Is there such a thing as freedom of religion?
Many states around the world have it in their laws\constitutions, etc.
Can such a concept actually exist?!?
Because, some religions like Christianity and Islam, Judaism, etc. are not tolerant towards other beliefs. The core of this religions is that there is no other religion but their own, only there way is the right way.
So giving them right to free religion basically removes the right from others to practice their religions.
In practice governments don't allow all out war, but there is still a war of hearts and minds if you will. A religions cold war perhaps, where each devotee tries to convert as much people as possible making their religion dominant.
And this, in the long term will lead to social unrest, strife...
Can such a concept actually exist?!?
Because, some religions like Christianity and Islam, Judaism, etc. are not tolerant towards other beliefs. The core of this religions is that there is no other religion but their own, only there way is the right way.
So giving them right to free religion basically removes the right from others to practice their religions.
In practice governments don't allow all out war, but there is still a war of hearts and minds if you will. A religions cold war perhaps, where each devotee tries to convert as much people as possible making their religion dominant.
And this, in the long term will lead to social unrest, strife...
Comments111
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
I'd say you'll get as much freedom in religion as you get in freedom of anything. All freedoms have at least a LITTLE restriction. TOTAL religious freedom would be a terrible thing because you could hide behind belief to do whatever you want.
So long as laws aren't made to inhibit others from believing in something (or force people into believing something), I would consider it pretty free. At a social level you'll get some harassment based on your religion, but for how Christianity-accomodating the US government is, it's not as oppressive of other religions as some other places.
So long as laws aren't made to inhibit others from believing in something (or force people into believing something), I would consider it pretty free. At a social level you'll get some harassment based on your religion, but for how Christianity-accomodating the US government is, it's not as oppressive of other religions as some other places.
Freedom of/from religion means that the presence or absence of religious motivation for an action has no bearing on whether that action is allowed.
You are free to attend a lecture on linguistics and you are free to attend a religious sermon. You are not free to murder people for queue jumping at a lane merge and you are not free to engage in human sacrifice to Cthulu.
You are free to attend a lecture on linguistics and you are free to attend a religious sermon. You are not free to murder people for queue jumping at a lane merge and you are not free to engage in human sacrifice to Cthulu.
"The core of this religions is that there is no other religion but their own, only there way is the right way.
So giving them right to free religion basically removes the right from others to practice their religions."
I'm not following this. How does your second sentence relate to the first?
example:
"The core of my belief is that only by eating a steady diet of vegetables can you live healthier. There is no other way."
"So giving me my right to believe this removes your right to eat all kinds of meat and avoid vegetables."
I just can't reconcile it as a logical argument. Can you explain more?
So giving them right to free religion basically removes the right from others to practice their religions."
I'm not following this. How does your second sentence relate to the first?
example:
"The core of my belief is that only by eating a steady diet of vegetables can you live healthier. There is no other way."
"So giving me my right to believe this removes your right to eat all kinds of meat and avoid vegetables."
I just can't reconcile it as a logical argument. Can you explain more?
I assume it's about the mutual exclusivity of most religions make it impossible for people to freely practice their iwn beliefs so long as any one of them is in charge or favored by government.
Right. In a theocracy, I would agree. If we make laws based on religious beliefs, there are bound to be conflicts.
Even in the U.S. so called secular government have laws being promoted and passed with religiously (particularly Christian) based.
No man is above the law.
I really do find that to be a problem of freedom of religion. If anything the social law should always be above any religious law. And here we stand giving rights to people to follow any religion, even those that say "screw the official law, we have all the stuff you need". System is kinda broken that way. And same goes for some other freedoms.
Yes there is. There is also the freedom to believe that you're right and everyone else that disagrees with you is wrong.
Yes.
Because no freedom is absolute.
Because no freedom is absolute.
Freedom of religion means you can worship without government interference. There's millions of folk in the US who worship and they're not all Christian, Islamic or Jewish. So yes, freedom of religion does work.
The three major Abrahamic religions are extremely intolerant. Can there be be freedom of religion as long as they exist? Yes. As long as the state constrains the religions, yes there can be freedom of religion. It boils down to freedom FROM religion. In order for freedom of religion to exist, laws have to be erected to act as a barrier between the church and the state.
The state should prosecute, convict, and jail people who violate that oath. The best example of this is USian Texas Governor Rick Perry, his actions should be considered considered a violation of his oath to the US Constitution, he should be impeached for abuse of his power in that he has actively attempted to force his Protestant Christian views on the population.
The state should prosecute, convict, and jail people who violate that oath. The best example of this is USian Texas Governor Rick Perry, his actions should be considered considered a violation of his oath to the US Constitution, he should be impeached for abuse of his power in that he has actively attempted to force his Protestant Christian views on the population.
"The three major Abrahamic religions are extremely intolerant. Can there be be freedom of religion as long as they exist?" I agree, i on the other hand believe the answer is no. Because that sort of intolerance will always create fanatics!
I believe in religions being free to create chaos. I am Satan.
True! But, Jesus Christ was the only one who can claim and say, "I am The Way, The Truth and The Life", no man can come to God, but by me." In another words, there's no other "Salvation Plan", for mankind. Only, through the Lord Jesus Christ.
THE WAY - Used the definite article to distinguish Himself as "the only way." A way is a path or route, and the disciples had expressed their confusion about where He was going, and how they could follow. As He had told them from the beginning, Jesus was again telling them (and us) "follow me." There is no other path to Heaven, no other way to the Father. Peter reiterated this same truth years later to the rulers in Jerusalem, saying about Jesus:
"Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved...Acts 4:12. The exclusive nature of the only path to salvation is expressed in the words "I am the way."
THE TRUTH – Again Jesus used the definite article to emphasize Himself as "the only truth." Psalm 119:142 says "Your law is the truth." In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus reminded His listeners of several points of the Law, then said "but I say unto you...Matthew 5:22, 28, 32, 34, 39, 44, thereby equating Himself with the Law of God as the authoritative standard of righteousness. In fact, Jesus said that He came to fulfill the law and the prophets (Matthew 5:17). Jesus, as the incarnate Word of God (John 1:1) is the source of all truth.
THE LIFE – Jesus had just been telling His disciples about His impending death, and now He was claiming to be the source of all life. In John 10:17-18, Jesus declared that He was going to lay down His life for His sheep, and then take it back again. He spoke of His authority over life and death as being granted to Him by the Father. In John 14:19, He gave the promise that "because I live, you also will live." The deliverance He was about to provide was not a political or social deliverance (which most of the Jews were seeking), but a true deliverance from a life of bondage to sin and death to a life of freedom in eternity.
In these words, Jesus was declaring Himself the great "I Am," the only path to righteousness, the only true measure of righteousness, and the source of both physical and spiritual life. He was staking His claim as the very "God of Creation", the Lord who blessed Abraham, and the Holy One who inhabits eternity. He did this so the disciples would be able to face the dark days ahead and carry on the mission of declaring the gospel to the world. Of course, we know from Scripture that they still didn't understand, and it took several visits from their risen Lord to shake them out of their disbelief. Once they understood the truth of His words, they became changed people, and the world has never been the same.
So how do we follow Him today? The same way the disciples did long ago. They heard the words of Jesus and believed them. They took His words and obeyed them. They confessed their sins to Jesus as their Lord and God. They believed that He died to take the punishment of their sins and rose from the dead to give them new life. They followed His example and command to tell others the truth about sin, righteousness, and judgment. When we follow Him in "the way," we can be assured of following Him all the way to Heaven.
"Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved...Acts 4:12. The exclusive nature of the only path to salvation is expressed in the words "I am the way."
THE TRUTH – Again Jesus used the definite article to emphasize Himself as "the only truth." Psalm 119:142 says "Your law is the truth." In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus reminded His listeners of several points of the Law, then said "but I say unto you...Matthew 5:22, 28, 32, 34, 39, 44, thereby equating Himself with the Law of God as the authoritative standard of righteousness. In fact, Jesus said that He came to fulfill the law and the prophets (Matthew 5:17). Jesus, as the incarnate Word of God (John 1:1) is the source of all truth.
THE LIFE – Jesus had just been telling His disciples about His impending death, and now He was claiming to be the source of all life. In John 10:17-18, Jesus declared that He was going to lay down His life for His sheep, and then take it back again. He spoke of His authority over life and death as being granted to Him by the Father. In John 14:19, He gave the promise that "because I live, you also will live." The deliverance He was about to provide was not a political or social deliverance (which most of the Jews were seeking), but a true deliverance from a life of bondage to sin and death to a life of freedom in eternity.
In these words, Jesus was declaring Himself the great "I Am," the only path to righteousness, the only true measure of righteousness, and the source of both physical and spiritual life. He was staking His claim as the very "God of Creation", the Lord who blessed Abraham, and the Holy One who inhabits eternity. He did this so the disciples would be able to face the dark days ahead and carry on the mission of declaring the gospel to the world. Of course, we know from Scripture that they still didn't understand, and it took several visits from their risen Lord to shake them out of their disbelief. Once they understood the truth of His words, they became changed people, and the world has never been the same.
So how do we follow Him today? The same way the disciples did long ago. They heard the words of Jesus and believed them. They took His words and obeyed them. They confessed their sins to Jesus as their Lord and God. They believed that He died to take the punishment of their sins and rose from the dead to give them new life. They followed His example and command to tell others the truth about sin, righteousness, and judgment. When we follow Him in "the way," we can be assured of following Him all the way to Heaven.
You're free to choose which, that's about it.
no "war of religion" mishmash talk was around until the 9/11 and the middle east massacre that followed it. criticism doesnt create the data it criticizes. all intellectuals of Abrahamic religions used to stand together save for the extremists which were seen as antisocial psychopaths until the war. now they are heroes in society.. (ie [link])
the governments dont "not allow an all out war", its just that no war can materialize over ideologies. thats a childs concept. wars are fought over survival instincts, such as resources, territories or communication. even america couldnt justify their whateverth crusade to the world even though they managed a large scale organized cold war style propaganda. this is because the general of the religious population is just not dumb enough to campaign for a waste of life and resources for beliefs that are on the whim of arguments. there is only a minority of extremists who think that way. but the problem is that this minority has grown in percentage and in rural areas are majorities. and they keep getting louder and louder, so much that they start to represent their religions or political views without the consent of the billions of people that are seriously bothered with it.
the governments dont "not allow an all out war", its just that no war can materialize over ideologies. thats a childs concept. wars are fought over survival instincts, such as resources, territories or communication. even america couldnt justify their whateverth crusade to the world even though they managed a large scale organized cold war style propaganda. this is because the general of the religious population is just not dumb enough to campaign for a waste of life and resources for beliefs that are on the whim of arguments. there is only a minority of extremists who think that way. but the problem is that this minority has grown in percentage and in rural areas are majorities. and they keep getting louder and louder, so much that they start to represent their religions or political views without the consent of the billions of people that are seriously bothered with it.
According to me, Religion is how you feel God around you in life's day to day happenings. Well if you ask me, everybody SHOULD have the freedom to practice a religion of his own choice. And I feel converting into one religion from another does not bring you any closer to God.
"The core of this religions is that there is no other religion but their own, only there way is the right way."
i'm so tired of people saying things like this.
EVERYONE BELIEVES THIS, not just religious people.
EVERYONE believes their way is the right way, that is why they believe it in the first place! everyone, religious or not, tries to convert others to their beliefs. non-religious people constantly talk about how religion is brainwashing, and they are always trying to convince religious people to leave their beliefs behind. so don't act like only religious people try to convert others. everyone does it.
and trying to convert others is called freedom of speech. there is nothing wrong with one person trying to convince another person to follow their belief system. yes there is a war for hearts and minds. everyone has their own opinions and we can passionately debate and argue and that is a GOOD thing. it does not remove the right of others to practice their religions. you are going to have to realize that there are always going to be tons and tons of people who have huge disagreements with you. the government shouldn't make a law against that just because you don't like it.
i'm so tired of people saying things like this.
EVERYONE BELIEVES THIS, not just religious people.
EVERYONE believes their way is the right way, that is why they believe it in the first place! everyone, religious or not, tries to convert others to their beliefs. non-religious people constantly talk about how religion is brainwashing, and they are always trying to convince religious people to leave their beliefs behind. so don't act like only religious people try to convert others. everyone does it.
and trying to convert others is called freedom of speech. there is nothing wrong with one person trying to convince another person to follow their belief system. yes there is a war for hearts and minds. everyone has their own opinions and we can passionately debate and argue and that is a GOOD thing. it does not remove the right of others to practice their religions. you are going to have to realize that there are always going to be tons and tons of people who have huge disagreements with you. the government shouldn't make a law against that just because you don't like it.
Could you please point out in the atheist doctrine where it says we need to kill non atheists?
Good point sir. And i might add, where does the atheist dogma demands we smash and\or burn other gods statues(witch from my point of view are art and should be treated as such) and their holly texts(which have historical value)?
It's towards the back 
Even that is after making the mistake of believing there is an atheistic doctrine.