it's a facile position.
first, it puts public health on the same priority level as "religious freedom", which i consider an oxymoron and would argue should be expunged from the constitution in favour of strict rules enforcing the separation of church and state. this is canada, we don't need to care about the first amendment, that's american. you might not be as extreme as i am about tipping the scales for the government on the side of secularism, but it is surely laughable to consider the "right" to chant incantations to your imaginary friend to be on the same level as a public health issue; one of these things is a serious issue, and the other one is about the most trivial thing imaginable.
but, if i'm being principled about this and arguing that the state doesn't have the right to control a person's body, aren't i contradicting myself?
no, because enforcing a secularist separation of church and state in this case is really a dress code decision about employment, it's not a rule that people need to follow in their day to day life. nobody has ever suggested that you would ever have to take off your hijab to buy bananas, they've said that if these people want to go to work then they need to follow the dress code. further, we have existing legislation that has been tested at the supreme court that allows the state to put down restrictions on the spread of propaganda in state-run workplaces, as a conflict of interest - which is at the heart of the question, here. what quebeckers and various european nations have concluded is that bringing religious symbolism into the classroom or other government workplace is a conflict of interest, that it is spreading propaganda and that it needs to stop. yes, i agree with this - i don't think that children should be subject to any sort of religious exposure, whatsoever, in a scholastic context, and especially not at a young age where they can't process it and risk being brainwashed by it. i don't think that myself, as an adult, should be forced to interact with any sort of religious imagery when i seek government services, either.
the appropriate legislation to ban teachers and other government workers from bringing religious symbols and other religious propaganda into the classroom is covered by the hatch act in the united states - and i'll be clear, i would support banning even bringing religious symbolism into the classroom or other government workplace, at all. kirpans should be banned. kippahs should be banned. the crucifix should be banned. the ten commandments should be banned. any outward expression of any religious belief at all should be unwelcome in the classroom or other government workplace, in any way. and, that is a historically liberal position.
i miss the days when liberals fought against the ten commandments at school, rather than fought in favour of them.
there have been similar rulings in canada that specifically prevent political organizing in government workplaces, which is what i'm arguing that bringing religion into the classroom or other government workplace actually is. you may argue there is a difference between an organized religion and a political party, but i don't recognize the difference; legally speaking, a religion should be treated the same way as a political party, and all the same rules should apply when at work.
so, the reason it's not a contradiction is in the context. the right comparison to banning religion at work is to enforcing mask laws for employees, and while i might quit a job that required mask use, i would allow the employer the right to set a dress code because people can always get up and walk out. as a citizen, if you pass a law that says that i have to wear a mask to buy groceries (or am mandated to receive a needle), you're not giving me the opportunity to make a choice about employment, you're actually forcing me to do something i don't want to. everything else i said is fun, but that's the solution to the apparent contradiction - as a religious person, you would keep the right to quit your job if you don't like the dress code (or otherwise can't agree on a permanent ban of all religion at work). as a citizen, an indoor mask law does not give me the opportunity to make a choice to buy my groceries somewhere else where there is no rule, and a forced vaccination is just that much more egregious.
so, it's a false equivalence. and i'm actually entirely consistent.
so, it's a false equivalence. and i'm actually entirely consistent.
i understand that my values may be different than yours, but i'm the one articulating a liberal vision that promotes bodily integrity, even while i support laws to ban any expression of religion in the classroom or other government workplaces, and you're the one that is promoting a right-wing, statist, tory position of control and dominance.