So… freedom of religion is one of those “absolute rights” in American tradition. The subset of basic human rights where there is a strong belief in the Slippery Slope.
How come Freedom of Religion cannot be limited even when it starts hurting people, while it’s perfectly OK to lock up a criminal, depriving him of his freedom, or (according to some people) even to execute criminals?
Why should parents’ rights to pass on their values be absolute even when it starts to interfere with the child’s right to learn about the world?
Which raises an interesting point about the difference between “freedom of religion” and “freedom of organised religion”.
Are you sure it’s not possible to limit one while keeping the other?
It does seem to be hard in the case of Catholicism, because the Roman Catholic Church sees itself as the keeper of a direct line of succession of Bishops of Rome going back to St. Peter (interestingly, all the Eastern Orthodox Churches recognize this and honor the pope as primus inter pares among all patriarchs; they just don’t agree that he should really be their boss).
But if you ban a Lutheran Church, the Lutherans can just found a new one.
So does this mean that religious organisations need to be protected even in cases when they’ve been shown to be harmful parasites on society?
But on the other hand, the “Islamic State” has been labelled as a terrorist organisation from the start. But they believe themselves to be the only true form of Islam. The Caliphate is ordained by God, much like the Bishops of Rome are the vicars of God. The Islamic State and [their atrocious interpretation of] the Islamic Religion are one and the same (or so they say).
Now the IS has committed countless murders and other atrocities, while scientology only commmits fraud, extortion and brainwashing, as far as I know. Why ban one and defend the other in the name of “Freedom of Religion”?
In 1933, Herbert Armstrong founded what was to become the World Wide cHurch of God, a new religious movement that deviated from mainstream christianity in a couple of unique ways. After hie died in 1986, the new leadership tried to reorientate the church’s doctrine towards something more orthodox.
On January 16, 1986, Herbert Armstrong died in Pasadena, California. Shortly before his death, on January 7, 1986, Armstrong appointed Joseph W. Tkach Sr. “… succeeding me as pastor general, in the difficult times ahead”.
As early as 1988, Joseph W. Tkach Sr. began to make doctrinal changes. Doctrinal revisions were made quietly and slowly at first, but then openly and radically in January 1995. They were presented as new understandings of Christmas and Easter,[10] Babylon and the harlot,[11] British Israelism,[12] Saturday Sabbath,[13] and other doctrines.
In general, Tkach Sr. directed the church theology towards mainstream evangelical Christian belief. This caused much disillusionment among the membership and another rise of splinter groups. All these changes, the church admits, have organizationally brought about “catastrophic results,” though they believe that it is spiritually the best thing that ever happened to them.[14] During the tenure of Joseph Tkach Sr., the church’s membership declined by about 50 percent. His son, Joseph Tkach Jr., succeeded him after his death in 1995.
Eventually all of Herbert Armstrong’s writings were withdrawn from print by the Worldwide Church of God. In the 2004 video production Called To Be Free, Greg Albrecht, former dean of WCG’s Ambassador College, declared Herbert Armstrong to be both a false prophet and a heretic.[15]
Of course there was a schism. The main church still retained the copyright on Armstrong’s writings, and used those copyrights to sue the other church for reprinting stuff that had been disavowed.
Perhaps the larger problem is that this country hasn’t been home to many mystery religions. Instead, we’re used to people giving away their intellectual property BEFORE the third stage initiation and the opening of the gates of the silver key.
I’m a huge fan of this point, the US also seems freedom of expression as a fundamental right, but would convict you of a criminal offense for expressing your interest in having someone killed for $10k in some situations. No right is absolute, it just doesn’t make sense to think about absolute rights. The closest I would say we ought to have to an absolute right is the right to life, but of course the US government doesn’t even recognize that as absolute.
On the other hand I don’t think it is the one the Russian court used (it doesn’t appear to be from the quotations I’ve seen, and I don’t speak Russian). Actually, I think their point would be stronger if they had made the case you are making. Still, there must be something in the ruling about the harm being done by Scientology. After all, they didn’t just rule that Scientology isn’t a religion. They ruled the corporation had to dissolve. McDonald’s also isn’t a religion and is not being told to dissolve at this time.
Clearly they have some case to say that the corporation is dying, and they felt they needed to say “not a religion” to do that. I’m with you that shouldn’t be necessary if the harm being done by the corporation justifies dissolving it in the first place.
Well, it sounds like the even larger problem is just copyright laws. Death of the writer + 70 years my ass.
Phony religions; bleh. Russia banning yet another thing; shrug. Why is everybody ignoring the question of just how massive a unicorn butt was needed to poop out that fantastic building? Where did this giant unicorn butt come from? Does this super-sized unicorn butt still exist? How did the Russians manage to corral a massive unicorn butt, while countries in the west barely have do-squat for unicorn butts? Why is the internet silent on this unicorn butt gap? When will this man be brought in for questioning?
I think atheists should be allowed the same rights as everybody, and that includes all of the special rights religious people get. You shouldn’t have to be a member of any particular group to get rights. So, if a religious person gets the right to wear a beard, a hat, or jewelry on the job, non-religious people should have that right, too. And if religious organizations can provide a tax-free house for their priests, then non-religious non profits should have that exact same right for people who work for their organization.
Though I agree that atheism is not a religion, no more than not reading comic books is a hobby.
People care just as passionately about Coke vs. Pepsi or the Broncos vs. the Giants.
Now, as far as granting tax-exemptions, it should depend upon what they primarily do. Do they offer worship facilities? Do good deeds free-of-charge? Stuff like that? Or do they mostly sell videos and buckets of soup?
But now you aren’t talking about a court coming and taking the rights of atheists away, you are talking about how the law ought to be changed to make things more equal. Though I don’t think the kind of equality you are talking about is really equality. A deaf person ought to be allowed to bring an interpreter to see a public speech, but a person who can hear and understand the language they are listening to shouldn’t. A person who has a service animal should be allowed an exemption to “no animals allowed” rules in restaurants and stores, but a person who doesn’t need a service animal shouldn’t try to take advantage of those rules.
I’m sure some religious people would see my comparison between having a religion and having a disability as an offensive one, maybe some people with disabilities would too. To me, what I’m talking about is diversity, accessibility and acceptance. If a person needs to wear some particular hat for their religion, then it seems wrong to deny them a job because the job has a uniform that doesn’t include a hat. They would be harmed by the rule. If an atheist would like to wear a colander on their head at the same job, I think they probably don’t deserve the same consideration. Your right to include yourself in a religious group and your right to mock people in religious groups don’t sit on equal ground for employment. It doesn’t have anything to do with religious rights, it has everything to do with realizing the people are different than other people and trying to accommodate people reasonably.
Tax exemptions are something else. Various non-religious charities are tax exempt in my jurisdiction. I’m not sure whether a religious test is applied or even legal. If that’s not the case where you are, I would say that’s a problem.
No, I’m talking about how I think judges should decide based on the US constitution.[quote=“anon50609448, post:71, topic:69696”]
A deaf person ought to be allowed to bring an interpreter to see a public speech, but a person who can hear and understand the language they are listening to shouldn’t.
[/quote]
I don’t think that having a hearing impairment and needing an accommodation is equivalent to being religious, as you yourself recognize.
And there we disagree, because I don’t think that saying the magic words “it’s my religion” should get any more consideration than “I feels strongly about this”.
I don’t agree that adhering to a religion and feeling strongly about something are the same. It seems to me that they are basically the same, but most other people never seem to think they are basically the same, and as a person who fundamentally doesn’t get religion I think I’m just flat out missing something about other people’s experience that differentiates the two.
Just as an example, I think about people whose religion is tied up with their relationship with their family. If my father wanted me to dress a way I didn’t want to dress and it would strain my relationship with him if I didn’t dress that way, I’d probably just never talk to him again because he’d be a giant idiot who I didn’t want to talk to. Other people seem to think that’s a bad idea and you shouldn’t become willfully alienated from your family. I think they have an experience that I don’t. But it seems like the majority of people have that experience, and as an odd one out I don’t see how my perception of things should be imposed on them.
I think we should pay more attention to people who feel strongly about things and how we can accommodate that, when people honestly genuinely feel strongly and to the extent that it is reasonable to accommodate them. I think it’s shitty that when we politely say that something is important to us no one takes notice - you either need to categorize the important thing (religious) or scream your head off about it. But I don’t think it makes sense to say, “If Jewish men can wear kippahs and Muslim women can wear hijabs then no one can set any rules for headwear at all.” It’s sort of reinforcing the idea that making accommodations is a slippery slope to anarchy.
I don’t claim they are “the same”, but rather that invoking “it’s my religion” should not get you special privileges greater than “I feel strongly about this”. If an exemption can be allowed for religion, then what ever is being exempted can’t be all that critical. So anybody who feels strongly should be allowed it. No special privileges for the magic words “religion”. None. Ever.
I’m for freedom of religion, based on everybody, of all religions and none, being allowed the exact same rights. I’m for consistency. Granting rights that only religious people can have is not consistent with equality, IMO. But, that is my opinion, not some universal truth.
And I don’t have a problem with reinforcing that idea.
For instance, some nursing students in the UK wanted to be exempt from the requirement for pre-surgical scrubbing up to their elbows, because it would (shudder) expose their forearms!. They wanted a religious exemption. Fortunately, they were not granted an exemption. My point being, that we only allow exemptions that don’t matter, thus everybody should be allowed them, or they shouldn’t be granted at all.
I think there is something between “matters” and “doesn’t matter”, it’s not just a binary. Another example of such a requirement is physical strength tests for firefighters. Those tests are inherently biased against women and against people with a variety of disabilities, but they are required to do the job properly and safely. In other situations, people would be required to eliminate discrimination against women in the hiring process. Both the requirements and the equality between the sexes are important, but they have to be balanced against one another.
Wearing a uniform in a service industry job is not important on the scale of washing pre-surgery or being able to carrying someone out of a burning building, but I don’t think it can be dismissed as absolutely unimportant. I don’t think it’s unreasonable for an employer to want to understand why an employee wants an exemption from that requirement, rather than just saying no uniforms may ever be required.
“Religion” is a category that helps people understand the source of the importance of the thing to the person who says it is important to them, but it’s not the only one. I think people largely understand vegetarianism to be similarly important; conscientious objection to military service is recognized more or less depending the place; we allow ‘philosophical’ objections to vaccination (even though we shouldn’t). “Religion” isn’t a magic word, it’s just a meaningful word. If you are asking for an exemption, you have to make someone understand why and why it is important. Invoking religion is one way to make someone understand. It doesn’t mean it’s more important, but it’s an easy way to put a box around how important (even though in reality religious devotion varies massively).
I don’t think there will ever be a simply rule that can be universally applied to determine what is fair and what is not. It will always require figuring things out for each unique situation.
Well, there is the gold covered palace filled with two thousand years’ fine art dating to the Roman Empire in his own personal nation state staffed by his servants, swiss guards, etc. with its own bank, etc.
I’m sure Miscavige wishes he had it as good as that.
The difference as I see it is that any Catholic can attend mass and receive the sacraments without being required to pay a nickel (although I agree there can be some heavy pressure to donate). Unless there are a couple dozen “levels” of Catholicism with five and six figure tuition required, of which I’m not aware.
And yes, I know all about the sale of indulgences and endowment of masses…that seems to not have been the case for the last couple of centuries though.
I think it does. They’re both in service to made up stories they can’t back up with evidence. Therefore any bullshit explanation I make up deserves to be treated with equal reverence. The only differences are how old the made-up stuff is, and how many people have been taught to believe it.
The same position as a social club. Why should they get special privileges at the expense of everyone else? Privileges I can’t claim because I’m too honest to say I believe unequivocally in things I can’t back up while also saying that nothing is going to change my mind about them, even when they’re essentially proven to be false.
Why should stuff I believe in on my own time make the government treat me differently than other people?
By the way, your questioning of me is very offensive to my religious sensibilities. You make my god grav-nan-brak angry, and I demand an apology. Lest grav-nan-brak crushes you to death with his massive hangnail.
