How much religious freedom is needed?

[Nekostan-e Gharbi]

This is a complex issue here in the USA. My 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.

This is actually mostly an issue about the fact that freedom and parenting can not coexist. Religion is not really an indispensable aspect of it.

[Disgraces]

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.

Marxism isn't the only type of docialism

[Suriyanakhon]

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.

It would actually be physically impossible because the proletariat as a class hadn't come into existence yet.

Which is why saying Jesus was a socialist is not only wrong, but anachronistic.

Good thing Deacarsia isn't a real place.

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

I would rather Alcala-Cordel be real, I would undoubtedly be better treated there than in a Catholic state.

[Albrenia]

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'm fine with someone being able to opt to swap assignments with someone else (be it certifying a drivers' license, marriage or performing an abortion) for whatever reason, but if circumstances dictate that they're the only ones available to do the job, they should have to do their job like anyone else.

[Engadine Mcdonalds 1997]

I believe that the government should take no stance with religion in terms of policy making unless there are radical sects of a religion advocating harm against others within society, then it should be dealt with however they want through either policy implementation or harsh crackdowns, same as any other group. Because to be quite honest, I don't give a fuck about someone's religious preferences unless those people believe in radical bullshit that advocates for radical bullshit, worship your Allah, God or Yaway, I don't care and neither should the government

[Sundiata]

I would undoubtedly be better treated there than in a Catholic state.

Historically speaking, I don't presume you would be treated badly in Spain (one of many examples).

[Nekostan-e Gharbi]

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'm fine with someone being able to opt to swap assignments with someone else (be it certifying a drivers' license, marriage or performing an abortion) for whatever reason, but if circumstances dictate that they're the only ones available to do the job, they should have to do their job like anyone else.

I disagree. Nobody should have to actually violate their own morals. If someone can not do the job they should not have been assigned to the position in the first place.

[Odreria]

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'm fine with someone being able to opt to swap assignments with someone else (be it certifying a drivers' license, marriage or performing an abortion) for whatever reason, but if circumstances dictate that they're the only ones available to do the job, they should have to do their job like anyone else.

If you object to certifying drivers licenses, you should not be a drivers license certifier. Being a doctor is rather different, and I don’t think they should be forced to perform abortions, or any other medical procedure they are against - like stem cell therapy for example. But they shouldn’t be able to refuse medical service to women, which is the more relevant comparison.

[Sundiata]

Political integrism or integralism, if one is to legislate or design policy, is a necessary direction for every state that can reach the step. I am no liberal, not a secularist, not even a conservative. The church and state, while they should not be separate, have distinctive roles.

[Suriyanakhon]

I would undoubtedly be better treated there than in a Catholic state.

Historically speaking, I don't presume you would be treated badly in Spain (one of many examples).

In most countries such as Spain in times when Catholic clericalists had political control, people like me were usually punished pretty severely, whether this was during the Inquisition or the Francoist era.

[Washington Resistance Army]

I would undoubtedly be better treated there than in a Catholic state.

Historically speaking, I don't presume you would be treated badly in Spain (one of many examples).

Non-Christians haven't exactly been treated well in Christian states until the Renaissance came along and started the process of crippling the religions power in daily life.

[The Free Joy State]

People should have freedom of religion and from religion, unless their religion involves practises that are harmful to others or is enforced upon others against their will. Such excesses of religion should be curbed.

I would undoubtedly be better treated there than in a Catholic state.

Historically speaking, I don't presume you would be treated badly in Spain (one of many examples).

I would have been treated appallingly, historically, in Ireland, one of the other examples. They have taken great steps into the present day in recent years, and I would no longer term that to be the case.

But, with the Magdalene laundries (in which the state colluded to refer) and the restrictions on the lives of ordinary people (including girls as young as 12), I would term them to be a former Catholic police state.

[Sundiata]

Historically speaking, I don't presume you would be treated badly in Spain (one of many examples).

Non-Christians haven't exactly been treated well in Christian states until the Renaissance came along and started the process of crippling the religions power in daily life.

Well, what are you specifically referring to? Because I think that the particular answer isn't always the same even before the renaissance.

[Risottia]

NSG, what's your opinion on this issue?

In one's private home, when not involving anyone else and not damaging anyone: complete freedom.
In one's private home, when involving someone else: you don't get to impose your religion on anyone, especially not on minors.
On private premises that are open to the public AND specifically dedicated to religious worship: free worship and active proselytism within the bounds of law.
On private premises that are open to the public but NOT specifically dedicated to religious worship: free worship and active proselytism within the bounds of law and with the consent of the landlord.
On public premises: public religious practices require authorisation as it happens for any other cultural event in public. No active proselytism allowed.
In state or state-recognised schools: religion allowed only as cultural subject, no indoctrination into any religion allowed, no religious worship or proselytism allowed, no display of religious symbols on one's body or clothing allowed. Religious-specific events allowed as long as they are open to anyone and further knowledge about religions as cultural phenomenon.

[Sundiata]

Historically speaking, I don't presume you would be treated badly in Spain (one of many examples).

In most countries such as Spain in times when Catholic clericalists had political control, people like me were usually punished pretty severely, whether this was during the Inquisition or the Francoist era.

When you say political control what do you mean? Because even during the Franco-era the power of the church was constrained. For example, look at the life of a priest like Josemaria Escriva who was extremely limited in his ministry and had almost zero political influence. That is not religious freedom or even integrism.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Non-Christians haven't exactly been treated well in Christian states until the Renaissance came along and started the process of crippling the religions power in daily life.

Well, what are you specifically referring to? Because I think that the particular answer isn't always the same even before the renaissance.

Everything really lol. Theodosius and his successors wrote and enforced laws outlawing other religions and actively worked towards their destruction, several Saints from the era are famous for either encouraging or directly engaging in religious violence towards non-Christians, the entire history of European colonialism which especially in the Catholic nations was filled with religious fervor and led to a great many forced conversions, probably a whole lot more I could list but am too lazy to cuz it's 1 AM.

[Old Tyrannia]

I don't believe in religious freedom so much as in religious toleration. People should be permitted to believe in and practise whatever religious traditions they choose so long as they don't violate the laws and customs of the society in which they live- which, in my own country, should be derived from the values and teachings of the national church.

[The Free Joy State]

In most countries such as Spain in times when Catholic clericalists had political control, people like me were usually punished pretty severely, whether this was during the Inquisition or the Francoist era.

When you say political control what do you mean? Because even during the Franco-era the power of the church was constrained. For example, look at the life of a priest like Josemaria Escriva who was extremely limited in his ministry and had almost zero political influence. That is not religious freedom or even integrism.

Escriva was a vocal supporter of Franco, though, and his movement flourished under Franco (providing ministers to the government -- which is what Suriyanakhon means about Catholic clericists having political control, I think), so it wasn't like he was repressed. He also supported Hitler, offering to send all male members to fight on the Eastern Front.

Still, this is about religious freedom, not Escriva.

And, I've already raised how harmful the forced religion in Ireland was.

[The Alma Mater]

I'm fine with someone being able to opt to swap assignments with someone else (be it certifying a drivers' license, marriage or performing an abortion) for whatever reason, but if circumstances dictate that they're the only ones available to do the job, they should have to do their job like anyone else.

If you object to certifying drivers licenses, you should not be a drivers license certifier. Being a doctor is rather different, and I don’t think they should be forced to perform abortions, or any other medical procedure they are against - like stem cell therapy for example. But they shouldn’t be able to refuse medical service to women, which is the more relevant comparison.

Why is a doctor different ? Especially if the hospital he works in receives state funding ?
And of course, we can also throw teachers into the mix. Can they refuse to teach evolution, history that is longer than 6000 years, the holocaust etc ?

Or the reverse - should doctors and teachers be allowed to enforce their religious beliefs ? Auto-circumcision by the doctor, teaching young earth creationism for the teacher, abstinence only education etc. etc.

Perhaps we could devise some principles

[Nekostan-e Gharbi]

If you object to certifying drivers licenses, you should not be a drivers license certifier. Being a doctor is rather different, and I don’t think they should be forced to perform abortions, or any other medical procedure they are against - like stem cell therapy for example. But they shouldn’t be able to refuse medical service to women, which is the more relevant comparison.

Why is a doctor different ? Especially if the hospital he works in receives state funding ?

We need to separate elective operations from necessary ones. Abortion and gender reassignment are usually elective so it doesn’t really hurt anyone if it does not happen within an hour. Refusing medically necessary and even life-saving medical service is a different story.

[Sundiata]

When you say political control what do you mean? Because even during the Franco-era the power of the church was constrained. For example, look at the life of a priest like Josemaria Escriva who was extremely limited in his ministry and had almost zero political influence. That is not religious freedom or even integrism.

Escriva was a vocal supporter of Franco, though, and his movement flourished under Franco (providing ministers to the government -- which is what Suriyanakhon means about Catholic clericists having political control, I think), so it wasn't like he was repressed. He also supported Hitler, offering to send all male members to fight on the Eastern Front.

Still, this is about religious freedom, not Escriva.

And, I've already raised how harmful the forced religion in Ireland was.

There is a lot wrong with that guardian article. Escriva a fascist? No, Spain was not religiously free at the time. It was Escriva who was being coerced by Franco. Spain was not a religiously free place for anyone at that time, even Catholics.

I'm floored, a lot of that needs more context than given.

[Nekostan-e Gharbi]

I don't believe in religious freedom so much as in religious toleration. People should be permitted to believe in and practise whatever religious traditions they choose so long as they don't violate the laws and customs of the society in which they live- which, in my own country, should be derived from the values and teachings of the national church.

Ah this will inevitably lead to a lot of struggle.

Not allowing people to violate non-legal “customs of the society” is authoritarian and stifles innovation.

[The Free Joy State]

If you object to certifying drivers licenses, you should not be a drivers license certifier. Being a doctor is rather different, and I don’t think they should be forced to perform abortions, or any other medical procedure they are against - like stem cell therapy for example. But they shouldn’t be able to refuse medical service to women, which is the more relevant comparison.

Why is a doctor different ? Especially if the hospital he works in receives state funding ?
And of course, we can also throw teachers into the mix. Can they refuse to teach evolution, history that is longer than 6000 years, the holocaust etc ?

You know me, I'm as pro-choice as they come, but I do have to agree with Odreria that doctors should be able to opt-out of performing (non-emergency) abortions. Though, it should be advised that a doctor who is unable to perform an abortion should reconsider training in obstetrics and gynaecology and they should also be duty-bound to immediately refer to a doctor who can perform abortion. However, if they are the only person available and able and it is necessary to save a woman's life then, I'm sorry but, life takes priority.

As for the other examples, no. A child's future is too important and all schools, whether religious or secular, should have to teach objective facts.

[Nekostan-e Gharbi]

Why is a doctor different ? Especially if the hospital he works in receives state funding ?
And of course, we can also throw teachers into the mix. Can they refuse to teach evolution, history that is longer than 6000 years, the holocaust etc ?

You know me, I'm as pro-choice as they come, but I do have to agree with Odreria that doctors should be able to opt-out of performing (non-emergency) abortions. Though, it should be advised that a doctor who is unable to perform an abortion should not train in obstetrics and gynaecology and they should also be duty-bound to immediately refer to a doctor who can perform abortion. However, if they are the only person available and able and it is necessary to save a woman's life then, I'm sorry but, life takes priority.

As for the other examples, no. A child's future is too important and all schools, whether religious or secular, should have to teach objective facts.

What about national myths? Lol. I wish schools taught objective facts. The problem is that except for STEM most subjects taught in school are propagandistic. Can schools neither indoctrinate people in social liberalism nor social conservatism? Is it way too much to ask?

Nobody ever respects kids no matter what they say lmao.

[Old Tyrannia]

I don't believe in religious freedom so much as in religious toleration. People should be permitted to believe in and practise whatever religious traditions they choose so long as they don't violate the laws and customs of the society in which they live- which, in my own country, should be derived from the values and teachings of the national church.

Ah this will inevitably lead to a lot of struggle.

Not allowing people to violate non-legal “customs of the society” is authoritarian and stifles innovation.

All societies inevitably impose some set of values on the people who live in them. If that's authoritarian then all societies are authoritarian and if you want to be truly free then you should go live alone in a cabin in the middle of nowhere.