4 ms·
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
by 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 agoThen 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 agoDo 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 agoDo 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.
- manfredo 8y agoI'm not missing any point, I'm well aware of the fact that centers of worship are important to many, or even most, religions. You've jumped into this comment chain pretty late, and the original point I'm making is probably difficult to glean from these later comments. My whole point is that the above poster's claim that > you have absolutely no right to prohibit anyone from practicing that religion simply because you don't like it. is just straight up not true. Several countries, including liberal democracies such as France with its laws that prohibit face coverings even when worn for religious purposes, do indeed prohibit religious practices. Attire and appearance is important to many religions, and liberal democracies do indeed prohibit those. drugme's claim that people (I assume people in liberal democracies is what's being referenced here) do not have the right to prohibit anyone from practicing religion is not correct. There are plenty of instances were people's religious practice is restricted by law. Then the commenter tried to pull a pretty blatant moat and bailey by trying to claim that their comments only referred to those that want to "prohibit [a religion] outright" as opposed to only prohibiting certain aspects. In response to which, I pointed out that a ban on religious centers is does not "prohibit outright" a religion either.