• Grimy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    8 days ago

    Any religious representation [on govermental buildings] is offensive to secularism. A cross is just two over lapping lines but it would also be offensive in this context. Although the word offensive is a bit much, I’ll give you that, I can understand why they want it gone.

    It is a shame that secularism seems to disproportionately target Muslim women but it’s either a religious symbol or it isn’t.

    Edit: Clarified first sentence.

    • grte@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      8 days ago

      Any religious representation is offensive to secularism.

      No, I don’t agree. Making laws with religious justification is offensive to secularism. A drawing that depicts a person wearing a piece of clothing traditionally associated with a religion is not offensive to secularism.

      • Grimy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 days ago

        I think it goes deeper then that. Secularism means complete disconnection of church and state. Having religious symbols on state buildings goes against that. Religious symbols are a form of propaganda in the end.

        I would be okay with making an exception for the head scarf. Tbh I don’t really consider it much of a symbol but I understand their reaction to it. I wish we had similar laws where I am, instead my kids get to learn about creationism (I’m just guessing it’s still taught, I don’t actually have kids).