Should Religious Freedom Trump the Law of the Land?

[Muffled]

Paul says that government is a terror for those who do evil. The problem arises when governments become evil and define good as evil and evil as good.

As for the example of human sacrifice, it is seen evil by our culture and the government would not support it but indians of mexico had human sacrifice as part of their religion and the government supported it.

For the Christian this is a sticky issue because he has divided loyalties. His primary loayalty is to the Kingdom of God and the authority that he obeys is that of his king Jesus. After that we are obligated to obey secular authorities.

There are Biblical stories about this. Nebuchadnezzar ordered everyone to bow down to an image of himself but Jews refused to bow down to an idol and the most obvious persons refusing were the prophet Daniel, Shadrach, Meshack and Abednego.

 

[tomspug]

I'm sorry, your reply just made me laugh out loud.

No, no, no. My point is this:
You must violate the rights of the person wishing to commit human sacrifice. His religion says that human sacrifice is necessary. The law says that's murder, and policemen thwart his plans. His right to religious freedom has been violated, but it has been done so in order to preserve the right of someone else: their right to life.

Reminds me of the opening to The Incredibles when Mr. Incredible gets sued for trying to save the life of someone in the midst of committing suicide...

 

[tomspug]

There are Biblical stories about this. Nebuchadnezzar ordered everyone to bow down to an image of himself but Jews refused to bow down to an idol and the most obvious persons refusing were the prophet Daniel, Shadrach, Meshack and Abednego.

But in that case, they were expressing their own personal freedom. They weren't infringing on the rights of anyone else (that I'm aware of).

I think the reason Sunstone brought this up is because religious people might put their OWN priorities, what they see as rights, and apply them to everyone. Isn't it wrong when the law becomes a tool for religion?

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Should religious freedom trump the law of the land? Why or why not?

Whow, this is an old thread; I didn't realize how old until I saw it and decided to respond.

My answer would be "No"; BUT, secular law should not trump basic human rights. The right to believe a given thing and express that belief is a basic human right.

Secular law should only put itself in matters of religion when the religion itself is demonstrating subversion of human rights. Religion should not be used as a shield to protect murderers (be it sacrifice or simply refusal to provide medical care for their children),sexual slavery, under aged or non-consensual marriage, etc.

 

[Levite]

Should religious freedom trump the law of the land? Why or why not?

No, unless the law of the land is compelling an individual to personally violate the tenets of their religion without a reason of overriding social importance.

So, for example, the government should be able to legalize same-sex marriage, but it shouldn't be able to compel clergy to perform same-sex marriages if their particular religions prohibit it.

Or, for a different example, adults should be free to refuse medical care on the basis of religious beliefs; but the government should be able to mandate medical treatment for minors with life-threatening conditions, regardless of the religious beliefs of their parents.

EDIT: Whoops-- didn't see this was a thread resurrection....

 

[Revoltingest]

No, unless the law of the land is compelling an individual to personally violate the tenets of their religion without a reason of overriding social importance.

So, for example, the government should be able to legalize same-sex marriage, but it shouldn't be able to compel clergy to perform same-sex marriages if their particular religions prohibit it.

Or, for a different example, adults should be free to refuse medical care on the basis of religious beliefs; but the government should be able to mandate medical treatment for minors with life-threatening conditions, regardless of the religious beliefs of their parents.

EDIT: Whoops-- didn't see this was a thread resurrection....

I thought you guys didn't believe in resurrection?

 

[Levite]

I thought you guys didn't believe in resurrection?

Only online....

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Do you consider ObamaCare's mandate for Catholic charities to dispense birth control a violation of their freedom of religion?

For the record: I do.

Though I the Catholics are gravely mistaken on their stance on birth control and condoms; but that's beside the point.

 

[Revoltingest]

Only online....

Even I practice resurrection there.