How should religions honour the freedom of conscience of their members?

[exchemist]

It's individual. I had a priest yell at me once. That's not in catholic doctrine. Christianity has a terrible history. Though, none would be considered christian theology to christians. Parents do coerce their children to believe. Smaller churches can be more influential than larger more liberal ones. I mean. When I went to confession in a more "traditional" church (I guess), the priest fussed at me and said "the devil made you do it!" Now. I'm glad I wasn't raised in that environment, but can you imagine children growing up with that type of mentality?

It's not like some baptist churches where, in my experience, they will literally tell gay people they will go to hell and people screaming they are glad they aren't catholic. I mean, in Mass years ago, I had a lot of respect for the priest who did not focus on same-sex unions, legal unions, nor said any word. He just talked about marriage according to the church. Of course the underlying message was marriage was between male and female, but he never singled it out as "we're right and 'they' are wrong."

It really does depend. But the Church is not the victim in all of this. They have beautiful teachings but not all people around the world experience them as I and many others have.

There are good and bad clergymen, just as there are good and bad doctors.

In my experience, people often shop around a bit for a local church they find congenial, which is often one where the local clergyman seems to them sympathetic and reasonable.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Well, no bars in Hinduism except for bringing in Abrahamic views.

 

[Secret Chief]

We just had a movie about that. Hacksaw Ridge is the true story of a pacifist army corporal medic (Desmond Diss) who refused to take up arms during ww2. He would preform his duty as a medic but refused to use his firearm.
Ended up getting a medal of honor.

Fair enough but that has to be an exception surely? The armed forces don't want pacifists do they?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Fair enough but that has to be an exception surely? The armed forces don't want pacifists do they?

Depends on what they mean by pacifism I suppose, since I guess it's not really a monolithic philosophy. But there are a lot of duties to be preformed that don't involve direct violence. So I imagine there's room for some at least.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Another thread targeting the Catholic Church?

Actually, this thread is pretty generous: it touches on same-sex marriage instead of the Church's long and shameful track record with child molestation and cover-ups thereof. The latter would or at least should be much harder to defend.

The amount of apologetics for the wrongdoings and hateful rhetoric of that corrupt, prejudiced organization convinces me that sometimes religious zeal really can get otherwise good people to defend or do deeply harmful things. It is a scary and eye-opening phenomenon, to be sure.

 

[Debater Slayer]

In a perfect world maybe.

The Catholic Church and its priests cannot bless same-sex unions because God "cannot bless sin," the Vatican said Monday.
Vatican, Pope Francis say Catholic Church can't bless same-sex unions

I'm just not a person that expects the world to accommodate my conscience.

I guess covering up sin--like pedophilia--is better than outright "blessing" it, right? Whatever helps the Church's leaders to sleep better at night, I suppose.

 

[Heyo]

In most situations, we place great importance on freedom of conscience - and rightly so, IMO.

We generally recognize that it would be an unjust burden to, for instance, force a pacifist to serve in the armed forces, or make an ethical vegetarian have to choose between starving and eating meat, or forcing a devout religious person to work on a holy day of worship.

We even get into debates around things like whether bakers should be able to refuse to make cakes for same-sex weddings, or whether county clerks should have to issue wedding certificates to same-sex couples. Even in these cases, the question isn't whether the person's freedom of conscience isn't important; it's about other issues (e.g. whether their freedom of conscience can be honoured in other ways, or whether it's so important that it overrides the rights of others).

Now... in a recent discussion (this one here), I saw a few people asking things like "why would a same-sex couple want anything to do with the Catholic Church?" To me the answer seemed obvious: when people have been raised from birth to believe that the fate of their soul depends on staying in the Catholic Church, some of them will stay even if it's uncomfortable or if they're disrespected.

In a lot of ways, we tend to treat religions as optional, and religious membership as a free choice. While I think there's some merit to this idea in the abstract, I think it ignores the deep significance that many people find in their religions.

When a church instills the idea that any member who leaves will face a fate worse than death, or when they say that the Eucharist is "spiritual food" that's as vital as physical food (and they're the only place where you can get the "real" Eucharist), or when leaving would mean being shunned by their support network, losing their job, etc., I think it's reasonable to say that when members stay, their decision to stay can't be automatically assumed to be a free choice... IOW, these people's continuing membership may be coerced, just as much as someone threatened with a gun or physical starvation is being coerced.

So if members don't feel free to leave - or at least it would be an extreme violation of their conscience to leave - and the religion deliberately instilled this feeling in their members, does the religion have an obligation to accommodate the freedom of conscience of their members on issues where they might disagree with the religion's official position?

TLDR: if a gay person doesn't feel free to leave the Catholic Church (for example) because the Church has inculcated them from birth with the idea that they must stay, has the Church also taken on an ethical duty to accept the person's sexual orientation and the things that go along with it (e.g. a same-sex partner)?

I think you try to combine two things that have nothing in common: religion and ethics. Unless they have physical power over the believer, I think a religion (or other club) has the right to choose their members.
Also from the practical side it is easier to council a member to leave than it is to appeal to ethics of the organization.
The argument that the organization is responsible because it inculcated its members from birth is putting the cart before the horse. Children should be protected from religious inculcation by the state. Do that and there is no problem when an informed adult chooses an (unethical) religion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It is not one or the other: Both having an homossexual relationship and leaving the church involve a threat of hell.
I realize that this is Catholic doctrine. I'm saying that it's unethical of the Church to impose it on others, even their members.

I find it unreasonable to require an accomodation where none is logically possible.

It's not logically possible for a church to change its doctrines?

 

[firedragon]

Another shorter version that gets at my point:

If participation in an activity or group is mandatory or coerced, then there's a duty to accommodate the diversity of people that are forced to participate. This means, IMO:

• If a vegetarian is conscripted into the armed forces, they should have vegetarian meals available.
• If a student's religion has mandatory prayer times, their schedule should allow them to pray at the appointed times.
• If a person is threatened with Hell for leaving their church, then the person's partner - regardless of sex or gender - should be welcome just like any other member's partner is.

You are addressing governments and institutions, not religion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The armed forces can't accommodate a pacifist.

... which is why pacifists aren't required to join the armed forces.

When a religion presents itself as optional, then it has latitude to impose whatever requirements on its members that it wants, within reason.

But when a religion presents itself as necessary, it takes on a duty to accommodate all the people it brings in.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

(Piggy backing) True. Do you think they can still keep their teachings without threatening them? (I understand why the church says what it does but I disagree with the execution)

Probably not.

But again: this is their problem to figure out.

 

[halbhh]

In most situations, we place great importance on freedom of conscience - and rightly so, IMO.

We generally recognize that it would be an unjust burden to, for instance, force a pacifist to serve in the armed forces, or make an ethical vegetarian have to choose between starving and eating meat, or forcing a devout religious person to work on a holy day of worship.

We even get into debates around things like whether bakers should be able to refuse to make cakes for same-sex weddings, or whether county clerks should have to issue wedding certificates to same-sex couples. Even in these cases, the question isn't whether the person's freedom of conscience isn't important; it's about other issues (e.g. whether their freedom of conscience can be honoured in other ways, or whether it's so important that it overrides the rights of others).

Now... in a recent discussion (this one here), I saw a few people asking things like "why would a same-sex couple want anything to do with the Catholic Church?" To me the answer seemed obvious: when people have been raised from birth to believe that the fate of their soul depends on staying in the Catholic Church, some of them will stay even if it's uncomfortable or if they're disrespected.

In a lot of ways, we tend to treat religions as optional, and religious membership as a free choice. While I think there's some merit to this idea in the abstract, I think it ignores the deep significance that many people find in their religions.

When a church instills the idea that any member who leaves will face a fate worse than death, or when they say that the Eucharist is "spiritual food" that's as vital as physical food (and they're the only place where you can get the "real" Eucharist), or when leaving would mean being shunned by their support network, losing their job, etc., I think it's reasonable to say that when members stay, their decision to stay can't be automatically assumed to be a free choice... IOW, these people's continuing membership may be coerced, just as much as someone threatened with a gun or physical starvation is being coerced.

So if members don't feel free to leave - or at least it would be an extreme violation of their conscience to leave - and the religion deliberately instilled this feeling in their members, does the religion have an obligation to accommodate the freedom of conscience of their members on issues where they might disagree with the religion's official position?

TLDR: if a gay person doesn't feel free to leave the Catholic Church (for example) because the Church has inculcated them from birth with the idea that they must stay, has the Church also taken on an ethical duty to accept the person's sexual orientation and the things that go along with it (e.g. a same-sex partner)?

Yes, and yes, to the 2 questions at the end. Also, this is factually accomplished in many individual churches, though not all of course.

 

[Secret Chief]

it takes on a duty

In your eyes. Seemingly not in the institutions.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

They can accept the reality that the church is against gay marriage now but will revise in the future, and work to talk about their beliefs within the Catholic Church if it's important for them.
It's not like the Catholic Church has never changed its teachings on things people swore up and down would never change.

"I am a Catholic but I have a couple notable exceptions to mainstream Church doctrine as follows" seems perfectly reasonable and healthy.

I think giving up the idea that the Church is going to change on this is the healthier way to go. They cannot fundamentally redefine a sacrament.

 

[stvdv]

TLDR: if a gay person doesn't feel free to leave the Catholic Church (for example) because the Church has inculcated them from birth with the idea that they must stay, has the Church also taken on an ethical duty to accept the person's sexual orientation and the things that go along with it (e.g. a same-sex partner)?

Seems a good point to me, when a religion imposes threads on others, they are fully responsible for what happens due to their threads made
The Church will be busy with all the Hell threads they make. So, they should also accept an Atheist with fear of Hell still in him (if he wants to stay). But then, if the Church has a duty to accept their sex orientation, then is there still place to judge it? Thinking this way, judging totally makes no sense

Another shorter version that gets at my point:

If participation in an activity or group is mandatory or coerced, then there's a duty to accommodate the diversity of people that are forced to participate. This means, IMO:

• If a vegetarian is conscripted into the armed forces, they should have vegetarian meals available.
• If a student's religion has mandatory prayer times, their schedule should allow them to pray at the appointed times.
• If a person is threatened with Hell for leaving their church, then the person's partner - regardless of sex or gender - should be welcome just like any other member's partner is.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

But when a religion presents itself as necessary, it takes on a duty to accommodate all the people it brings in.

Where are you getting that from? That doesn't necessarily follow. It also misses the point of many religions, especially Christianity.

 

[Dawnofhope]

The Baha’i Faith places great importance on freedom of thought and expression. While much of how a Baha’i chooses to apply the Teachings of their faith there are of course limits to what one can and cannot do. Baha’i marriage is seen as being between a man and woman. It is conditional upon the consent of living parents and reciting a single verse “We will all verily abide by the Will of God” by both parties. It is a requirement for Baha’is who marry to meet these prerequisites. Obviously if a Baha’i chooses to conduct their union along the principles of Western secularism this may bring them into conflict with the Baha’i Assembly, an institution responsible for overseeing the wellbeing of the community. The Assembly would try to counsel the couple as to the spiritual and sacred nature of marriage and the Baha’i laws.

People are free to join and leave the Baha’i Faith. There is no shunning of ex-members except in very rare circumstances and any coercion is generally avoided.

 

[Koldo]

It's not logically possible for a church to change its doctrines?

Do we get to bend what we regard as the truth when we are inconvenienced by it? It is not like the church itself is the one sending people to hell.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Probably not.

But again: this is their problem to figure out.

They don't see it as a problem. So, if people have a problem with what the church does, it won't get fixed hoping they would solve something they are ignorant of.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The Baha’i Faith places great importance on freedom of thought and expression. While much of how a Baha’i chooses to apply the Teachings of their faith there are of course limits to what one can and cannot do. Baha’i marriage is seen as being between a man and woman. It is conditional upon the consent of living parents and reciting a single verse “We will all verily abide by the Will of God” by both parties. It is a requirement for Baha’is who marry to meet these prerequisites. Obviously if a Baha’i chooses to conduct their union along the principles of Western secularism this may bring them into conflict with the Baha’i Assembly, an institution responsible for overseeing the wellbeing of the community. The Assembly would try to counsel the couple as to the spiritual and sacred nature of marriage and the Baha’i laws.

People are free to join and leave the Baha’i Faith. There is no shunning of ex-members except in very rare circumstances and any coercion is generally avoided.

Does Bahai support same-sex marriages?

I know the Church neither agrees with them nor supports them as a marriage. They do acknowledge it as a legal commitment but not a religious sacrament.