NationStates

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."

Ideally, everyone should be allowed to practice their religion and believe in whatever they want. But because some people use religion as an excuse to harm other people, that should be restricted and religious freedom should not allow anyone to harm another person.

Enough to practice it without harassment and not harass others.

It's absolutely vital that freedom of (and from) religion is upheld. No faith should be enforced, promoted or prohibited by the government, and it should have no place in making laws. State atheism is just as toxic as state religion, and true secularism is the way to freedom for all.

Exceptions to this include any activity which harms others or otherwise breaks the law. All should be equal before the law, religious or not.

Religious people shouldn't be able to control anything that affects nonreligious people for religious reasons, and they shouldn't be allowed to harm anyone or attempt to intimidate them. I also think they shouldn't be allowed to go up to people and recruit in public spaces, going door-to-door, or on TV commercials. Religious organizations should also be strictly prohibited from trying to influence government institutions. Oh, and they shouldn't be allowed to deny education to their children.

At the same time, people shouldn't be harmed or singled out for their religious beliefs.

Enough so that decent people can live in peace.

Sanghyeok wrote: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."

Full individual freedom of religion. Note that this inherently contradicts the concept of a family, ethnic or state religion.

Just like almost everything else I want and most people profess to want, individual religious freedom is not compatible with the existence of families and children lol.

Nekostan-e Gharbi wrote:Just like almost everything else I want and most people profess to want, individual religious freedom is not compatible with the existence of families and children lol.

How so? As long as children are free to discount what their parents teach them about religion, or not, as they wish, I don't see the inherent contradiction.

Albrenia wrote:

Nekostan-e Gharbi wrote:Just like almost everything else I want and most people profess to want, individual religious freedom is not compatible with the existence of families and children lol.

How so? As long as children are free to discount what their parents teach them about religion, or not, as they wish, I don't see the inherent contradiction.

The problem is that it almost never works like that in practice since parentism and rights are not compatible. A fully individualistic variant of Judaism, Catholicism or Islam may be something very weird. For example what will happen if Sharia is simply a religious and moral guide with all its enforcement removed?

A great deal, except when it conflicts with civil rights. In that case, the civil right should overrule the religious right.

Including bodily autonomy. This is referring to more than just abortion.

Stellar Colonies wrote:A great deal, except when it conflicts with civil rights. In that case, the civil right should overrule the religious right.

Including bodily autonomy. This is referring to more than just abortion.

Individual religious rights actually don’t contradict the existence of abortion. What contradicts it is religion-inspired bans. That is, only collectivism can hamper rights.

Yes.

Borderlands of Rojava wrote:Yes.

Yes to this, and yes to religious freedom.

Potentially unorthodox opinion but I largely support freedoms (sans for groups like Scientology which are just blatant scams made to harm people) but think things like proselytism should by and large not be legal.

Washington Resistance Army wrote:Potentially unorthodox opinion but I largely support freedoms (sans for groups like Scientology which are just blatant scams made to harm people) but think things like proselytism should by and large not be legal.

Well should religious entities be permitted to run TV channels?

Washington Resistance Army wrote:Potentially unorthodox opinion but I largely support freedoms (sans for groups like Scientology which are just blatant scams made to harm people) but think things like proselytism should by and large not be legal.

That sounds reasonable and the best implementation of religious freedom possible.

enough, and no more

Greater Cesnica wrote:

Washington Resistance Army wrote:Potentially unorthodox opinion but I largely support freedoms (sans for groups like Scientology which are just blatant scams made to harm people) but think things like proselytism should by and large not be legal.

Well should religious entities be permitted to run TV channels?

I've seen enough televangelists to say no con artists the lot of them.

Washington Resistance Army wrote:

Greater Cesnica wrote:Well should religious entities be permitted to run TV channels?

I've seen enough televangelists to say no con artists the lot of them.

Bad precedent.

I think freedom of religion is one of the most important rights anyone could have, usually the first things a communist or fascist government does after coming to power is removing freedom of religion, arresting/killing clergymen, destroying places of worship, etc. The reason for that is simple, freedom of religion threatens the very nature of these governments. When you believe in God or any higher power, that means there is something above the state, that even the state has no influence over. This type of thought is very dangerous to totalitarian governments, so they try to wipe out religion

Washington Resistance Army wrote:

Greater Cesnica wrote:Well should religious entities be permitted to run TV channels?

I've seen enough televangelists to say no con artists the lot of them.

While we're at it let's take down the con artists in the news media as well.

Kexholm Karelia wrote:I think freedom of religion is one of the most important rights anyone could have, usually the first things a communist or fascist government does after coming to power is removing freedom of religion, arresting/killing clergymen, destroying places of worship, etc. The reason for that is simple, freedom of religion threatens the very nature of these governments. When you believe in God or any higher power, that means there is something above the state, that even the state has no influence over. This type of thought is very dangerous to totalitarian governments, so they try to wipe out religion

You are correct about totalitarianism despising all other forums of authority. One might get a pass if it's a religion that supports the tyrant in question, sometimes.

Another reason to keep it around. Also helps that it keeps crazy religious governing bodies from punishing faithless curs like me for not bowing before their deity.

Salus Maior wrote:

Washington Resistance Army wrote:
I've seen enough televangelists to say no con artists the lot of them.

While we're at it let's take down the con artists in the news media as well.

Very good take. The media needs shaken up in a big way.

Washington Resistance Army wrote:

Salus Maior wrote:
While we're at it let's take down the con artists in the news media as well.

Very good take. The media needs shaken up in a big way.

Ok. First we do Religion and then we do the Media.

My main gripe with the term religious freedom is that it's often used as an excuse for bigotry.


Believe whatever you like, but don't hide behind religion to disguise your discrimination.