this post was submitted on 28 Jun 2026
320 points (96.0% liked)
Europe
6675 readers
213 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If Iran said they were providing "freedom from Atheism" everyone would realize how incredibly stupid this sounds
These laws exist for colonialist purposes so you couldn't be more wrong.
Have you ever seen "atheist" and "sceptic" community and their talking heads?
This, and it doesn't have any symbols or practices associated with it in the first place, so what would one even ban? Atheism isn't a religion, it's the lack thereof.
Edit: Context, because a mod banned the person above for the laughable reason of "Reddit Atheism". IIRC, The comment was something like:
How anyone could take offense to this is beyond me. Do we genuinely support religions in this community? And on an ML instance no less? It seems like religion really is the opiate of the masses...
Marxism does not mean blanket hostility towards religion in all situations
That is true and isn't what I would support, but the comment above wasn't blanket hostility, not in this context anyway. Pointing out the often prevalent cases of religion being used as a tool of oppression and that it's all based on indoctrination is absolutely valid when discussing the motivation for France's measures. You can of course disagree with it and with the measures discussed here, independently of each other even, but if this is already "blanket hostility" to some people, they should stop viewing religions through rose-colored glasses. I mean, do you genuinely believe that religions are NOT used for this purpose at all? I have a hard time believing that any actual Marxist would see religions uncritically, even with the understanding of them being the way they are as the result of material conditions, and even less so as Marxists-Leninists if one has actually read Lenin's "Socialism and Religion".
And even if you were to consider it blanket hostility, why would this be worthy of a ban and comment removal instead of simply engaging with the comment in an intellectually honest way and possibly providing the commenter a different perspective?
You do realize that atheism is an ideology like any other, prone to the same manipulations?
And that the issue taken here is weaponisation of said atheism by bourgeoise, wielded by rabid libs against whomever empire deems an enemy, uncritically due to internalized chauvinism?
And that you can't argue that republic "kill all algerians" of france is suddenly having safety and prosperity of muslim women in mind, let alone that they'e realizing whatever piss dreams of seculairity they have?
Atheists can of course also be manipulated, but not based on their atheism. There's no organisation behind atheism, there are no specific set of beliefs that you could be indoctrinated with, etc.
I know what the issue is and as I said in another comment, I also disagree with it. But that doesn't make the statement by the commenter above wrong.
Any ideology can be hijacked and changed to serve an agenda. Atheism is a prime recent example with the "New Atheist" cult which turned out to just be a bunch of unprincipled Islamophobes who are on the Epstein list and have recently turned "culturally Christian".
I'd say that's not related to atheism as a whole. Atheism doesn't have some requirement of being an Islamophobe, in fact it doesn't have any ideological requirements at all. There's no guiding book or organisation giving atheists any ideas, it's just a subset of people who are atheist and mixed that with intolerant beliefs of their own making. You could compare it to Islam and ISIS, where one certain group within this whole set of beliefs made up their own BS, but that doesn't make their ideology the basis for Islam. [Theistic] religions however already have harmful beliefs baked into their scriptures (i.e. Quran, Bible, Tanakh, etc.), which are the basis for the religion as a whole instead of just for a subset of people making up their own stuff, as well as an established culture independent of those scriptures that is often anything but tolerant and open-minded, fueled by the, generally speaking, religiously inherent lack of critical thinking.
So as I said, atheists can be manipulated and whatnot, for which you provided a great example, but their beliefs do not stem from atheism.
Marx did not consider illterates who conviced themselves they could read...
Umm so what atheist garmets would they be banning in this case exactly?
Mandatory hair coverings for women "to protect them against the weather outside."
Nowhere is any kind of hair covering mandatory because of atheism, nor to protect for the weather outside which wouldn't be because of atheism in any case.
No there's mandatory hair-uncoverings. In France. Because of "Atheism" as a shield for colonialism.
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.
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 Christianity 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.
That would be pretty stupid, agreed.