The top European Union court ruled on Tuesday that public authorities in member states can prohibit employees from wearing signs of religious belief, such as an Islamic head scarf, in the latest decision on an issue that has divided Europe for years.
The case came to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) after an employee of the eastern Belgian municipality of Ans was told she could not wear an Islamic head scarf at work.
I’m not from the EU and don’t have the context to really understand the history of this decision, but this just seems so unnecessarily divisive.
It’s a different approach to religious neutrality in government than the one used in the US, but I’m not convinced it’s an invalid one.
(In the US we have difficulties over government employees refusing to do their legally required job because “it’s against their religion” to process paperwork for people they disapprove of, e.g. The Gays.)
How does wearing a scarf inhibit these employees’ ability to do their job? It is one thing if they posed a valid safety concern i.e theyre working around machinery that the scarf could get caught in but thats not the case here the vast vast majority of the time.
That’s not what they are talking about. Basically, you can go two routes when ensuring that the state stays neutral in religious matters
You can go the US route and allow exceptions for anyone to live their religion (which leads to the aforementioned issues), or you can go down the route the EU court has just ruled alongside, which is “the state does not give a fuck about your religion”, thus not granting any exceptions from workplace rules for religions at all. In botn cases, the state does not favour any religion or oppress anyone.
There is a third route, and that’s what the US actually does. You’re allowed to follow your religion within the requirements of the job. If you won’t issue gay marriage licenses, that’s cool but you can’t accept a job that requires issuing marriage licenses. Mormons and Muslims alike aren’t allowed to refuse to issue liquor licenses. But if a Muslim wants to wear hijab while issuing liquor licenses then they’re protected from persecution based on religion.
Christians keep trying to push the limits here and sometimes they get their way, but that’s part of our decent into christofascism, not the way we run our country
deleted by creator
So “no state employee may wear religious symbols whatsoever” is “oppression” to you? How?
deleted by creator
yes. and they do not give a fuck either way. Be religious, be not religious, we don’t care. Besides, the court’s ruling is in the article, so I assumed people knew what was up and thus would detect my hyperbole as such.
That is a very false dichotomy.
No, it’s not imho. For there to be a middle ground, there would have to be comparable things across religions or any ruling would become unfair. Think about it: You allow religiously motivated head scarfs. Now some really, really old school Christian comes in and wants to wear their penitential robe to work. Now, of course the orthodox jews want to wear their clothing as well, but their locks are dangerous at the worksite because they might get caught in some hard hat or something and you can’t allow that. Now Christians and Muslims have a permission the Jews don’t get. What do you give to the Jews instead? And if you give them something else, the others will claim they want something along those lines as well. So in order for the state to stay neutral in religious quesions, there are only two possibilities: Allow it all, or grant no special status whatsoever.
If there isn’t a specific reason that something cannot be worn, such as a safety concern or an obstruction to others, then it should be allowed by default. A headscarf doesn’t affect anyone. Same way a kippah doesn’t affect anyone.
That is completely non-comparable to denying someone service on the basis of religion. And the idea that the only two options are allow religious people to discriminate on the basis of their religion, or ban all clothing that indicates religion, is a false dichotomy.
I think we have an issue at the very start. The underlying motive is: The state cannot be biased towards any religion whatsoever. Now there is a rule that employees aren’t allowed to wear head coverings at work (for whatever reason)
So if one religion is allowed to claim special status for their head covering (Head scarf), can an orthodox jew wear their hat? Can someone believing in druidism wear antlers to work?
And what is with people who happen to have no religion they believe in. Why are they granted less rights by the state than the religious people?
So: Which other possibilities does a state have to resolve this besides
a) allow it all
b) deny “religion” as justification for any exceptions (Meaning “you cannot cite religious reasons for anything”)
To be clear here: the second option is not “ban religious symbols alltogether”, it’s “we have our rules, there is no way for you to get an exception with the reason ‘religion’”
And maybe that rule is the stupid one.
Except it isn’t necessarily claiming a special status.
The argument can simply be that the headwear ban should be removed, unless there is good reason for it. So yes, anyone can wear any headwear, so long as it doesn’t interfere with the task at hand or other people. The antlers would probably fall afoul of those requirements.
They wouldn’t be. The removal of a ban doesn’t somehow mean that atheists have fewer rights. They’d be allowed to wear their desired headwear too.
Still a false dichotomy here.
The option is not to allow “religion” to be used as an exception, but rather set rules that are permissive to everyone, including religious people, within the limits of the task at hand and inconvenience to other people.
A headwear ban is pretty clearly discriminatory towards Muslim people, and probably also to certain Jewish people though I’m not 100% sure of that. The goal should not be to give them exceptions, but rather rethink the headwear rule.
Or place reasonable scrutiny. “You can wear yarmulkes but no hair can extend below X location, the same applies for everyone and to head coverings. Also no flowing clothes for similar reasons this is a worksite and safety regulations must take precedence over religious garb”
“We don’t care about your religion, but we DO care about requiring you to show your hair” seems like a silly stance to take…
Because it is, and the commenter you are replying to is making it seem like it’s even remotely comparable to denying service to someone because of religious conviction (eg. Denying a marriage license to a same-sex couple).
Except it’s not, unless people are somehow offended by a woman covering her hair.
It’s not uncommon for a specific case to set a larger legal precedent; it’s basically how the USSC works.
Yes, this particular case is about a head covering, but the ruling applies to visible religious paraphernalia in general.
Sorry, what is the USSC?
United States Ship California
It does, it just favors the dominant ethno-religous complex. Much of the western proffesional dress code has basis in christian ideals of modesty. These cultural signifiers don’t occur to us though as they’re so normalized. If you came to work dressed like Angela from the office you wouldn’t be cited because the dress code was written with that attire in mind and people view it as normal. You’ll be cited if you violate those ideas of modesty, eg. Showing midriff, or having different views on modesty, eg. A head scarf.
If you want to say it’s completely neutral you’ll have to exorcise all christian biases and assumptions from western culture, which they dont seem to be doing here.
One of the arguments that gets used is that the employees should look neutral. For example, if you want to get your gender changed you might not be comfortable with someone who is visibly associated with a religion that disproves of gender changes.
That is a valid argument. But given the lack of sympathy and support for the LGBT community otherwise, it is highly unlikely to be a major motivation. And the thing I wonder is whether this is or was also enforced on other religious symbols or is this specific to this particular one. If the former then it is consistent policy but if it is the latter that is another story.
Refusing to do part of the job would be an impairment of government function. A headscarf does nothing to impair function of the employee to do their job.
Rather by banning it there creates a undue barrier to the participation of women of this religious backgrounds in government by not realizing the modesty principles of their culture. It is more akin to not allowing a woman to work in a field unless she does so wearing nothing but her underwear.
It shows a sign the government endorses one religion over another. More importantly, we should not allow any religion in governmental offices and duties. Keep your stupid religion in your church. I don’t want to see or deal with it when I’m dealing with the already shitty government experience. I don’t need to deal with your mental illness, too.
Like it or not religion is a formative part of people’s lives. If letting someone essentially wear a hat to work is “favouring on religion over another” then I can only posit that comes from a place of extreme pettiness. Where I am we have a large number of Sikh folk and I have gone into government offices and been served by agents wearing turbans a number of times. Not once has it ever been commented on. Not once have they ever mentioned their religion to me nor I commented on it to them. Neither would have been particularly proper because between the both of us in that professional setting it is quite strictly none of our business. I can’t say that what the agents were wearing ever in any way altered my experience.
It is the attitude of killjoys and sour grapes to strip people of the things that make them feel confident in the way they conduct themselves when out in the world or at their workplace. Your feelings about a piece of cloth are not most important. You only have to deal with a government agent once in a while in a professional capacity and your very temporary discomfort is not to be highly weighted. For the person forced to give up the things that make them feel supported and comfortable they feel that lack every single day. It is a crushing and disheartening experience.
Why do I need to accommodate someone’s mental illness? Being religious is a choice, not a genetic trait you can’t change. You can choose to just stop. It’s not my job to accommodate someone’s imaginary friends.
The “hat” isn’t the issue. A hat is hat. What the hat represents is the problem. If you believe in imaginary beings that watch and control you, you aren’t fit to perform duties in government offices. You need to be in therapy and a hospital.
How is it any different than if someone wants to look at porn at work? Porn is very formative for many people. Why is imaginary friends ok but not imaginary girlfriends?
Being religious is not a mental illness. A lot of people grow up inside the culture and a belief held that dearly is not one you can change so easily. Life is difficult and what helps people navigate it particularly given it’s remaining mysteries isn’t really your problem. People draw their comfort from many sources and stripping them of it isn’t ethical. Nor is it entirely right to look at atheism as not a set of religious beliefs themselves in the context of government work. If a government agent started rattling on about how someone’s beliefs were stupid and that they thought little of them for holding them it would be just as alienating and threatening to the person seeking help as if some religious person decided to use their captive audience to proselytize to an atheists.
But if you still insist on pathologizing the one coming across here as deranged is you. Your complete lack of empathy for your fellow humans sounds like it has it’s root in a particular form of narcissistism or other type two personality disorder. Being an atheist is fine. Being an asshole about it and demanding everyone be exactly like you to be considered worthwhile to participate in their society makes you no different than the religious assholes who insist the exact same.
I never said anything about atheism. It’s interesting and telling how you jump to that conclusion.
Yes believing in imaginary beings is a form of mental illness. The fact you can’t understand that is also telling as to what your issues are with what I’m saying. Being religious is absolutely and without question a form of mental illness.
Life is difficult and drug addiction, alcoholism, rape, domestic abuse, self-harm, etc helps people navigate it and comforts them… So by your twisted logic we should all condone those forms of mental illness as well. Gotcha, that makes perfect sense.
You clearly suffer from the mental illness of religion, so you aren’t exactly the best person to be arguing for it, are you? A heroine user is going to put forth the same arguments as you do for heroine… But somehow you are right and they are wrong? Lol
The thing with religion is, if you have the intelligence and aren’t otherwise mentally impaired, you can look at the evidence critically and come to the logical conclusion. It becomes a choice. Unlike drugs, etc… Where you have a biological dependency driving you, making it harder to quit. An otherwise healthy human can choose to quit religion without much difficulty, so that’s really on you at that point.
But I digress. We don’t allow drug users, etc in government positions, so why do we allow religious nutcases? Keep your shit out of government. Go work in a church.
I would not be welcome in a Church. I grew up essentially an atheist and do not believe nor ever have believed in the God prescribed by the Christian, Jewish or Muslim faiths. I am now closer to agnostic. As a queer kid from an extremely Christian town I have my own complicated relationship with Christianity as an outsider and my own history of inflicted traumas. Yet, I hold no issue with those who do not attempt to force their beliefs on me because those people who have harmed me do not represent everyone who has a religious belief. How people comport themselves towards others and their empathy and kindness towards their fellow humans matters to me more than what particularly they individually believe exists.
I recognize that for those people who hold beliefs that they do in fact believe them. They aren’t simply pretending to entertain you and that means that their dogmas have perceived consequences. Religious beliefs aren’t something people can change like their socks. It often lies very close to their personal conception of what it means to be human. To shake that belief they require a lot of evidence that makes a high degree of sense to them and disbelief often causes them to be at odds with their own families and communities.
It is enlightening to see that your definition of “religious nutcase” is someone who has any religious beliefs at all regardless whether they ever attempt to spread them or impact you in any way. I imagine you likely have experienced some sort of religious related trauma yourself but that does not make reacting to everyone with a belief system the way you are right now okay. You also seem to place people who experience mental illness or addiction as a category that makes it ok for you to dehumanize people. You place yourself as the only viable model of intelligence… Something which isn’t healthy. You may just be very young in which case you might grow out of these beliefs naturally over time but if not then you should really be seeking some therapy.
As for addictions and mental illnesses, people’s individual struggles are not my business either. Some people do struggle and it’s not my place to judge them on their quality of life, only the quality of their work.
deleted by creator
Some of them. The Puritans of Massachusetts wanted to establish a theocracy and persecute one another. The Quakers of Pennsylvania actually did want to escape religious persecution, though.
deleted by creator
Well no, not many. A few. Economic opportunity was a pretty big motivator too.
deleted by creator
I’m confused. Maryland and Pennsylvania are not in New England.
Parts of New England were settled by people escaping Puritan persecution in Massachusetts; notably Rhode Island.
Except the ones who were starting tobacco plantations. And the ones who burned women for witchcraft. And the ones looking for El Dorado.
deleted by creator
I didn’t mean to call you out. I was just joking around. I’ve always thought it was funny that we highlight the people seeking religious freedom and just slip under the rug that we were also founded by corporations forcing slaves to make cigarettes.
It is petty isnt it?
To me not having visible religious symbols when in public service seems very much in line with the idea of secular government