Immigration Belgian Muslims ask government to ban Easter eggs and Xmas trees

[Maciamo]

Expatica : Muslims want ban on Easter eggs

"If headscarves are banned for employees who work at the desk at city services in order to guarantee neutrality of services, then we demand that no Christmas trees be set up in city buildings and that no Easter eggs be given out." Antwerp trade union representative Badia Miri said this on Wednesday in the Gazet van Antwerpen.

Good to see that the Muslim community is starting to use logic in religious arguments. I wondered when that would happen.

I have to agree with them that Chritianity should get the same treatment as Islam, and thus references to Christianity should be dropped from the workplace in government institutions. However, the question is how to determine what IS religious and what isn't. I believe that the Bible or other Christian holy documents do not mention Easter eggs and bunnies anywhere. Same for Xmas trees and decorations. What could be banned are only the names Christmas and Easter, which are clearly religious. But if you just call it "Year end tree" and "Spring eggs", then why not ? As long as people do not hold a religious ceremony in the workplace, such traditions are hardly religious at all.

Welcome to one of the very first debate on political correctness in Belgium (or shall I say "religious correctness" ?)

 

[Elizabeth van Kampen]

Many people from all over the world like to have a Christmas tree at home in the month December, just because they like this custom. As a Catholic, I have no tree but a crib.
As far as I know does the Christmas tree a heathen feast in Winter, I believe that is comes from the old tribe of Germans.
Easter eggs, is fun for the kids, why should that be wrong?

I think that if one decides to settle down in a foreign country, that should adapt the customs from the country of our choice, at least outside of the house. You can't expect to change your new country for your own sake.
That is not the way to may friends in your new country.

 

[Maciamo]

Many people from all over the world like to have a Christmas tree at home in the month December, just because they like this custom. As a Catholic, I have no tree but a crib.

Funny, Belgium and France are traditionally Catholic only, and yet they have Christmas trees and cribs.

As far as I know does the Christmas tree a heathen feast in Winter, I believe that is comes from the old tribe of Germans.

Good point ! I checked it on Wikipedia and it says :

With likely origins in European pre-Christian pagan cultures, the Christmas tree has gained an extensive history and become a common sight during the winter season in numerous cultures. Some have pointed out that the Bible condemns the use of a tree for religious purposes.
...
Patron trees (for example, the Irminsul, Thor's Oak and the figurative Yggdrasil) held special significance for the ancient Germanic tribes, appearing throughout historic accounts as sacred symbols and objects.
...

So you were right about the pagan Germanic origins.

Among the earliest Germanic tribes the Yule tradition was celebrated by sacrificing male animals and slaves by suspending them on the branches of trees.

We lost that bit of the tradition of hanging dying slaves on the branches of trees. Too bad, that sounded fun. Now we just have balls for the cat to play with.

I think that if one decides to settle down in a foreign country, that should adapt the customs from the country of our choice, at least outside of the house. You can't expect to change your new country for your own sake.
That is not the way to may friends in your new country.

I agree, but here it is more like a matter of fairness, as the law says that religious items should be banned from government offices. So it should apply to all religions. The true matter for debate is whether a Christmas tree or an Easter egg is a religious item or not. It has no religious function or significance per se (unlike a crucifix, a kippah or a burqa).

 

[Elizabeth van Kampen]

Yes you are right of course, the Christmas tree can go together with the crib during the Xmas days. The Christmas tree is not religious is my eyes, but it looks very nice during those days, so why not?

Easter eggs, I guess that this too is a very old custom. The Orthodox Greek and Russian Churches also have something to do with eggs during Easter.
Why should these old European customs be banned? If not religious then it is in any case an allround cutural European event.

Santa Klaus comes from Finland, Saint Niconlas comes from Turkey, the Xmas tree from a Germanic heathen feast.

Eating too many eggs during Easter is bad for the stomach, but that counts chocolate eggs as well.

Wearing a burqa is bad for the skin in the long end. And maybe not so good for the eyes as well, religious or not.

Maybe we bother too much about of what Muslims say and think about us in the West European countries.
The imams in our countries tell their followers that we Europeans are heathens.
Maybe that is why our bishop Muskens wants to call GOD as from now on ALLAH here in Holland.

How far can we go with all this type of foolish talk about religion?

 

[Kinsao]

If Christmas tree is banned, that's discriminating also against Pagans who may wish to practice their religion or celebrate the winter solstice with greenery and things from nature. In that case, you could say also that fire and water should be banned, because people use them as symbols within their religion (Christian, Pagan, and other religions too) and for purposes of religious rituals. It just becomes ridiculous. If Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, whatever, want to celebrate their religious rituals or festivals, it doesn't bother me, why should I wish to stop them, unless it was a practice that's somehow dangerous to me? If I disagree with their beliefs, why should I care? I don't wish to stop people eating green olives just because I don't like them. Why then should I be bothered if they want to practice some beliefs I don't agree with? If only people wouldn't get militant about it. Why can't they be more tolerant? *sigh* kashii: Of course, everyone believes his or her own beliefs are right, otherwise they wouldn't follow them (well duuhh!).

 

[Maciamo]

Kinsao, the ban is only for the workplace in government offices and schools, not in people's homes. In some schools in Brussels, over half of the students are Muslim, so I can understand that it is weird to have a Xmas tree in the classroom (as was the case in my primary school) because the teachers decided so.

 

[Kinsao]

Aha, well you could say that in the workplace, no decorations of any sort should be permitted because of 'health and safety'.

 

[Maciamo]

Aha, well you could say that in the workplace, no decorations of any sort should be permitted because of 'health and safety'.

Yes, and no paperknife, sharp scissors or fountain pens.

 

[iapetoc]

well maybe we should ban the boats also,

Greek customs is Boats at Christmas.

you paint them, you focus light on them, you decorate them,
!!!!!!!!!

 

[Antigone]

Not only are Christmas trees a pagan practice

A winter festival was the most popular festival of the year in many cultures. Reasons included the fact that less agricultural work needs to be done during the winter, as well as an expectation of better weather as spring approached.[66] Modern Christmas customs include: gift-giving and merrymaking from Roman Saturnalia; greenery, lights, and charity from the Roman New Year; and Yule logs and various foods from Germanic feasts.[67] Pagan Scandinavia celebrated a winter festival called Yule, held in the late December to early January period.[citation needed] As Northern Europe was the last part to Christianize, its pagan traditions had a major influence on Christmas.[citation needed] Scandinavians still call Christmas Jul. In English, the word Yule is synonymous with Christmas,[68] a usage first recorded in 900. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas#Pre-Christian_background

Easter is also pagan

The modern English term Easter developed from the Old English word Ēastre or Ēostre (IPA: [ˈæːɑstre, ˈeːostre]), which itself developed prior to 899. The name refers to Eostur-monath (Old English "Ēostre month"), a month of the Germanic calendar attested by Bede, who writes that the month is named after the goddess Ēostre of Anglo-Saxon paganism

Linguists have identified the goddess as a Germanic form of the reconstructed Proto-Indo-European goddess of the dawn, *Hausos. Some scholars have debated whether or not Eostre is an invention of Bede's, and theories connecting Eostre with records of Germanic Easter customs (including hares and eggs) have been proposed. Eostre or Ostara are sometimes referenced in modern popular culture, and is venerated in some forms of Germanic Neopaganism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ēostre

Early Christians were never averse to adopting the ideas and festivities of others to suit in the promotion of their dogma.

 

[Elias2]

I don't see how christmas trees and eggs are represive like the headscarve is.

 

[Antigone]

How are head scarves repressive?

But I think you miss the point, if an Islamic practice can be banned in the workplace then it stands to reason that Christian and other faith practices should be also. Couldn't it be classed as discrimination otherwise?

 

[Elias2]

It was banned not because it was simply islamic, but because it was restricting the rights of women, but they said they wanted to see the people they're talking to. Tree's and eggs don't have the same effect. If this belgium man wants there to be "equality of religion" in government insitutions, that is assuming all the religions are equal when its simply not true. Islam is far more demanding of its followers to the point of self restriction. "islam" literally means submission to god. Has anyone here actually looked through the koran? it's all fear driven. But we can play the political correctness game and say they're all the same, which I assume people are going to follow up and tell me.

 

[Antigone]

Rather a contradictory law though, banning the headscarf is exactly the same as those countries who enforce it's wearing, both are restricting the right of women to choose.

But the banning of the headscarf was not only because of supposed restriction of rights but also because it is considered a religious symbol, so in that light all religious symbols should thus be banned.

This discussion isn't about the merits of one faith over another, all three Abrahamic faiths are driven by fear of a venegful
god. Nothing new there. But if you wish to debate that particular nonsense you'll need to find the appropriate thread.

 

[Elias2]

You still can't campaire the two. Christmas trees and easter eggs are only used on certain dates of the year, while muslim women are supposed to wear that headscarve every day. If you really wanted to be fair they would allow them to wear the headscarve on special muslim dates like the tree and eggs are used.

 

[sparkey]

You still can't campaire the two. Christmas trees and easter eggs are only used on certain dates of the year, while muslim women are supposed to wear that headscarve every day. If you really wanted to be fair they would allow them to wear the headscarve on special muslim dates like the tree and eggs are used.

But Islam doesn't demand that Muslim women be modest only on certain days of the year, it demands that they be modest all the time, which some Muslims interpret to mean that Muslim women should wear headscarves whenever they are in public. Restricting it to certain days of the year is just as much a restriction on religious freedom as restricting it all the time.

To be most fair, people should always have freedom of religion to the point where it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. That is, full Sharia Law should not be allowed, but things like headscarves, minarets, Easter eggs, Christmas trees, etc. should be. It seems obvious to me. I've never really understood the argument that women choosing to wear headscarves is infringing on their rights. Because they're pressured to? As long as there's not a threat of violence, it's nothing worse than the cultural pressure that, say, gay conservative Christians face to not be out of the closet. And if there is a threat of violence, then the problem is the threat of violence, not the headscarf.

 

[iapetoc]

To be most fair, people should always have freedom of religion to the point where it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. That is, full Sharia Law should not be allowed, but things like headscarves, minarets, Easter eggs, Christmas trees, etc. should be. It seems obvious to me. I've never really understood the argument that women choosing to wear headscarves is infringing on their rights. Because they're pressured to? As long as there's not a threat of violence, it's nothing worse than the cultural pressure that, say, gay conservative Christians face to not be out of the closet. And if there is a threat of violence, then the problem is the threat of violence, not the headscarf.

hmmm yes you are right about freedom of religion, Sharia law etc,
but it is another the headscarf, and another the mask that covers face,

The whole situation reminds times of early Christianity, and change of religion,
lets see connections,
Cristians say that were tortured by Polytheists,
Yes Islam say that they tortured by Crusaders, and Spanish took their lands,
yes Cristian promises a new world,
Islam also,
Cristians were against Icons in west and Statues in East,
They burn temples and destroy everything that was symbol of the past,
Islam did that to Afganistan Pakistan etc, and riots were on lose in Denmark only by a quick draw of Mohamed,

when times comes you will see that Islam will burn philosophers,
in Greece we that, cause of Alexandreian Bibliotheque, the case of Ypatia etc
in west some knew about that as the holy judges, that had power to burn philosophers,
early cristians had light and gave and pushed some sciences, but after that 000 years of Dark ages
early islam did that also, with Algebra, but follows also a muslim dark ages,

simply times of European enlightment are over,
in the future the imam will order our lives,
soon enough Islam will do to Cristians what they did from time 300-until Jean d' Arc, and philosopher,
don't be silly, the times that earth is spinning are over.

remember that Ypatia was slain cause she was a woman philosopher, and according christians and apostole Paul
Corinth A chapter 11 and chapter 14:35

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypatia

remember at 540 BC Ippokrates was baned, and the only cure was the Spells of the Cristians and afaimaxis (blood take),
isn't the same Hapenig in EU today with Muslim Dogmas?
that deny doctors for their wifes?

remember cristians destroy All ancient Cultures and even olympic Games,
there are many reports,
is n't the same with the bellow?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQ-oaUqvAS8&feature=related

 

[sparkey]

hmmm yes you are right about freedom of religion, Sharia law etc,
but it is another the headscarf, and another the mask that covers face,

You mean to say that full veils should be treated differently than headscarves?

The whole situation reminds times of early Christianity, and change of religion,
lets see connections,
Cristians say that were tortured by Polytheists,
Yes Islam say that they tortured by Crusaders, and Spanish took their lands,
yes Cristian promises a new world,
Islam also,
Cristians were against Icons in west and Statues in East,
They burn temples and destroy everything that was symbol of the past,
Islam did that to Afganistan Pakistan etc, and riots were on lose in Denmark only by a quick draw of Mohamed,

when times comes you will see that Islam will burn philosophers,
in Greece we that, cause of Alexandreian Bibliotheque, the case of Ypatia etc
in west some knew about that as the holy judges, that had power to burn philosophers,
early cristians had light and gave and pushed some sciences, but after that 000 years of Dark ages
early islam did that also, with Algebra, but follows also a muslim dark ages,

Agreed, largely... Islam now is in many ways as Christianity was 400 years ago. Many of the Islamic governments of the world have extremely poor records on civil liberties, and the ones that are OK often have terrorist groups trying to influence them otherwise. That point seems tangential to me, though.

simply times of European enlightment are over,
in the future the imam will order our lives,
soon enough Islam will do to Cristians what they did from time 300-until Jean d' Arc, and philosopher,
don't be silly, the times that earth is spinning are over.

Muslims will have to alter the European demographics more than they are now to influence European politics so greatly. All reports that I've seen have either not shown such a takeover, or have been greatly exaggerated.

I understand why, from a Greek perspective, it would be worth remaining skeptical of Islamic influence. I've spent enough time around Assyrians to understand how Islamic actions can hurt a culture. But it all still seems tangential to things like choice of clothing and holiday observance.

 

[iapetoc]

You mean to say that full veils should be treated differently than headscarves?

Yes I can be used the idea that a scarf that covers hair is like a hat, or a kind of a hat,

But a cover face only eyes, or a Burka (not even eyes) should be punished
cause is like a mask,
think of a public office, hmm lets say a hospital that all have covered faces, same costumes and covered faces,
its freaky, it is like living in a world that is a Huge surgery, or in quarantine.

 

[Elias2]

It seems obvious to me. I've never really understood the argument that women choosing to wear headscarves is infringing on their rights. Because they're pressured to? As long as there's not a threat of violence, it's nothing worse than the cultural pressure that, say, gay conservative Christians face to not be out of the closet. And if there is a threat of violence, then the problem is the threat of violence, not the headscarf.

Hmm, they wear headscarves to be "modest" because thats is what islam tells them too. If they don't they are not modest and will be sent to hellfire. If that doesn't sound like a threat I don't know what does. I know it might sound silly from our persepctive, but people actually do take what it says in these books seriously, and people are still afraid of the fiction that is hell. If women wanted to be modest or wear it for the sake of being modest and not because a book commands them to, I wouldn't mind, but it is not the case, they are commanded to, and they have to obey for a variety of reasons that may include family pressures and threat of hellfire.

To be more frank, it really doesn't matter what these books say anymore, they're all fiction. So when we see that people are still the victims of these medieval ideas and are pressured from family to continue them, it would be wise to step in. I find it hard not to think of the headscarve of nothing more that a male domination symbol of the female, adopted form a time civilization wasn't going so well. If people did what the bible tells them to, and kill anyone who works on sunday, I'm sure the government would step in and take action like they are doing with this repression head item.