Time to abolish freedom of religion

[sweboy]

At first, this may seem like just another religion bashing thread. And I guess that's what it is.

Religious beliefs are nothing special and require no categoric separation from other beliefs (such as the belief that Iceland is an island or that Tony Blair doesn't exist). The idea that some specific beliefs should be protected by special rights is strange and illogical. Religion is also difficult to define.

And in practice in the west, freedom of religion is often overruled by other rights, for example when it comes to issues such as child abuse, polygamy, animal sacrifice etc, demonstrating the flaws of freedom of religion.

Everything that needs to be covered regarding the rights of religious people is already covered by other rights; freedom of thought, speech, assembly etc. Freedom of religion is thus redundant. It is essentially already useless, but even if it wouldn't have been, why should people that believe in pink invisible unicorns be given rights that non-believers are not given?

[Aklerc]

I whole heartedly agree :D

[Amit]

At first, this may seem like just another religion bashing thread. And I guess that's what it is.

Religious beliefs are nothing special and require no categoric separation from other beliefs (such as the belief that Iceland is an island or that Tony Blair doesn't exist). The idea that some specific beliefs should be protected by special rights is strange and illogical. Religion is also difficult to define.

And in practice in the west, freedom of religion is often overruled by other rights, for example when it comes to issues such as child abuse, polygamy, animal sacrifice etc, demonstrating the flaws of freedom of religion.

Everything that needs to be covered regarding the rights of religious people is already covered by other rights; freedom of thought, speech, assembly etc. Freedom of religion is thus redundant. It is essentially already useless, but even if it wouldn't have been, why should people that believe in pink invisible unicorns be given rights that non-believers are not given?

umm

whats your point

[Dr Hooch]

That the law is redundant, i guess...

[artra]

which rights do believers have over non-believers ?

[Amit]

but i don't understand

what rights are religious people given that nonreligious people aren't given

[sweboy]

Exactly, why have a human right that is useless?
It is essentially already useless

So therefore it should be removed from national laws and UN Declarations and such.

[Amit]

what rights are religious people given that nonreligious people aren't given

otherwise, your thread fails miserably

[YDload]

sweboy you are a foreigner please do not patronize us lowly americans and tell us how stupid our revolutionary constitutional amendments are

[lunchforthesky]

It has always been freedom of religion, within reason anyway. So I don't see why that should be changed.

[sweboy]

what rights are religious people given that nonreligious people aren't given

otherwise, your thread fails miserably

Once again, that's the entire point of the thread. I propose a modification of the human rights since one of the rights serves no purpose. Before the right has protected religious people from tyrannic governments and such, but now it's time to loose it.

[Loser]

Like seriously, we should just force everyone to follow a state religion! what a killer idea.

You do know that's why the amendment exists, right? It's to allow people to believe or not believe what they want, without being persecuted for it, not to give religious people special rights.

[lunchforthesky]

Like seriously, we should just force everyone to follow a state religion! what a killer idea.

You do know that's why the amendment exists, right? It's to allow people to believe or not believe what they want, without being persecuted for it, not to give religious people special rights.

You either didn't read what he wrote or didn't understand what he wrote.

[artra]

you still fail at the question, or better said, the answer

[sweboy]

Loser: Please read thread before posting.

you still fail at the question, or better said, the answer

Me: Freedom of religion is illogical and serves no purpose since it doesn't actually give any rights. Remove from all legal documents.

[artra]

I did, did you ?

[YDload]

the actual first line of the First Amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." It means that the government can't force you to worship, but it also can't force you NOT to worship. There are two sides to the amendment (often referred to as the Establishment Clause or the Free Exercise Clause), and they're there to prevent the government from going too far in either direction.

There is so much more to religion than just gathering and speaking, which is what you seem to think is enough to guarantee its protection by the other parts of the First Amendment.

[Hababi]

I see no reason to abolish it worth even debating, because the things you list (polygamy, animal abuse, etc.) are illegal and do usurp religious freedom...

[sweboy]

the actual first line of the First Amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." It means that the government can't force you to worship, but it also can't force you NOT to worship. There are two sides to the amendment (often referred to as the Establishment Clause or the Free Exercise Clause), and they're there to prevent the government from going too far in either direction.

There is so much more to religion than just gathering and speaking, which is what you seem to think is enough to guarantee its protection by the other parts of the First Amendment.

I am not very familiar with the laws of specific countries.

But what exactly about religious beliefs is not covered by freedom of thought and other rights?

Serenity: I just used that as an example to point out that freedom of religion is already useless in practice.

[Reaganista]

just do away with the second part

[Akira]

I see no reason to abolish it worth even debating, because the things you list (polygamy, animal abuse, etc.) are illegal and do usurp religious freedom...

This.

What a total nonissue.

[Hababi]

I am not very familiar with the laws of specific countries.

But what exactly about religious beliefs is not covered by freedom of thought and other rights?

There is no absolute freedom of thought. There is, however, freedom of religion, which is a subset of thought.

[Cybergasm]

I am not very familiar with the laws of specific countries.

But what exactly about religious beliefs is not covered by freedom of thought and other rights?

Serenity: I just used that as an example to point out that freedom of religion is already useless in practice.
Freedom of religion stands to make tangible certain aspects of thought that could be easily circumvented and thus put down the free practice of religion.

For example, the government wants to make an eight hour day mandatory on the Sabbath. While this doesn't conflict with the Jewish peoples ability to believe what they want, it does conflict with their ability to practice and is thus made null by YD's quote: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.".

Anyway, that is my understanding, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was wrong :(.

[Reaganista]

There is no absolute freedom of thought.
wat

There is, however, freedom of religion, which is a subset of thought.
ya but not really

[Iskandar]

There is no absolute freedom of thought.Yes there is. There is no absolute freedom of expression.

[Smokey D]

Freedom of religion is actually freedom of conscience, which means you're allowed to believe whatever the hell you want. So there isn't some categorical distinction between religion and other modes of thought.

There is no absolute freedom of thought.

2+2=5, eh?

[sweboy]

Freedom of religion stands to make tangible certain aspects of thought that could be easily circumvented and thus put down the free practice of religion.

For example, the government wants to make an eight hour day mandatory on the Sabbath. While this doesn't conflict with the Jewish peoples ability to believe what they want, it does conflict with their ability to practice and is thus made null by YD's quote: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.".

Anyway, that is my understanding, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was wrong :(.

If the claim "We believe that a god created the universe and rested on the sabbath, so we don't want to work that day" should be taken into consideration when making political decisions, then the claim "We believe that Maradona was the greatest soccer player ever and he didn't practice on thursdays, so we don't want to work on thursdays" should be too, and to the exact same extent. There is no reason to seperate religious beliefs from other beliefs, and therefore there is no reason for freedom of religion.

[Cybergasm]

If the claim "We believe that a god created the universe and rested on the sabbath, so we don't want to work that day" should be taken into consideration when making political decisions, then the claim "We believe that Maradona was the greatest soccer player ever and he didn't practice on thursdays, so we don't want to work on thursdays" should be too, and to the exact same extent. There is no reason to seperate religious beliefs from other beliefs, and therefore there is no reason for freedom of religion.

The difference, I believe, is that freedom of thought simply prevents the government from saying "you can't believe that 'Maradona was the greatest soccer player ever and he didn't practice on thursdays, so we don't want to work on thursdays'" and thus they can't prosecute you for those beliefs. However, they can impose their own requirements that you must adhere to even if it conflicts with the belief.

Say I believed in Anarchy, does that mean I don't have to pay taxes just because of that political belief? No, I would be forced to pay while being allowed to believe I shouldn't be. Religious freedom prevents this sort of intervention.

[Iskandar]

But the state restricts religious activity all the time. Muslims aren't allowed to practice polygamy in America.

[Akira]

I'm pretty sure there are government employees who work Monday.

When it comes to law and religion, law takes precedent in this country.

[PerpetualBurn]

The idea that some specific beliefs should be protected by special rights is strange and illogical. Religion is also difficult to define.


Yes this is the whole point of the law.

So that the government can't define one belief as illegitimate.

[Danger Bird]

I sort of agree but you can't just ignore the constitution when it's inconvenient.

[lunchforthesky]

I sort of agree but you can't just ignore the constitution when it's inconvenient.

Erm isn't that exactly what happens all the time?

[peeted]

This is a none issue, nothing good would come from abolishing freedom of religion and it would just send out an anti religious message. Plus as soon as you start removing freedoms like that, even if they are irrelevant, your on the slippery slope.

[YDload]

Sweboy answer this: If the United States government abolished the first part of the First Amendment, what would stop them from declaring Christianity (just an example of course ;)) the official state religion, and forcing people to attend church every Sunday? Oh sure, they'll still be able to gripe about it, but they couldn't actually say "I do not believe" because the new law would put a stop to that.

There are always limits on freedom of speech (yelling fire in a crowded theater, slander, inciting violence or insurrection, etc) and this would just be another one thanks to the absence of the freedom of (and FROM) religion.

[Det_Nosnip]

What the hell...?!

This one's up there in "wtf mate?" threads...

[Cybergasm]

But the state restricts religious activity all the time. Muslims aren't allowed to practice polygamy in America.

I think this is a question of enforcement rather then validity. The law does act to protect in certain areas, such as certain religions- Jehovah's Witnesses I believe- being exempt from DNA testing. A right that could not be afforded by a certain belief.

Also Muslim polygamy isn't a set religious right or fact. Many Muslims are actually against polygamy and thus I think there is very little incentive to call that law into question.

[Dave de Sylvia]

Sweboy answer this: If the United States government abolished the first part of the First Amendment, what would stop them from declaring Christianity (just an example of course ;)) the official state religion, and forcing people to attend church every Sunday? Oh sure, they'll still be able to gripe about it, but they couldn't actually say "I do not believe" because the new law would put a stop to that.

There are always limits on freedom of speech (yelling fire in a crowded theater, slander, inciting violence or insurrection, etc) and this would just be another one thanks to the absence of the freedom of (and FROM) religion.
There's no law against slander.

[Cybergasm]

There's no law against slander.Slander is sub-set under Defamation.

http://www.megalaw.com/top/defamation.php

[Dave de Sylvia]

That's civil law. He's talking about the constitution.

[sweboy]

Yes this is the whole point of the law.

So that the government can't define one belief as illegitimate.
Freedom of thought assures that the government doesn't rate beliefs.

Freedom of religion implies freedom to exercise one's religion, which is problematic.
This is a none issue, nothing good would come from abolishing freedom of religion and it would just send out an anti religious message. Plus as soon as you start removing freedoms like that, even if they are irrelevant, your on the slippery slope.
One could say that granting freedom of religion sends out a pro-religion message. The government should not recognize or imply that there are any differences between different types of beliefs. I can't see the slippery slope myself, as an abolition would not actually remove any freedoms.
Sweboy answer this: If the United States government abolished the first part of the First Amendment, what would stop them from declaring Christianity (just an example of course ;)) the official state religion, and forcing people to attend church every Sunday? Oh sure, they'll still be able to gripe about it, but they couldn't actually say "I do not believe" because the new law would put a stop to that.

There are always limits on freedom of speech (yelling fire in a crowded theater, slander, inciting violence or insurrection, etc) and this would just be another one thanks to the absence of the freedom of (and FROM) religion.
Again, I am not very familiar with constitutions of specific nations. But what's stopping a government from doing what you suggested is the same rights that today stops the government from declaring Maradona the official state hero and forcing people to attend tribute soccer games every thursday. Besides, the right to say "I do not believe (in christianity)" would be granted to them by the freedom of thought, just as they would have the right to say "I do not believe that the earth is flat" or "I do not believe that the train will arrive on time". The government can not force people to believe in anything, religious things or non-religious things.

[barry2]

There's no law against slander.

haha yeah there is
just take your time reading that :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slander_and_libel#Defamation_laws_by_country
its fascinating how you can get in trouble for damaging someones credibility by lying. (sarcasm)

[Iskandar]

Also Muslim polygamy isn't a set religious right or fact. Many Muslims are actually against polygamy and thus I think there is very little incentive to call that law into question.Some Muslims do practice it, but fair points.

[Dave de Sylvia]

One could say that granting freedom of religion sends out a pro-religion message.
Nobody could ever argue that because it's completely wrong. It obviously implies the freedom to not practice religion, which is historically a more important freedom.

The government should not recognize or imply that there are any differences between different types of beliefs.
But religion is so obviously different.

[YDload]

Again, I am not very familiar with constitutions of specific nations.

Then shut up! Just look at what you're saying:


One could say that granting freedom of religion sends out a pro-religion message. The government should not recognize or imply that there are any differences between different types of beliefs. I can't see the slippery slope myself, as an abolition would not actually remove any freedoms.

If you don't see a difference between religious beliefs and other beliefs, then you are severely incapable of understanding and judging society as a whole.

[sweboy]

But religion is so obviously different.
If you don't see a difference between religious beliefs and other beliefs, then you are severely incapable of understanding and judging society as a whole.

So you think that the government should treat religious people and non-religious people differently?

[Dave de Sylvia]

Why are you so dumb? It's treating them the same.

[Danger Bird]

You know the first amendment prohibits an establishment of religion, it doesn't say that you can do whatever you want if it's part of your religion. Everybody still has to follow the rules, so there's really nothing to abolish.

[sweboy]

Why are you so dumb? It's treating them the same.

You say that the government should view religious beliefs as different than other beliefs. What is the purpose of that?

[Dave de Sylvia]

Because faith is a major part of the lives of billions around the world and has traditionally had a major influence over the way civil society has been conducted, and as such religion is something people need to be protected from as much as they need the freedom to participate in it.

[Surtr]

I hear what you're saying, but it really doesn't matter all that much, so meh.

Keep it to save effort, rather than spending effort on accomplishing close to nothing.

[sweboy]

Because faith is a major part of the lives of billions around the world and has traditionally had a major influence over the way civil society has been conducted, and as such religion is something people need to be protected from as much as they need the freedom to participate in it.

I think people need to be protected from all undesired beliefs, religious ones or not - there is no reason to differentiate between different types of beliefs. What is it about religious beliefs specifically that makes you think that they are not covered by the freedom of thought? The number of religious people and the degree of historical impact of religious beliefs on society is irrelevant to the question.

[Smokey D]

People rarely need protection from thought, only people acting on thought and there are lots of laws where the government will interfere if it deems religious practise at odds with welbeing. You aren't, for example, allowed to sacrifice people.

[Dave de Sylvia]

There is no "freedom of thought," you're thinking of freedom of expression. The historical place of religion is obviously relevant, since all of the amendments are based upon the need to avoid repeating historical precedents.

[Smokey D]

There is a freedom of thought (read: conscience), but freedom of expression as is freedom of practice is limited.

[Dave de Sylvia]

But the only way to suppress free thought is to suppress free expression, so it's kind of a redundant idea.

[sweboy]

There is no "freedom of thought,"wtf

It's probably the most fundamental human right. People can believe what the hell they want. I say this includes religious beliefs. You disagree because?
The historical place of religion is obviously relevant, since all of the amendments are based upon the need to avoid repeating historical precedents.
I am still not refering to laws of specific nations. Anyhow, bad things should be avoided regardless of if they have occured before and thus history is irrelevant (history certainly influences the creation of rights though).

You didn't answer the question though. What is it about religious beliefs specifically that makes you think that they are not covered by the freedom of thought/conscience?

[Hababi]

There is a freedom of thought (read: conscience), but freedom of expression as is freedom of practice is limited.

yeah that's what I meant.

[TheDarkHorse]

What the hell...?!

This one's up there in "wtf mate?" threads...

This post sums it up. I don't even need to post now.

Osnap.

[Dave de Sylvia]

You didn't answer the question though. What is it about religious beliefs specifically that makes you think that they are not covered by the freedom of thought/conscience?
I didn't answer the question because I never said it wasn't covered by other freedoms.

[sweboy]

So we agree that freedom of religion serves no purpose and should be abolished.

[Dave de Sylvia]

No.

[sweboy]

Ok. What purpose do you think it serves?

[Amit]

sweboy your argument is retarded

[Dave de Sylvia]

Ok. What purpose do you think it serves?
Clarification.

[YDload]

Sweboy if anyone else had admitted that they have no idea what the laws concerning religious freedom are like, they would not have made this thread. You still don't get it and yet you persist with your argument that has no ground at all.

[The Stig]

I think people need to be protected from all undesired beliefs, religious ones or not - there is no reason to differentiate between different types of beliefs. What is it about religious beliefs specifically that makes you think that they are not covered by the freedom of thought? The number of religious people and the degree of historical impact of religious beliefs on society is irrelevant to the question.

Why? As long as you don't directly interfere with someone's well-being, you should be allowed to practice/think what you want. Afterall, things like the First Amendment are designed to protect unpopular speech and the like. Just because you have freedom of expression doesn't mean that if something annoys you or whatnot you should have a right to quash those actions. Your first sentence here, quite frankly, scares me.

[descendents1]

sweboy your argument is retarded

I support this statement with my life.

[Reaganista]

but what if we only get rid of the free excercise part
since that doesnt really exist anyway

There are always limits on freedom of speech (yelling fire in a crowded theater
why the **** do people still think this ancient bullshit case is valid

[YDload]

it's based on a quote from a supreme court justice and since the ruling hasn't been overturned, it IS valid

[The Stig]

You have all of the freedom in the world to do so. However, if people get hurt because you exercised your rights irresponsibly, you deserve punishment.

[Reaganista]

it's based on a quote from a supreme court justice and since the ruling hasn't been overturned
except it has been

[YDload]

the case itself was overturned but the quote is still an important example (really its about shouting it falsely)

and even though i went to wikipedia to refresh my memory i still knew this beforehand SORRY TWAY

[Smokey D]

But the only way to suppress free thought is to suppress free expression, so it's kind of a redundant idea.

I disagree. I can get together in a private forum of like minded people and discuss how much I hate Jews/black people/bunny rabbits and the state will have no need or authority to suppress me. Expression is only limited when I start doing things that cause public distress or disturbance.

Also, a better example for legally limited speech is stuff that pertains to national security, right to a fair trial (ie, you can't say someone is guilty before they've been proved guilty) and slander.

[Danger Bird]

Did you just compare black people to bunny rabbits I find this highly offensive sir.

[YDload]

rabbits reproduce much slower and more responsibly

oh man im so gonna get banned for that one BUT I KID I KID

[sweboy]

Clarification.
Ok, so you atleast admit that it serves to "actual" (in lack of better words) purpose, like other rights.
Sweboy if anyone else had admitted that they have no idea what the laws concerning religious freedom are like, they would not have made this thread. You still don't get it and yet you persist with your argument that has no ground at all.
Please reply to this post with actual arguments:
But what's stopping a government from doing what you suggested is the same rights that today stops the government from declaring Maradona the official state hero and forcing people to attend tribute soccer games every thursday. Besides, the right to say "I do not believe (in christianity)" would be granted to them by the freedom of thought, just as they would have the right to say "I do not believe that the earth is flat" or "I do not believe that the train will arrive on time". The government can not force people to believe in anything, religious things or non-religious things.
Why? As long as you don't directly interfere with someone's well-being, you should be allowed to practice/think what you want. Afterall, things like the First Amendment are designed to protect unpopular speech and the like. Just because you have freedom of expression doesn't mean that if something annoys you or whatnot you should have a right to quash those actions. Your first sentence here, quite frankly, scares me.
I think you misunderstood. Splat Out Plath says that people need to be protected from having religious beliefs imposed on them against their will. I say that people need to be protected from having any type of beliefs imposed on them against their will.

--------------------------------------------

The thing about freedom of religion is that it includes freedom of exercise of religion. But there is no freedom of exercise of religion. Other laws regulates all activities, religious ones and non-religious ones. But granting people this right gives them the idea that the right has legal significance, and it is often cited in questions regarding religious exercise.

For example, following the trials of the Swedish pastor Åke Green who bashed gays in a preaching, freedom of religion was a big part of the debate. His lawyer even used the claim that Green's freedom of religion had been violated as an argument in the trials. We can only hope it didn't affect the verdict, but this is a clear example of how freedom of religion is very problematic.

Freedom of religion has also caused problems in France, where the government's task to protect the people from religion has caused them to ban wearing of religious symbols in schools. Freedom of religion is a useless right that only causes problems.

[GreyHam]

i would have to say that the billions of active worshippers of religion would disagree with you there...

as previously stated, freedom of religion laws are designed to prevent the persecution of those who follow these religions from others. they are not given exceptions to the law. i honestly cannot see where your point is coming from, aside from the fact that you dislike religion and would rather see a world full of atheists

[peeted]

For example, following the trials of the Swedish pastor Åke Green who bashed gays in a preaching, freedom of religion was a big part of the debate. His lawyer even used the claim that Green's freedom of religion had been violated as an argument in the trials. We can only hope it didn't affect the verdict, but this is a clear example of how freedom of religion is very problematic.


Why should you have the right to badmouth religious people and Åke Green not have the right to badmouth gays?

[sweboy]

I never said that he shouldn't. I pointed out how freedom of religion was brought into the debate and even into the courts, when it in fact had nothing at all to do with it.

[Already_Taken]

The forefathers saw the correlation too. That is why they grouped freedom of religion in with the first amendment.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. So many dumb rednecks would get very mad if this were to be changed. You wouldn't be able to explain to them what the reasoning is.

[ringworm]

Why should you have the right to badmouth religious people and Åke Green not have the right to badmouth gays?
because its trendy to bash conservative roles, but its racist or bigoted to bash left-wing ideals
we live in a hypocritical land


So we agree that freedom of religion serves no purpose and should be abolished.
i see what you mean, but it would never go over easy

[shaqadelic]

Freedom of religion is not useless as long as religion exists in human society.

[The Stig]

Point of clarification:

Correct me if I'm wrong, then, Sweboy, but you're saying that since it's a redundancy through freedom of expression/speech that freedom from religion serves no purpose?


If that's the case, I think redundancy in that case can be a good thing. I cannot think of any examples off the top of my head, but there is probably someone who could interpret something to do with practicing religion that isn't covered by freedom of expression/speech. It may be a bad example, but Catholics drink a small amount of wine at each Mass during the Eucharist. In the United States, the drinking age is twenty-one, but I received my First Eucharist at the age of seven if I recall correctly. I wouldn't see this as a freedom of speech/expression issue, but as falling under freedom of expression of religion. If clauses protecting religion are removed from constitutions/statutes, there is nothing to protect this one act. As such, it could suddenly be considered illegal for Catholic churches to practice this section of the Eucharist, which along with the doctrine of transubstantiation forms one of the core tenets of the faith that sets it apart from other Cristian sects. I know it is a small example, but I'm sure there are other examples with religions I don't know as much about. It may be redundant at many points, but redundancies are helpful. It's like a nuclear powerplant that has redundant failsafe mechanisms. On first glance they may seem useless, but they do serve a purpose where there are grey areas.

[sweboy]

Point of clarification:

Correct me if I'm wrong, then, Sweboy, but you're saying that since it's a redundancy through freedom of expression/speech that freedom from religion serves no purpose?


If that's the case, I think redundancy in that case can be a good thing. I cannot think of any examples off the top of my head, but there is probably someone who could interpret something to do with practicing religion that isn't covered by freedom of expression/speech. It may be a bad example, but Catholics drink a small amount of wine at each Mass during the Eucharist. In the United States, the drinking age is twenty-one, but I received my First Eucharist at the age of seven if I recall correctly. I wouldn't see this as a freedom of speech/expression issue, but as falling under freedom of expression of religion. If clauses protecting religion are removed from constitutions/statutes, there is nothing to protect this one act. As such, it could suddenly be considered illegal for Catholic churches to practice this section of the Eucharist, which along with the doctrine of transubstantiation forms one of the core tenets of the faith that sets it apart from other Cristian sects. I know it is a small example, but I'm sure there are other examples with religions I don't know as much about. It may be redundant at many points, but redundancies are helpful. It's like a nuclear powerplant that has redundant failsafe mechanisms. On first glance they may seem useless, but they do serve a purpose where there are grey areas.

Yes, it is redundant. It may seem like it doesn't matter if it's there though, but it brings problems.

And your example is exactly an example of a problem that comes with freedom of religion. I am not very familiar with american alcohol consumption laws, but the thing is that people should never be granted extra rights because they posses certain beliefs, religious ones or not. Catholics should not be allowed to break alcohol laws just because they hold certain religious beliefs.

This is a very important principle, and when it's broken a lot of problems emerge. Now the government must rate different beliefs. Ok, the Catholics can break alcohol laws, how about the Satanists who wanna get loaded for their rituals? Weed for rastas? Should the hippie spiritualists be allowed to use LSD? What about the 15 year old kid who makes up his own religion and claims that cocaine use is a very importnant part of it? What religions are vaild and which are not? The government should never rate beliefs or even legally recognize that there are differences between different types of beliefs.

Other laws regulate activities, religious ones and non-religious ones. Religious beliefs should never be taken into consideration in legal issues, and that's why freedom of religion is very problematic, since it gives people the idea that they have the special right to exercise their religious practices, while in reality they do not. Everyone is equal under the law, no matter what beliefs they possess.

[YDload]

Sweboy you have no idea what you're talking about. You just thought of a stupid idea and decided to post it, which would be fine but this isn't the Pit.

[sweboy]

Still waiting for those arguments. Please.

And I didn't think of the idea, there's been a debate about this in Sweden for a while, following the publication of an article written by a bunch of humanists and philosophers (http://www.expressen.se/debatt/1.683581) presenting the idea, but I figured there was little point in posting the article since the general knowledge of Swedish is pretty low in this forum.

[YDload]

what argument? you don't know about the most important document that guarantees religious freedom, and you don't know what makes religious beliefs special from other beliefs. there's no point in arguing if you don't have a clue to begin with.

[Knifeboy]

Sweboy you have no idea what you're talking about. You just thought of a stupid idea and decided to post it, which would be fine but this isn't the Pit.

... Go back to the pit, this place is for discussion, not for useless ad hominem attacks


And if you had tried reading what Sweboy had posted, you'd realize this isn't about the American constitution. It's about the basic human rights, that are widely agreed upon among many countries.
And Sweboy brings up a great point

[YDload]

lol, no.

edit: i'm not attacking sweboy as a person, but his lack of understanding about the thing is entirely relevant to the topic. religion threads in general are usually pretty heated, so you really have to bring your A-game to these threads (so why haven't i? dunno lol)

[sweboy]

what argument?
Please reply to this post with actual arguments:
But what's stopping a government from doing what you suggested is the same rights that today stops the government from declaring Maradona the official state hero and forcing people to attend tribute soccer games every thursday. Besides, the right to say "I do not believe (in christianity)" would be granted to them by the freedom of thought, just as they would have the right to say "I do not believe that the earth is flat" or "I do not believe that the train will arrive on time". The government can not force people to believe in anything, religious things or non-religious things.
you don't know about the most important d0cument that guarantees religious freedom
Believe it or not, there is a world outside the USA, and I didn't want to focus the discussion on the laws of a specific nation, but keep it more general.
and you don't know what makes religious beliefs special from other beliefs.
Wtf mate. I say that the government should not define what beliefs are religious and which are not, or rate beliefs - they should not legally treat different types of beliefs in different ways. This means that I do not know what a religious belief is?

[Dave de Sylvia]

I disagree. I can get together in a private forum of like minded people and discuss how much I hate Jews/black people/bunny rabbits and the state will have no need or authority to suppress me. Expression is only limited when I start doing things that cause public distress or disturbance.
I don't understand what you mean.

Ok, so you atleast admit that it serves to "actual" (in lack of better words) purpose, like other rights.
Read any human rights declaration in the world. They all contain freedoms/rights which overlap and in many cases are completely covered by other freedoms/rights. It doesn't make them any less useful.

[YDload]

a redundant Constitution is the best kind.

[sweboy]

The redundancy is not the main problem. See lower section: http://www.sputnikmusic.com/forums/showpost.php?p=15173294&postcount=77

And YDload are you gonna respond to that post or just continue with random shouts and yammer?

[Dave de Sylvia]

For example, following the trials of the Swedish pastor Åke Green who bashed gays in a preaching, freedom of religion was a big part of the debate. His lawyer even used the claim that Green's freedom of religion had been violated as an argument in the trials. We can only hope it didn't affect the verdict, but this is a clear example of how freedom of religion is very problematic.
How is this problematic? Hate speech laws violate a bunch of freedoms.

Freedom of religion has also caused problems in France, where the government's task to protect the people from religion has caused them to ban wearing of religious symbols in schools. Freedom of religion is a useless right that only causes problems.
That's not the reason.

[YDload]

what else can i say? you just don't get it. religious freedom in America means that you can exercise religion however you want unless it infringes upon the rights of others. the free exercise clause of the united states constitution does not allow for personal harm, at least not in most court cases.

[Reaganista]

religious freedom in America means that you can exercise religion however you want unless it infringes upon the rights of others.
or unless your religion contains any completely victimless activities which congress sees fit to make illegal
or if you're a branch davidian

[YDload]

you mean like the native americans wanting to use peyote

[Dave de Sylvia]

I think he means polygamy.

[Reaganista]

or the rastafari
or mormons
or voodoo practitioners
or santeria
or the hmong

[DiesIrae]

At first, this may seem like just another religion bashing thread. And I guess that's what it is.

Religious beliefs are nothing special and require no categoric separation from other beliefs (such as the belief that Iceland is an island or that Tony Blair doesn't exist). The idea that some specific beliefs should be protected by special rights is strange and illogical. Religion is also difficult to define.

And in practice in the west, freedom of religion is often overruled by other rights, for example when it comes to issues such as child abuse, polygamy, animal sacrifice etc, demonstrating the flaws of freedom of religion.

Everything that needs to be covered regarding the rights of religious people is already covered by other rights; freedom of thought, speech, assembly etc. Freedom of religion is thus redundant. It is essentially already useless, but even if it wouldn't have been, why should people that believe in pink invisible unicorns be given rights that non-believers are not given?

I think abolishing would be more work than its worth.

[Reaganista]

no it would be easy we would just say
'hey guys we dont really mean it when we say 'free excercise thereof'

[Smokey D]

The thing about freedom of religion is that it includes freedom of exercise of religion. But there is no freedom of exercise of religion. Other laws regulates all activities, religious ones and non-religious ones. But granting people this right gives them the idea that the right has legal significance, and it is often cited in questions regarding religious exercise.

No. Freedom of religion is actually a group of rights (freedom of assembly, freedom of conscience, freedom of expression and probably a few others I can't think of) that various constitutions have decided to give special recognition to due to the incredibly important role religion has played in societies/people's lives until very recently. Abolishing freedom of religion would in itself do nothing; as you say, it is (semi-) redundant. However, by explicitly referring to freedom of religion and then abolishing it, you run the risk of suggesting it is somehow less important than any other bundle of the rights outlined above.

And more to the point, it doesn't matter if its cited in questions about religious practice because, constitutionally speaking, it is just commonly understood shorthand for 'freedom of assembly, freedom of conscience, freedom of expression and probably a few others I can't think of'.

I don't understand what you mean.

I mean it requires more than freedom of expression for freedom of thought.... I think.

[McKagan]

uh...ydload sweboy's just asking now who decides who's 'religious' beliefs are valid for holidays, be exempt from certain practises etc whereas if I chose to believe that I should get paid every day for the rest of my life, I probably wouldn't be, even though it is my belief or . That my belief is purely a belief but because it doesn't have the label as a religion it isn't as valid.

[DiesIrae]

no it would be easy we would just say
'hey guys we dont really mean it when we say 'free excercise thereof'

Oh yeah! I forgot that there would be nobody against it! :confused:

[Reaganista]

freedom of religion doesnt imply freedom of expression it implies freedom of religious expression

[sweboy]

How is this problematic? Hate speech laws violate a bunch of freedoms.
It is highly problematic that freedom of religion is brought up in legal discussions, it is a threat to the legal system. The lawyer claimed that Green's freedom of religion would be violated if he was convicted. But in reality there is no freedom of religion. What beliefs Green happens to have is irrelevant, the only thing that matters is what he actually said.
That's not the reason.
While the law can be partly seen as a reaction to radical muslims and young girls being forced to wear hijabs by their families, it is really just a continuation of the french laïcité principle and their struggle to keep schools neutral. But either way, it's wrong to ban religious symbols from school, and once again problems arise from freedom of religion when the government is forced to rate different beliefs and define what symbols are allowed in schools and which are not, what religions are valid and which are not. Once again, the government should not care about or rate people's beliefs.
No. Freedom of religion is actually a group of rights (freedom of assembly, freedom of conscience, freedom of expression and probably a few others I can't think of) that various constitutions have decided to give special recognition to due to the incredibly important role religion has played in societies/people's lives until very recently. Abolishing freedom of religion would in itself do nothing; as you say, it is (semi-) redundant. However, by explicitly referring to freedom of religion and then abolishing it, you run the risk of suggesting it is somehow less important than any other bundle of the rights outlined above.

And more to the point, it doesn't matter if its cited in questions about religious practice because, constitutionally speaking, it is just commonly understood shorthand for 'freedom of assembly, freedom of conscience, freedom of expression and probably a few others I can't think of'.

When people refer to freedom of religion, atleast in Europe, they don't refer to specific, arbitrary legal paragraphs containing this and that, but to a general legal principle: "there is freedom of religion in this country", understood as "I have the right to believe in anything and the right to practice my religion". In reality this isn't the case, but it is confiremd by legal d0cuments, which like illustrated results in problems. When religious organizations wants to start schools for their children, they use their freedom of religion as an argument to get permission, while in fact it doesn't come in to the question at all.

And rights should be designed in as good ways as possible, even if fixing them might send out unwanted signals.

[Dave de Sylvia]

uh...ydload sweboy's just asking now who decides who's 'religious' beliefs are valid for holidays, be exempt from certain practises etc whereas if I chose to believe that I should get paid every day for the rest of my life, I probably wouldn't be, even though it is my belief or . That my belief is purely a belief but because it doesn't have the label as a religion it isn't as valid.
That's because you don't believe your paycheck is the reason the world exists.

It is highly problematic that freedom of religion is brought up in legal discussions, it is a threat to the legal system. The lawyer claimed that Green's freedom of religion would be violated if he was convicted. But in reality there is no freedom of religion. What beliefs Green happens to have is irrelevant, the only thing that matters is what he actually said.
Not really, he used the free speech argument too. The religious freedom argument is just a further nuance.

While the law can be partly seen as a reaction to radical muslims and young girls being forced to wear hijabs by their families, it is really just a continuation of the french laïcité principle and their struggle to keep schools neutral. But either way, it's wrong to ban religious symbols from school, and once again problems arise from freedom of religion when the government is forced to rate different beliefs and define what symbols are allowed in schools and which are not, what religions are valid and which are not. Once again, the government should not care about or rate people's beliefs.
No, it's to make sure everyone wears the uniform. The same rule was in place in my private, Catholic school in Ireland, yet I think it would be a stretch to accuse my school authorities of discriminating against Catholic symbols.

[Smokey D]

When people refer to freedom of religion, atleast in Europe, they don't refer to specific, arbitrary legal paragraphs containing this and that, but to a general legal principle: "there is freedom of religion in this country", understood as "I have the right to believe in anything and the right to practice my religion". In reality this isn't the case, but it is confiremd by legal d0cuments, which like illustrated results in problems.


First of all, there's nothing arbitrary about those paragraphs.

Secondly, the general legal-social principle of freedom of religion is actually just a facet of the legal-social principle that we have reedom of assembly, freedom of conscience, freedom of expression etc.

Going by English Common Law (which is obviously different from civil law in Europe but I assume a similar principle exists), the general law can be abrogated by the inclusion of a specific provision (I shall find the phrase when I get my books). This means that you can have freedom of religion in a general sense that is nonetheless limited in other respects. It is the same for any legal right.

When religious organizations wants to start schools for their children, they use their freedom of religion as an argument to get permission, while in fact it doesn't come in to the question at all.

Why not? The right to teach your community what you believe is very much part of religious freedom...

[Already_Taken]

If the clause about freedom of religion wasn't there this thread would be titled.

"Freedom of religion : Implied in the 1st amendment?"

And then a debate would ensue.

Writing it in ink leaves no room for debate. Leave it.

[sweboy]

That's because you don't believe your paycheck is the reason the world exists.
This is where you go wrong. The government should not rate beliefs and decide which are valid and which are not, like you just did. If I claim that I believe that the universe was created by purple gnomes from the ninth dimension, should I be given different rights than the rest of the people?
Not really, he used the free speech argument too. The religious freedom argument is just a further nuance.Freedom of religion is absolutely not a further nuance, and that is very important. Please explain exactly why people's beliefs should influence how the law treats their actions.
No, it's to make sure everyone wears the uniform. The same rule was in place in my private, Catholic school in Ireland, yet I think it would be a stretch to accuse my school authorities of discriminating against Catholic symbols.
I think "school uniform only" would be a better way to put it than "no religious symbols" if the aim is to make sure everyone wears the uniform. And all french schools don't have uniforms anyway. But the only thing that matters is that it is wrong to ban religious symbols from school.First of all, there's nothing arbitrary about those paragraphs.

Secondly, the general legal-social principle of freedom of religion is actually just a facet of the legal-social principle that we have reedom of assembly, freedom of conscience, freedom of expression etc.

Going by English Common Law (which is obviously different from civil law in Europe but I assume a similar principle exists), the general law can be abrogated by the inclusion of a specific provision (I shall find the phrase when I get my books). This means that you can have freedom of religion in a general sense that is nonetheless limited in other respects. It is the same for any legal right.The common European has no idea whatsoever of what legal d0cuments actually state about religion. All they know is that they are guaranteed the right to practice their religion - which they actually aren't.Why not? The right to teach your community what you believe is very much part of religious freedom...The one and only thing that matters when deciding if someone should be allowed to start a school is if they can guarantee that the education laws will be followed and that the children will be given an objective and adequate teaching. What beliefs the school funders have is highly irrelevant. Freedom of religion doesn't come into it, yet it is always refered to in matters like these.

[Dave de Sylvia]

This is where you go wrong. The government should not rate beliefs and decide which are valid and which are not, like you just did.
I didn't say anything about the validity. I'm saying religious beliefs are distinct from ordinary beliefs like "I believe dinner is almost ready" and "I believe in a thing called love."

If I claim that I believe that the universe was created by purple gnomes from the ninth dimension, should I be given different rights than the rest of the people?
No. Then again your entire argument is based around the claim that religious people don't have different rights, so I don't see what relevance this question has.

Please explain exactly why people's beliefs should influence how the law treats their actions.
They don't. "Freedom of religious expression" is a subset of "freedom of expression." It's a pretty simple concept.

[sweboy]

I didn't say anything about the validity. I'm saying religious beliefs are distinct from ordinary beliefs like "I believe dinner is almost ready" and "I believe in a thing called love."
But the distinction is always subjective. The government would have to rate the beliefs and define which qualify as religious and which do not. This - highly problematic.

And apart from that, why specifically does it matter in the legal world that religious beliefs are different than non-religious?
No. Then again your entire argument is based around the claim that religious people don't have different rights, so I don't see what relevance this question has.
I asked the questions because you have argued for an affirmatory answer of it. But now, by saying no, you contradict yourself. You say:

A) It was right that Åke Green's freedom of religion was considered in the legal trial ("Not really, he used the free speech argument too. The religious freedom argument is just a further nuance.")
B) People's beliefs should not be considered in legal matters

[Dave de Sylvia]

But the distinction is always subjective. The government would have to rate the beliefs and define which qualify as religious and which do not. This - highly problematic.
No, it's not problematic at all.

And apart from that, why specifically does it matter in the legal world that religious beliefs are different than non-religious?
It doesn't. I'm responding to your ridiculous argument that there's no actual difference.

I asked the questions because you have argued for an affirmatory answer of it. But now, by saying no, you contradict yourself. You say:

A) It was right that Åke Green's freedom of religion was considered in the legal trial ("Not really, he used the free speech argument too. The religious freedom argument is just a further nuance.")
B) People's beliefs should not be considered in legal matters
I didn't say anything remotely like B.

[sweboy]

No, it's not problematic at all.
You honestly support a society where the government rates and values people's beliefs and religions, and, the logical continuation, where the government is forced to investigate wheather a person's religious beliefs are authentic or not?
I didn't say anything remotely like B.
Sweboy: "Please explain exactly why people's beliefs should influence how the law treats their actions."
Splat Out Plath: "They don't." (understood by me as "they shouldn't"?)

That is, you do not think that the belief of a person should influence how the law treats that person's actions - correct? If you think so, this contradicts your opinion that it was right that Åke Green's beliefs influenced how the law treated his actions.

[Dave de Sylvia]

You honestly support a society where the government rates and values people's beliefs and religions, and, the logical continuation, where the government is forced to investigate wheather a person's religious beliefs are authentic or not?
That's not even remotely logical. It's pretty easy to objectively classify a belief as "religious" or "not religious."

That is, you do not think that the belief of a person should influence how the law treats that person's actions - correct?
Correct.

If you think so, this contradicts your opinion that it was right that Åke Green's beliefs influenced how the law treated his actions.
His beliefs didn't- or shouldn't have- affected how his actions were treated. His defence was valid he was being persecuted for expressing his religious beliefs.

[YDload]

if i believe that all women with short dark hair should be raped and murdered by myself, that is no different than believing that God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son.

[Dave de Sylvia]

>_>

[Smokey D]

Freedom of religion is absolutely not a further nuance, and that is very important. Please explain exactly why people's beliefs should influence how the law treats their actions.

Colour of right. Oh snap.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colour_of_right

The common European has no idea whatsoever of what legal d0cuments actually state about religion. All they know is that they are guaranteed the right to practice their religion - which they actually aren't.

They're guaranteed to practice their religion within the confines of the law. Like they're guaranteed to speak freely or assemble within the confines of the law. You can't legally slander someone or conspire to murder someone by invoking the rights to free speech and assembly.

The one and only thing that matters when deciding if someone should be allowed to start a school is if they can guarantee that the education laws will be followed and that the children will be given an objective and adequate teaching. What beliefs the school funders have is highly irrelevant. Freedom of religion doesn't come into it, yet it is always refered to in matters like these.

Okay. What happens if religious schools can provide entirely adequate instruction and they do follow the education laws to a letter. There might be something additional to those two points which necessitate the founding of a school with a special religious character.

[Reaganista]

if i believe that all women with short dark hair should be raped and murdered by myself, that is no different than believing that God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son.
true enough
that's why we dont let people freely excercise their beliefs

[Oriah]

Different people like different religions, I think what you want is a more defined line between Church and State. In that degree of your argument I completely agree. To often are the laws of religion sway the laws of governments, you can see this in many countries. An example is Indonesia, they are mostly Muslim and it has a great impact on the government, the government enforces many Muslim laws (beliefs). And I'm sorry to say it screws up their political system and it's probably a reason why they are over populated and uneducated in that area and have terrorists running around. When more defined lines are made between church and state then the people can still have the right to freedom of thought and practices (within the laws of the state), but a strict line must be made. People should not be able to use their religion as a scape goat, handycap, or leverage for constructing laws.