I understand that part of it. It’s the part where you think, “I don’t like that. Therefore, I have the right to prevent anyone else from doing it,” that you start to lose me. Once you get to the part where you try to claim that that attitude is compatible with a liberal democracy, I’m completely out in the woods.
Ok, turn the statement around on its head.
It’s the part where you think “I like that. Therefore, I have the right to present this to anyone else” where you lose me.
Why does one’s pronouncement of faith and/or prosylitization of faith demand liberal treatment - so much so that it is inescapable in public fora - yet one’s desire not to have it foisted upon them cannot ever me mandated into existence?
I’d suspect that you’d think that “if you’re out in public you’re just going to have to deal with it” is far more acceptable than “just practice your religion on private property”, but I’m curious why that is? Or at least why one is more ok than the other?
What hat I chose to wear this morning is not part of the “spectrum of opression” that leads to heinously abusing maiming a child!
There is no “opression” invovled in a women deciding what they should wear on their head to express their religion beleifs. Whether its a Muslim burqa, a Jewish Tichel, or a Mormon Bonnet. At one point all of these would have been considered going against the “Cultural Bias” of Western Culture. But in free societies that respect the freedom of religion, a citizen’s right to wear them should be protected.
Yes completely. In that, you have as much right to have your delicate sensiblities protected from exposure of adherents of other religions in public place as you have them protected from exposure to other races. That is none whatsoever, and encroaching on someones basic rights in order to do so is unacceptable in society that makes any pretensions to be free.
In reality the Burqa ban is just as much about latter as the former. It has nothing to do with religion and everything being unconfortable with different races and their cultures.
Well we’re going to have to agree to disagree, then.
I don’t see freedom of (edit: displaying*) religion as fundamental or as basic as one’s freedom from prejudicial treatment based on something you are born with - and apparently the French do, too.
*which may be a distinction that isn’t recognized to you, but it is to me: allowing a government law to tell you what you can or cannot believe or preach on your own private property is unacceptable. likewise, allowing a government to adopt and profess a religious belief is just as bad. but, like laws dictating what you can or cannot do in public, i’m content to stow “public displays of religion” at the end of my “things i give a shit about” list.
Largely, because I have a minority religious position - I’m an atheist. Various groups have tried and continue to try to force a religious observance out of me, and that pisses me off. I figure, since it pisses me off, if I tried to do the same to someone else (such as by preventing them from making a religious observance) they’d be pissed off, too. As much as I’m an atheist, the Golden Rule has always made a lot of sense to me. If I think it’s wrong when people do something that pisses me off, it follows that it’s equally wrong for me to do that to someone else.
Note that this isn’t just a religious question. As a general principle, I believe that people should be allowed to do what they want, provided they aren’t harming anyone else. This is the only way to have a free, open, and pluralistic society. Anything else, and you’re just asking to get the same treatment if you ever end up on the opposite side of the demographic divide.
Why the exception for private property? If the government can tell you not to be religious in public, why shouldn’t they be able to tell you not to be religious in private? Once you’ve established that the government has the right to dictate your religious behavior, why should that right end at your front door?
I’m pretty much agnostic, so I’m in the same religious boat as you. I don’t feel that I would be “forcing” anyone to do anything if a law were adopted where they couldn’t force things upon others.
Mandating the lack of something is not the contrary position to allowing something, basically.
because at your property line you have the right to invite or exclude whomever you wish. that’s the entire point of private property. which is pretty much the exact opposite of public property.
How does seeing someone wearing a religious symbol force anything on you?
More importantly, if we establish that the government can ban religious symbols, what principle do we use to argue that the government cannot require religious symbols? Once we’ve opened the door to government control of religious speech, how do you guarantee that it will always rule in your favor?
Why is that relevant? With a few exceptions, things that are illegal on public property are also illegal on private property. Why would religious observances be different?
So what would you do if your religion has a problem with false idolatry? Most normal people would say “shove it - he has just as much right to his religion as yours”. I ask: what about those people who define their religiosity as the absence thereof?
Because the two are completely separate concepts? You sure do like to conflate non-opposite concepts into opposite sides of the same coin. Banning is not the opposite of requiring.
Yes, but with no exceptions, there are more proscribed activities on public property than there are on parcels of private property.
If the bus route takes me by a church with a large crucifix on top of the steeple why should I be subjected to seeing it in public? Obviously such a blatant display of religious imagery violates my right not to see such imagery. If we truly want to get rid of gaudy displays of religion then maybe we should do something about Notre Dame.
Odesio
So would that extend to your right to display of your atheist religion ? If Muslims are offended you (or your wife) shoving their nose your atheism while their trying to enjoy their big mac by not wearing a head scarf, you’d have no problem with that ?
Um, they’d be displaying their religion, right? Who would be violating which hypothetical law at this point?
Basically, you can’t display atheism.
Some Muslims would consider a women failing to wear a head scarf as clear statement of the same (and feel free to insert religion X with public display Y). And if those same people form a majority in your town/state/country they can pass a law to protect them from your public flaunting of your atheism.
I forgot to add: “in this way”
there’s a big difference between non-religion and atheism, especially in terms of how one proclaims atheism.
Thats a pretty fine theological point, not really something that could stand up in constitutional court.
The fact is the same constitution that protects a women’s right TO WEAR a burqa in public is the same one that protects her right NOT TO WEAR a burqa in public.
I don’t think I understand the question. If I have a religion that frowns on idolatry, and I see someone in public who follows a different religion, I have to suck it up and deal with the fact that I live in a pluralistic society, and not everyone believes the same things I do. If I don’t have a religion at all, and I see someone in public who is religious, it’s just the same: I have to suck it up and deal with the fact that not everyone believes the same things I do.
The same, incidentally, applies to politics, sexual identity, Coke v. Pepsi, and fat people making out. Just 'cause I don’t like looking at something doesn’t give me the right to ban it.
The government (in the US) can make no law respecting the establishment of religion. This means that as much as no one can force you to wear a crucifix in public, neither can you prevent someone from wearing a crucifix in public. The government is prevented entirely from meddling in the religious sphere. You want to destroy that protection, to allow you to prevent people from making a religious observance. But if you remove that protection, you’re opening the door to someone else passing a law forcing you to observe their religion. The two issues are indeed opposite sides of the same coin. You cannot separate the two issues. Either the government has no business meddling in your personal beliefs, or it does, and if it does, then the only thing protecting you is numerical superiority. And that can be very fleeting.
I’m sorry, but I don’t understand this, either. How does this relate to what I just asked you?
Except all of those things can be proscribed by the government at any time - a few of them have been and/or still are.
The public display of religion is proscribed. The government shall not make any other law respecting the establishment of religion.
Done.
Under our constitution, yes. But our constitution is not the only way to ensure religious freedom.