Human rights? What are those? :rolleyes:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/17/world/europe/paris-begins-enforcing-ban-on-street-prayer.html
QuoteLittle Protest in Paris as a Ban on Street Prayer Begins
By REUTERS
Published: September 16, 2011
PARIS (Reuters) — A ban on street prayer came into force on Friday, driving thousands of Muslim worshipers in northern Paris into an improvised prayer site in an old fire brigade barracks, angering a small but vocal minority.
The prayer ban has highlighted France's difficulties in assimilating many of its five million Muslims, who often lack spaces to pray, and it follows a long-smoldering dispute fanned by the far-right leader Marine Le Pen.
The Interior Ministry under Claude Guéant has directed Paris's Muslims to temporary spaces made available pending the construction of a new space and warned that force would be used if necessary as the police enforce the ban.
Seven months before a presidential election, the ban has struck some in France as an attempt to rally the far right to President Nicolas Sarkozy's center-right camp.
At the fire barracks, Sheik Mohammed Salah Hamza oversaw prayers for Muslims who had arrived from all over the city. Worshipers streamed in, spreading their woven prayer mats over the floor of the hangarlike building and out into the courtyard.
"It's the beginning of a solution," Sheik Hamza told Reuters before the start of the service. "The faithful are very pleased to be here. The space, which holds 2,000, is full."
Many worshipers were also upbeat. "This will be better than Rue Myrha," said one man, referring to a road in Paris where street prayers often take place. "Apparently, it shocked people."
Ms. Le Pen has described the growing phenomenon of praying in the streets and sidewalks as an "invasion."
"It's Marine Le Pen who started all this," a woman who gave her name as Assya said on her way into the former barracks on the outskirts of Paris.
In France, where a strict separation of church and state has been in force for a century, public displays of religious activity are frowned upon.
Yet efforts by Mr. Sarkozy's conservative government to restrict religious displays, like a prohibition on full-face veils, have drawn criticism as empty measures that unfairly single out Muslims.
France counts the largest Muslim minority of any European country. Yet only a portion — about 10 percent, or the same proportion as the devout among Catholics — are practicing, according to Muslim associations.
As a rule, militant Muslim voices in France are rare, but the Friday Prayer in northern Paris drew a small but angry protest.
An hour before the first prayer, young men with beards, green headbands and banners gathered on Rue Myrha to discourage worshipers from moving to the new site.
"No system in the universe can control us aside from Allah!" shouted one young man.
Another said, "There is more dignity in praying in the grass than in their false mosque."
As the prayers began, dozens of young men belonging to a group called Forsane Alizza disrupted the service and jostled with security officers.
You understand that they pray in the street, thus obstructing traffic?
Human rights have nothing to do with this. Prayer or other religious rituals absolutely do not belong on a public street.
This is a repeat of what happened a short while ago in Russia, btw: http://blogs.voanews.com/breaking-news/2011/08/30/muslims-in-russia-pray-in-the-streets-to-celebrate-eid-al-fitr/
I didn't realize blocking traffic is a human right in the US. You guys are a weird bunch.
I'm with the Timmy bashers on this one.
I think Timmay just reads the headlines.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 18, 2011, 07:38:11 AM
I think Timmay just reads the headlines.
I usually read the whole thing. -_-
You suck at it then.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 18, 2011, 07:38:11 AM
I think Timmay just reads the headlines.
I think he just reads the back of the cereal box.
Quote"No system in the universe can control us aside from Allah!" shouted one young man.
Lol, funny.
Maybe the unemployment rate for Muslims in France wouldn't be so high if they weren't praying all the fucking time.
This is perfectly reasonable, given their situation. If people insist on using their prayer as a weapon to harass and annoy, then it will have restrictions placed upon it.
I saw a Law & Order episode the other day from 2002 - where a white boy gone muslim was preaching about the 20,000 arabs killed by America vs. the 2,000 Americans dead on 9/11. Then yesterday I saw a nation of islam type who had gathered a group and was loudly saying "They talk about the Americans killed on 9/11, but do you know how many Arabs, America has killed in its wars?" Sad.
Quote from: garbon on September 18, 2011, 08:55:50 AM
I saw a Law & Order episode the other day from 2002 - where a white boy gone muslim was preaching about the 20,000 arabs killed by America vs. the 2,000 Americans dead on 9/11. Then yesterday I saw a nation of islam type who had gathered a group and was loudly saying "They talk about the Americans killed on 9/11, but do you know how many Arabs, America has killed in its wars?" Sad.
Why is it sad? We're 10-to-1. :yeah:
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on September 18, 2011, 07:20:39 AM
You understand that they pray in the street, thus obstructing traffic?
Couldn't they just be ticketed for that instead of for praying?
Quote from: Ideologue on September 18, 2011, 02:59:51 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 18, 2011, 08:55:50 AM
I saw a Law & Order episode the other day from 2002 - where a white boy gone muslim was preaching about the 20,000 arabs killed by America vs. the 2,000 Americans dead on 9/11. Then yesterday I saw a nation of islam type who had gathered a group and was loudly saying "They talk about the Americans killed on 9/11, but do you know how many Arabs, America has killed in its wars?" Sad.
Why is it sad? We're 10-to-1. :yeah:
It's terribly inefficient, though. Just tossing a stinkbomb in Mecca would likely get you a higher ratio.
Quote from: Iormlund on September 18, 2011, 03:05:29 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 18, 2011, 02:59:51 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 18, 2011, 08:55:50 AM
I saw a Law & Order episode the other day from 2002 - where a white boy gone muslim was preaching about the 20,000 arabs killed by America vs. the 2,000 Americans dead on 9/11. Then yesterday I saw a nation of islam type who had gathered a group and was loudly saying "They talk about the Americans killed on 9/11, but do you know how many Arabs, America has killed in its wars?" Sad.
Why is it sad? We're 10-to-1. :yeah:
It's terribly inefficient, though. Just tossing a stinkbomb in Mecca would likely get you a higher ratio.
But then we couldn't pretend we are their allies and buy their oil. :contract:
Quote from: Ideologue on September 18, 2011, 02:59:51 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 18, 2011, 08:55:50 AM
I saw a Law & Order episode the other day from 2002 - where a white boy gone muslim was preaching about the 20,000 arabs killed by America vs. the 2,000 Americans dead on 9/11. Then yesterday I saw a nation of islam type who had gathered a group and was loudly saying "They talk about the Americans killed on 9/11, but do you know how many Arabs, America has killed in its wars?" Sad.
Why is it sad? We're 10-to-1. :yeah:
If we used our big boy weapons, we could improve that ratio.
I like Islamic architecture, though. And there's plenty of interesting stuff to see from previous civilizations in the ME.
Quote from: garbon on September 18, 2011, 08:55:50 AM
I saw a Law & Order episode the other day from 2002 - where a white boy gone muslim was preaching about the 20,000 arabs killed by America vs. the 2,000 Americans dead on 9/11. Then yesterday I saw a nation of islam type who had gathered a group and was loudly saying "They talk about the Americans killed on 9/11, but do you know how many Arabs, America has killed in its wars?" Sad.
Yeah, but most those were killed by other Arabs.
Quote from: Solmyr on September 18, 2011, 07:23:46 AM
Human rights have nothing to do with this. Prayer or other religious rituals absolutely do not belong on a public street.
And yet you miss the point completely.
Typical Sarko populist pre-election bullshit.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 18, 2011, 02:59:51 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 18, 2011, 08:55:50 AM
I saw a Law & Order episode the other day from 2002 - where a white boy gone muslim was preaching about the 20,000 arabs killed by America vs. the 2,000 Americans dead on 9/11. Then yesterday I saw a nation of islam type who had gathered a group and was loudly saying "They talk about the Americans killed on 9/11, but do you know how many Arabs, America has killed in its wars?" Sad.
Why is it sad? We're 10-to-1. :yeah:
The sad bit was that after nearly a decade since the sentiment was expressed on tv, you can still hear the ignorant position spouted on the sidewalk.
This article and Zoup's reaction in the Medal of Honor thread give a glimpse into the French mind/attitude, that people in U.S. or even in places around the world that still hold religous processions/rituals in the "public square" are not familiar with.
Quote from: garbon on September 18, 2011, 04:03:33 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 18, 2011, 02:59:51 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 18, 2011, 08:55:50 AM
I saw a Law & Order episode the other day from 2002 - where a white boy gone muslim was preaching about the 20,000 arabs killed by America vs. the 2,000 Americans dead on 9/11. Then yesterday I saw a nation of islam type who had gathered a group and was loudly saying "They talk about the Americans killed on 9/11, but do you know how many Arabs, America has killed in its wars?" Sad.
Why is it sad? We're 10-to-1. :yeah:
The sad bit was that after nearly a decade since the sentiment was expressed on tv, you can still hear the ignorant position spouted on the sidewalk.
Has anyone ever calculated the number. If not that's probarly why the question gets spouted on the sidewalks, in tv etc. They seek an answer! :(
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 18, 2011, 03:02:02 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on September 18, 2011, 07:20:39 AM
You understand that they pray in the street, thus obstructing traffic?
Couldn't they just be ticketed for that instead of for praying?
The unions are against all laws that prohibit blocking traffic.
That's a good point. If you ticket praying Muslims then you'd have to ticket shit dumping farmers too.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 18, 2011, 02:59:51 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 18, 2011, 08:55:50 AM
I saw a Law & Order episode the other day from 2002 - where a white boy gone muslim was preaching about the 20,000 arabs killed by America vs. the 2,000 Americans dead on 9/11. Then yesterday I saw a nation of islam type who had gathered a group and was loudly saying "They talk about the Americans killed on 9/11, but do you know how many Arabs, America has killed in its wars?" Sad.
Why is it sad? We're 10-to-1. :yeah:
It's sad, because the NoI brother doesn't compute the number of black people killed by Arabs.
Quote from: Scipio on September 18, 2011, 06:52:11 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 18, 2011, 02:59:51 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 18, 2011, 08:55:50 AM
I saw a Law & Order episode the other day from 2002 - where a white boy gone muslim was preaching about the 20,000 arabs killed by America vs. the 2,000 Americans dead on 9/11. Then yesterday I saw a nation of islam type who had gathered a group and was loudly saying "They talk about the Americans killed on 9/11, but do you know how many Arabs, America has killed in its wars?" Sad.
Why is it sad? We're 10-to-1. :yeah:
It's sad, because the NoI brother doesn't compute the number of black people killed by Arabs.
Again. Missing the point.
His "black brothers" are chattel even to him. His ancestors were the ones selling the slaves to Jewropeans in the first place. This bitching is just political posturing, not any heart felt desire to put things into perspective.
Quote from: Slargos on September 19, 2011, 06:55:32 AM
This bitching is just political posturing, not any heart felt desire to put things into perspective.
I think that's definitely the case. After all, I can't really believe that he gathered such a crowd of black people with trite statements about Arabs (after all many of said audience at best don't care about Arabs). I'd imagine he hooked them in with talk about unemployment and tough circumstances for African Americans. The bit about 9/11 probably just served to illustrate how uncaring and hypocritical America can be.
They still complain while the State offered them a temporary mosque at no cost, in violation of laïcité principles.
Rue Myrrha is in Barbès neighborhood, just a short walk from Gare du Nord (for the Brits and Germans coming from Cologne/Aachen) or Gare de l'Est (for Germans coming from Frankfurt/Stuttgart/München). Go there on a Friday, it's really exotic :D
Quote from: citizen k on September 18, 2011, 04:14:18 PM
This article and Zoup's reaction in the Medal of Honor thread give a glimpse into the French mind/attitude, that people in U.S. or even in places around the world that still hold religous processions/rituals in the "public square" are not familiar with.
I don't understand this post. Must be the syntax or something.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 18, 2011, 05:12:56 PM
That's a good point. If you ticket praying Muslims then you'd have to ticket shit dumping farmers too.
Presumably, farmers do not block streets in residential neighborhoods on a weekly basis.
Quote from: Martinus on September 19, 2011, 09:16:53 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 18, 2011, 05:12:56 PM
That's a good point. If you ticket praying Muslims then you'd have to ticket shit dumping farmers too.
Presumably, farmers do not block streets in residential neighborhoods on a weekly basis.
The impression I get from the media is that French farmers pretty much do protest on a weekly basis...
Quote from: Martinus on September 19, 2011, 09:15:25 AM
Quote from: citizen k on September 18, 2011, 04:14:18 PM
This article and Zoup's reaction in the Medal of Honor thread give a glimpse into the French mind/attitude, that people in U.S. or even in places around the world that still hold religous processions/rituals in the "public square" are not familiar with.
I don't understand this post. Must be the syntax or something.
Still obvious what he was saying.
Quote from: Martinus on September 19, 2011, 09:16:53 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 18, 2011, 05:12:56 PM
That's a good point. If you ticket praying Muslims then you'd have to ticket shit dumping farmers too.
Presumably, farmers do not block streets in residential neighborhoods on a weekly basis.
They cause regular enough disruption (even blocking foreign boats in port on occasion) but no one is clamouring for a law against strike actions, no?
Quote from: Barrister on September 19, 2011, 09:33:46 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 19, 2011, 09:16:53 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 18, 2011, 05:12:56 PM
That's a good point. If you ticket praying Muslims then you'd have to ticket shit dumping farmers too.
Presumably, farmers do not block streets in residential neighborhoods on a weekly basis.
The impression I get from the media is that French farmers pretty much do protest on a weekly basis...
Yes. Hourly even.
:rolleyes:
Quote from: Warspite on September 19, 2011, 11:41:41 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 19, 2011, 09:16:53 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 18, 2011, 05:12:56 PM
That's a good point. If you ticket praying Muslims then you'd have to ticket shit dumping farmers too.
Presumably, farmers do not block streets in residential neighborhoods on a weekly basis.
They cause regular enough disruption (even blocking foreign boats in port on occasion) but no one is clamouring for a law against strike actions, no?
Except religious-based public disruptions are unacceptable. Trust me, if it was good little catholics blocking the street every freaking friday or worse, the cops would be on them even more.
Quote from: Zoupa on September 19, 2011, 01:45:24 PM
Quote from: Warspite on September 19, 2011, 11:41:41 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 19, 2011, 09:16:53 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 18, 2011, 05:12:56 PM
That's a good point. If you ticket praying Muslims then you'd have to ticket shit dumping farmers too.
Presumably, farmers do not block streets in residential neighborhoods on a weekly basis.
They cause regular enough disruption (even blocking foreign boats in port on occasion) but no one is clamouring for a law against strike actions, no?
Except religious-based public disruptions are unacceptable. Trust me, if it was good little catholics blocking the street every freaking friday or worse, the cops would be on them even more.
Why?
Look - if this is a street-blocking issue then I have no problem with it. But then due something about blocking the street, not "public prayer".
No.
And for the record, all those protests you see "in the media" have been cleared at a departmental level by the préfet. Meaning protesters ask for a permit in advance, which the préfet grants in 99% of cases for social movements/causes.
Quote from: Zoupa on September 19, 2011, 01:53:43 PM
No.
And for the record, all those protests you see "in the media" have been cleared at a departmental level by the préfet. Meaning protesters ask for a permit in advance, which the préfet grants in 99% of cases for social movements/causes.
Dude - the line about French farmers was a quip, nothing more. I thought I flagged it by saying "the impression I get from the media". Lighten up.
But my other post was serious? Why are religious-based public disruptions any worse than any other kind of public disruption?
Quote from: Zoupa on September 19, 2011, 01:45:24 PM
Except religious-based public disruptions are unacceptable. Trust me, if it was good little catholics blocking the street every freaking friday or worse, the cops would be on them even more.
What is it about religious based disruptions that make it any more unacceptable than any other disprutions. Also, it appears that there would have been no disruption at all if the State and not tried to prevent them from praying.
What is so offensive about people using a public space to pray?
Quote from: Zoupa on September 19, 2011, 01:53:43 PM
No.
And for the record, all those protests you see "in the media" have been cleared at a departmental level by the préfet. Meaning protesters ask for a permit in advance, which the préfet grants in 99% of cases for social movements/causes.
So state-sanctioned makes it OK? That's what the Taliban thought.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 19, 2011, 02:01:04 PM
Also, it appears that there would have been no disruption at all if the State and not tried to prevent them from praying.
:huh:
You mean apart from blocking the damn streets every single week, causing enormous gridlock in your capital?
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 19, 2011, 02:01:04 PM
What is it about religious based disruptions that make it any more unacceptable than any other disprutions. Also, it appears that there would have been no disruption at all if the State and not tried to prevent them from praying.
What is so offensive about people using a public space to pray?
In France? It is incredibly offensive. I am not sure how much I need to go into that but surely a basic understanding of the past 500 years of French history should make that obvious. To their credit they do not usually ban them like this though.
The french mindset sees religion as something private, that has no place in the public sphere. In most cases people don't even know what religion their political leaders follow.
For example former Prime Minister Jospin is protestant. I only found out last year. It just never occurred to me to inquire what faith if any he follows, I was watching an Italian documentary when they mentioned it.
Quote from: Zoupa on September 19, 2011, 02:22:49 PM
The french mindset sees religion as something private, that has no place in the public sphere. In most cases people don't even know what religion their political leaders follow.
For example former Prime Minister Jospin is protestant. I only found out last year. It just never occurred to me to inquire what faith if any he follows, I was watching an Italian documentary when they mentioned it.
If faith is a private matter what interest can the State have in how people practice it?
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 19, 2011, 02:34:57 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on September 19, 2011, 02:22:49 PM
The french mindset sees religion as something private, that has no place in the public sphere. In most cases people don't even know what religion their political leaders follow.
For example former Prime Minister Jospin is protestant. I only found out last year. It just never occurred to me to inquire what faith if any he follows, I was watching an Italian documentary when they mentioned it.
If faith is a private matter what interest can the State have in how people practice it?
I often take a dump in the street.
Quote from: Zoupa on September 19, 2011, 02:22:49 PM
The french mindset sees religion as something private, that has no place in the public sphere. In most cases people don't even know what religion their political leaders follow.
For example former Prime Minister Jospin is protestant. I only found out last year. It just never occurred to me to inquire what faith if any he follows, I was watching an Italian documentary when they mentioned it.
I'm really not sure what your anecdote about politicians has to do with street prayer.
It's pretty obvious that French muslims are not your typical french citizens, and clearly they don't share that "french mindset" you mention. The question then becomes what do you do about it. You can not legislate a mindset.
Watch us. :)
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 19, 2011, 02:34:57 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on September 19, 2011, 02:22:49 PM
The french mindset sees religion as something private, that has no place in the public sphere. In most cases people don't even know what religion their political leaders follow.
For example former Prime Minister Jospin is protestant. I only found out last year. It just never occurred to me to inquire what faith if any he follows, I was watching an Italian documentary when they mentioned it.
If faith is a private matter what interest can the State have in how people practice it?
None, as long as it absent from the public sphere.
Quote from: Valmy on September 19, 2011, 02:21:30 PM
In France? It is incredibly offensive. I am not sure how much I need to go into that but surely a basic understanding of the past 500 years of French history should make that obvious. To their credit they do not usually ban them like this though.
Yes. That being said, such a history also has created the pernicious effects which forces muslims in the streets every week. As churches became appropriated by the State in 1905, they are often now and maintained through public money. Mosques are not: they need to be built. This, of course, is problematic, since the muslim community in France is not rich, and France has opposed (diplomatically) the financing of mosques by foreign states (i.e., Saudi Arabia). Then enter the local politics of urban regulations, which is also liable to create some problems, as was recently seen in the US... Then, in some cities (such as Paris...) it is incredibly hard to build something anew, even when one does not consider the costs. So, you get improvised mosques in basements, in confined buildings, etc, which are not big enough to contain the worshippers. Add to that the usual reflex of Sarko & Co. to try to appeal to the far-right voters, and you get a much more complicated picture than "silly France" or "vive la laïcité".
Quote from: Barrister on September 19, 2011, 02:42:58 PM
It's pretty obvious that French muslims are not your typical french citizens, and clearly they don't share that "french mindset" you mention. The question then becomes what do you do about it. You can not legislate a mindset.
Well it seems to me most of the French Muslims do share the mindset.
Quote from: Zoupa on September 19, 2011, 02:44:14 PM
Watch us. :)
I have more faith in the Healing Power of Government(tm) than most, and even I think that this will not work. But good luck, and let us know how it turns out. :)
Quote from: Oexmelin on September 19, 2011, 02:45:44 PM
Yes. That being said, such a history also has created the pernicious effects which forces muslims in the streets every week. As churches became appropriated by the State in 1905, they are often now and maintained through public money. Mosques are not: they need to be built. This, of course, is problematic, since the muslim community in France is not rich, and France has opposed (diplomatically) the financing of mosques by foreign states (i.e., Saudi Arabia). Then enter the local politics of urban regulations, which is also liable to create some problems, as was recently seen in the US... Then, in some cities (such as Paris...) it is incredibly hard to build something anew, even when one does not consider the costs. So, you get improvised mosques in basements, in confined buildings, etc, which are not big enough to contain the worshippers. Add to that the usual reflex of Sarko & Co. to try to appeal to the far-right voters, and you get a much more complicated picture than "silly France" or "vive la laïcité".
There always are lots of layers to issues like this. It does sound like the government is trying to meet them half way by providing them places to pray...but one wonders what the long term solution will be.
Quote from: Zoupa on September 19, 2011, 02:45:27 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 19, 2011, 02:34:57 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on September 19, 2011, 02:22:49 PM
The french mindset sees religion as something private, that has no place in the public sphere. In most cases people don't even know what religion their political leaders follow.
For example former Prime Minister Jospin is protestant. I only found out last year. It just never occurred to me to inquire what faith if any he follows, I was watching an Italian documentary when they mentioned it.
If faith is a private matter what interest can the State have in how people practice it?
None, as long as it absent from the public sphere.
So you think the State does have a role in determining how people worship. The State is perfectly justified in your mind in imposing rules so that the worship conforms to the State's view of how such things ought to be performed. I must say that is an interesting insight into the French mind that I had not realized before this conversation.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 19, 2011, 03:02:00 PM
So you think the State does have a role in determining how people worship. The State is perfectly justified in your mind in imposing rules so that the worship conforms to the State's view of how such things ought to be performed. I must say that is an interesting insight into the French mind that I had not realized before this conversation.
What the fuck? The French state does not care how you worship so long as you do not make a public show of it because of that 500 year history thing. Religion has historically been a source of conflict, violence, and even a threat to the existance of the state. How you take that and twist it to make it sound like France legislates how you worship is total horseshit.
Quote from: Valmy on September 19, 2011, 03:12:10 PM
Religion has historically been a source of conflict, violence, and even a threat to the existance of the state.
that's different from the rest of western europe how?
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 19, 2011, 03:02:00 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on September 19, 2011, 02:45:27 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 19, 2011, 02:34:57 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on September 19, 2011, 02:22:49 PM
The french mindset sees religion as something private, that has no place in the public sphere. In most cases people don't even know what religion their political leaders follow.
For example former Prime Minister Jospin is protestant. I only found out last year. It just never occurred to me to inquire what faith if any he follows, I was watching an Italian documentary when they mentioned it.
If faith is a private matter what interest can the State have in how people practice it?
None, as long as it absent from the public sphere.
So you think the State does have a role in determining how people worship. The State is perfectly justified in your mind in imposing rules so that the worship conforms to the State's view of how such things ought to be performed. I must say that is an interesting insight into the French mind that I had not realized before this conversation.
:huh: Huh no? How did you possibly extrapolate that from my post?
Quote from: HVC on September 19, 2011, 03:15:25 PM
that's different from the rest of western europe how?
Well a big factor is that for the 19th century and on into the 20th to be religious was to be anti-Republican for the most part. Recall the rather over the top anti-Clericism of the early 20th century Third Republic. If anything the Republicans have mellowed out.
Quote from: HVC on September 19, 2011, 03:15:25 PMthat's different from the rest of western europe how?
It is different in that laïcité has become one of the cornerstone of the Republic. Other countries in Western Europe have had the Reformation - in which the State took direct control of the Church - or not a very good track record of Republicanism, and a Catholic Church totally compromised with authoritarian power (Spain, Portugal).
Quote from: Valmy on September 19, 2011, 03:12:10 PM
What the fuck? The French state does not care how you worship so long as you do not make a public show of it because of that 500 year history thing.
Valmy you are not really that dense. The State does not care how you worship so long as you worship in a manner deemed acceptable by the State. I dont really care much what the historical justification is the State uses for banning worshippers from using a public space. If there is no other interest involved (here blockage of traffic) I dont see any reason why the State should interfere at all.
I find it stricking that the French (and you being almost French) have such a cavalier attitude toward matters of freedom of expression and religion.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 19, 2011, 03:22:25 PM
The State does not care how you worship so long as you worship in a manner deemed acceptable by the State.
That's the case in every single country in the world. Don't be dense either.
QuoteI find it stricking that the French (and you being almost French) have such a cavalier attitude toward matters of freedom of expression and religion.
Freedom of religion only goes so far as all other freedoms. They must not infringe on others. A literal interpretation of all religions out there would impose things that would be illegal in any democracy.
Quote from: Zoupa on September 19, 2011, 03:35:21 PM
That's the case in every single country in the world. Don't be dense either.
I am not aware of any other civilized countries in which the public practice of religion is banned. Here religious groups often use public spaces such as parks to hold religious events.
I am somewhat mystified as to what it is about religion that the French feel restricting the freedom to worship to be imperative and indeed normal.
QuoteI am not aware of any other civilized countries in which the public practice of religion is banned.
Don't move the goalposts. What you said was:
QuoteThe State does not care how you worship so long as you worship in a manner deemed acceptable by the State.
That statement is accurate for every country in the world. States impose restrictions on religious practice everywhere. Hence the no polygamy laws targeting Mormons. It's also not possible to lapidate women in BC I believe. STOP THE PRESSES! MY FREEDOMS ARE BEING RESTRICTED!!!
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 19, 2011, 03:38:48 PM
I am somewhat mystified as to what it is about religion that the French feel restricting the freedom to worship to be imperative and indeed normal.
I can only give you my opinion, which is that religion is not a positive influence. Personally, I find practicing religious people of any faith weird, backwards and sorta dumb.
Why does a 500 year history matter?
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 19, 2011, 03:38:48 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on September 19, 2011, 03:35:21 PM
That's the case in every single country in the world. Don't be dense either.
I am not aware of any other civilized countries in which the public practice of religion is banned. Here religious groups often use public spaces such as parks to hold religious events.
I am somewhat mystified as to what it is about religion that the French feel restricting the freedom to worship to be imperative and indeed normal.
It's not about religion, really, it's about state control. The specific issue being discussed in this thread involves religion, but what actually being debated is what is the limit of the public sphere versus the private sphere in modern society, and how they should interact. Many Europeans appear to be comfortable with a level of government control over anything that's in the public sphere that just wouldn't fly in the US (and, from your reaction, apparantly not in Canada), and also with a broader definition of what constitues the public sphere than we'd normally acknowledge in the US.
I know I might be expected to comment on this, me being Languish's Dawkins wannabe. But I have to side with muslims on this one. If there isn't a law against sitting on the sidewalk then making a law to ban praying on the sidewalk is religious discrimination. If there is a law against sitting on the sidewalk then that law should be sufficient. The real discrimination is the inability of muslims to get enough space for prayer. They want it and they are willing to spend money on it, but they can't buy and they cant get planning permission.
They're not sitting on the sidewalk. They're on the actual road.
Quote from: Zoupa on September 19, 2011, 03:55:53 PM
QuoteI am not aware of any other civilized countries in which the public practice of religion is banned.
Don't move the goalposts. What you said was:
QuoteThe State does not care how you worship so long as you worship in a manner deemed acceptable by the State.
That statement is accurate for every country in the world. States impose restrictions on religious practice everywhere. Hence the no polygamy laws targeting Mormons. It's also not possible to lapidate women in BC I believe. STOP THE PRESSES! MY FREEDOMS ARE BEING RESTRICTED!!!
The big white elephant in the room you are trying to avoid is the justification of why the State should care if people worship in public.
Quote from: Zoupa on September 19, 2011, 04:11:43 PM
They're not sitting on the sidewalk. They're on the actual road.
Indeed. It was the case close to where I lived, in the XIth. Besides, Paris sidewalks barely accomodate pedestrians... ;)
Quote from: Zoupa on September 19, 2011, 03:55:53 PM
QuoteI am not aware of any other civilized countries in which the public practice of religion is banned.
Don't move the goalposts. What you said was:
QuoteThe State does not care how you worship so long as you worship in a manner deemed acceptable by the State.
That statement is accurate for every country in the world. States impose restrictions on religious practice everywhere. Hence the no polygamy laws targeting Mormons. It's also not possible to lapidate women in BC I believe. STOP THE PRESSES! MY FREEDOMS ARE BEING RESTRICTED!!!
The difference between prayer and lapidation, of course, is that the former deprives no one of their liberty, and thus the state should have no business prohibiting it.
Can't the Paris police just arrest people for obstructing traffic for sitting in the street rather than making a law for mooselimbs?
Quote from: Zoupa on September 19, 2011, 02:44:14 PM
Watch us. :)
You frogs may be a bunch of arrogant pricks but I still love you.
Quote from: Viking on September 19, 2011, 04:53:22 PM
Can't the Paris police just arrest people for obstructing traffic for sitting in the street rather than making a law for mooselimbs?
It's not a law for muslims, it's a law against praying ON the street in any way that disrupts the movements of men or goods.
Quote from: Zoupa on September 19, 2011, 05:27:16 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 19, 2011, 04:53:22 PM
Can't the Paris police just arrest people for obstructing traffic for sitting in the street rather than making a law for mooselimbs?
It's not a law for muslims, it's a law against praying ON the street in any way that disrupts the movements of men or goods.
So, if you are ON the street in a way that disrupts the movements of men or goods, but are not praying, then you are not breaking any law?
Run them over with some cuirassiers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slaNADrdPMA&feature=related
Excuse me, I have a boner. BRB.
Quote from: Zoupa on September 19, 2011, 05:27:16 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 19, 2011, 04:53:22 PM
Can't the Paris police just arrest people for obstructing traffic for sitting in the street rather than making a law for mooselimbs?
It's not a law for muslims, it's a law against praying ON the street in any way that disrupts the movements of men or goods.
Even muslims do not refer to women like this. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Viking on September 19, 2011, 05:31:55 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on September 19, 2011, 05:27:16 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 19, 2011, 04:53:22 PM
Can't the Paris police just arrest people for obstructing traffic for sitting in the street rather than making a law for mooselimbs?
It's not a law for muslims, it's a law against praying ON the street in any way that disrupts the movements of men or goods.
So, if you are ON the street in a way that disrupts the movements of men or goods, but are not praying, then you are not breaking any law?
:rolleyes:
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 19, 2011, 05:32:42 PM
Run them over with some cuirassiers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slaNADrdPMA&feature=related
Excuse me, I have a boner. BRB.
:hug:
Quote from: Viking on September 19, 2011, 05:31:55 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on September 19, 2011, 05:27:16 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 19, 2011, 04:53:22 PM
Can't the Paris police just arrest people for obstructing traffic for sitting in the street rather than making a law for mooselimbs?
It's not a law for muslims, it's a law against praying ON the street in any way that disrupts the movements of men or goods.
So, if you are ON the street in a way that disrupts the movements of men or goods, but are not praying, then you are not breaking any law?
You are but a different one.
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 19, 2011, 07:37:52 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 19, 2011, 05:31:55 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on September 19, 2011, 05:27:16 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 19, 2011, 04:53:22 PM
Can't the Paris police just arrest people for obstructing traffic for sitting in the street rather than making a law for mooselimbs?
It's not a law for muslims, it's a law against praying ON the street in any way that disrupts the movements of men or goods.
So, if you are ON the street in a way that disrupts the movements of men or goods, but are not praying, then you are not breaking any law?
You are but a different one.
OK, in that case, what's the need for the law?
Quote from: dps on September 19, 2011, 08:08:18 PM
OK, in that case, what's the need for the law?
Political posturing.
France's National Assembly likes to enact law without being the least concerned about applicability. Or, sometimes, compliance with the European Human Rights Commission.
Quote from: Oexmelin on September 19, 2011, 08:10:08 PM
Quote from: dps on September 19, 2011, 08:08:18 PM
OK, in that case, what's the need for the law?
Political posturing.
France's National Assembly likes to enact law without being the least concerned about applicability. Or, sometimes, compliance with the European Human Rights Commission.
:hug:
So you agree with the critics then?
I mean - it sounds like there is a languish consensus here - people shouldn't block the streets by having giant outdoor prayer meetings on Friday.
It just seems like most of us (other than Zoups) seem to agree you don't need to ban outdoor prayers in order to combat this problem.
<_< I love you too BB.
Quote from: Zoupa on September 19, 2011, 11:05:31 PM
<_< I love you too BB.
I love ya zoups. I hope I can make it to MTL one of these days and meet up with ya. :hug:
But really - it seemed like there was a bit of a languish consensus on this issue - but you weren't a part of it. Or do you agree with what I said - that people should not be blocking traffic on Fridays, but you don't need to ban any outdoor religious activity to do it?
If it was up to me I would ban religious demonstrations of any kind on republican grounds. If people want to rent or buy a field somewhere and have giant orgies in the name of Buddha, Manitou or Chthulu, that's fine with me.
Quote from: Barrister on September 19, 2011, 10:42:55 PM
So you agree with the critics then?
Yes and no. To me, there are three different issues entertwined.
French laïcité, as Valmy mentionned, is the type of thing which has been built in the very identity fibre of France, whether its applicability strikes us as odd or not. In that sense, it isn't much different from gun ownership in the US: the original context might be gone, but it keeps on being reinterpreted to fit current political dilemmas. On that regard, I don't feel it is up to me to say whether this is a bad or a good thing. I certainly understand why it is there.
Then, the issue of private vs public. This is also a mirror image of similar debates in the US. In France, the notion of "public" can be extended to many things and places "done in public" - France favours the notion of "public eye" for its definition of public space, where US seems to favour the look of ownership (i.e., the answer in the US is to call many places "private spaces" to deem people free to censor or control behaviour). I think the more hardcore view of this in France tends to make religion a kind of vestment you should only wear inside, and I think this is impractical.
The "public disturbance" element seems to be a cop-out, and there is a kind of law fetichism in the French political class - not limited at all to this issue (which is well documented by French jurists and lawyers). What is for sure is that the lack of space for mosques *is* a problem, but it is fraught with difficulties. The far-right and xenophobes don't *want* the issue resolved, for any mosque is a mosque too much. Helping to finance, or allow the construction of mosques is denounced by part of the left and the laïcité movement in the name of the State's neutrality. So Sarko does a big show, like he always does - this time, trying to appease the right-wing part of his movement (he's been losing grounds with the christian-democrats and the centre-right, so he's fishing far-right) and hide behind neutral "public disturbance" elements, while sending more moderate ministers to test the idea of "helping construct mosques".
Quote from: Barrister on September 19, 2011, 11:08:19 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on September 19, 2011, 11:05:31 PM
<_< I love you too BB.
I love ya zoups. I hope I can make it to MTL one of these days and meet up with ya. :hug:
But really - it seemed like there was a bit of a languish consensus on this issue - but you weren't a part of it. Or do you agree with what I said - that people should not be blocking traffic on Fridays, but you don't need to ban any outdoor religious activity to do it?
There is hardly a Languish consensus. Zoupa, Valmy, Solmyr, Iormlund and myself (to name but a few people) supported the law. The majority (but not an overwhelming one) of those who posted in the thread opposed it - but that's pretty normal, considering people come out against something more vocally than in favour of something.
If you consider European posters, I think only Viking and Warspite criticized the law, so a clear minority.
I think Oexmellin's point that this is like gun control - a cultural issue - is a good one. The US has a lot of laws that in Europe would be considered an unthinkable violation of human rights. We had a discussion about perp walks when DSK was arrested - and obviously, don't get me started on the death penalty.
On a re-read, the only people who posted and opposed the law clearly were BB, CC, dps, Warspite, Viking and raz. That is hardly a clear majority or anything pointing to a "Languish consensus" - especially as several people in addition to the five who argued for the law posted semi-non-committal responses which indicate they support the law to a degree or don't give a fuck.
BB, do you misrepresent reality like this when you argue in courts, too? :)
Quote from: Oexmelin on September 19, 2011, 08:10:08 PM
Quote from: dps on September 19, 2011, 08:08:18 PM
OK, in that case, what's the need for the law?
Political posturing.
France's National Assembly likes to enact law without being the least concerned about applicability. Or, sometimes, compliance with the European Human Rights Commission.
and you wonder why we hate the french? q.e.d.
Quote from: Martinus on September 20, 2011, 01:45:55 AM
On a re-read, the only people who posted and opposed the law clearly were BB, CC, dps, Warspite, Viking and raz.
Me too!
Quote from: Zoupa on September 19, 2011, 02:22:49 PM
The french mindset sees religion as something private, that has no place in the public sphere. In most cases people don't even know what religion their political leaders follow.
For example former Prime Minister Jospin is protestant. I only found out last year. It just never occurred to me to inquire what faith if any he follows, I was watching an Italian documentary when they mentioned it.
Protestant upbringing yes, not sure if he is still a Protestant though.
Quote from: Oexmelin on September 19, 2011, 03:19:18 PM
Quote from: HVC on September 19, 2011, 03:15:25 PMthat's different from the rest of western europe how?
It is different in that laïcité has become one of the cornerstone of the Republic. Other countries in Western Europe have had the Reformation - in which the State took direct control of the Church - or not a very good track record of Republicanism, and a Catholic Church totally compromised with authoritarian power (Spain, Portugal).
Portugal had its laïcité of its own following the 1910 republican revolution and the Church took a stance against the régime at the end unlike Spain.
I whollly support France's stand on pretentiously flicking cigarette ashes on anything Islamic. Vive Le Revolution
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 20, 2011, 02:17:26 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 20, 2011, 01:45:55 AM
On a re-read, the only people who posted and opposed the law clearly were BB, CC, dps, Warspite, Viking and raz.
Me too!
I thought the law was goofy.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 20, 2011, 06:33:04 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 20, 2011, 02:17:26 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 20, 2011, 01:45:55 AM
On a re-read, the only people who posted and opposed the law clearly were BB, CC, dps, Warspite, Viking and raz.
Me too!
I thought the law was goofy.
I didn't actually take a stand, so I'm not sure what Marty is talking about. I didn't understand exactly what is happening, and so refrained from giving an opinion. I did ask one question and made a snide comment directed at Siege (I think).
I don't know what the law actually will do, but it sounds discriminatory. Seems someone handing out religious pamphlets on a sidewalk might be in violation, while someone handing out political or business related materials will be hunky dory. :hmm:
The main religious laws I think violate freedom of religion in France are their arbitrary anti-cult laws. They can basically outlaw any religion they like simply by classifying it a cult rather than a religion. Granted I am not exactly sympathetic to any of the groups that France has lowered this particular hammer on but it does strike me as crossing the line. While being a member of a Kool-Aid cult is not exactly a behavior I would recomend people should have the freedom to be morons. Besides distinguishing 'religions' and 'cults' is arbitrary and this years cult could be next years religion. See: Mormons.
This particular law does not interfere with people's ability to be Muslims, at least not explicitely, it only addresses a specific problem and accomadations are being made by the government to aid these Muslims by giving them places to do their prayers. But, as Oex says, there are layers to this and the root of the problem is the inability to build Mosques in Paris itself because, heck, building a new building of any sort in Paris proper is debilitatingly expensive and very difficult besides.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 20, 2011, 07:25:43 AM
I don't know what the law actually will do, but it sounds discriminatory. Seems someone handing out religious pamphlets on a sidewalk might be in violation, while someone handing out political or business related materials will be hunky dory. :hmm:
I don't see a problem requiring permits for demonstrations so long as they are given out fairly. To me it doesn't really matter if the permits are for a political protest, a prayer thingy, or a pillow fight. I would draw the line on dumping large amounts of manure on the road.
Quote from: Viking on September 19, 2011, 05:31:55 PM
and you wonder why we hate the french? q.e.d.
I just presumed it was because you hate most people.
Quote from: Valmy on September 20, 2011, 07:58:08 AM
The main religious laws I think violate freedom of religion in France are their arbitrary anti-cult laws. They can basically outlaw any religion they like simply by classifying it a cult rather than a religion. Granted I am not exactly sympathetic to any of the groups that France has lowered this particular hammer on but it does strike me as crossing the line. While being a member of a Kool-Aid cult is not exactly a behavior I would recomend people should have the freedom to be morons. Besides distinguishing 'religions' and 'cults' is arbitrary and this years cult could be next years religion. See: Mormons.
This particular law does not interfere with people's ability to be Muslims, at least not explicitely, it only addresses a specific problem and accomadations are being made by the government to aid these Muslims by giving them places to do their prayers. But, as Oex says, there are layers to this and the root of the problem is the inability to build Mosques in Paris itself because, heck, building a new building of any sort in Paris proper is debilitatingly expensive and very difficult besides.
America should give up war on drugs and then start mentoring others about "people being allowed to be morons".
In Europe, we consider religions more socially damaging than drugs. :cool:
Quote from: Martinus on September 20, 2011, 09:04:04 AM
America should give up war on drugs and then start mentoring others about "people being allowed to be morons".
In Europe, we consider religions more socially damaging than drugs. :cool:
Couldn't agree more about the drug bit. But um...drugs are still illegal in Euroland last I checked.
Quote from: Valmy on September 20, 2011, 09:04:45 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 20, 2011, 09:04:04 AM
America should give up war on drugs and then start mentoring others about "people being allowed to be morons".
In Europe, we consider religions more socially damaging than drugs. :cool:
Couldn't agree more about the drug bit. But um...drugs are still illegal in Euroland last I checked.
They are not criminalized in Portugal, several European countries do not outlaw (or prosecute) possession of small amounts "for personal uses" and most European countries do not prosecute drug users with half of the zeal that the US has.
Quote from: Martinus on September 20, 2011, 09:06:28 AM
They are legal in Portugal, and most European countries do not prosecute drug users with half of the zeal that the US has.
Good for Portugal. Why are you bringing up this drug stuff anyway? You know I am in favor of legalizing drugs.
Quote from: Valmy on September 20, 2011, 09:08:33 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 20, 2011, 09:06:28 AM
They are legal in Portugal, and most European countries do not prosecute drug users with half of the zeal that the US has.
Good for Portugal. Why are you bringing up this drug stuff anyway? You know I am in favor of legalizing drugs.
Just in general. I think many Americans have a tendency to lecture other countries about "freedoms" without realizing how illiberal many aspects of their own policies are.
Quote from: Martinus on September 20, 2011, 09:11:48 AM
Just in general. I think many Americans have a tendency to lecture other countries about "freedoms" without realizing how illiberal many aspects of their own policies are.
No I am well aware. And it is not getting better.
But still the cult laws are a pretty ridiculous flanking of freedom of religion.
People who are saying that religious practices are just fine in public spaces: if my religious practices included ritual sacrifice of goats, you would be just fine with me doing it on the sidewalk in Times Square as long as I didn't block any traffic?
Because that was, in fact, what happened in Moscow during the Eid celebration a while ago.
Quote from: Valmy on September 20, 2011, 09:15:48 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 20, 2011, 09:11:48 AM
Just in general. I think many Americans have a tendency to lecture other countries about "freedoms" without realizing how illiberal many aspects of their own policies are.
No I am well aware. And it is not getting better.
But still the cult laws are a pretty ridiculous flanking of freedom of religion.
Well, in Europe, we do not consider freedom of religion as important as you guys do over the ocean. That's why you left in the first place, remember? :P
Quote from: Martinus on September 20, 2011, 09:50:08 AM
Well, in Europe, we do not consider freedom of religion as important as you guys do over the ocean. That's why you left in the first place, remember? :P
Well you have it as part of your Euro charter of Rights or whatever and the French State in particular guarantees it :P
Also the persecuted religious minorities thing is pretty overblown. Virtually none of my ancestors came over for that. There sure are alot of other genealogists who need to believe that to the point they invent it when there is no evidence at all to suggest that was the reason. It is more pleasing than to realize most of us came over for opportunity to own land.
Quote from: Valmy on September 20, 2011, 09:59:09 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 20, 2011, 09:50:08 AM
Well, in Europe, we do not consider freedom of religion as important as you guys do over the ocean. That's why you left in the first place, remember? :P
Well you have it as part of your Euro charter of Rights or whatever and the French State in particular guarantees it :P
These are more like guidelines. ;)
Er... Drugs aren't legal in Portugal. I don't know where people get this idea from.
Quote from: clandestino on September 20, 2011, 08:29:06 PM
Er... Drugs aren't legal in Portugal. I don't know where people get this idea from.
Well, Martim for one, and how the government there works for second...
Quote from: Razgovory on September 20, 2011, 08:33:09 PM
Well, Martim for one, and how the government there works for second...
:lol:
Well, I'm not the one vouching for Martim's sanity that's for sure.
BTW, a sentence joining "government" and "works" in Portuguese is called bad syntax.
Quote from: Solmyr on September 20, 2011, 09:30:54 AM
People who are saying that religious practices are just fine in public spaces: if my religious practices included ritual sacrifice of goats, you would be just fine with me doing it on the sidewalk in Times Square as long as I didn't block any traffic?
Because that was, in fact, what happened in Moscow during the Eid celebration a while ago.
I think the point is that the question of whether one should be allowed to slaughter a goat on a sidewalk should be completely independent of whether it's a religious practice.
Quote from: Maximus on September 21, 2011, 03:59:58 PM
Quote from: Solmyr on September 20, 2011, 09:30:54 AM
People who are saying that religious practices are just fine in public spaces: if my religious practices included ritual sacrifice of goats, you would be just fine with me doing it on the sidewalk in Times Square as long as I didn't block any traffic?
Because that was, in fact, what happened in Moscow during the Eid celebration a while ago.
I think the point is that the question of whether one should be allowed to slaughter a goat on a sidewalk should be completely independent of whether it's a religious practice.
I agree. However, I seem to remember that many Languishites from the US argued exactly the opposite when it came to the Dutch banning halal/kosher slaughter - if my memory serves me right, these people argued in favour of a religious exception. I understand you disagree.
Quote from: clandestino on September 20, 2011, 08:29:06 PM
Er... Drugs aren't legal in Portugal. I don't know where people get this idea from.
Really, you have no idea where people got the idea from?
Maybe, perhaps, people are merely confusing Portugal's drug decriminilization with legalization?
Quote from: Barrister on September 21, 2011, 04:12:22 PM
Really, you have no idea where people got the idea from?
Maybe, perhaps, people are merely confusing Portugal's drug decriminilization with legalization?
And aren't those things different?
I mean, I won't be arrested for parking my car at the sidewalk either, but surely I'll get some fine if caught right?
Quote from: MartinusWell, in Europe, we do not consider freedom of religion as important as you guys do over the ocean. That's why you left in the first place, remember?
No, we know.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F0%2F0a%2FMagdeburg_1631.jpg&hash=51ca740f69a89ca7a0abb57b25ff8d9e4dc90bc8)
Quote from: Martinus on September 21, 2011, 04:05:06 PM
Quote from: Maximus on September 21, 2011, 03:59:58 PM
Quote from: Solmyr on September 20, 2011, 09:30:54 AM
People who are saying that religious practices are just fine in public spaces: if my religious practices included ritual sacrifice of goats, you would be just fine with me doing it on the sidewalk in Times Square as long as I didn't block any traffic?
Because that was, in fact, what happened in Moscow during the Eid celebration a while ago.
I think the point is that the question of whether one should be allowed to slaughter a goat on a sidewalk should be completely independent of whether it's a religious practice.
I agree. However, I seem to remember that many Languishites from the US argued exactly the opposite when it came to the Dutch banning halal/kosher slaughter - if my memory serves me right, these people argued in favour of a religious exception. I understand you disagree.
I like how you are pinning that point of view on just the American posters.
Quote from: Martinus on September 21, 2011, 04:05:06 PM
I agree. However, I seem to remember that many Languishites from the US argued exactly the opposite when it came to the Dutch banning halal/kosher slaughter - if my memory serves me right, these people argued in favour of a religious exception. I understand you disagree.
I never got an answer on Viking on how recreational fishing squares with his accusations of "barbaric torture" that is kosher slaughter. I pressed him, and he just sort of vanished. Then we had a libertarian show up.
Quote from: garbon on September 21, 2011, 06:55:36 PM
Quote from: Martinus on September 21, 2011, 04:05:06 PM
Quote from: Maximus on September 21, 2011, 03:59:58 PM
Quote from: Solmyr on September 20, 2011, 09:30:54 AM
People who are saying that religious practices are just fine in public spaces: if my religious practices included ritual sacrifice of goats, you would be just fine with me doing it on the sidewalk in Times Square as long as I didn't block any traffic?
Because that was, in fact, what happened in Moscow during the Eid celebration a while ago.
I think the point is that the question of whether one should be allowed to slaughter a goat on a sidewalk should be completely independent of whether it's a religious practice.
I agree. However, I seem to remember that many Languishites from the US argued exactly the opposite when it came to the Dutch banning halal/kosher slaughter - if my memory serves me right, these people argued in favour of a religious exception. I understand you disagree.
I like how you are pinning that point of view on just the American posters.
Particularly when some would hardly hold it.
The agony makes the kosher tastier.
Quote from: Martinus on September 20, 2011, 09:06:28 AM
Quote from: Valmy on September 20, 2011, 09:04:45 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 20, 2011, 09:04:04 AM
America should give up war on drugs and then start mentoring others about "people being allowed to be morons".
In Europe, we consider religions more socially damaging than drugs. :cool:
Couldn't agree more about the drug bit. But um...drugs are still illegal in Euroland last I checked.
They are not criminalized in Portugal, several European countries do not outlaw (or prosecute) possession of small amounts "for personal uses" and most European countries do not prosecute drug users with half of the zeal that the US has.
yeah but that is also kinda retarded isn't it? You dont punish personal use (which I am fine with), but you punish selling it. How the fuck are you supposed to get it for personal use then?
Quote from: Tamas on September 22, 2011, 03:13:15 AM
yeah but that is also kinda retarded isn't it? You dont punish personal use (which I am fine with), but you punish selling it. How the fuck are you supposed to get it for personal use then?
It's kind of like how the cops ignore you driving 5 miles over the speed limit, ticket you going 20 miles over and may arrest you going 50 miles over.
Quote from: Tamas on September 22, 2011, 03:13:15 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 20, 2011, 09:06:28 AM
Quote from: Valmy on September 20, 2011, 09:04:45 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 20, 2011, 09:04:04 AM
America should give up war on drugs and then start mentoring others about "people being allowed to be morons".
In Europe, we consider religions more socially damaging than drugs. :cool:
Couldn't agree more about the drug bit. But um...drugs are still illegal in Euroland last I checked.
They are not criminalized in Portugal, several European countries do not outlaw (or prosecute) possession of small amounts "for personal uses" and most European countries do not prosecute drug users with half of the zeal that the US has.
yeah but that is also kinda retarded isn't it? You dont punish personal use (which I am fine with), but you punish selling it. How the fuck are you supposed to get it for personal use then?
Well they don't
want you to get it for personal use. They're still trying to discourage drug use, they've just chosen a different approach in how to do it.
I don't know how it works in Portugal, but when the previous Liberal government announced plans to decriminalize marijuana it created a lot of confusion among people who thought it was now perfectly legal - and those were just announced plans that never came into being.
Quote from: Tamas on September 22, 2011, 03:13:15 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 20, 2011, 09:06:28 AM
Quote from: Valmy on September 20, 2011, 09:04:45 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 20, 2011, 09:04:04 AM
America should give up war on drugs and then start mentoring others about "people being allowed to be morons".
In Europe, we consider religions more socially damaging than drugs. :cool:
Couldn't agree more about the drug bit. But um...drugs are still illegal in Euroland last I checked.
They are not criminalized in Portugal, several European countries do not outlaw (or prosecute) possession of small amounts "for personal uses" and most European countries do not prosecute drug users with half of the zeal that the US has.
yeah but that is also kinda retarded isn't it? You dont punish personal use (which I am fine with), but you punish selling it. How the fuck are you supposed to get it for personal use then?
Grow your own.
But then you have more then the "legal limit" and are charged as a dealer.
Yeah, I agree that while in practice it's probably better than the American system (what couldn't be?), but it's still pretty stupid.