The Limits of Religious Freedom

[Kenny]

No. I was definitely smiling and enjoying a red wine and smoke at the time. You’ll know for sure when I’m cranky.

Come on, don’t be ashamed to admit that you still have anger management issues. I don’t expect you to be perfect. If there was a Jesus, he wouldn’t expect you to be perfect either. It would put him out of a job.

Like I couldn't see your red wine and a smoke, you can't see my smile or the love in my heart.

I remember when I acted angry to my children and they laughed saying, "Dad, you can't get angry!"

And Jesus WAS perfect

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I wouldn't vote for you. Very anti-religious.

Child neglect and abuse is already covered under child neglect and abuse. I don't want the government pushing their liberal sex positions. Government comes with an extremely destructive and emotionally/psychologically edge to it.

I do hope you are as passionate about stopping abortion as you are about the medical issue for children.

Oddly, there is a place where religion plays a part in my life, and that is when I vote. I will not -- not ever -- vote for someone I perceive as too religious. That is, for anyone who holds fundamentalist views about any matter of religion.

Yes, laws exist to protect children from neglect and abuse. However, if I recall, quite a few children are abused anyway, for religious beliefs about withholding needed medical treatment, for example, or in exorcising "spirits" and the like, or just for punishment from a religious perspective. And yes, the parents who do those things get punished, but funny thing about that -- then whole families suffer. Would it not be just slightly better, don't you think, not to believe idiotic things in the first place? (And by idiotic, I don't mean belief in God -- I mean about things like blood transfusions being equivalent to "drinking blood" and the necessity of mutilating the genitals of children for purely religious reasons.)

 

[BilliardsBall]

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

So... you are for or against abolishing the 1st Amendment to the Constitution?

 

[BilliardsBall]

When is the last time proselytizing killed anyone?

When is the last time SPEECH killed a person?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

When is the last time SPEECH killed a person?

That's pretty much what I just asked.

 

[Earthtank]

The opinion given and the limits in the article can be applied to everything, not only religion.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I do hope you are as passionate about stopping abortion as you are about the medical issue for children.

A fetus may not even resemble a human yet, or could be laden with health problems, it's not self aware, and ultimately it's the only thing we have keeping our population less in a world where overcrowding and inadequate food and water are already concernes.
However, I am a major supporter of reducing the demand of them, so I am a major advocate of sex ed in public schools so sexually curious, interested, and active people have vital information to reduce the spread of STDs and unwanted pregnancies. Because it turns out condoms prevent more abortions that fighting to end it in court and chastity pledges combined.

 

[Kenny]

You know, Ken, I would rather hope that you would become as passionate about sex education as you are about stopping abortion. Well-adjusted, sexually knowledgeable people are less likely to wind up with unwanted pregnancies, just for starters

Actually, EH, I am up with this. Here is the problem that makes it so difficult (one of so many examples):

The binder included the following PowerPoint slides (This is for 5th graders):

1) A picture of Homer Simpson with the words, “Lube, Lube, Lube. Use more lubrication, increase pleasure…”

I don't call that sex education... I call that sex indoctrination without limits.

A slide which appears to come from the AIDS Foundation of Chicago, a homosexual activist organization(slide#5): “Once you pop, you won’t have to stop! FCs [female condoms] don’t require an erect penis, so your partner doesn’t have to pull out right after ejaculation. Feel the heat! FCs adjust to body temperature, so both you and your partner can feel the heat. Oh! Oh! The two rings of the FC double the pleasure for you and your partner.”

I don't call that sex education... I call that human-trafficking preparation

A slide that reads “Female condoms are for everybody: men, women, transgender folk, gay straight, any position, any time.

I don't call that sex education... I call that psychological manipulation

Shocking Sex-Ed Material in 5th Grade

So the problem, here, is not that I'm against sex-education but the reality that it no longer has anything to do with sex education and, in fact, promoting the unwanted pregnancies.

I wouldn't arm an 11 year old with this type of information anymore than I would give the keys to my car to an 11 years old because they aren't at an age to handle the drive. (pardon the pun)

 

[Kenny]

Oddly, there is a place where religion plays a part in my life, and that is when I vote. I will not -- not ever -- vote for someone I perceive as too religious. That is, for anyone who holds fundamentalist views about any matter of religion.

I support you in that right. I guess I would hold the same position for those I perceive as being to secular. That is, for anyone who holds fundamentalist views about any matter of atheism.

 

[Kenny]

A fetus may not even resemble a human yet, or could be laden with health problems, it's not self aware,

Science has shown that it not only resembles a human but is quite aware of the aggression that is being perpetrated towards his/her person.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Science has shown that it not only resembles a human but is quite aware of the aggression that is being perpetrated towards his/her person.

A blob only a few cells big doesn't really resemble a human, and self awareness doesn't come until many months-to-a year later.

 

[Kenny]

A blob only a few cells big doesn't really resemble a human, and self awareness doesn't come until many months-to-a year later.

OK... let's throw out the doctors scientific findings... Would you mind if I, likewise, also blindly close my eyes to the medical issue at hand?

 

[dianaiad]

But your way of thinking is ridiculous, and can EASILY be displayed to be so with even a simple example of an extreme. Let's say ONLY ONE religion is sacrificing their first born female children to their God. Do you honestly think that someone shouldn't try to stop those people from doing so, just because to target them would be "targeting the religion?" OF COURSE someone should try and stop such a thing. It only makes sense. And do you know why? BECAUSE CHILDREN ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN RELIGION. That's why. And in general, some things (a great many things from my perspective) are more important than religion. Go ahead now... argue against that.

You are commiting the FALLACY of 'slippery slope,' here. You are saying, basically, that polygamy equals the sacrifice of first born children.

I have, several times now, stated that freedom of religion, like freedom of speech, 'ends at the tip of my nose.' That is, you can exercise your freedom of religion all you wish to, as long as you don't force the unwilling into it.

Oh, and there is no need to pass a law against sacrificing the first born child. Murder is already against the law.

SINCE murder is already against the law, any law specifically against sacrificing children (i.e., killing them) would be specifically against the religion that is doing that. Which is really rather stupid, given that it is (HELLO? )
ALREADY AGAINST THE LAW!!!!

Go back and identify practices that are only distasteful to you, but don't actually affect you. You know...like polygamy, or ordaining women (or not ordaining women) or ordaining and marrying gay couples, or NOT ordaining and marrying gay couples. Or handling snakes while speaking in tongues, or wearing clothing you disapprove of, or????

Just to be clear - in my opinion, you are depraved.

that figures.

(shrug)

Just to be clear, I have more important worries in my life to worry about whether a person who manufactures my side of the debate as well as his/hers thinks I'm depraved or not.[/QUOTE]

 

[dianaiad]

A blob only a few cells big doesn't really resemble a human, and self awareness doesn't come until many months-to-a year later.

Which is irrelevant.

Consider: if someone kills a child in order to prevent that child from becoming old enough to inherit a bunch of money, it's considered 'murder.'

If that motive won't fly in a murder case (and it never does) then why do you guys keep trying to use it to justify abortion?

Because that's what your argument/justification is. You claim that it is just fine and dandy to kill a fetus BECAUSE it's not 'self aware' yet. In fact, that's saying that you are killing it in order to keep it from becoming self-aware (or getting brain waves or getting a heartbeat or whatever the current standard is), since the implication of your 'defense' is that once it DOES become self aware it is no longer permissible to kill it.

Except of course the only thing that will keep that kid from becoming self aware (or gaining brain function) is death. Whether that death is from natural causes...or because someone like you has decided that you don't want it to become self aware, i.e., a human infant, child, adult.

I find that defense to be sophistry and specious beyond belief.

 

[dianaiad]

It has also been proven that some people can survive deadly attacks by intruders. So, does this mean we shouldn't prosecute or stop intruders into people's homes? May as well just let it go, right? I mean... they must have had a reason to enter that stranger's home, right? My point being, if harm is being done - I barely care about the reasons. Don't care. ESPECIALLY if the reasons are religious - because, with all the religions there are in the world, it is a fact that most of it is just make believe (it cannot rationally be argued otherwise).

Think of it this way... what if a group of people read Hansel and Gretel, and they got it into their heads that miserly old ladies who lived alone in the woods were witches? They honestly believe this, because of what they read in Hansel and Gretel, and they build a religion around this idea. So they start walking into the woods looking for old ladies who live alone, and they burn them at the stake. They think they are saving little children - according to the FICTION they read, maybe that seems cogent to them. But any of us who understand that to be FICTION (or very, VERY plausibly fiction, without any way to actual prove the validity of their claims) would be looking to put a stop to them, and lock them up for a very, very long time.

Sacrosanct FOR YOU. That's what you're not getting here. No one else is required to observe your faith-based customs, or respect them, or care about them. Not at all. Again, as I stated, they are based on what is most likely fiction, and stuff for which you couldn't provide sufficient evidence to save your life. You want to find something "sacrosanct?" How about gravity? Just try not observing gravity. Go ahead, I'll watch. Or how about the safety of children? You go ahead and try to get away with impinging on that and see what happens. And yes - if your religion was practiced by the vast majority of your region's residents, then you could possibly legislate items of your religion into the code of conduct. You could force people to treat items of your religion as "sacrosanct." But short of that, you have no case for anything you're doing being considered "sacrosanct." If people treat certain practices of yours that way, they do so out of common courtesy, mutual respect or a high level of care for their fellow man. But you'd better be damn sure that those SAME people who are willing to leave you your practices and beliefs will TAKE YOU DOWN the moment those practices or beliefs start infringing upon their lives and livelihoods. In other words, the sanctity of your practices and beliefs is an illusion. Doesn't have to be there at all.

It depends on what you had done, obviously. If, within the secular realm of activity, you had practiced some religious teaching of yours and (hypothetically, of course) you had surreptitiously hit someone's dog with your car in order to perform a quick, secret sacrifice to your gods (I know you wouldn't do this, but bear with me). Do you honestly think that authorities are going to stop short at the door to your church for this religion and not enter to haul you away to jail? Sorry to burst your bubble, but they WON'T stop... nor should they. You're going to jail, and you're getting hauled out of your church in front of all your religious buddies.

And for the most part, this works out to varying degrees. But you're wrong about no one having the right to tell you how to raise your kids. The laws of this land say so, directly. They CAN tell you how you need to raise your kids, and if your methods are found to be harmful or wanting to a great degree THEY WILL TAKE YOUR KIDS AWAY FROM YOU. And this is not me saying that your methods should have your kids taken away from you, though I am sure that's what you're hearing. All I am saying is that sometimes this is determined to need to happen - and when it is determined to be necessary, someone's religion DOES NOT give them some "free pass" to come out above the law. It doesn't, and never, ever should. They should go down for their crimes, like anyone else would in the same position. End of story.

This is not what I am doing, and I knew you thought it was. All I am saying is that IF things like that were happening, the excuse "but it's according to my religion" MEANS NOTHING. So you don't get to say that people just need to mind their own business in these matters. We won't. If you're hurting people we're going to be on you, and won't stop until you do - religion or no. Again - your religion may be innocuous, fine. But you're sitting here advocating no one should ever get to decide what is "too far" if it is part of some religion. And that's just crap. As stated before, it is a depraved outlook. Morally bankrupt.

The problem here is the line you draw.

YOU are equating all these horrific things...like witch burning...with things that are merely distasteful to YOU, like the way a certain religious group raises their kids or educates them or live their lives. You are deciding that since witch burning is the same thing as stopping education at grade eight, you have the right to march into their lives and force them to teach their kids the things YOU believe.

The line here is the definition of 'harm.'

I am seeing, from those who are posting here, the idea that anything a religious group does that violates THEIR sensibilities and disagrees with THEIR beliefs, is 'harm' ipso facto. So...teach your children that there is a God? That's HARM!!

Teach your kids that a life without electricity is a good life?

That's HARM!!!!

Teach them that dating before they are sixteen and not having sex before they are married is a good idea?

Why, that's REAL harm!!!

Teach your kids anything BUT the atheist/humanist idea of life? that's HARM!!!

Because that is what we were talking about, and that is what you guys are equating with human sacrifice, cannibalism, witch burning and Satanic culling.

For you guys, it seems.....they are the same thing. Heresy...and heresy is punishable by .....all sorts of things, and certainly cause enough to jack boot your forces into the lives of people who don't believe the same things you do.

BECAUSE they don't believe the same things you do and you disapprove.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I find that defense to be sophistry and specious beyond belief.

Try again after you've better read my position, as you have entirely misrepresented it.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

OK... let's throw out the doctors scientific findings..

What of this resembles a human being?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Go back and identify practices that are only distasteful to you, but don't actually affect you. You know...like polygamy, or ordaining women (or not ordaining women) or ordaining and marrying gay couples, or NOT ordaining and marrying gay couples. Or handling snakes while speaking in tongues, or wearing clothing you disapprove of, or????

Any of these are fine examples of what should be the obvious question of trying to determine "where the line should be drawn." Mine were just hyperbolic examples, showing how easily it should be understood that religion does not trump the law. And the reality is, even if something you don't think is hurting someone now in your religious practices is someday determined to be hurtful, such that it falls under the breaking of a new law on the books, NOT EVEN THEN do you get to claim any religious "sacrosanctness" of your position. The very ultimate point being: YOUR RELIGION ISN'T SPECIAL. It's not. It shouldn't grant you any special privileges or rights, when being scrutinized by secular authorities, your religion should not even be taken into consideration for anything that affects you either positively or negatively.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

The problem here is the line you draw.

YOU are equating all these horrific things...like witch burning...with things that are merely distasteful to YOU, like the way a certain religious group raises their kids or educates them or live their lives. You are deciding that since witch burning is the same thing as stopping education at grade eight, you have the right to march into their lives and force them to teach their kids the things YOU believe.

The line here is the definition of 'harm.'

I am seeing, from those who are posting here, the idea that anything a religious group does that violates THEIR sensibilities and disagrees with THEIR beliefs, is 'harm' ipso facto. So...teach your children that there is a God? That's HARM!!

Teach your kids that a life without electricity is a good life?

That's HARM!!!!

Teach them that dating before they are sixteen and having sex before they are married is a good idea?

Why, that's REAL harm!!!

Teach your kids anything BUT the atheist/humanist idea of life? that's HARM!!!

Because that is what we were talking about, and that is what you guys are equating with human sacrifice, cannibalism, witch burning and Satanic culling.

For you guys, it seems.....they are the same thing. Heresy...and heresy is punishable by .....all sorts of things, and certainly cause enough to jack boot your forces into the lives of people who don't believe the same things you do.

BECAUSE they don't believe the same things you do and you disapprove.

I have NOT been advocating for what I alone consider harm. You called me out for going overboard and straight to the extreme examples, and here you are doing the same sort of thing. My being hyperbolic was to emphasize my point, you're merely being dishonest here.

Who was it I said was the best to turn to to find out whether something was harmful to the person involved? DO you remember what I said? THE PERSON INVOLVED. Go back and read up, I dare you.

Not only this, but what else have I been saying? That THE LAW is what you should not get to bypass due to your religious convictions. Do you know what "the law" ultimately is in our society (U.S.)? It is the combined will and directives for moral and just behavior of the people at large. So NO, it isn't MY views on what is distasteful... it is SOCIETY'S views... which you have admitted already that you MUST observe and adhere to if you wish to remain a part of this society.

NEVER ONCE did I mention abolishing what I, specifically, found distasteful or "wrong." And this is ANOTHER REASON I went with obvious, hyperbolic examples - so that what was "Wrong" was entirely obvious - and we didn't have to get into whether one of us or the other found it to be distasteful.

 

[dianaiad]

Any of these are fine examples of what should be the obvious question of trying to determine "where the line should be drawn." Mine we just hyperbolic examples, showing how easily it should be understood that religion does not trump the law. And the reality is, even if something you don't think is hurting someone now in your religious practices is someday determined to be hurtful, such that it falls under the breaking of a new law on the books, NOT EVEN THEN do you get to claim any religious "sacrosanctness" of your position. The very ultimate point being: YOUR RELIGION ISN'T SPECIAL. It's not. It shouldn't grant you any special privileges or rights, when being scrutinized by secular authorities, your religion should not even be taken into consideration for anything that affects you either positively or negatively.

It does grant me those rights. The first amendment to the US Constitution says so....and it says so twice. Indeed, Freedom of religion is the FIRST right mentioned, and the only right mentioned twice. That, I believe, rather emphasizes it's importance.

The thing is, protecting MY freedom to exercise my religion also protects your freedom to not be religious.

Why hasn't that occurred to you guys?

What you are advocating here is very much the sort of thing my great (and great-great) grandparents experienced. A law was passed that made it legal to shoot them on sight if they didn't leave Missouri. They did leave...in the middle of winter...and many (about 4,000) died. Most of the rest of 'em lost fingers, toes and noses. They lost their property, more than once, ...

Because there were laws against polygamy and not owning slaves....and in Missouri, there was a law against having free blacks live among 'white' people.

The 'good neighbors' around them decided that the way the Mormons lived was distasteful to them. They were polygamists (well, some were...) and they didn't own slaves. And there were a LOT of them and tended to vote as a block, and were, as a rule, abolitionists.

The neighbors 'drew the line' where YOU are drawing the line, in other words. And the neighbors got their way.

I don't want to see you get yours, because y'know what?

People don't change much...as in 'those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.'