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

[DGuller]

What's important?

[garbon]

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.

What? So personal freedoms that might inconvenience others should only be exercised in public if they can also be used to further the political process (with the actual freedom being a fringe benefit)? Why should everything be subordinate to the government? We should probably ban homosexual acts in public and bring back don't ask, don't tell. Those don't serve any legitimate purpose for the gov and could be very inconvenient for citizens who find such things repulsive.

Homosexual acts (as well as heterosexual acts) are already banned in public - you can't fuck or give someone a blow job in a public place with other people looking. And remember that we are arguing for a restriction of public exercise of freedom of religion here in the context of a compelling security reason - there is no such compelling reason in onlookers "not being repulsed" (but as I said, we already restrict a lot of freedoms in terms of their public display because of public decency and public morality).

So again, the principle I described stands: people may be annoyed by public exercise of freedom of speech, but this freedom is so important to the democratic process that we do not restrict it or restrict it only in a very slight manner (e.g. by banning public vulgarities/obscenities, or "shouting fire in a crowded theatre"). On the other hand, we are quite happy to ban public displays of artistic expression (such as porn) or sexual freedom on grounds of public decency.

I'm talking about handholding and kissing. I could find many people who feel such displays of homosexual affection are against public decency.

And then of course, I've lived places where the types of acts you've described have been legally permitted in public.

[Martinus]

What's important?

Did someone say something?

[dps]

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.

Are you really so dense that you don't realize that freedom of religion includes the right to be faithless?

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

Again, this is the opposite of the way Americans tend to look at it.  There has to be a compelling reason for the state to interfere in one's religious beliefs or practices (again, including the right to not hold any religious belief).

[Martinus]

I'm talking about handholding and kissing. I could find many people who feel such displays of homosexual affection are against public decency.

Ok but that does not mean that the freedom is absolute just that restrictions must be reasonable.

The right "not to be offended" is relatively low on the hierarchy of importance, and as such it cannot restrict freedoms of others, except in most extreme circumstances. The needs associated with airport security are more important than that.

[Martinus]

Are you really so dense that you don't realize that freedom of religion includes the right to be faithless?

We were talking here about freedom of religion, meaning public worship/public observance of religious rituals and commandments. Atheists do not have such issues/needs so it is a moot point. There is no impediment of freedom to be faithless if, e.g., there was a general ban on public displays of one's religion or lack thereof.

This assumes, of course, that there is no official religion and no obligation to participate in official religious ceremonies - but this is about the separation of church and state, and not freedom of religion per se - which is something we take very seriously in Europe or at least the civilized parts of it.

[Razgovory]

Are you really so dense that you don't realize that freedom of religion includes the right to be faithless?

We were talking here about freedom of religion, meaning public worship/public observance of religious rituals and commandments. Atheists do not have such issues/needs so it is a moot point. There is no impediment of freedom to be faithless if, e.g., there was a general ban on public displays of one's religion or lack thereof.

This assumes, of course, that there is no official religion and no obligation to participate in official religious ceremonies - but this is about the separation of church and state, and not freedom of religion per se - which is something we take very seriously in Europe or at least the civilized parts of it.

That would carrying more weight if Atheists didn't feel the need to proselytize.  Actually, I wish you guys would take Freedom of Religion seriously, and realize that it doesn't mean only Freedom from religion.

[Martinus]

That would carrying more weight if Atheists didn't feel the need to proselytize.  Actually, I wish you guys would take Freedom of Religion seriously, and realize that it doesn't mean only Freedom from religion.

As I said, you are confusing two things - freedom of religion and separation of church and state.

The separation of church and state means (or at least should mean according to the school of thought I subscribe to, and which is implemented e.g. in France) that religious ceremonies, symbols and references should have no presence in the official doings of the state, including its laws, actions, ceremonies, events or public places (such as courthouses, government buildings and the like) and public officials should not make any religious utterances or references (whether express or implied, e.g. by wearing religious symbols) when acting in their official capacity.

In such a state, freedom of religion can be, by its nature, exercised mainly in private (which does not necessarily mean "in the privacy of your bedroom", but rather in the private part of one's life), since the public sphere (understood as the sphere of the state) is religion-free.

[Razgovory]

Yes, but my clothing is not an official domain of the state.  I am not an organ of the state.  I'm just me, a private individual, who happens to go to state buildings to do my business.  Yet I see in places like France the government making judgments on religious choices of clothing.

[Razgovory]

Again, this is the opposite of the way Americans tend to look at it.  There has to be a compelling reason for the state to interfere in one's religious beliefs or practices (again, including the right to not hold any religious belief).

I find this sort of outlook honestly creepy.  I hope we never get to the point where we go from justifying government interference in someone's personal life to private individuals having to justify the government staying out.

[Martinus]

Yes, but my clothing is not an official domain of the state.  I am not an organ of the state.  I'm just me, a private individual, who happens to go to state buildings to do my business.  Yet I see in places like France the government making judgments on religious choices of clothing.

But the state already regulates your clothing - for example there are laws against indecent exposure in a public place, or laws that require you to wear a helmet while riding a bike or a hard hat while entering a construction site. So there isn't really any new quality in the state telling you that you cannot enter a university wearing a religious veil - it's just that the religious idiots are so used to their special privileges (and the rest of the society is so used to giving these privileges to them) that this sounds like something extraordinary.

[Razgovory]

Wait, you think that wearing clothing is a "special privilege"?

[Solmyr]

I actually disagree with French handling of the religious clothing issue. One should be free to wear (or not wear) whatever clothing one wants - but again, if this interferes with important legal procedures (e.g. id photos/checks), then such things take precedence.

[garbon]

I'm talking about handholding and kissing. I could find many people who feel such displays of homosexual affection are against public decency.

Ok but that does not mean that the freedom is absolute just that restrictions must be reasonable.

The right "not to be offended" is relatively low on the hierarchy of importance, and as such it cannot restrict freedoms of others, except in most extreme circumstances. The needs associated with airport security are more important than that.

But you just cited pornography in public as an aspect of free speech/expression that should be banned in public. How does homosexual expression not fit along there except that you and I don't find it disgusting?