Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Religion

MineralMan

(147,849 posts)

8. A cross on a desk is not a matter of personal attire.

Reply to Jake Stern (Reply #7)

Tue Jun 18, 2019, 01:44 PM

Jun 2019

There is a difference between that and a cross necklace. The necklace says, "I am a Christian." The cross on the desk says "This desk is Christian." One is a personal identifier. The other identifies a piece of government property as Christian.

Personal expression of religious belief through clothing or jewelry is fine. I'm never troubled by that. The desk at city hall is not a person. It is the property of the government. It has no religion.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

34 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Quebec law banning hijab at work creates 'politics of fear', say critics [View all] Eugene Jun 2019 OP

Sigh Sentath Jun 2019 #1

What a moronic law! MineralMan Jun 2019 #2

It might serve a purpose for some Major Nikon Jun 2019 #3

I see hijabs every time I venture out to do shopping. MineralMan Jun 2019 #4

A head covering worn for modesty is quite often coerced at best Major Nikon Jun 2019 #12

First-generation immigrants often retain MineralMan Jun 2019 #13

There is certainly some social enforcement of it. AtheistCrusader Jun 2019 #33

I'm not sure if is a battle worth fighting. MineralMan Jun 2019 #34

As long as the law covers all religious symbols (this one covers Christian symbols) Jake Stern Jun 2019 #5

The government should have nothing to say about individuals MineralMan Jun 2019 #6

I disagree Jake Stern Jun 2019 #7

A cross on a desk is not a matter of personal attire. MineralMan Jun 2019 #8

Oh bullshit Jake Stern Jun 2019 #9

I see. Well, never mind, then. MineralMan Jun 2019 #10

Not bullshit Major Nikon Jun 2019 #16

Exactly. People have freedom of expression. MineralMan Jun 2019 #17

Has to do with the 1st amendment Major Nikon Jun 2019 #18

It doesn't ban hijabs. Voltaire2 Jun 2019 #11

I tend to disagree... uriel1972 Jun 2019 #14

It is as much a religious symbol as a yamaka Voltaire2 Jun 2019 #15

I would say it's a grey area... uriel1972 Jun 2019 #20

But it actually does. guillaumeb Jun 2019 #21

No it requires certain public employees Voltaire2 Jun 2019 #22

If employees are prevented from wearing hijab, guillaumeb Jun 2019 #23

Well we are quibbling over the phrase Voltaire2 Jun 2019 #24

We are talking about the politics of fear. guillaumeb Jun 2019 #25

Oh I see you changed the subject. Voltaire2 Jun 2019 #27

This is the Religion Group. guillaumeb Jun 2019 #29

Clear as mud. Voltaire2 Jun 2019 #30

It was designed to create fear and mistrust. guillaumeb Jun 2019 #19

This was your shot to take a perfectly placed and totally appropriate jab at nationalism. Act_of_Reparation Jun 2019 #26

I did. guillaumeb Jun 2019 #28

Yeah, but Marois was PQ. Act_of_Reparation Jun 2019 #31

I think the name is quite ironic, guillaumeb Jun 2019 #32