dianaiad
Well-Known Member
Well, it was written in the very early 1800's.
It is understood by us that 'or not' is included right after 'worship.'
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Limits of Religious Freedom
- Thread starter Phaedrus
- Start date
Well, it was written in the very early 1800's.
It is understood by us that 'or not' is included right after 'worship.'
dianaiad
Well-Known Member
Actually, this thread is about whether religions have the right to believe...and exercise those beliefs...without the government passing laws against them.
All you are doing here is defending your personal beliefs about religion in (given the context of the thread) an attempt to justify doing precisely that; passing laws against religious practices because you think your beliefs are superior to theirs, and therefore you have the right to have your opinions supersede theirs by force of law.
Frankly, it doesn't matter what you think...or what they do. It seems to me that an atheist would be more leery of doing that sort of thing, given that in some states it's STILL illegal for an atheist to run for office. (shrug) mind you, those laws aren't enforceable, but they USED to be, and they are prime examples of what happens when one group thinks its opinions are superior to others...and can be enforced by law.
Now if you weren't paying attention to the topic of the thread, perhaps you should; I, specifically, couldn't care less what you believe about religion, pro or con, in terms of the law; you believe, and do, as you wish.
As long as you don't involve unwilling participants.
On the other hand, you are quite welcome (at least to me) to argue and rant and defend or attack all you want to, using words, in an attempt to change my mind.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
Fortunately for me, I'm not a Liberal, and placing religious freedom isn't something that's much of a priority in my "ideal world." Sure, I'd have it, but it would be tax paying and very heavily regulated compared to what America has today. Circumcision on children would be banned. Religious exemptions for medical treatment for children would be banned. Conversion therapy would be banned outright. Middle schoolers would be taught about puberty and sex in school. Child neglect and abuse would be child neglect and abuse. Because there does come a point where religion comes with a high risk of being extremely destructive emotionally/psychologically. What we have is frustrating, because we have crap like this going on in Idaho, and children are dying. When it comes to the great potential harm religion can do, the bs exemptions have got to end.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
The OP gives me a very convincing reason to think perhaps most should be, not broken up, but more equal under the law.
Actually as far as I know in Australia there is little difference between the academic achievements of private school students vs public school students. It might be that on average private school students might perform 1percent better on their higher school certificates which is probably not significant enough to curb religious freedoms for the sake of shutting down private schools.
Howard Is
Lucky Mud
That’s very Christian of you.
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.
Just an analogy. Airheads don't exist and I don't have to prove it. God exists and you don't have to prove He doesn't
IMO, freedom of religion shouldn't be seen as a separate right at all, but just as one particular instance of other broader rights: freedom of conscience, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, etc. I don't see the need to single out religion for special treatment at all.
If we're going to protect freedom of conscience - and I certainly think we should - then we should do it consistently, protecting ALL deeply-held beliefs. The law shouldn't dole out rights in half measures by saying, for instance, that religious pacifism is protected by secular pacifism isn't, or that a Jewish person has a right to a kosher diet but a conscientious vegan doesn't.
If we're going to protect freedom of conscience - and I certainly think we should - then we should do it consistently, protecting ALL deeply-held beliefs. The law shouldn't dole out rights in half measures by saying, for instance, that religious pacifism is protected by secular pacifism isn't, or that a Jewish person has a right to a kosher diet but a conscientious vegan doesn't.
Howard Is
Lucky Mud
(Presuming this is accurate, I don’t know) that shows just how much of a damned rort private education is here. I mean geez. The average costs are like super high and the admissions criteria is super strict compared to our public schools. And it’s not like there’s no religious schools for weekends or whatever. I remember attending a Christian Kids club run by the local PCYC as a kid as an after school thing. Was completely free and we’re not even Christians.
What is even the point of these private run schools? Prestige? Networking? Pompous ness?
Howard Is
Lucky Mud
You will never know dad
I have a few clues.
I’ve been an angry young man.
But I’ve done lots of meditation, and now I’m just a slightly cranky old man.
A Vestigial Mote
Well-Known Member
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.
Just to be clear - in my opinion, you are depraved. Think what you will of that statement, or don't care about it. Just know that in any of our conversations going forward, this is how I will think of you first and foremost, until such a demonstration is made that changes my opinion.
That's progress!! Congrats and may you continue the blessings
I got rid of my crankiness 37 years ago when I gave my life to Jesus at age 28.
Howard Is
Lucky Mud
A Vestigial Mote
Well-Known Member
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.
Clearly a misconception - probably because internet sharing is so limited.
However, your statement does show crankiness!
Howard Is
Lucky Mud
Clearly a misconception - probably because internet sharing is so limited.
However, your statement does show crankiness!
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.
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. But you must never, ever forget that to legally "stop abortions," you must then make personal decision for other people. I'd bet you'd prefer not to have other people decide what YOU were going to do with your body for you.