Is There Any Limit To Freedom of Religion?

[autdrew]

I think it is also helpful to point out the Crusades were enacted after several HUNDRED years of attacks, conquer & subjugation of Christians/Jews/others in the middles east, north africa, the Holy Land, Turkey, Europe. The Christians in those countries were routinely attacked & taken as slaves. Rome & Europe took almost 400 years to respond. and the Christians get the blame?
not to mention the “wealth” spoken of that the evil Pope wanted, was taken as booty, on the command of the profit.

 

[dianaiad]

I think it is also helpful to point out the Crusades were enacted after several HUNDRED years of attacks, conquer & subjugation of Christians/Jews/others in the middles east, north africa, the Holy Land, Turkey, Europe. The Christians in those countries were routinely attacked & taken as slaves. Rome & Europe took almost 400 years to respond. and the Christians get the blame?
not to mention the “wealth” spoken of that the evil Pope wanted, was taken as booty, on the command of the profit.

The Albegensians were not Muslim. Nor did they attack anybody.

 

[autdrew]

I dont think we are talking about the Albigensians,I thought we were talking about the Holy Land Crusades that the Christians get all the blame from atrocities & Muslims get a free pass, people think we went about attacking innocent muslims who were not doing anything but just sitting there peacefully, when that was not the case. The Albi crusade is one of those things we do have to take full blame for, especially the French govt at that time. It was heresy chasing run amok with a full measure of greed thrown in & should be condemed, but again, not the crusades people think of when they talk about them.

 

[seeker57]

It’s all good. I do agree with you that by and large, the current practice of Islam is rife with mistreatment of women and non-Muslims, and the fact that nearly all the terrorists attacks against the US in recent years have been Muslim in nature should ring a few alarms.

I would absolutely say the Crusades were justified and that they were just wars. It’s best not to believe the public school and popular history in this regard, because they desire nothing more than to paint the Church in the worst light possible.

The fact is, Muslim forces were spreading like wildfire, and they threatened the European countries. The Crusades were undertaken to STOP the inevitable invasion by Muslim forces. The threat was so great, that 7 Crusades were undertaken! This was not a case of modern war, where the Pope was like the Bush admin, looking for any excuse to go to war with Iraq. There was a real threat, and the European countries acted on it.

I would disagree. My response wasn’t taken from information gathered in public school, nor in popular history. History is rarely taught in school these days and most Americans know little and care even less about it, so history could hardly be called popular.

On a more serious note, you are correct that Muslim rulers were setting their sites on Europe, or at least the Byzantine Empire, which, by this time, was basically an impotent shadow of its previous self.

The first crusade came about because the Byzantine emperor needed help keeping his empire safe.

But, all of the crusades, from the first to the last, were dismal failures.

In the end, Islam did indeed spread to Europe. It engulfed the Byzantine Empire and still exists there today. Turkey has a majority Muslim population.

Jerusalem, while temporarily held by Christian crusaders, soon was back under Muslim rule and stayed that way until World War I.

For a war to be just, it must be fought for a just cause. The crusades were not created to benefit the people, did not liberate anyone from injustice, release anyone from slavery or preserve a culture or society.

I cannot find any reason to consider the more than two centuries of bloodshed called the crusades justified.

 

[Genesius]

dianaiad wrote: If a Muslim nation wishes to live its religion…no matter how WE think about it…in their own nation, it is their right.

The problem with that statement is defining what their nation is. That is a debate that has probably been at the heart of most of the religious wars in the middle east throughout the centuries. Muslims want to force their religion on the Jews and Christians in the Holy Land, and always have.

It’s kind of like saying, if a Communist nation wishes to live by Communist rule it is their right. True, IF that is the case. However, I would venture to say that probably a lot of citizens in Communist countries would rather live free. I can think of at least two conflicts that the U.S. have been in over that particular issue. The analogy would be the ‘bully’ kidnapping someone, obviously against their will. Who is going to step in for the victim being bullied who can’t defend himself?

By the way, go try living in a Muslim nation as an LDS, Jew, Catholic, or Protestant, or any other belief system that is not Muslim and see how safe you feel.

 

[rossum]

I dont think we are talking about the Albigensians,

There was more than one Crusade. See the Albigensian Crusade for the crusade against the Albigensians. There were other crusades that did not attack Muslims, the Fourth Crusade attacked the Christian Byzantine Empire and sacked Constantinople for example.

rossum

 

[LongJourney]

If a Muslim nation wishes to live its religion…no matter how WE think about it…in their own nation, it is their right. The problem with that statement is defining what their nation is.

There are different brands of Islam. It depends on how they practice their religion. There are countries which are predominantly Muslim, where people of other faiths are tolerated.

 

[Stephen168]

The Albegensians were not Muslim. Nor did they attack anybody.

True

 

[dianaiad]

dianaiad wrote: If a Muslim nation wishes to live its religion…no matter how WE think about it…in their own nation, it is their right.

The problem with that statement is defining what their nation is. That is a debate that has probably been at the heart of most of the religious wars in the middle east throughout the centuries. Muslims want to force their religion on the Jews and Christians in the Holy Land, and always have.

It’s kind of like saying, if a Communist nation wishes to live by Communist rule it is their right. True, IF that is the case. However, I would venture to say that probably a lot of citizens in Communist countries would rather live free. I can think of at least two conflicts that the U.S. have been in over that particular issue. The analogy would be the ‘bully’ kidnapping someone, obviously against their will. Who is going to step in for the victim being bullied who can’t defend himself?

By the way, go try living in a Muslim nation as an LDS, Jew, Catholic, or Protestant, or any other belief system that is not Muslim and see how safe you feel.

Let us use the case of the kidnap victim here. If we know that the victim doesn’t want to be where he is, and we have some evidence that he would welcome rescue, that’s one thing.

However, it’s not up to us to decide that the abduction was an abduction just because we don’t like the way the ‘abductor’ worships, or because we don’t like his politics. There has to be some real indication that the move isn’t a welcome one.

Now, in terms of modern Israel, it’s pretty obvious. (though having spoken to a few different people, WHAT is obvious isn’t always, well…obvious…) However, if one Muslim nation and her citizens are used to and happy with Muslim beliefs, then unless they do something against us, we have no right to invade them…

Of course, if they fly a plane into our buildings, all bets are off.

 

[dianaiad]

There are different brands of Islam. It depends on how they practice their religion. There are countries which are predominantly Muslim, where people of other faiths are tolerated.

Well…I have this problem with a perception that we have the right to attack other nations because they refuse to allow Christians/Jews/whatever to preach there. …mainly because I don’t see how our using violence in that situation makes us any better than them.

Now–if they decide to attack us in order to make us believe as they wish, well…all bets are off.

 

[JHow]

(C)an 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).

I don’t think a religion can’t be unconstitutional. The question is whether any restriction that Congress might impose on such a religion as you describe is constitutional. The Constitution places a limit on Congress, it doesn’t describe what a religion bas to believe or not believe.

Clearly, Congress has the power restrict a number of religious practices: human sacrifice, polygamy, FGM, etc. Using the example you give, there are already laws on the books against murder and terrorism that pass constitutional muster.

 

[Genesius]

I don’t think a religion can’t be unconstitutional. The question is whether any restriction that Congress might impose on such a religion as you describe is constitutional. The Constitution places a limit on Congress, it doesn’t describe what a religion bas to believe or not believe.

Clearly, Congress has the power restrict a number of religious practices: human sacrifice, polygamy, FGM, etc. Using the example you give, there are already laws on the books against murder and terrorism that pass constitutional muster.

Thank you. One of the best answers I have heard so far. Not that any of the answers here are bad. I actually think it’s wonderful that in spite of our religious differences here we can all discuss this in a respectful manner. Yes, there is a bit of bantering, but I think for the most part we’ve all handled it well, and though I don’t totally agree with all the sentiments I do respect them all. Godbless.

 

[LongJourney]

I don’t think a religion can’t be unconstitutional. The question is whether any restriction that Congress might impose on such a religion as you describe is constitutional. The Constitution places a limit on Congress, it doesn’t describe what a religion bas to believe or not believe.

Clearly, Congress has the power restrict a number of religious practices: human sacrifice, polygamy, FGM, etc. Using the example you give, there are already laws on the books against murder and terrorism that pass constitutional muster.

If a religion were to go that haywire, criminal prosecution and civil lawsuits, using laws that are already in place, should be sufficient to place appropriate restraints on it. That is, if the legal system were not already controlled by them.