Religious Liberty, Christian Liberty

[lewisnotmiller]

So...I don't have a specific debate in mind, but this topic could be divisive, so I've put it here to allow for robust (but respectful) disagreement.

I read a lot of things from various parties about 'religious liberty'. The freedom to practise your faith. For a non-believer like me, there are also concerns around the freedom to NOT have a faith.

Debates around that will always exist, but I'm increasingly interested by the conflation of 'freedom of religion' with 'freedom for my religion'.

So...anyway...interested in opinions on this article (it's almost 2 months old) around the prevention of an imam from being present at an execution, and the eventual decision to prevent all religious support to be present.

This seems like a bad outcome, but my reading on this particular topic is limited.

Religious Liberties for Christians, Discrimination for Everyone Else

Did Alabama breach the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, as the appellate court suggested?
Was the outcome to anyone's benefit?

 

[Father Heathen]

I don't understand how anyone struggles with the idea that liberty should be limited at the point it begins to limit other people's liberty; i.e. the right/freedom to deny rights/freedoms shouldn't be a right/freedom. Yet we often hear of christians whining about being persecuted or discriminated against because they were prevented from persecuting or discriminating against others, the irony of which of course is lost upon them.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I don't understand how anyone struggles with the idea that liberty should be limited at the point it begins to limit other people's liberty; i.e. the right/freedom to deny rights/freedoms shouldn't be a right/freedom. Yet we often hear of christians whining about being persecuted or discriminated against because they were prevented from persecuting or discriminating against others, the irony of which of course is lost upon them.

In this case, initial discrimination was replaced by a block on all religious people, so I guess in the end the rules have become equitable. However, I think they breach concepts of religious liberty.

Thoughts?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

In this case, initial discrimination was replaced by a block on all religious people, so I guess in the end the rules have become equitable. However, I think they breach concepts of religious liberty.

Thoughts?

I agree. They'd rather shut the whole thing down than share like they are supposed to. And another bridge between Christians thinking "religious liberty" means "religious liberty for me" is found in how they use terms such as "religion" and "god" interchangeable to the point of assumption the two words are used to mean Christianity and Jehovah, making it pretty easy to talk of religious freedom but mean it only for them, because to them their's is the only real and true religion anyways.

 

[Father Heathen]

In this case, initial discrimination was replaced by a block on all religious people, so I guess in the end the rules have become equitable. However, I think they breach concepts of religious liberty.

Thoughts?

When it comes to things regarding government involvement, it should either be all or none, and in many cases the "none" route is simply the most feasible.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

When it comes to things regarding government involvement, it should either be all or none, and in many cases the "none" route is simply the most feasible.

Agreed.
In this particular case, though, I'm inclined to 'all'.
Thinking about why, it comes down to the individual in question. They can choose whatever religious representative they want, but they can't choose 2. So it avoids the 'equal access' dilemmas that are problematic in schools, courts, parliament, etc.

If the guy decides he a Muslim, or a Jew, or a pagan via some sort of deathbed conversion, it might me a little dubious, but so be it. It really doesn't effect anyone else.

 

[Father Heathen]

I agree. They'd rather shut the whole thing down than share like they are supposed to. And another bridge between Christians thinking "religious liberty" means "religious liberty for me" is found in how they use terms such as "religion" and "god" interchangeable to the point of assumption the two words are used to mean Christianity and Jehovah, making it pretty easy to talk of religious freedom but mean it only for them, because to them their's is the only real and true religion anyways.

Those who cry "religious freedom" when trying to push for the Bible in public schools would be among the first to scream in outrage if the same was done for the Koran or Gita.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Those who cry "religious freedom" when trying to push for the Bible in public schools would be among the first to scream in outrage if the same was done for the Koran or Gita.

They would. Perhaps we should make a very strong effort to push the Satanic Bible so they all die of heart attacks over the shock from the fact they don't have to do dumb crap to make things up and create Satanic messages that don't exist. It's there, it's in their faces, and they don't have to figure out to play it backwards. Go from "Satanic Panic" to "Satanic Presence."

 

[Father Heathen]

They would. Perhaps we should make a very strong effort to push the Satanic Bible so they all die of heart attacks over the shock from the fact they don't have to do dumb crap to make things up and create Satanic messages that don't exist. It's there, it's in their faces, and they don't have to figure out to play it backwards. Go from "Satanic Panic" to "Satanic Presence."

Of course they would simply claim that it's just a cover for the "real" satanism as depicted in Hollywood and Chick tracts. They reject anything that doesn't jive with their narrative, facts be damned.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Of course they would simply claim that it's just a cover for the "real" satanism as depicted in Hollywood and Chick tracts. They reject anything that doesn't jive with their narrative, facts be damned.

I doubt it. Chick Tracts portray pretty much everything that isn't a part of Christianity as Satanic (such as D&D), and they don't see Satanists as not being "real Satanists." Rather, it's generally viewed that things like Hollywood aren't going to be real because those are the things Satan uses to appeal to the most people to lure them away from god. Satanists, on the other hand, they aren't just Satanists they're bonafide and on an entirely different level than seeing Satan's influence in Pokemon and Harry Potter.
To them, to push for the Satanic Bible on the grounds of religious freedom would be viewed as the Devil working to challenge and ridicule Christians, to do what he does well by turning something good into something bad, and a move that brazenly taunts how much control over the world he has. I suspect they would also view it as the "completion" of removing god from the class room.

 

[onevoice]

So...I don't have a specific debate in mind, but this topic could be divisive, so I've put it here to allow for robust (but respectful) disagreement.

I read a lot of things from various parties about 'religious liberty'. The freedom to practise your faith. For a non-believer like me, there are also concerns around the freedom to NOT have a faith.

Debates around that will always exist, but I'm increasingly interested by the conflation of 'freedom of religion' with 'freedom for my religion'.

So...anyway...interested in opinions on this article (it's almost 2 months old) around the prevention of an imam from being present at an execution, and the eventual decision to prevent all religious support to be present.

This seems like a bad outcome, but my reading on this particular topic is limited.

Religious Liberties for Christians, Discrimination for Everyone Else

Did Alabama breach the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, as the appellate court suggested?
Was the outcome to anyone's benefit?

Are you not, perhaps, begging the question?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Are you not, perhaps, begging the question?

What question?
I'm asking for opinions on a linked article, and offered my own.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Did Alabama breach the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, as the appellate court suggested?

Sure seems that way to me.

Was the outcome to anyone's benefit?

This part of the outcome stood out for me, because it follows a pattern:

Instead of learning from its mistake and expanding religious freedoms for all prisoners, Alabama, according to court filings, will now apparently bar all spiritual advisers from the execution chamber just so it doesn’t run afoul of the establishment clause.

I've noticed a trend in the US:

- special treatment gets given to Christians.
- when some other religious group tries to get the same treatment, it gets taken away for everyone, including the Christians.

There sure seem to be a lot of people in the US who are strongly against giving regard to any religion but Christianity.

 

[onevoice]

What question?
I'm asking for opinions on a linked article, and offered my own.

Your OP begged the question by taking for granted the current system of values that places all religions as equal. Whilst that may be a valid viewpoint it is not necessarily the only valid one.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Your OP begged the question by taking for granted the current system of values that places all religions as equal. Whilst that may be a valid viewpoint it is not necessarily the only valid one.

I doubt many people think all religions are equal.
That's why I linked to an article, and also posed a question around the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

I'm not American, but this question related to American Law and the American Constitution.

 

[onevoice]

I doubt many people think all religions are equal.
That's why I linked to an article, and also posed a question around the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

I'm not American, but this question related to American Law and the American Constitution.

Where are you from then?

 

[sooda]

Sure seems that way to me.


This part of the outcome stood out for me, because it follows a pattern:


I've noticed a trend in the US:

- special treatment gets given to Christians.
- when some other religious group tries to get the same treatment, it gets taken away for everyone, including the Christians.

There sure seem to be a lot of people in the US who are strongly against giving regard to any religion but Christianity.

I have been reading about Irish immigration to the US in the 1920s and early 1930s. They were despised whether they were Catholic or Protestant and vilified by the KKK. They were also largely impoverished.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Where are you from then?

Australia

 

[onevoice]

Australia

I see, the current dominant dogma in Europe is that all are

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I have been reading about Irish immigration to the US in the 1920s and early 1930s. They were despised whether they were Catholic or Protestant and vilified by the KKK. They were also largely impoverished.

Sure. As time moves on, the people that the establishment sees as "other" has changed. What's stayed is that the establishment isn't very accommodating of people it sees as "other."