Freedom of religion

1. 69

   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?

   replyreport
   1. 99

      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?

      replyreport
      1. 60

         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?

         replyreport
         1. 99

            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.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               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.

               replyreport
               1. 75

                  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.

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     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.

                     replyreport
                     1. 75

                        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.

                        replyreport
                        1. 60

                           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?

                           replyreport
                           1. 75

                              wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                              What is a woman?
                              
                              A person with double X chromosome. 
                              
                              Which has nothing to do with men (XY chromosome) demanding to use the female restroom.

                              replyreport
                              1. 67

                                 IslandBitesposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                                 I hope the testing outside each bathroom doesnt take too long.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 99

                                    DrMark1961posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                                    Yeah, I thought of that too. The line in front of the womens bathroom is going to be even longer!
                                    
                                    Fortunately there is some Chinese company out there that will invent a device you can wave over your wrist and determine your chromosomes. They did it with thermometers during COVID, right?

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 60

                                       LukeCadwellposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                                       So if you have the right chromosomes you're good to go?  Everyone is safe in that bathroom?  No issues to be had?  Really?

                                       report
                                       1. 99

                                          DrMark1961posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                                          The Chinese chromosome detector was a joke, as was the comment about it not taking too long. I apologize if you were not able to understand that. Maybe you will feel better if you went to a protest and yelled at some female swimmer who dares to claim that she has the right to compete against genetic women, not men who claim to be women.

                                          report
                           2. 94

                              MizBejabbersposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                              Sometimes it's doubtful. I worked for a state agency for 29 years. About 10 or 12 years into my job, we were interviewing for an executive secretary when an alleged transgender applied for the job. The person was a secretarial whiz who got her experience in the U.S. Army as a man named Bob. She now went by "Sue", and Sue was obviously the most qualified candidate for the job. (I'm serious about the names, this is no joke.) Sue was tall and skinny, close to 6 feet, had a deep voice for a woman, tiny little plums for breasts, masculine hips, and obviously wore a wig. We were especially concerned that Sue might be a transvestite rather than transgender, but the boss wasn't allowed to ask. We females discussed whether we would continue to use the ladies room if Sue were hired and chose it, or would we use the handicapped bathroom with a lock on the door instead. The boss was in a dilemma as to whether he should hire this most qualified candidate, but fortunately before he made his decision, Sue called and said to take her out of the running because she'd found a job that paid better.
                              We were all relieved because we truely didn't know if Sue had transgendered or was a transvestite, but at least we had the choice to use the handicapped restroom if we chose.

                              replyreport
      2. 85

         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

         replyreport
         1. 99

            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?

            replyreport
            1. 60

               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?

               replyreport
               1. 99

                  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.

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     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.

                     replyreport
                     1. 99

                        DrMark1961posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                        Okay.

                        replyreport
   2. 83

      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?

      replyreport
      1. 69

         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.

         replyreport
         1. 83

            Miebakagh57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Yes. Ditto other countries.

            replyreport
   3. 81

      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.

      replyreport
      1. 84

         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.

         replyreport
         1. 81

            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"

            replyreport
            1. 83

               Miebakagh57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

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

               replyreport
               1. 75

                  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".

                  replyreport
                  1. 83

                     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.

                     replyreport
                     1. 75

                        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.

                        replyreport
                        1. 83

                           Miebakagh57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

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

                           replyreport
                        2. 94

                           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.

                           replyreport
                           1. 83

                              Miebakagh57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                              I agreed. He would have be one, if the catholic movement is not contained.                                     The Pope was so powerful that he can pass the death sentence on a person.                                     He even over-rule knowledge in the glare of scientific evidence, confirming that the earth is flat, and is the center of the solar system(universe).                                    We no longer live in those days again.

                              replyreport
   4. 83

      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.

      replyreport
      1. 75

         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.

         replyreport
      2. 69

         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.

         replyreport
   5. 82

      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..

      replyreport
      1. 83

         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.

         replyreport
      2. 75

         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.

         replyreport
         1. 94

            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.

            replyreport
            1. 83

               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?

               replyreport
         2. 83

            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.

            replyreport
            1. 69

               Kathleen Cochranposted 2 years agoin reply to this

               President Obama is a practicing Christian.

               replyreport
               1. 83

                  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.

                  replyreport
                  1. 69

                     Kathleen Cochranposted 2 years agoin reply to this

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

                     replyreport
                     1. 83

                        Miebakagh57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                        Thank you.

                        replyreport
         3. 82

            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.

            replyreport
   6. 76

      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.

      replyreport
2. 69

   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.

   replyreport
3. 69

   Kathleen Cochranposted 2 years ago

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

   replyreport
4. 83

   Miebakagh57posted 2 years ago

   Late Papa Doctor of Haiti, okay?

   replyreport