Religious Freedom, what does it really mean?

[Evangelicalhumanist]

We all know that there are people, Christians, Muslims, Jews and others, who are convinced that "religious freedom" means that they have the right to have others behave in accord with their beliefs. Muslims who don't think anybody should draw pictures of their prophet naturally assume that this rule applies to everyone on earth, whether they're Muslim or not, and that they have the right to exact punishment for transgressors. There are Christians who believe that the 10 Commandments are the "Word of God," and therefore should be posted in front of court houses, or in schools, that try or teach non-Christians and even atheists.

What does "religious freedom" really mean to you? I've posted a few poll choices, but I can't guess them all, so of course I've provided an "Other" category -- which if you choose, I hope you will describe in more detail.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I picked the first option, but on second thought...my beliefs my way...but mine should not impinge on others, just as others' should not impinge on me...

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What does "religious freedom" really mean to you? I've posted a few poll choices, but I can't guess them all, so of course I've provided an "Other" category -- which if you choose, I hope you will describe in more detail.

I voted "other."

IMO, religious freedom just entails normal freedoms that apply in much broader contexts:

- freedom of conscience
- freedom of speech
- freedom of assembly

I don't think think that freedom of religion is a freedom in its own right. Nothing in "freedom of religion" applies only to religion.

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

To me religious freedom is synonymous with freedom of religion. And basically what this means is, I should have the right to believe in God in however way I want. As someone who blurs the line between believer and skeptic I often find others trying to lump me in their camp, not really realizing that the way I perceive God is different from their own. And of course, this should be universally applied to everybody else's belief in God too. I have no right to force other people to change their mind about this topic, although honestly, once in awhile I regrettably try to and always end up in failure. As someone who subscribes to three alternative theologies and not one of them monotheism I believe this is a very important freedom for me to have, especially amongst those who misunderstand my views on this subject matter.

 

[Stevicus]

We all know that there are people, Christians, Muslims, Jews and others, who are convinced that "religious freedom" means that they have the right to have others behave in accord with their beliefs. Muslims who don't think anybody should draw pictures of their prophet naturally assume that this rule applies to everyone on earth, whether they're Muslim or not, and that they have the right to exact punishment for transgressors. There are Christians who believe that the 10 Commandments are the "Word of God," and therefore should be posted in front of court houses, or in schools, that try or teach non-Christians and even atheists.

What does "religious freedom" really mean to you? I've posted a few poll choices, but I can't guess them all, so of course I've provided an "Other" category -- which if you choose, I hope you will describe in more detail.

I voted the first choice.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

 

[1213]

What does "religious freedom" really mean to you? I've posted a few poll choices, but I can't guess them all, so of course I've provided an "Other" category -- which if you choose, I hope you will describe in more detail.

To me it means I can believe what I want and I also can live my own life by the teachings of my religion and that I am not forced to do things that are against my religion.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

We all know that there are people, Christians, Muslims, Jews and others, who are convinced that "religious freedom" means that they have the right to have others behave in accord with their beliefs.

What is meant by "the right to have others behave in accord with their beliefs"?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

What is meant by "the right to have others behave in accord with their beliefs"?

"I believe homosexuality is evil. Therefore, we should make a law forbidding it, and if broken, put them in jail or kill them." Uganda, just 2 weeks ago.

"I believe the 10 Commandments are the true words of the only God, therefore they should be displayed in our courts and classrooms to the exclusion of all other such precepts, no matter who will be present."

"I believe it is wrong to draw images of my Prophet, and therefore if somebody who doesn't believe that goes ahead and does it, then I have the right to kill him."

"I believe apostasy is wrong, therefore if a Muslim abandons his faith, then the community has a right to force him back, or punish him (preferably with death)."

"I believe a person's gender is defined only by the visible organs, and the brain has nothing to do with it. Therefore, I have the right to prevent somebody who believes that their assigned sex is incompatible with their perceived gender, I should be able to force them to live with it, and stop trying to pretend to be something else, because I don't understand it anyway."

"AIDS is just God pruning His garden." Pat Robertson.

Shall I go on, or is that enough to clarify my meaning to you?

 

[Vee]

We all know that there are people, Christians, Muslims, Jews and others, who are convinced that "religious freedom" means that they have the right to have others behave in accord with their beliefs. Muslims who don't think anybody should draw pictures of their prophet naturally assume that this rule applies to everyone on earth, whether they're Muslim or not, and that they have the right to exact punishment for transgressors. There are Christians who believe that the 10 Commandments are the "Word of God," and therefore should be posted in front of court houses, or in schools, that try or teach non-Christians and even atheists.

What does "religious freedom" really mean to you? I've posted a few poll choices, but I can't guess them all, so of course I've provided an "Other" category -- which if you choose, I hope you will describe in more detail.

For me it means that I have the right to my beliefs and to practice my religion. But I also have the duty to show respect to others and that includes accepting they have the right to their beliefs and to practice their religion.
We can't have freedom without respect.

 

[HonestJoe]

What does "religious freedom" really mean to you? I've posted a few poll choices, but I can't guess them all, so of course I've provided an "Other" category -- which if you choose, I hope you will describe in more detail.

I think your answers have the wrong focus. Beliefs aren't really the issue, the conflicts come in when those beliefs lead to actions (or expected actions). Two people could have exactly the same underlying beliefs about something but take entirely different actions as a consequence.

What I think religious freedom should mean is that nobody is treated differently (generally negatively) because of their religious identity or beliefs. Unfortunately, some religious people see it as the exact opposite, that they (often only they) should be treated differently (generally positively) because of their religious identity or beliefs.

 

[HonestJoe]

I voted the first choice.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

Wouldn't that imply that anyone who isn't under the scope of the US Congress would be free to interfere with your religious freedom though?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I think your answers have the wrong focus. Beliefs aren't really the issue, the conflicts come in when those beliefs lead to actions (or expected actions). Two people could have exactly the same underlying beliefs about something but take entirely different actions as a consequence.

What I think religious freedom should mean is that nobody is treated differently (generally negatively) because of their religious identity or beliefs. Unfortunately, some religious people see it as the exact opposite, that they (often only they) should be treated differently (generally positively) because of their religious identity or beliefs.

But in general, the very notion of "belief" is that which informs our actions. The person who acts contrary to their own beliefs is essentially messed up.

Now, I agree that it is possible to hold beliefs that look as though they might contradict each other: for example, "I believe there is only one God, Allah, and Mohammed is His Messenger," but also, "I believe others do not believe this, though I believe they are wrong," and also, "as I wish people to respect my beliefs, then I believe I am beholden to respect (at least publicly) theirs." All this is, though, is a hierarchy of beliefs, and weighing them off against one another -- and the situation one finds oneself in -- still work to inform our actions.

(Notice my insistence on using "inform actions" rather than "cause actions." This is an important distinction.)

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

What does "religious freedom" really mean to you?

For me, religious freedom is freedom from religion, which requires that the religious have no unwanted effect on the lives of unbelievers. So, I chose other, but I doubt that that is what you were asking about, so I'm also thinking of what religious behaviors should be considered protected and which not. The following is an outline of what I consider the freedoms that the religious should have protected written in response to somebody who called humanism menacing to him and his faith:

"How is that menacing to you? What are you envisioning will befall you or the church if all laws were consistent with humanistic principles? You'd lose some tax breaks, but you'd still be free to call yourself a Christian, pray, read your Bible, congregate for fellowship, wear a crucifix, sport Christian bumper stickers, decorate your house for Christmas, etc.. So where is the threat to you?"

You probably aren't shocked that the question was ignored.

And it's his religion, which threatens the freedoms of others, that is the menace as we see daily in the news and on these threads. He hates humanism, but paradoxically, that is where his guaranteed freedom of religion comes from.

 

[Stevicus]

Wouldn't that imply that anyone who isn't under the scope of the US Congress would be free to interfere with your religious freedom though?

Possibly. I don't expect freedom of religion in every jurisdiction in the world. Some places don't allow it.

 

[ChristineM]

Other. People should be free to choose whatever religion they want or none at all.
Probably could have been 1 but i have no religious beliefs

 

[HonestJoe]

But in general, the very notion of "belief" is that which informs our actions. The person who acts contrary to their own beliefs is essentially messed up.

But the same belief can inform different actions from different people (or even the same people at different times).

Some people believe that "same-sex marriage goes against the will of God" but they can take very different actions as a consequence. They might simply not marry someone of the same sex, they might refuse to be involved in any same-sex wedding (by their definition of "involved"), they might campaign for legislative changes restricting same-sex marriage or they might take direct violent action. The underlying belief would be exactly the same, it is the chosen actions that have the massive range of consequences.

Of course, entirely secular beliefs could be very similar and so inform exactly the same actions. Framing this as only "religious freedom" would suggest that the same actions could be legitimate if the reasoning is (claimed to be) religious based but not if the reasoning is secular.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

But the same belief can inform different actions from different people (or even the same people at different times).

Some people believe that "same-sex marriage goes against the will of God" but they can take very different actions as a consequence. They might simply not marry someone of the same sex, they might refuse to be involved in any same-sex wedding (by their definition of "involved"), they might campaign for legislative changes restricting same-sex marriage or they might take direct violent action. The underlying belief would be exactly the same, it is the chosen actions that have the massive range of consequences.

Of course, entirely secular beliefs could be very similar and so inform exactly the same actions. Framing this as only "religious freedom" would suggest that the same actions could be legitimate if the reasoning is (claimed to be) religious based but not if the reasoning is secular.

Well, somehow, I doubt it. I continue to think that all humans hold multiple beliefs, hold them in varying degrees of importance to themselves, and (as you suggest) varying degrees of importance depending on the situation. Let me examine the actions you proposed might to taken to a belief that same-sex marriage goes against the will of God:

• "Might simply not marry someone of the same sex:" this person may not hold his SSM belief as importantly as he holds a belief that he has no right to interfere in the freedoms of other people.
• "Might refuse to be involved in any same-sex wedding:" this person might believe that being involved might be seen as giving approval (that is not necessarily so), and that such perceived approval might taint him somehow.
• "Might campaign for legislative changes restricting same-sex marriage:" this person likely holds a belief that the Second Amendment, where it involves religion, is wrong, and that in permitting SSM, the nation itself is committing grave error. Pat Robertson was certainly such a person, as were many of his
• "Might take direct violent action:" such a person would appear to have another belief altogether -- that it is his responsibility to executre God's will on earth. Such a person is very dangerous. These are the ones who burned people alive for nothing more than holding beliefs they deemed heretical. This person is likely to interpret what he supposes are God's Laws for himself. Do yourself a favour and keep that person out of your church!

What I'm getting at is that humans are very complex critters, and we hold many, many beliefs, some in contradiction to others. And in ways that are sometimes difficult even for ourselves to sort out, these beliefs inform our actions. Let me provide one example, just as example -- a lynching.

Our beliefs are not just ours, but we subliminally acquire beliefs through social interaction with others. Most people, on their own, would never think of taking the law into our own hands and actually operating as judge, jury and executioner, but in groups, all of that can change, and it can change at great speed. Many a crowd of generally non-violent people have done exactly that in America's history. In fact, The Tuskegee Institute has recorded the lynchings of 3,446 blacks and 1,297 whites between 1882 and 1968. Yet I daresay that the majority of the thousands of people involved in those lynchings, on their own would never have imagined being involved in such a thing, and yet they were, nearly 5,000 times!

 

[HonestJoe]

What I'm getting at is that humans are very complex critters, and we hold many, many beliefs, some in contradiction to others. And in ways that are sometimes difficult even for ourselves to sort out, these beliefs inform our actions.

I think we're in agreement on that. My point is that, even for the most pious individual, not all of those combined beliefs will be directly related to their faith, which suggests to me than freedom of religion isn't specifically relevant but a more general concept of personal freedom.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

To me it means I can believe what I want and I also can live my own life by the teachings of my religion and that I am not forced to do things that are against my religion.

Does it also mean that for people who hold contrary religious beliefs to yours?

 

[Quintessence]

Couldn't answer the poll because it overly-fixates on religion as if it is a matter of belief when it is not - not even for the religions that purport to be "faith-based." Besides, an external agency cannot, in any fashion, control what goes on inside someone's head anyway. Thus my religious beliefs are irrelevant here because they cannot be controlled (aka, "thought police" does not work), not just because they aren't the focus of my religion in the first place.

Correct that word "belief" with "practice" though and it's some combination of the first three: freedom to practice and to be who you are, the basic common decency or respect required for that to occur, and enforcement by law against those who would try to destroy who and what you are. Honestly, as has been pointed out, there really isn't much practical difference between normal personal freedoms and what is stuffed in the "religion" box or the slightly broader "cultural" box.

Do religious practices require special protection? If history is any indication, unfortunately, yes - cultural/religious genocide attempts against indigenous peoples in particular has been far too common for me to say otherwise. Right now, a case is being considered that will rip children from their indigenous families and rob them of the ability to learn their cultural/religious traditions from the tribe. Without special consideration of cultural/religious elements - because goodness knows the Untied States can't be bothered to give much respect to the sovereignty of the First Nations - I'm not optimistic about how this case will be ruled by the current SCOTUS.