Freedom of Religion?

[ShadowTemplar]

Religion seems to be taking a slamming here in the Senate at the moment (where did all the fundies go? Brave, brave Sir Robin/bravely turned his tail and fled...?). So at the risk of being accused of kicking a concept that's already lying down (or is that just 'lying'?), I'll toss in my €.02

 

The definition of 'Freedom of Religion' seems to have changed somewhat over the past 30-some years. In fact the new incarnation (that every citizen has the right to practice one or more religions of his choice) and the old one (that no citizen be forced to practice a religion that is not his own) would seem to be mutually exclusive. And this is not (solely) the fault of the neo-fascists - uh, I mean the neo-con-men - no, wait, the neo-conservatives - (yes that was the one). This subtle and insidious subversion of civil liberties has taken place even in countries with a traditionally strong left, such as Denmark and Sweden.

 

How could this shift have happened on our watch? Intellectual laziness? Manipulation by neo-fascist/neo-religious (yeah, I know, the last one is rather redundant) organisations? Or has globalisation and decreased religious homogenity of societies all over the Western world caused a misunderstood tolerance of anti-democratic tendencies in religion?

 

Shoot.

 

PS: To the FBI: If you are reading this, 1) you need to narrow your search criteria, and 2) No, the last bit wasn't an invitation to commit a felony.

[toms]

Or has globalisation and decreased religious homogenity of societies all over the Western world caused a misunderstood tolerance of anti-democratic tendencies in religion?

 

que?

 

I'm not sure it has changed in the way you state. I think it was always "freedom to practice whatever religion"... its just that when they made that law 99% of people's choices were variations in christianity. And the few that weren't (like the indians) weren't really considered as equal citizens with equal rights anyway.

 

Its much easier to talk about freedom of religion when you are only counting white christians as citizens anyway

 

If it has changed I'd guess its partly down to the increased number of religions, each with their diverse requirements, and maybe partly down to the law-court culture where everyone sues everyone for every percieved unfairness.

 

I think the original meaning was "freedom from religious persecution". Which kind of implies the freedom to practice xxx religion, but also implies that you can't force the laws of xxx religion on anyone else, or force them to signup to xxx religion.

[ShadowTemplar]

I think the original meaning was "freedom from religious persecution". Which kind of implies the freedom to practice xxx religion, but also implies that you can't force the laws of xxx religion on anyone else, or force them to signup to xxx religion.

 

That statement is not internally consistent.

[toms]

*thinks hard* Seems ok to me. Can't be persecuted FOR following your religion, or for NOT following a religion.

[SkinWalker]

I think the more interesting question is why the "fundies" and those that would argue for the right periodically disappear. The best among them are always temporary. Rcarr, Wilhuf, et al rarely stay and stick to a point. They're outnumbered by the regulars here, but still, one would expect a few of these guys to defend their claims and positions.

 

I think its because of two things: 1)being a "gaming" forum, there aren't a lot of people looking for political/religious debate; 2)the arguments against their positions are so sound and logical that they simply give up rather than continue to provide a defense from the position of faith and hope.

 

But I think "religious freedom" is a double edged sword. People should have the freedom to practice their own religions, but so should I have the freedom not to have it imposed upon me. Indeed, I should also have the freedom to ridicule and criticize religion.

[ShadowTemplar]

Oh, Skin, shouldn't it be 'two way street' rather than 'double edged sword'?

 

As I said, those two positions are mutually exclusive. You cannot both protect the right of every citizen to practice the religion(s) of his choice and protect every citizen from having other people's religion imposed upon him.

 

I'll prove this by contradiction. Premise #1: It is the job of the state to protect all citizens from having to practice a religion that is not their own. Premise #2: It is the job of the state to protect the right of every citizen to practise his religion(s) of choice. Premise #3: There exist religions by whose tenents forcible conversion and/or other assorted nastiness towards unbelievers is required.

 

If #1 is true for all citizens and #2 is true for all citizens, then #3 means that there will exist citizen(s) whose right to practise their religion(s) of choice is protected by #2 and restricted by #1. Hence #1 and #2 cannot be simultaneously true for all citizens.

 

The preceeding section may seem like a pointless and excessive exercise in Boolean logic, because in actuality 'we all know what we mean' when we say something like premise #2. But there are actually several points here. The first one is about transparancy. Governments and lawmaking should be transparant, that is people should be able to read the laws and (unless they are incapable of understanding basic sentences and/or are terminally stupid) should be able to decipher the rough meaning of the text without knowing context or precedent. Of course this ideal is just that - an ideal. But it is still an important one for any well-functioning democracy.

 

The second point is that you can of course modify the new incarnation of religious freedom to get around this problem, that only solves one particular aspect of the problem. What other rights does the freedom to practice religion trump? If you amend the right to practice religion by a list of other rights and freedoms, does that mean that everything not on the list is up for grabs? Logically it does. And such a list can - for reasons which should be obvious - never be exhaustive. And if you invert the principle, and say that the right to practice ones religion is trumped by all other agreements, rights, cultural practices, and freedoms, then you are right back to just being protected from being forced to practice a religion that is not yours - all other elements of the right to practice your religion would already be covered by the freedom of press and speech, inviolability of your home, etc.

 

So, in summary, there are three possibilities: 1) Every citizen enjoys protection from being forced to practice a religion that is not his own. 2) Every citizen enjoys the right to practice the religion(s) of his choice. 3) Every citizen enjoys the right to practice the religion(s) of his choice - except when this right is overruled by one or more items on a finite list.

 

2) is, arguably, inconsistent, and 3) would open a floodgate for Taliban-wannabes to circumvent established rights and freedoms in the name of religion.

[Samuel Dravis]

Eh, wouldn't it be easier to just say, "You have the freedom to practice whatever religion you wish, provided it doesn't impose on other's freedom to practice theirs?"

 

Personally, I don't really see a problem if your religion *requires* you to convert people, as long as it's done as an opt-in type thing. I have no issues talking to the occasional Mormon or whatever. In fact, it's quite interesting to do so; you can even have a fun debate or two.

[SkinWalker]

Oh, Skin, shouldn't it be 'two way street' rather than 'double edged sword'?

 

Oh no. I definately meant 'double-edged sword.' Freedom of/for religion cuts both ways.

 

For every freedom that someone exercises that promotes religion, another should be free to ridicule it.

 

I'm actually thinking of adding that second link to my signature. I just spent about 40 mins dressing up the guy.

[CapNColostomy]

Oh no. I definately meant 'double-edged sword.' Freedom of/for religion cuts both ways.

 

For every freedom that someone exercises that promotes religion, another should be free to ridicule it.

 

I'm actually thinking of adding that second link to my signature. I just spent about 40 mins dressing up the guy.

 

Then you shouldn't mind at all if people take a jab at your cult either, should you?

 

[SkinWalker]

I have no cult. Be my guest.

[ShadowTemplar]

Eh, wouldn't it be easier to just say, "You have the freedom to practice whatever religion you wish, provided it doesn't impose on other's freedom to practice theirs?"

 

\sigh

 

Essentially, you want to take the third option: Everyone is entitled to practice his religion of choice - as long as he doesn't force other people to practice a religion that they don't want to practice.

 

What about the right of the employer to lead and direct the work? Is that overruled by the right to practice one's religion? Is freedom of speech overruled? Is the right to use contraception overruled? Which freedoms are overruled by this and which are not. You cannot make laws that way.

 

I have no issues talking to the occasional Mormon or whatever. In fact, it's quite interesting to do so; you can even have a fun debate or two.

 

Of course. What I take issue with is the fact that a bunch of Taliban-wannabes can use their religious idiocy conviction to overrule the right of the employer to lead and distribute the work - as per a ruling in the Danish Supreme Court a few years ago, that parents are using the freedom to practice their religion to deprive their children of their right to qualified education, and that the Papacy uses the freedom of their Wehrmacht garrissons missionary stations to practice Catholicism to spread anti-democratic propaganda and deny the right of the impoverished to proper health care.

 

@CpColo: 1) Darwin isn't a cult head.

 

2) Slants against Darwin are getting rather boring. Why don't you chuck a rock at Newton or Kepler once in a while?

[acdcfanbill]

2) Slants against Darwin are getting rather boring. Why don't you chuck a rock at Newton or Kepler once in a while?

I think they got enough rocks chucked at them when they brought out their theories

[SkinWalker]

The anthropologist in me understands perfectly well the purpose of "chucking rocks" at Darwin. The theist has a difficult time wrapping his/her brain around the idea that an atheist can actually exist. That there might be those among us that don't accept a god or gods as reason for all that is observed. It certainly bothers them that we aren't willing to accept that the scriptures from which they derive their evidence isn't actually evidence at all but mythology.

 

So, when it comes to wanting to retaliate in a "belief-bashing," they are at a bit of a loss. The atheist doesn't "believe" in anything. Often the theist will simply reduce his/her argument to "atheism is belief too," which can never really be qualified/quantified since atheism is simply without gods. The next best thing is to hurl some sort of perceived insult at what the theist believes the atheist holds dear: this often boils down to Darwin, since he is considered the Father of Evolution.

 

Darwin-bashing, however, is rarely done effectively by the theist since the theist (generally speaking) really knows very little about Darwin. Moreover, the typical theist knows little about evolution. But this is part of the "grand plan" of modern Christianity: deprive the follower of knowledge lest they begin to see the truth. In other words: pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!

 

So... please, by all means... feel free to take "jabs" at my "cult."

[Samuel Dravis]

\sigh

 

Essentially, you want to take the third option: Everyone is entitled to practice his religion of choice - as long as he doesn't force other people to practice a religion that they don't want to practice.

 

What about the right of the employer to lead and direct the work? Is that overruled by the right to practice one's religion? Is freedom of speech overruled? Is the right to use contraception overruled? Which freedoms are overruled by this and which are not. You cannot make laws that way.

I don't see why not. It simply means that you cannot force others to behave according to your particular religious requirements. I also wasn't talking about work, but... if a job has requirements (which aren't discriminatory) that you cannot meet given your religion, then why would you want it in the first place? Wouldn't it be immoral (for you)?

 

 

Of course. What I take issue with is the fact that a bunch of Taliban-wannabes can use their religious idiocy conviction to overrule the right of the employer to lead and distribute the work - as per a ruling in the Danish Supreme Court a few years ago, that parents are using the freedom to practice their religion to deprive their children of their right to qualified education

I don't know about this, are you talking about homeschooling? I was, and no one's ever had a problem with the quality of my education. In fact, I seem to be rather above middle in my college classes.

 

and that the Papacy uses the freedom of their Wehrmacht garrissons missionary stations to practice Catholicism to spread anti-democratic propaganda and deny the right of the impoverished to proper health care.

If they have that freedom, you have the same right to give them whatever propaganda you want to. They're free to listen or ignore them, as they choose, whether you believe they have the capacity or not.

 

I don't know about the health care thing, you mind giving me a link or two?

 

2) Slants against Darwin are getting rather boring. Why don't you chuck a rock at Newton or Kepler once in a while?

That didn't work so well last time someone did that. Besides, throwing a rock would be using a practical application of Newton's laws to attack Newton. That wouldn't help one bit.

[edlib]

It's also important to note at this point that the theory of evolution didn't begin or end with Darwin. There were many contemporaries of his working on it at the same time... and there has been many others who have advanced the science much, much further.

 

He's really just seems to be the best known "face" to attack. The name everybody relates to it, because his work was so important and seminal to the rest of the study.

[Kurgan]

I think the more interesting question is why the "fundies" and those that would argue for the right periodically disappear. The best among them are always temporary. Rcarr, Wilhuf, et al rarely stay and stick to a point. They're outnumbered by the regulars here, but still, one would expect a few of these guys to defend their claims and positions.

 

I think its because of two things: 1)being a "gaming" forum, there aren't a lot of people looking for political/religious debate; 2)the arguments against their positions are so sound and logical that they simply give up rather than continue to provide a defense from the position of faith and hope.

 

Wait, so they're running away because you beat 'em fair 'n' square or they're just wrong? Gosh darn your amazing arguments!

 

Maybe they'll see this and take the bait!

 

Alternate possibilities:

 

1) They've won, so there's no point in further argument.

 

2) Since their opponents use the "wall of ignorance" argument, there's no point in further argument.

 

3) We just don't all have the time to debate endlessly like some people (insert Rush Limbaugh-esque [ Cause you hippy liberals are on welfare, get back to work and you won't have time to chat about crap!] joke here!)

 

 

But I think "religious freedom" is a double edged sword. People should have the freedom to practice their own religions, but so should I have the freedom not to have it imposed upon me. Indeed, I should also have the freedom to ridicule and criticize religion.

 

Ah but therein lies the challenge. Many who argue the "freedom FROM religion" angle posit that we must remove all references to religion from public discourse (or more properly, references to Christianity) and the public sphere. So making fun of religion would be mentioning religion, thus consistently, out of bounds.

 

Now you have groups like the ADL and Catholic League which sue or lobby when their groups get attacked with public money, so this kind of thing bounces around. It's like who has the ball in what game.

 

The question of "imposition" is critical. To some people "imposition" means the President mentions "God" a bunch of times in his speech, or there's a stone "ten commandments" in front of the Court House (even though it has no legal standing, otherwise this would be the strongest objection). Others consider street preachers or door to door ministers knocking to be imposition. Others consider laws (theoretically, if they were ever made) against abortion or gay marriage to be imposition. Some consider anti-gambling or drug legislation to be imposition.

 

Now if there was ever a clear case of "imposition" I'd say (if it ever happens or happened, that isn't clear to me since I haven't been following the story lately) requiring giving "equal time" to Creationism and/or "Intelligent Design" in public school science classes alongside evolution would definatley be it. I'm not sure if public officials are actually confused enough that they think "ID Theory" is a real scientific theory or what, but it's definately a religious viewpoint and not one that every religion shares, so necessarily sectarian.

 

When I think of imposition I usually think of religious tests for office (for example excluding somebody based on not taking an oath of belief or being a member of some banned group), denying representation to persons based on religious affiliation, taxing certain persons more or less based on religious affiliation, or "blasphemy courts" or tolerating pogroms (the last one being defacto imposition... ie: if you're not a member of a popular religion, you don't have equal protection under the law).

 

The freedom of religion ties in with freedom of speech, that's why it's such a tricky one. Can a person talk about their religion without imposing it on others? Those who want religion removed completely from public life know they "can't change the constitution" so we're stuck with the two issues together.

 

And Skin, you should know better.. Atheism definately is a belief.

The belief that all religion is crap. Don't look at me like that, I'm kidding.

 

PS: I consider myself Moderate (or "Centrist" if you prefer, if these terms have any meaning) and I'm religious (non-fundie). But if Skin or anyone says I'm not active in these debates out of cowardice, let them come over here and do my homework/work for me so I have more time to free up!

[SkinWalker]

Point taken. I'm up late studying for exams & just got off work myself. That, and I've got to drive my wife to the welfare office to pick up our checks & WIC tomorrow. Full plate, I tell you.

[Kurgan]

Yep. I've got a few boards I'm required to debate on (as part of class participating). Thanks to you guys I've been able to hone my sophistry skills and flame-baiting prowess (kidding, again), I miss coming here, but you know how it is!

 

It is SO tempting to use the forums instead of studying sometimes, I will admit...

[SkinWalker]

I follow the Bruce Lee philosophy of internet debating: I practice the ard of framing widout framing.

[CapNColostomy]

The anthropologist in me understands perfectly well the purpose of "chucking rocks" at Darwin. The theist has a difficult time wrapping his/her brain around the idea that an atheist can actually exist. That there might be those among us that don't accept a god or gods as reason for all that is observed. It certainly bothers them that we aren't willing to accept that the scriptures from which they derive their evidence isn't actually evidence at all but mythology.

 

With regards to myself, there isn't one factual statement in that entire paragraph. Read it to yourself and say 'no' at the end of every sentence like I did.

 

So, when it comes to wanting to retaliate in a "belief-bashing," they are at a bit of a loss. The atheist doesn't "believe" in anything. Often the theist will simply reduce his/her argument to "atheism is belief too," which can never really be qualified/quantified since atheism is simply without gods. The next best thing is to hurl some sort of perceived insult at what the theist believes the atheist holds dear: this often boils down to Darwin, since he is considered the Father of Evolution.

 

Do you not subscribe to Darwins theory of evolution? I assume you do, since you seem to have taken my little picture personally. You should be free to ridicule. But just you. Nobody else. Unless they happen to agree with you.

 

Darwin-bashing, however, is rarely done effectively by the theist since the theist (generally speaking) really knows very little about Darwin. Moreover, the typical theist knows little about evolution. But this is part of the "grand plan" of modern Christianity: deprive the follower of knowledge lest they begin to see the truth. In other words: pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!

 

 

I don't know about Darwin, or evolution? That's your argument? "Well, they are dumb, and don't know stuff and that's their sinister plan and stuff"? Well done. [/pointing and laughing]

 

 

So... please, by all means... feel free to take "jabs" at my "cult."

 

I did NOT need to be told that.

 

Cult n.

 

1. Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing.

 

I'd say that fits you pretty well. So yeah. You do have a cult afterall.

[SkinWalker]

Actually, I think I'm spot on with my description of the average theist and I think it includes you, whether you admit it or not. But this is just my opinion, much like your "cult" opinion.

 

Do I "subscribe to Darwin's theory?" I subscribe to the basis of it... that there are observable characters that are gradually selected for over time. There were things that Darwing got both right and wrong. But I certainly subscribe to most of the current, revised explanations of evolution. They have supporting evidence.

[Kurgan]

Wait, if it's okay to describe "the average theist" is it also okay to describe the "average atheist"?

 

Or will this excercise necessarily result in projection, dichotomies and stereotypes?

[ShadowTemplar]

Heh, I can do that easily enough: The average atheist is largely ignorant, prejudiced, tends to shout his mouth off about things he knows very little about, and is generally a nice person when you get to know him. This could, of course, also be construed as a description of the average human, so could we please get the discussion back on topic, rather than allowing it to be derailed by a rather pathetic jab at an overused strawman. If some people feel the need to debate whether evolution is a religion or not, I refer them to one of the many, many 10+ page threads floating around in the fossile record of the Chambers. This thread is not the place to debate creationist artwork either (though I must say that the quality has deteriorated over the past century and a half - their logic hasn't, but then again, it started out at rock bottom, and pretty much stayed there). And I don't know whether to laugh or cry over the fact that two mods are actively derailing a thread.

 

\end{rant}

 

\begin{ontopic}

 

I don't see why not. It simply means that you cannot force others to behave according to your particular religious requirements.

 

That was not what you were saying. You were saying that the right to practice the religion of your choice overrules any and all other rights and freedoms except the freedom to practice one's religion.

 

I also wasn't talking about work, but... if a job has requirements (which aren't discriminatory) that you cannot meet given your religion, then why would you want it in the first place? Wouldn't it be immoral (for you)?

 

Let me give you an example:

 

A muslim or jewish veterinarian applies for work at a chicken farm, to overlook the use of antibiotics in the stock.

 

The chicken farm expands to produce pork as well as chickens.

 

In this case it cannot be argued that the veterinarian forfieted his right to practice his religion on the job by applying for a job which inheirently violated his religion.

 

So, if he refuses to work with the pigs, is the farmer allowed to fire him, or does he have to keep two veterinarians in his employ?

 

If the latter is the case, is it then discriminatory to require that religious applicants forego their right to practice their religion on the job as part of the application procedure?

 

After all, if unexpected changes in the nature of the company could make the religious employee less valueable than the non-religious one purely because of his religion, then the religious applicant is undoubtedly less flexible, and hence less valueable.

 

That's the kind of problems you run into if you insist that everyone should be allowed to practice his religion.

 

@Kurgan: 1) You have so far been the most constructive and thoughtful contributer to this thread. I just thought I'd commend you on that.

 

\begin{bitter rant}

 

(Yes, that was a none-too-veiled jab at the rest of you people. I've never seen a thread turn into a flamewar this fast in the Senate - well, I have, but they usually started with a flame or a piece of flamebait.)

 

\end{bitter rant}

 

2) Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that your opinion is largely summed up in this statement:

 

The freedom of religion ties in with freedom of speech, that's why it's such a tricky one. Can a person talk about their religion without imposing it on others? Those who want religion removed completely from public life know they "can't change the constitution" so we're stuck with the two issues together.

 

It seems to me that this ties nicely with the original definition of freedom of religion: That all citizens have the right not to practice a religion of their choice, but with the important but often overlooked corollary that one's right to practice one's religion isn't protected. All the ways to practice one's religion that you mention as legitimate are covered by the freedom of speech and press, the inviolability of the home, the protection from arbitrary deprivation of freedom, etc.

 

Now the government would, of course, be subject to a slightly different set of rules, mainly prohibition of certain behavior (ideally you'd want the government to simply not in any way, shape, or form acknowledge the existence of religion, except to say that it cannot be imposed on its citizens - alternatively state-sponsored religion which are financially priviliged, but whose doctrines are subject to censorship from the parliament).

 

Prohibiting the government from doing certain things that private citizens are allowed to do would not be unprecedented or in any way unique: For example, governments - as a rule - aren't allowed to participate in private investment (for a whole number of fairly obvious reasons), and governments are required to treat everyone fairly (which citizens clearly aren't).

 

I'd also like to hear your comments on the chicken-farm example.

[Samuel Dravis]

That was not what you were saying. You were saying that the right to practice the religion of your choice overrules any and all other rights and freedoms except the freedom to practice one's religion.

Well, I'm sorry you got that impression. I didn't mean that.

 

 

 

Let me give you an example:

Then the person must decide which means more to them - their religion or their job. I don't see how this is difficult to figure out. The religious person has no right to force an entire company (or any person or group of people) to be restricted by thier views. The company should be allowed to fire them if they can't do what the company needs them to, for reason religious or otherwise. Employment is not anywhere near to being a right.

[ShadowTemplar]

Employment is not anywhere near to being a right.

 

Actually, it is in the Danish constitution (and in the draft of the Iraqi constitution as well). But nevermind, because protection from discrimination certainly is, and if the only reason that the person is fired is that his religion is incompatible with his job, then you might argue that it's discriminatory.

 

But I'll provide a less clear-cut example (and one that has actually gone all the way to the Danish Supreme Court twice - with two different rulings):

 

Are employers allowed to demand that their employees don't wear veils, if wearing veils is a requirements of their religious doctrines?