Should Religious Freedom protect ALL religious practices?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Holly3278
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ah no, that is one of the biggest reasons Early American colonists left Europe continuing through the great migration waves of 19th century.
 
GordonP said:
evangelical or pentacostal churches, and the Amish, not “new religious groups”.
Click to expand...
When I talk about the old religions, I mean the ones who have been around a thousand years or more.
So yes, the groups you mentioned are very new.
 
Many of the early Americans had faced some sort of religious persecution in Europe, so they wanted to make sure that in the United States of American Church and State were separated.
The only real mistake the founding fathers made was in not abolishing slavery early on. If they had done that, our country would not have suffered through the Civil War.
 
Pattylt said:
I have no problem if an adult JW refuses a transfusion but I do have a problem when they decide it for their children.
Click to expand...
I completely understand, but as a Catholic mom who has been criticized for “allowing my child to drink alcohol (at communion)” and for deciding to have the children baptized “against their will” I don’t like the precedence that sets.
 
repentant2 said:
There definitely shouldn’t be a theocracy.

The Church should handle moral matters as a whole, and advise the state when moral and temporal overlap.

The state should handle temporal matters, and listen to the advice of the Church.

The Catholic Church should receive a special recognition, funding, and a preferential status. Other religions should be allowed so long as they do not upset the proper order, or proselytize, or call for treasonous acts or revolution.

People should always be treated as individuals, respected in light of the dignity inherent as creatures made in the image of God. Law should be applied equally among all citizens. (if anything catholics should be held to a higher standard of conduct and action, and non catholics treated more leniently due to their error)
Click to expand...
Because, in a legal environment of privilege essentially the same as you described, the Church in Ireland did such a great job? The last thing I’d want is a society structured that way.
 
repentant2 said:
The Catholic Church should receive a special recognition, funding, and a preferential status.
Click to expand...
I don’t think any one Christian church should. Plenty of other Christian churches out there are not going to let that one pass. And I think all Christians should be on the same page, more or less, working together, without handing any one special privileges. That’s how we got to where we are now with other major problems.
 
Well, that’s our opinion and we’re entitled to it. But I don’t think laws should be made according to some arbitrary opinion. The same laws for all the people is the only fair way.
 
Last edited:
Calling the Catholic faith “an arbitrary opinion” is an offense against God, who is truth. It is also incompatible with the supernatural faith necessary for salvation.

In any event, the same laws are for all people. But law should not be inspired by or grounded in all ideologies or philosphies, as if they all were equally true. Human law is derived from divine law, since all authority to govern comes from God. The natural law and what God has revealed for our salvation must inspire and motivate those laws.

Relativistic approaches to law make the state supreme, and imply a totalitarian power over man and his destiny, and lead to human oppression and misery, as history sadly shows.
 
Last edited:
0Scarlett_nidiyilii said:
At this time in the US, nearly every state allows for exemption from mandatory vaccination of schoolchildren in religious or philosophical grounds. I think California may be the one exception.
Click to expand...
Mississippi and West Virginia, too.
0Scarlett_nidiyilii said:
And now, we’re seeing upticks in measles and whooping cough cases in recent years.
Click to expand...
Have you questioned why? The answer isn’t as simple as you think. Vaccination rates are at an all-time national high right now. I’m about to walk out the door but can post CDC links if you don’t beat me to it.
0Scarlett_nidiyilii said:
So it’s reasonable to start asking questions about how valid these objections are.
Click to expand...
Religious freedom is necessarily based on individual conscience as much as collective dogma. That is why it is intended to protect even the atheists and agnostics. The latter can’t/shouldn’t always provide black-and-white answers. Heaven forbid that religious freedom become subject to organized, state-approved religions.
Pattylt said:
I think the law has to tread very carefully and I understand that slippery slopes will come up. One area that I struggle over is a pharmacist refusing to fill a prescription due to conflict with their faith as long as another pharmacist is available to step in.
Click to expand...
Would you draw the line ANYWHERE? I don’t use the state as a metric for morals.

I go Libertarian here. If enough people get mad at Pharmacy X, they can go to Pharmacy Y, or their doctors will order a bunch in. Ditto on wedding cakes and bouquets. And I personally think it’s a stupid business decision to refuse to bake a cake.

Where to we draw THAT line? Do we question every straight couple coming in to make sure they’re not on their fourth marriage? Marrying someone they just met last week? Leaving a spouse to marry the person they cheated with? Bakers are florists ideally should not be playing the role of Moral Police.

!@##$#~! Now I’m running late. Dumb Internet. . . . LOL!
 
Last edited:
That’s the slippery slope thought and I understand the concern. However, has any child died from a sip of communion wine or being baptized as an infant?

Children have died from parents decisions on blood transfusions and refusing medical treatment so I think there can be a pretty clear line…most of the time…between religious traditions that are not detrimental and those that are. Taking the thought even further, circumcision of infants HAS led to rare deaths and exposure to STD’s. Being raised in that faith, every male I knew had the procedure done at 8days old. There are some circumcision procedures that I think should be regulated (don’t ask) but not circumcision in general. I’m torn on this issue.
 
Well, in a secular, egalitarian society, as long as no one is getting harmed, whether through physical violence, hate speech or defamation; then definitely yes.
 
On the issue of gender-based superiority, the U.S. allows women of such religions to live out their beliefs as they wish, but also protects their right to walk away if they decide they don’t want to live that way any more. The law isn’t going to discriminate against women on behalf of a given religion, or allow them to be assaulted or anything, but if they believe it is incumbent upon them to dress a certain way or not work outside the home or let their husbands make the major decisions, they certainly may do that. They can just also decide to stop doing that and, if necessary, disassociate from that community.
 
I completely understand. It is so difficult to navigate this mixed up world at times.
 
No. If your “religious freedom” can/does cause harm to yourself or others, or infringes on the right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness of others then it should absolutely be curtailed.

For instance if JWs won’t allow their children to have life saving blood transfusions then their religious objection should definitely be overruled to save the child’s life.
 
Indeed. Hate to say it but when afforded special status historically those running the RCC didn’t exactly acquit themselves well. To be fair that’s true of many religions granted a special status.
 
In the US, yes that is the way it works. Freedom for every religion. When we have the annual “Prayer for Religious Freedom”, that is not just prayer for the Religion we personally like.
 
repentant2 said:
It’s pretty common in Islam.
Click to expand...
I’m pretty sure that FGM isn’t proscribed anywhere in the Quran. What has happened is a cultural practice incorporated Islam into the practice…otherwise it would be seen amongst diverse Islamic groups and it isn’t. It’s seen amongst certain cultures that are also Islamists.

Either way, this is one practice that is illegal here and I’m glad of it!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top