‘Muslim Patrol’ vigilantes forcing ‘people to stop drinking and women to cover up’ in London

[Lyanna Stark]

Forgive me for pointing out a delightful typo.

Actually, I never said it was rude, only that it wasn't nice. I hadn't "admitted" what you claimed I had.

As stated, typing on a phone means sometimes "delightful typos" happen due to autocorrect. And instead of attacking a typo, you could explain what research you have been doing that makes you suspect that large part of immigrants are in fact secret hatemongers who arrive in countries only to change the way they are run.

So far all you have done is make borderline ad hominem attacks on me. Anything of substance is so far missing.

[Castel]

I don't know what the mental compulsion to display ones religious affiliation is, unless it is to say, I am better than you".

What? You do know that some religions have rules that lead to them displaying their affiliation right? Not directly of course, but the rules lead to the same conclusion. It has nothing to do with rubbing it into people's faces, it has to do with following your own religion. Or should only religions that are nice and look secular in public be allowed?

Jesus, I have no idea how I ended up defending religion here.

[Hereward]

It is possible to assert difference without asserting superiority. If you don't recognise that, I feel I have both learnt something important and recognised the futility of this conversation.

[Robin Of House Hill]

@Lyanna Stark

Autocorrect. I sympathize.

[mormont]

I guess that rules out Fox News and Jihad Watch, as well. Attacking sources rather than disproving what they say?

No, merely pointing out that finding someone who shares your prejudice is not 'research'. And it is not for me to disprove those prejudices: you've admitted you have no evidence to back them up, so there's nothing to disprove.

[Robin Of House Hill]

What? You do know that some religions have rules that lead to them displaying their affiliation right? Not directly of course, but the rules lead to the same conclusion. It has nothing to do with rubbing it into people's faces, it has to do with following your own religion. Or should only religions that are nice and look secular in public be allowed?

Jesus, I have no idea how I ended up defending religion here.

Religions also purport to be the "one true belief", so, it is rubbing it in the face of the infidels.

Thank you for that last sentence, I did get a bit of a chuckle.

It is possible to assert difference without asserting superiority. If you don't recognise that, I feel I have both learnt something important and recognised the futility of this conversation.

Possible, but not probable. People do not display affiliations they think are inferior.

[James Arryn]

People in the good old days were yearning for the good old days.

[Castel]

Religions also purport to be the "one true belief", so, it is rubbing it in the face of the infidels.

Except that's not why they are doing it. They're doing it because their religion calls for chastity and modesty. They are not forcing it on anyone else, they are following the rules for themselves. How does someone walking past you in a hijab means that she's rubbing it in your face?

Them believing that their religion is the true one doesn't change anything here as far as I can see. When they start calling for everyone to convert or die or they try to ban all other religions then they'll be rubbing it in your face.

Why should you be free from the sight of religious objects?

Thank you for that last sentence, I did get a bit of a chuckle.

I aim to please.

[Hereward]

Possible, but not probable. People do not display affiliations they think are inferior.

Of course they do. I display an affiliation to West Ham United, the England Rugby team and the mighty Exiles, London Irish. I also recognise that it is absolutely possible to argue that they are not at the pinnacle of their chosen field of endeavour.* I also publicly avow my preference for certain types of art, while recognising that they are the ones that appeal to me without being objectively superior.

*two of them are shit.

[polishgenius]

Possible, but not probable. People do not display affiliations they think are inferior.

Displaying an affiliation that you think is the right one is not the same as gloating or rubbing it in. There's a world of difference between 'I'm proud of this' and 'I'm better than you'.

[James Arryn]

Religions also purport to be the "one true belief", so, it is rubbing it in the face of the infidels.

Rubbing it in their faces?

In fact, it is the opposite.

What about their choice could possibly make you care enough to be offended?

I love how discussions about aggressive orthodoxy on the part of group X can be relied upon for outraged expectations of a different kind of orthodoxy.

'It's so scary/wrong/not our way to expect people X to act like X. It shows you just what's wrong with X. We need to make them act more like Y'.

[Istakhr]

What? You do know that some religions have rules that lead to them displaying their affiliation right? Not directly of course, but the rules lead to the same conclusion. It has nothing to do with rubbing it into people's faces, it has to do with following your own religion. Or should only religions that are nice and look secular in public be allowed?

Jesus, I have no idea how I ended up defending religion here.

I am going to open a can of worms here.

Should secular states be able to use a double standard toward religion based on age? Meaning allow all religious acts that does not directly harm others for people over some age like 18, while banning or regulating most of these for children and younger teenagers to fight the religious indoctrination of their new citizens? We know many people base their general religious identity especially degree of faith based on what they are taught during childhood. Should a secular government try to control religious teachings of underaged citizens if the idea is freedom from religion as well as freedom of religion? Do children have a right to freedom from their own parents religion?

Can we for example ban religious fundamentalists and cultists, (or maybe all parents to be consistent) from homeschooling their children?

Rights now while physical threats by parents toward children are heavily regulated in most countries, parents usually have broad material and mental authority over their children. Should there be a blanket ban or severe restrictions on the authority of all parents in using material and mental rewards and threats in teaching religious ideas to their own children.

[Robin Of House Hill]

No, merely pointing out that finding someone who shares your prejudice is not 'research'. And it is not for me to disprove those prejudices: you've admitted you have no evidence to back them up, so there's nothing to disprove.

You previously quoted what I actually said.

That isn't nice. I said I hadn't researched it enough to prove. I didn't say I hadn't researched it at all.

How did that morph into, "you've admitted you have no evidence to back them up"? Your constant reference to prejudice, makes the invalid assumption that one who holds prejudices cannot, in fact, be right.

If you think incidents such as the one in the OP are not something that are a significant threat, good luck with that.

[Castel]

I am going to open a can of worms here.

Should secular states be able to use a double standard toward religion based on age? Meaning allow all religious acts that does not directly harm others for people over some age like 18, while banning or regulating most of these for children and younger teenagers to fight the religious indoctrination of their new citizens? We know many people base their general religious identity especially degree of faith based on what they are taught during childhood. Should a secular government try to control religious teachings of underaged citizens if the idea is freedom from religion as well as freedom of religion? Do children have a right to freedom from their own parents religion?

Can we for example ban religious fundamentalists and cultists, (or maybe all parents to be consistent) from homeschooling their children?

Rights now while physical threats by parents toward children are heavily regulated in most countries, parents usually have broad material and mental authority over their children. Should there be a blanket ban or severe restrictions on the authority of all parents in using material and mental rewards and threats in teaching religious ideas to their own children.

Quick answer: Should a secular state do that? No. Should an atheist state do that? Yes.

I see a secular state as a body that protects the rights of all religions while remaining seperate, not something deliberately trying to destroy them.

Where does it end? Should parents be told to not to teach their kids about particular cultures? Do those teachings have to be harmful or do we just ban them by fiat like religion? Should they teach skepticism classes instead?

Isn't this just imposing in a different direction?

[mormont]

How did that morph into, "you've admitted you have no evidence to back them up"?

By the posts that have been made since. People have suggested that you've done no research at all, and you've not denied it. You've been asked to provide the evidence, and blanked that request. You've obfuscated, and begged the question, and tried to shift the burden of proof, and generally tried to blag your way through the thread, in the hope that people would just accept there was some sort of basis to your arguments: meanwhile, not one shred of proof has been forthcoming. Your silence speaks volumes. You have nothing. Nothing but prejudice, anyway. And while a prejudice can turn out to be correct, that requires testing. It requires proof. Yours stands unsupported. I won't be wasting my time with it.

[Robin Of House Hill]

So, it boils down to qui tacet consentire videtur. I haven't re-read every post, but my recollection was that people suggested that I said I had done no research, when I had said no such thing. Therefore, the rule does not apply.

Be that as it may, it is obvious that further discussion will be fruitless.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Istakhr,

I am going to open a can of worms here.

Should secular states be able to use a double standard toward religion based on age? Meaning allow all religious acts that does not directly harm others for people over some age like 18, while banning or regulating most of these for children and younger teenagers to fight the religious indoctrination of their new citizens? We know many people base their general religious identity especially degree of faith based on what they are taught during childhood. Should a secular government try to control religious teachings of underaged citizens if the idea is freedom from religion as well as freedom of religion? Do children have a right to freedom from their own parents religion?

Can we for example ban religious fundamentalists and cultists, (or maybe all parents to be consistent) from homeschooling their children?

Rights now while physical threats by parents toward children are heavily regulated in most countries, parents usually have broad material and mental authority over their children. Should there be a blanket ban or severe restrictions on the authority of all parents in using material and mental rewards and threats in teaching religious ideas to their own children.

No. Not in the US. Part if Free Exercise of faith is raising your children in that faith. When they are of age they can choose what they like. I do not practice the faith I was brought up in.

[Istakhr]

Where does it end? Should parents be told to not to teach their kids about particular cultures? Do those teachings have to be harmful or do we just ban them by fiat like religion? Should they teach skepticism classes instead?

The point is how do you exactly define harmful teaching? You can also let parents tell anything they want to their children, while forcing them not to isolate their children.

And for the record I believe parents also should not be allowed to use a reward/punishment system to make the children accept their atheistic ideas.

Mostly I am arguing for severe curbing of parental authority over underage person's right to acceptance and exposure to other morals, cultures, religions and ideas as long as they are not explicitly against the law.

An example is I don't think you should be able to force a teenager to attend weekly religious schooling if they don't want to, or stop them from attending one if they want, as long as this religion is legal under the laws of the country.

A question is do parents have authority over their children as a natural right considering that children are also human beings. Do you have a natural right to exercise authority over your genetic offspring? Parental authority seem to come mostly from ideas based on ownership of your children, not any human rights argument.

Can we consider children citizens not fit to make all their own decisions similar to mental patients and thus consider parents legal guardians who get all their authority from the state? Then they are acting as proxies of the state power and like the state agents they should act under the same constraints that direct agents of state like public school teacher's have to act.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Istakhr,

If your views hold why aren't children taken from their parents at birth and raised as wards of the State to prevent undo influence being exercised simply because X is their mother and Y is their father?

[Thlayli]

A question is do parents have authority over their children as a natural right considering that children are also human beings. Do you have a natural right to exercise authority over your genetic offspring? Parental authority seem to come mostly from ideas based on ownership of your children, not any human rights argument.

Can we consider children citizens not fit to make all their own decisions similar to mental patients and thus consider parents legal guardians who get all their authority from the state? Then they are acting as proxies of the state power and like the state agents they should act under the same constraints that direct agents of state like public school teacher's have to act.

If you treat your children like property, it's going to be a disaster. Children, by and large, are really dumb; parents have to balance giving them the freedom to make their own mistakes while not reminding them that they are dumb. Now, parents necessarily have a bit more latitude than public teachers: I am unable to call the cops and have a child expelled from my home because they pointed a squirt gun at the cat and cried, "Reach for the sky, varmint!"