PDA

View Full Version : About the meanings of the terms "religious freedom" and "religious liberty:"


Vis
04-08-2013, 11:32 AM
These terms once always referred to an individual's freedom of religious belief, of religious speech, and of religious practice. The individual believer was the target of oppression by others.


However, in recent years, the terms seem to be taking on a new meaning: the religious freedom and liberty of a believer to hate, oppress, denigrate, or reduce the human rights of other groups. (Okay, this was how it was used to support slavery and segregation as well so it isn't all that new) Now it is the believer who is the oppressor and others who are the target. This meaning is becoming increasingly common.

The second meaning is common in many theocratic states, all of which are backward, impoverished and enemies of democracy. Are we headed that way?

harrison'samonster
04-08-2013, 12:21 PM
I think it's a reaction to the 24-hour news cycle, twitter, facebook, and the internet in general. It's like when you watch a movie or read a book you feel like you've experienced it yourself. I think people will adjust to it, and eventually become anaesthitized.

JonM229
04-08-2013, 01:40 PM
It's certainly a minefield of a subject. A few years back, I watched a documentary called Constantine's Sword that dealt with anti-Semitism teaching in the Bible, acts of anti-Semitism from Christians throughout history, and recent attempts by mega-churches in Colorado Springs to Evangelize the Air Force Academy. It's a pretty upsetting movie, but I would highly recommend it to anyone interested in how when religion and politics mix, bad things happen.

One of the interviews was with (pre-meth and male prostitute-boning) Ted Haggert. He argued that you can't tell them not to try to convert people because the Bible tells them that they need to convert people. So, is the government infringing on their religious freedom by attempting to keep the Air Force religiously unaffiliated? Probably not, but it's certainly thought provoking.

The biggest reason we absolutely cannot govern from the Bible (or any other religious texts) is because not every citizen belongs to that religion. And there's a growing number of people who aren't religious at all. Why should those people have to follow rules that (1) They don't believe in and (2) the only explanation given as to why the laws are there is "Because God said it." That sounds like a pretty shitty government to me.

Vis
04-08-2013, 01:44 PM
Whenever anyone argues that the government needs to take some religions beliefs into consideration on some policy I argue that the government doesn't even need to know what your religion's beliefs are. In fact, it's better if they don't. there are thousands of different religions and the government should ignore them all equally.

JonM229
04-08-2013, 02:34 PM
Well said

Fire Haley
04-08-2013, 05:15 PM
What was it Karl Marx said?

"Religion...is the opium of the masses"



take your Xanex, Comrades, Lord Obama will provide all you need

Vis
04-08-2013, 06:23 PM
History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.
-Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.

SteelerEmpire
04-09-2013, 03:39 PM
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich"

-Napoleon Bonaparte

Vis
04-09-2013, 04:17 PM
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich"

-Napoleon Bonaparte

But what if the rich are a different denomination?

JonM229
04-09-2013, 04:28 PM
But what if the rich are a different denomination?

Then they will be murdered for heresy and they will burn in hell