Freedom of Religion and free speech

[anunitu]

My main issue here is this: There is a lot of talk about Religions(it seems Christianity mainly in this country) that claim they are being discriminated against for their beliefs concerning contraception,Gay rights and Gay marriage among other issues. The question is this: Does ANY religious body have rights when their "Beliefs" are very negative towards certain groups,and amount to deeply negative prejudice that "might" be perceived as discrimination towards these groups. This I think would also apply to Christian beliefs concerning Pagans as well.

Let the war of words begin!

[Willow]

Re: Freedom of Religion and free speech

They have the right to hold those beliefs and to discuss it with others. They don't have the right to force those beliefs on others, and to apply them to the government systems so they affect others in a discriminatory manner.

That's as far as I'll go on this. Have fun.

[Lady of Flowers]

Re: Freedom of Religion and free speech

When choosing a belief system surely a person chooses according to the content of that system? (I am aware that it isn't everyone who is free to choose.) There will always appear to be negative issues to people who are not within the system they do not agree with.
That said, I do think that there are some very strange and even cruel "rules" within some established religions.

[Medusa]

Re: Freedom of Religion and free speech

You are free to believe whatever you want. You are not free to actually do whatever you want. People seem to get these two concepts confused. Words are not actions. Actions are not words.

I HATE PAGANS/CHRISTIANS/BUDDHISTS/SATANISTS/BROCCOLI.

I can't actually kill any of them. Well except the veggy. They have no rights.

[AzazelEblis]

Re: Freedom of Religion and free speech

For the sake of hyperbolic argument: let us presume it is against my religion for Christians to live.

Therefore, I either need to STFU while Christian institutions need to quit standing between women and their doctors, or I should be given the right to burn churches in retaliation for their discrimination against women.

Simple.

Then again, I much prefer to argue that the premise of faith implies doubt, a Christian nation must allow for doubt. We see this in the Deism of Jefferson and Ben Franklin. Our 6th President, John Quincy Adams, (whose father signed the declaration of independence, and both of whom had their input into the constitution!) was sworn in on a book of laws, rather than a Bible. He believed so much in teh separation of church and state, that he would do this.

I then argue that Deism and then Atheism could only come about in a Christian culture - other middle eastern cultures might not tolerate the existence of such, and eastern culture would see such as largely irrelevant. Native American, African, and pre-Christian European cultures had no basis on which to found such a movement. Therefore, (I'm arguing to a Christian!) Atheism, and the secular society are firmly in the tradition of a Christian Society.

While we Christians can spread the message, Matthew Ch 10 commands us to move on when someone doesn't want to hear the word. When that happens, we have to respect their doubt, and move on to spread the message elsewhere. Secular society is built on this Christian Premise. Therefore, the best Christian Nation would end up simply being a Secular Nation.

So yes, I guess we can be a "Christian Nation," so long as we respect the Biblical Mandate to not mandate Christianity.

If they don't end up screaming at me or looking at me like I killed their God, they end up thoroughly confused. A couple of 'em even thanked me.

[nbdy]

Re: Freedom of Religion and free speech

So yes, I guess we can be a "Christian Nation," ......

Some of our respected dead white dudes might not like that very much.

The Teaty of Tripoli of 1797: "As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion" signed by President John Adams.

"The Bible is not my book and Christianity is not my religion. I could never give assent to the long complicated statements of Christian dogma." -- Abraham Lincoln.

"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature." -- Thomas Jefferson.

"The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity. Nowhere in the Gospels do we find a precept for Creeds, Confessions, Oaths, Doctrines, and... foolish trumpery that we find in Christianity" -- John Adams

[Shahaku]

Re: Freedom of Religion and free speech

No religion has the right to dictate the actions of others outside their belief system even if those dictates are for the better. That is the job of the government. As for gay marriage: Marriage is in itself a religious system, obligation. IMO a marriage should not be acknowledge, recorded, or otherwise affects by the government. A marriage (what is consists of, who is allowed to be involved, etc.) should be determined by ones chosen religious leaders. If you don't like their doctrine, find another system whose doctrine you do agree with. However, a civil union should be used for government purposes. And yes there should be laws to define it. I'm not sure what those laws should be, accept that they should prevent people from taking advantage of the benefits associated with the system. For instance, people should not be able to enter into a civil union for the soul purpose of getting corporate benefits. They should not define however: the gender, race, or nationality of those involved; the number of those involved (within reasonable limitations); the beliefs of those involved or be based on the beliefs of any one group of society.

[ChainLightning]

Re: Freedom of Religion and free speech

I don't know why it's such touchy issue, myself. People (and thus, religions) have a right to believe what ever they want. They also have a right to say what ever they want [with a few caveats]. They do NOT have a right to take those same rights away from someone else.

That said, *negative* beliefs (which is purely subjective) that are incorporated in those systems are perfectly legal. It's only the incursion, the suppression, the ACTIONS that get caught in the legal net.

[MaskedOne]

Re: Freedom of Religion and free speech

The question is this: Does ANY religious body have rights when their "Beliefs" are very negative towards certain...

Yes.

What those rights are is certainly up for dispute but having an opinion that you or I deem negative no more deprives an institution or the people comprising it of guaranteed rights than having disputed opinions deprives us of rights. If the protections of law are not provided to those we merely disagree with then we have no right to those protections ourselves. Now the protections actually provided by law are not necessarily what various people wish they were and I have no interest in providing Christians or anyone else rights and privileges that the law does NOT guarantee but the reason that speech and religion are protected by the Constitution is to provide protection to those with contraversial opinions. As non-Christians have made significant use of those protections to their own benefit, it seems hypocritical in the extreme to turn around and say to Christians "Hey you know all that Constitutional stuff we've been spewing to keep you at bay? It doesn't mean a d*** thing except when it works in our favor."

[Ophidia]

Re: Freedom of Religion and free speech

In the US, state & religion are separated. I've ranted about it before, but churches receive their tax-exempt benefits from the IRS, and in the regulations for receiving & maintaining tax-exempt status, it says that charitable organizations are restricted in politics or influencing politics through lobbying. I think the IRS needs to start enforcing that, plain & simple.

http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-P...-Organizations

[DanieMarie]

Re: Freedom of Religion and free speech

I don't know why it's such touchy issue, myself. People (and thus, religions) have a right to believe what ever they want. They also have a right to say what ever they want [with a few caveats]. They do NOT have a right to take those same rights away from someone else.

That said, *negative* beliefs (which is purely subjective) that are incorporated in those systems are perfectly legal. It's only the incursion, the suppression, the ACTIONS that get caught in the legal net.

Yep, exactly. It's not hard. Back home, this is more or less how people feel about things. Religion is for your own free time, and you're free to believe and say whatever you want. You're even free to do what you want, as long as it complies with the laws of the country. What you're not free to do is to limit the freedoms of anyone else. Freedom of religion comes with the ability for other people who believe different things to also enjoy the same freedoms as you do. For example, no one will force you to take contraception, or not allow you to say that taking it is wrong, but you cannot prevent anyone else (including employees, etc) from taking contraception.

[AL!CE]

Re: Freedom of Religion and free speech

One word: Democracy. You can't please everyone all the time. When there is a conflict of ideology the majority must decide which ideology is in the "right" and which is in the "wrong".

[DanieMarie]

Re: Freedom of Religion and free speech

I disagree. When there's a conflict of ideology, you have to defer to secularism...meaning absence of religion (including non-religion).

[MaskedOne]

Re: Freedom of Religion and free speech

One word: Democracy. You can't please everyone all the time. When there is a conflict of ideology the majority must decide which ideology is in the "right" and which is in the "wrong".

I see your 'Democracy' and raise you 'Rule of Law' (if you're a US citizen then replace Rule of Law with the Constitution but other countries have other answers). Turning right/wrong into a numbers game has way too many entertaining side effects that I'd rather see someone quite far away deal with. The majority does not get total control unless they massively outnumber their opposition.

- - - Updated - - -

One word: Democracy. You can't please everyone all the time. When there is a conflict of ideology the majority must decide which ideology is in the "right" and which is in the "wrong".

I see your 'Democracy' and raise you 'Rule of Law' (if you're a US citizen then replace Rule of Law with the Constitution but other countries have other answers). Turning right/wrong into a numbers game has way too many entertaining side effects that I'd rather see someone quite far away deal with. The majority does not get total control unless they massively outnumber their opposition.

[AzazelEblis]

Re: Freedom of Religion and free speech

When it comes to individual liberty, I don't care what anyone else says. You're free, you do as you will.

If they don't want in on what you're doing, that's their loss.

Gay marriage, intoxicants, contraceptives, condoms, video games, music, free speech, whatever else... you don't have to participate if you don't want to. It's called "Freedom," and it is the premise of our country.

Oh, you want to bring "Faith" into it? Wonderful! Because scholars within the Christian religion, and even non-Western Anthropologists studying this faith have noted that the premise of faith implies room for doubt, and that it is an individual's choice to follow this, or not. End of story, Fundie.

If your faith is so weak that you need laws to hold you to it, you're not freaking Christian. If your faith is so weak that you need everyone else to be held to it, you're negating the premise of your faith by subverting rather than converting them.

And that's not what Jesus wants.