So you agree that it is unfair. And it would be just like Italy's decision..they are analogous.
Nothing is perfectly fair. One has to be pragmatic.
Having said that, I am simply hypothesizing Italy's motives behind this move, and I have not bothered to check the facts from another source, or for that matter hear the justification from the people who proposed this measure.
If you have any videos/text produced by the parties which proposed the law, then perhaps we will be in a better position to pass judgement.
They have demand that Mosques recognize Israel, despite the fact that the state has no business forcing any citizen or organization to agree to any foreign policy....this is pandering to some skewed special interest.
Yes, I agree with that. However, we do not know what Italian laws state in this regard.
Also...you cannot make the assumption that mosques are indulging in poltical undesirable political activities just because the government asked them to recognize Israel. I don't see how you can jump to that conclusion, unless it was a foregone conclusion in your mind beforehand.
I
am assuming, I said so earlier. If you can bring in some more information, then maybe we can make a better decision.
the example was not meant to demonstrate religious tolerance or secular tolerance...it was meant to demonstrate how intolerance would feel if the shoe was on the other foot.
Ah...I see.
You missed the point. You cannot accept a state which does not declare its borders. A state with fixed borders is possible to discuss, but one without borders is not a state...it is an expansionist gang of thugs.
I can't say anything regarding that....there is a map of Israel, and I'm sure that the country has set some definition regarding its territory.
Perhaps what you are saying is that Israel considers Palestine as part of it. But that doesn't amount to not declaring your borders.
Even China regards Taiwan as part of it...so does that mean that China has "refused to declare" its borders?
The UN has passed far more resolutions against Israel than they ever did against Iraq, Iran, Syria and North Korea put together...but they have all been ignored. Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and almost all other organizations call what Israel is doing a systematic apartheid. What is the basis of your support to Israel? Is it your secular beliefs? Is it religion? Or is it because the enemy of your enemy is your friend?
As I said, there is no nation in planet earth which has not committed crimes.
My support (or rather my country's support) for Israel is based on a common worldview - democracy and secularism - as well as common self interest, and a lack of conflicts.
India does support the existence of Israel, but she does not condone her human rights violations, or her attacks on neighbouring countries. Infact, India and Iran see eye-to-eye on a number of issues which are not in line with Israel's policies.
Can you please define secularism?
Secularism is defined differently by different people. However, the one principle which is common to all definitions is that the important functions of the state should not be influenced by religious views.
For a better explanation, just visit wikipedia.
So you believe that freedom of speech should not apply to religious institutions? How about the Priest when he is on his time off? what other entities and organizations should be denied freedom of expression in your view?
Its quite complicated, as I said, and which is why we have big, lengthy and boring books on the topic, which can elucidate the minute details.
A priest is allowed to have, IMO, a political opinion as long as he does not use his religious views to justify it. However, if he uses his religious institution as the basis upon which he makes political judgments, then we might have a problem.
For example, if Father so and so says that Obama is a great candidate because his policies make sense, then fine. However, if he says that all his followers must support Obama because that's what God told him, then we have a problem.
However, it is very difficult to ascertain such things for each of the hundreds of influential religious leaders that are usually present in a country, which is why it probably makes better sense to ban religious leaders from making political statements in their religious capacities.
Religions are usually not given a free hand to preach whatever they want, hence my earlier post on the topic..i.e. what restrictions do we place on religion?
