2 ms·

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, atte

by 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.
    - drugme 8y ago
      Then banning mosques is not in the scope of your statement. Hmm - I disagree, and I suspect most courts in the kinds of countries we're talking about would also.
      - manfredo 8y ago
        Do Muslims that don't live within commuting distance of a mosque cease to be Muslims? Of course not, they pray in their homes. The existence of Muslims that practice religions without mosques makes the claim that a ban on mosques prohibits the practice of Islam outright an objectively false statement. You're the one that put the threshold at "prohibit outright". US courts would likely agree that it is unjustly curbing religion - they'd find the bans on head coverings unlawful as well.
        Spivak 8y ago
        Do gay couples that aren't allowed to be married cease to be gay? Of course not, they keep their sexuality in the privacy of their own homes. The existence of gays that live without recognition and rights by the state makes the claim that a ban on gay marriage prohibites homosexuality an objectively false statement... Like yes you're technically right but only by seemingly purposely missing the point -- that having a community center to gather and worship is central to most religions. The times when chruchmembers gather in housechurches are typically times when they're being opressed.

by drugme 8y ago

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.
  - drugme 8y ago
    Then banning mosques is not in the scope of your statement. Hmm - I disagree, and I suspect most courts in the kinds of countries we're talking about would also.
    - manfredo 8y ago
      Do Muslims that don't live within commuting distance of a mosque cease to be Muslims? Of course not, they pray in their homes. The existence of Muslims that practice religions without mosques makes the claim that a ban on mosques prohibits the practice of Islam outright an objectively false statement. You're the one that put the threshold at "prohibit outright". US courts would likely agree that it is unjustly curbing religion - they'd find the bans on head coverings unlawful as well.
      - Spivak 8y ago
        Do gay couples that aren't allowed to be married cease to be gay? Of course not, they keep their sexuality in the privacy of their own homes. The existence of gays that live without recognition and rights by the state makes the claim that a ban on gay marriage prohibites homosexuality an objectively false statement... Like yes you're technically right but only by seemingly purposely missing the point -- that having a community center to gather and worship is central to most religions. The times when chruchmembers gather in housechurches are typically times when they're being opressed.