, trying to hevy handedly disrupt that child's religion. Wanna get these kids "free from their opressive religion"? Talk to them as a peer. Social movements are there to do that, even ones that work mainly in the school system.
Couldn't they've picked a less extreme way of handling this situation than "we are your parents, we think you shouldnt have to dress like that so now you wont".
It is very efficient at having people talk about it, and temporarily forget all the places missing teachers, the sad state of a lot of school buildings, the lack of recognition (and decent salary) that's been the norm for decades at this point, and actual issues regarding kids.
The law is there to remind that no religious sign or clothe are accepted into the public system. People who disagree with it can go to the private school.
Except it's been extended beyond religious clothing. An abaya is not specifically a religious clothing or something mandated by a religion, it is something worn in some places where people happens to be of that religion. No religious texts calls for it, where other things like burka and headscarfs where more directly linked to islam. Here, it's a dress, that people in arabic countries wear. It's literally fashion police.
Is it a part of the French culture ?
Does it need to be? Like if they want everyone to wear something very specific and French, then they should do uniforms. Until then, no one is required to wear something of "French culture." Like I'm a huge fan of punk and metal. I'm 34 years old and still wear band shirts. It's arguably not the typical culture of my country, but should that matter? Would kids be kicked out of school for that?
I have never seen a student excluded for wearing a group T-shirt in France into the public school. Secularism is a pillar of any modern society, which should not be a source of division but a link between all sensitivities and communities. Abdelali Mamoun, an imam at the Paris mosque, mentions that in Islam there is no religious dress, but that the abaya is an outfit advocated by fundamentalists.
So if the problem is people excluding others because that person practices a different religion, then the problem isn't the person practicing the religion, it's the fuck sticks excluding them.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of religion. I'm fairly anti-theistic. Especially for the Abraham's religion. And out of the three, especially Islam. I am also against the religion telling women how to dress for the reasons they do.
But I don't think this should be the schools decision. I don't think they should tell kids they can't dress a certain way based on the fact that it's religious. If a kid wants to wear a cross necklace or a shirt that says something about Jesus, cool. A Yamaha? That's fine. I might not personally be for it, and think it'd weird for kids, but also I don't think that's for me or the school to decide.
Just as I'm against the authoritarian religion telling these girls what to wear
I'm also against an authoritarian government doing the same.
"But secularism!"
Secularism doesn't necesarily mean keeping religion out of everyone's life. Just out of the government and school. Teachers shouldn't preach it. Laws shouldn't be mandated around it. But that doesn't mean no one gets to practice it in anyway shape or form. It just means they don't have any say I no the system based on their religion.
And banning something because it's also worn by fundamentalist makes it sound even dumber. I was raised Mormon. They wear a lot of things people wear on a lot of occasions. I wouldn't say to ban those types of clothing because the Mormons wear them. That's fucking stupid. No more long sleeve shirts? How about blouses? If a woman happens to like those, too bad apperantly. Fundamentalists also wear them, so now they're no longer allowed.
"We are banning all religious clothing, but also all clothing worn by religious people."
It's not self-important or pretentious, so no, we have to concede that it isn't part of traditional French culture.
It is, however, part of the culture of these French people.
Above all, it is an attack on secularism.
France is the country of human rights, it protects by the right of asylum any person who is the victim of persecution in his country. The School of the Republic allows any dress, as long as it is not proselytising.
This prohibition is not compatible with private life, freedom of religion, the right to education and the principle of non-discrimination. This dress is part of a logic of religious affirmation. It is compulsory for women in Qatar. There is no evidence that a student in France is forced or not to wear the abaya.
This story of the abaya illustrates a question that runs through the whole of society: the question of boundaries. It seems increasingly difficult to impose rules, to apply them, without running the risk of being accused of authoritarianism.
If someone wearing religious garb is an attack on secularism, your institutions suck and that's where your focus should be.
I don't see any argument in your comment.
I'm saying France's institutions either can handle religious garb, in which case they are needlessly persecuting people, which is objectively evil, or they can't, in which case the French are focusing on the wrong things and should fix their institutions.
Nobody is persecuted.
67 women did refused took off their abaya.There is about 3 millions students in France. They still can join religious private schools if they don't want to go to the public school.
When one person's liberty is denied, everyone is persecuted.
You don't read what i wrote nobody is persecuted.
I'm paraphrasing civil rights legend Fannie Lou Hammer because I think this oppression is equally disgusting.
it's totally irrelevant in context.
This is exactly my problem with this. Regardless of your position on the issue it's just a diversion to get us all riled up.
You mean targeting a group that is forcing clothing?
Oh I see, you're actually just a blatant racist. That explains why you expect others to give a shit about your opinions on certain jokes too I suppose.
I'm definitely a weirdo, I'll give you that. But you're a genuine scumbag so I'll take weirdo all day long :) x
You know who are really the fucking worst? Racists.
If you wanna split hairs to justify your hateful behaviour then go for it. Thankfully most of us will see it for what it is.
Racism is not just for a person's nationality or whatever your twisted definition is anyway, but when it comes to religion and race there is a blurring.
Judaism is a religion too, but you think anti semitic people aren't racist?
Racism is attributing negative traits to people based on their perceived belonging to cultural, biological, religious, national origin, and to allow this to legitimate their subordination.
You sub human stain you :) x