• CleoTheWizard@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I think saying this largely denies the cultural implications of many religiously associated garments and symbols.

    Most religious symbols are not just that, they’re cultural ones. People adopt them, change them, redefine them. Drawing lines between religion and culture is very difficult so attempting to stop someone dressing some way is just a restriction of freedom, regardless of religion.

    • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Many of these girls are brought up to believe it is wrong to not cover your body as a girl and woman. How is that freedom?

        • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          When they got addicted it may very much give them freedom.

          These veils are not chosen by girls out of freedom. No 10 year old girl suddenly stands up and thinks “Better to cover my body, otherwise I may tempt the men around me”.

          • CleoTheWizard@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            It does not matter if a vice is chosen or unchosen. Smoking is a great example. You may not choose a tobacco addiction.

            Situation A: you have the freedom to choose to quit or not. Quitting results in more freedom. Not quitting results in less. The total freedoms available to you at any time are the freedom TO quit and the freedom OF quitting

            Situation B: You have no freedom to choose to quit. Your total freedoms are: freedom from quitting.

            So your freedoms have decreased in situation B. We have to ask if personal freedoms are preferable to better outcomes.

            The difference is that freedom is independent of opinion. You are either free to do so lawfully or not. But if I say “it would be better for you to not have that freedom”, I need to demonstrate what “better” means. And there everyone often disagrees.

            • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              If you really want to take smoking as an analogy the situation would be like this: Your parents forced you into a tabacco addiction. You are growing up being told that you can’t go anywhere without smoking and those around you who do not smoke are doing a bad thing.

              Is it good or bad if these children have a place where their parents have no power to force them to smoke?

                • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  It’s a good thing that the child would be forced not to smoke. Because a 10 year old would gladly tell you she smokes of her own free will if you simply ask.

                  A rule like “no smoking in schools” doesn’t harm you, unless your parents already made you think there will be terrible consequences if you stop doing so. Better to learn that it’s made up bs, before the harm is done.