So, we can ban crosses? I’m obviously going a bit far, but both somewhat touch on the way people believe rights should be secured, and both involve human rights (one to free expression of religion, another to life and fr33dom from unfair treatment in general). Both make statements to others that others may find uncomfortable, depending on their beliefs.
One of the biggest weebs I know is also an avid camper. Like every vacation is hiking and camping in the wilds.
Chato part chatokun name. Kun mean chatokun weeb.
Yeah, if it only took me 15 mins and I didn’t have to drive, I’d be fine with it too. Currently my drive is about 30m outside of rush hour times, longer of course during. In addition I have to move soon, so it might go up again. That’s all just wasted time.
Burning books like this requires enough targeted hatred and a need to offend the targets. It also is usually more effective if your target is a minority (not specifically racial, just a much weaker target), as that bolsters your position of power and lessens the likelihood of retaliation.
Atheists sometimes have that much hatred, but at least where I am Christianity isn’t small enough to be a minority, so the fear of backlash might be holding back some of the hatred type atheists.
Another reason may depend on why someone became an atheists. Many of us don’t hate religious people directly, we just have issues with what organized religion gets away with. People like me came to this conclusion by comparing scientific evidence to blind faith. By nature, faith will be more emotional and reactionary, whereas if you come to a position after learning and changing yourself, you’re more open to understanding why it’s not really a good idea to hate like that.
Though I’d call myself agnostic vs an atheist.
I mean, I agree, to an extent. As someone else pointed out, the cross banning would never work out in the US, and that shows the difference in how both things are treated here.