Limits to Freedom of Religion

[McCulloch]

Churches should be allowed to 'discriminate' on their own property and according to their own doctrines. You and I might not agree with those doctrines, but (and I keep repeating this but nobody is paying attention) the first amendment was not written to protect those with whom we agree. It was written to protect those with whose opinions and beliefs we do NOT agree.

For instance: what's the difference between forcing the Methodists to allow gay weddings to occur on their property....and, say, forcing a Catholic priest to allow a divorced Baptist to get married in his chapel? Or forcing the Mormons to allow a couple of atheists to marry in one of their Temples? Or forcing an atheist to allow his neighbors to pray to Mecca on his front lawn?

For that matter... what's the difference between forcing the Methodists to allow a gay wedding on their property, and forcing a kosher deli to sell ham sandwiches, I mean, they sell every OTHER sort of sandwich, right, and isn't the reason they refuse to have ham on the premises religious discrimination?

The first amendment...the FIRST TWO PROVISIONS of the first amendment, provide that the government can't establish a state religion and that it cannot interfere with the right to practice that religion. There isn't anything there about "unless that religion is politically incorrect." Third on the list is 'freedom of speech.'

Forcing a church, or a business, or a person, to violate his or her religious doctrine in order to cater to someone ELSE'S religious opinion is doing exactly that: establishing a state religion AND interfering with the right to practice one's own.

It doesn't matter whether you think the religion involved is nutty.
It doesn't matter whether you are ethically or morally appalled by it's practices and beliefs.
YOUR ability to believe (or not) and practice those beliefs (or not) depends utterly upon THEIR being able to do so, with theirs.

This got me wondering. Can freedom of religion be absolute? What limits (if any) should be placed on the freedom of religion? Who gets to decide what is or is not a religious practice?

If my religion involved temple prostitutes, hallucinogenic drugs, carrying concealed weapons or spitting on the sidewalk, should I be allowed to practice it? Should churches be exempt from human rights legislation and property taxes, but not exempt from the criminal code and building regulations? Why the distinction?

[dianaiad]

Fuzzy Dunlop wrote:

As per the normal functioning of secular democracy. In the eyes of secular government, the laws of the state overrule the laws of your religion.

And the Constitution overrules the laws of the state.

The constitution is the "laws of the state" in the context I was speaking.

------

It's obviously NOT clear, if so many religions are being forced to change their behavior in ways that violate their deepest beliefs in order to obey this redefinition of a term the government neither invented nor can control--and who object to having to change that behavior...AND, by extension, their beliefs.

Try to focus. It is not the government using the word "religion" that forces you to change your behaviour. Anti-discrimination laws are forcing you to change your behaviour.

this sort of logic makes it IMPOSSIBLE to have a reasoned conversation, Fuzzy.

Here's a question for you. Answer this one and perhaps we can continue to talk.

Who makes the laws?

When you have that one figured out, (hint...ability to make laws is one of the definitions of "GOVERNMENT") then try this again.

Sure, government makes laws (not sure what gave you the impression I thought otherwise?). I'm encouraging you to actually go after the laws directly relevant to the things you are complaining about.

You can't do that unless you deal with GOVERNMENT, Fuzzy.
Anti-discrimination laws don't apply UNTIL the GOVERNMENT redefines a word that puts them in play.
Therefore it is the government redefining the word that is the problem.

Why is that such a difficult concept?

[dusk]

This may be way off topic, but I can't resist mentioning it. I have been reading news reports of a group of zoophiles in Berlin who are protesting against a proposed new German law banning bestiality (sex with animals). They say they "love" their animal sex partners. I have four cats, but our relationship is strictly platonic.

Considering what we do to animals in our butcheries and on the way to the butchery, I tend to agree with the arguments of the zoophiles. Being that the arguments for this law are mute. On the other hand I thought there was a ban before and every country except holland, just not as an explicit law or something. I don't really know how sex with cats should work. Generally I am pro laws that protect animals but as I eat meat, I consider my position hypocritical in this matter and mute. Who knows stupid dogs try to hump any tree stump they can find, they don't seem to care very much.
You ever watched how we humans breed horses? I guess the zoophiles treat their horses probably better or at least as good.

I also think women kissing hot and men kissing a little odd but after you see it a bit it is no more weird than when your parents kiss. Parents kissing wuäähh.
As long is you don't vote for feel good reasons and don't consider a hypocritical position justified, no harm. Nobody is supposed to not be grossed out as the amis say. Only to let it pass if it doesn't significantly harm you or anybody else.

Religions are allowed to discriminate because of ethnicity all the time, too...try being white and joining Rev. Wright's church. The Baptists still have...and see absolutely nothing wrong with...a specific synod devoted to African Americans, to which white people need not apply. Happens all the time. Nobody blinks.

Now I don't personally know any religion that descriminates against people because of physical disability, but I suppose that there might be one or two.

But suddenly you get THIS....and it's not even the people who belong/believe in the faith in question who are making the lawsuits and going for punishment; it's folks who do not believe in, do not share, and have no intention of joining, the religions involved. They simply want wholesale approval of THEIR lifestyle as a viable and God approved lifestyle, whether they think God exists or not.

What IS the difference between gays wanting the government to define marriage the way they want it (over and above the rights that the government assigns TO married couples), and, say....a city council, prompted by a local preacher, which passes a law making every religion in town meet at 9AM on Sunday and using wine for communion (rather than grape juice or water), whether or not the religion in question is Christian...or whether that religion generally meets on Friday night or Saturday?

Do you read what you write?
So religions discriminate all the time and they still may who cares. Accepting same-sex marriage demands nothing from religions. They don't need to hold the wedding, host a reception, recognize it, or do a burial service. I don't know why you keep ignoring this but the Catholic church does not recognize non church weddings in various situations and is free to do so. They don't host same-sex weddings and they can treat it just as discriminatory as any other non-church wedding. Just the same can be done by any other religion.
A church can fire you for being gay if they argue that this lifestyle does not go with a position that represents their religious institution. The government would simply allow a church of a religion that only marries same-sex couples to do so and the couples to live their life with the same privileges.

[dianaiad]

This may be way off topic, but I can't resist mentioning it. I have been reading news reports of a group of zoophiles in Berlin who are protesting against a proposed new German law banning bestiality (sex with animals). They say they "love" their animal sex partners. I have four cats, but our relationship is strictly platonic.

Considering what we do to animals in our butcheries and on the way to the butchery, I tend to agree with the arguments of the zoophiles. Being that the arguments for this law are mute. On the other hand I thought there was a ban before and every country except holland, just not as an explicit law or something. I don't really know how sex with cats should work. Generally I am pro laws that protect animals but as I eat meat, I consider my position hypocritical in this matter and mute. Who knows stupid dogs try to hump any tree stump they can find, they don't seem to care very much.
You ever watched how we humans breed horses? I guess the zoophiles treat their horses probably better or at least as good.

I also think women kissing hot and men kissing a little odd but after you see it a bit it is no more weird than when your parents kiss. Parents kissing wuäähh.
As long is you don't vote for feel good reasons and don't consider a hypocritical position justified, no harm. Nobody is supposed to not be grossed out as the amis say. Only to let it pass if it doesn't significantly harm you or anybody else.

Religions are allowed to discriminate because of ethnicity all the time, too...try being white and joining Rev. Wright's church. The Baptists still have...and see absolutely nothing wrong with...a specific synod devoted to African Americans, to which white people need not apply. Happens all the time. Nobody blinks.

Now I don't personally know any religion that descriminates against people because of physical disability, but I suppose that there might be one or two.

But suddenly you get THIS....and it's not even the people who belong/believe in the faith in question who are making the lawsuits and going for punishment; it's folks who do not believe in, do not share, and have no intention of joining, the religions involved. They simply want wholesale approval of THEIR lifestyle as a viable and God approved lifestyle, whether they think God exists or not.

What IS the difference between gays wanting the government to define marriage the way they want it (over and above the rights that the government assigns TO married couples), and, say....a city council, prompted by a local preacher, which passes a law making every religion in town meet at 9AM on Sunday and using wine for communion (rather than grape juice or water), whether or not the religion in question is Christian...or whether that religion generally meets on Friday night or Saturday?

Do you read what you write?
So religions discriminate all the time and they still may who cares. Accepting same-sex marriage demands nothing from religions. They don't need to hold the wedding, host a reception, recognize it, or do a burial service.

Where have you been that you can make a statement like the above?

Not in the courts, obviously, where CHURCHES have been told that they must do exactly that.

[Alchemy]

This may be way off topic, but I can't resist mentioning it. I have been reading news reports of a group of zoophiles in Berlin who are protesting against a proposed new German law banning bestiality (sex with animals). They say they "love" their animal sex partners. I have four cats, but our relationship is strictly platonic.

Considering what we do to animals in our butcheries and on the way to the butchery, I tend to agree with the arguments of the zoophiles. Being that the arguments for this law are mute. On the other hand I thought there was a ban before and every country except holland, just not as an explicit law or something. I don't really know how sex with cats should work. Generally I am pro laws that protect animals but as I eat meat, I consider my position hypocritical in this matter and mute. Who knows stupid dogs try to hump any tree stump they can find, they don't seem to care very much.
You ever watched how we humans breed horses? I guess the zoophiles treat their horses probably better or at least as good.

I also think women kissing hot and men kissing a little odd but after you see it a bit it is no more weird than when your parents kiss. Parents kissing wuäähh.
As long is you don't vote for feel good reasons and don't consider a hypocritical position justified, no harm. Nobody is supposed to not be grossed out as the amis say. Only to let it pass if it doesn't significantly harm you or anybody else.

Religions are allowed to discriminate because of ethnicity all the time, too...try being white and joining Rev. Wright's church. The Baptists still have...and see absolutely nothing wrong with...a specific synod devoted to African Americans, to which white people need not apply. Happens all the time. Nobody blinks.

Now I don't personally know any religion that descriminates against people because of physical disability, but I suppose that there might be one or two.

But suddenly you get THIS....and it's not even the people who belong/believe in the faith in question who are making the lawsuits and going for punishment; it's folks who do not believe in, do not share, and have no intention of joining, the religions involved. They simply want wholesale approval of THEIR lifestyle as a viable and God approved lifestyle, whether they think God exists or not.

What IS the difference between gays wanting the government to define marriage the way they want it (over and above the rights that the government assigns TO married couples), and, say....a city council, prompted by a local preacher, which passes a law making every religion in town meet at 9AM on Sunday and using wine for communion (rather than grape juice or water), whether or not the religion in question is Christian...or whether that religion generally meets on Friday night or Saturday?

Do you read what you write?
So religions discriminate all the time and they still may who cares. Accepting same-sex marriage demands nothing from religions. They don't need to hold the wedding, host a reception, recognize it, or do a burial service.

Where have you been that you can make a statement like the above?

Not in the courts, obviously, where CHURCHES have been told that they must do exactly that.

Have you been able to show an example of a church that has been forced to hold a service against their will? Is your only example the beach front pavillion that would not allow 2 women get married there?

Until you provide such an example, I can't see that you've been able to show a new definition of marrige being forced on a church or anything being forced on churches at all except the laws that we all live by.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

You can't do that unless you deal with GOVERNMENT, Fuzzy.
Anti-discrimination laws don't apply UNTIL the GOVERNMENT redefines a word that puts them in play.
Therefore it is the government redefining the word that is the problem.

Why is that such a difficult concept?

Aside from all the arguments I've made already, let's try it from a different angle: consider the timing of it. You're concerned about religious freedom to discriminate. You're concerned about the government applying "marriage" to homosexuals. Have you been equally concerned that the government has been applying "marriage" to interracial couples for decades? Surely in your eyes that is an equal violation of religious freedom.

[dusk]

Where have you been that you can make a statement like the above?

Not in the courts, obviously, where CHURCHES have been told that they must do exactly that.

No not in courts. US courts are a bit mental you can find some case for everything, because you can and do sue over everything. Question is did the judge grant the demand and why?
If they run a coffee shop under their banner, they will have to abide by different laws than who to host in their religious service instituions. Who owned the property where they supposedly have to hold a service for a same-sex marriage?
From all I read you are extremely paranoid about this and therefore justify the entire nation to discriminate against homosexuals.

We recently had the sunday night talk with Jauch (like a talkshow but with top politicians, like a political debate) in German TV about the subject of secularization and what the church may do. Lots of people showed up telling their stories of how the church treated them when it was found they are gay and live in a relationship.
The question at hand was whether an organisation that provides more than a million jobs in Germany and many of which payed by tax may still do so. Caritas and various care, hospiz and so on centers are mostly run on tax money.

If religion have less rights in the oh so secular US and its oftentimes a bit lunatic legal system, maybe here is your problem. Does not justify to discriminate on a national level against some group just because you are paranoid about religious freedom. I ask again where would be the freedom of a religious group that only marries homosexuals?
In New York I once read that they added a clause that no religion could be forced to host or support a same-sex marriage, which the legislaturs thought was ridiculous, as they weren't in the first place. A priest can say he won't marry you because you are a ginger witch. He might have to take it up with the rest of his fellowship but in theory it is a voluntary service. Only the registry or government officials have to do what a citizen wants.
Simply adding clauses to ease the fears of some paranoid people suggests that the problem is not with courts forcing stuff on unsuspected religious folk but with populist style propaganda and too many people open to it.

[dianaiad]

Where have you been that you can make a statement like the above?

Not in the courts, obviously, where CHURCHES have been told that they must do exactly that.

No not in courts. US courts are a bit mental you can find some case for everything, because you can and do sue over everything. Question is did the judge grant the demand and why?

That's a most interesting statement. First an insult to the States because we are 'mental' (have the ability and propensity to take everything to court). This is followed instantly by the thought that this level of insanity is OK as long as you actually win in court.

I guess I'll have to remind you that it was not an AMERICAN who said 'first, kill all the lawyers.'

The thing about the USA is that so many people came over here because their beliefs were badly treated in Europe that we hold freedom of religion a bit more dearly than do you guys. After all, our ancestors took their lives in their hands and LEFT. Your ancestors either belonged to the politically correct religion, compromised--or submitted, imprisoned or died.

Yes, we are an obstreperous lot. Vocal. "Mental." We are descended from folks who were too stubborn to put up with persecution, too adventurous to stay home, too damned stubborn to die on the slave ships, too willing to fight for the land we called home to simply bow down to the 'white man,' ....we are ALL descendants of survivors; opinionated, ornery, determined. No matter what side of the fight we were on when we GOT here, we were all survivors. Some of that still survives.

Most of us still understand that 'freedom' means that even those with whom we disagree must be free, as well. Freedom of religion means that the Catholics and the Budhists and the Muslims all have the right to their own ways of life, their own beliefs and practices, and OUR freedom depends upon theirs.

I don't know how to explain this: it's a deep seated NEED I have see everybody absolutely free to discriminate against anybody s/he wants to, for any reason that pleases him/her, religiously; my freedom absolutely depends upon theirs. The only recourse anybody should have against discrimination within a religion is to not join, or to leave, it. If someday the atheists have their way and religion goes the way of the Dodo, fine, but until then, our constitution MANDATES that we have freedom of religion. ABSOLUTE freedom of religion. I know that you are not American, but...here:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I can't even imagine such a constitutional provision in Germany or, indeed, in any European state. However, it IS the very first item in the Bill of Rights in the USA, and please notice: the framers of the constitution understood that without freedom of religion, all other freedoms become less. Without freedom of speech, other freedoms are illusory.

Not that our history has been exactly free of religious persecution since the founding, but that doesn't mean we should give up striving to eliminate it.

If we do not, in these modern times, remember that....we will go the way of the governments our ancestors left, and there is no place left to run.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

If someday the atheists have their way and religion goes the way of the Dodo, fine, but until then, our constitution MANDATES that we have freedom of religion. ABSOLUTE freedom of religion.

Does this mean that the constitution gives you the right to murder without consequence for religious reasons? If not, your claim of "absolute" freedom is clearly false. Religious freedom is not absolute, it is limited by the secular laws of the state. The alternative is theocracy or some sort of religious anarchy.

[dianaiad]

If someday the atheists have their way and religion goes the way of the Dodo, fine, but until then, our constitution MANDATES that we have freedom of religion. ABSOLUTE freedom of religion.

Does this mean that the constitution gives you the right to murder without consequence for religious reasons? If not, your claim of "absolute" freedom is clearly false. Religious freedom is not absolute, it is limited by the secular laws of the state. The alternative is theocracy or some sort of religious anarchy.

You honestly do not see the difference between "you aren't allowed to murder people" and "you have to provide services that violate your doctrines and you must allow everybody to use your property for anything they want even if what they want is against your beliefs?"

"slippery slope' is considered to be a FALLACY, Fuzzy.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

If someday the atheists have their way and religion goes the way of the Dodo, fine, but until then, our constitution MANDATES that we have freedom of religion. ABSOLUTE freedom of religion.

Does this mean that the constitution gives you the right to murder without consequence for religious reasons? If not, your claim of "absolute" freedom is clearly false. Religious freedom is not absolute, it is limited by the secular laws of the state. The alternative is theocracy or some sort of religious anarchy.

You honestly do not see the difference between "you aren't allowed to murder people" and "you have to provide services that violate your doctrines and you must allow everybody to use your property for anything they want even if what they want is against your beliefs?"

"slippery slope' is considered to be a FALLACY, Fuzzy.

What does that have to do with my comment? You claimed that you have absolute freedom of religion. Yet you do not have freedom to murder for religious reasons, do you? Therefore you do not have absolute freedom of religion. You have limited freedom of religion.

I have no idea how you got a "slippery slope" argument out of my comment, which was simply to correct your mistaken claim.