this post was submitted on 11 Dec 2025
140 points (100.0% liked)

World News

1041 readers
453 users here now

Rules:
Be a decent person, don't post hate.

Other Great Communities:

Rules

Be excellent to each other

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Chippys_mittens@lemmy.world -1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (20 children)

The cross we have on dozens of monuments and buildings? If you are a Christian I don't see an issue with wanting to wear it during service. Just like any religion's iconography could be worn/displayed. It doesn't come up on the ADL's list of hate symbols. I haven't been able to find proof of association with hate groups outside of the political guy having it as a tattoo, a very common and popular tattoo. This is literally just propaganda trying to paint any Christian as a white supremacist.

[–] Legianus@programming.dev 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I agree, though I am of the opinion that in secular states (at least at home and in peace time) government officials (including the army) should not wear any religious iconography

[–] Chippys_mittens@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Should an Islamic official be permitted to wear hijab like IIhan Omar? What about the camouflage turbans Sikh soldiers wear in the US military? Catholic congress person wearing a crucifix? Jewish congress man wearing a yarmulke?

[–] Legianus@programming.dev 2 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (2 children)

I would say ideally not as they represent the state and thus should not wear iconography of any sort for secular states.

I also know that this might not be exactly practial in reality

[–] Quill7513@slrpnk.net 4 points 6 days ago (2 children)

for a lot of people that is asking them to renounce their religious beliefs in service of the national interest

[–] Legianus@programming.dev 2 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Yes I see that problem and in the best case it would not be renouncing their beliefs not to wear something where it is not appropriate, but there are many other beliefs or reasons where one is excluded from official office/army, etc.

[–] Chippys_mittens@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago (1 children)
[–] Legianus@programming.dev 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Similar to the original meaning of this post. Many countries forbid people to enter the military and similar office, if they are known to hold extreme believes (e.g. extreme right wing rhetoric has been used by them or such). Not always foolproof though

[–] Chippys_mittens@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

In the United States?

[–] Chippys_mittens@lemmy.world 2 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I think it shows minority groups they have representation and shouldn't feel shamed for their beliefs. It also helps promote pride in diverse thoughts and backgrounds.

[–] Legianus@programming.dev 1 points 5 days ago

I think you are correct as it is now. And I do agree, as it is right now it is not practical to be completely secular for people holding these offices.

However, ideally, these groups would not need the recognition in this way as they ought to already have it otherwise and understanding that at some places some things are limited, should not discourage them to believe in what they want.

load more comments (18 replies)