I think get what you’re saying. Freedom from religion should be codified in some manner, and atheism should be afforded the same protections and rights. Right?
Kind of, but not really. Look at France, they have freedom from religion. They’re not allowed to be religious fanatics in public. It’s why they banned the burkini.
I don’t disagree with that. Believe what you want. Freedom from religion wouldn’t stop you from believing what you want. It stops you from pushing it onto others.
Okay, since you need it spelled out… France may not have appropriately applied its freedom from religion, but that isn’t the point. The point is a country like France doesn’t just have freedom from a religious state, but also extends that further, and that’s the part we (the US) are missing. You got hung up on the detail instead of paying attention to the meaning I was conveying, hence missing the forest through the trees. There is nothing profound about it at all, just saying you’re looking far too deeply instead of looking at the bigger picture of what was said.
I mean, if they ban only Islamic religious symbols but not crosses, bhindis, or yarmulkes then they’re just punching down on a vulnerable and powerless minority. A society is only as good as it treats its most vulnerable, otherwise their culture is “might is right”, which isn’t a culture per se.
France managed this by forbiding all religious displays of any kind in any public place, unless it’s over 200+ years old then it’s protected for being a historical display. Nothing outside of Catholicism has any display that old. Bing bang boom, only Catholic displays of a religious nature are allowed.
I think get what you’re saying. Freedom from religion should be codified in some manner, and atheism should be afforded the same protections and rights. Right?
Kind of, but not really. Look at France, they have freedom from religion. They’re not allowed to be religious fanatics in public. It’s why they banned the burkini.
Oh they very much are. As long as it’s christian.
You’re also missing the forest through the trees.
No I think they made a really good point that you are ignoring because it doesn’t suit your narrative.
When countries ban minority faiths they effectively reward the majority one.
You can have freedom from religion without abolishing religion.
That would be a good point of France wasn’t just an example. I’m not saying to emulate them exactly.
How about people are allowed to believe what they want? You know fucking freedom
I don’t disagree with that. Believe what you want. Freedom from religion wouldn’t stop you from believing what you want. It stops you from pushing it onto others.
This is the sort of thing someone says when they really don’t know what to say but want to sound like they have Very Profound Thoughts.
Okay, since you need it spelled out… France may not have appropriately applied its freedom from religion, but that isn’t the point. The point is a country like France doesn’t just have freedom from a religious state, but also extends that further, and that’s the part we (the US) are missing. You got hung up on the detail instead of paying attention to the meaning I was conveying, hence missing the forest through the trees. There is nothing profound about it at all, just saying you’re looking far too deeply instead of looking at the bigger picture of what was said.
Ima thinking what we have here is a failure to communicate, not so much a failure to understand.
Then it sounds like they don’t have freedom from religion or freedom of religion. So I still don’t get what you think the issue is.
I don’t have the patience to hold your hand and explain what an example is. Good luck with figuring things out in life.
As if a country not having FfR or FoR is a useful “example” here.
I mean, if they ban only Islamic religious symbols but not crosses, bhindis, or yarmulkes then they’re just punching down on a vulnerable and powerless minority. A society is only as good as it treats its most vulnerable, otherwise their culture is “might is right”, which isn’t a culture per se.
France managed this by forbiding all religious displays of any kind in any public place, unless it’s over 200+ years old then it’s protected for being a historical display. Nothing outside of Catholicism has any display that old. Bing bang boom, only Catholic displays of a religious nature are allowed.
I think you missed the forest through the trees on that one. I agree that you can’t half ass it though.
Come on over to my neck of the woods…Conservatives are cutting all the trees down in clear-cuts.