Is there a limit to religious freedom?

[angell1]

where should the line be drawn. the fact of the matter is, that are certain things in certain religions can could be harmful or provide an enormous inconvenience

for example, there’s a raging debate in Canada about the burqa or niqab being worn by women who testify in court, board airplanes or take the citenzen’s oath. they think they should be able to bypass these security measures because of freedom of religion.

another example, people who follow the Sikh religion carry these ceremonial knives wherever they go. this includes kids at school, at the airport, etC… but of course, no other person would be able to do this.

or Satanists wanting to erect public statues, same with hindus.

or else, muslims who think dogs are unclean. if they tried to exercise this religious right at every occasion, this means i would not be able to go anywhere in public with my guide dog because they believe that dogs prevent the presence of angels indoors, not that they would ever touch him so the unclean part is sort of moot. but if they started insisting that I’m driving away angels from every bus they’re on or every restaurant and store, there’s going to be a problem.

so, what does the church teach about religious freedom? there must be some sort of proper balance, I’m thinking

 

[Micosil]

where should the line be drawn. the fact of the matter is, that are certain things in certain religions can could be harmful or provide an enormous inconvenience

for example, there’s a raging debate in Canada about the burqa or niqab being worn by women who testify in court, board airplanes or take the citenzen’s oath. they think they should be able to bypass these security measures because of freedom of religion.

another example, people who follow the Sikh religion carry these ceremonial knives wherever they go. this includes kids at school, at the airport, etC… but of course, no other person would be able to do this.

or Satanists wanting to erect public statues, same with hindus.

or else, muslims who think dogs are unclean. if they tried to exercise this religious right at every occasion, this means i would not be able to go anywhere in public with my guide dog because they believe that dogs prevent the presence of angels indoors, not that they would ever touch him so the unclean part is sort of moot. but if they started insisting that I’m driving away angels from every bus they’re on or every restaurant and store, there’s going to be a problem.

so, what does the church teach about religious freedom? there must be some sort of proper balance, I’m thinking

A couple of comments about the things you’ve said.

First of all, about 30 or 40 years ago, the Sikhs carrying their kirpans at school would probably have been a non-issue. It wasn’t unusual, as per my limited understanding goes, for schoolchildren to take their pocketknives to school to show other kids and whittle with it. Doing that now would obviously be disastrous, in part due to the PC police, and maybe not due to any actual, legitimate concerns.

When things like this happen, you know the PC police have gone overboard:

news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/fifth-grader-reprimanded-bringing-paper-gun-school-181022936.html

edition.cnn.com/2014/03/04/us/ohio-boy-suspended-finger-gun/

Second, you mentioned “Satanists wanting to erect public statues, same with hindus”; it wasn’t just them, it was a whole bunch of groups, including those of no specific religious persuasion:

huffingtonpost.com/entry/arkansas-capitol-monuments-atheists_55e9e43ee4b093be51bb6dea

Atheists Join Hindus, Vegans, Satanists In Asking For State Capitol Monument

So, I am not sure the issue with this specific incident is purely religious in nature; it’s ideological or political perhaps, but I am not sure it’s purely a religious freedom issue, as your thread’s topic states.

 

[angell1]

A couple of comments about the things you’ve said.

First of all, about 30 or 40 years ago, the Sikhs carrying their kirpans at school would probably have been a non-issue. It wasn’t unusual, as per my limited understanding goes, for schoolchildren to take their pocketknives to school to show other kids and whittle with it. Doing that now would obviously be disastrous, in part due to the PC police, and maybe not due to any actual, legitimate concerns.

When things like this happen, you know the PC police have gone overboard:

news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/fifth-grader-reprimanded-bringing-paper-gun-school-181022936.html

edition.cnn.com/2014/03/04/us/ohio-boy-suspended-finger-gun/

Second, you mentioned “Satanists wanting to erect public statues, same with hindus”; it wasn’t just them, it was a whole bunch of groups, including those of no specific religious persuasion:

huffingtonpost.com/entry/arkansas-capitol-monuments-atheists_55e9e43ee4b093be51bb6dea

So, I am not sure the issue with this specific incident is purely religious in nature; it’s ideological or political perhaps, but I am not sure it’s purely a religious freedom issue, as your thread’s topic states.

perhaps not, but the one with dogs is.

I’ve already had to wait very long times for taxis from the airport

 

[Seekerjn316]

None of our Constitutional freedoms and rights are qbsokute…freedom of speech, right to bare arms, and a few others do not carry any absolute guarantee of expression .

One cannot yell “Fire” in a crowded theater or building. One cannot incite violence against a minotity…or any e else for that matter…and quote scripture to back it up, they’ll end up in deep do do. One cannot claim religious exemption that allows denial of others civil rights, does not matter if your religion claims it’s legitimate .

Our rights to practice our faith is curbed when others personal freedoms are restricted due to our religious convictions.

We have the right of freedom of religion, but it is not absolute.

 

[Mary_Estelle]

None of our Constitutional freedoms and rights are qbsokute…freedom of speech, right to bare arms, and a few others do not carry any absolute guarantee of expression .

One cannot yell “Fire” in a crowded theater or building. One cannot incite violence against a minotity…or any e else for that matter…and quote scripture to back it up, they’ll end up in deep do do. One cannot claim religious exemption that allows denial of others civil rights, does not matter if your religion claims it’s legitimate .

Our rights to practice our faith is curbed when others personal freedoms are restricted due to our religious convictions.

We have the right of freedom of religion, but it is not absolute.

Well said.

 

[Inquiringperson]

I think the Catechism of the Catholic Church talks about limits to religious liberty. Here’s the quotation:

2106 "Nobody may be forced to act against his convictions, nor is anyone to be restrained from acting in accordance with his conscience in religious matters in private or in public, alone or in association with others, within due limits."34 This right is based on the very nature of the human person, whose dignity enables him freely to assent to the divine truth which transcends the temporal order. For this reason it "continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it."35

2107 "If because of the circumstances of a particular people special civil recognition is given to one religious community in the constitutional organization of a state, the right of all citizens and religious communities to religious freedom must be recognized and respected as well."36

2108 The right to religious liberty is neither a moral license to adhere to error, nor a supposed right to error,37 but rather a natural right of the human person to civil liberty, i.e., immunity, within just limits, from external constraint in religious matters by political authorities. This natural right ought to be acknowledged in the juridical order of society in such a way that it constitutes a civil right.38

2109 The right to religious liberty can of itself be neither unlimited nor limited only by a “public order” conceived in a positivist or naturalist manner.39 The “due limits” which are inherent in it must be determined for each social situation by political prudence, according to the requirements of the common good, and ratified by the civil authority in accordance with "legal principles which are in conformity with the objective moral order."40

 

[Don_Ruggero]

where should the line be drawn. the fact of the matter is, that are certain things in certain religions can could be harmful or provide an enormous inconvenience

for example, there’s a raging debate in Canada about the burqa or niqab being worn by women who testify in court, board airplanes or take the citenzen’s oath. they think they should be able to bypass these security measures because of freedom of religion.

another example, people who follow the Sikh religion carry these ceremonial knives wherever they go. this includes kids at school, at the airport, etC… but of course, no other person would be able to do this.

or Satanists wanting to erect public statues, same with hindus.

or else, muslims who think dogs are unclean. if they tried to exercise this religious right at every occasion, this means i would not be able to go anywhere in public with my guide dog because they believe that dogs prevent the presence of angels indoors, not that they would ever touch him so the unclean part is sort of moot. but if they started insisting that I’m driving away angels from every bus they’re on or every restaurant and store, there’s going to be a problem.

so, what does the church teach about religious freedom? there must be some sort of proper balance, I’m thinking

I would suggest reading the beautiful document of Vatican II, Dignitatis humanae. It is a splendid treatment by the Council Fathers on religious freedom:

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html