The debate "Freedom For Religion not Freedom From Religion" was started by
January 1, 2020, 10:15 am.
39 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 11 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
jrardin12 posted 16 arguments to the agreers part.
Bgvikings08 posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
WyattTrull, Thandaza3, jrardin12, Rashia, safalcon7, Fezile and 33 visitors agree.
Bgvikings08 and 10 visitors disagree.
i think freedom *of* religion covers freedom from religion in a wording that wont freak out overly sensitive and presumptious theists. however let me give the distinction between freedom *of* religion and freedom *for* religion as i see it.
freedom *of* religion provides freedom for the person to choose their own religion. the freedom *of* choice. in the topic *of* religion, you (the person) are free to choose.
freedom *for* religion provides freedom for the religion rather than the person. the religion is free to act as it will and superseeds any law. if your religion promotes discrimination of a group, discriminate! if your religion demands human sacrifice, sacrifice away!
no. the religions themselves do not have free reign to do whatever their mantras dictate. no law should be passed targeting a specific religion, but all religions, and religious people, must follow the law no matter what their personal faith tells them to do.
as per @jrardin's opening post: "the first ammendment is meant to protect religion from the government." and to that i say no. it is meant to protect the people and their choice of religion, not to protect the religion itself from any accountability and criminality.
What's the difference between freedom of religion and freedom for religion?
Both imply religion has freedom, and not any specific religion, religion in general has freedom. So that's secularism. It's therefore necessary to also have freedom from religion because religions are so contradictory. It's impossible to freely act as a Christian if you have to follow Islam, as it was created by what Christians see as a false prophet.
So freedom of/for religion needs freedom from religion or else there's no freedom of/for religion.
It really depends. At the beggining of the U.S.A. the founding fathers gave freedom for religion but their wants when they moved here were for religion.
also its freedom of religion, not for religion. you are free to practice any faith or lack of faith so long as you follow the laws of the land.
is there a point to this topic? are there any laws you feel are against christians? or is this just a nebulous accusation based on emotions and hearsay?
which laws do you feel impede on religious freedoms?
You don't argue the authenticity of a religious belief in court... Do you know why? Because religious beliefs don't affect your ability to follow the law. If you break the law you break the law and get punished appropriately. There's no legitimate religious belief defense, and there never will be.
Well if that is your religious belief (which I doubt) you can go to court and argue your case.
so if i don't believe in speed laws, who are you to infringe?
@Neimroff, we cannot infringe on the rights of any of them. That kind of judgment belongs to God.
The earliest parts of the Bible were written about 30 years after Jesus died.
so we can make laws that infringe on the rights of Catholics, but not certain protestants?
The government shouldn't decide which one is right and which one is wrong.
The earliest part of the bible was written about 80 years after jesus' death. No one who wrote a single word of the bible ever met jesus.
You are kind of skipping over our point though. There is huge disagreements about what is the right version of christianity. Should the government decide which one(s) are right and which one(s) are wrong?
"Should there be a pope? Should priest's be celibate? Should babies be baptized or do you wait for them to be adults? Is communion literally or figuratively the body and blood of Christ?"
Actually the Bible does say a lot about these things. The Bible says that a religious leader should not exercise authority over another church, but that the churches should be independent from each other. The Bible says pastors should be married to one wife and warns that there will be those who will prevent people from marrying. There is no example of babies being baptized only of those who are converted. The Bible says that communion is only a symbol to remember Christ.
The New Testament was written by men who walked and talked with Jesus and they even admit it.
so the catholic interpretation of the bible is wrong?
Well the bible is an interpretation, but not the one you mean. The bible was written and edited by people who had never met jesus. It is their interpretation of what christianity "should" be.
But the bible doesn't tell you alot of things. Should there be a pope? Should priest's be celibate? Should babies be baptized or do you wait for them to be adults? Is communion literally or figuratively the body and blood of Christ? The list goes on and on.
These, and many other things, all need to be interpreted by the people reading it. Should the law recognize all of these as interpretations as being above the law? Or do you want politicians to pick and choose which religious views are legitimate and which aren't? That would be directly against what the constitution was trying to do.
The correct interpretation of the Bible is the Bible itself.
One is saved when one accepts God's gift through faith with repentance.
The Catholics have many things wrong that are not even in the Bible.
"@historybuff, that is why freedom of conscious was important to the Founding Fathers'and why they were allowing people to worship God as they believed they should."
So are you arguing that every religion should be immune to laws they don't like, or only specific religions that you get to choose? You want Christians to be immune from laws around abortion, marriage equality etc. But I'm guessing you don't want a Sikh to be able to carry a dagger onto an airplane (as their religion says they should), or to have sex with children (as some sects of Christianity believe they should), or for a parent to stone their child to death if they disobey them.
If you think only the religions you like should be exempt from the law, then you are a massive hypocrite trying to undermine the constitution by place some religions above others.
If you think all religions should be exempt from the law when they feel it is against their religion, then you are advocating for a broken system where anyone can opt out of whatever laws they want. All they have to do is join or start a religion that says they don't have to follow those laws. And that would be very, very dumb.
when is one saved?
the bible is the correct interpretation of the word
but what is the correct interpretation of the bible? can you name it?
do catholics have it right?
The Bible is the correct interpretation of His Word, man is the one who misinterprets it to benefit their religion.
@Nemiroff, one is baptized after one is saved, this is consistent with the Bible.
@historybuff, that is why freedom of conscious was important to the Founding Fathers'and why they were allowing people to worship God as they believed they should.
how does man know which interpretation is gods? do you know? if you know isnt it against gods will to not tell me where ti find his true word?
when should one be baptized?
That is kind of the problem. Everyone interprets their religion differently. So who is to say which interpretation is the correct legally protected version(s) and which are the incorrect, non-legally protected version(s)?
At that point you now have the government picking national religion(s), which is exactly what they were trying to avoid.
The problem with interpretation is not the Bible's fault it is man's fault. Give me an example of different interpretation then.
despite that, there are still many interpretations. which one do you feel is most accurate?
Oh, so every branch of Christianity believes the exact same things then? Because if they don't then you are quite incorrect.
The Bible doesn't leave room for interpretation. It says what it means.
Who decides what god's word is? Jewish people have a very different interpretation than Christians or Muslims, but they all worship the same god.
Even if you could decide on 1 book that was the "right" one. Whose interpretation of that book is correct? There are various sects of Christians that all have different interpretations of what Christianity is supposed to be.
What decides which is true Christianity? Simple, God's Word.
Hinduism and Taoism are religions that are consistent with the laws of the land. They have the right to practice their religion as well.
very few christians feel other christians are true Christians. much less other judeochristian faiths.
so who decides which ideas are true christian ideas and which are not? the pope? protestants wouldnt like that, but catholics might.
and what of hinduism or taoism?
Not everyone who says they are a Christian is a Christian. Especially when their beliefs go against God's Word which is the absolute standard for how Christians should live.
The Founding Fathers' were actually talking about not letting the government establish a national religion and everyone was allowed to practice their Christian-Judeo religious beliefs publically.
the children of god claimed to be christians and said their faith promoted child sex. should they be allowed to have sex with children because it is part of their religion?
besides, my reading of christianity is against all speed limits. your just asking for a no true scotsman free for all.
also, freedom of religion is not limited to just christianity.
Well, I will have to say where does that authority come from? See, in Christianity speed limits are consistent with our religion.
well my religious belief doesnt accept speed limits
If Congress should pass laws going against someone's Religious beliefs that would be a violation of the Constitution.
the 1st ammendment states Congress shall not pass laws targeting religions. it doesnt say religious people dont have to follow general laws.
The First Amendments Religious clause isn't to protect the American government from religion, but to protect religion from the American government.