"Right to freedom of religion". Why?

[Justforfun000]

I was seriously thinking about this the other day. We've all seen the idiocy this kind of "right" brings to society and the countles arguments that battle between archaic moral codes and secular values.

Religion is an organized form of beliefs that isn't really that important in and of itself.

Wouldn't it be better to change the right to "right to freedom of belief"? It's subtle, but quite telling. It isn't protecting the organization, it's simply allowing you the right to believe and practice what you think. BUT even now there are checkpoints on this behaviour and rightly so.

With religion falling under this "freedom of belief", it would only be a sub-category of the argument and therefore not have to be directly CHALLENGED in order to counter the proposed beliefs.

Would you think this is more reasonable?

Then in a very overall general sense you can have a law that allows you to live and raise your offspring according to your beliefs PROVIDING it does not directly counterract a very clear and widely agreed acceptance of societal morals and values that comprise today's scientific knowledge and updated humanistic values that start with a basis of equality and freedom for everyone with minorities protected.

Of course that very phrase above would set up immediate alarm bells because the reality is that religion WANTS to be able to judge and discriminate and in fact, would scream very loud if anyone tries to prevent them from speaking against many minorities or behaviours. Still, WHY should they be allowed to do this? Isn't the proven mental harm against people considered more important than an individuals "right" to be a bigot? I'm glad it works that way here in Canada anyhow.

[General Trelane (Retired)]

At the least, it would kick the assinine "It's freedom of religion, not freedom from religion" argument that gets tired so very, very fast.

[SirNitram]

No it wouldn't. Jeez, sometimes I wonder about folks here. Atheists are presumed to not beleive in anything, so the attacks would continue.

[Justforfun000]

No it wouldn't. Jeez, sometimes I wonder about folks here. Atheists are presumed to not beleive in anything, so the attacks would continue.

There is that problem...but then they could be counterattacked by using the humanistic code as a set of beliefs and holding it up as equivalent to their religion as it is a set code of morals. I'm just thinking by having this major right re-classified as a "belief" issue, the sacred cow is no longer in the form of the ethics, it is simply in the right to believe what you think is correct. BUT, now you have to demonstrate worth of these ideas if you expect them to be allowed secularly.

Wouldn't this work in theory? (Of course I don't think this would actually happen in practical application because I think it'd be fought tooth and nail to get to this point, but I DO think it would be much more impartial and fair.)

[Soldier of Entropy]

No it wouldn't. Jeez, sometimes I wonder about folks here. Atheists are presumed to not beleive in anything, so the attacks would continue.

When I am in an athiest state (I'm not sure of my beliefs) and someone tries to pull that on me, I just pull out the Flying Spaghetti Monster stuff. Seriously, it's the perfect defence.

[Bounty]

How about this:

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.
2. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

[ArmorPierce]

Well it doesn't say freedome of religion, it says

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."

All it says is that there will be no law made against the practicing of religion and the government will never support a religion. So all this bs about "freedom of religion, not from religion" is baloney.

[General Zod]

No it wouldn't. Jeez, sometimes I wonder about folks here. Atheists are presumed to not beleive in anything, so the attacks would continue.

When I am in an athiest state (I'm not sure of my beliefs) and someone tries to pull that on me, I just pull out the Flying Spaghetti Monster stuff. Seriously, it's the perfect defence.

Uncertainty of beliefs does not an atheist make. As in order to actually be an atheist you have to not believe in a deity. Otherwise you're just a doubting Christian/Catholic/Jew/whathaveyou.

[Justforfun000]

Ironically we here in Canada have less trouble with religion, and we DO have specific mention of God and religion being part of our government in our constitution.

Weird.

[Edi]

Bounty, you REALLY, REALLY want to drop the morals part of your proposal, because that one word in there is all the justification those puritanical uptight fuckwads need to use the full power of the state to oppress anyone who disagrees with them.

Edi

[Bounty]

Bounty, you REALLY, REALLY want to drop the morals part of your proposal, because that one word in there is all the justification those puritanical uptight fuckwads need to use the full power of the state to oppress anyone who disagrees with them.

Edi

Don't blame me, I didn't write the declaration. It's probably in there for the same reason we almost had the "christian heritage" line in the proposed constitution.

[Edi]

Probably, but it should not be there in any case, because it gives free reign to legislate almost any shit you want. The kind of bullshit we're talking about won't fly in Europe, but something like that would be a fundie wet dream in the US and its legal system.

Edi

[Medic]

Probably, but it should not be there in any case, because it gives free reign to legislate almost any shit you want. The kind of bullshit we're talking about won't fly in Europe, but something like that would be a fundie wet dream in the US and its legal system.

Edi

That's what I saw too. As ArmorPierce pointed out, the law says "Congress can't fuck with or fuck over religion." It's a subtle point to be made between what IS in the Constitution and what is in Bounty's declaration, but one is freedom FROM government, the other is freedom more or less GRANTED by the government, since it reserves very broad rights to legislate it.

I'm much more comfortable with the current system that is only specific in what the law CANNOT do. That way, whenever religious values and beliefs might run contrary to our laws, there's only a very basic guiding light that the courts can use to rule on the Constitutionality of multiple marriages, not giving their kids IV's, other claptraps of religion. That's how it's worked in the US and we've not yet transmogrified into a fundie's wet dream version of America.

[Neko_Oni]

Ironically we here in Canada have less trouble with religion, and we DO have specific mention of God and religion being part of our government in our constitution.
Weird.

Dawkins refers to this in The God Delusion (in the context of England). The fact that England has a Church of England has in a way immunised the English against Christianity, but the very freedom in America's constitution has made the religious even more fanatical.

[Darth Wong]

The problem with guaranteeing only freedom of belief is that fundies would interpret that to mean they can force your children to recite the Lord's Prayer since you have the right to believe differently than the majority but not to behave differently than the majority.

Ultimately, there's only so much you can do with words on paper. If the population feels a certain way, those words aren't worth the paper they're printed on. In the end, the European countries' attitudes toward religion are heavily influenced by their cultural memory of the horrors inflicted upon them by theocracy. The US does not have that collective memory; they think that theocracy is a good thing.

[unigolyn]

Dawkins refers to this in The God Delusion (in the context of England). The fact that England has a Church of England has in a way immunised the English against Christianity, but the very freedom in America's constitution has made the religious even more fanatical.

It's not just England, it's the entirety of non-Catholic Europe (and perhaps Canada as well, although that's more due to British influence). I think it was Sam Harris who theorized that the establishment clause has led to a free market of religions, resulting in a competitive environment where different denominations strive to convert people to their cause, whereas European state-sanctioned Protestant churches simply stagnated, because they didn't have to compete against anyone. And the establishment clause also guarantees tax-exempt status, which creates an economic incentive to proselytize, while state-funded churches in Europe had no such incentive. In fact, a clergyman in a Swedish state-funded church has a cushier job when he has to deal with a smaller congregation, for the same, guaranteed-by-law pay.

Catholicism is different simply because it's transnational, with hundreds of millions of people all around the globe being members of the same organization, reporting (and sending tithes to) the Vatican. It's like the religious equivalent of McDonalds restaurants.

I think a good start to ending the unintended consequences of not picking a state religion in the US would be to get rid of indiscriminate tax-exemptions. Make churches, synagogues and mosques behave like any other non-profit organization, or else tax and regulate them. The Secular Coalition is currently trying to eliminate the lobbying privileges of "faith-based initiatives" (which is a wonderfully ironic name for basically uncontrolled pork spending - "initiatives based on ideas not backed by any evidence"). Another thing that might help is to not accredit religious schools - indoctrinate your kids all you want in Sunday school, but don't expect that teaching them about Noah's Ark will get them a degree that's worth more than the paper it's printed on.

I think most of us would have, in the 1780s, fully supported the idea of keeping church and state separate. I don't think anyone could have foreseen the unwanted consequences of this, let alone the ultimate fate of European state religions. But would I want to live in a society that bans organized religion outright? No, no, and again no. First, from a practical point of view, it simply doesn't work. But more importantly, I don't think anyone has the right to tell others what they can or can't believe. Banning religion is stooping to the level of the Pat Robertsons and Bin Ladens of the world.

[unigolyn]

In the end, the European countries' attitudes toward religion are heavily influenced by their cultural memory of the horrors inflicted upon them by theocracy.

I think you're giving collective memories too much credit - despite the Inquisition, Spain and Portugal are among the most religious countries in Europe. The church was removed from power far too long ago for any verbal histories of their misdoings to survive. There are still plenty of monarchies in Europe, despite their equally terrible track record. The Queen of England is a sweet old lady with expensive hats whose picture is printed on money, and most people do not really equate that with the excesses of medieval monarchs. Why? Because for enough generations, they have been reduced to powerless figureheads, much like state-funded (and state-controlled) churches. They've become nothing more than mascots.

The US does not have that collective memory; they think that theocracy is a good thing.

I don't think either the US population at large or the European one associate things like prayer in schools with all-out Sharia-style theocracy. In the weak sense of the word, Ireland, Portugal, Italy, and Poland are certainly theocracies, because the Catholic church in those countries actively influences legislation. I don't think the US and European public are generally that different, it's just that Protestant countries in Europe lack the critical mass in loons for religious issues to become national issues. It's not as if some massive percentage of the American public are vehemently calling for theocracy, it's a few hundred religious leaders who command maybe ten million blind followers - a drop in the ocean of 300 million Americans, but certainly enough to sway a critical election and therefore buy them political clout.

I'm pulling this number out of my ass, but I'd wager there are about as many secularists in the United States as there are gung-ho fundie lunatics, with the overwhelming majority being middle-of-the road believers who might go to church where the local culture deems it proper but who'd rather be playing golf or watching TV. The reason why secularists are so weak politically is because they're NOT blind followers like the fundies are - they're not homogenous in their political views in the slightest. They also have lives to live and while they certainly oppose what the fundies want to achieve, they're not insane or unemployed enough to chain themselves to courthouse doors because someone wants to remove a statue of some stone tablets.

This also makes militant atheists look bad - most secularists don't fight the good fight, leaving the activists a really, really tiny but vocal minority, which almost automatically results in being classified a nut by the general public. The fundies, however, can amass thousands of people. To paraphrase Richard Dawkins, clearly there is perceived sanity in numbers, as far as public opinion goes. I think it's basic human nature to falsely give credit to ideas that are seemingly held by many people at the same time, even if you don't agree with them in the slightest.

[Darth Wong]

I think you're giving collective memories too much credit - despite the Inquisition, Spain and Portugal are among the most religious countries in Europe. The church was removed from power far too long ago for any verbal histories of their misdoings to survive.

There is theocracy with a big "T", where they are officially part of the government, and there is theocracy with a small "t", where religion plays an overwhelmingly important role in society and people just naturally assume that religious laws should influence secular ones. Small-t theocracy was in vogue in Europe right through the 19th century.

The odd thing we've learned in recent years is that small-t theocracy is in some ways more dangerous than big-T theocracy.