- Reaction score
- 12,077
- Points
- 1,040
Defending peoples' rights sometimes means denying the exercise of rights of a few people determined to eliminate the peoples' rights.
Muslim Call to Prayer in Regina (split from Liberal Gov't 2025 - ???)
- Thread starter Halifax Tar
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 4,038
- Points
- 1,040
See I don’t buy that argument.
The problem with it is basically anyone can twist it to their advantage which is why I take a absolutist approach. Who gets to decide who should have rights or not? Who determines who shouldn’t have them to ‘protect’ the others?
Again since no one here has answered with a clearly articulated argument as to why they should not be allowed other than I don’t like it, what reason do you have to deny them their rights?
What harm does a call to prayer within reasonable hours at a reasonable volume cause?
Oldgateboatdriver
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 5,350
- Points
- 1,010
Many years ago, I made a distinction in one of the thread. Maybe it's time to repeat it:
One must not confuse a "freedom" with a "right". They are not the same, and a freedom does not necessarily create a right.
One, freedom is something I, personally and intrinsically possess, and cannot be taken from me. Thus, I am free to believe in whatever religion I want (or not) and chose to follow its precepts, but it creates absolutely no right for me to impose my religion or any of its precept on anyone else or require the state (courts) to impose it on anyone else (to me, broadcasting the call to prayer, or church bells fall in this category of imposing religion on others , even on other perhaps "less" practicing Muslims).
The other, a right, is something I can require other people to abide by and grant me, failing which I can ask the state (courts) to enforce it on others for my benefit. For instance, the right to remain silent or to an attorney, which if denied, the courts will enforce by throwing out any evidence obtained improperly; or the right to property which will be enforced with criminal proceedings for trespass, or with injunctive relief and damages on the civil side if appropriate.
One must not confuse a "freedom" with a "right". They are not the same, and a freedom does not necessarily create a right.
One, freedom is something I, personally and intrinsically possess, and cannot be taken from me. Thus, I am free to believe in whatever religion I want (or not) and chose to follow its precepts, but it creates absolutely no right for me to impose my religion or any of its precept on anyone else or require the state (courts) to impose it on anyone else (to me, broadcasting the call to prayer, or church bells fall in this category of imposing religion on others , even on other perhaps "less" practicing Muslims).
The other, a right, is something I can require other people to abide by and grant me, failing which I can ask the state (courts) to enforce it on others for my benefit. For instance, the right to remain silent or to an attorney, which if denied, the courts will enforce by throwing out any evidence obtained improperly; or the right to property which will be enforced with criminal proceedings for trespass, or with injunctive relief and damages on the civil side if appropriate.
Similar threads
