Unless the country’s primary religion is on the line, you are not going against all religion - you are going against the specific religion in question (or religions). Systems resit change, so if you advocate for “let’s not give this minority’s religion equal rights, and instead take away the rights of the primary religion” only the first part will get implemented.
Analogy: Whenever there is a talk about legalizing same sex marriage, someone will always argue that the state should not get involved in any kind of marriage. Does this position have merit on on its own? Yes. But when presented in the contest of same sex marriage legalization, is it anything but pure support of continuing the oppression of same sex couples?
Your logic is flawed insofar as “tolerance for intolerance” as well as propped up by complete conjecture & hyperbole. (Eg. “only the first part will get implemented”, “Whenever there is a talk about”, “But when presented”, etc. [citations needed])
Got any more general purpose fit-all objections? The only thing here that is at least a bit specific is the “tolerance for intolerance” thing, but even that is completely unrelated - while many religions have their share of intolerances, celebration holidays is not one of them.
No. Say it always for all religion. Fuck the entire system of mind control. Don’t cherry pick your oppressors, citizen.
Unless the country’s primary religion is on the line, you are not going against all religion - you are going against the specific religion in question (or religions). Systems resit change, so if you advocate for “let’s not give this minority’s religion equal rights, and instead take away the rights of the primary religion” only the first part will get implemented.
Analogy: Whenever there is a talk about legalizing same sex marriage, someone will always argue that the state should not get involved in any kind of marriage. Does this position have merit on on its own? Yes. But when presented in the contest of same sex marriage legalization, is it anything but pure support of continuing the oppression of same sex couples?
Swing and a miss.
Your logic is flawed insofar as “tolerance for intolerance” as well as propped up by complete conjecture & hyperbole. (Eg. “only the first part will get implemented”, “Whenever there is a talk about”, “But when presented”, etc. [citations needed])
Got any more general purpose fit-all objections? The only thing here that is at least a bit specific is the “tolerance for intolerance” thing, but even that is completely unrelated - while many religions have their share of intolerances, celebration holidays is not one of them.
Try reading for comprehension instead of reflexive defense, but hey. Thanks for playing?