The Limits of Religious Freedom

[dianaiad]

And when THE PERSON THEMSELVES claims harm done to them at the hands of religion (like the article copied into the OP)? What are we to do then, in your estimation? Ignore them? I'm sure you'd like that.

Are you?

Then you aren't reading what I write.

What you do in that case is help them. They left. They want something else. Help them get it.

And asking (with the backing of the law in some instances) "Hey, can you not do that weird crap you do?" is not imposing any sort of belief or behavior on you. It's asking that you cut out part of your own behaviors in order to help stop something that people THEMSELVES (again, read the article copied into the OP) are reporting is harmful. If people disapprove of something you are doing to a large enough degree, then they might just get the authorities involved, and if it goes up the chain and what you're doing is then written into the law-books as ILLEGAL, then you're going to have to stop. I don't care what you believe or how much you think it wasn't hurting anyone.

In the end, like it or not, you can be subject to the judgment of your peers and you can be told what not to do. It's that simple, and it happens all the time. Let's say somebody creates a flying car in their backyard by harnessing "the power of God" - the first time somebody crashes into a 7-11 after all the religious-types start flying their "god cars" all over the place the authorities are going to require you to have a license to fly one, and they are going to start testing blood alcohol levels, and they are going to require that you buy insurance and register the vehicle, etc. etc. etc. See? You get imposed upon ALL THE TIME. And it will continue to happen. If it is at the expense of your religious convictions you can guess how much I care.

Oh, gobbledegook.

Missourri once had a law on its books: executive order 44...more commonly known (by the Governor who wrote it, especially) as the 'Extermination Order" which made it legal to kill any Mormon on sight, man, woman or child. It established the order that all Mormons had to leave the territory or die.

In fact, that particular order wasn't rescinded until 1976.

So please pardon me if I don't think a whole lot of laws establishing what someone can do religiously.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

An insightful article that really speaks to me.



The limits of religious freedom: America must come to grips with when faith groups limit personal liberty

If a faith becomes a way of conflict, the cause of disunity and a path to ignorance, then yes it would be much better to be without that Faith.

Regards Tony

 

[dianaiad]

My vote is that we ask THE KIDS THEMSELVES. The woman who wrote the article obviously felt wronged by her religious leaders/parents/etc. Is she not qualified to pronounce her own distaste for the practices? There's NO ONE BETTER, I'd say.

So she left and went in a different direction. The ironic thing here is that the Amish have this thing called 'rumspringa,' where their young people are ENCOURAGED to 'leave the fold' and experience the "English" world...and decide for themselves whether they want to stay with the beliefs they were raised in, or to go the way that woman did. So, basically, she did what the Amish made provision for in their beliefs, and now she's unhappy.

Well, that's her problem. She left. She found another way....and nobody was keeping her Amish.

How about those girls who were pinned down having their clitorises removed? You think they might not have a few complaints to air?

Y'know, as far as I'm aware, the Amish don't do that. Nobody in the USA does that.

 

[SomeRandom]

Of course. Distasteful to you.

You find things like cannibalism tasteful? I mean, to each their own I suppose.

Yep, and good luck and blessings to those folks and the folks they aid...who have chosen themselves to leave that belief system or have freely chosen to do something against the tenets of that system so that they are expelled. Aid and help given to those disaffected folks is NOT what is being discussed here, is it?

That aid being given to them by secular institutions apparently more concerned with their mental well being than their respective religious organisations. Which is a little sad, don't you think?

Yes. That particular group of Mormons (the polygamous group under Warren Jeffs) was a nasty one.

I would submit, however, that part of the reason they were so insular is because the outside world had decided that polygamy was illegal and jail worthy, and persecuted them for that. It is THAT which allowed Jeffs to be so powerful, precisely the way other 'mind control cults' had leaders which were powerful and, well, nasty.

Who goes to jail for marrying multiple people? Is that a thing in America? Sheesh! Leader of the Free World indeed!
Come over here. I know even secular polygamous/polygamist people. You don't need to leave society if you want to date multiple people. It's the 21st century, after all. Of course, if they wish to marry, they generally don't do it "by law" after the first marriage, if you get what I mean?

BTW, those folks are "Mormons" the way Westboro Baptists represent all Baptists.

"Mormons" in general don't have that issue....which is probably why the LDS leadership wants everybody to use the name of the church; "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints" rather than "Mormon," so that folks like you will learn the difference between Jeffs' group (10,000) and us (16,000,000)

Of course. Mormons are as diverse as literally any religion in history.

As far as you are concerned.

As far as a lot of mental health professionals are concerned. Did you really just try to justify child marriage by the way? 16 is way too young and that's often old in some sects. That is criminal. That should not be protected, it is literally child sexual abuse.

And 'freedom of religion' means that one must address those issues through teaching and proselytization, NOT external legal persecution through laws.

I never once advocated external persecution by law, unless in very dire circumstances. Like if there's a child starving themselves for a religious rite (fasting.) That is dangerous, that should not be protected. Any decent sane person of any religious persuasion (or even lack thereof) would be appalled if a child were to starve themselves or forced to and would recommend immediate intervention. I would hope so anyway. I mean come on. And before you say, oh well according to you. I come from a Hindu background, we grow up on folktales literally praising such activities, even stories involving pious children doing so. But to actually do that in real life? No, that's child abuse.

YOU may not like some religious practice.....but they probably don't like yours, either. I, personally, don't want to see a government in which the majority belief system can regulate the religious opinions and acts of minorities.

Dude, you get me all wrong. I am the person who would immediately jump up to your aid any time the government tried to penalize you for your religious beliefs and practices. In a civilized modern society, it is the right of every person to worship (or not worship) however one pleases. But that doesn't mean we can't look at some practices (in literally every religion ever) and be like, yeah, maybe those are best left in the past.
Let us be pragmatic and self reflective.

After all, you ARE talking to a 'Latter-day saint" here...one of those who are members of the larger 'Mormon" classification. We KNOW what it means to have the government pass laws. We ended up being driven right out of the USA altogether, at gun point.

And I find such a thing abhorrent. No government should do that to it's citizens. Its a blatant violation of civil liberty.

....and if those psychiatrists had been around back in the mid nineteenth century, every Mormon existing would have been treated for PTSD because of what the proper, right thinking people around them DID to them.

And we have changed since then. Well I would hope we have in the intervening years anyway.

All aid and service should be given to those who are unhappy with their belief system, or who leave it.

Why should anyone even need aid just to leave their religion? I mean geez, I know people who became atheists without so much as a tear shed. Because their families didn't treat them like trash for being atheists or converts or what have you.
I'm not talking about people who just "leave their system." I'm talking about people literally kicked out of home and shunned by their entire families because they questioned or left the religion. Sometimes they had no choice. We can absolutely look at that and say, yeah, that's messed up and that hurts people. I don't care what religion that practice is from, to be frank. I will call it out. Which I hope you know is not the same as wanting the government to intervene. Screw the government, I don't trust those dopes as far as I can throw them. I think in those kinds of scenarios, education is better than intervention.

 

[Kenny]

Keeping the Faith, Fighting the Exemptions

I can agree that we shouldn't have children suffer. But I believe you can override it:


When can the government override a parent's medical decision in the U.S.?

However, there are situations where doctors can disagree with a parent's decision if a child is in a severe medical dilemma. The parens patriae doctrine gives the state the right to intervene with a parent's decision when it's believed they are not acting in the best interest for the child's well-being.

According to the Legal Resource Library, this generally happens when:

• The medical community is in agreement about the best treatment, where the expected outcome is a relatively good quality life
• If the child is at risk of serious harm
• If the child would die without the treatment
• Or if a parent is refusing consent

In heartbreaking situations where a child has a terminal illness where no treatment is beneficial, parents do have a right to refuse treatment and let nature take it's course. When multiple doctors are giving different options of treatment, parents have a right to choose which is best for their child.

A greater problem, IMV, is how much we let the governments intrusion into our own lives. Before you know it, religion will be "psychological harm" and you will have government controlled children.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Are you?

Then you aren't reading what I write.

What you do in that case is help them. They left. They want something else. Help them get it.



Oh, gobbledegook.

Missourri once had a law on its books: executive order 44...more commonly known (by the Governor who wrote it, especially) as the 'Extermination Order" which made it legal to kill any Mormon on sight, man, woman or child. It established the order that all Mormons had to leave the territory or die.

In fact, that particular order wasn't rescinded until 1976.

So please pardon me if I don't think a whole lot of laws establishing what someone can do religiously.

And I agree that a law that targets a religion specifically (as in, it targets the religion or its adherents in particular) is NOT good, and should not be allowed. But that's NOT what we're talking about here. What we're talking about are laws to protect people from things that are shown to be harmful - WHETHER OR NOT they are part of a religion. Meaning that just because it is "religious" it is not exempt from the law. And any law that is instituted to protect people, even if that thing they are being protected from most often happens within some religion's activities, is what it is. It isn't necessarily an "attack on the religion."

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

So she left and went in a different direction. The ironic thing here is that the Amish have this thing called 'rumspringa,' where their young people are ENCOURAGED to 'leave the fold' and experience the "English" world...and decide for themselves whether they want to stay with the beliefs they were raised in, or to go the way that woman did. So, basically, she did what the Amish made provision for in their beliefs, and now she's unhappy.

Well, that's her problem. She left. She found another way....and nobody was keeping her Amish.

Ignoring the obvious fact that her entire upbringing was geared toward making her understand no other way of life and therefore only be acclimated to the Amish way of life. I've seen the documentaries, and there are some of those kids who literally state EXACTLY that as the reason they decided to stay. They "don't know anything else." "Rumspringa" is mostly a ruse. Some may actually take the "out," but many are forced to face the fact that they don't have anything on "the outside" in order to build a life around.

Y'know, as far as I'm aware, the Amish don't do that. Nobody in the USA does that.

So what? Seriously... who cares? We're talking about religiously-influenced harm that comes from religious practice. We're talking about the limits that "religious freedom" should have. DO you think only religion's practiced within the borders of the USA matter? OF COURSE you don't think that. Duh. So why are you saying this? Why are you trying to distract from the real point here?

 

[dianaiad]

You find things like cannibalism tasteful? I mean, to each their own I suppose.

I suppose that the cannibals think it a tasty practice.

however, you are moving the goalposts bit here. We aren't talking about cannibalism. We were TALKING about education and practices that are considerably less....er....Dahmerish.

Perhaps you should learn about a fallacy called the 'false dichotomy?' You are equating the Amish life of simplicity, living without, say, electricity and tractors...and formal education past the 8th grade...with cannibalism. One does not, you understand, necessarily lead to to the other. In fact, I know of no Amish groups that practice or approve of eating one's neighbors.

(I did read the rest of your post, and I appreciate your comments regarding how you feel about government interference with religion).

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

According to WHOM are these things harmful?

The Amish and the Hassidic Jews don't believe that their practices are harmful, and let's face it; those cultures have been around, and in spite of the woman who wrote the article linked to in the OP, have produced societies that have worked for quite some time. In the case of the Jews, a VERY long time.

So...YOU (very general "you") don't believe as they do, so YOUR beliefs must supersede theirs? YOURS are the beliefs that must be followed, YOUR ideas of what's good for kids must be obeyed over what their parent's beliefs are, BECAUSE YOU DON'T BELIEVE AS THEY DO?

The ironic thing here is that those who are forcing their beliefs upon these minority groups are the ones criticizing religions for forcing their belief on others. What the heck do you think you're doing?

Precisely the same thing. Because YOU want to do things YOUR way, and because you think your way is the 'one true way,' you are quite willing to force others into your method of doing things.

.....and don't come after me. Unfortunately for those who want to educate other people's kids to YOUR standards, my own belief system is 100% for education, the more the better. You can have no criticisms against us for that.

That does not, however, mean that either you or I have the right to tell the Amish, the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Hassidic Jews or anybody else how to raise their kids. Or rather, we don't have the right to force, by law, our views upon them.

On the other hand, there are modes of thought that are based, not on old myths, fables and magical thinking, but upon careful study of nature, and human nature, especially. And when you stop to think about it, since nature and human nature are pretty much the same around all of the world we know of, any system of "belief" that includes those as the base, are much more likely to succeed and apply universally. Yes, all the religious wars have been fun, but gosh its expensive, and millions of people dying -- well, really, there's got to be a better way.

What are the tenets, for example, of Humanism?

"Humanism is a rational philosophy informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by compassion. Affirming the dignity of each human being, it supports the maximization of individual liberty and opportunity consonant with social and planetary responsibility. It advocates the extension of participatory democracy and the expansion of the open society, standing for human rights and social justice. Free of supernaturalism, it recognizes human beings as a part of nature and holds that values-be they religious, ethical, social, or political-have their source in human experience and culture. Humanism thus derives the goals of life from human need and interest rather than from theological or ideological abstractions, and asserts that humanity must take responsibility for its own destiny."
– The Humanist Magazine

Tell me, with those values in mind, who would I be most likely to attack first?​

 

[Scott C.]

Breaking up destructive subcultures that are very highly insular.

Example of an insular subculture that you want to break up?

 

[loverofhumanity]

Religion as taught by the Prophets never harms but promotes love and unity between all peoples.

However, Religion as taught by priests, clergy and mullahs has been proven over history to be the cause of cold blooded murder, wars and terrorism. Religious leaders should not have the freedom to teach hatred and prejudice.

We are all equal human beings - atheists, Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhist, Hindus etc and so on because it is our common humanity that is what we really are not the labels we attach to ourselves.

 

[dianaiad]

And I agree that a law that targets a religion specifically (as in, it targets the religion or its adherents in particular) is NOT good, and should not be allowed. But that's NOT what we're talking about here. What we're talking about are laws to protect people from things that are shown to be harmful - WHETHER OR NOT they are part of a religion. Meaning that just because it is "religious" it is not exempt from the law. And any law that is instituted to protect people, even if that thing they are being protected from most often happens within some religion's activities, is what it is. It isn't necessarily an "attack on the religion."

uh huh.

That sounds great.

Until you look closer and realize that the law that purports to be against something that is 'harmful," (as defined by the people advocating for the law) but not against a specific religion/group...is actually against something that ONLY one group does.

You know....say there's a law against polygamy. Those who advocated for, and got, the passage of that law can SAY that it doesn't target a specific religion or its adherents....but if there is only one religious group around that practices polygamy, just how specious a claim is it, that the law isn't targeting that one group?

Because, of course, it is.

I keep running into claims like this, about laws of all sorts.

 

[Howard Is]

If you espouse that there is no god... then you would have to prove it.

No I wouldn’t.

I don’t need to prove there is no Flying Spaghetti Monster either.

 

[dianaiad]

Ignoring the obvious fact that her entire upbringing was geared toward making her understand no other way of life and therefore only be acclimated to the Amish way of life. I've seen the documentaries, and there are some of those kids who literally state EXACTLY that as the reason they decided to stay. They "don't know anything else." "Rumspringa" is mostly a ruse. Some may actually take the "out," but many are forced to face the fact that they don't have anything on "the outside" in order to build a life around.

They can still do it, as this woman proved.

So what? Seriously... who cares? We're talking about religiously-influenced harm that comes from religious practice. We're talking about the limits that "religious freedom" should have. DO you think only religion's practiced within the borders of the USA matter? OF COURSE you don't think that. Duh. So why are you saying this? Why are you trying to distract from the real point here?

Actually, the 'real point' seems to be getting lost in the false dichotomy and goal post moving that y'all seem to be delighting in.

As I have mentioned, my own opinion on this is..religious freedom should be sacrosanct (see what I did there?) except for this: no religion has the right to involve unwilling participants in any physical aspect of their faith. As in....their right to have freedom of religion ends at the bridge of my nose.

Meaning: no human sacrifice.
No mob action.
No stone throwing at the infidels.
No rapine.

However....attempting to change minds is just fine. You want to knock on my door and argue with me? GREAT! Bring it on.

You want to escort me out of church in handcuffs because you disapprove of my beliefs? Er...not so much. (and yes, I did get threatened with that...very odd woman, actually)

You raise your kids according to your beliefs, I'll raise my kids according to mine. I'm LDS. I don't have the right to tell atheists, Catholics, Jehovah's Witnesses or Baptists how to raise their kids, and they don't have the right to tell me how to raise mine.

You CAN, however, attempt to get my kids to believe something else when they are old enough to listen to you, and I'm no longer legally responsible for them.

I won't kidnap YOUR kids and force you to raise them with my ideas of 'what's right' because I find your beliefs distasteful, and you don't get to do that to me.

And you do NOT get to equate my opposition to laws against things you find distasteful with support for cannibalism, "Satanic culling" and other forms of human sacrifice, and other things at the bottom of that very fallacious slippery slope.

 

[dianaiad]

On the other hand, there are modes of thought that are based, not on old myths, fables and magical thinking, but upon careful study of nature, and human nature, especially. And when you stop to think about it, since nature and human nature are pretty much the same around all of the world we know of, any system of "belief" that includes those as the base, are much more likely to succeed and apply universally. Yes, all the religious wars have been fun, but gosh its expensive, and millions of people dying -- well, really, there's got to be a better way.

What are the tenets, for example, of Humanism?

"Humanism is a rational philosophy informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by compassion. Affirming the dignity of each human being, it supports the maximization of individual liberty and opportunity consonant with social and planetary responsibility. It advocates the extension of participatory democracy and the expansion of the open society, standing for human rights and social justice. Free of supernaturalism, it recognizes human beings as a part of nature and holds that values-be they religious, ethical, social, or political-have their source in human experience and culture. Humanism thus derives the goals of life from human need and interest rather than from theological or ideological abstractions, and asserts that humanity must take responsibility for its own destiny."
– The Humanist Magazine

Tell me, with those values in mind, who would I be most likely to attack first?​

Why, anybody you think disagrees with you. Especially those who believe in a deity....even though their values look very much like the ones spouted your definition of humanism.

After all, it IS you guys who keep trying to pass laws limiting the freedom of religion of everybody else. (shrug)

As for me, well, I do belong to about the only religion I know of that has 'freedom of religion' written in its articles of faith...or 'creed.'

“We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.” (Article of Faith #11)

so you can understand that I might not be all that sympathetic to people who want to 'curb the excesses" or whatever they want to call it, of the folks who disagree with them. Doing so is, well, against my religion.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Why, anybody you think disagrees with you. Especially those who believe in a deity....even though their values look very much like the ones spouted your definition of humanism.

After all, it IS you guys who keep trying to pass laws limiting the freedom of religion of everybody else. (shrug)

You are quite wrong about that, you know. I'm the atheist who, publicly, right here in this forum, has said I support the right of people to put up creches in public spaces at Christmas, so long as all other religious symbols are likewise accommodated. I accept the right of everyone to believe what they do, and for their own reasons, whatever I may personally think about those reasons.

Where I do want to "pass laws limiting," as you say, is to disallow any religion the right to decide who I may choose to love on the basis of a Biblical or Qur'anic passage. If you don't believe loving a member of your own sex is a good thing, you have my absolute support for not doing so. What I would deny you, however, is the right to enforce YOUR belief on ME.

Similarly, places such as school rooms, and government offices that serve the public, must be prepared to serve ALL of the children in those school rooms, and ALL of the public seeking government services, without respect to religion, and without any attempt to proselytize any religious attitude on them.

Do you disagree with that?

As for me, well, I do belong to about the only religion I know of that has 'freedom of religion' written in its articles of faith...or 'creed.'

“We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.” (Article of Faith #11)

so you can understand that I might not be all that sympathetic to people who want to 'curb the excesses" or whatever they want to call it, of the folks who disagree with them. Doing so is, well, against my religion.

And there, you have said what I can respect -- what I in fact MUST respect. With one tiny caveat! You say that you allow "worshipping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where or what they may." But oddly, that statement doesn't seem to extend those who DON"T worship ANY deity at all. It seems an odd omission.

 

[SomeRandom]

I suppose that the cannibals think it a tasty practice.

Well I've heard it goes down a treat with some fava beans and a nice chianti

however, you are moving the goalposts bit here. We aren't talking about cannibalism. We were TALKING about education and practices that are considerably less....er....Dahmerish.

You pointed out that these societies were flourishing. I pointed out that many societies flourish, but that doesn't make them immune to criticism. The cannibalism bit is probably just my dark demented sense of humour peeking through though.

Perhaps you should learn about a fallacy called the 'false dichotomy?' You are equating the Amish life of simplicity, living without, say, electricity and tractors...and formal education past the 8th grade...with cannibalism. One does not, you understand, necessarily lead to to the other. In fact, I know of no Amish groups that practice or approve of eating one's neighbors.

Umm......I didn't though? I even specifically said as much.
Look

(Not to suggest the Amish are comparable to cannibals obviously. I’m sure their diets are more than adequately civilised. But you know, flourishing society doesn’t necessarily mean saintly.)

(I did read the rest of your post, and I appreciate your comments regarding how you feel about government interference with religion).

Well, let's just say you and I share a similar "rocky" history with governments interfering in family religion.

 

[Kenny]

No I wouldn’t.

I don’t need to prove there is no Flying Spaghetti Monster either.

Political correctness to absolve you on supplying support for your position. I guess I don't have to prove that their are airheads that call themselves intelligent.

 

[Phaedrus]

Political correctness to absolve you on supplying support for your position. I guess I don't have to prove that their are airheads that call themselves intelligent.

The issue many theists do not seem to understand is that there is no reason to prove something does not exist when there is already zero evidence to support it even exists. Then when theists start getting into their apologists arguments, making wilder claims of god not existing as part of the natural world, it becomes even more apparent via a rational state of mind that there is no difference between an invisible non-interacting god and god not existing.

Atheism, for most (myself not included), is merely the absence of belief in the theistic god claim. When we are arguing with you, we are debating against the concept you believe has merit in reality when there is no evidence of any deity existing.

 

[Kenny]

The issue many theists do not seem to understand is that there is no reason to prove something does not exist when there is already zero evidence to support it even exists.

Yet billions of people disagree with your position that there is zero evidence.

Do you have all knowledge as to be able to say there is no support? 20 years ago there was no support for black holes.

Atheism, for most (myself not included), is merely the absence of belief in the theistic god claim. .

That is a politically correct definition but not a correct definition!

ORIGIN OF ATHEISM
1580–90; < Greek áthe(os) godless + -ism dictionary.com

Origin
Late 16th century from French athéisme, from Greek atheos, from a- ‘without’ + theos ‘god’.
Oxford

A'THEISM, noun The disbelief of the existence of a God, or Supreme intelligent Being.
Webster 1828

Not an "absence of belief" but rather a "disbelief" or "I don't believe there is a God." or "I believe (belief) that there is no God."

If you don't know if there is one or don't think there is evidence YET, then you are agnostic.