Can Freedom of Religion go too far?

[73109]

So, I am currently reading The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. Most, if not all of you know who he is and what his book is about. I'm not going to try to debate God again, but I am going to bring up a good point that he made.

Dawkins makes note of a few instances in which he felt that "Freedom of Religion" has gone too far; including the use of pot in a certain church in New Mexico because they felt that the high connected them closer to God. He also noted instances of students suing their Universities for establishing rules that state that you can't abuse homosexuals. Another instance noted was a 12 year old boy being able to wear a shirt stating "Homosexuality is a sin, Islam is a lie, abortion is murder. Some issues are just black and white!"

I personally believe in what Dawkins is stating, and I believe he phrased his views in a spectacular way:

You can't get away with saying, 'If you stop me from insulting homosexuals it violates my freedom of prejudice.' But you can get away with saying, 'It violates my freedom of religion.'

I just want a view point other than my own because while I have always been pro-every single religion on the planet, I feel a line needs to be drawn in instances like these, because when these people are expressing their right to religion, they are taking away the rights of others.

Anybody got anything to say on the subject?

[Ħ]

freedom of belief =/= freedom of worship.

People should be able to believe whatever they want.  But when it comes to worship, if you are impeding on the rights of others (i.e. blowing up abortion clinics), that's obviously a problem.

[73109]

Did you actually vote "You suck?"

[ClairvoyantCat]

Did you actually vote "You suck?"

 



I agree with you, though.  The whole freedom of religion deal can definitely be taken way too far.  It's just a matter of where you draw the line. 

[Orthogonal]

There is no such thing as "Freedom of 'X' goes too far". Only "actions" can go too far. When we people say things like that they are imposing social or cultural norms onto particular beliefs to force others to act in a way that they deem acceptable.

Remove the moniker "Freedom of Religion" and base the persons actions on its own merits. If the persons actions are directly harmful to someone else, against their will, then it is wrong. If it is just words, then who cares. Allow them to be as bigoted as they like in their speech.

[Adami]

No.

[73109]

No.

I'm not attacking your point of view, but I do want to ask a question so that you can expand upon it. Is it OK for people to claim religious freedom in the harassing of homosexuals and the wearing of shirts with what is by all definition "hate speech?"

[Adami]

No.

I'm not attacking your point of view, but I do want to ask a question so that you can expand upon it. Is it OK for people to claim religious freedom in the harassing of homosexuals and the wearing of shirts with what is by all definition "hate speech?"

Sorry, I was trying out doing a Hef style post.

And to answer your question, religion doesn't involve harassing others physically. People are free to tell other people that they suck, and if religious people want to tell gays that they suck, then feel free, just like the gays can say it back if they so choose. And any shirt is fine. If I have to tolerate nazi shirts (and I do) then people can tolerate other shirts.

They're just shirts.

[73109]

How about laws that state that one shall not abuse homosexuals? Is that taking away one's freedom of religion?

[ClairvoyantCat]

How about laws that state that one shall not abuse homosexuals? Is that taking away one's freedom of religion?

That would probably fall under "harassing others physically" as he said. 

[Adami]

How about laws that state that one shall not abuse homosexuals? Is that taking away one's freedom of religion?

Depends on how you define abuse. Physically touching someone is obviously out, as is invading their personal property.


However, once again this isn't part of the religion, it's just people being idiots. No where in the new testament does it instruct Christians to abuse anyone, the Catholic church hasn't ordered anyone to abuse anyone else either. So that isn't religious freedom, it's freedom to be a dick. So I guess you could ask "Can freedom to be a giant douche bag be protected by religious privileges?" and the answer to that is no. You can't do anything you want and just say it's because god told you to. If it's not actually a part of your religion, then it's not covered.

[El Barto]

There is no such thing as "Freedom of 'X' goes too far". Only "actions" can go too far. When we people say things like that they are imposing social or cultural norms onto particular beliefs to force others to act in a way that they deem acceptable.

Remove the moniker "Freedom of Religion" and base the persons actions on its own merits. If the persons actions are directly harmful to someone else, against their will, then it is wrong. If it is just words, then who cares. Allow them to be as bigoted as they like in their speech.

Well put.  I'd say the bigger issue is nimrods trying to use religion to justify their actions.

[Tick]

No.

...

[William Wallace]

freedom of belief =/= freedom of worship.

People should be able to believe whatever they want.  But when it comes to worship, if you are impeding on the rights of others (i.e. blowing up abortion clinics), that's obviously a problem.

If freedom of religion is being abused, then I want some evidence that the problem is widespread, not a handful of anecdotes. It's easy to highlight a handful of over the top examples, but those are not enough to make policy for the entire country.

Though I'm surprised that Dawkins has to be pressed to provide scientific evidence for his claim.

[Ħ]

What I'm saying is, you should never be exempt from the law just because you claim religion and others don't.

[William Wallace]

What I'm saying is, you should never be exempt from the law just because you claim religion and others don't.

Depends on who is exempted from what, but I generally agree. I think this issue would be better handled by the courts.

[jsem]

Since there is no freedom from religion, freedom of religion can't go too far.

If people's views lead to actions like killing gays or whatever, their views can be blamed - but should never be outlawed. That'd be a matter of justice and crime and not religion anymore.

[7thHanyou]

Fact is, I don't see why people shouldn't be able to smoke pot, or wear offensive T-shirts, or freely state their opinions about people they disagree with.

So long as my money isn't being used to fund a religious or anti-religious organization, I take no issue with any of it.  It seems as though Dawkins advocates oppressive government laws, which is a separate problem.  Instead of just extending these freedoms to the religious, we should be expanding them to include everyone.