I mean should states be involved in legalizations or regulations related to religion if it is a collective matter, and if not, should it be left-up to the complete freedom of the individual to define norms and practices of his / her religion? And if it is left to the individual, how can the society cope with the cons of differences in individual beliefs and acts?
Belief is personal. Religion is collective. The more individual the belief the less of a danger it is to society. Collective belief which manifests into adherence to religion is dangerous primarily because it seeks to dictate belief of the individual, seeks conformity within the group and usually seeks to force its collective belief on those who do not share it. So I would say having the state legislate belief sets a very dangerous course for a free society.
Beliefs are personal, actions that significantly effect the wellbeing of others are civic.
I think one's faith is their own but if practicising their faith influences or impacts others, than it becomes a collective matter. However as a whole the state should and has every right to interfere even if it concerns an invidual's rights. Referencing the third world specifically. That said, again would not apply for dictatorial regimes or monarchy as there's hardly individual fundamental rights there.
If a state does take up a practise of one faith and legally abolish or set restriction to it then we shouldn't be jumping guns and viewing it as attack on religion or religious freedom, rather as a societal reform. I'll take an example from my country, the recent ban on Triple Talaq amongst Muslim faith or if you go back a little then Child Marriage ban amongst the Hindus. Here the opposing fraction especially the conservatives are or were not actually doing any good to society or the religion by opposing and fuelling unrest.
Coming to the last part, although there should always be a defined environment to practise religion but supposedly if there is enough freedom to practise one's religion and the bs that accompanies it (applicable to all faiths) then I guess its upto people of one faith to ensure their freedom doesn't encroach upon others.
Of course a state enforced (or banned) religion is an attack on freedom of religion. As soon as a single individual cannot choose and practice any religion (s)he wishes, that freedom is being abridged.
Agreed provided the freedom of choice of a religion doesn't allow actions that translate into troubles for the societal peace and harmony.
Which may or may not be a problem. One person my have a religion that requires them to murder witches, but their neighbor may be a witch. Communities do regulate religious *actions*, because some religions try and regulate the lives of people who are not members of that religion. In secular nations, that is not allowed--which I am very much in favor of.
Actually, there is no such thing as religion.
Religion up to a certain point is philosophy.
Religion beyond a certain point is politics.
Religion mixes deep with military and politics yet used more like tool for their means to an end- control and greed.
On a personal level religion is used more as a social culture for organized superstitions.
Wow. Well said. Use of the phrase,"organized superstitions", will make you unloved by many, but you already know that.
So you mean religion has no real existence! Well it's your choice. But 90% of human intelligence doesn't reject the belief of a religion (one or the other). And it mandates that religion is not a superstition.
Your from Bahrain, said to be the happiest place on earth.
Imagination was long before Religion was made up. I don"t know your Religion yet Hindu being oldest Religion had pass down many of their imagintive ideas to Judaic Christainity. Then so on to other religions with more collective stories choices by council. Religion exist through mans imagination of it. You imagine religion as intelligent. If I pretented to agree with everything about your religion, you would think I am intelligent too. It's design for obedience, not the open deeper guestions for most part.
The history accounting to the Bible is mostly false, so the history dose not work neither.
Since the earth's mass is 99% unknown collectively to mankind. Meaning humans are not that intelligent and humans are the most dangerious animal on this planet. I can pick another species I am more impress with. There are plenity of other humans that would think alike along with me. Am I any less intelligence than a person who perpares their entire life for heaven and lives for the goat herders guild to the Universe?
by MrMaranatha5 years ago
I'm sick to death of listening to people bash religion with this line of thinking... "Where is my freedom from your religion?" Well... Where is MY freedom from YOURS? Yours is being taught in...
by VendettaVixen5 years ago
A child is baptised, receives first communion, and is confirmed before they even fully understand what religion is, and what consequences it will have on their life.Would it be better to wait until a person is... say...
by Emile R6 years ago
The longer I wander through this forum, the more I think that religion is standing in the way of progress spiritually on a global scale. It's my opinion that the major religions have built a wall of doctrine that makes...
by topstuff9 years ago
Can you give it time or prefer to remain busy in your daily working routine.If so should wearrange some time for worhip.What you have to say in this regard?
by pisean2823116 years ago
President Barack Obama plans to give an unusually personal speech about his religious faith on Thursday at a high-profile prayer breakfast in Washington, a White House official said Wednesday.“He’ll give a window on...
by Holle Abee7 years ago
Fromm CNN and Maureen Dowd:http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/08/17/ … tml?hpt=C2
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.