Freedom of religion, or freedom from it?

[Machaut]

Which is the better policy: The freedom of religion, or the freedom from it? Note that for the purposes of this thread, "freedom from religion" refers ONLY to the banning of some, most, or all religious expressions (including the wearing of religious symbols) in public, not the banning of religion entirely, while "freedom of religion" refers to the ability to freely teach, practice, worship, and proselytize in public.

Freedom of religion or Freedom of belief 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; the concept is generally recognized also to include the freedom to change religion or not to follow any religion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion

In December 2003, President Jacques Chirac decided to act on the part of the Stasi report which recommended banning conspicuous religious symbols from schools. This meant that the legislature could adopt the recommendations, according to the emergency procedure, in January or February, ready for application at the start of the next school year in September 2004.

In order to enforce the law, effective decisions whether certain items are "ostentatious" or not will have to be taken. In order to achieve that:

the Minister of Education will issue circulaires, or instructions for its services; it seems that large crosses, full hijabs or yarmulkes would be banned, while small symbols such as small Stars of David or crosses in pendants would not be;
headmasters will have to judge whether particular attire is or not acceptable with respect to the law;
if necessary, families will go to administrative courts to challenge the school authorities' decision; a final decision may not be reached until the Conseil d'État at litigation (supreme administrative court), decides some points of jurisprudence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_law_on_secularity_and_conspicuous_religious_symbols_in_schools

Is a society better off if all religions have a place at the shouting match, or if none of them do? Should certain religions or certain forms of religious expression, be banned in particular, while the rights of other religions or expressions thereof are protected? Discuss.

 

[occupied]

To me the term "freedom from religion" means that our laws should be free from narrow religious influence, it also means that religious folks are free to do every thing their faith requires except directly participate in politics as an organized group or use the mechanism of government for the purposes of indoctrination.

 

[Pennywise]

The US is quickly becoming the latter, and that was never the intention of the founders.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Which is the better policy: The freedom of religion, or the freedom from it? Note that for the purposes of this thread, "freedom from religion" refers ONLY to the banning of some, most, or all religious expressions (including the wearing of religious symbols) in public, not the banning of religion entirely, while "freedom of religion" refers to the ability to freely teach, practice, worship, and proselytize in public.

Freedom of religion or Freedom of belief 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; the concept is generally recognized also to include the freedom to change religion or not to follow any religion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion

In December 2003, President Jacques Chirac decided to act on the part of the Stasi report which recommended banning conspicuous religious symbols from schools. This meant that the legislature could adopt the recommendations, according to the emergency procedure, in January or February, ready for application at the start of the next school year in September 2004.

In order to enforce the law, effective decisions whether certain items are "ostentatious" or not will have to be taken. In order to achieve that:

the Minister of Education will issue circulaires, or instructions for its services; it seems that large crosses, full hijabs or yarmulkes would be banned, while small symbols such as small Stars of David or crosses in pendants would not be;
headmasters will have to judge whether particular attire is or not acceptable with respect to the law;
if necessary, families will go to administrative courts to challenge the school authorities' decision; a final decision may not be reached until the Conseil d'État at litigation (supreme administrative court), decides some points of jurisprudence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_law_on_secularity_and_conspicuous_religious_symbols_in_schools

Is a society better off if all religions have a place at the shouting match, or if none of them do? Should certain religions or certain forms of religious expression, be banned in particular, while the rights of other religions or expressions thereof are protected? Discuss.

Neither is the 'better' policy.

In the United States we are fortunate to have a Constitution and its case law that seeks to balance the two, where Establishment Clause jurisprudence prohibits unwarranted government involvement with religion, preserving the doctrine of separation of church and state, and Free Exercise jurisprudence that ensures citizens are at liberty to practice their faith they wish, or remain free from religious practice altogether.

Note that these restrictions apply only to government, not to private persons or organizations.

Note also that when the Establishment Clause prohibits an un-Constitutional conjoining of church and state, such as compelled religious observances in public schools, this does not manifest a 'violation' of religious liberty, as private persons remain free to practice their faith, simply not at the behest of government (see, e.g., Edwards v.Aguillard (1987)).

 

[Machaut]

Which is the better policy: The freedom of religion, or the freedom from it? Note that for the purposes of this thread, "freedom from religion" refers ONLY to the banning of some, most, or all religious expressions (including the wearing of religious symbols) in public, not the banning of religion entirely, while "freedom of religion" refers to the ability to freely teach, practice, worship, and proselytize in public.

Freedom of religion or Freedom of belief 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; the concept is generally recognized also to include the freedom to change religion or not to follow any religion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion

In December 2003, President Jacques Chirac decided to act on the part of the Stasi report which recommended banning conspicuous religious symbols from schools. This meant that the legislature could adopt the recommendations, according to the emergency procedure, in January or February, ready for application at the start of the next school year in September 2004.

In order to enforce the law, effective decisions whether certain items are "ostentatious" or not will have to be taken. In order to achieve that:

the Minister of Education will issue circulaires, or instructions for its services; it seems that large crosses, full hijabs or yarmulkes would be banned, while small symbols such as small Stars of David or crosses in pendants would not be;
headmasters will have to judge whether particular attire is or not acceptable with respect to the law;
if necessary, families will go to administrative courts to challenge the school authorities' decision; a final decision may not be reached until the Conseil d'État at litigation (supreme administrative court), decides some points of jurisprudence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_law_on_secularity_and_conspicuous_religious_symbols_in_schools

Is a society better off if all religions have a place at the shouting match, or if none of them do? Should certain religions or certain forms of religious expression, be banned in particular, while the rights of other religions or expressions thereof are protected? Discuss.

Neither is the 'better' policy.

In the United States we are fortunate to have a Constitution and its case law that seeks to balance the two, where Establishment Clause jurisprudence prohibits unwarranted government involvement with religion, preserving the doctrine of separation of church and state, and Free Exercise jurisprudence that ensures citizens are at liberty to practice their faith they wish, or remain free from religious practice altogether.

You say that neither policy is better, yet in your explanation, you seem to praise the freedom of religion as defined in the Wikipedia excerpt above. Can you elaborate on your response a bit more?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

To me the term "freedom from religion" means that our laws should be free from narrow religious influence, it also means that religious folks are free to do every thing their faith requires except directly participate in politics as an organized group or use the mechanism of government for the purposes of indoctrination.

In others words, some prevailing opinion or another about what does and does not constitute permissible expression in the political arena should be arbitrarily imposed by the state at the behest of one faction or another.

Now, I know that many are either unwilling or unable to wrap their minds around the reality of the construct of freedom from religion, but, invariably, that is the reality.

Actually, the construct derives from the Jacobins of the French Revolution, the precursors of the Bolsheviks.

Those of us who grasp the reality of it, call it the tyranny of statist thugs of the atheistic or secularist kind.

And in spite of what Clayton Jones suggested in the above, the traditional understanding of freedom of religion is perfectly compatible with the imperatives of natural and constitutional law. What is not compatible with them are any cultural/educational regimes of the state wherein freedom of choice/free-association is artificially impeded by one faction or another and, consequently, wherein one ideology is imposed on all by one faction or another. In other words, it's not the peoples' ideological convictions, whether they be religious or not, that are problematical relative to the imperatives of liberty, but the idiocy of collectivistic schemes that one size fits all.

Hocus Pocus. Now you see it, or perhaps you still don't.

It shouldn't surprise anybody that guno, who is a flaming socialist, self-servingly endorses the collectivistic tyranny of freedom from religion, which is essentially the stuff of telling those with whom secularists and atheists disagree to shut up or else. But I see right through them.

See link: Prufrock's Lair: Revisions and Divisions

 

[LiberalMedia]

The only acceptable mode of religious freedom is the freedom from religion; to institute a freedom of religion would be to allow the tyranny of global patriarchy to reign alongside civil government, and to allow their oppressive, abusive attitudes toward womyn and minorities to pervade every aspect of lyfe unfettered.

Ban all religion and you automatically solve the majority of the wyrld's problems--violence, poverty, discrimination, and so on.

 

[Kosh]

As much as the far left loves to run on about such topics (and they prove they do not understand anything beyond their programming). The fact of the matter is that religion is intertwined with government especially in the terms of "Marriage"..

Since "Marriage" is spread among many of the religions on this planet is recognized as a religious tradition. So the whole things of "separation of church and state" will never happen until you get the government out of the business of "Marriage".

The government can not establish a national religion, but nor can it deny any the free exercise of that religion (in some cases it can as it violates laws).

For instance their is an Indian tribe in the west that uses the bald eagle in it's religious ceremonies. They protested the government when they deemed the bald eagle an endangered species and would not allow the Indian tribes to practice their religion.

It is easy for the far let to make things political and claim "rights" where none really exists all in the effort of political slavery.

Nor was the role of this government designed to provide for the people (again the far left talking points will say different). The government was supposed to work for the people not the other way around. Many on the far left view government as their God so in essence what they want the government to do is based on a religious belief and not anything else.

But as has already been posted to this thread the far left will demonstrate how they will twist this meaning to whatever they want to justify their stance.

 

[westwall]

The only acceptable mode of religious freedom is the freedom from religion; to institute a freedom of religion would be to allow the tyranny of global patriarchy to reign alongside civil government, and to allow their oppressive, abusive attitudes toward womyn and minorities to pervade every aspect of lyfe unfettered.

Ban all religion and you automatically solve the majority of the wyrld's problems--violence, poverty, discrimination, and so on.

Really? How did that work for that progressive wonderland Soviet Russia? After 80 million dead they allowed religion to be practiced again and adopted more free market policies than even the US enjoys currently.

Atheism clearly failed in that respect. Let's see...it failed in China and Cambodia too. Managed to murder a shitload of people though. So I guess if that's your goal then yeah, banish religion. See how long you get to live then...

 

[Avatar4321]

Our society is not benefited from giving governments power to eliminate speech that threatens their power.

 

[LiberalMedia]

The only acceptable mode of religious freedom is the freedom from religion; to institute a freedom of religion would be to allow the tyranny of global patriarchy to reign alongside civil government, and to allow their oppressive, abusive attitudes toward womyn and minorities to pervade every aspect of lyfe unfettered.

Ban all religion and you automatically solve the majority of the wyrld's problems--violence, poverty, discrimination, and so on.

Really? How did that work for that progressive wonderland Soviet Russia? After 80 million dead they allowed religion to be practiced again and adopted more free market policies than even the US enjoys currently.

Atheism clearly failed in that respect. Let's see...it failed in China and Cambodia too. Managed to murder a shitload of people though. So I guess if that's your goal then yeah, banish religion. See how long you get to live then...

Correlation does not equal causation. I thought you knew that.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The only acceptable mode of religious freedom is the freedom from religion; to institute a freedom of religion would be to allow the tyranny of global patriarchy to reign alongside civil government, and to allow their oppressive, abusive attitudes toward womyn and minorities to pervade every aspect of lyfe unfettered.

Ban all religion and you automatically solve the majority of the wyrld's problems--violence, poverty, discrimination, and so on.

Wow! Just wow! Freedom of religion is what we have in American now! Freedom from religion, like I said, is the stuff of statists thugs declaring what is and is not permissible, i.e., the universal imposition of their religion. Thanks for affirming that. By the way, why did you thank me in the above . . . uh . . . womyn? Or is the singular form of a different spelling?

Will we all have to spell like you too? Y's everywhere?

Are you pulling on our legs?

As for patriarchy, mind your own business and there won't be none.

On patriarchy: http://www.usmessageboard.com/usmb-badlands/364693-richard-strauss-nearly-a-nazi-4.html#post9470417

 

[Taz]

Religion is free to oppress anyone who lets it. And people are free to let themselves be oppressed and deluded by bullshit if they so choose. Ain't America great?

 

[Kosh]

The only acceptable mode of religious freedom is the freedom from religion; to institute a freedom of religion would be to allow the tyranny of global patriarchy to reign alongside civil government, and to allow their oppressive, abusive attitudes toward womyn and minorities to pervade every aspect of lyfe unfettered.

Ban all religion and you automatically solve the majority of the wyrld's problems--violence, poverty, discrimination, and so on.

Really? How did that work for that progressive wonderland Soviet Russia? After 80 million dead they allowed religion to be practiced again and adopted more free market policies than even the US enjoys currently.

Atheism clearly failed in that respect. Let's see...it failed in China and Cambodia too. Managed to murder a shitload of people though. So I guess if that's your goal then yeah, banish religion. See how long you get to live then...

Correlation does not equal causation. I thought you knew that.

Which means Westwall hit the nail right on the head and the far left can not admit they are wrong! The far left would much rather see the world burn than admit they were wrong!

 

[LiberalMedia]

As much as the far left loves to run on about such topics (and they prove they do not understand anything beyond their programming). The fact of the matter is that religion is intertwined with government especially in the terms of "Marriage"..

Since "Marriage" is spread among many of the religions on this planet is recognized as a religious tradition. So the whole things of "separation of church and state" will never happen until you get the government out of the business of "Marriage".

This is absolutely backward reasoning that can only be seen coming from conservatards.

It isn't government that needs to be thrown out of the marriage issue, it's religion. Religion has NO PLACE telling me who I can and cannot marry--not that I would ever choose to marry as it is a form of slavery, even when done in glorious lysbyyn union, but that's best saved for another discussion.

Marriage is a legal concept, not a religious one. It is a contract between two or more pyrsyns that spells out ryghts and oblygations, just like any other contract. Fundamentalist Christ-stains took over the institution of marriage unjustly and unlawfully, and now they're furious that they're being made to relinquish their power of social engineering and surrender it back to We the Pyyple.

 

[Mad Scientist]

The only acceptable mode of religious freedom is the freedom from religion; to institute a freedom of religion would be to allow the tyranny of global patriarchy to reign alongside civil government, and to allow their oppressive, abusive attitudes toward womyn and minorities to pervade every aspect of lyfe unfettered.

Ban all religion and you automatically solve the majority of the wyrld's problems--violence, poverty, discrimination, and so on.

Really? How did that work for that progressive wonderland Soviet Russia? After 80 million dead they allowed religion to be practiced again and adopted more free market policies than even the US enjoys currently.

Atheism clearly failed in that respect. Let's see...it failed in China and Cambodia too. Managed to murder a shitload of people though. So I guess if that's your goal then yeah, banish religion. See how long you get to live then...

Correlation does not equal causation. I thought you knew that.

Liberal Media might be the best Troll that USMB has ever seen!

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

The only acceptable mode of religious freedom is the freedom from religion; to institute a freedom of religion would be to allow the tyranny of global patriarchy to reign alongside civil government, and to allow their oppressive, abusive attitudes toward womyn and minorities to pervade every aspect of lyfe unfettered.

Ban all religion and you automatically solve the majority of the wyrld's problems--violence, poverty, discrimination, and so on.

Really? How did that work for that progressive wonderland Soviet Russia? After 80 million dead they allowed religion to be practiced again and adopted more free market policies than even the US enjoys currently.

Atheism clearly failed in that respect. Let's see...it failed in China and Cambodia too. Managed to murder a shitload of people though. So I guess if that's your goal then yeah, banish religion. See how long you get to live then...

Westwall is so right. The truth is the more freedom of religion is restricted the more freedom of speech is restricted and then every other freedom until there is no ray of light left and the people sit in darkness and despair living in fear for their lives. Look at North Korea. Total absence of religious freedom and people found with a bible will be executed. Could the outlook be any more bleak? On the other hand, the more freedom of religion abounds the more freedom abounds for the people. Wherever the bible is permitted to flourish the people flourish, the society flourishes and the people prosper as a whole. Even those who are atheists, agnostics and such benefit from such a society!

It has been that way throughout history and why anyone would not closely examine history in considering the future is a mystery to me. This morning I was reading this board and there were 1300 people reading on a Sunday morning! Many on religious subjects. That tells me people enjoy the freedom to read what they wish and discuss what they wish without the government deciding for them! If the government bans freedom of religion it will effect every facet of society negatively - ultimately people will lose hope and hopelessness leads to great despair such as we hear about inside North Korea. May that never happen to America.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

The only acceptable mode of religious freedom is the freedom from religion; to institute a freedom of religion would be to allow the tyranny of global patriarchy to reign alongside civil government, and to allow their oppressive, abusive attitudes toward womyn and minorities to pervade every aspect of lyfe unfettered.

Ban all religion and you automatically solve the majority of the wyrld's problems--violence, poverty, discrimination, and so on.

Really? How did that work for that progressive wonderland Soviet Russia? After 80 million dead they allowed religion to be practiced again and adopted more free market policies than even the US enjoys currently.

Atheism clearly failed in that respect. Let's see...it failed in China and Cambodia too. Managed to murder a shitload of people though. So I guess if that's your goal then yeah, banish religion. See how long you get to live then...

Correlation does not equal causation. I thought you knew that.

On the matter of correlation, history is our greatest teacher because when repeated it will not bring about a different result. It will repeat itself again and again. You have been given the truth but some will not receive counsel even from those wiser than themselves because pride prevents the heart from being teachable.

 

[OKTexas]

To me the term "freedom from religion" means that our laws should be free from narrow religious influence, it also means that religious folks are free to do every thing their faith requires except directly participate in politics as an organized group or use the mechanism of government for the purposes of indoctrination.

So participating directly in politics is just fine for unions but not religious groups, REALLY?

 

[Erand7899]

As much as the far left loves to run on about such topics (and they prove they do not understand anything beyond their programming). The fact of the matter is that religion is intertwined with government especially in the terms of "Marriage"..

Since "Marriage" is spread among many of the religions on this planet is recognized as a religious tradition. So the whole things of "separation of church and state" will never happen until you get the government out of the business of "Marriage".

This is absolutely backward reasoning that can only be seen coming from conservatards.

It isn't government that needs to be thrown out of the marriage issue, it's religion. Religion has NO PLACE telling me who I can and cannot marry--not that I would ever choose to marry as it is a form of slavery, even when done in glorious lysbyyn union, but that's best saved for another discussion.

Marriage is a legal concept, not a religious one. It is a contract between two or more pyrsyns that spells out ryghts and oblygations, just like any other contract. Fundamentalist Christ-stains took over the institution of marriage unjustly and unlawfully, and now they're furious that they're being made to relinquish their power of social engineering and surrender it back to We the Pyyple.

What utter nonsense! People were getting married religiously, long before government ever got involved in the institution. When we get the government out of marriage, then the gays, transsexuals, Mormons, and those who want to marry their dogs, can marry at will.