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]

This is nothing but fear mongering. Your beliefs are not your actions. I may not like your religious beliefs, but there is nothing I can do to force you to change them. If I don't like your actions, I can push for laws that force you to alter them. This is the normal functioning of secular democracy, not some unholy precedent that will suddenly somehow have people punished for thought crimes. Stop getting so terrified of your fantasy of what you think is going to happen, and take some time to consider the reality of what has happened in countries where the government uses the word "marriage" to refer to homosexual unions.

I see.

Then you have no problem at all for me pushing for laws that force you, say, to attend some religious service once a week, or making you display holiday decorations on your lawn, or to refrain from putting Darwin fish stickers on your bumper?

How about if I go into a restaurant you own, and insist that you sell only Kosher meals?

Freedom of religion is about the freedom to OBSERVE that religion. Freedom of speech means freedom to speak, not freedom to think as long as you shut up...and btw, the first amendment is all about actions, not 'beliefs.'

It first prohibits congress from establishing a religion, then it prohibits it from passing any laws that would restrict the practice of a religion (you guys keep MISSING that part...inconvenient, is it?) and only THEN does it talk about freedom of speech and assembly.

It's not about beliefs. It's about our rights to behave as if we mean what we believe, and about YOUR right to behave as if you mean what you don't. Be careful; if you can restrict religious freedom, your freedom is at risk, too.

[JohnPaul]

dusk wrote:

Dictatorship of the majority is not what our democratic systems are about. The majority should not rule over a minority on matters that affect the latter. This is what should distinguish our modern western democracies from the primitive version without any minority laws.

I agree in principle, but the issue of gay rights is a little more complicated, because it involves not only legal rights but also social acceptance of public behavior which many of us find repugnant.

I ask myself: Am I a bigot? At a conscious level, I try not to be, but at a deeper emotional level, I confess that I probably am, by your standards. For example, if a gay man makes a "pass" at me in a public toilet, I would react violently. So, does a gay man have a "right" to use a man's public toilet? Do I have a "right" to use a woman's public toilet? These questions may seem trivial, but they are at the heart of the problem for me. Gays are not the "same sex" as other people, and much of our daily life and public behavior is based on our gender.

Are we to be forced to do away with all gender differences in our society?

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

It's not about beliefs. It's about our rights to behave as if we mean what we believe, and about YOUR right to behave as if you mean what you don't. Be careful; if you can restrict religious freedom, your freedom is at risk, too.

Thank you very much for finally acknowledging that you are concerned about behaviour, and not beliefs. I hope I do not have to correct again you in the future about how I want to "force you to believe" things.

But again, there is no precedent being set here, there is nothing to "be careful" about that is special about this case. The government using the word marriage to refer to homosexual unions in and of itself has no relevance to freedom of religion, this much is clear. You have no valid objection to this based on freedom of religion.

Whether your religious freedoms are threatened by discrimination laws protecting gay people is a separate, broader issue than the issue of the word "marriage" being used by the government. Whether or not you can discriminate against gay people for religious reasons is decided based upon the same principles that determine whether or not you can discriminate on people based on gender, ethnicity, disability, etc. These are the principles you should be challenging. Based on your position, the gay marriage issue is just one of countless areas in which your religious freedom is currently being threatened.

[dusk]

dusk wrote:

Dictatorship of the majority is not what our democratic systems are about. The majority should not rule over a minority on matters that affect the latter. This is what should distinguish our modern western democracies from the primitive version without any minority laws.

I agree in principle, but the issue of gay rights is a little more complicated, because it involves not only legal rights but also social acceptance of public behavior which many of us find repugnant.

I ask myself: Am I a bigot? At a conscious level, I try not to be, but at a deeper emotional level, I confess that I probably am, by your standards. For example, if a gay man makes a "pass" at me in a public toilet, I would react violently. So, does a gay man have a "right" to use a man's public toilet? Do I have a "right" to use a woman's public toilet? These questions may seem trivial, but they are at the heart of the problem for me. Gays are not the "same sex" as other people, and much of our daily life and public behavior is based on our gender.

Are we to be forced to do away with all gender differences in our society?

So why then are you a bigot in this situation? Is this a rational position to take? Are you really harmed in such a significant way that you are feel justified to harm the rights of these other gay people. Who is harmed more you by acknowledging that gay couples who are serious about each other exist or them who are stripped of the right to love and live as you do with your wife.

I think the simple counter is. Would you be happy if you lived in a society where you may only share a house and a live with another man? You may only meet woman for short times in a privat or secret environment but it is prohibited to spend more time with them or touching them in public or living under the same roof or treating them in any way you would treat your wife.

Would you consider that fair?

I would not. I know gay guys and I think kissing a man has about the sexual appeal if not less than kissing a dog. If a gay guy hits on me, it is no different than if a really ugly chick does so. I see no rational reason to be so weird about such situations. Gay people in real life are actually usually really careful with hitting on people and take a no much sooner for an answer than lots of us hetero machos.
My theory is that only people that fear they might be gay and see it as something horrible are those that have a problem with it. As if it was that hard to figure out how one is oriented.

I despise how Russia for instance and their orthodox official church supports even the most radical groups that walk together with neo-nazis and all the scum one can find. They write in laws that religious feelings may not be hurt by how other people behave like kiss in public. They intend to force all gay people to go underground and for what.
I don't think just because you or anyone finds a situation weird they have a right to impinge on the rights of others. I think we do not have the right to insist on any gender difference that we hold for no better reason than we personally feel it is weird or some holy book says so.
You don't have to make friends wie gay couples. You don't have to attend their dinner party. You don't have to join in on some las vegas orgy. You can survive that they share a public toilet with you as you probably won't even know anybody is gay in 95% of the cases.
This aversion against gay people is harming the society and a group of people and is simply a trained property based on indoctrination. I know loads of Christians that have zero problem in that regard. It isn't even a religious thing it is a problem of people and how they do not want to accept the reality of the world around them and expect the world around them to behave as if Santa Claus actually existed.

A lot of people that changed their position on the issue apparently do so because they find out they have homosexuals in their friends circle and after some interaction figure out that they are completely normal and it isn't weird at all. There are many things some people find awful. My mom things boxing horrible but that doesn't mean she should be able to stop all boxers from doing their thing. Freedom to do something comes first. Protection of some individuals emotional balance is secondary.
People wanting to live as married couples and raise children comes first. A father finding it horrible that his Turkish daughter wants to date a German is secondary. A neighbor that doesn't like to acknowledge the existence of two lesbians living two doors down the road together is out of luck.

How do you argue that your personal feeling of weirdness and wrongness may not be contradicted in public when it comes to same-sex marriage is justification for banning it? Why is your emotional balance and world view more important than the happiness of a perfectly nice gay couple down the road? Does it really harm you so badly?
What is the difference to somebody saying a century back that interracial marriage is unnatural? Looks and feels wrong and should therefore not be permitted, publicly acknowledged and if tolerated should be banned out of sight out of mind?

[dianaiad]

It's not about beliefs. It's about our rights to behave as if we mean what we believe, and about YOUR right to behave as if you mean what you don't. Be careful; if you can restrict religious freedom, your freedom is at risk, too.

Thank you very much for finally acknowledging that you are concerned about behaviour, and not beliefs. I hope I do not have to correct again you in the future about how I want to "force you to believe" things.

But again, there is no precedent being set here, there is nothing to "be careful" about that is special about this case. The government using the word marriage to refer to homosexual unions in and of itself has no relevance to freedom of religion, this much is clear. You have no valid objection to this based on freedom of religion.

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.

Indeed, what is this, but saying to those religions that 'hey, you can think what you want, but what you think is not appropriate, so you are going to have to be hypocrites or be fined/punished/have your property confiscated."

Freedom of religion has ALWAYS been about what people are allowed to DO about their beliefs.

Whether your religious freedoms are threatened by discrimination laws protecting gay people is a separate, broader issue than the issue of the word "marriage" being used by the government. Whether or not you can discriminate against gay people for religious reasons is decided based upon the same principles that determine whether or not you can discriminate on people based on gender, ethnicity, disability, etc. These are the principles you should be challenging. Based on your position, the gay marriage issue is just one of countless areas in which your religious freedom is currently being threatened.

Religions are allowed to discriminate based on gender without a problem; how many religions have different rules for men and women based on sex? Is anybody suing them/fining them/taking that issue to the government?

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?

I'll tell you.

No difference at all. None.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

It's not about beliefs. It's about our rights to behave as if we mean what we believe, and about YOUR right to behave as if you mean what you don't. Be careful; if you can restrict religious freedom, your freedom is at risk, too.

Thank you very much for finally acknowledging that you are concerned about behaviour, and not beliefs. I hope I do not have to correct again you in the future about how I want to "force you to believe" things.

But again, there is no precedent being set here, there is nothing to "be careful" about that is special about this case. The government using the word marriage to refer to homosexual unions in and of itself has no relevance to freedom of religion, this much is clear. You have no valid objection to this based on freedom of religion.

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. What word the secular government decides to use makes no difference to freedom of religion one way or the other. It is the anti-discrimination laws that are going to make a difference. Fight against the anti-discrimination laws, not gay rights.

Indeed, what is this, but saying to those religions that 'hey, you can think what you want, but what you think is not appropriate, so you are going to have to be hypocrites or be fined/punished/have your property confiscated."

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.

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?

I'll tell you.

No difference at all. None.

Here's the difference: one is the government using a word to refer to something. The other is the government theocratically forcing people to do something. The government using a word isn't what forces you not to discriminate against gay people, the anti-discrimination laws do. You don't have to fight gay rights to get the thing you want. What you have to do is fight equally against the rights of all people not to be discriminated against on the basis of gender, religion, sexuality, race, disability etc.

[JohnPaul]

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.

[dianaiad]

It's not about beliefs. It's about our rights to behave as if we mean what we believe, and about YOUR right to behave as if you mean what you don't. Be careful; if you can restrict religious freedom, your freedom is at risk, too.

Thank you very much for finally acknowledging that you are concerned about behaviour, and not beliefs. I hope I do not have to correct again you in the future about how I want to "force you to believe" things.

But again, there is no precedent being set here, there is nothing to "be careful" about that is special about this case. The government using the word marriage to refer to homosexual unions in and of itself has no relevance to freedom of religion, this much is clear. You have no valid objection to this based on freedom of religion.

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.

[JohnPaul]

dusk wrote:

How do you argue that your personal feeling of weirdness and wrongness may not be contradicted in public when it comes to same-sex marriage is justification for banning it? Why is your emotional balance and world view more important than the happiness of a perfectly nice gay couple down the road? Does it really harm you so badly?
What is the difference to somebody saying a century back that interracial marriage is unnatural? Looks and feels wrong and should therefore not be permitted, publicly acknowledged and if tolerated should be banned out of sight out of mind?

I said the problem was complicated!!! I agree with most of what you say, but I can't control my emotional response to it. I always vote in FAVOR of gay rights, including marriage, whenever it appears on the ballot. Also, may I point out that my aversion to homosexuality applies only to males. I have no problem with Lesbians. My deceased wife's sister has lived together with a woman as a couple for many years. They are very nice people. I talk to them frequently and feel absolutely no aversion to their relationship. I have also worked together with gay men frequently during my working life, with no problem. However, the mere idea of sex with a man revolts me. No doubt you will say I was "trained" that way, but I prefer to think I was born with it.

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.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

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. Anti-discrimination laws are at the root of your concerns. The government using the word "marriage" is one of countless possible issues that is could have an effect on how people must behave under anti-discrimination laws. You are not arguing against any inherent issue with the government using the word "marriage." In principle you could both have government-recognized gay marriage and the right to refuse religious services to gay people.

In essence you are arguing against the government using the word "marriage" in order to make it easier for people to legally discriminate against gay people. Nothing is stopping you from arguing for more rights to discriminate against gay people while allowing the government using "marriage" simultaneously.