How much religious freedom is needed?

[Disgraces]

How come your nation is fully Catholic yet it isn't socialist?

Probably because Socialism as an ideology has been condemned by the Catholic Church in the recent past.

Jesus was still a "socialist" though

[Nekostan-e Gharbi]

To the maximum, even to give people the freedom to refuse to perform abortions if so they desire forninstance

So should a fundamentalist muslim be allowed to refuse to issue a drivers license to a woman without losing his job ?

Not allowing women to drive isn’t even a part of Islam itself. So I guess religious freedom does not cover this. Did Muhammad ever ban women from riding camels?

[The Alma Mater]

So should a fundamentalist muslim be allowed to refuse to issue a drivers license to a woman without losing his job ?

Not allowing women to drive isn’t even a part of Islam itself. So I guess religious freedom does not cover this.

So you and I would be the arbiters of what is and is not part of a religion, and not the believers themselves ?
Nice.

[Salus Maior]

Probably because Socialism as an ideology has been condemned by the Catholic Church in the recent past.

Jesus was still a "socialist" though

Do you want to explain how a man living in the first century AD adhered to an ideology intrinsically tied to the Industrial 19th century?

[Disgraces]

Jesus was still a "socialist" though

Do you want to explain how a man living in the first century AD adhered to an ideology intrinsically tied to the Industrial 19th century?

That's why I put socialist between quotes

[Salus Maior]

Do you want to explain how a man living in the first century AD adhered to an ideology intrinsically tied to the Industrial 19th century?

That's why I put socialist between quotes

Well, how was He "socialist" then. Why is that any sort of accurate descriptor?

I don't seem to recall Jesus saying that the proletariat should seize the means of production.

[Disgraces]

That's why I put socialist between quotes

Well, how was He "socialist" then. Why is that any sort of accurate descriptor?

I don't seem to recall Jesus saying that the proletariat should seize the means of production.

Mark 10:21-25. Do I have to say more?

[Albrenia]

So should a fundamentalist muslim be allowed to refuse to issue a drivers license to a woman without losing his job ?

Not allowing women to drive isn’t even a part of Islam itself. So I guess religious freedom does not cover this. Did Muhammad ever ban women from riding camels?

Should a Scientologist bus driver be able to refuse to let Suppressive Persons use public transport? Should a person who believes black people are 'children of Canaan' or whatever refuse to provide medical care to them?

Nah. Religious freedom does not include special benefits that other religions or non-religious people don't get.

[Nekostan-e Gharbi]

Not allowing women to drive isn’t even a part of Islam itself. So I guess religious freedom does not cover this. Did Muhammad ever ban women from riding camels?

Should a Scientologist bus driver be able to refuse to let Suppressive Persons use public transport? Should a person who believes black people are 'children of Canaan' or whatever refuse to provide medical care to them?

Nah. Religious freedom does not include special benefits that other religions or non-religious people don't get.

Well, religious freedom should not infringe on others’ freedom.

Otherwise you can have stuff such as Nazism repackaged into a religion.

[The Alma Mater]

Should a Scientologist bus driver be able to refuse to let Suppressive Persons use public transport? Should a person who believes black people are 'children of Canaan' or whatever refuse to provide medical care to them?

Nah. Religious freedom does not include special benefits that other religions or non-religious people don't get.

Well, religious freedom should not infringe on others’ freedom.

Otherwise you can have stuff such as Nazism repackaged into a religion.

So a doctor can not refuse to perform a procedure they disagree with on religious grounds, (e.g. abortion, blood transfusion, gender reassignment etc) or refuse to treat a member of the opposite sex, a bakery cannot refuse to sell gay wedding cakes*, a civil servant can not refuse to issue buildingpermits or drivers licences to jews/blacks/women, a muslim cashier cannot demand to not to handle pork and alcohol etc etc ?

__
* For the record: I disagree with this one myself

[Deacarsia]

I do not believe in the principle of religious freedom. All men have a moral obligation to worship God through His Church, as does the State.

However, in heterogeneous societies, some degree of religious toleration might a practical policy for the sake of public order, provided that the Church is given the full favor of the laws to the extent possible.

Thus, the Kingdom of Deacarsia, which I have designed as a wholely Catholic nation, is a fully confessional state, while the arrangement in other nations may vary as the situation may require.

Good thing Deacarsia isn't a real place.

It is better that Alcala-Cordel is not a real place.

[Nekostan-e Gharbi]

Well, religious freedom should not infringe on others’ freedom.

Otherwise you can have stuff such as Nazism repackaged into a religion.

So a doctor can not refuse to perform a procedure they disagree with on religious grounds, (e.g. abortion, blood transfusion, gender reassignment etc) or refuse to treat a member of the opposite sex, a bakery cannot refuse to sell gay wedding cakes*, a civil servant can not refuse to issue buildingpermits or drivers licences to jews/blacks/women, a muslim cashier cannot demand to not to handle pork and alcohol etc etc ?

__
* For the record: I disagree with this one myself

It’s really a case by case situation. Activities that mostly only impact oneself should be up to one’s freedom. Activities that affect others are different. For example gender reassignment surgery and most abortions do not have to be performed by all doctors. But not issuing drivers licenses to a group of people? Well, first of all is there even any legitimate religious grounds in major religions for that?

I think one red line needs to be drawn at the edge of collectivism. For example forcing women to wear hijab is definitely not an issue of religious freedom but coercion.

[The Alma Mater]

So a doctor can not refuse to perform a procedure they disagree with on religious grounds, (e.g. abortion, blood transfusion, gender reassignment etc) or refuse to treat a member of the opposite sex, a bakery cannot refuse to sell gay wedding cakes*, a civil servant can not refuse to issue buildingpermits or drivers licences to jews/blacks/women, a muslim cashier cannot demand to not to handle pork and alcohol etc etc ?

__
* For the record: I disagree with this one myself

It’s really a case by case situation. Activities that mostly only impact oneself should be up to one’s freedom. Activities that affect others are different. For example gender reassignment surgery and most abortions do not have to be performed by all doctors. But not issuing drivers licenses to a group of people? Well, first of all is there even any legitimate religious grounds in major religions for that?

As I mentioned earlier - is that not up to the believer ? You and I can think that the Qu'ran does not say women should not drive and 99,9% of muslims can agree with us - but does that mean it is not a real religious concern for the remaining 0,1% ?

[Salus Maior]

Well, how was He "socialist" then. Why is that any sort of accurate descriptor?

I don't seem to recall Jesus saying that the proletariat should seize the means of production.

Mark 10:21-25. Do I have to say more?

That’s actually pretty opposed to Marxist assumptions. As it’s strictly an act opposed to materialism, Christ told him to give up his wealth for spiritual, immaterial gain.

You know, those things that Marx called opium.

[Nekostan-e Gharbi]

It’s really a case by case situation. Activities that mostly only impact oneself should be up to one’s freedom. Activities that affect others are different. For example gender reassignment surgery and most abortions do not have to be performed by all doctors. But not issuing drivers licenses to a group of people? Well, first of all is there even any legitimate religious grounds in major religions for that?

As I mentioned earlier - is that not up to the believer ? You and I can think that the Qu'ran does not say women should not drive and 99,9% of muslims can agree with us - but does that mean it is not a real religious concern for the remaining 0,1% ?

In this case I think such people simply need to be fired or reassigned to other positions since issuing drivers’ license to people regardless of gender and race is an integral part of the job which such a person is unable to perform. The religious freedom of the individual not to do the job and the fact that such a job needs to be done both need to be respected, by firing or reassigning them.

[The Alma Mater]

As I mentioned earlier - is that not up to the believer ? You and I can think that the Qu'ran does not say women should not drive and 99,9% of muslims can agree with us - but does that mean it is not a real religious concern for the remaining 0,1% ?

In this case I think such people simply need to be fired or reassigned to other positions since issuing drivers’ license to people regardless of gender and race is an integral part of the job which such a person is unable to perform. The religious freedom of the individual not to do the job and the fact that such a job needs to be done both need to be respected, by firing or reassigning them.

Fair. What about performing/registering a gay marriage ?

[Nekostan-e Gharbi]

In this case I think such people simply need to be fired or reassigned to other positions since issuing drivers’ license to people regardless of gender and race is an integral part of the job which such a person is unable to perform. The religious freedom of the individual not to do the job and the fact that such a job needs to be done both need to be respected, by firing or reassigning them.

Fair. What about performing/registering a gay marriage ?

The same if it is a government since gay marriage is a fairly significant amount of marriages that are legally recognized so people on the public job need to actually register them. If they are unwilling to do so they are not fit for the position.

A church or mosque should be allowed to not perform a gay marriage out of religious principles but as long as gay marriage is legally recognized it need to be allowed to actually happen.

[Bombadil]

I'd personally get rid of all religious institutions while leaving the freedom to believe as you want - religion should be personal and your relationship to whatever god you wish to believe in..

..but no institutions telling you what to do, how much money you should give them, what everyone else should do.. get rid of all those.

[Nekostan-e Gharbi]

I think what happened outside abortion clinics was pretty good. Abortion is legal hence it needs to be allowed to happen, that is, people should not be allowed to block entrance to abortion providers. At the same time anti-abortion activists are free to advocate against abortion since it is within their freedom of speech as long as they don’t physically prevent abortion from happening (which is coercion).

The point is of course maximizing individual freedom and minimizing coercion in the society. We need to allow both the Amish and the drag queen to exist because such freedom nurtured innovative people such as Bill Gates and numerous scientists.

[The Alma Mater]

Fair. What about performing/registering a gay marriage ?

The same if it is a government since gay marriage is a fairly significant amount of marriages that are legally recognized so people on the public job need to actually register them. If they are unwilling to do so they are not fit for the position.

So you disagree with e.g. the Dutch solution ? Gay marriage was legalised in the Netherlands 20 years ago. Civil servants hired since then are obligated to register the marriage; but if they were already employed before they can refuse and refer to a colleague.
There is an ever increasing call to get rid of these "weigerambtenaren", pointing out that having had 20 years to find another job is plenty; but the christian parties resist all those efforts.

[Nekostan-e Gharbi]

The same if it is a government since gay marriage is a fairly significant amount of marriages that are legally recognized so people on the public job need to actually register them. If they are unwilling to do so they are not fit for the position.

So you disagree with e.g. the Dutch solution ? Gay marriage was legalised in the Netherlands 20 years ago. Civil servants hired since then are obligated to register the marriage; but if they were already employed before they can refuse and refer to a colleague.
There is an ever increasing call to get rid of these "weigerambtenaren", pointing out that having had 20 years to find another job is plenty; but the christian parties resist all those efforts.

I disagree with it. The issue here is that governments need to be unbiased. So if gay marriage is allowed it needs to actually be able to happen and those who do not register them are by definition no longer fit for the position. The bureaucracy is not where moral crusading and activism of any kind should be allowed to happen or chaos will ensue.

[Odreria]

Religious freedom has become a phrase filled with controversy, as more and more people question what religious freedom means. One reason are policies created by either pro-secular or pro-religion governments worldwide, ranging from abortion access to serving customers and religious apparel. Something which needs to be determined sooner or later is what limits or lack thereof should be placed on freedom of religion. Should someone be able to deny service to customers on basis of religious ideals, for instance? Should people be banned from wearing religious icons in public if seen as offensive? Should doctors be able to refuse abortions due to their own faith? And what should be done about potentially dangerous cults?

NSG, what's your opinion on this issue? I look forward to hearing from all of you.

Personal opinion: religious freedom should be given to the maximum amount where it doesn't affect the ability of others to enjoy life. People should be free to worship and spread any religion they wish in whichever way they desire so far as it doesn't restrict anyone.

---

Various definitions of religious freedom
Canadian Government: "The right to entertain such religious beliefs as a person chooses, the right to declare religious beliefs openly and without fear of hindrance or reprisal, and the right to manifest religious belief by worship and practise or by teaching and dissemination”.
Wikipedia: "Freedom of religion or religious liberty is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or community, in public or private, to manifest religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance."
ACLU: "Prohibits government from encouraging or promoting ("establishing") religion in any way" and "the right to practice his or her own religion, or no religion at all."

People who run public stores should have to serve anyone, within reason (ie not if they are creating a disturbance, detonating explosives, etc). Nobody should have to create artwork that contradicts their beliefs.

Abortion isn’t a religious freedom issue. Nobody should be forced to perform an abortion, that’s insane.

Religious icons should be allowed.

Cults should be prosecuted if they do stuff that’s illegal.

[Nekostan-e Gharbi]

In general on most issues I tend to propose solutions that allow as many people to be happy as possible, not moral crusading.

[Nekostan-e Gharbi]

Religious freedom has become a phrase filled with controversy, as more and more people question what religious freedom means. One reason are policies created by either pro-secular or pro-religion governments worldwide, ranging from abortion access to serving customers and religious apparel. Something which needs to be determined sooner or later is what limits or lack thereof should be placed on freedom of religion. Should someone be able to deny service to customers on basis of religious ideals, for instance? Should people be banned from wearing religious icons in public if seen as offensive? Should doctors be able to refuse abortions due to their own faith? And what should be done about potentially dangerous cults?

NSG, what's your opinion on this issue? I look forward to hearing from all of you.

Personal opinion: religious freedom should be given to the maximum amount where it doesn't affect the ability of others to enjoy life. People should be free to worship and spread any religion they wish in whichever way they desire so far as it doesn't restrict anyone.

---

Various definitions of religious freedom
Canadian Government: "The right to entertain such religious beliefs as a person chooses, the right to declare religious beliefs openly and without fear of hindrance or reprisal, and the right to manifest religious belief by worship and practise or by teaching and dissemination”.
Wikipedia: "Freedom of religion or religious liberty is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or community, in public or private, to manifest religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance."
ACLU: "Prohibits government from encouraging or promoting ("establishing") religion in any way" and "the right to practice his or her own religion, or no religion at all."

People who run public stores should have to serve anyone, within reason (ie not if they are creating a disturbance, detonating explosives, etc). Nobody should have to create artwork that contradicts their beliefs.

Abortion isn’t a religious freedom issue. Nobody should be forced to perform an abortion, that’s insane.

Religious icons should be allowed.

Cults should be prosecuted if they do stuff that’s illegal.

Stores are trickier. Theoretically since they are privately owned people should be allowed to decide who they serve. However in practice you get weird things. They are really only an (non-religious) issue in the United States because in Eurasia people do not tend to refuse to serve customers due to their race. That’s extremely odd in most societies so I guess they really don’t have this issue.

I guess for the purpose of curbing rampant collectivism it is necessary to force stores to serve all customers. There is really no legit economic reason to restrict customers demographically so the restriction isn’t a violation of business freedom.

[Karlopetrus]

My primary concern is for children who become indoctrinated in a particular religion, something I oppose. I see this as a form of intellectual and emotional abuse. I am also opposed to allowing genital mutilation of boys or girls in the name of the religious freedom of the parents. I am against teaching children any belief that contradicts science. When it comes to freedom, I think the freedom of children to not be mutilated, indoctrinated, or kept in ignorance, is far more important than any right of parents to practice their religion at the expense of children. In other words, I see this as a children rights issue more than anything else.

[Clarification]

I should clarify what I mean by "indoctrination". I apply it to brainwashing children to believe in religions other than my own, which I regard as true. I suppose most believers regard their own religion as true. I think there must be only one true religion because there is only one reality, but actually I don't like the word "religion." If one's beliefs are true, then it is not indoctrination, but education, just as in the case of science.