Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
(City A is more free of course, Start with a passionate explanation of why…
-
Start with a passionate explanation of why freedom to practise religion > freedom to drive without stopping for traffic lights
Then get into the debate of negative and positive liberty. Expalin why positive liberty is better than negative liberty.
People who say City B is more free may be saying that because of their perception of religion. They may think that it is a once in a day thing. You go to a place of worship for one hour and then you say a couple of prayers. When someone looks at religion in that perspective, then they are inclined to use the negative liberty conception of freedom to explain that no traffic lights is more free. Becuase they would use frequency of action to say that City B is more free.
Because then, they would be more free to do more things. Drive anywhere at any pace without being restricted by other peoples needs or safety. It's a free road, but it's not a free life
-
a right to religious exercise. However, it also has a lot of traffic lights, and citizens do a lot of
driving. So, in the course of their day-to-day lives, A’s citizens are frequently required to stop
-
forbids religious worship of any kind. However, it has a very sophisticated transportation system
-
-
-
Religious exercise is any practice of religion, whether it is central to a religious belief system or not.
My answer does not reflect my views on positive and negative liberty. Instead, my answer reflects my view on religion. I believe that City A is more free than City B through either lens.