Is There Any Limit To Freedom of Religion?

[Genesius]

At the risk of opening a can of worms, and in an attempt to be truly charitable, while walking on eggshells I pose the following:

The first amendment of the Constitution of the United States reads as follows:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

As you can see, there is no reference of a violation of respecting the life and liberty of individuals here. However in the Declaration of Independence there are all kinds of references to it. Having said that, can a religion be unconstitutional if by it’s very nature it considers anyone who is not part of it an infidel who should be killed by any means necessary (including acts of terrorism). And if a hypothetical nation whose citizens all believed this way were declared war on, would it be considered a just war?

Any thoughts? Remember, it’s purely hypothetical….

 

[Shiranui117]

I would say that it would be a just war; presumably, the religion in question (Not pointing at anyone here, going along with the hypothetical… ) would place itself above all the other religions (or lack thereof). If it feels it is above the other religions, then it may feel that it should be made the law of the land, and the other religions should be banned, in their eyes. Seeing this inevitability, a war to protect the freedom of religion would be just, and in keeping with the country’s constitution.

 

[Genesius]

I would say that it would be a just war; presumably, the religion in question (Not pointing at anyone here, going along with the hypothetical… ) would place itself above all the other religions (or lack thereof). If it feels it is above the other religions, then it may feel that it should be made the law of the land, and the other religions should be banned, in their eyes. Seeing this inevitability, a war to protect the freedom of religion would be just, and in keeping with the country’s constitution.

Yes, however, I should have worded the second part a bit differently…since this is a Catholic forum, would it be considered a just war by the standards and teachings of the Church (still going along with the hypothetical, of course…).

 

[Shiranui117]

Yes, however, I should have worded the second part a bit differently…since this is a Catholic forum, would it be considered a just war by the standards and teachings of the Church (still going along with the hypothetical, of course…).

I would say so, yes. Given the fact that it would be a defensive war and seeks to correct an injustice to restore justice, without committing a greater injustice, it would be fine by the Church.

 

[Alexander_Smith]

At the risk of opening a can of worms, and in an attempt to be truly charitable, while walking on eggshells I pose the following:

The first amendment of the Constitution of the United States reads as follows:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

As you can see, there is no reference of a violation of respecting the life and liberty of individuals here. However in the Declaration of Independence there are all kinds of references to it. Having said that, can a religion be unconstitutional if by it’s very nature it considers anyone who is not part of it an infidel who should be killed by any means necessary (including acts of terrorism). And if a hypothetical nation whose citizens all believed this way were declared war on, would it be considered a just war?

Any thoughts? Remember, it’s purely hypothetical….

It would absolutely NOT be a just war. Where’s the aspect of self defense? Can you start a war because of the possibility of attack by groups of people within the country? Certainly not. Unless the country itself attacks your country, war is not an option.

Oh and to add to that, it would be ridiculous to attack a country to protect our own subjective freedoms. Our freedom is threatened when our country is threatened, not the other way around, because our freedoms only apply to this country.

 

[PatrickSebast]

Freedom of religion entails a freedom of belief, not a freedom of action. It permits a person to believe that killing sinners is good, but it does not permit them to kill.

 

[Todd520]

What you really said is can a group/organization be unconstitutional if by it’s very nature it promotes killing of non-members by any means necessary, as it’s prime objective.

Anyone in the US acting in this manner would obviously be killing people and thus be arrested and convicted of multiple crimes.

I’m not aware of any religions that have this as their primary objective, which is also proven in the actions of all or most of their members

Anytime the Congress official declares war, it is by default a just and legal war for the USA (It might be immoral though)

 

[Genesius]

What you really said is can a group/organization be unconstitutional if by it’s very nature it promotes killing of non-members by any means necessary, as it’s prime objective.

Anyone in the US acting in this manner would obviously be killing people and thus be arrested and convicted of multiple crimes.

I’m not aware of any religions that have this as their primary objective, which is also proven in the actions of all or most of their members

Anytime the Congress official declares war, it is by default a just and legal war for the USA (It might be immoral though)

Just out of curiosity, what would you consider the term Jihad to refer to?

Also, would you consider the Crusades to be just?

 

[Genesius]

It would absolutely NOT be a just war. Where’s the aspect of self defense? Can you start a war because of the possibility of attack by groups of people within the country? Certainly not. Unless the country itself attacks your country, war is not an option.

Oh and to add to that, it would be ridiculous to attack a country to protect our own subjective freedoms. Our freedom is threatened when our country is threatened, not the other way around, because our freedoms only apply to this country.

And any other country that is based upon democracy? Or perhaps whose freedoms are threatened as defined by NATO? How is defending other countries whose freedoms are threatened considered “subjective”?

And if I recall, we did not enter into World War II until we were attacked by the Japanese. Why then did we enter into the European theater?

 

[Alexander_Smith]

And any other country that is based upon democracy? Or perhaps whose freedoms are threatened as defined by NATO? How is defending other countries whose freedoms are threatened considered “subjective”?

And if I recall, we did not enter into World War II until we were attacked by the Japanese. Why then did we enter into the European theater?

But how would this freedom be threatened? Unless it is by threat of actual attack, how could you justify war? And yes some of these freedoms are subjective. We humans have no inherent right to say what we want without repercussions, no inherent right to own firearms, no inherent right to liberty, as stated in the Declaration of Independence. I cherish these freedoms, but if a country wanted to take away the right to free speech of it’s citizens, could we go to war to save those freedoms?

For that matter, why the concern for protecting freedoms? Shouldn’t the concern be for protecting the country itself and the citizens of that country?

Also, we didn’t go to war with Japan and Germany to save our freedoms, we went to war to save ourselves and our allies. Four days after Pearl Harbor, Germany declared war on the United States, and the rest is history.

 

[Sufjon]

Freedom of religion entails a freedom of belief, not a freedom of action. It permits a person to believe that killing sinners is good, but it does not permit them to kill.

Short, succinct, to the point, and on the money! Just my opinion, but I think you hit it.

I do need to stress though that I think the premise of the original thread makes some incorrect assumptions. I do not believe that the average Muslim is out to kill anyone, nor do I think that they feel that their religion prescribes such behavior. Some radicals who do, yes, but for the huge majority -no, no one could ever convince me of that.

Sufjon

 

[Genesius]

Paragraph 2310 of the CCC states:

*Public authorities, in this case, have the right and duty to impose on citizens the obligations necessary for national defense.

Those who are sworn to serve their country in the armed forces are servants of the security and freedom of nations. If they carry out their duty honorably, they truly contribute to the common good of the nation and the maintenance of peace.*
**
Notice it doesn’t say people in the armed forces are servants of security and freedom ONLY of their own nation, but of nations plural.

Anyway, lets take it down to a smaller scale. You see a bully beating on someone in a wheelchair. You tell him to stop. He tells you that God told him to do it; that he read it in the book of his religion, and he is thoroughly convinced of that. He is also there with a group of others who believe the same way. Don’t you have a moral obligation to defend the person in the wheelchair, regardless of the fact that it’s not you in the wheelchair?

Now, let’s say he stops for a moment to listen to you, and you may even convince him, but the others continue. Let’s just call their religion Bullyism. There are some Bullys who have read parts of their book of religion, but not all of it, and they are convinced that theirs is a religion of peace. Meanwhile, the scholars who have studied the whole thing know different and they continue to terrorize the community, for there is a clause in the book that says anyone who is not a bully is a heretic and they need to die. While the ignorant peaceful bullys may be noble, does that mean their terrorist religion is?

I know…a lot of hypothetical…

 

[Genesius]

Todd520 wrote: Anyone in the US acting in this manner would obviously be killing people and thus be arrested and convicted of multiple crimes.

My Reply: If they were caught. There are many unsolved murders, and not all terrorists are caught either.

Anyway, nobody has ever answered my question as to what Jihad refers to? I believe it might be a term in some religious writings…I’m not sure.

 

[LongJourney]

Now, let’s say he stops for a moment to listen to you, and you may even convince him, but the others continue. Let’s just call their religion Bullyism. There are some Bullys who have read parts of their book of religion, but not all of it, and they are convinced that theirs is a religion of peace. Meanwhile, the scholars who have studied the whole thing know different and they continue to terrorize the community, for there is a clause in the book that says anyone who is not a bully is a heretic and they need to die. While the ignorant peaceful bullys may be noble, does that mean their terrorist religion is?

I think that there should be a publicity campaign to inform the ignorant peaceful bullies about the dangerous aspects of their religion. Assume that they are good people at heart, and help them to understand that there are terrorists in their midst, who interpret their scripture in another way. In this way, war might be avoided. Equip them with the tools they need to transform their society into a peaceable one. It is their responsibility, and they present with the best understanding of their culture. A war of words is infinitely better than a war with guns.

A Jihad is a holy and just war. As in “I joined the Jihad against aspects of the LDS faith 8 years ago, when I found out that LDS terrorists had violated my rights.”

 

[dianaiad]

At the risk of opening a can of worms, and in an attempt to be truly charitable, while walking on eggshells I pose the following:

The first amendment of the Constitution of the United States reads as follows:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

As you can see, there is no reference of a violation of respecting the life and liberty of individuals here. However in the Declaration of Independence there are all kinds of references to it. Having said that, can a religion be unconstitutional if by it’s very nature it considers anyone who is not part of it an infidel who should be killed by any means necessary (including acts of terrorism). And if a hypothetical nation whose citizens all believed this way were declared war on, would it be considered a just war?

Any thoughts? Remember, it’s purely hypothetical….

…depends on why one declared the war.

Now…if they declared war on YOU because they think God told 'em too, so that you would have to worship the way they did, that’s one thing. It would be…bad.

Frankly, declaring war on some other nation because you don’t like thier religion is, well…how would that be different from them declaring war on you? The only difference between you would be…

well, no difference at all, actually.

 

[Genesius]

After doing some careful research online, I have to humbly eat crow and recant some of what I have posted here. However, I still don’t hear many outraged Muslims crying out against those militant ones saying, “We are outraged about 9/11. Those terrorists don’t represent our religion…and we will help in any peaceful way to set things straight.” They are mostly just silent.

I also have a friend who is in law enforcement who knows a man from the FBI who has not only studied the Koran, but used to live it. He was a very devout Muslim, and he says that if anyone says there are peaceful Muslims, they are either lying or ignorant of what the Koran teaches.

Now, having said that, I have read some things online from Muslim websites that seem to say the opposite about the teachings in the Koran. It’s really difficult to know what to believe. I have read excerpts from the Koran, and, like our Christian Bible they can be interpreted many ways.

All I know is that I haven’t forgotten 9/11. That is a tragic reality.

 

[seeker57]

Also, would you consider the Crusades to be just?

No, the first crusade was sponsored and promoted by Pope Urban II, who used the destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem by Caliph Al Hakim, as a rallying cry. The Francs, who were the majority of those who answered the call. reportedly were particularly vicious when they entered Jerusalem.

What Urban didn’t tell anyone was Byzantine Emperor Constantine IX had already worked out a plan with Al Hakim’s son, who now sat on the throne, to rebuild the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, as well as allow the Patriarch of Jerusalem to be restored.

Part of that agreement also allowed the mosque in Constantinople to be reopened.

The rest of the crusades were little more than a money grab by Europeans who discovered the wealth of the Muslim world and decided they wanted a share of it.

Interesting side note: One of the many advances brought back to Europe from Muslim world was soap.

No, I would not say the crusades were just or justifiable.

Seeker.

 

[Genesius]

Maybe a better question would be, does the Catholic Church consider the Crusades to have been a just war.

I’m sure there are some very informative articles on this issue (maybe even on this very website) that may clarify some common misconceptions about the Crusades and their purpose. I do admit to some ignorance on this issue.

 

[JoellaFaith]

war have been started by regilon there was the holy war crudes and today people use relgion to start war when what there really doing is using to start something and using reglion to do something evil just like those people who have communes

 

[LongJourney]

…depends on why one declared the war.

Now…if they declared war on YOU because they think God told 'em too, so that you would have to worship the way they did, that’s one thing. It would be…bad.

Exactly my point.

If you kept your opinion of their religion to yourself, acknowledging freedom of religion, and they made the first strike, then they are the transgressors.