Secular Society Threatened?

[Fragony]

The problem being, however, that it prevents certain people from assuming public office, Sikhs and Muslims being the most obvious victims. It is actually only practicable in a predominately Christian country, ironically.

If you want to work at a bank you have to wear a tie, you are hardly a victim if you refuse to wear a tie. Want to work in public office you don't wear religious symbols, I think it is perfectly reasonable. Not allowing muslim students to wear traditional clothes in schools is a stretch too far though, if they see that as harassment I don't have an answer for them, France goes a bit far there.

[The Wizard]

The reason I don't like the state atheism the French call laïcité is because I really don't see the problem with people wearing kippahs or headscarves to work. How exactly does that intrude on the "public sphere"? Sure I'd rather have them not wear their headscarves but there's no reason to force them not to. Smells like a state-sponsored promotion of atheism to me.

[Fragony]

The reason I don't like the state atheism the French call laïcité is because I really don't see the problem with people wearing kippahs or headscarves to work. How exactly does that intrude on the "public sphere"? Sure I'd rather have them not wear their headscarves but there's no reason to force them not to. Smells like a state-sponsored promotion of atheism to me.

I don't really have a problem with it, in city hall I don't really care, schoolteacher neither really although I understand the argument, but I don't like telling people what to do, and hate it when they do that to me. But police, judges anything that is supposed to be neutral shouldn't have religious symbols.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

If you want to work at a bank you have to wear a tie, you are hardly a victim if you refuse to wear a tie. Want to work in public office you don't wear religious symbols, I think it is perfectly reasonable. Not allowing muslim students to wear traditional clothes in schools is a stretch too far though, if they see that as harassment I don't have an answer for them, France goes a bit far there.

If you are a Sikh man you are required to wear a Turban, it is central to proper observance of the religious Law and was instituted by the first Guru. If a Turban is construed as a religious symbol, then Sikhs are effectively discriminated against in holding public office.

Laicite is a religion that requires you to relinquish your other religion in order to follow it faithfully; if you don't you are restricted from certain parts of French society.

I'm glad you raised the Turkish question, Tellos, but remember that the similar practices there do not sit so securely, to the extent that there have been several military coups to "restore secularism".

[Fragony]

If you are a Sikh man you are required to wear a Turban

So what it looks rediculous. Now a turban ok, but they probably want that ceremonial dagger as well. People should take some distance from their professional life, you aren't your job.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

...but you are your religion.

The Turban is mandatory, and the dagger can be stylised (as it's actually meant to be a sword).

[The Wizard]

In the Indian army, they fashioned a special helmet to accomodate Sikhs. So it doesn't have to look ridiculous.

[Fragony]

...but you are your religion.

The Turban is mandatory, and the dagger can be stylised (as it's actually meant to be a sword).

Well I am an atheist, can I make my own demands. Anything mandatory is against my absolute believe in free will.

[Aemilius Paulus]

...but you are your religion.

Oh yeah? What about that (Hindu I believe) who just won the case in Britain allowing himself to be burned in a regular, open-air funeral pyre. What's next, the Hindus can drop the cadavers into Thames, whether to burn on a on-water pyre? I know they mainly do that on the Indus River, and it would likely be an insult for them to dispose of their loved ones in some English River, but still, the principle stands. Religions strongly incompatible with society must be influenced to change.

To hell with tradition - traditions change so often that they no longer have a claim to holiness - just push hard enough (while using ones's own brains to ensure your restrictions will not backfire to have an exactly opposite effect of mass disobedience) and you'll have a good chance of changing the tradition. Guess what the Zoroastrians like to do? Yeah, they stopped doing that in most places, despite the fact that is an enormous sacrilege to give the corpse to earth, water, or God forbid it, fire. Guess what they do now? Yep, the cremate the dead. Nice, they are doing exactly the worst... Too bad all vultures in India died, eh?

[Centurion1]

Things change. They are differences in Dogma and Tradition. Catholic male priests are a tradition not Dogma.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Things change. They are differences in Dogma and Tradition. Catholic male priests are a tradition not Dogma.

Actually, celebacy is Canon Law, not tradition; specifically male priests are considered to be Dogma.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Things change. They are differences in Dogma and Tradition. Catholic male priests are a tradition not Dogma.

Wait, so what is your point ? Sky burial is basically the foremost dogma for Zoroastrians...