• a4ng3l@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Generally speaking? I suspect most of our issues currently and previously are either caused by religions or are using religions in a form or another. Look at USA / Israel if that’s not obvious. Even Buddhists have been killing over religion. Sects in Japan have done horrible things…

      I could remove 1 trait of humanity I would seriously consider removing the soft spot for the love of mysticisms.

      And thus limiting religious practices is sensible and has the benefit to decrease exposure to non involved persons.

      • BananaLama@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        6 hours ago

        Great harm had been done in the name it religion but you’re overlooking the good that’s been done.

    • Evotech@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      6 hours ago

      The population?

      It stops public praying as a virtue. When praying is only done in private you can’t judge people being a worse Christian etc for not participating.

      So you’ll have a more secular society with more room for people to practice their religion as they see fit. Not doing things just because it’s expected of you.

      Like if there’s prayer room at a school. More people will use it because they don’t want to be seen as a bad Muslim. Even if they wouldn’t normally pray at those times.

      It creates pressures and expectations.

      • BananaLama@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        6 hours ago

        Peer pressure will exist regardless though. This provides as space for people to pray in private.

        Why not make the prayer rooms individual rooms? Would that not solve the edge case you describe?

        • stickly@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 hour ago

          There is no logic to this person’s stance, they just want to do harm to the other. They wrap that in a veil of impartial rational reasoning to quell the cognitive dissonance.

          If this law was phrased as anti-loitering to keep homeless people off sidewalks or banning private rooms for nursing mothers they would be up in arms. It’s functionally the same, but since it targets their preferred adversary they nod in approval.