Religious Freedom

[HAL's Dreams]

The whole thrust of this thread is in trying to understand why there is an acceptable difference between what is expected of a religious vs a non-religious entity. Since I don't have the answer I'm seeking opinions.

Answer: Because the Thirty Years' War and the English Civil War.

Opinion: Radical faith healing. Some groups forego medical intervention. Should they be able to impose this on their own kids?

Yes. The object of religious freedom is to prevent further wars of religion and thus to observe the ethics of not taxing someone else to pay for the propagation of your own opinions. The objection that atheism is not a religion misses the point. A war could just as easily arise between a religious and an atheistic faction, each trying to tax each other to pay for its own opinions to be forced on the other's children. The purpose of reproduction is... to reproduce oneself, not to serve up memetic brood hosts for someone else. But if children must die for "yes"--and they will, because they have before--then this is simply the Machiavellian price for religious freedom and thus the stability of the polis. Not paying it increases the probability that my memes will die out through rival indoctrination and that the memes of many, many others will die out in another English Civil War. Ergo, I am willing to pay the price. Conventionally immoral of me. But morals have nothing to do with ruling a state, and I am a ruler of the state by virtue of its being a democratic republic.

 

[FireDragon76]

I think the US has generally made a reasonable tradeoff legally. We try to make allowances for religious differences, but if you take a job you have to do the essential elements of it, and in public life you have to deal with people with whom you disagree.

I think this is consistent with Paul in 1 Cor. and elsewhere.

This set of tradeoffs might not be acceptable for a religion with a strong emphasis on purity, e.g. with the idea that you're contaminated by contact with outsiders or those who follow different rules. There are signs of this in the OT, but Jesus generally rejected this approach.

It's clear many Christians have ethics heavily shaped by notions of ritual purity.

People that focus on purity seem to suggest they are better than other people because they do so, or they expect special divine favors because of their dedication. I don't think either motivation is admirable, and it should not be a license to do what is cruel or unfair.

 

[Zoii]

The bus driver could have reasonably performed his job within the tenets of his professed religion. He could have tried to schedule his breaks around the prayers, or failing that, made up the prayers later.

It's generally good to give religious exemptions to devout people, if you can. It demonstrates tolerance for them. Also, if you give them that little bit, and they'll tend to do what they can to make it worth it for you.

Hmm - I can support that - My parents work in health - one specifically in Emergency Department - He has had to make it known to Moslem staff, that they can't just leave the floor to attend to daily prayer - he has said as much to Christians that they cant just expect to have every Sabbath off duty or Christmas off-duty. But where it can be accommodated, and providing the Department is safely staffed, then such requests may be met.

 

[Zoii]

Religious Freedom

Should the concept of freedom of religion be used to justify a religion, or its adherents, acting in ways which are considered socially unacceptable, or illegal, for other institutions in society?

What, if any, are the boundaries on freedom of religion?

OB

One area I struggle with is Australian law. Our country has provisions under equal opportunity. The effect will, for example, prevent employers dismissing or employing on the basis of gender, marriage status, religious status, age, legal sexual activity, being pregnant.

Religious institutions have exclusions from equal opportunity. They can and have dismissed an employee because she was pregnant on the basis she was single and thus broke their tenets of promoting no pre-marital sex. They can dismiss on the grounds of a person admitting in social media to not being Christian and now being atheist, even though their role may not involve teaching religion but mathematics.

Religions can and do employ on the basis of someone's gender, regardless if the opposing gendered applicant was better qualified.

This exemption, that no other Employer or individual enjoys under Australian Law, is extended to religious bodies under the tenet of Religious Freedom, but is it in fact freedom to break basic ethical constructs concerning equal rights.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Religious Freedom

Should the concept of freedom of religion be used to justify a religion, or its adherents, acting in ways which are considered socially unacceptable, or illegal, for other institutions in society?

What, if any, are the boundaries on freedom of religion?

OB

All freedoms have limits, the moment my freedom infringes on another's basic rights, then that's the limit. And vice versa.

Exactly working out where those limits are, and ensuring that we aren't infringing on basic liberties is why we have courts of law.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[jayem]

The whole thrust of this thread is in trying to understand why there is an acceptable difference between what is expected of a religious vs a non-religious entity. Since I don't have the answer I'm seeking opinions.
OB

The idea of religious freedom is relatively new in the historical sense. It derives from the Enlightenment. And it’s a trade-off to the concept of church/state separation. Specific religious beliefs of churches aren’t allowed to dictate government. And in return, government won’t dictate religious beliefs to churches. The underlying principle is that a libertarian society is better than an authoritarian one. Which is a core Enlightenment value.

But you also asked about limits to religious freedom. That’s an issue of religious practice more so than belief. Religious practice has never been given the same latitude as belief. And it is a legal, as well as an ethical question. The only answer I can give is that limiting practice is a case-by-case determination. Which is ultimately based on how much harm or burden such practice may cause both to individuals, and to society as a whole. Example: A religious doctrine might hold that accepting a transfusion of blood or blood products is a sin that may threaten one’s salvation. But parents won’t be allowed to make that decision for their child who may be in hemorrhagic shock. The risk of harming the child overrides the parents’ freedom of religious practice. That’s an obvious and easy case. Many are much more problematic. But that’s the gist of it.