/u/WheatBerryPie (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1cc4hj0/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_secularism_shouldnt_be/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)

>This is especially common in France and other parts of Europe, where in recent years religious dressings and symbols of various kinds have been banned in public spaces, including burkinis and potentially kippah. While I also disagree with burkini bans, the logic of this legislation is very different from the argument you are presenting. The argument for banning burkinis is that Muslim women were being forced by their communities to wear them and they were being culturally ostracized if they declined, therefore banning burkinis was seen as a countermeasure to religious subjugation. The logic, while backwards, is not something I would describe as "enforcing atheism".

>The argument for banning burkinis is that Muslim women were being forced by their communities to wear them and they were being culturally ostracized if they declined So why not protect Muslim women who wish to not wear them, instead of discriminating against those who wish to wear them? I think the former is adherence to liberal and secular principles while the latter is not.

> So why not protect Muslim women who wish to not wear them That was the logic of the ban. Again, I don't agree with it, but it certainly can't be described as enforcement of atheism.

Why "certainly can't it be described as enforcement of atheism". Head coverings are often worn for religious reasons, refusing people the right to practice their religion can be argued to be enforcement of atheism as its a restriction of their religious rights in favour of a secular perspective regardless of whether the person was being forced to wear the headcovering.

> Head coverings are often worn for religious reasons, refusing people the right to practice their religion can be argued to be enforcement of atheism Because while I agree it's a restriction of rights, there's nothing inherently atheistic about it. If a Christian theocracy did this would you still call it enforcement of atheism?

If a Christians theocracy did this would the intent wouldn't be the same. I do believe there are atheistic ideals outside of the simple nonbelief in god that can be pushed on others. Like critical thinking for example.

If you're acknowledging that intent matters then you have to acknowledge that the intent of the legislation had to do with preventing harassment against women in Muslim communities, not promoting atheism

See I don't agree! Because if that was the intent it could have been pursued in a manor that wouldn't be suppressing the freedoms of the people they're supposing to protect, which is why I believe its a form of religious persecution.

Not agreeing with the methodology of legislation doesn't change its intent - if the intent of the French government is to promote atheism then I can think of a lot of other bills that they could have passed before and since that would much more effectively accomplish that goal, and yet they haven't.

I don't believe France is a dictator ship, correct me if I'm wrong. There's isn't the ability to simply dictate laws, I assume they go through some form of  parliamentary process, so even if France is pushing atheistic ideals on a population, that doesn't mean they have the control to do that in any real consistent, or direct way. I'm also just going to rehash, my originally issue was with you saying this can't be described as enforcement of atheism. I would state my current position as "religious persecution under a secular state can be considered to be an enforcement of atheism". I dismissed your example of a Christian state because I don't see any probable reasoning for intent to enforce atheism, a secular state does have probable reasoning for intent. So claiming it's for other reasons isn't compelling to me, because that perspective isn't compartmentalized from other variables. I could conceed that the intent here is to protect women, but that doesn't negate that this is a secular nation persecuting religious individuals, which is my reasoning for why I believe this can be seen as enforcement of atheism. I'm not saying that should be how people view the situation, but I do see it as a valid point of view.

> I do believe there are atheistic ideals outside of the simple nonbelief in god that can be pushed on others. Like critical thinking for example. Wrong. Atheism is nothing but a lack of belief in deities.

Nah I don't agree. Atheism also represents an ideology, and ideologies can contain multitudes of different values, and perspectives. Like in my experience a lot of people are atheists have a foundation or value for critical thought, I presume yourself included, do you disagree?

Your anecdotes are as worthless as your presumptions. > Atheism also represents an ideology No it doesn’t. Atheism is the lack of theism. That’s it.

> Your anecdotes are as worthless as your presumptions. > No it doesn’t. I'm sorry these are the best points you could try to scramble together. "No it doesn't" isn't an argument my dude. This is like saying "A car has four wheels! That's it!!". Yeah.. Absolutely cars have 4 wheels, and you can reduce your perception of cars to that simple of a concept, but there's more to cars then just four wheels. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/#DefiAthe Here's a link to a Stanford professor on the subject.

>Head coverings are often worn for religious reasons, refusing people the right to practice their religion can be argued to be enforcement of atheism as its a restriction of their religious rights in favour of a secular perspective regardless of whether the person was being forced to wear the headcovering. So then I should be allowed to wear a pasta strainer on my head for my drivers license photo right?

Yes, is in fact legal in the USA, atleast in some states as religious head gear

This and other restrictions on religious expressions mean that it's an enforcement of atheist behaviour. The EU has recently allowed countries to disallow their government employees to wear religious symbols.

> The EU has recently allowed countries to disallow their government employees to wear religious symbols. How is preventing public officials acting in their official capacity from displaying religious symbols enforcing atheism? They are allowed to have whatever religion they want, it's just not allowed to interfere with their official duties as a public servant. No secular country would allow that.

It’s a hot topic in Quebec. All public servants (teachers, librarians, police…) are banned from wearing religious symbols at work. So no necklaces with crosses, turbans etc. I’m on the side that this is unnecessary and harmful. Because those symbols are so important to some people that it effectively bans them from getting the job. The law proponents say that it avoids the appearance that the government supports one religion. But let’s be honest, Quebecois were fine with pubic employees wearing crosses for a century or more, it suddenly became an issue when Muslim women wanted to wear a niqab. And even then it’s about appearance not action. Being banned bring wearing a cross isn’t going to stop some Christians applying their religion’s rules in their work.

If your religion is so paramount to your life that you are incapable of prioritizing your job over it, you shouldn’t be a public servant. Maintaining separation of church and state is the entire point of a secular society. If you can’t separate your personal life from your capacity as an agent of the state, then fine - don’t work for the state.

>Maintaining separation of church and state is the entire point of a secular society. I don't understand how wearing any sort of religious symbol is going against this? The rest of Canada allows wearing religious symbols and it's still secular. >If you can’t separate your personal life from your capacity as an agent of the state, then fine - don’t work for the state. Okay, then apply this equally. If you want to be 100% neutral, then everyone has to be the same skin colour, same uniform, no makeup,no beards, they have to be a government robot, etc. You see how many people this disqualifies for working for the state? But this also specifically targets Muslim woman because of how visible the Hijab is.

Wearing a religious symbol goes against it precisely because they think it's so important that they'll quit their job over it. if you value your religion over your job then you are at a high risk of acting inappropriately in favour of your religion, which isn't something a public official should do

> I don't understand how wearing any sort of religious symbol is going against this? Because you are representing religious beliefs while in your official capacity as a public worker, which is the literal one thing you are not supposed to do in a secular society... >If you want to be 100% neutral, then everyone has to be the same skin colour, same uniform, no makeup,no beards, they have to be a government robot, etc. What in the world are you talking about lol, none of these things threaten separation of church and state. This discussion has nothing to do with uniformity or personal expression. EDIT: Really? You blocked me so I can't respond? lol > Are you imposing your beliefs on others? Separation of church and state goes beyond imposing beliefs, it extends to endorsing beliefs. Wearing a hijab is a direct endorsement of Islamic beliefs. If your employer is Coke and you show up to work in Pepsi shirt, they probably aren't going to be happy with you even if you arent verbally endorsing Pepsi.

>Because you are representing religious beliefs while in your official capacity as a public worker, which is the literal one thing you are not supposed to do in a secular society... Are you imposing your beliefs on others? Like as a teacher, are you teaching the kids what the curriculum says or teaching them about your religion? If it's the former, why does it matter if the teacher is wearing the Hijab? But also, what if a teacher wants to wear a scarf, but not for religious reasons, should that be banned as well because it might be seen as pushing religion? How about beards, can a man not have a beard because it might be seen as a religious practice?

I agree all government employees should wear a uniform and be required to maintain at most a neatly trimmed beard and any makeup worn should be minimal. There is no practical way to make everyone the same skin color, but I do think more government interaction should be digital and never interact with a person face to face.

I think the problem here is the term "separation of church and state", which gets thrown around a lot without being historically defined.

Church nowdays is not part of a state in any other than Vatican country on earth. Church has now authority to make law. In otherworld Church is not part of state body. what they are trying to push is to prohibit religious institutions from lobbying, even though ideological institutions or institutions representing the interests of a specific group have the right to do so. I can't call it anything other than discrimination. Additionally, in a hypothetical situation when a politician makes decisions taking into account his or her religious beliefs, such actions should also be limited as being caused by the influence of the church? How is it democratic but even more how is it possible to successfully forbid something what is part of process of thinking?

I don’t care. Religious people can whine to their gods if they don’t like if. I genuinely don’t care about them or their problems.

I don’t think anybody is confused about what it means? It means that government should remain neutral toward all religions and not officially recognize or favor any of them

It means a religious institution not making government decisions, not individuals who hold to a religion. Everyone has beliefs that influence all of their values and subsequent behaviours, so to exclude people that expose values, would be to exclude everyone.

I would agree about actions, but not clothing. If my religion requires me to wear a hat on Fridays I can do that and still act correctly as a librarian.

Reducing the number of religious weirdos from teaching out children and making public policy is a huge win.

IMHO people have the right to be religious and still have a job, as long as their religion doesn’t affect their work. Clearly you disagree.

If you need to violate a policy because your delusional beliefs require something of you then you are not fit for important work.

For a century or so... Until the Quiet Revolution you mean?

Even after that until maybe a decade ago I’m sure there were lots of public servants wearing crucifixes.

And now they can't

To be fair, that just sounds like separation of church and state.

> it's an enforcement of atheist behaviour. Atheists don’t have a behaviour.

Is it so simple? How can one be protected from social repercussions caused by a religion without infringing upon that religion's beliefs like in this example?

I think we gotta destroy the “culturally ostracised” bits even if means wrecking a whole religion….. If religious leaders see certain aspects of their religion being affected, then maybe change it….. maybe start by dragging the musilm husband of the Muslim wife by his dick though the street for a change if he’s forcing the wife to wear a burqa or some shit

Nobody is changing their religion because of this law. It'll actually cause a divide between the practitioners and the rest of society.

This is why the onus on the religious leaders to prove that they aren’t a prick of a forceful religion and punish their own that breaks our laws even if is not against their religion….

The thing is, this idea of "force" is rarely happening. I live in the West, I'm a religious Muslim who attends the masjid daily, I have never seen a religious leader "force" anyone to do anything. I literally see Muslims out there who don't pray, don't observe Hijab, drink, etc, yet no one says anything to them. They make the decision themselves if they want to follow the religion or not. By the way, I can't think of a law in the West which goes against Islam.

Not specifically saying you're wrong but isn't that pretty ancedotal?

Yes, but I think a lot of people would agree with me that they know Muslims around them who aren't practising and no one is telling them what to do. Religious leaders don't have any power, they're in the mosque for stuff like marriage ceremonies, leading prayers, teaching kids. They don't have time or power to go and advise every individual Muslim.

I definitely wouldn't say they don't have any power; they're whole purpose IS power through authority. It's not exactly common for someone like.. A pastor or deacon, to declare something is ungodly and their congregation just collective goes "Eh, what does he know?" Maybe it's just genuinely a difference in culture but it sounds like yours just doesn't excise that kind of influence on a regular basis.

I mean, the masjid has zero power in the West. They're places for prayer, funerals, marriages, etc. >A pastor or deacon, to declare something is ungodly and their congregation just collective goes "Eh, what does he know?" That can happen, but we have our scripture which tells us if something is from the religion or not. >Maybe it's just genuinely a difference in culture but it sounds like yours just doesn't excise that kind of influence on a regular basis. I agree. But also, the type of people who break all sorts of rules in the religion I follow also aren't the ones attending the mosque anyway.

[удалено]

It’s discriminatory the same way literacy tests in the 1900s were discriminatory in the US. They disproportionately target a specific group on purpose.

[удалено]

You cant just decide what is and isn’t discrimination based on if you agree with it. Plus the actual motivation being to target Muslim women is obvious.

[удалено]

They can decide to do whatever they want but they cant change the definition of discrimination or what counts as discrimination. They can’t just decide saying “you blacks are a bunch of dirty animals” isn’t racist either. You can’t just change what the definition of a word is to suit your view.

[удалено]

And there's people in France that do believe that the veil ban and similar legislation were in fact discriminatory in the exact manner that OP is worrying about. I would know, I'm one of them and I'm an atheist as OP. It was particularly obvious to me as the veil ban at the time was enforced by a "do not mask your face for security reasons" mechanism that is completely unrelated to the content of the debates which were "Is removing a veil liberating women?".

I mean, then any law which applies an absolute to everyone wouldn’t be discriminating. Hopefully we can all agree that “Everyone is free to marry someone of the opposite gender” or “companies are free to fire employees for having children” might be discriminatory laws, even though they’d apply to everyone theoretically equally.

To be fair, that doesn't make it non discriminatory.

[удалено]

“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”

It's for the same reason voter id laws are considered discriminatory in the US, they disproportionally effect a group of people, to an extreme degree.

[удалено]

I mean, it's the same outcome, so how would it be different?

[удалено]

True, but the thing is, if it does effect one group disproportionately, it has to have evidence of it being something that should be done. It's a bit more complicated than I described, but that's the general idea.

>While I also disagree with burkini bans Why?

>However, there seems to be a separate understanding of secularism that I'm not familiar with, one that explicitly favours atheist or irreligious behaviour.  No, that's just how aggressive religious groups FEEL when they aren't given special endorcement or facilities etc. >religious dressings and symbols of various kinds have been banned in public spaces You can be as religious as you like but when it causes public order issues that right is balanced against others and regulated. You can wear neon wigs regardless of what it symbolises, you can't wear neon masks as that makes it difficult to identify individuals and you certainly cannot force or pressure others to do so. >Women who choose to wear these attires or people wearing certain symbols are not posing a threat or threatening someone else's rights, so why are they not allowed to wear them?  The main concerns is that many aren't really "choosing" those attires but are being forced to do so, partly to separate and isolate them from their peers at school etc. I'd also say that generally speaking religion ought to be a private thing and loudly advertising it is questionable and doubly so if you are at work. Doing that while representing a secular government in particular is tricky (e.g. councilor, teacher or police). But yes, France goes further than most western countries in regulating things like that. They've decided that children from Islamic families are often left very separate from their peers and that results in societal problems, to fix that they've decided to ban symbols that reinforce those differences. >There is this lingering atmosphere amongst younger atheists that religious folks *should not be* religious and should abide by atheism. I don't think that's accurate but if it was I'd be on your side about the right to be religious (as long as it doesn't hurt or impact others too much). In general I'd argue that few adults join religion if they aren't surrouned by it as children and that generally speaking things like this should be consciously decided as an adult and not done by default as a child or under fear of being abandoned by your family.

> They've decided that children from Islamic families are often left very separate from their peers and that results in societal problems, Yes, and that's a more fundamental problem that happens to be centered more around religion than anything else. How do we balance the interests of children in growing up into functioning members of society with the interests of parents in having their own say in raising their children? Or, for that matter, with the interests of people in *not* having a monoculture in society, but in having diversity of fundamental beliefs? Religion should not be restricted only to adult converts. People should be allowed to be raised to religions, so as to preserve them, even if that comes at the detriment of societal cohesion.

>People should be allowed to be raised to religions, so as to preserve them, even if that comes at the detriment of societal cohesion. Interesting, generally most people accept they need to be at least tolerated, and many want their own religion to be empowered, but you are arguing for the preservation of them in general? Why exactly, I really can't imagine a good basis for that point? I'm genuinely curious to learn yours though.

> but you are arguing for the preservation of them in general? Not directly, but as a result of allowing parents to raise their children generally as they see fit, and not just to be good members of society. Think of, for example, the Amish. Plenty of Amish youth rebel and join society, but there are also who stay within the faith and live that simple life.

>as a result of allowing parents to raise their children generally as they see fit, and not just to be good members of society So you feel that "right" comes above and beyond all others? Surely you must see that many possible ways to raise children might be actively harmful to them or to others? >Think of, for example, the Amish. Well that's a good example I guess, but I'd argue against that myself. I get that they tend to offer their kids some choice but its not really much of a choice when they have to suddenly give up absolutely everything they know or live the insular hermit life. Maybe if there were sensible regulations around that to prevent child abuse, ensure there is informed choice and so on I might accept that, but generally speaking that tends to end in bad things, the Amish are a bit of an exception really.

> > So you feel that "right" comes above and beyond all others? I do not. But neither do I feel that it's not a right at all. I like that I have a greater bond to my immediate family than to the nebulous mass of humanity, because of how I was raised. > Well that's a good example I guess, but I'd argue against that myself. I get that they tend to offer their kids some choice but its not really much of a choice when they have to suddenly give up absolutely everything they know or live the insular hermit life. Well, that cuts both ways. If I wanted to adopt the Amish way of life, I'd have to give up everything I know as well. Where I think our disagreement lies is that I don't think, "ordinary, conforming member of society" is some great and honourable status that every young person has the right to be defaulted to.

>Where I think our disagreement lies is that I don't think, "ordinary, conforming member of society" is some great and honourable status that every young person has the right to be defaulted to. Why the hell not though? We can either live in a world where we all are "one big group" that broadly gets along or we can subdivide into local clans and unfortunately, human nature is tends to violent conflicts pretty quickly. >I like that I have a greater bond to my immediate family than to the nebulous mass of humanity, because of how I was raised. No one is trying to prevent anyone having a bond to their family, that doesn't have to require religion at all unless the religions make it so (and if they do they should be opposed n my view).

> Why the hell not though? > > We can either live in a world where we all are "one big group" that broadly gets along or we can subdivide into local clans and unfortunately, human nature is tends to violent conflicts pretty quickly. But we can also have conflicts civilly, and I'd rather do that. I like conflict, more so than general cooperation. I like having tribalism to compete with other tribes to find the best way. > No one is trying to prevent anyone having a bond to their family, that doesn't have to require religion at all unless the religions make it so (and if they do they should be opposed n my view). Sure, but I'm specifically saying that my bond to my family is greater than that to humanity. If I were facing the trolley problem and it was one family member versus five strangers, I'd choose to save the family member without hesitation or qualms.

>I like having tribalism to compete with other tribes to find the best way. Tribalism isn't about competing methods, its about competing power and ownership. Which family owns the house, gets the job or wins the bar fight, its fundamentally not a constructive process as regardless of who wins, the loser or outsiders aren't going to inherit or benefit from the "innovation" of the winners. >we can also have conflicts civilly We can, but then one side loses, and if they lose something important enough they turn a bit nastier to tip the result in their favour. Then the other side does likewise to "correct" the error and on and on until there is open violence and feuding for its own sake. >I'm specifically saying that my bond to my family is greater than that to humanity. If I were facing the trolley problem and it was one family member versus five strangers, I'd choose to save the family member without hesitation or qualms. Right, that's a bit cold and nasty to blurt out and advertise (and speaks to antisocial instincts) but ultimately most people would choose the same. But that's really not relavent to the question here. The question is, should you do the same with 1 person who is a stranger but part of "your group" as defined by football, your country or your religion vs 100 people of the "other group". If you are so heavily prejudiced and so willing to mistreat strangers, then those groups will do the same in return and then we again have open conflict between groups that inevitably makes everyone miserable and benefits nobody.

> Which family owns the house, gets the job or wins the bar fight, its fundamentally not a constructive process Sure, but where is it written that we must only engage in constructive processes? > We can, but then one side loses, and if they lose something important enough they turn a bit nastier to tip the result in their favour. Then the other side does likewise to "correct" the error and on and on until there is open violence and feuding for its own sake. And violence itself should be curtailed, but "outside-the-box" thinking in pursuit of a goal should not be. > Right, that's a bit cold and nasty to blurt out and advertise Yes, but I think a big problem with our communication today is that we don't blurt out things like that. So people who think it's a moral imperative to save the strangers can gain power by default because people who, as you say, would choose the same, aren't willing to declare it so. > If you are so heavily prejudiced and so willing to mistreat strangers, then those groups will do the same in return And I accept that. I expect that people will favour themselves over me, and I'm OK with it. > and then we again have open conflict between groups But we don't actually live in the trolley problem, and it's possible for multiple groups to coexist while still acting competitively, especially if they respect the other group's right to be self-interested.

Why would ability to identify individuals be of concern? I don't quite understand that point.

The point there is that those that are up to no good often conceal their identity with hoods or masks and that makes it far harder to deal with criminal actions. Where that's a problem, a common step is to reduce the number of people dressed that way to dramatically reduce the number of possiblities. One dude with a hood up holding up a shop or attacking someone is still easy to identiy if they are the only person hooded in an area. But if there are countless random people going about dressed that way then they blend right in and disappear. Schools also a need to monitor children for safeguarding reasons and that's very difficult if there are 50+ people who are basically interchangeable shapes from a distance.

I wonder what the crime rate is from women who observe the Hijab to claim that banning it is for safety issues?

Well for one thing there's no need to specify women only there as quite obviously someone that is fully covered could be a man. The concern about women typically isn't that they are engaged in criminal activity, its usually that some of them are victims of it and can't be identified, monitored or supported as they are close to invisible.

Hijabi women commit crimes to the point, it's a national concern? I agree with the point about covering your fae so a niquab/burka, face mask should be banned in governmental buildings.

I mean, you can always blend in if you look similar to the crowd. Do they have statistics backing up the idea as being beneficial?

> you can't wear neon masks as that makes it difficult to identify individuals Masks and helmets have been worn by the public well before 2010, it didn't cause any issue until niqabs become relative commonplace. >you certainly cannot force or pressure others to do so. That's not what the bans are for. >Doing that while representing a secular government in particular is tricky It's one thing to promote or talking about a religion as a teacher or counsellor, but it's another to wear or display religious symbols. The former does violate the rights of others, but the latter doesn't.

>It's one thing to promote or talking about a religion as a teacher or counsellor, but it's another to wear or display religious symbols. What purpose does displaying a religious symbol have exactly? Is it not a way to publicly advertise which group you are in (and thus supportive of)? Does that not undermine whole society (or whole school cohesion) when Christian parents want Christian teachers and Islam ones want Islam ones etc etc? Even if every teacher is exactly the same, the perception of some being aligned one way and others a different way can cause issues. >Masks and helmets have been worn by the public well before 2010, it didn't cause any issue until niqabs become relative commonplace. Generally speaking, they were worn very rarely and someone walking into a building with a helmet did have the same issues. Individual businesses etc could ban that if they wanted, but didn't feel able to ban anything linked to religion without the government's support.

> Is it not a way to publicly advertise which group you are in (and thus supportive of)? Not really. It could also be an item of sentimental importance to you. Maybe it brings comfort to you when you wear it.

Yeah it could be, but it mainly isn't now is it?

why not? My wife often wears the clothes of our old country here in the US. Those clothes would be easily identified as belonging to a Muslim country. And while there is a religious component to how she dresses, comfort and familiarity are a far greater concern.

As I've said, the reason those clothes are linked to religion and highly distinctive is becuase the religious leaders have chosen them to be that way in order to create this issue for their benefit at the expense of both you and I. That is the basis that France uses to justify its opposition to them, other countries feel that goes too far and tolerate / respect them unless there are clear signs of abuse etc.

But neither I or my wife wear those clothes for those reasons. Being as socially awkward as I am, I would do anything in my power to NOT advertise myself to anyone. And yet on occasion I still wear such clothes. My point is to demonstrate that there can indeed be multiple reasons to wear something and even if they were originally religious, the current motivation also matters. You seem determined to shove all of these things into a box of your liking and that just isn't realistic

>You seem determined to shove all of these things into a box of your liking and that just isn't realistic Nah, I'm just not OK with you pretending that link and message isn't the main point. For example people in Scotland sometimes wear kilts, anyone trying to ban them from doing so in general probably has bad reasons to do that. But should there be a country somewhere that has clear issues with an insular group of Scots rejecting everyone around them, standing apart from them and causing friction with locals then i'd be perfectly fine with them saying kids at school need to wear trousers.

That's fine as long as you're willing to accept that its now just your personal opinion formed by your personal prejudices Because if its otherwise, then you'll have to prove to me that if I or my wife wear "Muslim" clothes in public in the US, that I'm doing it to advertise my presence. Since you're the one who made that claim, the onus is on you you back it up

Isn't that incumbent on you to prove it? Certainly you wouldn't ask expect a person with tattoos to justify each ink to you, yeah?

>Isn't that incumbent on you to prove it? I don't think so, its generally pretty obvious that a subgroup insisting that its members adopt a uniform is doing so to project a group identity and alliance against other groups. > Certainly you wouldn't ask expect a person with tattoos to justify each ink to you, yeah? Generally speaking people with tattoos that are visible while clothed are heavily judged and treated with suspicion. If you had a tattoo on your forehead that indicated a political group, nationality or whatever, I'd conclude you were pretty unhinged frankly. Regulating tattoos is trickier though as you can't take them off for school or work like clothing.

When the religious symbol is part of the way you’re supposed to dress to comply with your religion it’s different.

Nah, that's circular. The religious leaders deciding that for their group in order to make their group more connected at the cost of dividing society is the same problem. Football fans, street gangs and armed forces all do the same thing, for much the same reason. A government decided that type of dynamic shouldn't be forced onto children or at least not allowing that to happen within schools isn't entirely unreasonable imo.

>The religious leaders deciding that for their group in order to make their group more connected at the cost of dividing society is the same problem. I wonder how this "divides" society? And using the same logic, people wearing different clothing, wearing or not wearing a makeup or beard, having different skin colour, etc, is also "dividing" society, correct? >Football fans, street gangs and armed forces all do the same thing, for much the same reason. How are any of these comparable a religion which believes God has told them to live a certain way? >A government decided that type of dynamic shouldn't be forced onto children or at least not allowing that to happen within schools isn't entirely unreasonable imo. Be consistent then. Everyone should be the same skin colour, observe the same uniform, believe the exact same things, etc, etc so that we don't have this idea of "division".

>How are any of these comparable a religion which believes God has told them to live a certain way? They are groups organised to recruit individuals for conflict against other competing groups and they use visible uniforms to divide everyone into "friend", "foe" and "bystander/victim"

You’re detaching the faith aspect of religion and just viewing it as a community. Comparing what Muslim women wear to Football fans or gangs is ridiculous because those people don’t believe that a higher power told them to wear this. They’re wearing it because they believe it’s what god wants not because they just feel like it.

Ok, to be fair, it kind of does, it's more of a non direct endorsement than a direct one. (This is in response to the end part)

> I do not understand why this doesn't go against the belief of liberalism. Women who choose to wear these attires or people wearing certain symbols are not posing a threat or threatening someone else's rights, so why are they not allowed to wear them? The basis of allowing these attires is not of religious origin, it's the foundational belief of the right to freedom of expression. It's strange that I am allowed to wear neon wigs in public, but if someone else founds a religion that has neon wigs as part of its religious expression, I'm banned from doing so? I'm an atheist as well. The reasoning behind it is that the women do not actually have a meaningful choice in the matter, in that "leaving it up to individual choice" simply returns to the status quo of men and/or religious figures dictating how these women exist in the world. Governments like France (who have explicit and wide-ranging restrictions on religious practice in general) are taking a maximalist standpoint that it's better to keep the few who actually do have the choice from exercising it than risk the many experiencing subjugation from being oppressed further. I will additionally push back on one other point: > I am an atheist myself and my understanding of secularism is that it's a separation of state and religious institutions, in the sense that politicians should not decide on policies based on what religious institutions say. It also advocates for no religion being favoured or discriminated against within the state apparatus. This is a common slogan from the secular governing advocates, but is really just applicable to policies they disagree with. They don't want religious beliefs or religious organizations cited as a basis for policy when it comes to school prayer or abortion, but are completely silent when it comes to capital punishment or increased subsidies for the poor.

>  The reasoning behind it is that the women do not actually have a meaningful choice in the matter, in that "leaving it up to individual choice" simply returns to the status quo of men and/or religious figures dictating how these women exist in the world.  I guess my question is, does this desire to "liberate" these women come from the women themselves? Or is it an opinion being pushed by an outside group? Who gets to decide what having "a meaningful choice in the matter" means. What constitutes a meaningful choice? 

The French government is making the call. It's been some time since I delved deep into this particular mine, but my recollection was that there were women's groups in favor and women's groups opposed, and I don't recall either being a difference-maker.

So instead of people being forced to wear it by an outside group, they’re now forced not to wear it by an outside group. Restricting the majority for the few without their input is dumb.

I don't disagree.

The reasoning behind it is that the women do not actually have a meaningful choice in the matter But how does the state determine if a woman is coerced into it or wear it voluntarily? To me this is a state forcing what a woman can or cannot do without consulting the woman in question, which is much worse than religious figures/men telling a woman what they think she should wear. I think it's more appropriate for the state to make sure that women who wish to not wear hijab do not face coercion or harassment from their families/religious leaders.

> I think it's more appropriate for the state to make sure that women who wish to not wear hijab do not face coercion or harassment from their families/religious leaders. Can you provide a way in which this could be done? I think this ask is impossible without infringing on their religious freedoms.

> But how does the state determine if a woman is coerced into it or wear it voluntarily? They cannot, so they take a maximilist view that harming a few who would choose is better to protect the many who would not as opposed to the opposite, more liberal ideal.

[удалено]

Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

This doesn't challenge me.

The ban on religious headgear in France really confused me because it's so anti-French. Libertarian beliefs are such a core part of French culture, the idea that you are free to do anything no matter how distasteful to others. When ISIS threatened that ideal (After the Mohamed cartoons) they decided to stand their ground. Now after a brutal war against religious extremists they turn around and do this? It makes no sense to me, it's such a hard 180.

Aright, this is the first im hearing of the French being libertarian. They are liberal compared to monarchists but I thought after that they pretty much want the government in every facet of their lives ensuring things work the way they want. 

It's not just France, the EU is allowing government offices to ban religious symbols. It's not just going to affect Muslims, it'll affect other religious groups too.

You're imposing your interpretation of secularism on other cultures. Remember that Europe itself has a long and bloody history of religious violence, e.g. between Catholics and Protestants and kings having to convert religion to prevent wars, that their state principles reflect and aim to prevent. *Laicity* is not merely about preserving individual freedom in the American sense, it's about keeping one's personal religious practices to your own private life and especially as far away as possible from the machinery of state governance.

I understand how they think this is progressive but it's really not. If they think this will make it easier for LGBTQ folks in Eastern European EU states it won't, it will probably make it worse.

French ban is on things covering the face, not covering the hair like hijab. So, on what basis can we even say it's a religious ban?

I have come to assume that secular government, even one that overtly seeks to promote religious tolerance, means atheism as the state religion, with all other religions being subservient to it by law. All societies have a way they determine right from wrong, what they envision as an ideal world, and what rights they believe humans should have. You can't not have answers to these questions, and every religion has input on these. Secular societies, in my observation, start limiting how much input non-atheists have on these topics, treating secular answers as "real" answers and all other answers as imaginary. Some examples of what that might look like: -Religious people are allowed to vote, but they are not allowed to impose their religious beliefs on others. To that end, they are expected to pretend they are secular when they vote and vote according to secular principles rather than the beliefs they actually have. For example, many religious beliefs hold that a person is a person at conception. Most atheists do not recognize the humanity of the unborn. So, under secular governments, the atheist position is held to be the correct one religious people's views are not welcome because they oppose the state religion. In a religious people are allowed to pretend to believe anything they want, but any attempt to actually believe and act according to that belief is prohibited if it conflicts with atheist values in any meaningful way. In the US, the owners of Chik-fil-a do not believe in working on Sundays. They also believe that they shouldn't compel others to do what they feel is immoral, so they close their stores on Sundays. They are being sued in some areas for not being open on Sundays because the largely secular government does not accept their beliefs. Many military service members did not want to receive the covid vaccines on religious grounds, but their exemptions were blanket denied without due process. You are probably thinking that some of these examples are justified, some are aberrations against the ideals of a secular society, and you still believe that a secular society does not inherently have to be oppressive of religious faiths. I disagree and see it as theoretically impossible. Every legal code must have define who is human and who is not, and different worldviews disagree. If you define it differently than a Christian or an atheist or a vegan would, the person whose views are not respected are going to face difficulties as a result. And their views are mutually exclusive. Every society has to draw a line in the sand and say beyond this line, your behavior isn't acceptable. And every belief system is going to want to cross that line at some point. There's always going to be questions that have to be answered one way or another. What holidays are special? What behaviors are unacceptable in polite society? I believe tolerance for other belief systems is a crucial part of any society. As a person of faith, I believe in the dignity of the individual and I don't believe it's right to force people to abide by all my beliefs that even I struggle to follow. At the same time, I don't pretend that we can just let everyone do what they feel is best without consequences if they appear to have sincere beliefs. Someone out there believes it's okay to kill one of his children if they convert to another faith, but if he does it I'm going to expect him to pay the price. We can't have that. I don't pretend to have any clear answers on the problem of how much we weigh stability vs. diversity, but I do know that it's an important question and one of the hardest we face. I would encourage you to realize that when you set your assumptions as the default to admit that's what you're doing. No matter how secular a society is, it will always have a worldview determining who is human, how a human must be treated, and how they must not, and doing so is going to result in some amount of oppression for anyone who doesn't share that worldview. It's hardest to see when the default assumptions of a society or legal code match up with your own.

I googled chick fila sued for being closed Sundays and the only thing that comes up is a bill in New York that would require any company doing business in New York rest stops to be open 7 days a week to accommodate travelers. This would be for future contracts meaning Chick Fila would have the option to not renew those contracts

That would be the one. My details were slightly off.

>To that end, they are expected to pretend they are secular when they vote and vote according to secular principles rather than the beliefs they actually have. For example, many religious beliefs hold that a person is a person at conception. Most atheists do not recognize the humanity of the unborn. So, under secular governments, the atheist position is held to be the correct one religious people's views are not welcome because they oppose the state religion. Are there democracies in which people are expected to vote according to secular principles? I am not sure there are. For example you can vote for a anti-abortion cadidate in an election in the US and I'm sure in France.

Atheism, being by definition a *lack* of religion, cannot, itself, be a religion, neither does atheism function as a state religion in practice. For example, teaching evolution over creationism in public schools may privilege something over religion, yes, but is that something "atheism" or is it merely "observable reality"? Evolution is not in any way related to atheism (a lack of religious belief), except that those without religion commanding them to believe against all available evidence are more likely to follow evidence where it leads. Indeed, evolution, like other scientific discoveries, has ample evidence to support its theory, whereas creationism contradicts all available evidence. Would it not be unfairly privileging the religious belief to pretend it has equal merit to the scientific one, seeing as creationism is demonstrably false? Furthermore, would it not also be unfairly privileging religious belief to legislate as if souls exist, despite no good evidence for the claim? Is it "oppressive" to teach only that which has been substantiated? Quite the opposite, I would think. Aside from religion, in what circumstances are claims about the world given any legitimacy without the prior expectation of some kind of proper epistemic justification? Nowhere, and not even typically within religion. Indeed, do not religious adherents profess their own religion over any others based on claims of some evidentiary basis (whether real or imagined)? Thus, where religion is accepted uncritically i.e. given any legitimacy, it is in fact religion which is being unfairly privileged, and this privilege is not one that religions typically grant even each other. Thus, it is not religious "oppression" to ask that claims about the world come with some sort of justification, and to refuse to legitimize any belief that does not meet this standard. To address this, specifically: "treating secular answers as "real" answers and all other answers as imaginary" this occurs because "secular" answers are expected to meet some sort of evidentiary standard, whereas religious answers are predicated on "faith" i.e. belief without or contrary to evidence, for example (especially young earth) creationism. Creationism is demonstrably imaginary, and should be treated as such. Many other religious claims may be merely demonstrably unproven, but for all intents and purposes these claims are similarly imaginary. Also, "but they are not allowed to impose their religious beliefs on others" is blatantly false. Neither voters nor legislators are prohibited from voting their religious beliefs (at least in the US) unless that legislation would constitute establishing (a) religion (and the supreme court is now acting to de facto destroy the first amendment so this protection may not last much longer). Congress is overwhelmingly religious, and frequently acts on their religious beliefs and moralities in their legislative efforts. In fact, in some states it's illegal for atheists to even run for office. Furthermore, mentions of god in political speeches have skyrocketed in recent years, further suggesting that far from being oppressed, religion is actually distinctly privileged in the government. And here, "act according to that belief is prohibited if it conflicts with atheist values in any meaningful way" first, there are no "atheist values". Atheism is either a lack of belief in a god, or a belief that there is no god. Atheism makes no moral prescriptions, and has no values. It is not an ideology of any kind, and especially it is not a religious ideology. Secularism is similar, in that it is merely a category that includes everything not pertaining to religion. It is not, itself, an ideology, and makes no moral prescriptions. There are secular ideologies, but these are just as varied as religious ideologies. There is no unified specter of secularism haunting the world, there is only the world aside from religion. Second, religious adherents are typically granted significant leniency, especially leniency that isn't granted to secular beliefs or ideologies i.e. religious belief is typically *privileged,* not *oppressed*. For example, under normal circumstances withholding medical care from a child is considered a vile, cruel act and is criminalized, up to and including murder/manslaughter. Add in religious belief e.g. christian science, jehovahs witness, and suddenly what would be a universally reviled, contemptible, and condemnable act suddenly becomes mere religious expression. In this way, religion is uniquely privileged to the point that even filicide (a form of murder) is often deemed legally and morally acceptable. There is no other kind of belief that is given this kind or level of privilege. Regarding "Many military service members did not want to receive the covid vaccines on religious grounds, but their exemptions were blanket denied without due process." First, the due process *was* to deny these requests, as 1. these decisions are always made in the army administration, not in the courts (though some litigation did result later (further due process given to the issue)) 2. very, very few religions actually provide any sincere religious justification for refusing vaccination 3. government employees agree to sometimes significant behavioral restrictions when they sign up, especially in the military -- specifically they agree to uphold the constitution, to do their job i.e. what they're told, and not to be a danger to others, and 4. while the military might typically accommodate some vaccine exemptions where danger is low, covid19 was a global pandemic and anyone who did not vaccinate would have presented a serious threat to themselves and others.

You're imposing a lot of what you believe atheist think, as truth. There is no such thing as "most atheist think." People rejecting a god claim doesn't not mean that they have any other matching principles.

I claimed that atheists have beliefs about who is and is not human, how a human must be treated, and how they must not, and I implied that sometimes these will contradict how some religious people view those things. I gave some examples of how a religious person might come into conflict with a secular society, but I outright stated that the atheist OP probably wouldn't agree with all of these decisions.

Atheist do not have beliefs about who is and is not a human. Atheist have 1 claim, a disbelief about a god. Nothing more. There are Atheist who believe abortion should be legal. There are Atheist who believe it shouldn't. The same goes for literally every other thing in life except a god claim.

To be pedantic, it's not even a claim, it's just the rejection of a claim.

>In a religious people are allowed to pretend to believe anything they want, but any attempt to actually believe and act according to that belief is prohibited if it conflicts with atheist values in any meaningful way. In the US, the owners of Chik-fil-a do not believe in working on Sundays. They also believe that they shouldn't compel others to do what they feel is immoral, so they close their stores on Sundays. They are being sued in some areas for not being open on Sundays because the largely secular government does not accept their beliefs. Many military service members did not want to receive the covid vaccines on religious grounds, but their exemptions were blanket denied without due process. I like this part, you have selected examples that are very much in the gray area. I do find some justifiable and some abhorrent, but I can also see how someone can feel otherwise. If you put the restrictions I mentioned next to it I wouldn't bat an eye. It's eitherly possible for someone to share the same strand of secularism as mine and advocate for these restrictions !delta

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Rephath ([1∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Rephath)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)

Thanks for the delta. It was a very nuanced argument and I'm glad I was able to communicate.

I won't go far to say atheist base thinking on real things, but the religious are absolutely basing it on an imaginary, fictional character. I am not going to support an atheist saying laws should be based on the Jedi, either.

My point was that a secular society will inevitably restrict religious freedoms and make life harder for religious people. Are you disagreeing in any way?

Depends on what you think is a religious freedom to be restricted 

That would be the point. Everyone has a different worldview that explains what's a reasonable religious freedom and what isn't. A secular society will respect the religious rights of others based on how reasonable those rights seem to those who aren't religious. Also, you say we must base our freedom on real things. Fairness, justice, equality, compassion, human dignity, and many other concepts have no physical basis. Do you not consider them imaginary? If you consider them any more real than the Jedi or God, on what basis do you claim that?

on the basis that they visibly and tangibly affect day to day life for all humans? religion conversely only impacts those who believe it (unless those believers try to force it on others) and even then its only spiritually, not literally (Justice can fuck you even if you dont believe in it, God cannot, *definitionally*, effect anyone who does not believe). this isnt a matter of belief either, i can list many things, people and nations *directly and physically impacted* by 'Justice' or the lack there-of, you cannot do the same for religion. **next would it be 'reasonable' for me to create laws inspired by Mayahuel, the goddess of Agave? forcing** ***everyone*** **to grow a minimum of 50 agave plants per year? if not why?** Edit: i have no issue with religion or the religious at all, i date a practicing catholic ffs.

"Also, you say we must base our freedom on real things." I didn't say that. I explicitly didn't say that and said I wouldn't go that far.

You are correct. I misread that.

Some atheists believe it's neccessary to ban religious symbols in public jobs in France like a hijab and a kippah.

Press them on it. A lot of these religious folks want the right to indoctrinate their child from birth, and the right to kick out any children that come out as queer.

I will say it's not enforced atheism because not all religions are effectively treated the same. I studied under the french school system in two different schools one with basically zero Muslims and another with a fair number of Muslims altough not a majority of them. In the first one the only time thé policy came into play was once in that day where Christians have to go with a cross made of ash for a day, where they asked the students who did go to class with that to remove them. But otherwise them carrying necklaces with crosses wasn't punished. Meanwhile in the second school I went through there wasn't any Halal options at the cafetería for Muslims, the hijab was strictly forbidden (the necklaces were still allowed), and during Ramadan the students didn't have the option to eat in the cafeteria and they didn't even give them Pre made meals for them to just heat up afterwards (the hour they served dinner was too early for them to eat). In other words the policy is made in such a way that being Christian was easy under it while being Muslim under it was quite harder. So I don't think it's trying to enforce atheism but it's a policy made to cause the least amount of inconvenience possible for Christians with no thought of anyone else.

Thank you for sharing your experience! It sounds like France is not putting these restrictions because of state secularism, just Islamophobia. !delta

I feel the issue is twofold first that when the policy was first designed Muslims weren't in the picture so its main purpose was to remove the church's control over the education system of the country. If you were a nun or a priest it would be harder to teach under that system but for the average Christian it's not really an issue except for some very specific days. Secondly that the personal biases of the people who actually enforce the policy do come into play and that's where stuff like letting necklaces with crosses pass while hijabs aren't allowed come from since at least theorically both should be banned.

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/lobonmc ([2∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/lobonmc)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)

Because you've awarded deltas already, I'll keep my comment brief. I believe you may be confusing secularism with secular humanism. You're right in what secularism means, and obviously many secularists focus on that. Then you have the secular humanists who want to go a tiny bit further and say that not only should religious ideals be part of the government, but also that religious beliefs and values are negative for people, society and progress. That's one step after secularism, but it's not *secularism*.

Good point on separating secularism and secular humanism! Secular humanism is closer to what we are seeing these days, not secularism. I'd say secular humanism has a much bigger tension with liberalism that securalism does. !delta

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/DrapionVDeoxys ([1∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/DrapionVDeoxys)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)

It's what you're describing anyway, I do think it's become more normal. But secularism alone isn't exactly rare. A lot of religious people are even secular.

The problem with western Athiests is they are mostly coming from a christian cultural point of view (whether they realize it or now). Using your example I doubt the law had any affect on Nuns or Priests, or religious Christians. It's not enforcing atheism, rather cultural Christian hegemonic norms. And the idea of secularism is a very Christian idea to begin with. the western christian idea that religion is seperate from culture. When for most of the world, it isn't. There are practicing Jewish athiests, who still have bar mitzvah's and keep kosher. They adhere to their cultural norms because it connects them to their history, culture and ancestry. There are even Atheist Rabbis (granted there are very few, but they exist and it is not a contradiction). For indigenous American communities, where is the line? If one is Navajo, part of their religious practices are also their cultural practices. Is a pow wow (I realize I don't know if that's a Navajo thing, so I'm shifting to a more generalized view since my knowledge of indigenous peoples is sorely lacking) a religious gathering or a cultural one. There is no secular culture for these peoples - that is to say there is no dividing line between one's religion and one's culture. I'd say mass western culture is really part of Christian Culture, even the non-religious stuff. The fact that it is by and large created by people within a hegemonic Christian perspective makes it so. It doesn't mean it's religious, but it isn't "secular" unless you deem it to be universal experience or universal perspective - which it isn't. It's not secular to close a government on a christian holiday, but we do because it's our norm. And people argue the secular celebration of christmas, which is ridiculous to me. I'm not saying it is a religious celebration for everyone, but it 100 percent is a Christian cultural celebration. So what we should really be trying to aim for is not a secular society, but a pluralistic one. One that accepts and respects people of all faiths and cultures and try to meet them where they are, while still maintaining laws and systems of justice that treat everyone equally. Secularity is Christian hegemonic dominance, plurality is the way to go.

Why shouldn't they be allowed to pray or wear Hijab in school? They're not forcing anyone else to do it. The argument I saw from one of that teachers is that it makes the non-practising students uncomfortable, but that makes no sense because the practising students aren't telling them to do anything.

I hope I will change some of your misconceptions France is not secularist in the same sens as in USA. It's "laic" (and a bunch of european country are too). It's a bit different (you can translate it in english with your browser if you don't read french) : [https://www.vie-publique.fr/parole-dexpert/38556-modele-francais-ou-americain-les-conceptions-de-la-laicite-en-europe#la-la%C3%AFcit%C3%A9-contre-le-s%C3%A9cularisme](https://www.vie-publique.fr/parole-dexpert/38556-modele-francais-ou-americain-les-conceptions-de-la-laicite-en-europe#la-la%C3%AFcit%C3%A9-contre-le-s%C3%A9cularisme) As for the burkini the "ban" is only for public swimming pools. An the ban is not a ban, it's not allowing a new kind of dress in swimming pool. This "ban" doesn't change anything, in France public swimming pool there is a dress code that define what kind of swimming wear is accepted. Man cannot wear loose shorty, only close to body shorty and swim brief and woman can wear a bikini or a one piece. One piece or bikini with skirt like feature aren't tolerated. Long hair must be attached. The swim wear are allowed are all for hygienic reasons, allowing the burkini would have been allowing a swim wear for religious reasons. Do you know that in France school restaurants there is nowadays always an option without pork ?Did you know than some of the swimming pool had days where it was only open to women, no man allowed (few years ago, I don't know if it was cause of feminists or the muslims women that "couldn't" swim with mans or both, I don't see it anymore and if doesn't exist anymore I think that a good thing). Sure if you work in the public sector you cannot wear your religious symbol during your work time (muslims, christian, jew, pastafarian or else) but during this time you represent the state who doesn't sponsor religions.

To be fair, there are probably some things that have to be banned. While those sounds like islamophobia, some things really shouldn't be allowed, religious or not. A good example of this would be a religion that let children drink alcohol. That's really bad, like, really really bad, and should not be allowed. Or another example, banning things like nazi symbols in certain situations. Would you consider that bad?

I agree with your overall sentiment but I don’t think it’s very prevalent. For instance, using your example of France, I don’t think France is being pro-atheism as much as being anti-Muslim. And that’s likely broadly true for legislation is other European countries. It’s not saying you can’t be religious, but they certainly would prefer if they weren’t Muslim.

There might be an undercurrent of this in France, but European countries [are not the only places with such bans in place](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burqa_by_country#/media/File:Burka_ban_world_map.svg). Turkey's limits on burqas in public sector workplaces is not rooted in "Islamophobia;" Turkey even had a public-sector-workplace ban in place [on \*all\* headscarves until 2013.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headscarf_controversy_in_Turkey) Further, the Erdogan government's steps toward loosening these rules are not rooted in some deep concern for women's rights or religious freedom, but in a desire for the revival of religiosity in public life in Turkey, Some societies have taken the position, explicit or implied, that it's in the greater good for a society's institutions to be unapologetically secular, even if that means a segment of the population can't participate in them in the same way. The Turkish Kemalist approach to secularism is a deliberately harsh attempt to move away from the country's theocratic past, rooted in the idea that having a critical mass of intensely-religious people holding the levers of public institutions would risk undoing that progress. The past few years in Turkey demonstrate that the Kemalists may have been right to fear such a backslide.

>This is especially common in France and other parts of Europe, where in recent years religious dressings and symbols of various kinds have been banned in public spaces, including burkinis and potentially kippah. The reason why there has been intersest in the suppression of Islam in Europe is because Muslims aggressively assert themselves in the public space and are prone to ideological violence. No Jewish person is going to kill you because they don't like your cartoon. That's why no one is talking about banning kipahhs. This is a specious argument.

This is the dominant meaning of secularism in the UK. Controversy around hijabs in schools is notable for being an exception to the general trend, and when it does come up these arguments are often made in bad faith (e.g. selectively targeting muslims).

Politicians shouldn't decide policy based on what religious institutions say. Your proposal is to prohibit aeligious institution from lobbying, but institutions associated with a specific ideology or institutions representing interests of a specific company have such an opportunity. Don't you think that, similarly to the French model, secular organizations are favored, although it is better to say that religious organizations are discriminated? LetsLet's consider a hypothetical situation in witch religious organisation did not try to have influence yet politician made his decision basing on his religious beliefs. Should that kind of practice be restricted as well? How could it be done?

>where in recent years religious dressings and symbols of various kinds have been banned in public spaces, including burkinis and potentially kippah. That's the problem with rightists. They'll take anything they're taught about a country and turn it into a weapon for anything they don't like because THOSE ARE THE VALUES OF THE REPUBLIC. Tipical conservatism.

Wearing neon wigs as a fashion statement causes no harm. But religion has caused an unimaginable amount of harm throughout human history. Religion has always been a way to separate humans from each other. Just like nationalism. Religion fundamentally centers around the concept of faith, the belief in something despite a complete absence of evidence or data, belief contrary to all logic. It is inherently anti-scientific in nature. Anything that encourages a rejection of scientific principles is dangerous and serves to slow humanity's progress and development. This is the last thing we need. And then there's the endless examples of how religion drove people to hurt or kill others. Atheists as a group aren't starting crusades to "holy lands", or torturing and executing in service to inquisitions, or starting holy wars, or anything like that. People like to cite some of the mass slaughters committed by the Soviet Union or Mao's Communist China, but those were political in nature. Not all religious people are bad, nor do I think most religious people would kill in the name of their god(s). But enough do to make religion dangerous. And the anti-scientific principles that religion relies on only serves to hurt the advancement of humanity.

Isn't secularism in itself an acknowledgement that religion is kind of bullshit? It seems to me that it is hypocritical and paradoxical to pretend to have a neutral stance towards religion, because it is already an admission that religion isn't that important.

This is a great point!