4 ms·
>"Temples of any religion are usually not public grounds and can enforce visitation rules." This is patently untrue. I'm not sure where you are getting that fr
by bogomipz 9y ago
>"Temples of any religion are usually not public grounds and can enforce visitation rules."
This is patently untrue. I'm not sure where you are getting that from. I'm neither Muslim, nor Hindu, nor Sikh, nor Buddhist nor Shinto and I have been welcomed into everyone of those great religion's temples in many different countries throughout the world. They are very much public places.
- ptero 9y agoThere are different interpretations of the word "public". The parent I think uses it as a legal term, i.e., deviations can be reported to and handled by law enforcement: e.g., in the US one can photograph anything and anyone on a public street, but usually cannot walk there naked. This is the definition I personally use, too. The meaning you seem to be using the term to mean welcoming everyone by choice of the owner (e.g., "everyone can come to my restaurant"). However, in this case the owner can also impose their own visitation rules (e.g., prohibiting a dress type that is offensive to one group but perfectly acceptable to another).
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- MikeTheGreat 9y agoI think what riverbashing was saying was that if a particular temple wanted to restricted access it could. I think that here in the US a church/etc can do the same thing using a 'private property' law of some sort. Something to the effect of "It's our private property and we don't want <whomever> here" That said, most religious groups that I've seen (in the US) try to welcome potential new members and have (like you said) welcomed visitors as well.
- bogomipz 9y agoI see, I hadn't considered the legal context of the term public in the OPs statement simply because they are such communal places. But yes that makes sense.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]