Can and in fact have!

The theocracy’s religious teachings buttressed its class order. The poor and afflicted were taught that they had brought their troubles upon themselves because of their wicked ways in previous lives. Hence they had to accept the misery of their present existence as a karmic atonement and in anticipation that their lot would improve in their next lifetime. The rich and powerful treated their good fortune as a reward for, and tangible evidence of, virtue in past and present lives.

The Tibetan serfs were something more than superstitious victims, blind to their own oppression. As we have seen, some ran away; others openly resisted, sometimes suffering dire consequences. In feudal Tibet, torture and mutilation--including eye gouging, the pulling out of tongues, hamstringing, and amputation--were favored punishments inflicted upon thieves, and runaway or resistant serfs. Journeying through Tibet in the 1960s, Stuart and Roma Gelder interviewed a former serf, Tsereh Wang Tuei, who had stolen two sheep belonging to a monastery. For this he had both his eyes gouged out and his hand mutilated beyond use. He explains that he no longer is a Buddhist: “When a holy lama told them to blind me I thought there was no good in religion.”[21] Since it was against Buddhist teachings to take human life, some offenders were severely lashed and then “left to God” in the freezing night to die. “The parallels between Tibet and medieval Europe are striking,” concludes Tom Grunfeld in his book on Tibet.[22]

The whole Parenti essay is fascinating https://redsails.org/friendly-feudalism/

Buddhism is not a theology?

This is a concept https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontheistic_religion

The part where you have enough social liberty that you don't have government officials telling you how to dress.

That would be good indeed, but isn't really an aspect of secularism.

'secular theocracy' is wordplay making fun of their attempts to secularize in such a way that they take on features of a theocracy, such as dress codes.

Fair point.

You could presumably have a Buddhist theocracy without any sort of belief in a supreme ruling deity.

I think that wouldn't make it a theocracy, as it's more of a philosophy or way of life rather than a belief in a higher being that has a strict set of rules that a state could enforce. But I don't really know that much about buddhism, so I might be wrong.

You do realize that atheism is an ideology like any other, prone to the same manipulations?

And that the issue taken here is weaponisation of said atheism by bourgeoise, wielded by rabid libs against whomever empire deems an enemy, uncritically due to internalized chauvinism?

And that you can't argue that republic "kill all algerians" of france is suddenly having safety and prosperity of muslim women in mind, let alone that they'e realizing whatever piss dreams of seculairity they have?

I'm just pointing out that Iran wouldn't ban atheism, it would ban every other religion except its own. Banning atheism doesn't make sense in a way, it would mean forcing everyone to have a religion. Like the state would demand you wear religious symbols and pray once a day? Doesn't matter which tho, as long as you have at least one religion.

I think these kinds of laws (though not this one) is more about setting boundaries and keeping a proper separation than outright banning.

That being said, I see the headscarf and bikini as a cultural symbol more than a religious one. I agree this law is more about plain old xenophobia.

I think a better example would be the uproar there would be if the kippa was banned in public or at the pool.

Tbh though, I'm very anti religion and I'm for banning the lot of it in public (crosses, kippas, etc), just not the headscarf because there's nothing actually religious about it imo. The burka is a bit intense and strikes me as clear oppression of women, but I don't see anything wrong with the burkini really.