Religious freedom?

[Captain Picard's Hair]

I had read some of the NYT article describing the Texas Board of "Education," a few days ago but didn't have the will to RTFA and didn't post it. On the topic of fundamentalists' insistence on a Christian nation though, a few things just occurred to me.

It's considered fairly obvious nowadays that forcing religion down the throats of nonbelievers is a violation of their freedom. What just occurred to me is that this may also be a violation of a believer's beliefs. In other words, a true "believer" is meant to believe by virtue of his/her own choice; a faith wouldn't seem to be entirely legitimate unless it were what the believer decided were truth. By intimating that there is only one proper choice, the Bible-thumpers would seem to render illegitimate the faith of the "converted" in a fashion. Of course, from their perspective, they are 'saving' the souls of others from the evils of secular visions of free will.

Historically, this is par for the course -- atheists were unheard of at certain points of history and would risk being executed for their sins. In theory, this is an age in which reason has been accepted and in which religious practice can be seen as a part of one's life which must not necessarily encompass all other parts. Well, there's a theory for any contrivance and hypocrisy is only rejected when it becomes inconvenient...

[Coalition]

If someone believed the Earth was flat, would you correct them? If someone believed they would catch cooties from the opposite gender, would you laugh at them? If someone believed they could ignore gravity, would you let them jump off a bridge?

Beliefs can kill. Facts are needed to counter them. They can have their beliefs, as long as they are willing to accept the consequences. I.e. a micribe researcher might believe in creationism, but if those beliefs affect his work into a potential bioterror threat (figuring out where it came from) that would be a problem. Of course, given her extensive knowledge of disease theory, research data, and actual experiments, her belief in creationism should be destroyed.

Or anyone who measures half-lives of radioactive elements, and still thinks that Earth is only 6,000 years old.

Or people who believe that if a guy kidnaps a girl, rapes her, and leaves her, that it was the girl's fault, and she needs to be killed for the family's honor.

I'd argue for religious freedom only applying to the supernatural aspect, aka dealing with things that cannot be measured (currently). The natural aspect, including dealing with other people, should be examined to see how useful it is.

Essentially, the believer's freedom of religion should end when it affects someone else.

I.e. if you had a family from Mexico move in next door, would you complain? If that neighbor built a pyramid made of clay bricks in his backyard, would you complain? If he received a package in the mail, a guarunteed antique flint knife from the Aztec civilization, would you complain?

If he then took his son, marched him up that pyramid, and cut out his heart with that flint knife, would you interfere with his religions beliefs?

[Sionnach Glic]

What just occurred to me is that this may also be a violation of a believer's beliefs. In other words, a true "believer" is meant to believe by virtue of his/her own choice; a faith wouldn't seem to be entirely legitimate unless it were what the believer decided were truth. By intimating that there is only one proper choice, the Bible-thumpers would seem to render illegitimate the faith of the "converted" in a fashion. Of course, from their perspective, they are 'saving' the souls of others from the evils of secular visions of free will.

The majority of "holy" books say that True Believers should kill any heathens they find. However, as modern society rewards acting out God's Will with a nice cosy jail cell, the True Believers have to go for the second best option - converting the heathens.

[Aaron]

Essentially, the believer's freedom of religion should end when it affects someone else.

^----This. Believe whatever the hell you want, but leave the rest of us alone. Unfortunately believers don't see it that way and as long as churches continue to push their followers to convert and preach to the rest of us, there won't be any respite.

This is one of those things that makes me glad I live in Canada, where faith is more private.

[sunnyside]

It's considered fairly obvious nowadays that forcing religion down the throats of nonbelievers is a violation of their freedom.

If you mean strapping someone down and going Clockwork Orange on them than yes. And I can even see the pledge of allegance argument.

But if you mean someone talking to you about it or otherwise simply presenting it than no. Nor do I think it's off to have it in history books, even if you think they were off their rockers for believing what they did, you can't deny the historical existance of religious people, and what they actually did themselves.

The majority of "holy" books say that True Believers should kill any heathens they find.

Oh come on now. You can probably find some religeons that have that as a tenant, especially ones in the far and much more hardcore past (Aztecs maybe). But once you get to the religeons that based faith around books I doubt you find that much at all, if at all. Conversion being the gold standard, or at most a double standard on how you have to treat people, but no calls to go out of your way to kill.

[Sionnach Glic]

Oh come on now. You can probably find some religeons that have that as a tenant, especially ones in the far and much more hardcore past (Aztecs maybe). But once you get to the religeons that based faith around books I doubt you find that much at all, if at all. Conversion being the gold standard, or at most a double standard on how you have to treat people, but no calls to go out of your way to kill.

On the contrary, the ones with books tend to be the worst of all. Mainly due to them being written 1000+ years ago and not being changed in major ways since.

Quite simply, I doubt there's any religion that hasn't sprung up in the last century which doesn't advocate violence of some fashion. Even some sects of Budhism can be quite nasty. The violent messages are swept under the carpet today, but they do still exist.

[Mark]

You know, I've had a notion kicking around in the back of my head for years. I'm going to work my way through it, so bear with me. The US was founded with one of the tennents being "free of religious persecution". In other words, the colonists wanted to be able to practice their religion or beliefs without fear of persecution of the church, state, or neighbors.

233 years later, whats different? You have bible thumpers hounding everyone who does something they don't believe in. You have people ostricsized because of their religion (jews, muslims, wiccans, pagans, druids, and satanists to name a few), and you have public servents making decisions for people based on THEIR beliefs, not the desire of the majority.

When I was in Basic Training in the Army, sundays were given to religious services. They had a schedule for various denomination, (methodists, lutherins, catholics, and prodastants to name a few). Now, to be honest, I can't tell a single difference between those various flavors of christianity...but they were the choices. No jewish service at all, no muslim service, CERTAINLY none of the others above I named. So, was the government endorsing certain religons? Seems that way. And if you DIDN'T go........you were given extra duty, so it behooved you to attend SOMETHING. Free will?

When I went to rehab, it was at the Salvation Army Adult Rehabilitation Center. Let me say before I go into this that I LOVE that center. It saved my life, and I still go back to teach men there how to change their lives and avoid relapsing. But, when I went there the administrators weren't the best. They forcefully pushed their version of the Christian religion on every man there. You had to enthusiastically participate in the chaple services and bible study classes. You literally had to CONVINCE THEM that you'd been saved or they would kick you out on the street with no hesitation at all. So, even though we were supposed to be learning to practice honesty (many of us for the first time), every day we had to con the majors (the salvation army ministers have "ranks"). I watched people get kicked out for not praying enough, or worshiping false gods (one guy was buhdist, and another guy jewish).

Free will + religion = ?????

[stitch626]

Quite simply, I doubt there's any religion that hasn't sprung up in the last century which doesn't advocate violence of some fashion. Even some sects of Budhism can be quite nasty. The violent messages are swept under the carpet today, but they do still exist.

Christianity in the first (and some of the second) century. Many were killed because of their stance on non-violence.

[Captain Picard's Hair]

It's considered fairly obvious nowadays that forcing religion down the throats of nonbelievers is a violation of their freedom.

If you mean strapping someone down and going Clockwork Orange on them than yes. And I can even see the pledge of allegance argument.

But if you mean someone talking to you about it or otherwise simply presenting it than no. Nor do I think it's off to have it in history books, even if you think they were off their rockers for believing what they did, you can't deny the historical existance of religious people, and what they actually did themselves.

Well, sure, religion has undoubtedly played a major part in shaping history. We would be remiss to neglect that -- in both the positive and negative aspects. But that's not what I was referring to so much as the redefining of society in religious terms. In particular the efforts to teach (impressionable) children that creationist dogma "science" is a valid science stands out as a relevant example. If not as traumatic on an individual basis as your example, this sort of broad social pressure is quite powerful; group dynamics is an extremely powerful motivator. Though the movement towards governance with an explicit (Christian) religious aganda or creationism isn't specifically what I wrote about they do demonstrate the principle.

In general, believers of a faith at best pay lip service to the notion that nonbelievers are free to believe what they wish. At the time I posted the OP I was off on some philosophical tangent that this seems to violate their own supposed religious beliefs (that a faith should originate entirely from within one, where belief as a result of explicit, outright indoctrination would subtly violate the definition of "faith."). Actually, this is inevitable in some sense if a religion is to thrive and grow and so really more a trivial fact than any profound revelation; either way the social impact of religion is an important topic.

[Captain Picard's Hair]

I watched people get kicked out for not praying enough, or worshiping false gods (one guy was buhdist, and another guy jewish).

Free will + religion = ?????

Heaven forbid (pun not intended, at least not until I realized it myself) a voodoo worshiper showed up!

In all seriousness, the concept of "barbarians" still exists to this day, if under the carpet.

[sunnyside]

When I went to rehab, it was at the Salvation Army Adult Rehabilitation Center. Let me say before I go into this that I LOVE that center. It saved my life, and I still go back to teach men there how to change their lives and avoid relapsing. But, when I went there the administrators weren't the best. They forcefully pushed their version of the Christian religion on every man there. You had to enthusiastically participate in the chaple services and bible study classes. You literally had to CONVINCE THEM that you'd been saved or they would kick you out on the street with no hesitation at all. So, even though we were supposed to be learning to practice honesty (many of us for the first time), every day we had to con the majors (the salvation army ministers have "ranks"). I watched people get kicked out for not praying enough, or worshiping false gods (one guy was buhdist, and another guy jewish).

Free will + religion = ?????

Um. You'd have thought the name might have tipped you off. But the Salvation Army isn't some government agency. Heading over to their webside their mission statment is:

"The Salvation Army, an international movement, is an evangelical part of the universal Christian Church.

Its message is based on the Bible. Its ministry is motivated by the love of God. Its mission is to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ and to meet human needs in His name without discrimination."

Now I suppose you could argue "without discrimination" should mean they shouldn't kick people out or push the salvation thing so hard. But the bottom line is that wanting to save people is the whole reason that service even existed for you to take advantage of. Conning them isn't some form of defending yourself against an intrusion on your freedom, instead it's like lying about being part a university in order to get some free food and pens during their orientation week.

To tie this into Trek, I think this is part of why the Prime Directive (besides being an convenient thing for script writing) could actually make sense. Because you can give something to someone for free, save them from something, or whatever and you're much more likely to ultimatily to get some crap headed your way ultimately than any other meaningful outcome. Helping out other warp capabale societies works because you can immediately get some benifit out of the short lived gratitude or have some form of give and take present.


@Rochey For someone who likes to pull out the burden of proof card as much as you do, you're being awfully lazy here, seeing as all the books in question are probalby online, searchable, and translated to English. Plus you can probably find some summaries on some website.

However what you'll find is that few if any of the books advocate going out of your way to attack non believers. Christianity as written is pacifistic and big on peaceful conversion. Judaism doesn't even have the conversion element. Even Islam, which has a fair bit of violent and oppressive stuff in it towards non-believers, still has conversion as the preffired action.

Not that some religions don't have outright agression in them, but I think most of those like the Aztec, Norse, and polynesian systems weren't "book" religions. And they barely exist today anyway.

Of course I'm sure in history you can find people of any faith, creed, or nation that were outright violent. But that's just universally true. The only reason it's easy to point at religions in that is because every nation and tribe was religious up until...hmmmmmm I guess it would be the Soviets? (Who, of course, were totally peaceful and killed nobody).

[Tsukiyumi]

Christianity as written is pacifistic and big on peaceful conversion...

Oh, you must mean the New Testament.

[Captain Seafort]

Oh, you must mean the New Testament.

You mean the New Testament that explicitly stated that Christ didn't come to bring peace to the earth, but to bring a sword?

[Tsukiyumi]

Oh, you must mean the New Testament.

You mean the New Testament that explicitly stated that Christ didn't come to bring peace to the earth, but to bring a sword?

That's from Revelation, and it's not a standard feature in most Bibles.

[Captain Seafort]

Nope - Matthew 10:34-36

Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law - a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.