What is the Christian justification for uninhibited freedom of religion?

[Wille zur Macht]

I was raised Roman Catholic, had a Jesuit education, studied Philosophy and Religion as an undergraduate and had every intention of becoming a Jesuit priest. I am no longer Roman Catholic or Christian, but I am an active believer in another faith. I think that it's important to preface this question with that. If you have any questions about me in this context, message me, because I don't want this thread to go off topic.


Most American Christians of all denominations, from conservative Southern Baptists to liberal Episcopalians to Latin Mass attending Roman Catholics are fervent supporters of the First Amendment's establishment clause and the "separation of church and state" even though the way that they understand the application of that may be different from one another. This is something that disturbed me when I was a devout Christian and still confuses me as a non-Christian PhD researcher in Philosophy.

Nowhere in the Bible, the Creeds or Confessions or Catechisms of the major churches (like the Lutheran Book of Concord, the Anglican 39 Articles, the Reformed Heidelberg Confession, the Baptist Westminster Confession etc) is freedom for all religions and no religion affirmed, and in the Bible it is condemned in no uncertain terms, on several occasions. I can see why Christians would support freedom of worship for different Christian denominations for the sake of unity, but I can't understand how Christians defend the constitutional freedom to be a Satanist, a Wiccan, a neopagan, a Mormon or a secular humanist. What's the Christian basis for this? Please don't answer with a secular or legalistic argument, I know those very well. I'm asking how religious Christians justify that sort of thing through the lens of faith. I know that some Catholics will invoke Vatican II, but even Vatican II does not call other faiths equal or call for total toleration, just for ecumenicusm between Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Protestants and Jews.

Me, I support a limited form of freedom of religion because my religion explicitly says that Christians and Jews, as the other two Abrahamic faiths, have a right to freely worship. That's my theological justification, beyond that I do not support the right of pagans or Mormons to worship freely, nor do I think that blasphemy against any of the Abrahamic religions should be treated as protected speech, because it is hate speech.

In the UK, where I'm currently a PhD candidate, there is an impetus within the Labour Party membership to bring back blasphemy laws as part of hate speech legislation, and I suspect that Jeremy Corbyn will support it, and that's a start, but I'm primarily talking about the United States in this comment, because there is no other country with a free speech/religion amendment to their constitution that is as irresponsible and broad as the First Amendment.


Thanks for your time.

 

[thecolorsblend]

What is the Christian justification for uninhibited freedom of religion?

A question I've asked myself more and more lately...

I suspect a great deal is owed to the widespread acknowledgement that saving Christian faith cannot be coerced. But that's hardly an argument against allowing non-Christian religion in public. It simply is an argument for not forcing the Christian faith upon others.

In the end, I see no real argument in favor of freedom of religion from a religious standpoint. Ideology is something else. That perspective adds up for me. But the idea that people should have the option of choosing to follow what I at least consider to be the wrong religion seems unconscionable when I consider the eternal consequences of that.

I'm sure Moslems who happily live under Sharia would agree with my basic reasoning if not my religious preference though.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I was raised Roman Catholic, had a Jesuit education, studied Philosophy and Religion as an undergraduate and had every intention of becoming a Jesuit priest. I am no longer Roman Catholic or Christian, but I am an active believer in another faith. I think that it's important to preface this question with that. If you have any questions about me in this context, message me, because I don't want this thread to go off topic.


Most American Christians of all denominations, from conservative Southern Baptists to liberal Episcopalians to Latin Mass attending Roman Catholics are fervent supporters of the First Amendment's establishment clause and the "separation of church and state" even though the way that they understand the application of that may be different from one another. This is something that disturbed me when I was a devout Christian and still confuses me as a non-Christian PhD researcher in Philosophy.

Nowhere in the Bible, the Creeds or Confessions or Catechisms of the major churches (like the Lutheran Book of Concord, the Anglican 39 Articles, the Reformed Heidelberg Confession, the Baptist Westminster Confession etc) is freedom for all religions and no religion affirmed, and in the Bible it is condemned in no uncertain terms, on several occasions. I can see why Christians would support freedom of worship for different Christian denominations for the sake of unity, but I can't understand how Christians defend the constitutional freedom to be a Satanist, a Wiccan, a neopagan, a Mormon or a secular humanist. What's the Christian basis for this? Please don't answer with a secular or legalistic argument, I know those very well. I'm asking how religious Christians justify that sort of thing through the lens of faith. I know that some Catholics will invoke Vatican II, but even Vatican II does not call other faiths equal or call for total toleration, just for ecumenicusm between Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Protestants and Jews.

Me, I support a limited form of freedom of religion because my religion explicitly says that Christians and Jews, as the other two Abrahamic faiths, have a right to freely worship. That's my theological justification, beyond that I do not support the right of pagans or Mormons to worship freely, nor do I think that blasphemy against any of the Abrahamic religions should be treated as protected speech, because it is hate speech.

In the UK, where I'm currently a PhD candidate, there is an impetus within the Labour Party membership to bring back blasphemy laws as part of hate speech legislation, and I suspect that Jeremy Corbyn will support it, and that's a start, but I'm primarily talking about the United States in this comment, because there is no other country with a free speech/religion amendment to their constitution that is as irresponsible and broad as the First Amendment.


Thanks for your time.

The New Testament assumes Christians are strangers and pilgrims, never once assuming we will ever be ones holding authority in the world but instead subject to those who do--and calling us to live peaceably, honorably, justly, kindly, and respectfully toward all.

So I am to live justly and peaceably with all my neighbors; further I should seek the good for my neighbor in love, being called to do good to all people, to love my neighbor as myself, and treat others as I would like to be treated. There is nothing in the Christian religion to direct me against my neighbor who practices another religion, but there is everything to direct me to love them and to seek their good.

On what basis should I oppose freedom of religion as a principle of civil law?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Chesterton]

What's the Christian basis for this? Please don't answer with a secular or legalistic argument, I know those very well.

The Christian basis is "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". So I would allow you freedom of conscience because that's would I have you do unto to me. It's about luv.

That's my theological justification, beyond that I do not support the right of pagans or Mormons to worship freely, nor do I think that blasphemy against any of the Abrahamic religions should be treated as protected speech, because it is hate speech.

"Hate speech" is a meaningless phrase that I believe should never be codified into law anywhere. You can call any disagreement with anything hateful, and that's what we see happen all the time.

 

[Tanj]

but I can't understand how Christians defend the constitutional freedom to be a Satanist, a Wiccan, a neopagan, a Mormon or a secular humanist.

Or indeed a Muslim.

You'd be one of those up against the wall if such laws were enacted in the US. The Muslim openness to other Abrahamic faiths is not reciprocated.

and in the Bible it is condemned in no uncertain terms, on several occasions.

Any of those in the New Testament?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Most American Christians of all denominations, from conservative Southern Baptists to liberal Episcopalians to Latin Mass attending Roman Catholics are fervent supporters of the First Amendment's establishment clause and the "separation of church and state" even though the way that they understand the application of that may be different from one another.

Quite a few American Christians have a very poor understanding of the separation of church and state. Some will declare there is no such thing. With luck, they'll show up here.

there is no other country with a free speech/religion amendment to their constitution that is as irresponsible and broad as the First Amendment.

Them's fightin' words. No, the First Amendment is amazing.

Anyway, not that I'm a believer, but one of my favorite verses is from Exodus:

Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.

It expresses something along the lines of the Golden Rule. 'You know how rotten it was to be surrounded by people who worshipped their weirdo gods. When the shoe is on the other foot, let's show that we can be better than that.'

 

[ananda]

... nor do I think that blasphemy against any of the Abrahamic religions should be treated as protected speech, because it is hate speech... there is no other country with a free speech/religion amendment to their constitution that is as irresponsible and broad as the First Amendment

"Sounds good ... as long as I am the final authority who gets to decide what is and isn't hate speech, and to define what is and isn't 'the Abrahamic religions'. To rebel against me would be hate speech."

 

[jayem]

Just for the record, there is no "uninhibited freedom of religion" as this thread is titled. Certainly not as regards religious practice. As Warren Jeffs found out, you can't marry a 12 year old. The Rastas can't smoke fat ganja cigars (not in all states anyway--at least as of now.) And a Jehova's Witness can't deny blood products to a child in life-threatening hemorrhagic shock.

 

[tdidymas]

I was raised Roman Catholic, had a Jesuit education, studied Philosophy and Religion as an undergraduate and had every intention of becoming a Jesuit priest. I am no longer Roman Catholic or Christian, but I am an active believer in another faith. I think that it's important to preface this question with that. If you have any questions about me in this context, message me, because I don't want this thread to go off topic.


Most American Christians of all denominations, from conservative Southern Baptists to liberal Episcopalians to Latin Mass attending Roman Catholics are fervent supporters of the First Amendment's establishment clause and the "separation of church and state" even though the way that they understand the application of that may be different from one another. This is something that disturbed me when I was a devout Christian and still confuses me as a non-Christian PhD researcher in Philosophy.

Nowhere in the Bible, the Creeds or Confessions or Catechisms of the major churches (like the Lutheran Book of Concord, the Anglican 39 Articles, the Reformed Heidelberg Confession, the Baptist Westminster Confession etc) is freedom for all religions and no religion affirmed, and in the Bible it is condemned in no uncertain terms, on several occasions. I can see why Christians would support freedom of worship for different Christian denominations for the sake of unity, but I can't understand how Christians defend the constitutional freedom to be a Satanist, a Wiccan, a neopagan, a Mormon or a secular humanist. What's the Christian basis for this? Please don't answer with a secular or legalistic argument, I know those very well. I'm asking how religious Christians justify that sort of thing through the lens of faith. I know that some Catholics will invoke Vatican II, but even Vatican II does not call other faiths equal or call for total toleration, just for ecumenicusm between Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Protestants and Jews.

Me, I support a limited form of freedom of religion because my religion explicitly says that Christians and Jews, as the other two Abrahamic faiths, have a right to freely worship. That's my theological justification, beyond that I do not support the right of pagans or Mormons to worship freely, nor do I think that blasphemy against any of the Abrahamic religions should be treated as protected speech, because it is hate speech.

In the UK, where I'm currently a PhD candidate, there is an impetus within the Labour Party membership to bring back blasphemy laws as part of hate speech legislation, and I suspect that Jeremy Corbyn will support it, and that's a start, but I'm primarily talking about the United States in this comment, because there is no other country with a free speech/religion amendment to their constitution that is as irresponsible and broad as the First Amendment.


Thanks for your time.

The "separation of church and state" clause states exactly this: the government has no right to either establish a state religion, or hinder any individual from practicing his religion. This means (in its original intent):
1. The governing authority cannot force any religion upon any individual (that is, to force anyone to worship in a certain way).
2. The governing authority cannot force any individual to stop practicing his personal religious practices.
3. The governing authority can, and must, be influenced by religious individuals to create laws for the benefit of society and the majority of individuals therein.

A. The fact of 1 & 2 is obvious in the statement. The fact of #3 is in the historical writings of the founding fathers of the U.S. One such wrote something like this: "it is the duty of Christians to rule this nation, and if Christians cease to rule it, the nation will not stand." This statement supports the foundation of the constitution which was established from Biblical principles.

B. Most people don't understand the founders' intent of the term "religion," as the original intent of the word meant "Christian denominations." The founders wanted Christians to rule, but did not want any one Christian denomination to become the "national religion," since they believed that would lead to oppression, as it did in Italy, France, England, Germany, and elsewhere. They wanted this nation to be a Christian nation, free of oppression. The basis for this definition of religion is in the historical fact that the only "world religion" that existed in the U.S. (in the minds of the founders) was Christianity. There is evidence that they did not even consider Native American religion as religion, as they never wrote about it.

C. It almost goes without saying that pagan religions and oppressive religions like Islam, and cults like Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses should not be allowed to rule and make laws, since it is obvious that some of their "religious practices" are oppressive, and some even extremely so. We are even already experiencing oppression from athiest rule.

America needs to be properly educated, or we will lose the freedoms we attained through blood and suffering. "Religion" in the context of the constitution means "Christian denomination," not "world religions." It is the semantics that are confusing people.

Jesus' statement "render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's" does not justify letting athiests rule the nation. We need to take a stand on what is right. Only then will the nation be benefitted from our influence.

I disagree with the modern "hate speech" idea, as it is far too vague, and is oppressive in and of itself. It encompasses action which clearly violates freedom of speech. Before I will accept any law regarding "hate speech," it will have to be clearly defined as to exactly what hate speech it is referring to, and it will have to agree with the majority Christian ethic. Example: threatening the life of a person (and other than this, I cannot think of anything else that qualifies as a "hate speech" candidate I would accept).
TD

 

[variant]

I don't know what it is but it should go something like:

• Conflicts immediately connected with the Reformation of the 1520s to 1540s:
  • The German Peasants' War (1524–1525)
  • The Wars of Kappel in the Old Swiss Confederacy (1529–1531)
  • The Schmalkaldic War (1546–1547) in the Holy Roman Empire
• The Eighty Years' War (1568–1648) in the Low Countries
• The French Wars of Religion (1562–1598)
• The Thirty Years' War (1618–1648), affecting the Holy Roman Empire including Habsburg Austria and Bohemia, France, Denmark and Sweden
• The Wars of the Three Kingdoms (1639–1651), affecting England, Scotland and Ireland
  • Scottish Reformation and Civil Wars
  • English Reformation and Civil War
  • Irish Confederate Wars and the Cromwellian conquest of Ireland

Invariably if you don't respect each others views on religion peacefully there is another tried and true option, but I don't think you have the stomach for it, and I am sure you aren't likely to win if you tried.

 

[hedrick]

There are at least two reasons, one pragmatic and one theological.

1. I'm not convinced that state religions promote faith. When you're required to be a member of a religion, there's no need to think and make decisions about your faith, and churches don't have to worry about their witness. Many people think that one major reason the US has more Christians than Europe is that Europe had State churches. When compulsion stopped, it turned out that Europe was unable to preserve faith.

2. Like you, most Christians think salvation is likely available to non-Christians. This is now the Catholic position, and my impression from surveys is that it's the majority position among Protestants. Some of us would rather encourage Muslims in their faith, rather than attacking it, though it depends upon their faith.

 

[durangodawood]

Wow. Its pretty spooky to hear actual people talk about how they'd like to turn the force of law against religions they disapprove of.

 

[variant]

Wow. Its pretty spooky to hear actual people talk about how they'd like to turn the force of law against religions they disapprove of.

Well it was the modus operandi of religions for eons.

That people today don't understand why it's problematic to have the state literally speak for God is shocking.

 

[Freodin]

Wow. Its pretty spooky to hear actual people talk about how they'd like to turn the force of law against religions they disapprove of.

It is indeed spooky, but also interesting, and basically gives the answer to the OP question.

We have here a bunch of people who have no problems with regulating all exercise of religion... as long as their religion gets to say how it is regulated. Because such people exist (to a greater or lesser degree) in every religion - and, yes, also in atheism - secularism is the only guarantee for equal treatment of all citizen.

 

[Strathos]

Wow. Its pretty spooky to hear actual people talk about how they'd like to turn the force of law against religions they disapprove of.

There are certain religions and religious practices that do not deserve legal protection. For example the church of Scamentology.

 

[Audacious]

It's very simple, really: forcing people to believe doesn't make them believe. It just means they'll pretend to. You'd be violating people's consent, free will, etc if you did somehow force them to do it, and as a result I'd like to avoid that kind of thinking entirely.

There's also the whole 'golden rule' deal. I'm pretty sure if I lived in a majority-Muslim democracy, I wouldn't want to have my church converted into a mosque and be forced to pretend to be a Muslim on pain of death or imprisonment or even just higher taxes.

As far as education goes, I don't want religion involved in education in any way whatsoever. It biases people's views on things and tends to make them want to lie to children, teens, etc on topics ranging from biology (evolution, common descent, germ theory), geology (age of the Earth), and history (the dark ages: not a good thing!), and sex (the realities of consent, STDs, condoms, sexual orientations, etc). Education is about the facts, and when religion gets involved the facts tend to be twisted.

There are certain religions and religious practices that do not deserve legal protection. For example the church of Scamentology.

I would argue that scientology has lost its status as a religion and is more organized crime masquerading as one. (The government doesn't agree.)

 

[durangodawood]

There are certain religions and religious practices that do not deserve legal protection. For example the church of Scamentology.

Its not a religion. Its an extortion scheme.

Religious tolerance should be highly valued. But its not the sole value that trumps all others.

 

[jayem]

The basis for this definition of religion is in the historical fact that the only "world religion" that existed in the U.S. (in the minds of the founders) was Christianity...

"Religion" in the context of the constitution means "Christian denomination," not "world religions." It is the semantics that are confusing people.

These statements are not quite correct. The founders were definitely concerned about one denomination becoming dominant, but they did not intend to exclude non-Christian faiths. This is from John Adams:

"We should begin by setting conscience free. When all men of all religions shall enjoy equal liberty, property, and an equal chance for honors and power we may expect that improvements will be made in the human character and the state of society.” (emphasis mine)

This is from the writings of James Madison:

Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other sects?

[James Madison, Letter to F.L. Schaeffer, Dec 3, 1821]

Remember that Madison wrote most of the Constitution and all of the Bill of Rights. And don't forget ¶ 3 of Article VI:

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

If Madison intended only Christians to serve in the federal government, why did he include that phrase?

 

[Freodin]

Its not a religion. Its an extortion scheme.

Religious tolerance should be highly valued. But its not the sole value that trumps all others.

So, what's about Christian Megachurches? The Prosperity Gospel preachers? The guy with his 65 million dollar jet? The Mormons? (Insert any other "cult", subgroup, splinter church, denomination, church, religion)

Who gets to decide what is a "legitimate" religion? You have no way to show that there is or isn't a God judging / forgiving your sins, answering prayers or repairing your video games. You have no way to show that is or isn't a way to clean your body from evil body thetans.

I agree that Scientology as a system is a recent giant extortion scheme. But it doesn't have to be: there are people who seriously believe in this system.
I do not say that Christianity is an old and established giant extortion scheme. But it can be: there are enough people who use it this way.

And you have no way to establish the correctness of either system. It all comes down to power. Do you really want to base the exercise of religion on the "will to power" (as the username of the OP says)?

 

[durangodawood]

...Who gets to decide what is a "legitimate" religion? ...

The public via representative mechanisms in the context of a constitutional republic.

There really is no other way. Or else any practice or organization can claim protection as "religion".

For example are we going to let ISIS conduct recruiting, indoctrination, bomb making, and terror campaigns here the USA because no one can rightly deny them the protections entitled to anything anyone ever calls a "religion"?