Comments section validating my hatred for France.
The fact that this comment section is full of “removed by mods” but still has so much racist nonsense… this topic really makes the scratched liberals come out of the woodwork.
The amount of Reddit Atheists showing up here who would wish China was actually putting Uyghur Muslims in extermination camps is off the charts.
In my view, one isn’t really an atheist if they are a liberal (or conservative, but I repeat myself) as it is effectively another religion, with Capital as it’s “god”, it is kind of like those liberals that call themselves “socialist” and support controlled opposition, compatible “leftist”, and friend of epstein, bernie sanders.
Edit: for some reason I can’t see the rest of the comments while logged in, so I’ll put it here: I think a more accurate and inclusive phrase would be “freedom of religion or atheism”, as it would be shitty if one had to declare some religion or another without just “none” as an option.
Edit: Edit: From the rest of this thread I think people may be confused, you cannot just “ban” the “opiate of the masses”, as long as people are in pain they will seek a painkiller, and denying it to them just turns those very people against you, if the world becomes your enemy you have little chance. To reach synthesis you must collapse the contradiction by combining elements of thesis and anti-thesis in such a manor that it favors the non toxic elements of both and becomes stable.
Removed by mod
Except that’s not how this work. What you described is specifically for representatives of the state (the french nation does not have a religion and it’s representatives should not show theirs either) the citizens are free to do whatever they want and be as visibly religious as they want. Now, theright (including wauquiez) have a problem with Muslims having the same rights as the others but that’s another story
If Iran said they were providing “freedom from Atheism” everyone would realize how incredibly stupid this sounds
Removed by mod
These laws exist for colonialist purposes so you couldn’t be more wrong.
Removed by mod
This, and it doesn’t have any symbols or practices associated with it in the first place, so what would one even ban? Atheism isn’t a religion, it’s the lack thereof.
Edit: Context, because a mod banned the person above for the laughable reason of “Reddit Atheism”. IIRC, The comment was something like:
Atheism is not the one oppressing and indoctrinating people
How anyone could take offense to this is beyond me. Do we genuinely support religions in this community? And on a Marxist instance no less? It seems like religion really is the opiate of the masses…
Marxism does not mean blanket hostility towards religion in all situations
That is true and isn’t what I would support, but the comment above wasn’t blanket hostility, not in this context anyway. Pointing out the often prevalent cases of religion being used as a tool of oppression and that it’s all based on indoctrination is absolutely valid when discussing the motivation for France’s measures. You can of course disagree with it and with the measures discussed here, independently of each other even, but if this is already “blanket hostility” to some people, they should stop viewing religions through rose-colored glasses. I mean, do you genuinely believe that religions are NOT used for this purpose at all? I have a hard time believing that any actual Marxist would see religions uncritically, even with the understanding of them being the way they are as the result of material conditions, and even less so as Marxists-Leninists if one has actually read Lenin’s “Socialism and Religion”.
And even if you were to consider it blanket hostility, why would this be worthy of a ban and comment removal instead of simply engaging with the comment in an intellectually honest way and possibly providing the commenter a different perspective?
It seems like religion really is the opiate of the masses…
Marx did not consider illterates who conviced themselves they could read…
Have you ever seen “atheist” and “sceptic” community and their talking heads?
Umm so what atheist garmets would they be banning in this case exactly?
Mandatory hair coverings for women “to protect them against the weather outside.”
Nowhere is any kind of hair covering mandatory because of atheism, nor to protect for the weather outside which wouldn’t be because of atheism in any case.
That would be pretty stupid, agreed.
Congratulations on creating a secular theocracy, Quebec and France. Really valuable contribution.
Don’t know about Quebec. But the “freedom from religion” French attitude is just being weaponised against Muslims at the moment. That Wauquiez is very close to far right.
In 2019 Quebec passed a law prohibiting public workers who are in positions of authority from wearing religious symbols. The law violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, particularly rights around freedom of religion and expression. But there’s a fancy little mechanism called the “notwithstanding clause” that allows you to pass unconstitutional laws under some circumstances, which Quebec invoked and allowed the law to pass and withstand court challenges.
Removed by mod
“I want secularism but I still want overbearing authority figures telling people what to wear” is the silliest version of secularism. I want secularism but not the good parts, basically.
Removed by mod
I agree that these measures are a bit over the top, but I don’t really get your points.
Which good parts of secularism do you think are missing here?
And “secular theocracy” is an oxymoron. Theocracies require the belief in at least one deity as a supreme ruling authority to guide the state, which is not the case at all here, completely the opposite even. So what makes you think that it’s a “secular theocracy”?
Which good parts of secularism do you think are missing here?
The part where you have enough social liberty that you don’t have government officials telling you how to dress.
And “secular theocracy” is an oxymoron. Theocracies require the belief in at least one deity as a supreme ruling authority to guide the state, which is not the case at all here, completely the opposite even. So what makes you think that it’s a “secular theocracy”?
Putting aside that ‘secular theocracy’ is wordplay making fun of their attempts to secularize in such a way that they take on features of a theocracy, such as dress codes. I don’t agree with your definition of theocracy. You could presumably have a Buddhist theocracy without any sort of belief in a supreme ruling deity.
Can and in fact have!
The theocracy’s religious teachings buttressed its class order. The poor and afflicted were taught that they had brought their troubles upon themselves because of their wicked ways in previous lives. Hence they had to accept the misery of their present existence as a karmic atonement and in anticipation that their lot would improve in their next lifetime. The rich and powerful treated their good fortune as a reward for, and tangible evidence of, virtue in past and present lives.
The Tibetan serfs were something more than superstitious victims, blind to their own oppression. As we have seen, some ran away; others openly resisted, sometimes suffering dire consequences. In feudal Tibet, torture and mutilation–including eye gouging, the pulling out of tongues, hamstringing, and amputation–were favored punishments inflicted upon thieves, and runaway or resistant serfs. Journeying through Tibet in the 1960s, Stuart and Roma Gelder interviewed a former serf, Tsereh Wang Tuei, who had stolen two sheep belonging to a monastery. For this he had both his eyes gouged out and his hand mutilated beyond use. He explains that he no longer is a Buddhist: “When a holy lama told them to blind me I thought there was no good in religion.”[21] Since it was against Buddhist teachings to take human life, some offenders were severely lashed and then “left to God” in the freezing night to die. “The parallels between Tibet and medieval Europe are striking,” concludes Tom Grunfeld in his book on Tibet.[22]
The whole Parenti essay is fascinating https://redsails.org/friendly-feudalism/
Buddhism is not a theology?
This is a concept https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontheistic_religion
The part where you have enough social liberty that you don’t have government officials telling you how to dress.
That would be good indeed, but isn’t really an aspect of secularism.
‘secular theocracy’ is wordplay making fun of their attempts to secularize in such a way that they take on features of a theocracy, such as dress codes.
Fair point.
You could presumably have a Buddhist theocracy without any sort of belief in a supreme ruling deity.
I think that wouldn’t make it a theocracy, as it’s more of a philosophy or way of life rather than a belief in a higher being that has a strict set of rules that a state could enforce. But I don’t really know that much about buddhism, so I might be wrong.
That would be good indeed, but isn’t really an aspect of secularism.
I would say it’s an aspect of secularism when done in a sane way.
I think that wouldn’t make it a theocracy, as it’s more of a philosophy or way of life rather than a belief in a higher being that has a strict set of rules that a state could enforce. But I don’t really know that much about buddhism, so I might be wrong.
Well, I would say that ultimately all theocracies are that. In my view there aren’t any deities, so all theocracies which claim to base their legitimacy on a supreme being are, well, wrong. They are really enforcers of cultural norms that just happen to have a belief in a particular deity as one of those norms.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
The framing of this suggests that this is only against women, men also have swimwear codes in France. It’s crazy
Looks like they have em in the USA too
This made me afraid for his shoes, but obv he took them off.
Come on now, they just wanna see Zohran without his clothes on! Now we can’t blame them for that…
Time to jail this repugnant dress code violator!
We don’t need to go that far. It’s not like he’s wearing a tan suit.
I bet this despicable elitist eats Dijon mustard on a regular basis!
Mandatory speedo?
Correct, shorts are also banned. The same city tried to change that to but got shot down there too.
Since state and religion are separated, public pools cannot make an exception based on religion. France had fairly strict hygienic rules for public swimming pools, which prohibit loose fitting garments.
I can’t tell if you’re joking or not
It’s true. Some people wore surf shorts all day and didn’t change. So… That’s the current situation.
I’m not, this has nothing to do with women’s rights
Of course not it’s just Apartheid against Muslims. France tried doing this even for beaches. https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/burkini-ban-france-overturned-1.3736823
Removed by mod
You can see how mandating that a woman doesn’t wear a particular garment is a pretty poor example of a “women’s rights win”, right?
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
