324
Womens rights
(lemmy.ml)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 28 Jun 2026
324 points (100.0% liked)
Europe
6677 readers
64 users here now
Europe
Rules:
- All sources allowed. Voting decides what is reliable unless
- Articles which have been proven false beyond any doubt may be removed
- No personal attacks
- Posts in English, translations allowed
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
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.
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"?
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/
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.
Buddhism is not a theology?
This is a concept https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontheistic_religion