What about my statement is brutal? It’s not the law at fault, the law is impartial about all religious symbols. The problem is the lack of equal enforcement. Which is essentially what you’re saying in different words
Seems like I’m being attacked for something I didn’t say. My statement was purely a very minor thing, about how the issue is enforcement, not the actual law. And I certainly did not imply anything with it, but it seems a lot is being read into those few words that were not at all intended
Right, so maybe if it’s now being applied in a discriminatory fashion, it’s now due for a change? My point is that enforcement of the law cannot be considered separate from the law. A law that cannot be enforced does nothing, and a law that creates discrimination in enforcement is a discriminatory law.
It was coined in 1989 by professor Kimberlé Crenshaw to describe how race, class, gender, and other individual characteristics “intersect” with one another and overlap.
[Edit: Even tho race is not a scientific thing anymore, we had this narrative for so long that the term is still in use. At least it is used as a social construct. And we struggle as societies with racism. Still]
Religion is a choice, an unverifiable one at that. There is no reason that such a choice should grant special privileges that someone non-religious, or of another religion would not be granted. Each such request must stand on its own merit.
In Europe the concept of freedom from religion is something that many different cultures have fought hard for - secularism.
That’s a problem with enforcement, not the law.
What you say sounds brutal to me. The solution would be bridging the gap between theory and practice.
What about my statement is brutal? It’s not the law at fault, the law is impartial about all religious symbols. The problem is the lack of equal enforcement. Which is essentially what you’re saying in different words
I’ve never heard of a “gentle enforcement of the law”?
Also, law enforcement often comes from the police. France is no exception to police brutality.
So it looks like we both agree on the principle, but we have very different ways of approaching a solution.
Seems like I’m being attacked for something I didn’t say. My statement was purely a very minor thing, about how the issue is enforcement, not the actual law. And I certainly did not imply anything with it, but it seems a lot is being read into those few words that were not at all intended
My brother in nothing, enforcement is part of the law.
If you know a law will be applied unequally, don’t pass the damm law.
? The law has been around a century, current controversy is that it’s not being applied equally
Right, so maybe if it’s now being applied in a discriminatory fashion, it’s now due for a change? My point is that enforcement of the law cannot be considered separate from the law. A law that cannot be enforced does nothing, and a law that creates discrimination in enforcement is a discriminatory law.
As I anticipated. Racism sucks
Daily reminder that religion ≠ race
It’s intersectional.
[Edit: Even tho race is not a scientific thing anymore, we had this narrative for so long that the term is still in use. At least it is used as a social construct. And we struggle as societies with racism. Still]
So?
Religion is a choice, an unverifiable one at that. There is no reason that such a choice should grant special privileges that someone non-religious, or of another religion would not be granted. Each such request must stand on its own merit.
In Europe the concept of freedom from religion is something that many different cultures have fought hard for - secularism.