What freedom of religion is and is not

Some people seem to be a little confused about what they can and can't do. If you are, here's a clarification.

It is: The freedom to oppose gay marriage, abortion, etc.

It's NOT: the freedom to homophobiate and bomb abortion clinics


It is: The freedom to believe in your own god and the way you believe to be right

It's NOT: The freedom to force religion on your kids and make them go to church.


It is: The freedom to practice your religion your own way

It's NOT: The freedom to push your religion into the government.

Correct. Those are other freedoms.
The freedom to be a homophobiate, the freedom to force religion on your kids, and the freedom to push religion into government need their own classifications.

*sigh* Not this guy...

Dassault Papillon: And actually, being able to "force your religion" on your underage children is a right. You may not agree with it, but trying to legislate against this would be the atheist bloc overstepping its boundaries, and would rightfully be opposed.

Dassault Papillon: Government neutrality does not mean that parents must be neutral. If any such legislation were passed it would result in widespread violence and possibly an insurrection against the Government. Frankly, I might join them in this scenario.

Dassault Papillon: Why do you think it should be a right?

admin: Faith, by nature, does not come common to human beings. Without some degree of evidence or it being taught to them or some third reason (such as personal choice), people by nature will not easily accept something on faith. That doesn't necessarily mean that faith is bad; numerous virtues must be taught to human beings while numerous vices are natural to the human condition. Also, popular culture has an atheistic, anti-theist bias, which will influence the kids when their parents' religion is unable to. Thus, absence of religious influence will not mean that the atheistic influence is also absent.
In a "neutral" environment, the large majority of people will lean towards atheism. A world where parents are not allowed to provide a strong degree religious influence on their children in their upbringing is a world where a very small percentage of the world's population is religious and the vast majority is atheistic. Thus, not only would even more people be going to hell than the vast majority who are already headed there, but the remaining religious people would be a heavily marginalized, possibly even persecuted, group.
Thus, if such a law is ever passed, 20 or 30 years later I'd be living in the United States of Relijun-es-eevil. If such a law were to make it to Congress's doors, I'd do everything in my power (which isn't much but still) to prevent it. Even stuff outside of the law, as I wouldn't consider a Government which passed such a law to be a legitimate body of authority.

Children have the right to reject their parent's belief whenever they are old enough to decide for themselves, but if atheists want to prevent most of the populace from being raised with a pro-religious bias, then they should just have more kids and make themselves the majority. That's what religious people have been doing for thousands of years. But a little scheme like this will be opposed even to the point of violent action against it.

Dassault Papillon: Right, so because not teaching children religion would make religion less popular (I actually think the opposite is true - forcing religion on people, particularly when the state does it in a theocracy like Saudi Arabia, actually does more for atheism than for theism), then religion would become marginalized and all of us will go to hell.

I have to say I object to the more kids logic. That's tyranny of the majority. Muslims aren't a majority but that doesn't mean they too cannot be afforded religious rights. So that shows the majority has nothing to do with it. I also feel like governments shouldn't act on the presumption that religion is true. There's separation of church and state for good reason, much like separation of powers in law.

There may be legitimate reasons for the right. Primarily, how the heck is the government going to enforce it? You'd have to take away even more rights to take away that one. And that's mostly why I agree with children being allowed to be brought up in a faith, provided that the faith in question is safe for children to practice (and when you see the practices of certain cults and similar organizations, you've got to wonder - I wouldn't have kids signing billion-year contracts with Scientology, for example).

admin: Whenever people live easy, hedonistic lives, what good would they consider religion to be? If you're not taught that it's the truth, why would you turn towards it? Even "sense of purpose" would mean squat when people have so much stuff to distract them from their nihilistic existence. I mean, let's face it. Non-Christians, and even many Christians, consider church to be as interesting as a stick in the mud. Human nature on its own would provide a bias against religion. Plus, many TV shows and movies portray religious people as the stupidest bunch of people possible. And just look at the blatant bias (regardless of what side you're on) that the media has shown against Conservative Christians during the Indiana RFRA (you're a NZ resident, but seeing as how everyone seems to be familiar with American politics, you most likely know what I'm talking about) incident.
There's no way that even 50% of the population would choose religion under these conditions. You'd basically be requesting that we put an end to religious belief.

Dassault Papillon: Hell no. #1, even if less than 50% believed in religion, that's still not an end to religious belief. #2, modern life is not easy or hedonistic. It's human nature to find challenges. People 50 years ago were imagining that by now stress should be non-existent. I know it very much isn't.

Jesus didn't walk up to people and say "I am the way, the truth and the light - do as I command because I'm the authority from heaven, kapesh?" - he DEMONSTRATED that with his words and deeds. Christians, just using them as an example because you did, they do a lot of social good, and when people feel that transformative power in their lives, and feel connected with the church, that's when they come to seek a personal relationship with God. I was taught religion from a young age, and I was forced into baptism, but I was not forced or even pressured into confirmation, and that's probably the sort of level of personal responsibility I'm comfortable with. When Christians seek to do things that are perceived to harm society in some way, then that's when they're hurt by the media and such as well. It's a feedback loop.

I think Gendo_Ikari is bringing up some pretty good points.

Something I've always been a bit bemused by is that people always say to me that I have the right to believe whatever I believe, as long as it doesn't impact on me.

The message of Christianity, (along with several other religions) is a message of evangelism. If I'm an advocate yet I DON'T spread the message to unbelievers, I'm not adhering to my religion.

So it seems that religious freedom as perceived by the world is really a lot more restrictive than most of them realise. I might have the freedom to believe whatever I like, but I don't have the freedom to actually practice it.

nzlockie: Since when don't we have the freedom of speech to convince others to believe in what we believe? You're legally allowed to spread the message to unbelievers and practice your religion as you wish, until you begin breaking rules or laws.

nzlockie: Good point. I see it slightly different. Many liberals claim to support freedom of religion and freedom of speech, but also support several ideas which are restrictive to speech, when that speech is about religion.

Blackflag: Yes, (and @Hello this is what I was kind of meaning, rather than the technical legal freedom) this is true.
I guess I was wrong to mention the technical legal freedom, I was more meaning the prevailing societal attitude of "I'll do me and you do you and we'll get on fine as long as I never have to be confronted about my life" kind of deal.

nzlockie: Well to be fair, confronting someone about their life can be seen as rude or presumptuous. Even if that life is in shambles, in need of help.