What’s the difference between Nazis marching around, throwing their arms up and other protests? Intent is very important, it can completely undermine your society. And there is no way to let religion in without it getting its tentacles into all aspects of your society, just like authoritarianism. Thats why other cultures banned missionaries back in the day.
Because, before you know it, they’re telling you how to run your government, telling you what laws to enact, and stripping away your culture.
Also who is “they” and “you” in this scenario? Religious people already live here. They are citizens. They get a say in their government. They’re supposed to
Yeah ive heard their say, and it involves me being killed. Not a fan of this law, but you cannot pretend it’s not exploiting the presence of a very real problem.
When you believe in unfalsifiable cosmic moral absolutes, especially those untethered from material reality, and use that to justify your worst impulses, you’re gonna do some fucked up shit, and can’t really be talked down.
The in group that wants to place their will on the out group. Thats how it typically goes. While I say that nobody has a right to place their beliefs on others. Thats a not a right in any sense, not human right, nor government appointed right. Evangelism aka witnessing your faith isn’t a right. Your ability to hold your beliefs and practice them in your place of worship and home is. There’s a difference
Based on just the article linked, it sounds more like they’re prohibiting the use of publicly owned property or public funding to enable religious expression. In the context of a French legal tradition I don’t really see how prohibiting the use of public property in religious expression is the same as banning expression generally except in private. I think conflating the two is a bit of a tortured analogy grounded in American legal thought, although I do agree that it seems motivated, at least in large part, by Islamophobia.
It probably pertains to public (government) places. Like public schools and such. At least thats how it’s been viewed in America.
And don’t be silly, you know there is a difference between different kinds of speech. Thats how we also know the difference between hate speech, threats, verbal abuse, and profane speech and normal speech. Sure, a really dense lawyer can argue all day about the nuances of it, but a jury of peers or a society at large can come to a consensus of what is what.
What’s the difference between public prayer and public speaking other than intent?
What’s the difference between Nazis marching around, throwing their arms up and other protests? Intent is very important, it can completely undermine your society. And there is no way to let religion in without it getting its tentacles into all aspects of your society, just like authoritarianism. Thats why other cultures banned missionaries back in the day.
Because, before you know it, they’re telling you how to run your government, telling you what laws to enact, and stripping away your culture.
Also who is “they” and “you” in this scenario? Religious people already live here. They are citizens. They get a say in their government. They’re supposed to
Yeah ive heard their say, and it involves me being killed. Not a fan of this law, but you cannot pretend it’s not exploiting the presence of a very real problem.
When you believe in unfalsifiable cosmic moral absolutes, especially those untethered from material reality, and use that to justify your worst impulses, you’re gonna do some fucked up shit, and can’t really be talked down.
The in group that wants to place their will on the out group. Thats how it typically goes. While I say that nobody has a right to place their beliefs on others. Thats a not a right in any sense, not human right, nor government appointed right. Evangelism aka witnessing your faith isn’t a right. Your ability to hold your beliefs and practice them in your place of worship and home is. There’s a difference
Sounds an awful lot like you don’t like what someone has to say and don’t want to hear it.
But I really meant more from a legal standpoint. How exactly is it we’re planning to “ban public prayer”?
Is it still public prayer if I pray to Jebus instead of Jesus? Is it public prayer if I sing hallelujah out loud?
Based on just the article linked, it sounds more like they’re prohibiting the use of publicly owned property or public funding to enable religious expression. In the context of a French legal tradition I don’t really see how prohibiting the use of public property in religious expression is the same as banning expression generally except in private. I think conflating the two is a bit of a tortured analogy grounded in American legal thought, although I do agree that it seems motivated, at least in large part, by Islamophobia.
It probably pertains to public (government) places. Like public schools and such. At least thats how it’s been viewed in America.
And don’t be silly, you know there is a difference between different kinds of speech. Thats how we also know the difference between hate speech, threats, verbal abuse, and profane speech and normal speech. Sure, a really dense lawyer can argue all day about the nuances of it, but a jury of peers or a society at large can come to a consensus of what is what.
Yes.
Adam was an ape.