@Putin,

Some public displays of religion *do* qualify, of course. But in general, at least in most religions a person would not be responsible for those actions because they are not actually decisions of the person.

"It's also against my 'religious conscience' to have public events I'm compelled to attend replete with vile Christian prayers. "

Really? You feel guilty about it?

"But in general, at least in most religions a person would not be responsible for those actions because they are not actually decisions of the person."

What in the world is this supposed to mean?

"You feel guilty about it?"

What?

So where you say people are MAKING them transport it, you are talking out of your ass. What happened is they voluntarily took payment for a job that involves transporting it and then refused to do what they were payed for.

@Oscar,

Many would feel wrong directly enabling what they see as wrong behavior by others, though.

And once again, you're not imposing anything. Find me one single, solitary case of anybody being unable to drink or buy alcohol because a Muslim truck driver wouldn't deliver it to him, and we'll talk; otherwise this is a huge straw man. That driver is no more imposing his beliefs on anybody by not delivering the alcohol than you are by choosing not to attend a mosque.

"'You feel guilty about it?'

"What?"

You said it violates your conscience. That means you feel that you are doing something wrong. That surprises me.

Is Oscar being paid to attend mosques? Your analogy doesn't wash.

"What in the world is this supposed to mean?"

I reread it and could find no ambiguity.

@Oscar,

"So where you say people are MAKING them transport it, you are talking out of your ass. What happened is they voluntarily took payment for a job that involves transporting it and then refused to do what they were payed for."

You're talking of somebody being fired if they don't do something. How is that not making them do it?

It is. I don't think I'm the one BSing.

Swearing oaths and allegiance to shit I don't believe in is the very definition of hypocrisy. Apparently doing this kind of thing is acceptable to you.

As a matter of fact I did have to go to a mosque once on account of my job. Guess what? I went.

"Many would feel wrong directly enabling what they see as wrong behavior by others, though."

Yeah, that's what I meant by imposing your beliefs on others. Thanks for proving my point.

I don't know what actions you are talking about or what decisions you are talking about. That was a completely random statement that had nothing to do with forcing non-believers to publicly support your religion with resources, space, and endorsement.

"You're talking of somebody being fired if they don't do something. How is that not making them do it?"

Because they were payed to do it and voluntarily entered into that contract. What's next, Muslims opening a bar where they take money from people that want a drink and then don't serve them on account of their religion?

I think we can end it here. Semck thinks it's ok to force people to pray but thinks deliverymen being compelled to deliver stuff is beyond the pale.

" that had nothing to do with forcing non-believers to publicly support your religion with resources, space, and endorsement. "

Oh...so now Putin think that support of building Mosques is a bad thing - because after all, any building project will in some way involve public support - government approval, public infrastructure to support it, etc. No thing exists in society without some sort of public support.....so Putin is against the building of Mosques.

Allowing something ain't the same as supporting something troll.

@Putin,

"I think we can end it here. Semck thinks it's ok to force people to pray but thinks deliverymen being compelled to deliver stuff is beyond the pale."

I certainly do not think it's OK to force people to pray. I assumed you were talking about public prayers by a third party. What context are we discussing where people are forced to pray?

@Oscar,

"Yeah, that's what I meant by imposing your beliefs on others. Thanks for proving my point."

But nobody has the right to somebody else's enabling of their behavior. Just because you want to drink does not mean you can force somebody else to bring you beer, and again, it is you who are imposing beliefs, because you are the one who would actually force an action by somebody else. The driver in this case merely declines an action of his own that you would have found convenient.

That's really the best you can do? Weak.

Oh silly, silly oscar....I'm only using the logic that Putin employs when he dislikes something and makes wild-ass jumps in logic.

You, to, are a singular assclown when it comes to the inability to connect points of logic.

In fact -- since you obviously know nothing about what it takes to build a building -- it involves a hell of a lot of public resources to put up a building of any type, mosque or otherwise. But I wouldn't expect a simpleton such as yourself to understand such a concept.

And Oscar / Putin -- YOu will note that Putin offered no dissent to what I have stated....cbut simply issued another personal attack (as is his wont). He can't refute the facts, so he turns to attack, as all you moronic libtard attack dogs do when cornered.

I'll accept his, and your, defeat, as indicated by your lack of intelligent reply.

"That's really the best you can do? Weak."

Well I really have no idea what forced praying we're talking about, so until I know the actual context we're discussing, I'll have to ask for clarification. It may be that you're referring to something that I wouldn't actually support at all.

(For example, I certainly would not favor the forced reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance if it were not possible to opt out).

"I assumed you were talking about public prayers by a third party."

What does "In Jesus's name we pray" mean to you? Or "we ask this in Jesus's name, amen"? Is it just a farce or are people serious when they say this? This is forced prayer and the religious right has never had a problem with it. I don't support praying to anything but I'm having my autonomy taken away by somebody else who is claiming I am praying and supporting this bullshit when I do not.

The religious right is nice enough to ensure that the only way people can swear an oath to their own country is by also swearing an oath to their god. That's just how much they care about religious liberty.

@Putin,

It's not forced prayer. The "we" refers to those who choose to participate. Usually it's actually very easy to indicate non-participation as, for example, participants will bow their heads and close their eyes.

I simply can't imagine how you could actually feel guilty about sitting while somebody else prayed to a god you did not believe in. (I've done it myself, and did not feel guilty in the least). But I ask again: do you?

"The religious right is nice enough to ensure that the only way people can swear an oath to their own country is by also swearing an oath to their god. That's just how much they care about religious liberty."

That's actually not true. "So help me God" is optional, as is the Bible.

I already answered your question. So either you're not interested in an answer or you're playing your usual games. There is no distinguishing the 'we'. The English 'we' does not make a distinction between inclusive and exclusive, like some other languages do. And prayers very frequently make references to everybody in the room, or make blessings for everybody in the room, so the excuse making for this kind of forced participation in a religious ritual is absurd.

""So help me God" is optional, as is the Bible."

It was never optional when I was in school. Everyone said it together and if you're not saying the words, you're 'disrespecting' the pledge.

"And prayers very frequently make references to everybody in the room, or make blessings for everybody in the room, so the excuse making for this kind of forced participation in a religious ritual is absurd. "

So? I certainly support the right of anybody to pray for you. That's a very different thing from forcing you to pray.

"There is no distinguishing the 'we'. The English 'we' does not make a distinction between inclusive and exclusive, like some other languages do. "

OK, but the point is that the activity referred to as praying does not occur merely because somebody gets up and asserts that it does, and uses "we."

And no, you did not already answer my question. You said something about oaths being hypocritical. I agree, you should not be forced to swear oaths. That's a very different thing.

Now, let me ask again, for the third time: do you feel guilt when you're at a public event and there is a public prayer?

"It was never optional when I was in school. Everyone said it together and if you're not saying the words, you're 'disrespecting' the pledge. "

OK, I condemn that behavior, and had you been in a state where I'm a member of the bar, I would happily have filed suit on your behalf to enjoin it.

Prayer in official government settings, even optional, is a terrible idea because it immediately marks those who don't participate as outsiders. This could have very real ramifications, especially if those who need something now have to deal with a bias from their peers. It is not the place of government to force citizens to choose between implicitly misrepresenting themselves or ostracizing themselves.