5 ms·

What's wrong about being against one religion in particular. You can be "against" a particular religion all you want. But you have absolutely no right to proh

• bluecalm 8y ago
  Churches have special status given by the government. This means I should absolutely have a say how many, what kind and where they are built. It's not about home meetings to read the Bible after dinner. It's about special status institutions which influencen the areas they are built in.
  • drugme 8y ago
    Churches have special status given by the government. Then maybe the problem is the messed up laws providing that "special status" then. But that doesn't mean you can (even under those laws) category ban a certain group from building any churches, anywhere. Which is exactly what Britain First is advocating.
• manfredo 8y ago
  Plenty of countries regulate public religious practice. Take France, for instance, which even regulates public display of religious symbols . Does it follow that it is hate speech to say, "the government should handle religion more like France."?
  • drugme 8y ago
    Does it follow that it is hate speech to say, "the government should handle religion more like France."? You'll note that France does not, by any stretch, attempt to ban mosques outright. So obviously there's not much of a comparison here.
    • manfredo 8y ago
      Note that while France is a secular country, secularism is not the same thing as freedom of religion. Plenty of secular countries seek freedom from religion. This can entail restrictions that prevent people from practicing religious customs, like the burka ban. The degree of magnitude between something like that and halting the construction of mosques is debatable. A good argument can be made that the former is more restrictive than the latter: the former actually prevents people from practicing religious customs, the latter only prevents formal religious establishments. In other words, banning mosques means people can be practicing Muslims that pray in their home, while the latter prevents people from being practicing Muslims at all (if adhering to dress codes is considered part of practicing the religion). The point I'm ultimately making is that the statement: > But you have absolutely no right to prohibit anyone from practicing that religion simply because you don't like it. Is demonstrably incorrect. Relatively liberal and progressive countries at times do prohibit people from practicing their religion, and France's restrictions serve as an example.
      • drugme 8y ago
        Relatively liberal and progressive countries at times do prohibit people from practicing their religion, and France's restrictions serve as an example. It's a question of "restrict expression to some extent" v. "prohibit outright". When I said "no right to prohibit" -- it's the latter form that I meant. France does restrict some aspects of religious expression (such as wearing the burka in public). But this is very far from an outright prohibition of that religion (which we both seem to agree a ban on mosques would basically amount to).
        • manfredo 8y ago
          > It's a question of "restrict expression to some extent" v. "prohibit outright". When I said "no right to prohibit" -- it's the latter form that I meant. Then banning mosques is not in the scope of your statement. Muslims can practice their religion without the presence of a mosque. Many do pray in the privacy of their homes or somewhere other than a mosque. Like France's face covering restrictions, it is only a restriction of a specific aspect of the religion. Such a ban does not, in your own words, "prohibit outright" the ability to practice Islam.