Is there such a thing as too much freedom of religion?

[_Zoidberg]

In the mind of many religious folks, it's perfectly okay that people who have so-called religious beliefs have advantages over those who don't call their beliefs or convictions religion.

It is perfectly okay to be a bigot if it's part of your religion. Some parents in Mass. sued their school district for infringing on their freedom of religious expression because their kid's teacher read a book about two princes falling in love in class. The case was dismissed, but it's amazing that people actually thought they were entitled to win that lawsuit. Can you imagine a gay couple suing the school because a book was read to their child the main character of which happens to be, say, LDS?

It is perfectly okay for clergy to be exempt from mandatory reporting statutes (most states have now revised their legislation; not without opposition, of course). It is perfectly okay for God to be included into the pledge of allegiance. And let's not forget to assure him that we trust in him using cash as a medium. I'm sure Jesus would find it rather ironic.

Poor Warren Jeffs just got convicted of rape as an accomplice (of which he's surely innocent despite forcing young girls to marry their cousins and totally submit to them; we all know that marriage does not constitute sexual relations, especially in the FLDS church that teaches that a woman should have a baby every year) just because the general public is against his religion. Oh, the horror! His religious beliefs are that it is his prerogative to determine who people are to marry and have sex with. How dare anyone infringe on his freedom of religion!

Is there such a thing as freedom to be free of religion? If so, I'm not seeing it.

When Hitchens states that religion poisons everything (which is his deeply held belief and conviction, albeit not a religious one; not to mention that he has plenty of evidence to back up that claim), he receives death threats from religious folks.

When the LDS Church issues a pamphlet urging people to stay celibate their whole lives, if necessary, and to sever all ties with their actively gay friends, they receive praise for their open-mindedness and acceptance of people with "same-gender attratctions".

It is not permissible to call the LDS church racist because they believe the priesthood ban was God's will. Instead, everyone must give them a pat on the back for lifting the ban. Someone actually said that on MAD. I guess the fact that the ban was lifted as a result of an alleged revelation and so the Church deserves no credit for it escaped their field of vision.

It's okay to discriminate against groups of people (gay, black, etc.) if the basis for discrimination is rooted in absurd or unfalsifiable claims; but it's not okay to criticize groups of people who hold on to absurd or unfalsifiable claims when there is plenty of evidence that their behavior causes harm.

Atheists and agnostics should just establish the Church of Atheism&Agnosticism with a few chosen scriptural texts, such as The Origin of Species, God Is Not Great and What Is an Agnostic? They should hold weekly meetings and worship Darwin, Hitchens and Bertrand Russell. They should make it clear that it is their religious belief that theists should be persecuted.

Maybe then they will finally be able to receive the same treatment as religious folks do.

[_karl61]

I always liked the thought of Dennis Prager who says if you are alone at night in an alley and hear someone coming up behind you would you be more comfortable knowing that the person did believe in a just God or doesn't believe in any God. I would say that if it was the United States and the person believed in God then it is likely Christianity but the middle east is a horse of another color.

a side note: my ethics teacher at school used the phrase a "horse of another color" I never heard that. I was having lunch with some friends and used it but said that's "another color of a horse" They looked at me and started laughing and said you mean "a horse of another color".

[_Livingstone22]

I am for the most part very defensive of freedom of religion (okay, freedom of ideologies....even atheism), but one case comes to my mind. It was of that couple whose son had a (very treatable) bowel obstruction, but since their views prohibit most types of physical medicine (relying instead on spiritual healing), they refused to take him to a doctor or hospital, and he died. (see http://www.religion-online.org/showarti ... ?title=953) The problem here is that (although people can make any decision they want to regarding their own lives....even if they want to commit suicide), they don't have the right to force that on others, and in this case, the child was not able to make the well-informed decision (since he was just a small child) about what he wanted.

This brings up some problems, although I'm not sure what the solution would be, in that to what point can parents make their (or force or intimidate) do things? I do have an uneasiness about children being baptized at 8 as well. One man once told me that he worried about his son's testimony of the church (to be baptized) since he also had the same testimony of Santa Claus.

[_bcspace]

It is not permissible to call the LDS church racist because they believe the priesthood ban was God's will.

Sure. You can say anything you want. The real question is whether or not the statement is true. Logically, the above statement that LDS are racist cannot possibly be true because it was God's will, not any other LDS person. You'll have to modify the statement to generate a different question.

[Guest]

I am for the most part very defensive of freedom of religion (okay, freedom of ideologies....even atheism), but one case comes to my mind. It was of that couple whose son had a (very treatable) bowel obstruction, but since their views prohibit most types of physical medicine (relying instead on spiritual healing), they refused to take him to a doctor or hospital, and he died. (see http://www.religion-online.org/showarti ... ?title=953) The problem here is that (although people can make any decision they want to regarding their own lives....even if they want to commit suicide), they don't have the right to force that on others, and in this case, the child was not able to make the well-informed decision (since he was just a small child) about what he wanted.

This brings up some problems, although I'm not sure what the solution would be, in that to what point can parents make their (or force or intimidate) do things? I do have an uneasiness about children being baptized at 8 as well. One man once told me that he worried about his son's testimony of the church (to be baptized) since he also had the same testimony of Santa Claus.

Well, I'm not so sure that everyone has a right to reproduce to begin with. If you argue from an assumption that life is an inalienable right, that Trump's the parents' right to make decisions for the child. So in this case, I would say it was child abuse (not just neglect to seek treatment for the child, but deliberate ideological refusal to do so). Of course, one could also say that parents did not consider medical intervention effective at all. I have an answer: parental licensure.

I quite agree that children should not be coerced into being baptized. That brings the question of the ability to consent to the table.

Sure. You can say anything you want. The real question is whether or not the statement is true. Logically, the above statement that LDS are racist cannot possibly be true because it was God's will, not any other LDS person. You'll have to modify the statement to generate a different question.

Who says I want to say anything about the LDS Church being racist? All I'm saying is that apologists assume this position of complete immunity from criticism. If you want to argue about whether or not the LDS Church is racist, that's a topic for another thread.

I always liked the thought of Dennis Prager who says if you are alone at night in an alley and hear someone coming up behind you would you be more comfortable knowing that the person did believe in a just God or doesn't believe in any God. I would say that if it was the United States and the person believed in God then it is likely Christianity but the middle east is a horse of another color.

It also depends on what color of a horse you are. If I were Chris Crocker, I would probably feel much safer around atheists than around Christians in the United States. And, of course, I would never even dream of going to Iran if I were him. He would just disappear into thin air as soon as he crossed the Iranian border because we all know there is no homosexuality in Iran.

[_asbestosman]

No, freedom of religion should not give one a free pass to harm others. Perhaps it should give some leeway into harming onesself as perhaps in smoking peyote. However, freedom of religion was never intended to give one a free pass to murder whom you please, nor to abuse children. I do believe in the right to free speach including sayinf really rotten things about others whether those others are gays Mormons, or engineers. I just don't recommend that course of action.

[_bcspace]

Sure. You can say anything you want. The real question is whether or not the statement is true. Logically, the above statement that LDS are racist cannot possibly be true because it was God's will, not any other LDS person. You'll have to modify the statement to generate a different question.

Who says I want to say anything about the LDS Church being racist?

No one that I know of. I addressed the statement only without applying it to you since knew you were giving an example and not necessarily an expression of yourself.

All I'm saying is that apologists assume this position of complete immunity from criticism.

Not this one. But I do expect immunity from strawman arguments and all other forms of yellow journalism and logical fallacies.....and lazy research too.

If you want to argue about whether or not the LDS Church is racist, that's a topic for another thread.

Indeed. But as long as you're throwing around examples, I will challenge them if I desire and not consider you or myself to be committed to another thread.

[_Zoidberg]

No, freedom of religion should not give one a free pass to harm others. Perhaps it should give some leeway into harming onesself as perhaps in smoking peyote. However, freedom of religion was never intended to give one a free pass to murder whom you please, nor to abuse children. I do believe in the right to free speach including sayinf really rotten things about others whether those others are gays Mormons, or engineers. I just don't recommend that course of action.

This all sounds great in theory - freedom of religion, the right of free speech, etc., but define harm. Isn't saying that homosexuality stems from selfishness/perversion/Satan around a 14-year old with "same-gender attractions" harmful? That could very easily be construed as emotional abuse, as well.

[_asbestosman]

This all sounds great in theory - freedom of religion, the right of free speech, etc., but define harm. Isn't saying that homosexuality stems from selfishness/perversion/Satan around a 14-year old with "same-gender attractions" harmful? That could very easily be construed as emotional abuse, as well.

Let me be blunt: I don't think people's feelings Trump the right to freedom of speech.

However, with that right, I think it is also important to grant people the right not to hear that kind of harassing speech. That is while some people should have the right to shout their ideas, they should not have the right to invade homes or businesses with their ludicrous rants.

Call me names, or tell me what a jerk I am, but just don't force me to listen to it. So long as that's the case, I don't think anyone can properly call it emotional abuse. People should be free to be rotten to each other, but they should be just as free to avoid it. And of course I recommend they don't be rotten to each other.

Now this is indeed trickier with 14-year olds because they aren't as able to freely walk away from annoying speech, especially if it comes from parents. Even trickier is that indoctrinting children seems to be a normal part of raising them. Is it wrong when we indoctrinate children to think that incest is wrong? Keep in mind that we allow people with known genetic defects to marry and reproduce. What if that child really does love his/her sibbling? Is it emotional abuse to tell him/her it's wrong? Why then do we not teach children with severe genetic defects that it'd be wrong for them to marry and create more kids who have to suffer as they do?

It seems to me that society's standards are somewhat arbitrary in what we think should be permissible indoctrination of children and what shouldn't be. I'm not recommending that we should therefore allow everyone to indoctrinate children as they wish, but I do wish to draw attention to how difficult the situation truly is.

[_Gadianton]

I think it's a good idea. If any of you were Babylon 5 fans, then you're likely familiar with the mysterious Third Space Aliens who believed that they alone had a right to exist. Once we get the new atheist religion off the ground, I suggest we model our spaceships after theirs.