JakeS:

When you segue seamlessly from arguing that veil-bans are oppressive and racist (which they are) into special pleading for religious idiosyncrasies to have a higher status than secular hobbies (which they shouldn't), what else are we supposed to conclude?

Your creativity in finding derogatory terms when talking about religion gets into the way of transporting meaning. I understand you have to set your priorities. What is "religious idiosyncrasies" meant to be?

Here is from my diary: I firmly believe in justice and equal rights of all humans. I am using "believe" with a reason: there is core belief underlying all political convictions. Our (rational) political choices have a foundation in such sets of beliefs. Making it a matter of principle to stand with the vulnerable, to defend human rights, to fight for justice is NOT equal to playing games in the woodlands.

Are you talking about the ethics that underlie a persons decisions, or the ways to arrive at these ethics? They are really the same for you as the rules of a fucking game? Well, not for me.

JakeS:

Actually, we had a BBC clip with a deranged fundie fruitcake saying precisely that not so very long ago. You objected quite strenuously to people who pointed out that she was insane, and never took issue with the fact that she was saying precisely what you now claim to not support

Nope. I said that the insinuation that the guy's right to wear clothes of his choice was in any danger was idiotic, and that it was irrelevant if the woman was defending her freedom or her religion or whatever: what is in danger is the rights of her minority, especially of women. It doesn't matter if she is insane (but the BBC wouldn't have invited her if she had been likely to raise only reasonable stuff): the question if she would grant the guy freedom if she had to decide on it in exchange for the freedom to wear a veil is outrageous.  

It's the first time that I hear of the existence of "religious exemptions from vaccination programs". I have never expressed any sympathy for religious or other exemptions from general education, in the contrary. What are you talking about then? Vaccinations are voluntary, only smallpox used to be compulsory. There are some parents who don't want their children to be vaccinated. I find that stupid of them, even dangerous, but they are free to do so. It's the law. Do you want the law altered? It might be a good idea. What has that to do with religion?

JakeS:

will you also grant me that opposition to denying religious people the right to something solely because it is a religious symbol or ritual is implicit in every post I make?

I lost track of the negations in that question. Try again.

eurogreen:

I'm afraid I have a visceral reaction when I see a fully-veiled woman : it's as if I were seeing a slave with a neck ring and chain attached.

You see it is not about if some women do get beat up for not wearing veils, or wear them to avoid that or social exclusion in their communities, and not acknowledging that the origin of the tradition wasn't women's free choice. It is about what white men fantasise when they see a veil. No need to even let the woman speak.

And yes, I know there are male and female ban supporters. Did you read my link on white feminism?