Should Religious Freedom Trump the Law of the Land?

[Sunstone]

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

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Perhaps only by the individual.

 

[Falvlun]

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

Good question and it's a toughie.
As an American, I enjoy great religious freedom, but I also appreciate that my government curbs those who want to sacrifice virgins and marry their daughters.

Perhaps you could explain what brought about this question. Do you have a specific example in mind?

In general, I do not think religious freedom should trump the law of the land, ie no human sacrifice. But, perhaps there is a law against the practice of religion itself, no matter how innocent. I would believe this to be an unjust law, and that religious freedom should trump it.

Perhaps only by the individual.

Could you elaborate? I don't quite understand your reply.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Could you elaborate? I don't quite understand your reply.

The individual is free to do whatever she or he wants within their willingness to endure the effects. Institutions, on the other hand, are much more bound by social contracts.

 

[Father Heathen]

The right to violate another person's right isn't a right at all.

 

[Falvlun]

The right to violate another person's right isn't a right at all.

But what if someone's right needed to be violated in order for them to not violate someone else's right?

 

[Father Heathen]

But what if someone's right needed to be violated in order for them to not violate someone else's right?

Provide an example.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Should religious freedom trump the law of the land?

Law constrains freedom.

 

[Falvlun]

The individual is free to do whatever she or he wants within their willingness to endure the effects. Institutions, on the other hand, are much more bound by social contracts.

I'm sorry. I'm really hung up on human sacrifice right now. So, you believe that the individual has the right to sacrifice anyone they want, as long as they are willing to go to jail for murder?

Actually, you use the word "free". They are "free" to do so. I suppose in a sense that is true: we are all free to do what we please. But are you translating that word "free" into a "right"?

As for institutions, sure, they have a bit more scrutiny to bear and more incentive to follow the rules. But in other ways they are more powerful then the individual alone. I would think that a group of people doing something... abnormal... are more likely to have it overlooked (since it can then be claimed to be a religion).

 

[Falvlun]

Provide an example.

Human sacrifice.

 

[Father Heathen]

Human sacrifice.

that doesn't even make sense. How is human sacrifice necessary to prevent someone from violating someone else's rights?

 

[Falvlun]

that doesn't even make sense. How is human sacrifice necessary to prevent someone from violating someone else's rights?

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.

 

[Father Heathen]

You must violate the rights of the person wishing to commit human sacrifice.

But it's not a right, because it (murder) violates another person's rights.

 

[misanthropic_clown]

The only circumstances I can consider it 100% safe for religious freedoms to operate in concert with the law of the land (and this is as an addition to, as opposed to in direct contradiction of) is if you have a religious arbitration service which all parties involve agree to participate in, and thus willingly allow themselves to be subject to the relevant religious laws and principles.

When parties are not in religious agreement, the application of religious principles gets far more ugly.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

I'm sorry. I'm really hung up on human sacrifice right now. So, you believe that the individual has the right to sacrifice anyone they want, as long as they are willing to go to jail for murder?

No. But they are free to do so.

Actually, you use the word "free". They are "free" to do so. I suppose in a sense that is true: we are all free to do what we please. But are you translating that word "free" into a "right"?

Yes, and that is the point. A freedom isn't a right. What is a human "right" if it isn't backed by an institution? Individuals are free to do whatever they wish, but must accept the consequences. People have "rights" because there are enough folks who support it.

As for institutions, sure, they have a bit more scrutiny to bear and more incentive to follow the rules. But in other ways they are more powerful then the individual alone. I would think that a group of people doing something... abnormal... are more likely to have it overlooked (since it can then be claimed to be a religion).

Precisely.

 

[PHOTOTAKER]

???? well anyway, the religious ideals are what is built upon this country, it is forcing people to a belief system that is wrong. supporting religious views is not a violation of church and state but the state saying you have to follow this view or religion is.
for example: not being able to sale cars on sunday is supporting religious view but still have separation of church and state.
saying you have to be a cloudiest (made up religious name i like clouds) would be a violation of church and state.
i thank thats what you are hinting towards right???

 

[Autodidact]

Could you be more specific?

 

[Wandered Off]

One problem is the sheer subjectivity of religion. I suspect several people would try to use this kind of religious trump card as cover to violate laws at will, and we could never be certain whether they were truly religious or just abusing religion for personal gain. For me, that's why I would answer "no" at least for now.

 

[madcap]

It's not always easy to distinguish between a religious principle and a secular principle. Murder continues to be cited as a violation of the victim's rights, but the government kills people -- either executing a convicted murderer or killing the enemy during a war. You could put abortion in that category too, I suppose. So if we live in a society that values the sanctity of human life, does that value come from religious belief IN SPITE OF other practical considerations that might present themselves?

I'm not trying to make a convincing argument that religion is the only thing keeping us from killing each other, because that's absurd. People learned a long time ago that it's more beneficial to the human race to live in relative harmony. But in that case, the constraint against murder has less to do with morality and ethics, and more to do with...well, it's generally (but not always) counterproductive to kill people.

So I think religion is important, because I think it has historically been the source of morality for most people. But I think a distinction has to be made between common sense morality ("don't kill people") and faith-specific values morality ("don't have sex outside of marriage"). Balancing individual rights against the needs (or wants) of the state can be a tricky balancing act, and I think it's useful at this point to divorce the concept or religion from the conversation. If I object to the use of violence -- for religious reasons or otherwise -- than I should not be made to take up arms in a war.

For another real world example, how about religious dress? Some Muslim women have been forced to have driver license photos taken without their hijabs. The state orders this for security reasons, and to prevent fraud. But this is in obvious conflict with the beliefs of the women being photographed.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

Human sacrifice.

If someone wants to kill himself he can go ahead (my opinion).