Should freedom of religion grow in the many countries of the world?

[Viker]

I'm not sure how people impose their religion onto another unwilling person

By continuing to push when someone asks them to stop or say no. Often times, using state compulsion on others. Forced assimilation and conversion. Making children, possibly of other religions, pray to a God they don't already worship.

I know that the aforementioned is not basic proselytizing, evangelizing or witnessing. People are and should be free to do so in an open public space. They shouldn't be allowed to use compulsion or coercion.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm one of those folks that when they say 'freedom of religion' what I mean is like saying "smoke 'em if you got 'em". If you don't smoke then that's perfectly fine with me. You don't have to smoke.

In my view, freedom of religion embraces those that choose no religion as well as all those that do.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It would be great if it was free.
It is not free in communist countries, in Islamic countries, in Hindu countries

Isn't that the point of the question of the OP? Freedom of religion doesn't exist everywhere.

and in democratic countries where people get offended by the teachings of religion when they are contrary to the laws of the land.

So you would be OK if I suddenly converted to the religion of the ancient Incas and gathered a following bringing in all the practices of that religion which democratic societies should tolerate and make legal exceptions for?

Is there not a point where your freedom should co-exist tolerant to mine and not try to push its way into my freedom? Even where we share the same religion, I can't go after you over a difference in interpretation. A law that may inhibit my response in the hypothetical is protecting you.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Aztec revivalists can spread their religion if it is not harming anyone. I'm not sure how people impose their religion onto another unwilling person. That sounds like more than proselytising and different.
I'm talking about speaking about your religion and stopping if they don't want to hear about it.
Is that proselytising?

Whether teachings are doing harm can be a matter of opinion imo but a line needs to be drawn sometimes and no doubt there will be times when the line is an abuse of freedom of religion, and at times there will be no line drawn when there needs to be one.

Religion has been imposed on indigenous people through history. In North America with the Native Americans and Native Canadians. In Australia with the Aboriginal people. In many places where a technically and numerically advanced religious people met a technically and numerically inferior indigenous population.

In modern times, where some religious people think their freedom to worship is a mandate to impose their religion onto others.

As a Christian, do you think God wants people to freely choose or join by coercion? If you are coerced, their is no freedom of religion.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

How can I force my religion onto anyone?

Outside of science, I've worked in a variety of jobs including as an associate in a major home improvement company. On some Sundays a group of people would enter the store and wonder around approaching employees and customers alike about Christianity. As an employee, it was my job to engage the public in my area. I was a captive audience against my will under those circumstances. The woman that approached me wasn't looking for anything in my department and didn't have any plumbing needs. I describe a rather mild case and I was able to exercise my will in this brief encounter and send her on her way. But you don't think that people that do that sort of thing don't know they are in a place where they have some control over the people they approach? In the US, customers expect retail employees to engage with them when they seek it. That engagement is part of the employees job. Taking advantage of that knowledge to proselytize is coercion.

 

[HonestJoe]

Should freedom of religion grow in the many countries of the world?

I understand why it exists in reality, but in principle, freedom of religion shouldn't be necessary, just general freedoms that apply equally to everyone. After all, what freedoms would any religious people need that non-religious people don't?

 

[Alien826]

Is it the forcing that they don't want or the particular teaching that they don't want? and how is it forced onto people?



How can I force my religion onto anyone?



Oh how offensive, you mentioned vegetarianism and forced me to read it.

We need to clearly differentiate between "teaching" and "practice".

To me, simply talking about a religious belief should not be subject to offense, provided that the speaker allows the listener to not listen. This what you are referring to I think.

Forcing (by law usually) a religious practice or rule on people is what is offensive to me.

 

[fantome profane]

I'm one of those folks that when they say 'freedom of religion' what I mean is like saying "smoke 'em if you got 'em". If you don't smoke then that's perfectly fine with me. You don't have to smoke.

I am very tempted to make a cynical comment about the dangers of second hand religion.



But I won't.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

We already have a destructive level of religious freedom that is harmful to others in America. We need less, the world doesn't need it.

 

[F1fan]

Is it the forcing that they don't want or the particular teaching that they don't want? and how is it forced onto people?



How can I force my religion onto anyone?

Make it mandatory via the law. And as we see in the USA republicans approached their supreme court nominees from a religious perspective and now have a majority on the court. They have been using this religious attitude to rule in imporant cases, namely Roe v Wade being overturned. So now many American women are forced to deal with lack of adequate healthcare, al because of Christians in government.

 

[Brian2]

So you would be OK if I suddenly converted to the religion of the ancient Incas and gathered a following bringing in all the practices of that religion which democratic societies should tolerate and make legal exceptions for?

Yes of course. You have freedom to choose whichever religion you want.

 

[Brian2]

As a Christian, do you think God wants people to freely choose or join by coercion? If you are coerced, their is no freedom of religion.

Freely choose of course.

 

[Brian2]

Make it mandatory via the law. And as we see in the USA republicans approached their supreme court nominees from a religious perspective and now have a majority on the court. They have been using this religious attitude to rule in imporant cases, namely Roe v Wade being overturned. So now many American women are forced to deal with lack of adequate healthcare, al because of Christians in government.

That sounds like a different topic, and is not proselytising.

 

[F1fan]

That sounds like a different topic, and is not proselytising.

No, freedom of religion should mean freedom FROM religion. Obviously conservative Christians think their religious beliefs have an authority it doesn't have according to the Constitution.

 

[Brian2]

No, freedom of religion should mean freedom FROM religion. Obviously conservative Christians think their religious beliefs have an authority it doesn't have according to the Constitution.

Many people want laws that reflect their view or right and wrong and which do the best for a country and the people of the country. Christians are no different but atheists esp think that Christians should have no rights in making laws in a democratic society but of course want their particular ideas to win the day.
But all this has nothing to do with proselytising imo.

 

[F1fan]

Many people want laws that reflect their view or right and wrong and which do the best for a country and the people of the country.

As long as religion isn't part of it. Religion has a powerful influence on the masses, and leaders should respect the Constitution and work WITH it. We see evangelicans not respect the Constitution and work to get their beliefs expanded through political actors. The conservatives have been exploited emotionally and have have gone along with this.

Christians are no different but atheists esp think that Christians should have no rights in making laws in a democratic society but of course want their particular ideas to win the day.

Liberal and moderate Christians, yes. Not conservative Christians, who have succeeded in getting intermingled with the Republican party.

But all this has nothing to do with proselytising imo.

Subtle rhetoric is enough.

 

[wellwisher]

This sort of question is less than useful without some elaboration of what is meant.

My own take is that sure, freedom of religion is a good thing... but it is not and should not be a refuge from basic responsibility for our actions and omissions.

Which ultimately means that law should give no recognition to any concept of religion whatsoever, and laicism is the only reasonable relationship between governments and creeds.

It also means that ultimately freedom of religion can't exist without also including freedom from (whatever is considered by someone to be a) religion.

To do this we need a better definition of religion, that can include new undercover religions. Not all religions have deities; Buddhism, so that alone, is not a complete litmus test.

Political parties could be defined as religions, when they become obsessive compulsive. For example, during the Russian Collision scam in 2016, many people were tripping out on a fantasy world that did not exist. That looked like a religion to me, run by the State, who then attacked other religions, who were easier to identify, been more classic.

The transgender fad could be called a religion, since it is less biological; DNA, and more a product of the mind and a ritual of self mutilation, to appease the gods of vanity.

We need to define religion in a way that allows all choices to be allowed, but limits what government can endorse. One can join a transgender religion, but Public schools cannot teach it.

Is fake news a religion, since what is reported is not based on reality, but a self serving fantasy. Many people claim religion is a fantasy, that science cannot prove. Fake new has that in common. To be safe, the state cannot use ake news as a tool since that would create a self serving religion.

Lying politicians could be defined as a religion since lying is not part of science based cause and affect, but is about an alternate reality, that science cannot investigate and prove.

We need more inclusive and modernize definition of religion, since there are so many new religions that say they are not religion so they can infiltrate the government. How can you trust liars to tell you they are not a religion?

We might be able to do a brain scan of the classic religious, and then compare this to other behavior. One will still allowed to practice their faith, but government would need to purged and pet funding eliminated.

 

[LuisDantas]

Many people want laws that reflect their view or right and wrong and which do the best for a country and the people of the country. Christians are no different but atheists esp think that Christians should have no rights in making laws in a democratic society but of course want their particular ideas to win the day.
But all this has nothing to do with proselytising imo.

It is statements like this that make it clear that secularism is necessary in any government.

 

[LuisDantas]

To do this we need a better definition of religion, that can include new undercover religions. Not all religions have deities; Buddhism, so that alone, is not a complete litmus test.

Political parties could be defined as religions, when they become obsessive compulsive. For example, during the Russian Collision scam in 2016, many people were tripping out on a fantasy world that did not exist. That looked like a religion to me, run by the State, who then attacked other religions, who were easier to identify, been more classic.

The transgender fad could be called a religion, since it is less biological; DNA, and more a product of the mind and a ritual of self mutilation, to appease the gods of vanity.

We need to define religion in a way that allows all choices to be allowed, but limits what government can endorse. One can join a transgender religion, but Public schools cannot teach it.

Is fake news a religion, since what is reported is not based on reality, but a self serving fantasy. Many people claim religion is a fantasy, that science cannot prove. Fake new has that in common. To be safe, the state cannot use ake news as a tool since that would create a self serving religion.

Lying politicians could be defined as a religion since lying is not part of science based cause and affect, but is about an alternate reality, that science cannot investigate and prove.

We need more inclusive and modernize definition of religion, since there are so many new religions that say they are not religion so they can infiltrate the government. How can you trust liars to tell you they are not a religion?

We might be able to do a brain scan of the classic religious, and then compare this to other behavior. One will still allowed to practice their faith, but government would need to purged and pet funding eliminated.

I quite disagree.

We don't need to define religion at all, and in fact there is little benefit in attempting to.

Instead, we just need to embrace the free-style of it all and accept that there is no constructive reason to have a legal recognition of any.

(Also, transgenderism is a reality, not a "fad").

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes of course. You have freedom to choose whichever religion you want.

Good to know.