• Grimy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    5 days ago

    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.

    • geneva_convenience@lemmy.mlOPM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      5 days ago

      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.