The Limits of Religious Freedom?

[TagliatelliMonster]

Religious freedom is too often used as an excuse to engage in behavior that puts others at risk (i.e. not vaccinating your children) and as an excuse for bigotry and prejudice towards minorities. While religious freedom is a vital cornerstone for a free society, it also must clearly have limits. So my question is what are those limits?

As always in matters of "freedom": your rights end where the rights of others begin.

So, not vaccinating children for religious reasons is imo already a breach thereof when it concerns "mandatory" vaccinations. Not sure how that stuff works in the US, but over here in Belgium, quite a few vaccines are mandatory. And rightfully so. Religious superstition does not trump secular law.

As for discrimination or other forms of "oppression" towards minorities: that too, is a matter of rights of those minorities. Here too, the same applies: your rights end where the rights of others begin.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Religious freedom is to be able to choose and follow the religious teachings that each person find to be closes to what their belief tell is the truth.

Sure. And anyone can believe whatever they want.
But when those beliefs turn into actions, then we come on thin ice.
For example, you could have a belief that demands human sacrifice. You are free to believe that human sacrifice is important and pleases whatever god(s) you happen to worship. But obviously, you are not actually free to sacrifice humans - not even when the would-be-sacrificed wants to be sacrificed

Religious freedom is to be able to practice the teaching one has chosen to follow without being ridiculed by others especially those who hold no belief at all.

False.
It only means that you are free to practice the teaching and that nobody can stop you from doing that (as long as these practices don't breach the law).

It does NOT mean that your religious beliefs or practices can't be ridiculed.

You can consider it "not nice" to do. You are free to feel "insulted".
You are not free from not being the target of scrutiny or satire or alike.

Religious freedom is to actually follow the teaching according to what it says and not fear for once own life because of the religioues belief.

Agreed. As long as what it says, doesn't break the law, off course.

Religious freedom means each Religious person have full right to speak about his or her belief at any given time.

Or other beliefs.

But unfortunately that is not a world we live in today. The word we live in today want Religious freedom taken away from believers.

That is simply not true.
The only places where religious freedom are taken away (actually, in most cases it's more like they were never granted in the first place.......) are authoritarian nations, like communist societies or theocracies. The latter especially in the middle east.

You are free to give me an example of a western secular democracy where supposedly "religious freedoms are being taken away from believers" in targetted specific ways.

100 bucks says that you can't name a single valid one.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Because most of the ridicule toward religious people comes from non believers. I know because i see it every day.
I want it to stop but i know it will never do.
So the answer to the OP for me is, there is no freedom of religion in the world anymore, because if someone tell what the religious teachings says, often it ends up in ridiculing because the religion has other rules then the "norm" of todays views.

There is religious freedom.
Nobody stops you from being a muslim.

People ridiculing you or laughing with your beliefs, does not inhibit your freedom to believe and practice whatever religion pleases you.

So I suggest you simply grow some thicker skin instead.

I'm a rock drummer with long hair.
There are people that make fun of me also because of having long hair. They say I'm like a girl.
That is their opinion and they have a right to their opinion. They also have the right to make fun of my hair, or overall looks. Just like I have the right to call them shallow for it.

None of this impacts my freedom to have long hair.


EDIT: as a matter of fact, I once actually didn't get a job explicitly because I had long hair. I was the best candidate for the job - as per their own admission. He flat out asked me if I was going to cut my hair "because play time is over" (I just got out of school at that point). And it was clear that the question was synonymous for "do you want the job?". When I asked why, he said that customers come over for meetings that "guys with long hair" didn't fit with the company's aura. I got up and told him to get the stick out of his a$$ and welcomed him in the 21st century. I then left and wished them good luck with the lesser candidate. I think I would have been within my rights to file a formal complaint for discrimination, actually. But I didn't bother because after that, I didn't want to work there anymore anyway... It was just a bunch of uptight old fashioned capitalist pricks. Not exactly the kind of people I would want to work for anyway. So I left it at that and went on nailing the next interview - the HR person there had piercings and tattoo's, so my long hair had the opposite effect HAHA.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes, but then you should also be prepared to be answered back to by those who are believers

Who says he isn't?
Who says believers can't answer back?

All i say is that believers are no longer accepted for their religioues beliefs since some of the religious rules are seen as bad or stupid by non believers.

Perhaps that is just your perception?
Last I checked, there are no laws against being a muslim.

Religion are for those who practice the teachings, not for those who do not practice any religioues teachings.

So? Does that mean people don't get to have opinions or don't get to express those opinions?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If I said Islam is made-up nonsense, would you consider that hate speech? Or just freedom of expression?

Not hate speech at all.

"all muslims are dangerous potential terrorists" - that's hate speech.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Only those who bash religion in every chance they get.
I k ow atheists who are really nice and never say anything bad about any religion, those are nice people

So your problem is with atheists who you don't perceive as "nice" and/or who say bad things about any religion?

That seems like exactly what was said earlier.... that you simply can't handle the opinions of people who disagree with you.

If I genuinely think a certain religion or specific religious belief is bad and harmful, I should be able to express that opinion and make that argument, right?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So a believer is not allowed to freely hold his or her belief because you disagree with them?

He JUST said the exact opposite in the very post you are replying to:

People are FREE to believe the earth is flat.
Other people are equally FREE to point out the absurdity of that belief.

People being free to express their opinion about belief X (good OR bad), does not inhibit the freedom of others in any way to hold belief X.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But the claim is not ridiculous as it doesn't have the property being ridiculous. It is a feeling in you.

False.

The claim IS ridiculous due to the overwhelming amount of evidence showing it to be ridiculous.

It's as ridiculous as believing in Stork Theory instead of embryology.

You nevertheless are very free to believe in Stork Theory. And obviously, as a believer, you're not going to find it a ridiculous belief. But that doesn't mean it's not ridiculous in light of the actual evidence pro and con that claim.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, it means any religious person should be free to practice his or her religious belief.

And they are.
REGARDLESS of what other people's opinions are about that belief.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Not sure in what way you think here, but i would say it should be free to practice the religion one feel is right for one self.

Let's say a religious belief of which one of the tenents is that you need to sacrifice a human every full moon.

Now let's repeat @mikkel_the_dane 's question:

Does that fall under religious freedom?
Or are there indeed limits to religious freedom?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That is your opinion about Islam, i dont stop you from holding that belief

But would you stop him from expressing that opinion, is what the actual question is.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You are free to hold your opinion about any religion, what i want an end to is ridicule of religious people or religion. Those comments that are ment to hurt others are not needed to say.

You know... it might help the conversation forward if you would clearly define what you mean by "ridicule".

When someone says that Islam is "made up nonsense". Is that ridicule? Yes/no and by what (or who's) standards?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

False.

The claim IS ridiculous due to the overwhelming amount of evidence showing it to be ridiculous.

It's as ridiculous as believing in Stork Theory instead of embryology.

You nevertheless are very free to believe in Stork Theory. And obviously, as a believer, you're not going to find it a ridiculous belief. But that doesn't mean it's not ridiculous in light of the actual evidence pro and con that claim.

Yeah, you apparently don't understand objective:

• expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations
• of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers
• having reality independent of the mind

Definition of OBJECTIVE
Versus ridiculous
: arousing or deserving ridicule : extremely silly or unreasonable : ABSURD, PREPOSTEROUS
Definition of RIDICULOUS

All of those are first person subjective and have no objective referent.

 

[ReluctantMathematician]

@ReluctantMathematician @QuestioningMind

Let us start with a stone, a piece of rock.
The stone is tangible, observable and so on. We could do a lot of scientific test in regards to the stone. The stone is objective, because when I say "There is a stone", it is the case, that it is an act of expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations; a case of of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers; and a case of having reality independent of the mind.
The stone is objective and we can use science on it.

Now ridiculous as the claim, that the earth is flat, is ridiculous.
We do the same as with the stone. This time it is not objective and we can't apply science on it. Ridiculous as deserving or inviting derision or mockery. To claim something is ridiculous, is not science. It is a first person subjective act of expressing a feeling. Namely that it deserves derision or mockery.

So here it is: You 2 demand evidence of other humans, but you don't do it yourself. You are as subjective and not scientific as those claims, you ridicule.
If you want to do science, learn not to use feelings. That is not science. Further in the strict sense of true/with evidence, it is not the case that the claim, that the earth is flat, is ridiculous. There is no evidence.

Do you know what ad-hominem is? How about focusing on the topic in the OP.

 

[ReluctantMathematician]

Yeah, you apparently don't understand objective:

• expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations
• of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers
• having reality independent of the mind

Definition of OBJECTIVE
Versus ridiculous
: arousing or deserving ridicule : extremely silly or unreasonable : ABSURD, PREPOSTEROUS
Definition of RIDICULOUS

All of those are first person subjective and have no objective referent.

Stay on topic, please. You can start your own thread on what it means to be considered ridiculous.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Do you know what ad-hominem is? How about focusing on the topic in the OP.

Would you please give evidence for the fact, that it is a negative ad-hominem and not just claim it. I might have overlook something and I am willing to learn, but I have to ask of you to give your reasoning, because I don't get it as it stands.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Stay on topic, please. You can start your own thread on what it means to be considered ridiculous.

No, I didn't start it. Someone else did. I am only responding.

 

[ReluctantMathematician]

No, I didn't start it. Someone else did. I am only responding.

Stay on topic, please.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Stay on topic, please.

Stop calling me out. I didn't start with claiming that some versions of religion are ridiculous.

 

[ReluctantMathematician]

Stop calling me out. I didn't start with claiming that some versions of religion are ridiculous.

I don't care who started it, either way, you are derailing the thread.