Polish court's ruling: A sikh vs. airport security checks

[Sheilbh]

I would use "tolerate" for that context.  Other basic freedoms such as freedom of speech or freedom of assembly can be terribly inconvenient, as many people found with the "occupy" protests.  However, I don't think people would be keen on saying that we respect your freedom to protest the government so long as you do it in your home away from the public.

If you add a bullet-pointed agenda that's the Yi corollary

[Martinus]

I do.

"Respect" in this context means "do not actively use violence to change," right?

I would use "tolerate" for that context.  Other basic freedoms such as freedom of speech or freedom of assembly can be terribly inconvenient, as many people found with the "occupy" protests.  However, I don't think people would be keen on saying that we respect your freedom to protest the government so long as you do it in your home away from the public.

Wow, you are really horrible with these analogies.

[Martinus]

I don't think so. You seem to focus on the state making accommodations if they possibly have the resources (which cash strapped States tend not to have) whereas I think the state should always make reasonable accommodations available...especially in cases where acccomodations are already available but just need to be added to protocol.

Sorry we only respect your religion if not busy isn't the freedom of religion, I'd want to have.

We respect your religion but it's your own and nobody else's business, is the freedom of religion I'd want to have.

That sounds like you can say whatever you want as long as you keep it to yourself.

Not really. The freedoms of speech and assembly are important parts of the political process and must be exercised in public to be effective. Freedom of religion does not. If people stopped exercising their freedom of religion tomorrow and everybody became faithless, this would not affect the democratic process - if everyone suddenly stopped to exercise their freedom of speech and assembly, this would severely harm the democratic process. So comparing both makes no sense.

Religion is a private part of life and there really is no compelling reason for it to invade public life.

Edit: And for the record, I don't think anyone argues that people should enjoy unrestricted freedom of speech and assembly at the security check points at airports either. I bet if Ide was wearing his red army hat they would tell him to take it off, too. If he started calling for a proletariat revolution and organizing workers' committees he would probably get arrested.

[Razgovory]

I do.

"Respect" in this context means "do not actively use violence to change," right?

I would use "tolerate" for that context.  Other basic freedoms such as freedom of speech or freedom of assembly can be terribly inconvenient, as many people found with the "occupy" protests.  However, I don't think people would be keen on saying that we respect your freedom to protest the government so long as you do it in your home away from the public.

Wow, you are really horrible with these analogies.

You wouldn't know a good analogue if it bit you in the ass.

[Martinus]

I do.

"Respect" in this context means "do not actively use violence to change," right?

I would use "tolerate" for that context.  Other basic freedoms such as freedom of speech or freedom of assembly can be terribly inconvenient, as many people found with the "occupy" protests.  However, I don't think people would be keen on saying that we respect your freedom to protest the government so long as you do it in your home away from the public.

Wow, you are really horrible with these analogies.

You wouldn't know a good analogue if it bit you in the ass.

The singular of "analogies" is "analogy", not "analogue".

[Razgovory]

Not really. The freedoms of speech and assembly are important parts of the political process and must be exercised in public to be effective. Freedom of religion does not. If people stopped exercising their freedom of religion tomorrow and everybody became faithless, this would not affect the democratic process - if everyone suddenly stopped to exercise their freedom of speech and assembly, this would severely harm the democratic process. So comparing both makes no sense.

Religion is a private part of life and there really is no compelling reason for it to invade public life.

Edit: And for the record, I don't think anyone argues that people should enjoy unrestricted freedom of speech and assembly at the security check points at airports either. I bet if Ide was wearing his red army hat they would tell him to take it off, too. If he started calling for a proletariat revolution and organizing workers' committees he would probably get arrested.

Surely you know that evangelizing is a major aspect of many religions?  The question is not "Is there a compelling reason to have religion invade public life", the question is "Is there a compelling reason for government to prevent it".

[Razgovory]

I would use "tolerate" for that context.  Other basic freedoms such as freedom of speech or freedom of assembly can be terribly inconvenient, as many people found with the "occupy" protests.  However, I don't think people would be keen on saying that we respect your freedom to protest the government so long as you do it in your home away from the public.

If you add a bullet-pointed agenda that's the Yi corollary

Yi and I are of one mind on these type of things.  We differ wildly on the political spectrum of the US, but I think we regard the rights espoused in the Bill of Rights as sacrosanct.

[Sheilbh]

I meant that Yi's freedom of assembly and protest is doing it in your home, with a set agenda and time for any other business at the end.

[Solmyr]

I would use "tolerate" for that context.  Other basic freedoms such as freedom of speech or freedom of assembly can be terribly inconvenient, as many people found with the "occupy" protests.  However, I don't think people would be keen on saying that we respect your freedom to protest the government so long as you do it in your home away from the public.

Tolerance is exactly what freedom of religion should be, no more. You should not be required to like every religion out there, as long as you don't suppress it or use violence against its members. They are free to practice their religion at home or in public, as long as it does not hinder anyone else. You are once again equating freedom of religion and freedom of speech, which are different things. But even with freedom of speech you are not required to agree with or like everything everyone says.

[Solmyr]

Surely you know that evangelizing is a major aspect of many religions?  The question is not "Is there a compelling reason to have religion invade public life", the question is "Is there a compelling reason for government to prevent it".

There isn't, as long as such evangelizing is not intruding on the freedom of those wanting to be free of it. And by this I don't mean preaching on the street, but things like being able to stop evangelists coming into your house or talking to you personally.

[Razgovory]

Surely you know that evangelizing is a major aspect of many religions?  The question is not "Is there a compelling reason to have religion invade public life", the question is "Is there a compelling reason for government to prevent it".

There isn't, as long as such evangelizing is not intruding on the freedom of those wanting to be free of it. And by this I don't mean preaching on the street, but things like being able to stop evangelists coming into your house or talking to you personally.

There Isn't what?  Do you think that people have the right to be "free" of speech, or "free" of political protest?

[Solmyr]

There Isn't what?  Do you think that people have the right to be "free" of speech, or "free" of political protest?

Both, the latter covering locations such as homes and other private property, including places of business.

[Razgovory]

There Isn't what?  Do you think that people have the right to be "free" of speech, or "free" of political protest?

Both, the latter covering locations such as homes and other private property, including places of business.

Okay, should someone have the "right" to be free of people they don't like at their place of business.  Say be free of Jews in their restaurant?

Do you think that freedom of religion, speech and assembly should be applied equally in the public sphere?

[Solmyr]

Okay, should someone have the "right" to be free of people they don't like at their place of business.  Say be free of Jews in their restaurant?

No, because being a Jew does not harm or hinder anyone else. Being free of someone actively trying to convert you to Judaism is another story.

Do you think that freedom of religion, speech and assembly should be applied equally in the public sphere?

Again, freedom of religion and freedom of speech cannot be compared. They each have their place in the public sphere but you cannot treat them the same way.

[Sheilbh]

No, because being a Jew does not harm or hinder anyone else. Being free of someone actively trying to convert you to Judaism is another story.

So you'd just ban Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons?

Again, freedom of religion and freedom of speech cannot be compared. They each have their place in the public sphere but you cannot treat them the same way.

Why not?