Iceblade

Yeah I actually listened through (almost) the entire 50 minute thing during breakfast - and all things considered the atmosphere was mostly okay up until the last moments. Things were starting to wrap up, journalists asking questions, and then Vance jumped in with an entirely different attitude - and after that Trump completely changed his tone also.

So tragic to see how Z was doing his utmost to be friendly or at least respectful even when T made clearly incorrect statements or when some of the journalists asked insulting questions. He literally thanked him (and the american people) multiple times during the press conference, and then V jumps in, runs him over and turns the entire thing upside down.

I’m honestly not sure where I stand myself on this. It’s a difficult issue and I’m not sure there can be “only one correct answer”.

as long as it does not support or provoke harm to other peoples

Who decides what is harmful or provocative?

A priest may find that the colander makes a mockery of religion, others might see a hijab as a symbol of oppression of women and others still may find that a certain slogan remind them of past trauma?

How do you strike a balance between dress code and preferences?

Should the state be free from religions, or free for all religions?

Does it even make sense to have the same rules in every country?

I myself am certainly biased in this context, given that I trust in science, evolution and the empiric process. Furthermore, I myself have been permanently negatively affected by religion, and all the ones I’ve encountered so far have been anti-scientific to a certain extent, regressive and denounce my own personal views. Does it not make sense then that I am anti-religious?

If I had to quickly codify my stance at this moment, I would say that I’m fine with freedom of religion to the extent that it intersects with the other personal liberties (Freedom of thought, expression, personal autonomy) that I think everyone should have the right to. However, I don’t think religion should give anyone preferential treatment in any context - religious organizations and religious folk should be subjected to the same regulations as a person of another (or no) belief or organization.

For instance, that might include exemptions from dress codes. In this case I would be against it unless the dress code would be equivalently relaxed for everyone, which I certainly wouldn’t support in some contexts. Some examples from healthcare for instance (since I’ve experience in the field) - it is imperative that what you wear is hygienic for the safety of the patient, and some of your duties might go against the personal beliefs of some people (abortion for instance). That doesn’t mean that you should be exempt from those duties or regulations because of your personal convictions. Suck it up, or go find another job.

From what I’ve read on the topic, this take seems misguided at best or outright wrong at worst. Historically, secularism in France has been a primarily liberal/socialist/anti-monarchist pursuit.

French secularism has its origin in the French revolution, half a century before Algeria came under French control. Religious institutions were viewed as a part of the aristocratic establishment and the concept of laïcité was introduced under the revolutionary era and entrenched (along with concepts such as freedoms of thought, expression & conscience) during the Napoleonic era. Further progress in this direction was not made by imperialists, but rather revolutionaries after bloody conflict (the French commune for instance) and generally steps were taken to repeal them when conservative/monarchist governments dominated.

I know, we’re also so small that most of it was never localized to Swedish. But in the spirit of the question - funny

To start off, you could write entire essays delving into this topic. Everything I’ve written in my reply is very condensed, so if you feel something lacks nuance, it’s probably to keep it brief rather than because I thought it is “THE ONE AND ONLY ANSWER”. Here goes.

Religious freedom has two key parts: freedom of religion and freedom from religion.

Which of these holds prominence is different depending on the secular country you’re in, and usually has a lot to do with the historic path that the nation and dominant culture took to become secular.

In France organized religion had an authoritarian position in society, dominating it for more than a millenium. It took literal centuries of bloodshed and more than one revolution to put an end to that dominance. That is the origin of those laws. The lessons behind their making were learned at the cost of many lives, and personally I don’t think that such laws should be ripped up without proper consideration.

Religion, particularly the organized kind is designed to spread and exert power over people and societies. Furthermore, unlike many other things such as ethnicity, sex or disabilities, it is a strongly held personal belief, which is a choice. Yes, there is some nuance there, but it is mostly based on convictions and antiquated traditions, much like the old republican laws themselves perhaps.

A question follows, should a person based on an arbitrary strong personal conviction be granted special treatment?

If yes… then I argue that this should not be limited to “religious” beliefs. The only thing that makes those particular sets of beliefs special, after all, is tradition and mass adoption, much like our own cultures. So, lets consider some other minority beliefs. Should a furry who “needs” to wear wolf ears be allowed to wear that? A sikh their turban? A pastafarian their mandated colander? What if someone strongly believes that they can’t go outside without wearing a CocaCola branded cap (mmm delicious ad revenue)?

Well, in Swedish, we have “mil”, which is 10km, so mr. Toretto would be living his life 2.5km at a time. However, I can only assume he’s a pilot in his alternate Swedish incarnation, since covering that distance in “ten seconds or less” would mean travelling at >900kmph.