Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
And this is not even a privilege for religious buildings: the same is true  for a shopping centre. I happen to find that religious communities, that usually are of emotional value for their members, deserve far more consideration than commercial interests.

Nobody has ever been convicted for making performance art in a shopping mall.

There is a clear double standard here, not just in the law (it's there in the law as well, of course), but in the enforcement as well. One law for religious people and activities, another for not-religious people people and activities.

And yes, I find that really fucking objectionable.

Nonsense. There are laws against hurting people because of race, religion, gender, and more. I can't understand why you are on the side of people who want to humiliate people for what they hold dear.

So you would be fine with expurgating every reference to religion from the law of the land, except to include it along with race, gender, (legal) political views, etc. in such general protections?

Because I'm totally fine with that, but that's not what you said a couple of posts ago.

Earlier you argued that driving a pig into a synagogue should be a crime because it was a pig and a synagogue. And not - or at least not exclusively - because of the disruption of a public gathering or the obviously threatening intent. Either of which would form a rather more substantive basis for prohibiting it.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Aug 31st, 2012 at 06:02:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Others have rated this comment as follows:


Occasional Series