Freedom of religion

Jump to Last Post 1-4 of 4 discussions (52 posts)
  1. Kathleen Cochran profile image74
    Kathleen Cochranposted 2 years ago

    In America we have freedom of religion, which gives you the right to your beliefs. What are the boundaries when your religious beliefs infringe on the rights of someone else who does not share your beliefs? Doesn't a person's right stop at the point it denies some else their right?

    1. DrMark1961 profile image99
      DrMark1961posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Yes, you are correct, but we also have to identify some social movements as religions that infringe on rights. If, for instance, I do not want to use someones artificial pronouns, and they attack my business and thus infringe on my rights, are they still to be protected or should they be subject to the same rules as the rest of us?

      1. LukeCadwell profile image59
        LukeCadwellposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        What do pronouns have to do with religion? I'm certain there are no laws or regulations around using pronouns. It's sort of a matter of preference?

        1. DrMark1961 profile image99
          DrMark1961posted 2 years agoin reply to this

          What is a religion? It is a group of people supporting a beleif system for which they have no evidence, only faith.

          The people that are supporting those hundreds of genders are supporting a belief system that has no basis in science. It is a religion, and their requiring others to kowtow to their belief is a violation of the principle of seperation of religion and state.

          1. LukeCadwell profile image59
            LukeCadwellposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            It doesn't appear that these people are asking for anything more than the rest of us enjoy in terms of rights. They are human after all. Where's the kowtow? If you don't want to use a certain pronoun then don't
            It's not a law.

            1. wilderness profile image79
              wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              Really?  They ask to use restrooms and dressing rooms of the sex they are not.  They ask to compete in sex based physical competitions of the sex they are not.

              Neither of which the rest of us want.

              1. LukeCadwell profile image59
                LukeCadwellposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                Have they asked? Or did we act first in saying "you can't"   
                If you're fully transitioned why wouldn't you use the bathroom of your gender?  Have you been  to a major concert or sporting event? Women are regularly in the men's bathroom. They don't want to wait.  New generation doesn't care . In terms of sports,  the NCAA has its own regulations.

                1. wilderness profile image79
                  wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  Well, being as there have been many court cases concerning both, I would have to say they asked.

                  Of course new generation doesn't care if men share the dressing rooms or bathrooms with their little girls.  That's why there is such an uproar, but they don't care.

                  1. LukeCadwell profile image59
                    LukeCadwellposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    If you're a woman shouldn't you be able to use  the women's room?  I can't really grasp the argument here?  And also, aren't there more important issue than the bathroom?   
                    Where are men sharing the restroom with little girls?

      2. GA Anderson profile image83
        GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        I read the OP as speaking to religious beliefs, not social movements. The rules of our construction do protect the freedom of religious belief. Logically, the thought is that freedom stops at the other person's nose.

        But that's not really true. The majority of the nation determines those boundaries. The majority religious block will determine the boundaries because they can control (via legislative influence) the government that will define whose Rights were denied.

        The same logic applies to the 'social movements' you mentioned. The stronger, and more durable, the 'voice', the stronger its influence will be.

        For instance, I don't have the perception that the 'pronouns' thing is as big now, as it was for a while. Your Rights might be a bit stronger on those issues. BLM seems similar. Big enough to have capitol streets named after it, but now the majority of BLM 'mentions' seem to have the baggage of their mismanagement (and some serious crookedness), BLM, as a big movement seems to fit the 'pronouns' perception.

        GA

        1. DrMark1961 profile image99
          DrMark1961posted 2 years agoin reply to this

          People that support the unscientific idea that there are non-binary individuals are living in a religion, not living in a state of reality. In nature, on the farm, and here in the real world, all of us and all of animals are either male or female.

          To require me to accept those beliefs is imposing your religion on me. I do not force people to believe in God, so why should they force me to accept their religion?

          1. LukeCadwell profile image59
            LukeCadwellposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            "People that support the unscientific idea that there are non-binary individuals are living in a religion"

            What religion is that? Does it have a name?

            1. DrMark1961 profile image99
              DrMark1961posted 2 years agoin reply to this

              You can call it what you want. They have not yet chosen a name, nor did early followers of Jesus call themseves christians, early followers of Allah call themseves Muslim, etc.

              1. LukeCadwell profile image59
                LukeCadwellposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                I think I'd call it people exercising their right to live as they choose.  Not sure why that bothers some.

                1. DrMark1961 profile image99
                  DrMark1961posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  Okay.

    2. Miebakagh57 profile image87
      Miebakagh57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Is America the only country where freedom of religion exists?                                   In Nigeria, the freedom is written into the Nigerian Constitution. Freedom of religion being the worst. Your belief say in God, is not in tanden with opposite faith. Is not this why cult group come into play?

      1. Kathleen Cochran profile image74
        Kathleen Cochranposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Many countries have freedom of religion. I wonder if there is as much pressure from religious people in those countries to make others life by their beliefs instead of their own? Religious political groups in US are very influential.

        1. Miebakagh57 profile image87
          Miebakagh57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Yes. Ditto other countries.

    3. Credence2 profile image81
      Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      I don't know why we still have to even ask about this?

      The boundaries are that you keep your religious values to yourself unless directly inquired about them.

      There shall be no "establishment" of religion in public schools.

      Religious differences cannot be used as a basis to discriminate against others in places of public accomodations.

      It is natural that we all do not agree as to the same God or even if there is a God at all. It is just dumb to think that you can compel people to believe anything.

      1. gmwilliams profile image86
        gmwilliamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        +10000000, hopefully a President who professes to having no religious affiliation or even a non-traditional spiritual person is elected.  America is only one of the few postindustrial countries with a strong emphasis on religiosity which occurs more so in Southern & Midwestern states.

        1. Credence2 profile image81
          Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

          I have no problem with a President having a religious pr ference , as long as it is his or hers alone, and don't try to make it a "state religion"

          1. Miebakagh57 profile image87
            Miebakagh57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

            A "state religion" can only be enforce by a dictator.

            1. wilderness profile image79
              wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              What is the official religion of Vatican City?  Is the pope a dictator?

              The point is that history is replete with official state religions, with the state being actually run by a priesthood, and they were not "dictators".

              1. Miebakagh57 profile image87
                Miebakagh57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                wilderness, I partially agreed with you.                                  Although Catholic is the official religion of the Vitican, the Roman Catholic Church, and the priesthood, was initially on a mission of enforcing Roman Catholism in every nation before it was curtailed by pockets of other groups that break out of her. For example,  Lutherean, Anglican, and Baptist.

                1. wilderness profile image79
                  wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  It was indeed.  And to some degree it was successful; most of Europe and the Americas turned out at least Christian if not Catholic.

                  But that still does not make the pope a dictator, or any of the kings/queens of Europe.  The point I tried to make is that have a state religion does not require a dictator.

                  1. Miebakagh57 profile image87
                    Miebakagh57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    Now the tone of your last sentence is agreable to me. Thanks.

                  2. MizBejabbers profile image96
                    MizBejabbersposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    During the Dark Ages the pope with his henchmen (cardinals, archbishops, bishops, et al) to do his dirty work, he certainly came close to being one. He was certainly no better than one, maybe a just dictator by another name.

    4. Sharlee01 profile image84
      Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Kathleen, That is a hard question.  First I support freedom of religion. I feel one's beliefs should be respected.  For example, the baker would not bake a wedding cake for a gay couple. I think his beliefs needed to be respected. 

      As I feel a Muslim woman should be allowed to wear her Hijab no matter what. Would it be fair, or should an employer's right to tell a Muslim woman her head cover can not be worn on the job?   

      I don't think when it comes to religion it is fair to dictate or infringe on someone else's religious beliefs.  I think it's that cut and dry... Respect others' boundaries when it comes to religion.  Even I you are opposed to that belief.   Me, I have come to feel as a society we need to find respect, and yes, tolerance of others' beliefs.  We all should have the right to practice our religion, and not be asked to bend our faith to suit someone else's faith.  When it comes to faith and religion we all have the right to have our beliefs respected.

      1. wilderness profile image79
        wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Would you support the right to perform live animal sacrifices in the next door neighbor's yard?  Human sacrifice?  Do you support parents refusing medical care, even simple care, for sick children, including death as a result?

        The point is that it is NOT nearly as cut and dried is you might think.  Some religious activity is so far out of the "norm" that it cannot be tolerated.  Some is simply illegal, too - beating a wife under Sharia law, for instance.

      2. Kathleen Cochran profile image74
        Kathleen Cochranposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        I have a different impression on the issue of the baker. First: He opened a business to the public not a private ministry. Thinking back on that incident I always thought: WWJD? He would have made the cake - and a friend not an enemy.

    5. peterstreep profile image81
      peterstreepposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Freedom of religion is an important right, the same as freedom of speech.
      But religion should not be connected in any way with the politics of a country.
      A president should not be sworn in with the bible. Which is done in the US. Should you accept a president sworn in with his hand on the Koran or Tora?
      No of course not.
      It would offend you. So for a Muslim a president sworn in with his hand on the bible is offensive as well.
      In other words. The government should represent all the citizens of the country and not exclude them. But by placing the hand on the bible the president excludes many who do not practice this believe.
      This simple practical example shows that it is best to separate religion and state matters.
      Religion is fine but in your own house and own place of worship but not in public buildings (schools too) and government.
      imho..

      1. Miebakagh57 profile image87
        Miebakagh57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

        In Nigeria, presidents, governors, and legislators are usually sworn in with the Nigerian Constitition lnstead of the bible.
        At the grass-root level where the community is predominantly Christian or Moslem , Bible or Koran is the tool for sworn in.
        If you don't have a religion, the Bible or Koran will be the apparantus.
        Nigeria is a multi-religious country with a written Constitition.

      2. wilderness profile image79
        wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        I would disagree.  First, not every US President has used a bible to be sworn into office with.  Johnson did not and neither did Roosevelt.  Early Presidents may or may not have used a bible.  One used the Catholic book of prayers.

        Be that as it may, it would seem reasonable to use whatever prop the President finds useful and meaningful.  I would much rather have a Muslim President have his hand on the Koran, affirming his oath to his personal deity, than do without.  Same for the Torah, that book of prayers or any other item, as long as it means something to the person using it.  What it means to others is without value; as you say we are a nation with freedom of religion.

        1. MizBejabbers profile image96
          MizBejabbersposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Excellent point, Wilderness, the object sworn upon should mean something to the person doing the swearing, not his friends, neighbors or fans.

          1. Miebakagh57 profile image87
            Miebakagh57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

            What if the president is not a christian, or moslem, or hindi, or don't professed a religion?

            Or is not a confessor of G(g)od?

            Yes, would it not be nice to swore with my swagger or walking stick?

            A traditional ruler attempted to do suchin my Rivers State, Nigeria, in a High Count of jurisdictipn, sayying the Bible cannot deyect a lie.

            The Judge got angry, sayying if the  witness does not adhereed to the Bible, it amount to a contemt of court, and he would enforce prison terms.

            Melodramatic as this may be, Miz, what d' you say?

            Remember:who made me the headmaster of Envlish grammar?

        2. Miebakagh57 profile image87
          Miebakagh57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Good as that may be,  then what stop Barak Ohama for laying his right hand on the Koran?

          Yes, America, is a nation that  enacted freedom of religion in her Constitution.

          1. Kathleen Cochran profile image74
            Kathleen Cochranposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            President Obama is a practicing Christian.

            1. Miebakagh57 profile image87
              Miebakagh57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

              Thank you. I though he was a moslem? Does he switch faith later? Sorry for the typo in the mis-spelling of Obama's name.

              1. Kathleen Cochran profile image74
                Kathleen Cochranposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                He has only ever been a Christian according to all references.

                1. Miebakagh57 profile image87
                  Miebakagh57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  Thank you.

        3. peterstreep profile image81
          peterstreepposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          On second thought I think you are right Wilderness. An oath has to mean something to the person who takes it.
          It was not the best example to show how religion interferes with politics.

    6. tsmog profile image78
      tsmogposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      That is a good OP in my mind. I have been pondering about it dancing from here to there and most likely looking too hard at it. And, I have read the thread to stimulate my thoughts looking for agreement and disagreement with my thoughts.

      My thoughts at this time . . .

      Freedom of religion falls under the First Amendment as we all know. Yet, I learned there are two clauses in it. Next, is the First Amendment.

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

      The first clause is the Establishment Clause. The United States Courts.gov website says that; "The Establishment Clause prohibits the government from "establishing" a religion. The precise definition of "establishment" is unclear. Historically, it meant prohibiting state-sponsored churches, such as the Church of England."

      That to me is pretty straightforward. We do not have to fear the far-right nationalist Christianity push to make Christianity a national religion.

      The second clause is the Exercise Clause. That same website says; "The Free Exercise Clause protects citizens' right to practice their religion as they please, so long as the practice does not run afoul of a "public morals" or a "compelling" governmental interest."

      That part may fall in line with the OP questions. Specific is the last sentence; "so long as the practice does not run afoul of a "public morals" or a "compelling" governmental interest." For me just what the heck is "public morals" today vs. yesterday with the lens of liberal and conservative ideologies? Are they not in conflict today?

      So, there is more to think about in my case. However, note, that website ending paragraph states: "Sometimes the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause come into conflict. The federal courts help to resolve such conflicts, with the Supreme Court being the ultimate arbiter." Note the politicization of the courts and Supreme court today does exist.

      Here is the link to that.
      First Amendment and Religion by United States.gov
      https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-re … d-religion

      For more on those clauses if interested take a peek at the following link:
      Overview of the Religion Clauses (Establishment and Free Expression Clauses) by Constitution Annotated (Constitution.Congress.gov)
      https://constitution.congress.gov/brows … _00013267/

      All of that addresses only the first clause of the OP's first sentence; "In America, we have freedom of religion". I am stuck with the second clause; "which gives you the right to your beliefs." Inference tells me meant is religious beliefs, yet I wandered off on a tangent having a right to any belief. No need to go there ha-ha

      Anyway, at this time I am wondering about the last two sentences while considering just what the heck is a religion. That second referenced link has information on what the courts have considered with that.

  2. Kathleen Cochran profile image74
    Kathleen Cochranposted 2 years ago

    When I posted this question I thought folks would zone in on abortion. I guess that was yesterday's news. Today's appears to be sexual orientation and identity.

  3. Kathleen Cochran profile image74
    Kathleen Cochranposted 2 years ago

    Or maybe not. As usual, A discussion will seek its own level.

  4. Miebakagh57 profile image87
    Miebakagh57posted 2 years ago

    Late Papa Doctor of Haiti, okay?

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)