What is the Christian justification for uninhibited freedom of religion?

[durangodawood]

Put that down to the german accuracy with rules. Plus the fact that the Grundgesetz is about 150 years younger than the US constitution, and was able to learn from some "mistakes" made in the meantime.

You will find that, even if the U.S. Constitution does not explicitly state that, it is exactly what the U.S. judicial system is doing.
For example, there is absolutely no limit given in the constitution for the right to assembly. No limit. At all.

Try to arrange a "black life matters" demonstration on the White House grounds... and see how this will turn out.


Even these rights are violable. They might be given a lot of leeway, but when religious practices violate secular law, you don't simply deny that they are religious... you ban them. Example: polygamy, which is still a religious practice amongst some Mormon splinter groups, and definitly an allowed religious practice in Islam... yet illegal.


Hey, and by the way... you didn't address my point at all. Whether a right is violable in exceptions defined by a law or not is completely irrelevant to the question whether it is objectively observable.

I must not be held captive against my will. This is a right guaranteed by Article 2. Except when I have broken the law and the police comes to arrest me. This is an exception defined by the law. This is objective. It is clear when I am held against my will. It is clear when someone has the legal right to hold me against my will.

But it is not clear - it cannot be clear, by definition - to say whether or not I have a religious or consciental conviction.

Yes, the rights notes in the US const are not absolute. We fond that out pretty quickly. The result is a much stricter standard of legal review for laws that would violate those rights ("Fire!" in a crowded theater, etc).

As for religion, whats to stop German law from, say, banning the construction of Muslim mosques?

 

[Freodin]

Yes, the rights notes in the US const are not absolute. We fond that out pretty quickly. The result is a much stricter standard of legal review for laws that would violate those rights ("Fire!" in a crowded theater, etc).

As it is in Germany.

As for religion, whats to stop German law from, say, banning the construction of Muslim mosques?

Banning the construction of muslim mosques because they are muslim mosques? That would be Article 4 of the Grundgesetz, which proclaims freedom of religion and religous excercise. Without the appeal to limitations by laws.
So if any goverment would be daft enough to introduce such a law and get it to pass the parliament, it would instantly be declared unconstitutional by the Constitution Court.

The only existing and applicable limitation to the freedom of religion is the required conformity to other constitutional concepts.


And you still didn't address my point.

 

[durangodawood]

....That would be Article 4 of the Grundgesetz, which proclaims freedom of religion and religous excercise.....

Wait what? I thought you were just telling me that the German legal framework doesnt rely on non-objective terms like "religion".

(I thought I did address your point. Which point still needs attention?)

 

[Freodin]

Wait what? I thought you were just telling me that the German legal framework doesnt rely on non-objective terms like "religion".

I did? Where?

No, what I am trying to tell you is the difference between objectively discernable rights and those that are not.

It was based on your statement from post #40
"But, as this problem applies to ANY constitutional formulation for the protection of liberty, its not really a valid objection to freedom of religion specifically."
and the conversation that went before that statement.

We try to proclaim, assert, grant certain "rights". In some cases, these rights (or rather, the violation of these rights) is objectively discernable. Contrary to what you stated: this doesn't apply to every constitutional formulation for the protection of liberty.

In some cases, the simple "formulation" of such a right is not enough, or not precise enough. Freedom of speech and its limitations being an example. But here you can at least try to make it precise.

But in the case of religious or consciential freedom, there is this inherent problem that it is simply not possible to discern whether a person is exercising his right or not. An inherent problem, because by definition a consciencious act is personal.

I admit that, in many cases, the societal method that is applied in most western states, does work. But it is fundamentally flawed, because basically it grant / proclaims your right to believe (act upon a belief) what others / society thinks you are allowed to believe.


Do you get my point?

 

[Sketcher]

There is no New Testament instruction to coerce people into the Christian faith. Saving faith has to be from the heart. If people are coerced by law into confessing - either to get a favorable tax status or to protect their family from violence, or simply to make the torture stop, then that does not create saving faith in the heart. The objective of Biblical evangelism isn't to create a nation of followers, but rather rescue people from the spiritual kingdom of Satan and bring them into the spiritual kingdom of God. Coercing people into confessing is grossly irresponsible from that standpoint, because you have fearful confessors who lie rather than faithful disciples who believe. To say nothing of such coercion grossly violating "love your neighbor as yourself."

 

[Ringo84]

"Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and unto God what is God's". If I opposed other religious people the right to exercise their faith within reasonable boundaries, but I called for people of my religious background to have that right, I'd be a hypocrite.
Ringo

 

[Armoured]

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.

You're familiar with the golden rule, right? If you want to be free to practice your religion, you owe the same courtesy to everyone else. Think of it as enlightened self interest, if that makes it easier.

 

[tdidymas]

There is no New Testament instruction to coerce people into the Christian faith. Saving faith has to be from the heart. If people are coerced by law into confessing - either to get a favorable tax status or to protect their family from violence, or simply to make the torture stop, then that does not create saving faith in the heart. The objective of Biblical evangelism isn't to create a nation of followers, but rather rescue people from the spiritual kingdom of Satan and bring them into the spiritual kingdom of God. Coercing people into confessing is grossly irresponsible from that standpoint, because you have fearful confessors who lie rather than faithful disciples who believe. To say nothing of such coercion grossly violating "love your neighbor as yourself."

I agree with what you say here, but this is a spiritual issue. I do not believe that a state religion saves people. However, let us not discount these truths:

1. A Christian environment with Christian education is more conducive to developing Christian values in culture than, say, an Islamic environment.
2. Jesus will one day rule with a rod of iron, which means that people will be forced by law to comply with Christian ethics, and the idea of "rod of iron" pictures a powerful force that cannot be resisted.
3. It is the law and the God-ordained governments that is restraining the lawless one (and restraining lawlessness in general).

Therefore, let's not get confused between spiritual issues and political issues. The voluntary action of becoming a Christian is a spiritual issue, and is an action of God alone. The action of governing people to love their neighbor (at least to a minimum standard - like, don't kill, don't steal, etc.) is an action of men with God's help. God in fact requires us to own the responsibility of raising children properly, for example. He also calls us to resist sin in society, even to the point of dying for Christian ethics, like the martyrs of the ages (Mat. 5:10). He calls us to exercise discipline in the churches (1 Cor, the whole epistle, and Mat. 18:15-18).

If we fail to influence the governments to make laws according to Christian ethics, society will degrade into lawlessness to the same degree that Christians neglect the political arena.
TD

 

[bhsmte]

I agree with what you say here, but this is a spiritual issue. I do not believe that a state religion saves people. However, let us not discount these truths:

1. A Christian environment with Christian education is more conducive to developing Christian values in culture than, say, an Islamic environment.
2. Jesus will one day rule with a rod of iron, which means that people will be forced by law to comply with Christian ethics, and the idea of "rod of iron" pictures a powerful force that cannot be resisted.
3. It is the law and the God-ordained governments that is restraining the lawless one (and restraining lawlessness in general).

Therefore, let's not get confused between spiritual issues and political issues. The voluntary action of becoming a Christian is a spiritual issue, and is an action of God alone. The action of governing people to love their neighbor (at least to a minimum standard - like, don't kill, don't steal, etc.) is an action of men with God's help. God in fact requires us to own the responsibility of raising children properly, for example. He also calls us to resist sin in society, even to the point of dying for Christian ethics, like the martyrs of the ages (Mat. 5:10). He calls us to exercise discipline in the churches (1 Cor, the whole epistle, and Mat. 18:15-18).

If we fail to influence the governments to make laws according to Christian ethics, society will degrade into lawlessness to the same degree that Christians neglect the political arena.
TD

Completely disagree. People dont need to be a christian to act morally. Some of the countries with the lowest beliefs in god, have the lowest crime rates and highest standards of living; education, low poverty, etc.

 

[Chriliman]

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.

Everyone should be free to practice their beliefs. Beliefs that produce peaceful and loving relationships within communities, like serving one another in love, should be held as sacred. On the other hand, beliefs that produce fear and oppression, like those of Hitler and extremist groups, should be opposed for the sake of those effected by them.

 

[Freodin]

Everyone should be free to practice their beliefs. Beliefs that produce peaceful and loving relationships within communities, like serving one another in love, should be held as sacred. On the other hand, beliefs that produce fear and oppression, like those of Hitler and extremist groups, should be opposed for the sake of those effected by them.

What a nice and social idea.

But you also forgot to answer the important question: who gets to decide?

Let's say you think that your faith produces peaceful and loving relationships, while the faith of person X produces fear and oppression. "No way!", says person X: "It's my faith that is loving and peaceful, while yours is full of fear and oppression."

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

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.

Remember Athens ?
One group was true and right with YHWH.
All the other groups were pagan and lost.

Nothing much has changed since then.

The Apostles and disciples/ ekklesia/ did not take away anyone of the pagan religions from Athens nor stop them nor prevent them from continuing to actively practice fully the paganism and recruiting for paganism.

No better today.

The ekklesia were greatly outnumbered.

Same today.

The ekklesia were hated by the world, persecuted, arrested, beaten, executed.

Same today.

Jesus is still the only WAY, TRUTH and LIFE. All other ways are death.

This never changes.

 

[Strathos]

What a nice and social idea.

But you also forgot to answer the important question: who gets to decide?

Let's say you think that your faith produces peaceful and loving relationships, while the faith of person X produces fear and oppression. "No way!", says person X: "It's my faith that is loving and peaceful, while yours is full of fear and oppression."

Look at historical precedent.

 

[Freodin]

Look at historical precedent.

Perhaps I didn't phrase my question in the right way.

Historically, those who have the power to enforce their views get to decide. With quite often quite unsavory results.

So the question might rather be: "Who should decide?"

 

[Chriliman]

What a nice and social idea.

But you also forgot to answer the important question: who gets to decide?

Let's say you think that your faith produces peaceful and loving relationships, while the faith of person X produces fear and oppression. "No way!", says person X: "It's my faith that is loving and peaceful, while yours is full of fear and oppression."

You'll know them by their fruit, whether that fruit is good or bad.

If we can't rely on the fact the certain belief systems lead to certain behaviors then we can't determine anything. Thankfully, certain belief systems do lead to certain behaviors, both good and bad, so lets weed out the bad and keep the good. Yes, it will take time, but it's good work that we're all invited to partake in.

 

[Freodin]

You'll know them by their fruit, whether that fruit is good or bad.

If we can't rely on the fact the certain belief systems lead to certain behaviors then we can't determine anything. Thankfully, certain belief systems do lead to certain behaviors, both good and bad, so lets weed out the bad and keep the good. Yes, it will take time, but it's good work that we're all invited to partake in.

You still didn't answer - didn't even show that you considered - the question: who should decide?

Who is that "you" that will know them by their fruit? Will those who are oppressed by religious practices get to decide that it's enough now and these practices will be banned? Or will those who think that these religious practices are fine and dandy and "good" shut up those who object?

Sacrificing virgins to the volcanoe god is "good", by definition. The fruit is manyfold and for all to be seen! It's only those pesky virgins who don't want to admit that. Right?

 

[Chriliman]

You still didn't answer - didn't even show that you considered - the question: who should decide?

Who is that "you" that will know them by their fruit?

You, me or anyone, we're all in this together. Test whatever claims to be good, so when God says "Treat others as you'd like to be treated", test it by actually genuinely doing it and find out the results for yourself. You may question whether that teaching comes from God, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't at least give it a try, maybe you already do.

 

[bhsmte]

You, me or anyone, we're all in this together. Test whatever claims to be good, so when God says "Treat others as you'd like to be treated", test it by actually genuinely doing it and find out the results for yourself. You may question whether that teaching comes from God, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't at least give it a try, maybe you already do.

If you need to believe in a god to treat others with respect, please keep believing. Not everyone needs a god to treat others with respect.

 

[Freodin]

You, me or anyone, we're all in this together. Test whatever claims to be good, so when God says "Treat others as you'd like to be treated", test it by actually genuinely doing it and find out the results for yourself. You may question whether that teaching comes from God, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't at least give it a try, maybe you already do.

Can you not answer the question, or do you not want to?

Yes, we are all in this together. And still there is a lot of disagreement about "what is good". Even among those who claim to believe in a God who told them "treat others as you'd like to be treated".

So, who should decide? The virgin, who doesn't want to be thrown into a volcano... or the majority of people who want to throw them in?

 

[Sketcher]

1. A Christian environment with Christian education is more conducive to developing Christian values in culture than, say, an Islamic environment.

Possibly, but badly behaved "Christians" in a Christian school for instance can cause the "Christian environment" to backfire, nullifying its benefits or worse.

2. Jesus will one day rule with a rod of iron, which means that people will be forced by law to comply with Christian ethics, and the idea of "rod of iron" pictures a powerful force that cannot be resisted.

Jesus is the only King I trust. Men with totalitarian powers have an established record of bloodshed and injustice. If Jesus ends up using a system that on paper has proven to be deeply flawed, then his making it work is a credit to his wisdom, justice, kindness, and power.

3. It is the law and the God-ordained governments that is restraining the lawless one (and restraining lawlessness in general).

Where did you read that in the Bible?

Therefore, let's not get confused between spiritual issues and political issues. The voluntary action of becoming a Christian is a spiritual issue, and is an action of God alone. The action of governing people to love their neighbor (at least to a minimum standard - like, don't kill, don't steal, etc.) is an action of men with God's help. God in fact requires us to own the responsibility of raising children properly, for example. He also calls us to resist sin in society, even to the point of dying for Christian ethics, like the martyrs of the ages (Mat. 5:10). He calls us to exercise discipline in the churches (1 Cor, the whole epistle, and Mat. 18:15-18).

If we fail to influence the governments to make laws according to Christian ethics, society will degrade into lawlessness to the same degree that Christians neglect the political arena.
TD

The spiritual issues are what count the most. Political issues at best are only a means to that end, meaning the spiritual issues must take precedence. Since a state church retards the spiritual witness and mission of the church, people are better off without one.