this post was submitted on 28 Nov 2023
406 points (97.0% liked)

Europe

8324 readers
1 users here now

News/Interesting Stories/Beautiful Pictures from Europe πŸ‡ͺπŸ‡Ί

(Current banner: Thunder mountain, Germany, πŸ‡©πŸ‡ͺ ) Feel free to post submissions for banner pictures

Rules

(This list is obviously incomplete, but it will get expanded when necessary)

  1. Be nice to each other (e.g. No direct insults against each other);
  2. No racism, antisemitism, dehumanisation of minorities or glorification of National Socialism allowed;
  3. No posts linking to mis-information funded by foreign states or billionaires.

Also check out !yurop@lemm.ee

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] gigachad@feddit.de 160 points 11 months ago (6 children)

Please start with banning crosses as wall decoration in bavarian public authorities

[–] branchial@feddit.de 25 points 11 months ago

That's how I know this law will absolutely be used to target specific religions unless the fundamentalist Christians take it too far.

[–] Captain_Baka@feddit.de 21 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Would be too funny to see Markus SΓΆder's face if this would actually happen. "DeClInE oF tHe OcCiDeNt" or something like that.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] CJOtheReal@ani.social 11 points 11 months ago (2 children)

I think they are already illegal by the Grundgesetz and Bavaria is just Bavaria and do whatever they want.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] aaaaaaaaargh@feddit.de 62 points 11 months ago (4 children)

How about crosses in public institutions? Asking for a (bavarian) friend.

[–] Arbic@feddit.de 34 points 11 months ago

Yes please ban those too

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] biofaust@lemmy.world 50 points 11 months ago (1 children)

In Italy I was a member of UAAR (The Union of Rationalist Atheists and Agnostics) and we supported the legal costs of people battling against crucifixes in the workplace, compulsory prayers and even acoustic pollution caused by the church bells. This was in the late '90s to early '00s.

[–] taladar@feddit.de 23 points 11 months ago (7 children)

acoustic pollution caused by the church bells.

I really, really wish religious people would finally switch to clocks and phone notifications for their niche events like everyone else. Many people also have an odd romantic notion of this noise pollution. Sort of like the idiots who think loud motorbikes or sports cars make them look cool.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] luthis@lemmy.nz 49 points 11 months ago (17 children)

Sounds fair to me, we need less religion everywhere.

What I don't get is the right wing pushing this and the left wing being against it, while the hero of the far left said 'Religion is the opium of the masses.'

[–] KISSmyOS@lemmy.world 44 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The left is generally against legislating what women are allowed to wear.

[–] luthis@lemmy.nz 17 points 11 months ago (7 children)

Then wouldn't they be against Islam forcing women to wear the hijab??

[–] KISSmyOS@lemmy.world 16 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (12 children)

Islam doesn't force women to wear the hijab. There's nothing about it in the Quran.
It's a cultural thing, and while many women are pressured or even forced to wear it, many others wear it of their own free will.

The state telling women they can't wear it in their workplace doesn't solve the issue.
And those women who are forced to wear it are effectively banned from working now, which makes the issue much worse.

[–] ArbiterXero@lemmy.world 26 points 11 months ago

The β€œculture” is religious though, like we can’t pretend it’s a social thing, absent religious doctrine.

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] cjk@feddit.de 14 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I for sure would prefer if women wouldn't be forced to wear it. But lets be realistic: banning it doesn't make things better, only worse. These women won't stop wearing a hijab, they will just stop going outside. And now you made the situation even worse for them.

[–] qyron@sopuli.xyz 12 points 11 months ago (2 children)

A group of iranian college students visited my town in the summer.

None of the girls used any sort of head cover and at some that came as a topic.

Even in Iran, as much as they can, every woman goes without it, unless the religious police is somewhere nearby.

The general, widespread view is that it is a form of repression and nothing else, yet their government/religious authority enforces it.

Although unpopular and understood as fascist, these decisions in european countries echoe impositions islamic countries make to foreigners.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] MirthfulAlembic@lemmy.world 23 points 11 months ago (3 children)

The rest of the quote is: "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people." Take from that what you will.

I also don't know that most people who identify as or are called left wing would call Marx their hero.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Klystron@sh.itjust.works 17 points 11 months ago (7 children)

An argument I've heard against it is that it's overly harmful against non-western religions, specifically Islam. A pretty common tenet in Islam is some kind of head covering for woman. Banning that is a pretty sweeping reform. Christianity and Catholicism don't have anything like that, and if you really wanted to wear a cross you could just hide a necklace under your shirt. And Judaism, most non -orthodox Jews don't wear a yamaka 24/7. So in the end (typical) white religions aren't affected while minorities are.

Personally for me I don't care about wearing a religious symbol as long as you're not pushing your agenda. I don't care if my boss has a Bible on his desk any more than if he had a copy of dragon Ball z.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] rainynight65@feddit.de 14 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

The right wing is pushing specifically for the banning of things like the hijab or other religious head coverings usually worn by women. They justify it by saying that these head coverings are a symbol of oppression against women, and have no place in a free society.

Thing is though, how free is a society if it feels it has to dictate what women can and can't wear?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] MrMakabar@slrpnk.net 14 points 11 months ago (16 children)

The problem is that you have to treat religion equally and for a lot of European countries that would mean pushing Christian symbols out of public offices as well. Most Nordic countries, Greece and Malta have crosses on their flags for example. Many countries like Germany have parties, which are explicitly Christian. The Bundeswehr uses the Iron Cross as a symbol, which is in direct heritage from a crusader order.

The problem for those countries is that baning Islamic symbols is very often just racist rethoric to hit Islam, rather then a proper separation of state and religion.

load more comments (16 replies)
load more comments (12 replies)
[–] Gabu@lemmy.world 44 points 11 months ago (122 children)

Good, fuck religion. The earlier we get rid of that shit, the earlier we can unify as a species.

[–] CoconutKnight@feddit.de 11 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

That will never happen. If religion is erased from the equation, ideology or culture will take it's place and cause friction

[–] electrogamerman@lemmy.world 9 points 11 months ago

Religion is ideology and culture that has caused friction for many years now. Thats the whole point of removing it.

load more comments (121 replies)
[–] vzq@lemmy.blahaj.zone 35 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (4 children)

I’m not sure a hijab is a religious symbol. It’s just a covering worn for religious reasons. The hijab doesn’t have a fixed design or pattern that makes it significantly different from what western women wore in the fifties.

And if you can’t go out in public dressed like Sophia Loren, what even is the point of western civilization?

[–] bedrooms@kbin.social 22 points 11 months ago (5 children)

I’m not sure a hijab is a religious symbol. It’s just a covering worn for religious reasons.

The problem is, far rights won't care.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] CJOtheReal@ani.social 29 points 11 months ago (42 children)

Good. Religion is like a penis, you don't pull it out in public or at work.

load more comments (42 replies)
[–] sergih@feddit.de 28 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (21 children)

can they ban you for wearing a necklace with a cross? or a scarf around your head? This is madness, what bad does it do to other people, this is like banning lgbtq people from kissing outside cause it makes others uncomfortable.

[–] RedPandaRaider@feddit.de 23 points 11 months ago (9 children)

This isn't about banning people from wearing their religious merchandise in public. This is banning religious objects from workplaces. More precisely just public workplaces. Of course a secular state should also have secular workplaces. And the way labour rights are personal life can be completely banned from your workplace. Why would religion be treated differently?

load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (20 replies)
[–] Zerush@lemmy.ml 17 points 11 months ago

In Spain religious symbols in public workplaces, official places and buildings are banned since years. You will see them only in religios buildings and churches, maybe in some old monuments.

[–] OurTragicUniverse@kbin.social 16 points 11 months ago (14 children)

So are headscarves for non-religious women going to be banned too? What about other modest clothing?

load more comments (14 replies)
[–] Mango@lemmy.world 15 points 11 months ago

If I can't judge women by their cover, I'm gonna need them all to get naked.

[–] ebikefolder@feddit.de 12 points 11 months ago (4 children)

How could I tell apart an islamic and an atheist headscarf? My mother often wore one in the 1960s and 70s, as was the fashion back then.

[–] plant_based_monero@lemm.ee 11 points 11 months ago (8 children)

I mean, it's more about code of vestment. Let's say the code of certain workplace say that you have to have your face fully visible, you can't wear anything that obstructs your face, if religious symbols were allowed you can justify yourself with "religious obligation", the "atheist headscarf" was banned from the start

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: next β€Ί