Bad news: Austria seeks hijab ban for primary school students

[guillaumeb]

From the article:

The Austrian government has announced that it will seek to ban the hijab for girls in kindergarten and primary school in the latest measure targeting Muslims in the country.
Education Minister Heinz Fassmann said on Wednesday that the draft law on the hijab - a headscarf worn by many Muslim women who feel it is part of their religion - would be ready by summer, describing the measure as "symbolic".

To reads more:

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/04/austria-seeks-ban-hijab-primary-school-students-180404132919275.html


Minister Fassmann speaks of this as a symbolic measure. The gold 6 pointed star was also a symbolic measure, a symbol of hatred that later led to genocide. Symbols have meaning to those who would reduce any people to caricatures.

[no_hypocrisy]

1. Has Steve Bannon been visiting Austria lately?

[Mariana]

2. It's very bad news if little girls are being forced by their parents to wear hijab.

However, on balance, I support the rights of parents to force their children to conform to the parents' religious ideas, short of any physical alterations to the children's bodies. Christian parents get to teach their little children they have to love Jesus or they'll be tortured forever, Muslim parents can teach their little girls to be ashamed to let people see their hair, and Jewish parents can teach their little boys to thank God they weren't born female. I don't like it, and I think all of those beliefs are harmful, but it is their right.

[bitterross]

3. Perhaps my sarcasm detector is broken.

You did mean that as sarcasm - right?

[Mariana]

4. Which part do you think is sarcastic?

Truly, I support freedom of religion, and that includes the right of parents to indoctrinate their children into their faith.

[Major Nikon]

5. At some point religious indoctrination of children becomes abuse

Circumcision is a good example while the hijab might be a bad example. There is a line that can be crossed. The best approach is to ferret out the worst of it and encourage adults to let children make up their own minds on what to believe. Their problem is if everyone did that organized religion would be gone in a generation.

[Brainstormy]

52. Personally, I believe ALL religious indoctrination

of children is child abuse.

[bitterross]

8. Pretty much all of it.

If I changed the word "religious" to "cult" or "pagan" or "mythology" or a number of other words that do not represent what people call the "accepted" religions of today I think a lot of people would take issue with the statements. As the other poster mentioned, one person's indoctrination is another person's abuse.

People would probably not agree at all if you had said:
I support the rights of parents to force their children to conform to the parents' Moonie/Rajhneesh/People's Temple, ideas, short of any physical alterations to the children's bodies. Christian parents get to teach their little children they have to love Jesus or they'll be tortured forever, Muslim parents can teach their little girls to be ashamed to let people see their hair, and Jewish parents can teach their little boys to thank God they weren't born female. I don't like it, and I think all of those beliefs are harmful, but it is their right.

Further, this is the exact reason I think all these practices should be stopped.
I don't like it, and I think all of those beliefs are harmful, but it is their right.

So many people not only think these practices are harmful but they know that they are harmful. Yet, because it is called "religion" it gets a pass. That is not a responsible way to take care of kids. Why is it okay to teach kids shame and fear in order to make them follow the same religious ideology of their parents? All of this has been shown to cause issues in the long run.

Many, many parents have found ways to raise really great children who are productive members of our world without having to make them think they will burn in hell, should be ashamed of their gender, bodies or sexual orientations.

Morality does not require religion. It only requires a good sense of the worth of self and others.

[marylandblue]

10. If you start going too far into policing religious beliefs

You'll inevitably end up policing non religious beliefs as well. There are a lot of non-religious ideas that people teach their children that I personally believe are very harmful. Can't wear hijabs? What about scarfs? Scullcaps? MAGA hats? Go Hillary hats?

Personally, I believe a MAGA hat is more dangerous than a hijab. Who do I call to get such a harmful racist symbol banned?

[Mariana]

11. I support freedom of religion

rather than having someone dictate which religious beliefs can and can't be taught to children. It is by far the lesser evil.

Please understand, I don't approve of teaching little children to believe those things. I think they're sickening. But, the 1st Amendment guarantees the rights of parents to do it and in fact, all the things I listed are being taught. I support the 1st Amendment.

Physical abuse or neglect? Lock 'em up, I don't care what they think their stupid book says about it.

[guillaumeb]

16. Indoctrination.

Do atheist parents indoctrinate their own children with their own beliefs, or is that term reserved for theists? You used a very loaded and negative term for a reason.

[Mariana]

18. Which beliefs would those be, Gil? nt.

[guillaumeb]

19. Semiotics.

An interesting display on your part of how the terms that are used in a conversation can subtly, or not so subtly, convey a message.

Are US schoolchildren indoctrinated into US exceptionalism, or do you call it teaching history?

[Lordquinton]

20. So atheist parents are indoctrinating their children with

"the study of signs and symbols and their use or interpretation."

You seem to be confused on the issue...

[guillaumeb]

21. Another ironic post.

[Lordquinton]

23. So semiotics was intended to be irony?

Definitely performance art.

[guillaumeb]

26. Your misunderstanding does not affect my point.

[Lordquinton]

29. Your point makes no sense

Atheist parents teaching their kids to understand and interpert symbols? Great you had an answer for once, but it's very odd.

[guillaumeb]

32. Your response makes no sense.

If you do not understand the point, or the reference, that does not invalidate the point or the reference, it simply speaks to you not understanding the point.

[Major Nikon]

43. What was the point or sense or whatever else you are alleging?

Coherent discussion relies on asking relevant questions and getting reasonable responses to clarify points. When you respond with non sequitur, gibberish, and evasion it shouldn’t be surprising when nobody knows what you are going on about.

[guillaumeb]

44. What is the point of your name calling? Or is there one?

Words matter. What words we choose convey much about how we view an issue.

Think of the terms terrorist and freedom fighter. Which has a negative connotation? Were the US rebels in 1775 terrorists or freedom fighters?

[Major Nikon]

47. What name did you get called?

I don’t expect a direct answer to this question any more than the last, but evasion speaks volumes.

[guillaumeb]

49. Reread your own reply.

And my ending was:

Think of the terms terrorist and freedom fighter. Which has a negative connotation? Were the US rebels in 1775 terrorists or freedom fighters?

[Major Nikon]

51. Good thing I wasnt expecting an answer

Because it seems to be a frequent occurrence that you simply ignore the question.

If you are going to make a serious allegation against someone else, you should at least make an attempt to explain when asked.

Your high road seems to be going downhill.

[guillaumeb]

58. You apparently ignored the answer.

Your choice.

[Major Nikon]

59. Kinda hard to ignore that I predicted your answer perfectly

Last edited Wed Apr 11, 2018, 01:13 PM - Edit history (1)

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=278686

[Lordquinton]

57. "I'm rubber you're glue"

School-yard taunts dones not a discussion make.

I understand every word you said, and they don't make sense together. You keep insisting that you made some profound point and everyone is scratching their head saying "I guess?"

This was an opportunity to engage and have a discussion, people were trying to understand what you were saying, but you blew it. You decided to double down on calling us dumb instead of explaining what you meant.

[Major Nikon]

60. When you invent your own meanings for words, it's easy to see how everyone else is ignorant

Especially when you refuse to define your own personal definitions. "Semiotics" is even more perplexing than "covfefe" as at least the latter doesn't have other literal references.

[Mariana]

22. Yeah, that's a pretty weird answer.

I wonder if he's taking suggestions from the audience?

On the other hand, it is one of the very few times I've actually received an answer to a question!

[Lordquinton]

24. You should feel special

If you can interpret what he actually meant...

[Mariana]

25. It's like he just picked a word at random

from the dictionary and typed it out. Maybe that's exactly what he did.

These idiotic word games are part of the performance. You know, of course, that Gil receives numerous personal messages asking him to continue doing what he is doing, and praising his efforts to "present balance" here. In violation of the SOP of the group, he apparently is not not here to discuss religion at all, but to "present balance" (whatever that means) and to reap applause.

[Lordquinton]

28. Maybe it's a dart board

Or abword of the day calendar, of course those come with definitions.

He'd loose a fight with a mirror.

[guillaumeb]

27. #19 was quite clear.

If you use the term indoctrinate instead of educate, you are making a negative point.

Is that clear enough?

[Lordquinton]

30. So, if you reframe the argument it changes the tone?

That is not at all contained in post 19.

Religions use the term indoctrination, so maybe you should bring it up with them if you feel it's a poor choice.

Besides, what else do you call telling kids that they will burn for eternity if they disobey good? That kind of thing is real, common, and very harmful. But learning to recognize symbols and patterns is pretty bad, I know that atheist kids finding out that octogonal red signs meaning stop is just as bad, if not worse.

[Mariana]

31. Do you think I used the word incorrectly?

If so, you are wrong. Courtesy of Merriam-Webster:

Indoctrinate

1 : to instruct especially in fundamentals or rudiments : teach
2 : to imbue with a usually partisan or sectarian opinion, point of view, or principle

[guillaumeb]

33. Look at #2.

And, in the spirit of learning:

The precise boundary between education and indoctrination often lies in the eye of the beholder. Some distinguish indoctrination from education on the basis that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned.[2] As such the term may be used pejoratively or as a buzz word, often in the context of political opinions, theology, religious dogma or anti-religious convictions.
The term is closely linked to socialization; however, in common discourse, indoctrination is often associated with negative connotations, while socialization functions as a generic descriptor conveying no specific value or connotation (some choosing to hear socialization as an inherently positive and necessary contribution to social order, others choosing to hear socialization as primarily an instrument of social oppression). Matters of doctrine (and indoctrination) have been contentious and divisive in human society dating back to antiquity. The expression attributed to Titus Lucretius Carus in the first century BCE quod ali cibus est aliis fuat acre venenum (what is food to one, is to others bitter poison) remains pertinent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indoctrination

Words can have numerous meanings, and can also have connotations attached to them.

[Mariana]

34. I did look at #2, when I posted it. I used the word correctly.

I really don't see what is your problem here. I very clearly support the rights of religious parents to force religion upon their children, even though I consider it abhorrent that they do so.

[guillaumeb]

35. There was more to my response.

Did you read it?

[Mariana]

36. Yes.

Why should I care that you and some other people think the word has negative connotations? So what? The word correctly describes the actions. If they don't want some atheist on the internet correctly saying they indoctrinate their children, they might consider ceasing to indoctrinate their children.

[guillaumeb]

37. I understand your motivation.

[Mariana]

38. ...

[guillaumeb]

39. Agreed.

[Major Nikon]

45. There is no doctrine for atheism

No matter how much you desperately want there to be.

[guillaumeb]

46. You avoided my point.

Words and terms carry connotations.

Terrorist/freedom fighter.

[Major Nikon]

48. When you invent your own definitions, points are hard to follow

[guillaumeb]

50. More avoidance.

I understand.

[Major Nikon]

53. Avoidance of what?

After post #16 nobody else seems to have done a better job of figuring out what you are talking about.

It reminds me of the old adage, you’ve been married 5 times, maybe it’s you.

[Brainstormy]

54. thank you.

but good luck with getting THAT point across.

[Major Nikon]

55. Seems to be the house of cards many of the other fallacies rely on

Would be as hard to give it up as it is to explain.

[MineralMan]

7. I agree that parents should be able to have their children

Last edited Sat Apr 7, 2018, 01:34 PM - Edit history (1)

follow the precepts of a religion, as long as it doesn't harm the children physically. I strongly disagree with the state dictating or banning any sort of religious behavior that does not cause physical or mental harm. It is not the role of a just and free state to do that, I believe. Period.

[bitterross]

9. So you draw the line at physical harm. Mental harm gets a pass?

You are approving of religious teachings that prescribe shunning and ostracizing people and causes immeasurable mental harm to other human beings. Some religious families do these things when their children do not behave or toe the line.

You are also basically approving of religious indoctrination that frequently leads to kids committing suicide because of their sexual orientation or identity. Or any other differences that cannot be reconciled with the religion.

Why is that okay?

[Mariana]

12. Read carefully, please.

Nowhere does MineralMan's post say he approves of such religious teachings or indoctrination. My post didn't say that, either.

[bitterross]

40. Write more carefully. You most certainly did offer support.

Your words:


However, on balance, I support the rights of parents to force their children to conform to the parents' religious ideas, short of any physical alterations to the children's bodies.

Hedged with this so you can try to claim cover later:

I don't like it, and I think all of those beliefs are harmful, but it is their right.

How exactly is one to read that and not believe you support their actions when you clearly say you support their rights to indoctrinate children with religious beliefs? Even when you think it is harmful. You just said you support their right to be harmful because it's religion. The Constitution doesn't give people a "right" to harm others.

Do you also support their "rights" to refuse service to same-sex couples? That would go along with saying that's okay because of their religious rights.

Further, why is it that it is perfectly fine to:
1. Teach children the female gender is inferior
2. If they don't accept and believe in a mythical being for which there is absolutely no proof that they will be tormented forever in a place that absolutely no one can prove exits.

Those things would certainly be called child abuse if not for the label "religion." Look at what happened to the parents from the YouTube Channel DaddyOFive. They got charged with crimes and lost custody of their kids for the same sort of behavior you are saying is okay since it is religious indoctrination.

I think telling kids they're going to burn in hell forever is pretty much the ultimate inappropriate pranking of kids.

Yes, my view is an extreme view that is not currently accepted because religion gets a pass. That may be the current environment but that will change. We no longer stone people who are fornicators or adulterers but that used to be pretty normal too.

Explain to me, realistically, the difference. Other than it is just the current custom and it's what we've always done. Not good arguments. No amendment to the Constitution is absolute. Your ability to harm others under the veil of religious freedom in the 1st Amendment is not protected by the Constitution. We do not allow bigamy because it harms young girls and we make no exception for religious belief in that respect. I can cite other examples that used to be common place that no one would even consider now.

I may be the one with an uphill battle against religious child abuse because it is such an accepted custom. But that it is accepted doesn't make it right. It is far past time that antiquated beliefs continue to harm children mentally or physically be stopped.

[Mariana]

41. I oppose repeal of the 1st Amendment.

I support freedom of religion. Freedom of religion includes the right of parents to force their religion upon their children, no matter how abhorrent I consider it to be.

Please don't confuse support of the right to engage in the actions with support of the action itself. If you've figured out a way to put stop to religious parents teaching their children their sickening religious ideas while at the same time preserving freedom of religion, let's hear it.

Here's an analogy. Alcoholism is harmful not just to the alcoholics but to everyone around them, especially their children and even their grandchildren. My mother grew up with an alcoholic parent and I can assure you, it affected her her entire life, which means it affected my life, too, even though my alcoholic grandparent died before I was born. However, I support the alcoholics' right to buy and consume alcohol. I don't think we should bring back Prohibition.

[bitterross]

42. Bad analogy.

Alcoholism is something one does to one's self. Yes, it has horrible consequences for those around the alcoholic. It does include the alcoholic making their children drink. And if there were an alcoholic who was forcing their children to drink we would most certainly remove those children from the home. Because forcing the children to do the same behaviors as the parent would be considered child abuse.

I think where you and I differ here is I believe forcing religion - any religion - on children is wrong. Teach children critical thinking skills. Then, if they choose a religion as an adult - fine. That is their choice.

You would not support a parent choosing for their child to become an alcoholic or a drug addict because it is bad mentally and physically. Yet, we give religion a pass even though it turns out mentally and physically damaging in so many cases.

Don't indoctrinate children. Educate children.

[Mariana]

56. We don't differ at all on whether it's wrong.

I think it's wrong for parents to force their religion on children. I don't think it should be illegal. Do you think it should be illegal? That may be where we differ.

[MineralMan]

13. Mental or physical harm.

I approved of nothing that does harm.

You've misread my writing. But I added "mental" to the post, just to clarify.

[Voltaire2]

15. It isnt ok. It is a problem of conflicting rights

in a liberal democracy.

[Thyla]

6. Seeing as

It is often at the time of puberty that girls start wearing a headscarf this seems to be more pointless populism.

[Voltaire2]

14. The ruling coalition in Austria includes

a neo-Nazi party founded by actual Nazis.

This regulation is part of their anti immigrant initiative.

In other contexts it might be acceptable- for example if it applied to all religious adornments as part of a secular school dress code. But that is not what this is.

[guillaumeb]

17. Aimed at a generally right wing audience?

Agreed.