Freedom of Religion

[rainerann]

There is a lot of discussion about freedom of religion. Having freedom of religion has created new cultures where people can identify with different spiritual beliefs within the same community sharing the same national identity. This has created many benefits for people and has allowed us to immerse ourselves in different cultural practices without experiencing the same hostility for having different spiritual beliefs.

However, are their boundaries to freedom of religion and can a religious organization step outside these boundaries that allow for this precept to be effective? Many people seem to believe that freedom of religion means that all religions are essentially the same, but they are not. Doctrine can differentiate the nature of the religion creating varying degrees of damage to the principle of freedom of religion itself.

For example, many years ago there was a religion in Canaan that required child sacrifice to a God named Molech. Would a religion worshipping Molech deserve to be given the same treatment under freedom of religion as someone who practices Hinduism?

If we can determine that a religion that requires child sacrifice does not deserve the same rights under freedom of religion, we can prove that boundaries exist for the precept that are determined by the doctrine of the religion. We can also prove that not all religions are equal and essentially the same. The similarities and differences of any religion are determined by their doctrine, not their identity as a religious organization.

 

[Helioform]

Freedom of religion should simply be about believing in whichever God or religious book you want, without imposing it on others and without interference from the government.

As for your child sacrifice example, we have laws against murder and they should be enforced on top of freedom of religion. Murder is a sin in 99% of religions anyway, so it's not too hard to implement.

 

[rainerann]

Freedom of religion should simply be about believing in whichever God or religious book you want, without imposing it on others and without interference from the government.

As for your child sacrifice example, we have laws against murder and they should be enforced on top of freedom of religion. Murder is a sin in 99% of religions anyway, so it's not too hard to implement.

So your saying freedom of religion does not give religions the right to define law?

 

[KoncreteMind]

Who defines what stays and what goes though? Say like Judaism and "their" animal sacrifices may offend a Hindu person. Should we then allow the Hindus to dictate the legitimacy, or lack thereof, of Judaism?

 

[Helioform]

So your saying freedom of religion does not give religions the right to define law?

Nope. We don't live in a Theocracy.

 

[Thunderian]

Who defines what stays and what goes though? Say like Judaism and "their" animal sacrifices may offend a Hindu person. Should we then allow the Hindus to dictate the legitimacy, or lack thereof, of Judaism?

Who cares if someone gets offended? As long as the practice of a religion doesn't break any laws, there's no reason to place any restriction on it.

However, parts of the Bible are now butting up against hate speech laws in Canada, so it's only a matter of time before restrictions are going to be placed on the practice of Christianity, for the sake of inclusiveness and diversity.

 

[seekinheart]

Ever think that isnt it funny nothing no prophets nothing in our time all these amazing wonderous things happened at the recording of these books yet isnt it a coincidence we hear nothing in all our years and even for many generations before us, maybe, its all just books and words, and theres nothing, and we are all just kididng ourselves and we will never get confirmation we will all just die, and nothing will happen that is of any merit in terms of religion in themeantime. nightmare.

 

[Aero]

Ever think that isnt it funny nothing no prophets nothing in our time all these amazing wonderous things happened at the recording of these books yet isnt it a coincidence we hear nothing in all our years and even for many generations before us, maybe, its all just books and words, and theres nothing, and we are all just kididng ourselves and we will never get confirmation we will all just die, and nothing will happen that is of any merit in terms of religion in themeantime. nightmare.

I think that there are prophets around. But they don't fit into any of the narratives. The confirmation of a modern day prophet would kind of destroy a lot religions. It seems more likely that this knowledge is kept hidden from people.

I just refuse to believe that every scripture doesn't have another that goes along with it. The second scripture being the one meant for the elite leaders of the Church. The type of stuff the average worshiper can't handle.

 

[Lurker]

So your saying freedom of religion does not give religions the right to define law?

Is that some kind of gotcha? I'm pretty sure polygamy is illegal because of religion.

 

[manama]

People should be able to believe and practice whatever they want as long as it doesn't violate the rights or harms another person, and that should include their own kids.

 

[rainerann]

Is that some kind of gotcha? I'm pretty sure polygamy is illegal because of religion.

I don’t really understand what you mean by this. If religion can define its own law than an outside authority can not intervene in situations where abuse is present. Separation of law and religion is a protection that prevents abuse.

So I don’t know where you are getting the idea that it is some kind of gotcha. Freedom of religion combined with separation of church and state creates a balance that protects individuals from abuse of authority within a religious organization.

Im not saying this to demonize religions. It just means that power has to be distributed and the accumulation of power is damaging to any organization. It is the same thing with a monopoly. When a business monopolizes the market, it is damaging to the economy.

 

[rainerann]

Who defines what stays and what goes though? Say like Judaism and "their" animal sacrifices may offend a Hindu person. Should we then allow the Hindus to dictate the legitimacy, or lack thereof, of Judaism?

You have a good point. No one should be able to decide what stays and goes within a religious organization or act like a judge of religion. However, religion should reach certain boundaries, which is the reason that we have separation of church and state.

An example of this boundary would be having the ability to prevent a religious organization from enacting consequences on their members for violating precepts. Therefore, no religion should be allowed to beat or stone an individual because they have violated a religious precept. Freedom of religion does not permit this and this is where we can see that there is a clear boundary created by the precept that does not necessitate grading religious doctrine on the basis of a standard they should meet.

 

[Artful Revealer]

@rainerann

You seem to state that the state should exist to set boundaries upon religious practice. Why should the state have any moral or legal authority over an organised religion?

 

[rainerann]

@rainerann

You seem to state that the state should exist to set boundaries upon religious practice. Why should the state have any moral or legal authority over an organised religion?

The state should not have moral or legal authority over an organised religion. However, religion should not be a centralized power. It is essentially like building a tall tower that would collapse.

It is more or less that separation of church and state and freedom of religion create their own boundaries that allow power to be distributed where the state can't provide spiritual influence and the religion can't enforce consequences.

Therefore, the whole problem is created by the accumulation of power. So, in theory, the state will also assume too much power independent of counter source of power to create a boundary.

And that is more than likely why the Bible has a book titled Revelation. There is just no surefire way to control corruption that will result from centralized power except to try to distribute it. When power can no longer be distributed, this would in theory mean we have reached the end of the world.

Power has the tendency to become centralized over time. This is another reason understanding why it is important to understand why freedom of religion is important. It is important to understand that it is effective because of the way distributing power creates boundaries for other forms of authority.

 

[KoncreteMind]

Who cares if someone gets offended? As long as the practice of a religion doesn't break any laws, there's no reason to place any restriction on it.

However, parts of the Bible are now butting up against hate speech laws in Canada, so it's only a matter of time before restrictions are going to be placed on the practice of Christianity, for the sake of inclusiveness and diversity.

Well then you're essentially saying the state should dictate the boundaries religions can go... I doubt you believe this

Edit: I see AR has touched on this

 

[Thunderian]

Well then you're essentially saying the state should dictate the boundaries religions can go... I doubt you believe this.

You have serious reading comprehension problems. I said nothing of the sort.

 

[rainerann]

I think KM is talking to me. I am saying that the boundaries are created automatically. It is like having a glass of water and power half the water into a second glass. The water fills the space until it reaches it own defined boundary. That is what happens when power is distributed. It automatically fills the space until it reaches a boundary that another form of power has authority over.

 

[KoncreteMind]

You have a good point. No one should be able to decide what stays and goes within a religious organization or act like a judge of religion. However, religion should reach certain boundaries, which is the reason that we have separation of church and state.

An example of this boundary would be having the ability to prevent a religious organization from enacting consequences on their members for violating precepts. Therefore, no religion should be allowed to beat or stone an individual because they have violated a religious precept. Freedom of religion does not permit this and this is where we can see that there is a clear boundary created by the precept that does not necessitate grading religious doctrine on the basis of a standard they should meet.

AR asked something close to what I was going to ask so I'll just read your answer to him but I'd just say that while I agree with what you said here, I also think it could open the door to more regulation of religion by the state.

Like how long before the state is telling Christian bakers that they have to bake wedding cakes for gays? I know this was a actual case but I don't remember the outcome. But I just see it as if you give them that inch concerning child sacrifice, they'll take a mile like in the case of Christian bakers vs a gay couple. I think it's real difficult to have freedom of religion

 

[rainerann]

I was actually inspired about this subject by a speech I heard Putin give at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum.

"I must remind you, though you already know this, that major global conflicts have been avoided in the past few decades, due to the geostrategic balance of power, which used to exist. The two super-nuclear powers essentially agreed to stop producing both offensive weaponry, as well as defensive weaponry. Its simple how it works - where one side becomes dominant in their military potential, they are more likely to want to be the first, to be able to use such power."

His whole talk is about the distribution of power and how the distribution of power creates boundaries. It is really very interesting subject to me.

Here is one clip of his speech that I could find.

 

[KoncreteMind]

You have serious reading comprehension problems.

Nope. You said:

Who cares if someone gets offended? As long as the practice of a religion doesn't break any laws, there's no reason to place any restriction on it.

This clearly suggests that the boundaries of religion should be decided by laws that assumingly the state creates.