Does anyone here agree with Religious Liberty?

  • Thread starter Thread starter DeepDeepTrouble3
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
0Scarlett_nidiyilii said:
With the newer little religions, there’s no accountability.
Click to expand...
When Scientology was declared a religion and all the tax benefits thereof, I think the SupremeCourt lost its mind.

Everyone has something that taxes support that is against their conscience. It is just a fact that everyone has to deal with. I don’t mind that churches get tax breaks…I don’t like it but I can accept it, but I do not think their businesses should get breaks ie: Evangelical churches make huge profits off of book sales, radio broadcasts, etc. and don’t pay taxes on the profits. Since the government coffers are reduced by these tax breaks more of the collected money goes to areas that others disagree with ie:planned parenthood.

We sometimes just need to accept that taxes go to our favored causes and our objectionable ones. Taxes are the price of living in a free society.
 
I did not read through everyones answers so I do not know who said they agree or who said they did not but for me it depends on what is meant by religious liberty.

If you mean, civilly, then yes, definitely. Governments should not force someone to worship or stop someone from worshiping however they want but wouldn’t you agree there should be limits? What if someone’s idea of worshiping God was harming other people? Do we turn a blind eye and just call it religous liberty? but otherwise civily I agree.

If you mean that God grants us all religious liberty in how we worship Him, then no. That would be like God saying, any way you want to worship Me or anywhere you want to worship Me is just fine. Whatever you think I am or whatever you think I do or how you think I think is just fine, so in that case no, I do not believe in religious liberty.

If you read the OT you will see that God went through an aweful lot of troubly explaining every little detail of how the Israelites were to worship Him. Not once did God say to them, however you want to worship is fine. You have religious liberty.
 
Last edited:
Blessings
God gives us free will. He guides us to His way. We are to love everyone, even our enemies. Tradition carried our church for the first 50 yrs before the Bible was organized.
We are liberated by the blood of Jesus. But some stay confused & wander, searching.
The Apostles were told to go out & preach His good news. That isn’t going against Religious Liberty b/c we don’t force it on anyone.
Tolerating all other religions, can be difficult.Any religion that kills a living thing in their worship, shouldn’t be tolerated. I’d fit in good, in the days of Moses. God dictated how to sacrifice bulls, lambs, doves…I realize, blood is a symbol, of our Life Force. God wants to be first over all. Sacrificing our BEST bounty, pleases God. I guess. I’m sorry, God, You know, how I feel. I’m not fond of killing any living thing.
Sharia law was in Deuteronomy, in the Torah. The Jews had it before Islam. Actually, it was copied from Judaism. The Jews, decades ago, stopped practicing Sharia, as they felt it wasn’t a revelation from God. It was Patriarchal, Tribal Laws. Maybe Islam will get smart, soon Lord, SOON!
Tolerating religions that want to kill you, is a Tad hard. I refuse to hate. I communicate via the Internet to IMAMS, Ayatollahs & regular Muslims trying to understand the Sunni & Shi’a animosity. I don’t think, they tolerate each other. I’ll throw in, “IF YOU BELIEVE IN THE VIRGIN BIRTH, WHY IS JESUS ONLY A PROPHET? How many prophets are born from virgin Births?”
Catholics & Protestants have stopped killing each other=RELIGIOUS LIBERTY!!
Those are my thoughts
Merry Christmas
Tweedlealice
 
I agree. Just because someone believes something, or says they do, doesn’t make it a religion.
 
FiveLinden said:
I think medical services should be provided by the state
Click to expand...
Abortion is a uniquely controversial medical service, one that specifically poses bioethical and human rights considerations.

Circumcision would also fall under this category.
FiveLinden said:
The state in some countries directly subsidised religions, or some religions.
Click to expand...
OK, now I understand from your word spellings (s’s where Americans use z’s), that you’re from outside the U.S. You won’t find government-subsidized churches in the U.S.

The government can and does provide grants to faith-based charities, such as assisting Catholic Charities in its services to immigrants and refugees.
 
Last edited:
blackforest said:
OK, now I understand from your word spellings (s’s where Americans use z’s), that you’re from outside the U.S. You won’t find government-subsidized churches in the U.S
Click to expand...
Are religious activities not tax-exempt in the US? Are full property taxes paid on churches for example? Is sales tax then from Mass stipends?
 
They’re tax-exempt but not subsidized, e.g. like giant checks cut out to Planned Parenthood.
Churches do a lot of charitable work, and I’m OK with the 501C3 status.
 
MikkiD1 said:
What Catholic wouldn’t be for religious liberty?
Click to expand...
One teleported from a 12th century Scottish dukedom? 😃

Although I dunno, principles of religious freedom can be found all over from the ancient Persians and Romans to the medieval Mongols to todays Democratic and Constitutional Republics…
 
Last edited:
Generally, it is understood that some immunity from constraint needs to be granted if someone is to actually exercise the freedom you mention first. But, since man lives in society, his actions have consequences on the common good of the society he acts within. Therefore, this freedom is not absolute, but must be constrained by public authority according to the needs of the common good (public authority’s sole reason for being is defending and advancing the common good). This is why the positive enunciation of “religious freedom” by the Church is very narrow–it is not a right to spread falsehoods or evil, but a right to immunity from constraint from civil authority so long as it is not to the detriment of public morality and the common good. On the flip side, if the common good is not at stake, public authority cannot intervene in religious matters.

That’s why in the address Ci Riesce, Pius XII could answer affirmatively that in such circumstances God does “not even communicate the right to impede or to repress what is erroneous and false” and that the duty to repress religious error is not “an ultimate norm of action,” but rather “is subordinate to higher and more general norms.”

Given all that, understanding what the common good entails is key, since that is the “higher and more general norm” that determines what constraints there should or should not be. In the 19th century, the Church rightly condemned an absolute liberty, as well as a “right” to freedom based on indifferentism and limited only by a public order which rejected or did not take into account man’s duties to the truth or the revealed truth about man and his supernatural end and how he is to reach it, which are important elements of the common good.

Granted, nowadays a broad freedom for all is generally agreed upon to best serve the common good. Generally, we have less fear of a unified Catholic society being disintegrated and more of a fear of an unjust or arbitrary constraint of religious activity by a secular state.
 
Beryllos said:
I admit I didn’t read every post, but I haven’t noticed any sign of disagreement yet. May I make it a little more interesting by saying I disagree with Religious Liberty?

And does Religious Liberty give me the right to say that?
Click to expand...
In my response, I only agree as long as he is referring to civil religious liberty. As far as religious liberty in how God says we are to worship Him, then my answer is no.
 
I apologize for my flippant reply, which is now deleted. In countries where religious liberty is lacking, Christians today are beaten, imprisoned, and martyred. It’s no joke.
 
blackforest said:
They’re tax-exempt but not subsidized, e.g. like giant checks cut out to Planned Parenthood.
Churches do a lot of charitable work, and I’m OK with the 501C3 status.
Click to expand...
Tax exemption is a subsidy. At the end of the financial year you have money that you would otherwise not have.
 
It’s true that you have more money, but it’s not a subsidy. Subsidies are deliberate grants that normally come with strings attached. I understand your point, but there really is a difference.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top