Does anyone here agree with Religious Liberty?

  • Thread starter Thread starter DeepDeepTrouble3
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I do not have any religious beliefs.

I support the right of others to hold them and to express them in public. On this, as I understand it, Catholics and I agree.

I support the right to advocate non-belief and to do so in public. As far as I am aware the Church has not endorsed this position and was historically very opposed to it.

I am opposed to non-believers being required, through taxes and tax exemptions, to support religious activities. I am also opposed for supporters of one belief being required to support those of another belief. On this I think the Church has a very different view and actively seeks state sponsorship and subsidy.

I am opposed to the use of state funds to promote or endorse religious belief directly including by public invocations of a deity by state officials acting in that capacity. In this I am sure the Church and I do not see eye to eye.
 
Some who are so far to the right that they make Attila the Hun look like a canonized saint…

I recall a comment made in a philosophy class: anything taken to its logical extreme is illogical". Without arguing about that phrase, there have been some Catholics who have take religious liberty to mean that as long as you believe in something, you are good to go. That is not religious liberty as the Church sees the discussion.

There certainly have been charges of forced conversions in the past. I tend to give them something less than minimal attention; in part because some of those charges are made by people with a hatred of the Church; in part because that was then and this is now. It is about the level of those who get polemical about the Crusades, and I have no use nor interest in those “discussions” (indictments might be more accurate).

Without getting this thread off track, there are adherents to one or two religious belief systems who are hard core against religious liberty. It appears in society today that is not a discussion to be had, and to those who will not acknowledge such, reality may one day bite really hard. In the US we have had a long history of tolerance of various religious views. It would be extremely hazardous to stray from that point, and it would be just as hazardous to entertain tolerance to those who are intolerant.
 
Ideological and philosophical states here are different.

Free will is not being upheld if you aren’t free to exercise it.

But on a philosophical level it’s nonsensical to endure systems that are incompatible and invariably the complete reverse. For example; if you can’t come to understand why Islam was originally banned in America because of its purpose of being a vehicle for Sharia and not an actual faith - that’s rather naive.

There is only one actual God and faith. And if it’s too difficult for people to understand that the commandments tolerate no other deity or direction toward another, people might want to revaluate their belief.

Personally I have a yearn to return to heaven. In which it is effectively a holy dictatorship. Freedom in this world, is an illusion in the vast majority of cases.
 
Last edited:
We have 1700 years or thereabouts of history which should explain to those who have no blinders on, that such has been tried and found wanting. The Church needs to stand on its truth, and should not need the State to prop it up.
 
Interesting about your comment on Utah.

Actually, over the last decade or two things have been changing. I have had the opportunity to attend Mass in several parishes in Utah and was speaking with the pastor at one in 2013, commenting to that effect. What he told me then surprised me; in the 2012 election, the general area around Salt Lake actually voted blue, and the hinterlands red. That government (which some previously joked was not much more than the hierarchy of the LDS church) had been aggressively courting business, including major corporations and the success showed in the voting.

They have since relaxed rules: for example, on liquor and now have 27 breweries, and Starbucks and other coffee shops abound. That is not however to say it has been reduced to Sodom and Gomorrah, and the Church still wields significant influence.
 
What to say?

Given the idiocy that is passing itself off under the guise of gender dysphoria anything might be possible. On the other hand, there is the old bit about sitting in a large circle and starting a short story whispered to the person next to you, and when it gets back… it significantly differ from what started.

Like the Emperor’s New Clothes, one can hope that the current insanity will be recognized for what it is.
 
otjm said:
They have since relaxed rules: for example, on liquor and now have 27 breweries
Click to expand...
That’s a relief. When my husband and I went out to Provo area in the 90s sometime to visit a (non-LDS) friend who was living there, we could barely find a place to have a drink. We aren’t big drinkers, but when on vacation, a beer with lunch is a nice thing. Our friend got tired of the area within a few years and moved to Portland, Oregon where he still lives with his wife and family.
 
My recollection is that there are (or were - information is a bit old) a husband and wife, both unabashedly Catholic, teaching at BYU.

And me - I need that latte!
 
Tis_Bearself said:
I agree with this. I would like to see an intelligent argument against “Religious Liberty”, however you define it.
Click to expand...
I don’t know if you consider this “intelligent,” (I don’t entirely), but the common argument is that “religious liberty” is just a façade for imposing your religious beliefs on others, like denying women birth control if you’re a Catholic pharmacist.

I frequently hear this argument from non-religious and atheist people. They need to realize that religious liberty, when practiced correctly, protects their beliefs, as well.

Editing to add that I actually support a very broad definition of religious freedom that upholds the freedom of conscience.
 
Last edited:
FiveLinden said:
I am also opposed for supporters of one belief being required to support those of another belief.
Click to expand...
What is your position on taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood?
FiveLinden said:
On this I think the Church has a very different view and actively seeks state sponsorship and subsidy.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure I follow your point, especially on the bolded. Could you provide an example?

I grimace at the thought of the State funding my church. State funding invariably comes with carrot-and-stick strings attached, and such stipulations may actually come in conflict with my faith. Avoiding such public funds allows more freedom of religion.
 
blackforest said:
What is your position on taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood?
Click to expand...
I think medical services should be provided by the state.Where they are not I don’t have a problem with, for example, people opposing blood transfusions paying for them through tax.
 
blackforest said:
I’m not sure I follow your point, especially on the bolded. Could you provide an example?

I grimace at the thought of the State funding my church. State funding invariably comes with carrot-and-stick strings attached, and such stipulations may actually come in conflict with my faith. Avoiding such public funds allows more freedom of religion.
Click to expand...
The state in some countries directly subsidised religions, or some religions. It also, in many countries, considers any religious activity to be ‘charitable’ and therefore tax exempt. All these are subsidies. Normally they are not available for organisations based on unbelief. So Satanists get support but atheists do not.
 
I’m here at the beach, in Florida, looking out on the ocean, and I see Religious Liberty everywhere - God’s Religious Liberty in giving us everything, the waves, the sand, the shells. To me, without Religious Liberty, sin isn’t possible, merit isn’t possible. The Cross was Jesus’s Religious Liberty. Creation was God the Fathers Religious Liberty. Check out this little thread here that I just put up.

Everyone thank you for replying, especially for the yes’s.
40.png
Perfect Philosophical Religious Liberty Apologetics
You have Religious Liberty, either way. If you believe you do, you do, or if you believe you don’t, you still have it that way too. What do you think?
Click to expand...
 
Salmonslayer said:
but only the Catholic Church should be recognized by the state and it should be given preferential treatment over other religions.
Click to expand...
How would you like it if things were that way but for a different religion, Islam, for example? Would that concept be OK to you?

Be careful what you wish for.
 
Exactly. That is why “states” don’t need to be involved in any religion.
 
Assuming you have a good understanding of how the world works, with a bajillion different religions, don’t you see the problem with this line of thinking?
 
QwertyGirl said:
Fake news”, I am pretty sure would be an appropriate thing to say to something like that.
Click to expand...
In any case, I intend to find out. I sub in that district from time to time.

But even if the story is wrong, inaccurate or greatly exaggerated, when you have a situation where religion is reduced to “whatever the person says it is” (as opposed to the old, established religions with rules that anybody is free to find out for themselves), the potential for abuse is huge.

If I went to work and said “I can’t help with that abortion because I am a Catholic”, my boss could look it up catechism and know I’m telling the truth.
If I said “I can’t work on any Wednesday’s because I’m Catholic”, my boss could look it up and find out I’m lying.

With the newer little religions, there’s no accountability.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top