• nifty@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    5 months ago

    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?

    • FlexibleToast@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      5 months ago

      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.

      • nifty@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        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.

        • Snowclone@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          5 months ago

          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.

      • enbyecho@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        5 months ago

        They’re not allowed to be religious fanatics in public.

        Oh they very much are. As long as it’s christian.

          • enbyecho@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            5 months ago

            You’re also missing the forest through the trees.

            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.

            • FlexibleToast@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              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.

              • enbyecho@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                5 months ago

                You got hung up on the detail instead of paying attention to the meaning I was conveying

                Ima thinking what we have here is a failure to communicate, not so much a failure to understand.

              • A_Very_Big_Fan@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                5 months ago

                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.

          • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            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.