• crapwittyname@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    4 days ago

    A law banning one religion’s symbology is always going to be a bad time for everyone. As seen with other burqa bans, this will just cause division, which is exactly what the originators of the bill are looking for. Shame that level heads didn’t prevail. Again.

    It’s weird for me to be defending the right to wear a burqa. I think extreme religious practices like this are silly and need to be modernised, and I particularly think that teaching women and girls to “cover their beauty” is disgraceful. But this is not the way to fix it. This just makes it worse, aggravating divisions and entrenching views. Fuck your burqa ban.

    • Tryenjer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      I am in favour of banning the burqa, but I think it’s particularly funny that the guys who are supposedly all about individual freedom (iniciativa liberal, despite the name they are much closer to libertarians) at least in their propaganda voted in favour of banning face-covering in public (which is what the law actually refers to, because in Portugal, for the time being, it is unconstitutional to ban a specific religious item).

      • crapwittyname@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        I think the face-covering law is specifically targeting the religious item, especially considering the exceptions to the rule.
        If a country banned any pointed objects from being worn around the neck, in case it could be used as a weapon, say, we would all know that was a ban on the crucifix. I believe it’s just a smokescreen, like the surveillance laws being masqueraded as child-protection.

        • Tryenjer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 day ago

          I would be in favour of banning the use of the crucifix in public too. Not because I think it’s a dangerous object, but because I believe religion should remain at home or in a place specifically designated for that purpose.

          • crapwittyname@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 day ago

            Yes, I agree that in an ideal world, religions would not be part of society. However- forcing the issue in our current societies with a top-down ban is absolutely never going to work. People will rebel against this kind of oppression of what they believe, deeply (however foolishly), is their truth and their duty to an omnipotent being.
            Education and connection to the rest of the world is the solution to that problem. These things dull religious fervour. But people have been religious for at least as long as we have been able to write. There’s no erasing that in a short few generations, let alone a single election cycle.

    • CAVOK@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      3 days ago

      Very much agree with this. The end result might actually be that women and girls won’t be allowed to go out at all, which isn’t great.

      • crapwittyname@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        3 days ago

        More than likely in some cases.
        And I don’t see any potential positive end results for anyone except bigots.

    • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      Reminder that the problem with Islam isn’t that they force women to cover themselves, it’s that apostasy is punished so severely that secular women would rather put up with the burqas. If a woman genuinely believes in Islam, she should have the right to practice her religion.