• @kameecoding@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    27 months ago

    it’s not a ban or persecution though, if anything it’s a protection for everyone and mainly the separation of state and church, you are allowed to do your religion but not in the government buildings

    • @Linkerbaan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      07 months ago

      If you define schools and other essential public facilities as “government buildings” you are not separating the state from the church, you are separating the civilians from the church.

      • @kameecoding@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        1
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        schools are government buildings as long as they are funded and/or owned by the government… I mean you are religious so maybe I don’t have to ask, but do you live in some kind of delusion land where that’s not the definition?

        • @TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          17 months ago

          You are ignoring his point… The whole point of separating Church and state is to both protect the government from the influence of the church, but also to prevent the government from controlling your freedom of expression.

          People are allowed to express their religious beliefs so long as it does not inhibit others from expressing their own beliefs.

          You don’t have to be religious to understand the consequences of giving the government the ability to police self expression. If we made rulings that handed power over expression to the government, you honestly think conservatives wouldn’t utilize that when they eventually came to power?

          • @kameecoding@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            17 months ago

            you last argument idls that of a slippery slope which is almost exclusively a fallacy.

            as for your first, keyword is, inhibit, do you categorize feeling uncomfortable as inhibiting someone’s rights for example?

            let’s say I am a lone satanist, working at a government building, I am fetting judgy looks all day by Christian coworkers wearing crosses and it drives me away from the job, isn’t thst inhibiting me?

            let’s say I am a public facing worker, couldn’t me displaying my satanist symbols be inhibiting the public looking for whatever government service?

            isn’t it easier and better for everybody involved to leave that shit at home and keep the workplace free from all that?

            • @TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              17 months ago

              you last argument idls that of a slippery slope which is almost exclusively a fallacy.

              Ahh yes, legal precedent. Famously always fallacious… Also, the slippery slope fallacy requires a series of actions leading to a negative consequence. This is just a direct consequence of a single action.

              You are attempting to establish a law that is preventing people from expressing their legally protected beliefs. You don’t think setting that precedent isn’t going to have consequences?

              you categorize feeling uncomfortable as inhibiting someone’s rights for example? let’s say I am a lone satanist, working at a government building, I am fetting judgy looks all day by Christian coworkers wearing crosses and it drives me away from the job, isn’t thst inhibiting me?

              Lol, where in the legal system does it claim that you have the right to be comfortable at all times?

              let’s say I am a public facing worker, couldn’t me displaying my satanist symbols be inhibiting the public looking for whatever government service?

              You have every right to display satanic symbology. How does this prevent members of the public from looking for a government service. Plus, logically if you are the government worker, they already have found the government service…

              Let’s change the scenario slightly. Let’s suppose you are a person of color working for the government, and a member of the public is wanting service, but is racist. Is hiring a person of color inhibiting his rights? Of course not.

      • @force@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        07 months ago

        Can you have sex in front of class in schools? Not legally? Huh, that’s oppressive. People should be allowed to have threesomes during parliament.

        The argument is silly when you apply it to other things, but religion, oh that’s different. As if wearing religion-mandated clothing somehow deserves more protection than e.g. the ability for people to be nude.

    • @TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      07 months ago

      anything it’s a protection for everyone and mainly the separation of state and church, you are allowed to do your religion but not in the government buildings

      You do realize that banning a religion is the state inserting itself into religion, right?

      The separation of church and state goes both ways. The church is not to influence the state and the state is not to influence the church. You are allowed to practice religious expression in a state building, but the state cannot demand that you do so, or regulate which religion you express.

        • @TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          07 months ago

          That’s pedantic, it’s still the government involving itself in policing religious expression.

          You can’t use the excuse of separating church in state if you are utilizing the state to police the church.

          • @kameecoding@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            07 months ago

            except the church is literally not policed, how does it affect the church if your governnent employees can’t wear crosses to work?

            get a fucking grip.

            • @TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              17 months ago

              You do know when the constitution mentions the church, they aren’t being literal… The “church” is the institution of religious beliefs, which is made up of people. You are policing people’s rights to freely express their beliefs.

              Are you harmed by someone wearing a cross when they work?

                • @TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  17 months ago

                  That sounds like more of a personal problem than an actual depiction of a problem in reality.

                  I’m an atheist/agnostic, someone believing in some fake metaphysical being doesn’t affect me at all. What does affect me is when those people try to force their beliefs on me, and you seem to be hellbent on paving the way for them to do so.