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.
Seriously. Do they ban Catholic priests, monks, and nuns from wearing their religious attire? Or, let me guess, is there some broad exemption for “tradition” or some such bullshit?
The ban is effective only for civil employees at work and such. So depending on where you live you can even see hijabs, priests in cassoks, and topless ladies suntanning at the same city park.
Also kids in school IIRC. Did you forget about that whole shitshow where a girl got in trouble for wearing some dress (from a fast fashion brand that was extremely popular with girls her age) because someone declared it was a burqa… then they were more or less forced to recognize that her skin color was the issue since hundreds of white french girls wore that dress to school with no issues.
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.
“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.
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.
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 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.
I would say it’s an aspect of secularism when done in a sane way.
What anyone considers sane is subjective, but if that’s what you consider a more sane approach to secularism, I can’t argue against that.
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.
Buddhism doesn’t really have specific cultural norms, though, does it? As far as I know, Buddhism is based on guiding principles (wisdom, ethics, mental discipline), not on specific rules as it’s the case with theistic religions. So there’s not really a way for states to enforce any laws from Buddhism itself, they can only abide by its principles to make their own laws, whereas theocracies enforce laws not thought of by themselves but based on things written hundreds or thousands of years ago, often with little to no consideration about ethics, logic or usefulness.
When you create your utopia that ruthlessly purges all religion, do not be surprised when the definition of “religion” expands to politically unpopular things that have no relation at all to faith. Right wingers already call being pro-LGBT “a cult” or “a religion.”
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 an ML instance no less? It seems like religion really is the opiate of the masses…
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?
You do realize that atheism is an ideology like any other, prone to the same manipulations?
And that the issue taken here is weaponisation of said atheism by bourgeoise, wielded by rabid libs against whomever empire deems an enemy, uncritically due to internalized chauvinism?
And that you can’t argue that republic “kill all algerians” of france is suddenly having safety and prosperity of muslim women in mind, let alone that they’e realizing whatever piss dreams of seculairity they have?
Atheists can of course also be manipulated, but not based on their atheism. There’s no organisation behind atheism, there are no specific set of beliefs that you could be indoctrinated with, etc.
I know what the issue is and as I said in another comment, I also disagree with it. But that doesn’t make the statement by the commenter above wrong.
Any ideology can be hijacked and changed to serve an agenda. Atheism is a prime recent example with the “New Atheist” cult which turned out to just be a bunch of unprincipled Islamophobes who are on the Epstein list and have recently turned “culturally Christian”.
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.
I’m just pointing out that Iran wouldn’t ban atheism, it would ban every other religion except its own. Banning atheism doesn’t make sense in a way, it would mean forcing everyone to have a religion. Like the state would demand you wear religious symbols and pray once a day? Doesn’t matter which tho, as long as you have at least one religion.
I think these kinds of laws (though not this one) is more about setting boundaries and keeping a proper separation than outright banning.
That being said, I see the headscarf and bikini as a cultural symbol more than a religious one. I agree this law is more about plain old xenophobia.
I think a better example would be the uproar there would be if the kippa was banned in public or at the pool.
Tbh though, I’m very anti religion and I’m for banning the lot of it in public (crosses, kippas, etc), just not the headscarf because there’s nothing actually religious about it imo. The burka is a bit intense and strikes me as clear oppression of women, but I don’t see anything wrong with the burkini really.
By banning all religions the defacto position would be Atheism which would make it a competing “religion”. That would make it no different than forcing your own ideology on others in the same way of religions doing forced conversions.
Iran has crosses and kippa’s by the way.
Even Stalin’s crackdown of religion is often defended from the angle of destroying the power of the Church. But religious institutions already don’t hold much significant power these days so you’d just be destroying people’s cultures.
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
Removed by mod
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.
Seriously. Do they ban Catholic priests, monks, and nuns from wearing their religious attire? Or, let me guess, is there some broad exemption for “tradition” or some such bullshit?
The ban is effective only for civil employees at work and such. So depending on where you live you can even see hijabs, priests in cassoks, and topless ladies suntanning at the same city park.
Also kids in school IIRC. Did you forget about that whole shitshow where a girl got in trouble for wearing some dress (from a fast fashion brand that was extremely popular with girls her age) because someone declared it was a burqa… then they were more or less forced to recognize that her skin color was the issue since hundreds of white french girls wore that dress to school with no issues.
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”?
The part where you have enough social liberty that you don’t have government officials telling you how to dress.
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 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
That would be good indeed, but isn’t really an aspect of secularism.
Fair point.
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.
I would say it’s an aspect of secularism when done in a sane way.
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.
What anyone considers sane is subjective, but if that’s what you consider a more sane approach to secularism, I can’t argue against that.
Buddhism doesn’t really have specific cultural norms, though, does it? As far as I know, Buddhism is based on guiding principles (wisdom, ethics, mental discipline), not on specific rules as it’s the case with theistic religions. So there’s not really a way for states to enforce any laws from Buddhism itself, they can only abide by its principles to make their own laws, whereas theocracies enforce laws not thought of by themselves but based on things written hundreds or thousands of years ago, often with little to no consideration about ethics, logic or usefulness.
When you create your utopia that ruthlessly purges all religion, do not be surprised when the definition of “religion” expands to politically unpopular things that have no relation at all to faith. Right wingers already call being pro-LGBT “a cult” or “a religion.”
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
Have you ever seen “atheist” and “sceptic” community and their talking heads?
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:
How anyone could take offense to this is beyond me. Do we genuinely support religions in this community? And on an ML 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?
You do realize that atheism is an ideology like any other, prone to the same manipulations?
And that the issue taken here is weaponisation of said atheism by bourgeoise, wielded by rabid libs against whomever empire deems an enemy, uncritically due to internalized chauvinism?
And that you can’t argue that republic “kill all algerians” of france is suddenly having safety and prosperity of muslim women in mind, let alone that they’e realizing whatever piss dreams of seculairity they have?
Atheists can of course also be manipulated, but not based on their atheism. There’s no organisation behind atheism, there are no specific set of beliefs that you could be indoctrinated with, etc.
I know what the issue is and as I said in another comment, I also disagree with it. But that doesn’t make the statement by the commenter above wrong.
Any ideology can be hijacked and changed to serve an agenda. Atheism is a prime recent example with the “New Atheist” cult which turned out to just be a bunch of unprincipled Islamophobes who are on the Epstein list and have recently turned “culturally Christian”.
Marx did not consider illterates who conviced themselves they could read…
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.
No there’s mandatory hair-uncoverings. In France. Because of “Atheism” as a shield for colonialism.
I’m just pointing out that Iran wouldn’t ban atheism, it would ban every other religion except its own. Banning atheism doesn’t make sense in a way, it would mean forcing everyone to have a religion. Like the state would demand you wear religious symbols and pray once a day? Doesn’t matter which tho, as long as you have at least one religion.
I think these kinds of laws (though not this one) is more about setting boundaries and keeping a proper separation than outright banning.
That being said, I see the headscarf and bikini as a cultural symbol more than a religious one. I agree this law is more about plain old xenophobia.
I think a better example would be the uproar there would be if the kippa was banned in public or at the pool.
Tbh though, I’m very anti religion and I’m for banning the lot of it in public (crosses, kippas, etc), just not the headscarf because there’s nothing actually religious about it imo. The burka is a bit intense and strikes me as clear oppression of women, but I don’t see anything wrong with the burkini really.
By banning all religions the defacto position would be Atheism which would make it a competing “religion”. That would make it no different than forcing your own ideology on others in the same way of religions doing forced conversions.
Iran has crosses and kippa’s by the way.
Even Stalin’s crackdown of religion is often defended from the angle of destroying the power of the Church. But religious institutions already don’t hold much significant power these days so you’d just be destroying people’s cultures.
That would be pretty stupid, agreed.
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
Removed by mod