France Bans Hijabs for Under 18s

[Fahran]

This isn't really surprising. It's what happens when liberal society is at the end with it's mantra because the world doesnt rolls with it to its big surprise and then tries to impose liberalism by force. In the end it absolished itself. It's end stage liberalism.

Honestly, this is a good take.

[Kilobugya]

But that has nothing to do with "laïcité", but everything to do with xenophobia and political maneuvering. The parties pushing such laws have always been opponents of laïcité. They are just abusing the concept to justify their ban without appearing too openly xenophobic.

I doubt this to a significant extent given that, at the time the 2004 burqa ban was passed, 69% of French people supported it, 42% of French Muslims supported it, and 49% of French Muslim women supported it - with 43% of French Muslim women opposing it. We have Hollande pitching laïcité in the form of burqa bans and rhetoric about secessionists at the moment as well. We can explain it away as xenophobia, but I would go so far as to argue that laïcité, as the French know it, cannot exist without imposing on populations that haven't become exceedingly secularized. The very concept is going to be xenophobic the minute you introduce it to people who are religious and who want to express their religion at all times.

Opinion polls taken after a massive fearmongering campaign by massmedia aren't worth much, and they can't anyway change history, laws nor political context.

Fact: historically, from French Revolution to Paris' Commune to early 20th century, all the massive push for secularism never were about preventing private citizen from wearing religious symbols if they wanted to.
Fact: there never was any attempt to ban nuns or priests wearing religious clothes in public space, or people wearing cross around the neck.
Fact: the political parties pushing for such laws (mainly LR and FN/RN) never supported "laïcité" and are actually opposing LGBT rights or euthanasia for religious reasons.
Fact: those anti-Muslism laws often to be pushed when there is a "need" to move public debate away from people's opposition to neoliberal economical policies.
Fact: both the Constitution and the law of 1905 are very clear : « La République assure la liberté de conscience. Elle garantit le libre exercice des cultes sous les seules restrictions édictées ci-après dans l'intérêt de l'ordre public. » (« The Republic ensures freedom of consciousness. It guarantees the freedom of cults only limited by the following restrictions required by public order. ») and « La France est une République indivisible, laïque, démocratique et sociale. Elle assure l'égalité devant la loi de tous les citoyens sans distinction d'origine, de race ou de religion. Elle respecte toutes les croyances. » (« France is an indivisible, secular, democratic, social Republic. It ensures the equality in law of all citizens, regardless or their origin, race or religion. It respects all belief systems. ») none of those actually say anything about preventing people from expressing their beliefs, but the exact opposite.

That mass media managed to convince a majority of the population that such bans are needed doesn't change anything about them not having anything to do with "laïcité" but actually being in contradiction to it.

[Page]

I would implement a policy in which public school staff are absolutely forbidden from discussing with parents whether the students are wearing a hijab or not, that way, a student can wear or not wear one as they please with no fear.

That is not at all realistically feasible.

It's not feasible to tell school staff that they aren't allowed to discuss what students are wearing with their parents? It seems pretty feasible: You tell them to not do it, if someone does it they get fired, and then no one ever does it again.

It's a good policy for everyone, and it would make religious and non-religious students alike safer. If a girl from a Muslim household decides she is an atheist and takes off her hijab at school, her parents won't find out from the teachers and she will be safer from being subjected to violence as an "apostate."

Likewise, what if a western girl whose parents are reactionary bigots converted to Islam and she wanted to wear a hijab at school, she would have the same protection.

[Fahran]

Jokes aside, Islam in reality is indeed tolerant as another user has pointed out in the IDT, with the relevant verse included. I haven't seen the Bible verse that promotes tolerance (haven't read that far from my copy), but I try to see them positively as I do with every other religion until I see the verse that proves otherwise.

I tend to focus more on Arab history than on Islamic theology, but, in my experience, what often gets touted as tolerant or progressive in early medieval society would not pass the litmus test in the present day. I'm certain Islam has changed, in much the same way as Christianity and my own Jewish faith have, but I do get why people like the Taliban and ISIL would look back on the forced conversions, enslavements, and massacres of the past and draw inspiration from them. And, having read both Sayyid Qutb and Osama Bin Laden, these men were not idiots. Qutb was a preeminent modernist theologian and one of the spiritual fathers of the Muslim Brotherhood. His conception of tolerance certainly isn't a liberal one. I'm certain other Muslim scholars and theologians disagree with him, but I would still consider Qutb a devout and, by most metrics, good Muslim, even if I dislike his political and social attitudes.

[Kilobugya]

It's not feasible to tell school staff that they aren't allowed to discuss what students are wearing with their parents? It seems pretty feasible: You tell them to not do it, if someone does it they get fired, and then no one ever does it again.

It's pretty hard to control what teachers and parents say to each other, since when they meet it's often behind closed doors. And teachers value a lot their "pedagogic freedom" and resent deeply the state messing up with their evaluation of a situation. What a teenager is wearing at school can sometimes be a hint that something is wrong - that the teen is being bullied, or depressive, or whatever, and sometimes it might makes sense to discuss it with parents.

It's a good policy for everyone, and it would make religious and non-religious students alike safer. If a girl from a Muslim household decides she is an atheist and takes off her hijab at school, her parents won't find out from the teachers and she will be safer from being subjected to violence as an "apostate."

Likewise, what if a western girl whose parents are reactionary bigots converted to Islam and she wanted to wear a hijab at school, she would have the same protection.

Honestly I don't think those cases are very frequent, and when they do happen, it's not just the wearing or not wearing of the hijab that would create problems. If a western girl convert to Islam, she might refuse to eat pork for example. Or a girl from a Muslim household who becomes atheist will refuse to follow Ramadan. Those are more likely to create problem than the hijab issue, and much harder to hide. So while I understand the reasoning behind your idea, and agree with the core of it (teenagers should have freedom of consciousness even from their family), I don't think it's a proposal that would be enforceable nor that it would solve the problem.

[Nakena]

Qutb was a preeminent modernist theologian and one of the spiritual fathers of the Muslim Brotherhood. His conception of tolerance certainly isn't a liberal one. I'm certain other Muslim scholars and theologians disagree with him, but I would still consider Qutb a devout and, by most metrics, good Muslim, even if I dislike his political and social attitudes.

Qutb was unironically an incel before incels were a thing. Specifically his views and impression on his american tour are very much in a similiar psycho-pathological mindset. Disdain and hatred towards other people in a sexual context and him feeling excluded or self-excluding from it and burning in anger and rage. Thats exactly the stuff of a incel mass murderer and various nazi and islamist are made off.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayyid_Qu ... nd_society

And also this:

Though Islam gave him much peace and contentment,[34] he suffered from respiratory and other health problems throughout his life and was known for "his introvertedness, isolation, depression and concern." In appearance, he was "pale with sleepy eyes."[35] Qutb never married, in part because of his steadfast religious convictions. While the urban Egyptian society he lived in was becoming more Westernized, Qutb believed the Quran taught women that 'Men are the managers of women's affairs ...'[36] Qutb lamented to his readers that he was never able to find a woman of sufficient "moral purity and discretion" and had to reconcile himself to bachelorhood.[37]

Seriously, had he been being laid at some point and would have been more confortable with his own sexuality and being a lot of toxic developments could have been prevented.

[Fahran]

Opinion polls taken after a massive fearmongering campaign by massmedia aren't worth much, and they can't anyway change history, laws nor political context.

That's a fair point and a criticism I've raised on previous occasions. I did find it interesting that the plurality of Muslim women supported the burqa ban though, especially since the alleged fearmongering in their case should theoretically be less about Islamophobia and more about what these garments represent in particular. As another point, however, I imagine many Muslim adults would prefer for their children not to stick out and, in many cases, not to express their religion openly in public beyond certain levels. Older French Muslims, as I mentioned before, are heavily secularized compared to their children and grandchildren on average.

That said, it might be useful to look at the opinions of Muslim theologians and religious authorities in France at the time as well. They don't really support the narrative that the burqa ban, the one passed in 2004 at least, was rooted in xenophobia or a betrayal of laïcité. In fact, opponents, for the most part, seemed to want fewer people wearing burqas at least.

Dalil Boubakeur, the grand mufti of the Paris Mosque, the largest and most influential in France, testified to parliament during the bill's preparation. He commented that the niqāb was not prescribed in Islam, that in the French and contemporary context its spread was associated with radicalisation and criminal behavior, and that its wearing was inconsistent with France's concept of the secular state; but that due to expected difficulties in applying a legal ban, he would prefer to see the issue handled "case by case". Mohammed Moussaoui, the president of the French Council of the Muslim Faith, opposed using a law but favored discouraging Muslim women from wearing the full veil.

Fact: historically, from French Revolution to Paris' Commune to early 20th century, all the massive push for secularism never were about preventing private citizen from wearing religious symbols if they wanted to.

This might be whitewashing laïcité a little bit given some of the accounts we have beginning with the French Revolution.

During the course of the year II much of France was subjected to a campaign of dechristianization, the aim of which was the eradication of Catholic religious practice, and Catholicism itself. The campaign, which was at its most intense in the winter and spring of 1793-94 [...] comprised a number of different activities. These ranged from the removal of plate, statues and other fittings from places of worship, the destruction of crosses, bells, shrines and other 'external signs of worship', the closure of churches, the enforced abdication and, occasionally, the marriage of constitutional priests, the substitution of a Revolutionary calendar for the Gregorian one, the alteration of personal and place names which had any eccesiastical connotations to more suitably Revolutionary ones, through to the promotion of new cults, notably those of reason and of the Supreme Being.

Source: Tallett, Frank (1991). "Dechristianizing France: The year II and the revolutionary experience". In Tallett, F.; Atkin, N. (eds.). Religion, Society and Politics in France Since 1789. Bloomsbury Academic. Page 1–28.

We can also observe especially virulent anti-Catholicism during the Revolution and those sentiments seem to continue to be present even today given France has been cited as one of the worst countries in Europe for secularist intolerance of religion, with vandalism and murders being documented. While some of this is tied to Islamist extremism, a lot of it is secularists too, notably anarchists, feminists, and militant atheists of various sorts.

Source

You're correct in pointing out that the 1905 law didn't go quite as far as recent bills have, but it did set a precedent by beginning the removal of religious symbols from public monuments. It's not too much of a stretch to extrapolate that into a ban on religious symbols by all public institutions and to then extrapolate that into a ban on all religious symbols within public institutions by private citizens. It's also in keeping with the long-festering undercurrent of antitheist and hardline secularist thought in France and doesn't outright violate the 1905 law in many cases, as evidenced by the fact that the 2004 law is here to stay and has vocal champions in left-wing parties and in the French Muslim community.

That mass media managed to convince a majority of the population that such bans are needed doesn't change anything about them not having anything to do with "laïcité" but actually being in contradiction to it.

It would seem French law, French politicians, and French citizens all disagree with you on the matter.

[A m e n r i a]

Jokes aside, Islam in reality is indeed tolerant as another user has pointed out in the IDT, with the relevant verse included. I haven't seen the Bible verse that promotes tolerance (haven't read that far from my copy), but I try to see them positively as I do with every other religion until I see the verse that proves otherwise.

I tend to focus more on Arab history than on Islamic theology, but, in my experience, what often gets touted as tolerant or progressive in early medieval society would not pass the litmus test in the present day. I'm certain Islam has changed, in much the same way as Christianity and my own Jewish faith have, but I do get why people like the Taliban and ISIL would look back on the forced conversions, enslavements, and massacres of the past and draw inspiration from them. And, having read both Sayyid Qutb and Osama Bin Laden, these men were not idiots. Qutb was a preeminent modernist theologian and one of the spiritual fathers of the Muslim Brotherhood. His conception of tolerance certainly isn't a liberal one. I'm certain other Muslim scholars and theologians disagree with him, but I would still consider Qutb a devout and, by most metrics, good Muslim, even if I dislike his political and social attitudes.

I see where you're coming from, but still, history =/= reality. People have opinions, which may or may not align with the deity they worship, but that's it, those are opinions. This is becoming less a relevant discussion and more about religion itself. I'd be happy to discuss further, but we're cluttering this thread atm. Pm me here or on Discord anytime.

[Nakena]

This is becoming less a relevant discussion and more about religion itself.

To be fair it is, at the end of the day, about religion.

[Fahran]

Seriously, had he been being laid at some point and would have been more confortable with his own sexuality and being a lot of toxic developments could have been prevented.

While this is useful if and when I intend to bully the entire Muslim Brotherhood for idolizing a massive incel, it's not really the most sound rebuttal I've ever read. It's more pointing out that his personal experience and biases impacted his theology and interpretations, which is true of all people. Qutb still commands a lot of respect from scholars who were less cringe so I don't feel comfortable dismissing him as a weirdo and "not a REAL Muslim" except perhaps as a rhetorical flourish.

[Zurkir]

It's not feasible to tell school staff that they aren't allowed to discuss what students are wearing with their parents? It seems pretty feasible: You tell them to not do it, if someone does it they get fired, and then no one ever does it again.

Because it’s that simple. People talk, people gossip. You of course would have to catch someone (staff) in doing this and without proof of evidence (like recordings) you would have the situation of their word versus mine. And most people don’t go around recording every conversation they have with school staff. It just wouldn’t work.

It's a good policy for everyone, and it would make religious and non-religious students alike safer. If a girl from a Muslim household decides she is an atheist and takes off her hijab at school, her parents won't find out from the teachers and she will be safer from being subjected to violence as an "apostate."

And what about other kids seeing her and mentioning it to their parents who then tell the girl in questions’ parents? Or the parents happen to come to the school and see the girl? Or she simply isn’t being careful when it’s pickup time after school and her parents see her before she puts her hijab back on? Or a student at school mentions it to our asks the girl’s parents about it? There’s too many holes here.

Likewise, what if a western girl whose parents are reactionary bigots converted to Islam and she wanted to wear a hijab at school, she would have the same protection.

Again, no she wouldn’t.

This would not work.

[Fahran]

I see where you're coming from, but still, history =/= reality. People have opinions, which may or may not align with the deity they worship, but that's it, those are opinions. This is becoming less a relevant discussion and more about religion itself. I'd be happy to discuss further, but we're cluttering this thread atm. Pm me here or on Discord anytime.

That's actually not too far off from the point I'm attempting to make here, so I'll try to wrap it up and avoid diving too much into a subject that is more or less tagentially related to the thread. Earlier, you stated...

Jokes aside, Islam in reality is indeed tolerant as another user has pointed out in the IDT, with the relevant verse included. I haven't seen the Bible verse that promotes tolerance (haven't read that far from my copy), but I try to see them positively as I do with every other religion until I see the verse that proves otherwise.

In short, this is just, like, your opinion, man. It's one interpretation among a great many from a great many intelligent and well-studied people. I'm not really prepared to comment on Islam in fine detail, beyond my very limited areas of relative expertise, or to state definitively who has the right of it when it comes to Islamic theology, the hadiths, and the application of sharia. I'm more so pointing out here that Islam, like my own Judaism, is a religion that involves A LOT of differing opinions, most of them well-sourced and well-supported. As for myself, I'm a bit mistrustful of excluding people who appear to uphold major tenants and practices of a religion while professing to be of that religion, at least for the purposes of these sorts of discussions.

In theological discussions, we should all call our opponents infidels and heretics more often if only for the memes.

[The Disorder]

Religiously-motivated tyranny is still tyranny - and to absolutely no one's surprise, Islam contains some of it. So do a lot of other religions. In fact, almost all religions bear the indeliable taint of conceited & arrogant authoritarian tyrants, which have long ago died and turned to dust. Proscribing specified clothing is nothing except an invasion of individual liberty, and has no place in any legitimate religious practice.

However, banning a piece of clothing that coincidentally happens to be associated with a religion is utterly nonsensical, and an equal invasion of individual liberty. (It also stinks of islamaphobia.) World history is full of countless examples where fighting tyranny with more tyranny didn't go well at all.

Debating which is worse, France's dumbass hijab ban or Islam's oppression, is just like asking which is worse: The garbage or the dumpster fire? It doesn't really matter which one you find more offensive - they both objectively stink.

[Islamic Holy Sites]

Nah, most girls choose to wear it.

Oh boy, right off the bat I know I'm not talking to a particularly smart perrson. The question is not if they are "choosing" to wear it, the question is if they could choose not to wear it. Obviously it's easy to indoctrinate kids to go along with their own oppression.

I know some who choose not to wear it until they're ready

[Laka Strolistandiler]

As a far-right Christian, I am fully in support of this law. Yes, I am islamaphobic. Yes, I am not ashamed of that. Deus Vult.

Time to start banning nuns from wearing religious dress in public too then.

The difference between nuns and normal women is far too obvious eh?

[Laka Strolistandiler]

As a far-right Christian, I am fully in support of this law. Yes, I am islamaphobic. Yes, I am not ashamed of that. Deus Vult.

*Confused screaming at the sight of this living paradox*

Boy oh boy, wait till you see my race and what I think of white nationalism...
Hint: it is REALLY cursed and will probably get me banned from NS

[Vassenor]

Time to start banning nuns from wearing religious dress in public too then.

The difference between nuns and normal women is far too obvious eh?

Religious dress is religious dress. If Islamic dress needs to be banned in the name of state secularism then so does Christian religious dress.

[Dowaesk]

I have a friend in Germany. She has pakistani roots. Her father is a devout muslim (as per what she told me). Her parents told her not to wear the hijab until she was married. As they believed it might get her too much attention. However when she was 21, she wore it. Her muslim friends also adviced her to take it off and only wear it after she got married. (Apparently, wearing it after marriage is common in the German Muslim community.) She on the other hand did not listen. And then at the age of 22 she took it off. Idk why. She didnt tell me. And then at 23 she wore it again. She told me that often times people never directly say things at her. But she had a hard time getting along. Especially with the rising influence of identitarian movements. She also told me she had a hard time getting jobs.
Now the question I have here is. How come marriage? Why does a muslim woman in Germany have to have a husband before she can freely wear the hijab. I couldnt get much detail out of her, because shes sort of hard to talk to (Frequency does not meet. Lol). From what i heard tho. Feminists have a quite strong voice in Germany. But then what about her. Shes woman. And its obvious that hijiab was her choice. Her friends and family adviced not to do it till marriage, yet she didnt want so. Because shes got her freedom. It was not oppression, rather her choice. If western europe is a land of freedom. How come she isnt able to freely do what she wants? You might say the west is messed up. Its not true. I got friends in UK. Athests, Christians and Muslim. Most of them are around 13-20 years of age. Sure Boris Johnson is a white supremacist and a hater. But lets forget about him shall we. Back to my British Friends. they dont mind each other being different. 2 of the Muslims wear hijab, yet from what i see they fit along with the others perfectly. And the non muslims also like them. They barely mind the fact that they are wearing hijab. So whats the deal with France. This is not from the people but the government. This is no way okay, but it would have been less outrageous if it was Poland doing it. Poland is basically the Christian version of Erdogan Turkey. Britain has so many hijabi girls and yet i dont see their nation being taken over by Islam. What does France see. Maybe they see something we dont. Maybe they are the great nation we need in order to make the world a better place. These rich white men are gonna make the world a better place. With naked women and drunk men. Because nakedness and drunkness is what shows that the country is free from oppression

[Dowaesk]

As a far-right Christian, I am fully in support of this law. Yes, I am islamaphobic. Yes, I am not ashamed of that. Deus Vult.

Congratulations brother. Join us and lets rip off the remaining hijabs.

*intense sarcasm*
*intense anger, but trying my best not to show anything*

[Zurkir]

I have a friend in Germany. She has pakistani roots. Her father is a devout muslim (as per what she told me). Her parents told her not to wear the hijab until she was married. As they believed it might get her too much attention. However when she was 21, she wore it. Her muslim friends also adviced her to take it off and only wear it after she got married. (Apparently, wearing it after marriage is common in the German Muslim community.) She on the other hand did not listen. And then at the age of 22 she took it off. Idk why. She didnt tell me. And then at 23 she wore it again. She told me that often times people never directly say things at her. But she had a hard time getting along. Especially with the rising influence of identitarian movements. She also told me she had a hard time getting jobs.
Now the question I have here is. How come marriage? Why does a muslim woman in Germany have to have a husband before she can freely wear the hijab. I couldnt get much detail out of her, because shes sort of hard to talk to (Frequency does not meet. Lol). From what i heard tho. Feminists have a quite strong voice in Germany. But then what about her. Shes woman. And its obvious that hijiab was her choice. Her friends and family adviced not to do it till marriage, yet she didnt want so. Because shes got her freedom. It was not oppression, rather her choice. If western europe is a land of freedom. How come she isnt able to freely do what she wants? You might say the west is messed up. Its not true. I got friends in UK. Athests, Christians and Muslim. Most of them are around 13-20 years of age. Sure Boris Johnson is a white supremacist and a hater. But lets forget about him shall we. Back to my British Friends. they dont mind each other being different. 2 of the Muslims wear hijab, yet from what i see they fit along with the others perfectly. And the non muslims also like them. They barely mind the fact that they are wearing hijab. So whats the deal with France. This is not from the people but the government. This is no way okay, but it would have been less outrageous if it was Poland doing it. Poland is basically the Christian version of Erdogan Turkey. Britain has so many hijabi girls and yet i dont see their nation being taken over by Islam. What does France see. Maybe they see something we dont. Maybe they are the great nation we need in order to make the world a better place. These rich white men are gonna make the world a better place. With naked women and drunk men. Because nakedness and drunkness is what shows that the country is free from oppression

Personal antecdote paired with race baiting. Unbased.

[Dowaesk]

I have a friend in Germany. She has pakistani roots. Her father is a devout muslim (as per what she told me). Her parents told her not to wear the hijab until she was married. As they believed it might get her too much attention. However when she was 21, she wore it. Her muslim friends also adviced her to take it off and only wear it after she got married. (Apparently, wearing it after marriage is common in the German Muslim community.) She on the other hand did not listen. And then at the age of 22 she took it off. Idk why. She didnt tell me. And then at 23 she wore it again. She told me that often times people never directly say things at her. But she had a hard time getting along. Especially with the rising influence of identitarian movements. She also told me she had a hard time getting jobs.
Now the question I have here is. How come marriage? Why does a muslim woman in Germany have to have a husband before she can freely wear the hijab. I couldnt get much detail out of her, because shes sort of hard to talk to (Frequency does not meet. Lol). From what i heard tho. Feminists have a quite strong voice in Germany. But then what about her. Shes woman. And its obvious that hijiab was her choice. Her friends and family adviced not to do it till marriage, yet she didnt want so. Because shes got her freedom. It was not oppression, rather her choice. If western europe is a land of freedom. How come she isnt able to freely do what she wants? You might say the west is messed up. Its not true. I got friends in UK. Athests, Christians and Muslim. Most of them are around 13-20 years of age. Sure Boris Johnson is a white supremacist and a hater. But lets forget about him shall we. Back to my British Friends. they dont mind each other being different. 2 of the Muslims wear hijab, yet from what i see they fit along with the others perfectly. And the non muslims also like them. They barely mind the fact that they are wearing hijab. So whats the deal with France. This is not from the people but the government. This is no way okay, but it would have been less outrageous if it was Poland doing it. Poland is basically the Christian version of Erdogan Turkey. Britain has so many hijabi girls and yet i dont see their nation being taken over by Islam. What does France see. Maybe they see something we dont. Maybe they are the great nation we need in order to make the world a better place. These rich white men are gonna make the world a better place. With naked women and drunk men. Because nakedness and drunkness is what shows that the country is free from oppression

Personal antecdote paired with race baiting. Unbased.

That was sarcasm

[Zurkir]

Personal antecdote paired with race baiting. Unbased.

That was sarcasm

Even without what I underlined, unbased.

[Dowaesk]

That was sarcasm

Even without what I underlined, unbased.

Well sure. I barely knew what i was writing.

[J o J]

Never been a fan of this form of secularism. It’s a piece of cloth for Gods sake.

I would support that. If women don't like being sexualized then they should not wear exposing clothing. People need to wear decent clothes and be civilized in general. Same for men too, no more of those jeans with holes the size of watermelons or shirts that are literally just tatters because they think they're cool. Nobody wants to see your body or underwear unless they're perverted.

A better thing to have said would have been "What if they banned wearing the Judenhut?"

That’s the most snowflake thing I’ve ever heard.

If you knew me you would realize I am the opposite of a snowflake. People that wear overly exposing clothing are freaks and disgusting and they need to cover themselves up. I don’t want my little sister to ask why that man is wearing a pair of jeans with massive “stylized” holes in them that show his underwear and thighs when we’re getting lunch at a restaurant. Same for women. Nobody gives a shit about your shoulders except perverts, quit trying to show off and sexualize yourself with a crop top and wear a normal shirt or dress. It’s inexcusable and degenerate, there’s no reason for either sex to be showing all of that.

I don’t see how it’s a snowflake idea to want people to dress in a civilized and appropriate manner.

[Dowaesk]

Never been a fan of this form of secularism. It’s a piece of cloth for Gods sake.


That’s the most snowflake thing I’ve ever heard.

If you knew me you would realize I am the opposite of a snowflake. People that wear overly exposing clothing are freaks and disgusting and they need to cover themselves up. I don’t want my little sister to ask why that man is wearing a pair of jeans with massive “stylized” holes in them that show his underwear and thighs when we’re getting lunch at a restaurant. Same for women. Nobody gives a shit about your shoulders except perverts, quit trying to show off and sexualize yourself with a crop top and wear a normal shirt or dress. It’s inexcusable and degenerate, there’s no reason for either sex to be showing all of that.

I agree.
But maybe nakedness and prostitution is part of the Secularism package