Got it, only enthusiastic yes men are actually counted as valid members of the community.

Interesting take, gotta admit.

deleted by creator

This is almost an appealing idea in a parallel universe where religion doesn’t exist, but unfortunately that’s not the one we live in. This conflict is one that extends to nearly every avenue, but at it’s core, it’s a religious one. Unless we’re ready as a global community to finally denounce religion and call the practice of it a silly and fruitless endeavor, which to be clear, we aren’t, then we’re never going to get anywhere pretending we can ignore the religious aspect of it. And that includes your utopian suggestion, which aside from all of its other very real problems would also likely enrage an enormous religious segment of the world who would see some of their holiest lands reduced to mere merchants dens. Even if you perhaps try to protect the religious sites, now you’re effectively enforcing a concept of religious sanctity on the global community, which is no less likely to offend.

Your idea is well-intended and nice to think about, but unfortunately unrealistic for many reasons, starting on the ground floor with problem of religion.

Whether a person believes they have divine inspiration or not, it is still their choice to follow it. In fact, that’s a key tenant of the faith in question. A deluded person is deluded; we don’t have to and shouldn’t indulge their delusion as if it was reality. And to be clear I’m not talking about religion here, I’m talking about genuinely mentally ill people as you describe. If a mentally ill person truly believes they are a duck it does not mean they are a duck, even if they choose to behave like one. When a mentally ill person believes they know the holy spirit Spirit it does not mean they know the holy spirit, even when they choose to behave as such.

I don’t agree with your interpretation of constitutes an intrinsic quality. I do agree elements within organized religion exist to prey on various vulnerabilities, including those related to brain chemistry, but I don’t think those pressures or vulnerabilities absolve you the responsibility of thoughtfulness and choice. I have suffered from a genuine mental illness my whole life, and that fact does contribute to my choices and and may explain some of my behavior, but it never absolves me or excuses my behavior. Religion may arguably be a difficult or loaded choice, but it is absolutely a choice. A person isn’t a Baptist in the way that they might be inherently and intrinsically gay; a person chooses to be Baptist, even if that choice is one of passive cultural acceptance.

But the reason it was banned was clearly identified as being because it is symbolic of a religion. Based on that, how wouldn’t a cross necklace also qualify?

You say that as if atheism is just another religion, which is missing the point. It’s not an unreasonable bias if the government agrees with me that 2+2=4 and that those trying to convince you 2+2=3 are doing you intellectual harm. I know religious people love the “but atheism is just another kind of religion!” adage, but it doesn’t hold water. Nobody is being denied human rights in the name of just atheism, nobody is being oppressed by just atheism.

Remember when we were kids and we were told not to judge people by how they look or other factors they can’t control, but rather to judge them by the things they say, do, and think? Yeah somewhere religious people started this lie that religion is some intrinsic part of being, like sexuality/sexual identity, but this isn’t the case. Religion is a choice. Religion is a belief. Exactly the kind of thing you should judge people for, same as any of their other beliefs or opinions.

The idea that a government shouldn’t endorse atheism, or at least legislate from an atheistic point of view, is insane to me, tbh.

Yes, obviously in the context of this story. It seems weird to assume otherwise to me