(September 9, 2023 at 10:08 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: I don't get many compliments for my manners, lol. I'll try again.
Anoms comment got me considering how, despite that affinity for the principle and right of religious freedom, I understand and I agree with a great many ways that we suppress expression of any number of religions because, we assert, it is overwhelmingly in the public and secular interest to do so,. Not because they are religious, or because a thing is religious, but because of the content of that religious ideation. I think that we can all agree that this is -not- repressing people based solely on the basis of their having or lacking a religion, or thing being or not being religious - so we can save ourselves arguing something we agree about, whether or not that would be garbage.
I don't think that by agreeing with anom, that it's not automatically or intrinsically wrong to suppress expression of specific religions, we are agreeing with anything about repressing people based on religion or it's lack. When I suggest that you (and I) likely agree with anom about the one thing - I don't mean to insult you about the other.
In general, I think clothing bans in schools are ridiculous. This one as much as any other. I also think it's amusing that the faithful are perfectly fine with everyone else not being allowed to wear this or that, but they throw a fit and end up with alot of well meaning but, imo, misplaced support when they insist that they be allowed..and indeed have the right, to dress their kid how they want. I would not be shocked to find that the people wringing their hands about being religiously persecuted in this are also the same people who would be very eager to take rulers to skirts.
My point is that if we're going to have a wall of separation here, that's what we should have. And what France has is not a wall of separation; it's the government leaning into the control of the expression of faith.
Faithless though I am, I find that obnoxious.
