|
|
Post by goz on Nov 11, 2018 20:45:13 GMT
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. 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. |
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Nov 11, 2018 20:49:45 GMT
It varies according to countries. There isn't a great degree of religious freedom in countries like China because they are greatly inspired by anti-religious political beliefs. There are countries where there isn't great degree of religious freedom for people of religions other than state religions (Saudia, Iran etc. etc.). There may be a few countries that have religious freedom for all as a concept even if one religion that is in majority seem to dominate certain laws. How much influence does Hinduism have on Indian politics and government? Significant influence on politics and generally less on government. Muslims and Christians are not largely influenced by Hinduism as there isn't any uniform civil code in India. Personal laws are made on scriptures of each of the important religions. The country is secular even though Muslim population is rising at a great pace (9% in 1950 as compared to 14.7% in 2010 excluding millions of illegal Muslims from Bangladesh.) |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Nov 11, 2018 21:10:34 GMT
It varies according to countries. There isn't a great degree of religious freedom in countries like China because they are greatly inspired by anti-religious political beliefs. There are countries where there isn't a great degree of religious freedom for people of religions other than state religions (Saudia, Iran etc. etc.). There may be a few countries that have religious freedom for all as a concept even if one religion that is in majority seems to dominate certain laws. I know that. The point is 'should' religious freedom means the right to exercise a total choice of religion from none to whatever you choose? To me, it obviously should butt in some places that claim freedom of religion, it doesn't seem to. |
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Nov 11, 2018 21:36:24 GMT
It varies according to countries. There isn't a great degree of religious freedom in countries like China because they are greatly inspired by anti-religious political beliefs. There are countries where there isn't a great degree of religious freedom for people of religions other than state religions (Saudia, Iran etc. etc.). There may be a few countries that have religious freedom for all as a concept even if one religion that is in majority seems to dominate certain laws. I know that. The point is 'should' religious freedom means the right to exercise a total choice of religion from none to whatever you choose? To me, it obviously should butt in some places that claim freedom of religion, it doesn't seem to. What you are trying to suggest is that Christianity influences certain western countries in more significant ways than do all other religions even if most of these western countries claim to give religious freedom as in concept. What I believe is that Christian influence has significantly loosened its grip and will continue to wane. What you are further trying to suggest is that there are certain hypocrites among Christians who demand religious freedom as in concept and yet are fine with Christianity influencing the laws or society in certain ways. Such people are simply hypocrites and are either under spell of religion because they are weak minded or are deliberately wicked. There are right wing Hindus in India who would be pretty close to Christians of America. What I am trying to suggest is that there are idiots even among non-religious people as evident in countries like China. They enjoy suppressing religious freedom of people. |
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Nov 11, 2018 21:37:11 GMT
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 Who mentioned protection from hearing about religions? I certainly didn't. You cannot have freedom OF religion unless you also have freedom FROM religion. Islam allows non Muslims to be taxed additionally, would that be permissible under the 1st Amendment? No, thus no religion can impose its beliefs on anyone else. |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Nov 11, 2018 22:02:35 GMT
I know that. The point is 'should' religious freedom means the right to exercise a total choice of religion from none to whatever you choose? To me, it obviously should butt in some places that claim freedom of religion, it doesn't seem to. What you are trying to suggest is that Christianity influences certain western countries in more significant ways than do all other religions even if most of these western countries claim to give religious freedom as in concept. What I believe is that Christian influence has significantly loosened its grip and will continue to wane. What you are further trying to suggest is that there are certain hypocrites among Christians who demand religious freedom as in concept and yet are fine with Christianity influencing the laws or society in certain ways. Such people are simply hypocrites and are either under spell of religion because they are weak minded or are deliberately wicked. There are right wing Hindus in India who would be pretty close to Christians of America. What I am trying to suggest is that are idiots even among non-religious people as evident in countries like China. They enjoy suppressing religious freedom of people. OK, I will make it simple, ( though individual arguments about what happens in different countries has some relevance ) by asking with a slight revision of the original question 'should countries which propound and profess and propagate the concept of 'freedom of religion' ALSO accept the freedom from religion, and not discriminate against those with anti-religious choices? |
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Nov 11, 2018 22:15:37 GMT
What you are trying to suggest is that Christianity influences certain western countries in more significant ways than do all other religions even if most of these western countries claim to give religious freedom as in concept. What I believe is that Christian influence has significantly loosened its grip and will continue to wane. What you are further trying to suggest is that there are certain hypocrites among Christians who demand religious freedom as in concept and yet are fine with Christianity influencing the laws or society in certain ways. Such people are simply hypocrites and are either under spell of religion because they are weak minded or are deliberately wicked. There are right wing Hindus in India who would be pretty close to Christians of America. What I am trying to suggest is that are idiots even among non-religious people as evident in countries like China. They enjoy suppressing religious freedom of people. OK, I will make it simple, ( though individual arguments about what happens in different countries has some relevance ) by asking with a slight revision of the original question 'should countries which propound and profess and propagate the concept of 'freedom of religion' ALSO accept the freedom from religion, and not discriminate against those with anti-religious choices? Lol. |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Nov 11, 2018 22:28:33 GMT
OK, I will make it simple, ( though individual arguments about what happens in different countries has some relevance ) by asking with a slight revision of the original question 'should countries which propound and profess and propagate the concept of 'freedom of religion' ALSO accept the freedom from religion, and not discriminate against those with anti-religious choices? Lol. I am glad you are laughing. You have left Australia however how would you feel about The Anglican Church here saying that every pupil and student in an Anglican educational institution, should be baptised (and then compulsorily confirmed in their faith) and CANNOT not be gay, to gain entry? |
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Nov 11, 2018 22:32:16 GMT
Lol. I am glad you are laughing. You have left Australia however how would you feel about The Anglican Church here saying that every pupil and student in an Anglican educational institution, should be baptised (and then compulsorily confirmed in their faith) and CANNOT not be gay, to gain entry? LOl. I am laughing at you because your rewording was bad.
The countries who propound freedom of religion should discriminate against anti-religious people. The group they shouldn't discriminate against are non-religious people.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Nov 11, 2018 22:34:38 GMT
LOl. I am laughing at you because your rewording was bad.
The countries who propound freedom of religion should discriminate against anti-religious people. The group they shouldn't discriminate against are non-religious people.
… and yet there are people in both categories, each with a point of view that should come under the umbrella of religious freedom, as well as the pro-religious! |
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Nov 11, 2018 22:36:17 GMT
LOl. I am laughing at you because your rewording was bad.
The countries who propound freedom of religion should discriminate against anti-religious people. The group they shouldn't discriminate against are non-religious people.
… and yet there are people in both categories, each with a point of view that should come under the umbrella of religious freedom, as well as the pro-religious! Then those who do simply have flawed understanding of the word "freedom". |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Nov 11, 2018 22:50:32 GMT
… and yet there are people in both categories, each with a point of view that should come under the umbrella of religious freedom, as well as the pro-religious! Then those who do simply have flawed understanding of the word "freedom". Ture. Sorry, you are correct. I didn't mean it exactly like that but I take your point. I meant it is context of opposition to imposition of so called 'religious freedom' by the religious exclusively meaning that only people with a religious viewpoint had religious freedom. I phrased it appallingly. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 13, 2018 12:07:39 GMT
In the United States religious "freedom" means the state does not "establish" (financially support) any religion. It also means the state does not require membership or obedience to any religion. It is often assumed that no religion may influence voters on issues in society. That is not true. Anyone or any group, including atheists, is free to speak on any issue and be as much influence as that might be. It can be a little more complicated, but that is essentially it. How can there be real freedom of religion when all the trappings of citizenship reek with christianity? One might think that one is free but it is implied that an American citizen is a citizen of a christian country. The banknotes have "in god we trust". The US Pledge of Allegiance which all citizens must recite says "one nation under god". Americans going into battle are sent with "go with god" or similar. That is some mighty mojo for (at least) a single god and realistically for the christian god. The reason the term "god" is not considered obtrusive on anyone in particular is that it is such a generic term it can apply to any religion including some schools of philosophy that are not exactly "religious." The concept of "god" has for millennia now been usually understood as a set of ideals, except by children, mentally retarded adults, and some Christians who require an anthropomorphic god. Most sensible people have a set of ideals, even atheists. If either atheists tried to take the word "god" out of, or Christians tried to put the word "Jesus" into the pledge, then that would invite very serious controversy. One reason the acceptance of intelligent design is so slow is that a set of ideals is generally not considered active enough in the world to assemble anything. Most people, including some very devoutly religious, find no need to accept intelligent design for the purposes of their religion, which after all is merely about a set of ideals. That would be enough the let the issue go, but science needs to address it in order to categorize the issue whether its answer is found in nature or not. Its answer is not found in nature. That would be enough to categorize the issue, but many people are upset at such a result. They prefer to believe that an answer can one day be found and assume it already has been. That is not science. That is politics. The science of the matter is that the agency that assembled the first life on previously molten Earth is not found in nature. Although that significant truth is taught in science classes, many people prefer to ignore it. It is also apparent the agency will never be found in nature, and that makes their attitude particularly offensive to science. Most people, including atheists and very religious people, and that really is most people, still shun the challenge to their worldview that an agency they do not understand or control presents. They prefer to think that only the unlearned entertain any notions of such agencies. They prefer to think that such unlearned people are the problem in the world. The problem in the world is rather that they are more fond of science than capable of it. They have replaced real science with a belief in science that is just as bad as any unfounded belief. They expect science to solve problems in society it absolutely cannot. |
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Nov 13, 2018 13:38:37 GMT
One reason the acceptance of intelligent design is so slow is that a set of ideals is generally not considered active enough in the world to assemble anything. Actually, acceptance of intelligent design is widespread among the scientifically illiterate public, most of whom embrace some version of it. Its acceptance is only "slow" among those best qualified to understand why it is bullshit, which is to say, biologists. Oh, really? Why don't you cite an actual scientist saying this explicitly in a mainstream journal of biology? Good luck with that, pumpkin! |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Nov 13, 2018 14:21:09 GMT
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 Who mentioned protection from hearing about religions? I certainly didn't. You cannot have freedom OF religion unless you also have freedom FROM religion. Islam allows non Muslims to be taxed additionally, would that be permissible under the 1st Amendment? No, thus no religion can impose its beliefs on anyone else. You don’t have freedom from religion unless you prohibit religion in some way. There is always going to be religious influence where there is freedom of it which is a good thing. We both agree that this is not imposing. Freedom of religion protects against the discrimination found in suckier countries. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 13, 2018 16:49:51 GMT
One reason the acceptance of intelligent design is so slow is that a set of ideals is generally not considered active enough in the world to assemble anything. Actually, acceptance of intelligent design is widespread among the scientifically illiterate public, most of whom embrace some version of it. Its acceptance is only "slow" among those best qualified to understand why it is bullshit, which is to say, biologists. Oh, really? Why don't you cite an actual scientist saying this explicitly in a mainstream journal of biology? Good luck with that, pumpkin! Not who am I, who are you? |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Nov 13, 2018 19:55:01 GMT
How can there be real freedom of religion when all the trappings of citizenship reek with christianity? One might think that one is free but it is implied that an American citizen is a citizen of a christian country. The banknotes have "in god we trust". The US Pledge of Allegiance which all citizens must recite says "one nation under god". Americans going into battle are sent with "go with god" or similar. That is some mighty mojo for (at least) a single god and realistically for the christian god. The reason the term "god" is not considered obtrusive on anyone in particular is that it is such a generic term it can apply to any religion including some schools of philosophy that are not exactly "religious." The concept of "god" has for millennia now been usually understood as a set of ideals, except by children, mentally retarded adults, and some Christians who require an anthropomorphic god. Most sensible people have a set of ideals, even atheists. If either atheists tried to take the word "god" out of, or Christians tried to put the word "Jesus" into the pledge, then that would invite very serious controversy. One reason the acceptance of intelligent design is so slow is that a set of ideals is generally not considered active enough in the world to assemble anything. Most people, including some very devoutly religious, find no need to accept intelligent design for the purposes of their religion, which after all is merely about a set of ideals. That would be enough the let the issue go, but science needs to address it in order to categorize the issue whether its answer is found in nature or not. Its answer is not found in nature. That would be enough to categorize the issue, but many people are upset at such a result. They prefer to believe that an answer can one day be found and assume it already has been. That is not science. That is politics. The science of the matter is that the agency that assembled the first life on previously molten Earth is not found in nature. Although that significant truth is taught in science classes, many people prefer to ignore it. It is also apparent the agency will never be found in nature, and that makes their attitude particularly offensive to science. Most people, including atheists and very religious people, and that really is most people, still shun the challenge to their worldview that an agency they do not understand or control presents. They prefer to think that only the unlearned entertain any notions of such agencies. They prefer to think that such unlearned people are the problem in the world. The problem in the world is rather that they are more fond of science than capable of it. They have replaced real science with a belief in science that is just as bad as any unfounded belief. They expect science to solve problems in society it absolutely cannot. No, the MAIN reason is because it is total bullshit, as is your view of what 'science' really is! Like this further bullshit Luckily I am an atheist on BOTH counts. |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Nov 13, 2018 20:10:35 GMT
Who mentioned protection from hearing about religions? I certainly didn't. You cannot have freedom OF religion unless you also have freedom FROM religion. Islam allows non Muslims to be taxed additionally, would that be permissible under the 1st Amendment? No, thus no religion can impose its beliefs on anyone else. There is always going to be religious influence where there is freedom of it which is a good thing. We both agree that this is not imposing. Freedom of religion protects against the discrimination found in suckier countries. How, and why? I don't understand how this works. Are you blind to the fact that in some cases, it CAUSES discrimination? Let's take the example of homosexuals.( or in fact any dissenting or non-approved group) Due to the nature of a certain religion disapproving of those groups,( and it is problematic if it is the major religion of a place) they hypocritically approve and practice discrimination against them. This can NEVER be a good thing. Freedom of religion should only be an ethos which allows the practice of a choice of any religion freely AS LONG AS IT DOESN'T INFRINGE the rights of others. Freedom FROM religion means that if you choose not to engage in any religious activity or FURTHER live your live in some way that is CONTRA to the beliefs of another religion, then you should also have that right. Simply, in other words, NO religion should EVER override other people's human and civil rights. EVER. So yes. The right of freedom from religion implies that IF the religion discriminates in an illegal a secular way, then it should have prohibition against breaking laws. |
|
