Posted on Feb 5, 2020
What in the World is Religious Freedom? — Religious Freedom Institute
1.73K
15
14
3
3
0
Excerpt from linked article.
Until a few years ago, the vast majority of Americans supported the Founders’ understanding of religious freedom. Consider, for example, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and International Religious Freedom Act. During the 1990s both passed with overwhelming, bipartisan support in Congress and were signed by President Clinton. Americans would sometimes disagree over how to apply religious freedom in particular cases, but they generally understood it to be our first freedom. With the Founders, they believed it to be a building block for all other fundamental freedoms, indispensable to the common good, and a source of protection for everyone.
Those days are gone.
In 2016 the chairman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, created by Congress to protect the civil rights of all Americans, issued the following statement[1]: “[t]he phrases ‘religious liberty’ and ‘religious freedom’ [are…] code words for discrimination, intolerance, racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, [and] Christian supremacy….”
This dangerous view, which continues to spread, is highly destructive of the American commitment to freedom and equality and demands a sustained effort to recover the true meaning and value of religious freedom. In other words, it demands nothing short of the recovery and realization of free exercise equality, a core feature of the American constitutional settlement.
Until a few years ago, the vast majority of Americans supported the Founders’ understanding of religious freedom. Consider, for example, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and International Religious Freedom Act. During the 1990s both passed with overwhelming, bipartisan support in Congress and were signed by President Clinton. Americans would sometimes disagree over how to apply religious freedom in particular cases, but they generally understood it to be our first freedom. With the Founders, they believed it to be a building block for all other fundamental freedoms, indispensable to the common good, and a source of protection for everyone.
Those days are gone.
In 2016 the chairman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, created by Congress to protect the civil rights of all Americans, issued the following statement[1]: “[t]he phrases ‘religious liberty’ and ‘religious freedom’ [are…] code words for discrimination, intolerance, racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, [and] Christian supremacy….”
This dangerous view, which continues to spread, is highly destructive of the American commitment to freedom and equality and demands a sustained effort to recover the true meaning and value of religious freedom. In other words, it demands nothing short of the recovery and realization of free exercise equality, a core feature of the American constitutional settlement.
What in the World is Religious Freedom? — Religious Freedom Institute
Posted from religiousfreedominstitute.org
1st Amendment
Religion
Government
Philosophy
Posted 4 y ago
Responses: 4
1
1
0
I'm just a guy, but it seems to me the whole debate hinges on how one's religious beliefs (or frankly, the lack thereof) impact the rights and opportunities of others. The "classic" argument is that if a person in authority holds certain spiritual and/or moral views...they will purposefully, or indirectly, make decisions that impact others on the basis of those beliefs. Speaking purely from my own opinion, I agree this is not only possible, but is pragmatically impossible to avoid...to a point.
I'm going to cross a few lines here, and suggest that the Founding Fathers were intelligent enough to understand this. More to the point, I believe they intended for it to be the case, albeit with some caveats. As I'm often saying, context is everything...and in the context of the late 18th Century philosophy, it wasn't so much creating a "wall" between personal faith and government, as it was building a bridge between government and the personal values of the people. We have to remember that even the supposed "deists" among them were a far cry from "anti-religious". True, many made statements in their correspondence that taken out of context, seem to support a critical view of religion...but reading and studying further, it's clear to me that what they were truly opposed to was linking political power to specific sects of established (often corrupted) religions.
What they wanted to avoid was a "Church of America", similar to the Church of England, or United States policy being ostensibly dictated from Rome, St. Petersburg, or Mecca for that matter. The "fail safe" was in creating a very limited, representative government, where officials were selected by the will of the People, who in doing so, pass a functional referendum on the views and beliefs of those being elected. As an additional backstop, the Constitution limits what laws the Government can pass that relate to faith-based issues. In simpler terms, the American people can elect an official precisely because they are, or are not a devotee of any faith...but that same elected official is limited in what they can do in terms of legislative policy to promote, or concurrently...restrain any specific religion.
Where I believe we're failing today, is in expecting our Government to broach the 1st Amendment, and "take sides" on issues of religious/moral legality. We attempt to circumvent the Constitution by either claiming infringement of civil rights, or alternatively promoting a false notion of what was truly enshrined in our founding laws. Ultimately, it leaves us having to elect officials and support parties based on 'single issues' as opposed to a candidate or party's holistic fitness to lead. The solution, as I see it, is to accept that freedom of religion is freedom of thought and principle...and we must either preserve that freedom; or accept that inevitably, a debate must be resolved regarding "whose" thoughts and principles will prevail.
I'm going to cross a few lines here, and suggest that the Founding Fathers were intelligent enough to understand this. More to the point, I believe they intended for it to be the case, albeit with some caveats. As I'm often saying, context is everything...and in the context of the late 18th Century philosophy, it wasn't so much creating a "wall" between personal faith and government, as it was building a bridge between government and the personal values of the people. We have to remember that even the supposed "deists" among them were a far cry from "anti-religious". True, many made statements in their correspondence that taken out of context, seem to support a critical view of religion...but reading and studying further, it's clear to me that what they were truly opposed to was linking political power to specific sects of established (often corrupted) religions.
What they wanted to avoid was a "Church of America", similar to the Church of England, or United States policy being ostensibly dictated from Rome, St. Petersburg, or Mecca for that matter. The "fail safe" was in creating a very limited, representative government, where officials were selected by the will of the People, who in doing so, pass a functional referendum on the views and beliefs of those being elected. As an additional backstop, the Constitution limits what laws the Government can pass that relate to faith-based issues. In simpler terms, the American people can elect an official precisely because they are, or are not a devotee of any faith...but that same elected official is limited in what they can do in terms of legislative policy to promote, or concurrently...restrain any specific religion.
Where I believe we're failing today, is in expecting our Government to broach the 1st Amendment, and "take sides" on issues of religious/moral legality. We attempt to circumvent the Constitution by either claiming infringement of civil rights, or alternatively promoting a false notion of what was truly enshrined in our founding laws. Ultimately, it leaves us having to elect officials and support parties based on 'single issues' as opposed to a candidate or party's holistic fitness to lead. The solution, as I see it, is to accept that freedom of religion is freedom of thought and principle...and we must either preserve that freedom; or accept that inevitably, a debate must be resolved regarding "whose" thoughts and principles will prevail.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Freedom of religion: practice whatever religion you want as long as you don't try and force it on another or use it to inflict harm on another.
Basically think of it like an S&M club and keep it to yourself. Play in your little club with your little S&M friends. But don't tell me I have to play. Don't go to our schools and tell our children they have to play. Don't tell me if I don't play then I'll be tortured for an eternity. KEEP IT TO YOURSELF
Basically think of it like an S&M club and keep it to yourself. Play in your little club with your little S&M friends. But don't tell me I have to play. Don't go to our schools and tell our children they have to play. Don't tell me if I don't play then I'll be tortured for an eternity. KEEP IT TO YOURSELF
(1)
(0)
SPC Stewart Smith
Maj John Bell - I almost agree with you. But I need you to qualify what you mean.
Do you mean it's ok to tell children they will burn for an eternity if they don't believe something that has 0 evidence? Do you mean it's ok to threaten people with an eternal punishment if they don't believe your version of garbage I mean religion?
You have to understand, the freedom to offend cuts both ways. You can come at me with your religion, but I am going to respond with rational, which typically offends the religious. Usually because they don't actually know their religion; they just read the pretty parts and claim that is their religion.
So I'll say this fact about christianity: it is literally an S&M relationship. You have mind forged manacles. You are the willing slave and your god is your master. Christianity is the essence of sado masochism.
I want you to keep your creepy religion to yourself.
Do you mean it's ok to tell children they will burn for an eternity if they don't believe something that has 0 evidence? Do you mean it's ok to threaten people with an eternal punishment if they don't believe your version of garbage I mean religion?
You have to understand, the freedom to offend cuts both ways. You can come at me with your religion, but I am going to respond with rational, which typically offends the religious. Usually because they don't actually know their religion; they just read the pretty parts and claim that is their religion.
So I'll say this fact about christianity: it is literally an S&M relationship. You have mind forged manacles. You are the willing slave and your god is your master. Christianity is the essence of sado masochism.
I want you to keep your creepy religion to yourself.
(0)
(0)
LCDR Joshua Gillespie
SPC Stewart Smith - I was going to let my previous comments suffice, but you bring up some good points of discussion that as a Christian, I'd like to address. I'll start by suggesting that the reverse of your example is also true; Must my child be educated to believe that mortal sins are not only "acceptable", but that he must support and condone them? Is it proper to exclude any and all disagreement with any scientific theory merely because the argument hinges on faith? The presumption that certain key tenants of any religion; including Christianity, are comprised of "mind forged miracles", and the "essence of sado masochism" is arguably no different than another suggesting that, "all homosexuals suffer from mental illness", or refusing medical treatments merely because one doesn't understand them. We're either "free" to hold these opinions (and likewise express them openly)...or we're not. I may disagree with the prevailing theories of Darwinian evolution, but that doesn't mean hearing the theory causes me any harm...so long as I'm free to offer counter debate free of repercussion. Likewise, I may believe homosexuality to be a great sin...but I'm by no means demanding homosexuals be forced by law to share my beliefs or obey the spiritual laws I voluntarily accept for myself. What I do expect, being the citizen of a "free country", is to be able to choose my position, and what I will and will not advocate, support, or participate in.
(2)
(0)
SPC Stewart Smith
LCDR Joshua Gillespie - Thumbs up because I actually don't disagree with you, although I also don't agree with you. It's one of those sticky situations.
What do you mean by mortal sin? Based on your "homosexuality" comment I'll speculate you mean being a homosexual is being in a state of mortal sin.
My counterargument would be: do you have any evidence at all to back up your suggestion that being a homosexual makes you a "sinner" and therefor will be punished for an eternity? I don't think you do. I think you 'believe' it because the bible says it. But with no evidence to back it up, you're condemning someone for something that you can't prove, has no evidence for, and I feel you're harming your child when you teach them that.
Science has proven that homosexuality is natural, not a mental illness. In fact most observed species have been shown to have a percentage that are homosexual or bi sexual. It's shown that people are "born this way".
To circle around, your religion teaches that god made people gay, then condemns and punishes them for being gay. That's hard for me to wrap my mind around. It's the same as "original sin". Original sin is based on two people disobeying god and then god punishing every single one of their offspring for it. How would you feel if you were punished for something your great great grandfather did? To me it's nonsensical and should not be taught to children.
Unfortunately, I don't have a crystal ball. I can't see the future. I don't know if it's true or not. I choose to live my life based on observable/verifiable evidence. Otherwise I''d be "giving up the substance for the shadow".
What do you mean by mortal sin? Based on your "homosexuality" comment I'll speculate you mean being a homosexual is being in a state of mortal sin.
My counterargument would be: do you have any evidence at all to back up your suggestion that being a homosexual makes you a "sinner" and therefor will be punished for an eternity? I don't think you do. I think you 'believe' it because the bible says it. But with no evidence to back it up, you're condemning someone for something that you can't prove, has no evidence for, and I feel you're harming your child when you teach them that.
Science has proven that homosexuality is natural, not a mental illness. In fact most observed species have been shown to have a percentage that are homosexual or bi sexual. It's shown that people are "born this way".
To circle around, your religion teaches that god made people gay, then condemns and punishes them for being gay. That's hard for me to wrap my mind around. It's the same as "original sin". Original sin is based on two people disobeying god and then god punishing every single one of their offspring for it. How would you feel if you were punished for something your great great grandfather did? To me it's nonsensical and should not be taught to children.
Unfortunately, I don't have a crystal ball. I can't see the future. I don't know if it's true or not. I choose to live my life based on observable/verifiable evidence. Otherwise I''d be "giving up the substance for the shadow".
(0)
(0)
LCDR Joshua Gillespie
SPC Stewart Smith - This how a debate should go, and I thank you for responding with sound logic, rather than random vitriol. To approach your first point; yes-I believe homosexuality to be a "sin" based on numerous scriptural references; most notably Romans 1: 26-28, though there are others. As to this not being "evidence" in the empirical sense, the entire concept of faith is based on belief-in this case (and most all others), the belief that the "Bible" (more accurately described as the anthology of ancient Hebrew texts including the Talmud and Torah, as well as subsequent correspondence of post-1st Century Christian theologians, then vetted under various forms over the next few centuries) is "evidence" enough in its own right as the inspired "Word" of God. As regards the reasons "sin" exists, Christianity teaches that mankind is not born in a state of moral perfection...far from it. Almost every sin in the Bible deals with quite "common" (some may say, "normal") desires, weaknesses, and proclivities. To take it one step further, Christianity also teaches that even as Christians, we remain subject to temptations, against which we wage a daily and life-long struggle to resist. What is all too often overlooked, is how other "sins"; many readily accepted by modern faith communities...are no less problematic. From this practice has emerged a very real sense of hypocrisy and a "double standard" that is perhaps one of the greatest threats to the Christian community today. Finally, it may be asking the wrong question to wonder whether or not any of God's "rules" are "fair" as viewed through the lens of human understanding. My personal belief, resulting from a lifetime of thought on the subject? I think the "rules" have a functional purpose that is part of the greater "plan" than any of us truly comprehend. In offering Christ as a divine sacrifice for our sins, I believe God gave evidence of His desire that (as the Scriptures say) "none should perish". It may ultimately come down to a question of whether or not as humans, we can humble ourselves and reject the "original rebellion". As to the "substance" and the "shadow"; in my experience, there is much hidden in the "shadows" that bears direct relevance on the "substance" of truth...perhaps the great challenge (if not the overriding purpose) of life is to find that truth.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
The ability to practice your religion without interference from the government.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google