Freedom of Religion and Freedom from Religion

Freedom of Religion and Freedom from Religion Nov 11, 2018 20:45:13 GMT

Quote

Post by goz on Nov 11, 2018 20:45:13 GMT

Nov 11, 2018 20:05:48 GMT CoolJGS☺ said:

Nov 11, 2018 18:29:27 GMT thorshairspray said:

No, it would mean that you would be protected from religions. Thus no religion has the right to impose any of its beliefs on anyone else.

This is incorrect. The law is based on persecution of religions not the ridiculous notion of protection from hearing about religion.

That doesn't even make sense.

Promotion is not compulsion

Since you didn't bother to answer my post asking for an explanation, I will make a few points here.

The law is based on persecution of religions not the ridiculous notion of protection from hearing about religion.

Why? This is not logical. Surely 'freedom of religion' means the freedom to NOT practice a religion nor be exposed to it against your will? Even more importantly IF you are discriminated against because you don't practice any religion (let alone a different one to the majority of Christianity in the USA.) In your country it should mean freedom to or not practice the religion of your choice. The perfect example of this is whether a POTUS could ever be an avowed atheist, or of another religion. (e.g Even the fact that Obama had lived in a Muslim country in his childhood was enough for some of the religious far right to have a hissy fit)

BTW, I know that Americans always adopt their own situation is being the most relevant and default however I would like to say that this topic is more general than that and what your legislation means.

There is a situation here where Anglican schools in Sydney are testing their 'religious freedom' to be able to discriminate against students and teachers, who are either gay, or not of the Anglican faith. Hence it is a wider issue.