Is Freedom of Religion a good thing ?

[ModernDaySpyridon]

Sorry double post ;-)

 

[ModernDaySpyridon]

I think this is actually an open question whose answer at first seems obvious but if you look deeper may not be so clear cut, freedom of religion in places like the United States I dont think has had particularly good results, it's led to the proliferation of dangerous cults and the fracturing of the main faith of your nation so that many who call themselves Christian now would not have been recognised as so in the past.

The main faith of America, at its inception, was Deism. Let's not forget that. America has never been, and will never be, a "Christian nation," and so there can never be a "fracturing" of its faith.

Is Freedom of Religion a good thing ?


Does the above foster the spread of heresy in regions where it is allowed ?

Does it contribute to the endless fracturing of the Chrstian faith ?

Should Orthodox countries captiulate to Western pressures to allow Heterodox religions the freedom to set up camp in their sovereign nations ?


Would you live in a nation where Orthodoxy was the only faith allowed ?

Things always get messy when church and state become enmeshed, because power like that corrupts, and because of our imperfect natures, that corruption can lead to horrible acts of persecution and injustice. The Church is not called, I believe, to rule the world through military or political might. If that was the case, Jesus would have been the Messiah everyone expected, a conquering war chief who would have driven the heathans out of Israel. Instead, it seems, Jesus brought a new politic to the world, an economy of the backwards, where weakness is strength, where the last will become first, and where it is only in surrender that we truly become free.

 

[OnTheWay]

I have yet to see an example of this that wasn't hyped by the media to the point that the facts were completely obscured. When a christian decides that they want to set up a nativity scene at the courthouse and it is taken down, they have every right to put it on their own property. The government should not be endorsing one religion over another anyway.

Actually, the government choses to ignore it's own laws and interfer with the right of others to freely practice and express their faith. Does the presence of a nativity scene exclude the possiblity for others to put up symbols of their religions? Absolutely not, the fact of the matter is we do have the state sponsering one religion, radical atheism, over others.

[QUOTE} You say that they don't do this to muslim and jewish displays, but when was the last time you saw such a display in the first place?[/QUOTE]

You ever been to New York?

I have seen countless nativity scenes on public property that were allowed because no one objected, I have never seen the star and crescent displayed anywhere at any time of year.

Probably owing to the fact that Islam is a tiny minority religion in the United States (thank God), and there are no Muslims around. However, if they want to do it fine with me.

I only ever saw a menorah when I was in a nearly all-jewish neighborhood.

You should have contacted the ACLU at once, they would had that Menorah down and Nazis marching through the streets in hours.

The simple fact of the matter is that christians feel that they should infuse the pubic square with their Santa Claus statues, their reindeer, their Frosty the Snowmen,

While I tend to find the use of "their" somewhat telling, I'll skip it. At any rate, Santa Claus and Frosty aren't religious symbols.

their snowflakes,

I was unaware that Christianity held the patent on snow.

their jingle bells and sleighs, and occasionally a baby Jesus statue.

Finally, we come to something that actually is a symbol of a religion.

When someone gets sick of it and complains, the government can't really keep endorsing them on property that every tax payer pays for.

It's very telling about a soceity that feels the correct response is to get the government to enforce some Stalinist measure. If Jews or Muslims are "sick" of it then why not bring out a big Star of David or a Crescent moon? The fact of the matter is these aren't Jews and Mulisms that bring this bunk into our courts. It's the radical atheists that want to see their religion forced on everyone else. Freedom of religion is not freedom from religion.

When the government tells me that my Icons can be seen through a window in my house, or that the cross on top of my church needs to be taken down, I will be concerned. Until then, I don't think that it is even a nuisance much less persecution.

Considering not so long ago Boston housing projects were attempting to force Irish families to remove shamrocks (because some minorities felt them "racist") I wouldn't be surprised if this isn't an event of the near future.

I again think this is the magic of media hype. Jesus taught us that when we pray, we are to lock ourselves in a closet rather than to try to prove something by praying in front of others.

Actually, this is the some sort of interpratation that leads the ends "call no man father" charge. Jesus is using hyperbole to make a point about the condition of heart in prayer, not that one literally must be locked in a closet.

There may be a few isolated incidents where someone was being disruptive or whatever and they are asked not to be, but how exactly would anyone even know that the majority of people were praying? Apart from a prostration or the sign of the cross, there is no visible sign that one is praying usually.

If one cares to go through the jurisprudence on the matter, instead of making assumptions, the cases rose out of written district policy forbidding any prayer on school grounds.

One need not pray out loud to be heard by God. Again, I'm not sure how this affects us.

Not thrilled about living in Stalinist Russia were cops stand outside and tell parents they can't bring their kids to Church.

 

[The Virginian]

Does the above foster the spread of heresy in regions where it is allowed ?

Does it contribute to the endless fracturing of the Chrstian faith ?

Should Orthodox countries captiulate to Western pressures to allow Heterodox religions the freedom to set up camp in their sovereign nations ?


Would you live in a nation where Orthodoxy was the only faith allowed ?

Freedom of Religion; is, well, useless and inconsequential if one is not free to choose his or her own religion! It's vaguely similar to being free to choose whether or not we want to follow God. It's one of those rights we have, as being created by God.

St. Ambrose who following in the steps of his father and grand-father, worked for the secular government of his city. It was he who said (quoting loosely) in defining the separation of church and state, "...they are separate entities, with each lending general help and support to the other...."

As evidenced by the action of "fallen angels", I'd say that having the freedom to "...choose this day whom we will serve...", but then it also is the way one knows what is truth, and what is a lie.

"...or will I be able to speak at all...."
The Lord

 

[nutroll]

Actually, the government choses to ignore it's own laws and interfer with the right of others to freely practice and express their faith. Does the presence of a nativity scene exclude the possiblity for others to put up symbols of their religions? Absolutely not, the fact of the matter is we do have the state sponsering one religion, radical atheism, over others.

That is your interpretation. I don't fear atheism, nor do I think it is being imposed on me by anyone or any institution. There is no need to put up a nativity scene on public property, just as there is no need to add symbols for other religions. Both can be displayed privately. Personally I think that it is more offensive to lump Christianity in with a bunch of other religions and say that they are all equal.

You ever been to New York?

Only for the ten years I lived there as a child, or whenever I go visit my sister who lives there, or when I have work in the New York area every couple years or so. You?

Probably owing to the fact that Islam is a tiny minority religion in the United States (thank God), and there are no Muslims around. However, if they want to do it fine with me.

Well that is why there aren't complaints in the courts about their symbols being in the public square. Although there was a case where people did not want to hear the muslim call to prayer coming from mosques in Michigan. I don't believe that particular complaint was lodged by radical atheists though.

You should have contacted the ACLU at once, they would had that Menorah down and Nazis marching through the streets in hours.

You know, given that I went to an almost entirelyJewish school, where we watched films about hannukah and learned all about Jewish holidays, I would have had every right to in our society, but I don't fear other religions. I believe what I believe and don't need to take offense. However, there is a difference between our legal system, and Christian morals. I do however think that invoking the image of Nazis marching in the street to make your point is a really weak tactic.

While I tend to find the use of "their" somewhat telling, I'll skip it. At any rate, Santa Claus and Frosty aren't religious symbols.

Are you insinuating that because I see this as something that mostly evangelicals rave about that that means that I am less than a Christian? I hope not. Also, I see that you are not really familiar with the notion of sarcasm. I use it at times. My point is that many times the complaint is that Christian symbols are being targetted but in reality it has more to do with the stupid consumerism engendered by the American celebration of Christmas. See for example every "war on Christmas" segment that Bill O'Reilly has ever done.

I was unaware that Christianity held the patent on snow.

Again, this is what is known commonly as sarcasm. It is recurrent in my post. If needed, there are online dictionaries which will provide the definiton at no cost.

Finally, we come to something that actually is a symbol of a religion.

Yes. I saved it for last as it was an attempt to show that most so called symbols are not exactly "Christian" per se. That is also why I didn't list Wise men etc. It was my way of making a point which apparently was lost on you, but I hope was not lost on all.

It's very telling about a soceity that feels the correct response is to get the government to enforce some Stalinist measure. If Jews or Muslims are "sick" of it then why not bring out a big Star of David or a Crescent moon? The fact of the matter is these aren't Jews and Mulisms that bring this bunk into our courts. It's the radical atheists that want to see their religion forced on everyone else. Freedom of religion is not freedom from religion.

How does adding more symbols of different faiths help anything? Why not just let individuals put up what they want on their property and leave it at that. Do we really need to perform a juggling act with symbols from all faiths just so that we get to see our symbol in the mix somewhere? It's not Stalinist for government to stay out of promoting religion. It's American. We are all still free to express our faith ourselves, and as such it has nothing to do with freedom from religion.

Considering not so long ago Boston housing projects were attempting to force Irish families to remove shamrocks (because some minorities felt them "racist") I wouldn't be surprised if this isn't an event of the near future.

Never heard that one. Any citation? Any connection with religion?

Actually, this is the some sort of interpratation that leads the ends "call no man father" charge. Jesus is using hyperbole to make a point about the condition of heart in prayer, not that one literally must be locked in a closet.

Oh, so now I am a closet Protestant fundamentalist! I am aware of what Jesus was saying, and I don't pray in a closet, nor do I make my prayers loudly and in the public square for all to see. You did not address how one could stop prayer unless it involved overt action or was out loud.

If one cares to go through the jurisprudence on the matter, instead of making assumptions, the cases rose out of written district policy forbidding any prayer on school grounds.

Show me the policy that says that and is not in reference to organized prayer.

Not thrilled about living in Stalinist Russia were cops stand outside and tell parents they can't bring their kids to Church.

You got me. I am a Stalinist. I want to enforce atheism on everybody. I am the one that personally brought all the lawsuits. The ACLU is on my speed dial. Or maybe it has more to do with the fact that isolated incidents get blown up to massive proportions and get so mych media hype because they are controversial, and now there are people who actually believe that the big bad liberals want to change the USA into an atheistic theocracy.

By the way, I am not trying to be mean with this post, but when I read a reply to one of my posts where a person treats me like I have the intelligence of a common housefly, I tend to get a little snarky. I appreciate that there are people who feel strongly about this issue, but I also know that we are told, "Blessed are you when men shall revile you and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely for my sake. Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven." All I see is people wringing their hands and saying "Woe is me" and lamenting their lot in life. I do not feel persecuted personally, but even if I did, I know that I should rejoice rather than complain.