Terrorist attack in France at a newspaper office: at least 11 dead.

[Akka]

If I don't carry a Quran around with me wherever I go does that make me less Muslim? This argument seems weak to me. Not displaying your religious affiliation doesn't mean you don't have one, and there should be no conflict between religion and state unless either side makes it one. I see no conflict between my religion and America, so why should anyone else get involved? I wouldn't call this oppression

Then well, you seem to be okay with the regulation banning religious display ?

but it feels kind of like the government being parents, kind of like them saying, "Suzy, you can't wear this to school, it is too vulgar."
Why is displaying religion so dangerous to the state anyways?

Actually, there is a slight cultural feeling that displaying religious affiliation is bit "vulgar" (or maybe "ostentatious"). Of course not everyone feels that way, and it very rarely goes up to open dislike (though, as everywhere, it can attract racist behaviour), but it's a bit of "bad taste" overall.

The danger of mixing religion with the state is rather obvious, and not displaying it is a strong symbolic gesture of separating both - as said before, it's about showing that someone working for the state represents the state, and as such shouldn't display "personal preferences" for subjects for which the state is specifically neutral.

I don't know if it would considered of bad taste in the USA if a cop was wearing a Tea Party pamphlet on his uniform ? If it's the case, maybe it would be a good approximation.

Well, if you're not interested in what I think then I guess there's not much point in discussing this with you.

Just pointing that you not considering laicity as a big deal doesn't change how it's actually important, especially for the people for which it's a core part of their values and culture.
I can just as well say that your arguments about how people should have some kind of sacred right to display their religion is not convincing me at all, on the contrary.

 

[Farm Boy]

Bad taste as a cop, in official capacity, is comprable to a full prohibition on women who wear burquas entering public space as private citizens?

 

[Rashiminos]

Allowing polygamy is a bad thing in itself.

In your understanding, why is polygamy necessarily a bad thing?

especially if part of the exploitation includes educating them to want to be in an exploitative relationship. We already admit in law that people should sometimes be prevented from agreeing to undergo harm

What I'm getting from this is a lack of faith in the ability of a society to counteract the supposed indoctrination and the determination that we cannot risk exploring the matter any more than what we have already experienced.

 

[Flying Pig]

I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing, I just pointed out that those relationships are generally exploitative and that the correlation may be so close that it's worth throwing a tiny amount of baby out with a lot of bathwater.

 

[Rashiminos]

I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing, I just pointed out that those relationships are generally exploitative and that the correlation may be so close that it's worth throwing a tiny amount of baby out with a lot of bathwater.

Goal posts --->

 

[Flying Pig]

Not at all - if you remember, I compared laws against polygamy with laws against concealing merchandise. There's manifestly nothing wrong with concealing merchandise per se. And yes, I do have a lack of faith in the ability of 'society' (whatever precisely that means) to prevent polygamous relationships among the sort of people who go after them from becoming exploitative. It's precisely those situations in which the law should intervene.

 

[Rashiminos]

They are discriminatory, but the benefits of them outweigh that. The reason why we don't legalise polygamy isn't because we should never ever give support to anything that religious people do, we do it because polygamous marriages tend to be exploitative ones. Allowing polygamy is a bad thing in itself. Serving halal food isn't a bad thing in itself - it's a positively good thing in itself. So the argument is totally ridiculous, put mildly. It's similarly discriminatory against blind people not to allow them to drive - but we say it's fair enough.

Not at all - if you remember, I compared laws against polygamy with laws against concealing merchandise. There's manifestly nothing wrong with concealing merchandise per se. And yes, I do have a lack of faith in the ability of 'society' (whatever precisely that means) to prevent polygamous relationships among the sort of people who go after them from becoming exploitative. It's precisely those situations in which the law should intervene.

One can carry a receipt for the chocolate bar, and one need not assume a person walking into a candy store with chocolate bar in pocket has stolen from the store.

 

[classical_hero]

If I don't carry a Quran around with me wherever I go does that make me less Muslim?

Yes, because I carry mine around with all the time, it called a smart phone. Surely you can do the same with the Koran.

 

[Flying Pig]

One can carry a receipt for the chocolate bar, and one need not assume a person walking into a candy store with chocolate bar in pocket has stolen from the store.

That's not how concealing merchandise laws work, though - the 'crime' would be taking a bar off the shelf and putting it in your pocket. It's a pretty safe assumption that most people doing that are about to steal it - safe enough that it's worth inconveniencing the few who wouldn't by forbidding them from putting it in their pockets in the first place, especially if you have the initiative to overlook them.

 

[Rashiminos]

That's not how concealing merchandise laws work, though - the 'crime' would be taking a bar off the shelf and putting it in your pocket. It's a pretty safe assumption that most people doing that are about to steal it - safe enough that it's worth inconveniencing the few who wouldn't by forbidding them from putting it in their pockets in the first place, especially if you have the initiative to overlook them.

From what I've seen, stores have a multitude of surveillance systems (eg RFID tags) to determine if merchandise is authorized to leave (ie it was paid for).

 

[Flying Pig]

Yes, but the problem is that you can see someone put something in his pocket and walk towards the door, but if you confront him before he leaves there's nothing you can do, because shoplifting technically involves removing property from the shop. Obviously, for every person you catch doing that, there's probably another one you don't. So a lot of shopkeepers want the power to bring charges against people for what effectively amounts to 'attempted shoplifting'.

 

[Rashiminos]

Detection at the entrances/exits, especially if someone fails to stop at a cashier along the way (although there's some discussion about using the tags to debit someone's bank account AS they leave)

 

[Flying Pig]

Makes a lot of sense for a supermarket, less for a small shop with only one member of staff. At any rate I feel we're drifting quite a way off topic!