The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The loveless marriage: 'religious' and 'freedom' > Comments

The loveless marriage: 'religious' and 'freedom' : Comments

By Hugh Harris, published 23/12/2015

It's better to think of religious freedom as freedom of belief. That way, it's less likely to be used as a Trojan horse to favour religion.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
“It's better to think of religious freedom as freedom of belief”.

Everyone already has freedom of belief including religious people. No one can control what you believe. Religious people have the right to believe what they like but they do not have the right to act as they like. This is how they try and manipulate society by making it sound as if they are being denied some fundamental human right. When they try and get the school curriculum changed it is an action but when they are denied such change they claim it is an abuse of the freedom of religion. They can still have their beliefs just not certain outcomes effecting education.

Religious people have never had the freedom to do what they like. They have always had to live in a society which must be considered as a whole. They have had to make way for human rights which translate to non-religious people as well. The reality was that most of society once wanted what religious people wanted and so there was little discord. Now things have changed and in western societies the non-religious are the majority.

Religious people now find that they have to argue for the actions they want to take and their arguments are found wanting because they are not and never have been based on reason. When they cannot come up with good reasons they resort to emotional manipulation by claiming that their ‘freedoms’ are being denied. They should present their arguments like everyone else in society has to and let them be judged on their merits. They cannot claim dispensation from the judgement by reason unless they allow such dispensation for everyone else in society.

We should be alert to this kind of manipulative ploy. If they have valid reasons for wanting to act in certain ways or for wanting society to adopt certain rules then as a part of that society they are duty bound to abide by the rules of reason. That is the way ‘God’ made us.
Posted by phanto, Wednesday, 23 December 2015 11:38:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Religious freedom does not confer a right to knowingly break the law or trample over the equally precious rights and freedoms of others. Or cover up examples, where that is he case!

Nor does it confer a right to sit in judgement over others.

Others who just do not share your beliefs, some of which have traveled up through the centuries from the dawn of time, and are no longer accepted as anything more than allegorical analogies. And no amount of fervent belief will alter that!

It certainly doesn't give anyone the right to require a rape victim to carry a baby to full term, particularly when the fetus can be removed as simple tissue bereft of a heartbeat that would and does signify human life.

And in the case of tissue rejection; not too different from removing a tumour/human tissue that threatens the mother's life

Thus we have dispensed with the Adam and Eve fable and he subsequent incest required to populate a planet.

Nor do we believe said planet is only six thousand years old and at the centre of a solar system/universe that revolves around us!

And nobody ought to be confined inside a loveless marriage by dint of the same argument, but particularly where they function as mere bagatelle, goods and chatels or sexuual slaves.

Freedom in all cases being the operative and most important word; as in freedom to chose freedom!

Freedom to be free of all manner of religious persecution; even from banner waving fanatics, who rely entirely on unproven and unprovable belief for their authority to persecute others!

And as such were able to justify in their tiny minds, slavery, a chosen people, and a promised land etc?
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Wednesday, 23 December 2015 11:45:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you Phanto, I was about to write much of the same - that freedom of religion goes far far beyond this non-contentious freedom of belief (to which the author mockingly wishes to reduce religion).

You summed it up very well:

<<Religious people have never had the freedom to do what they like. They have always had to live in a society which must be considered as a whole>>

Indeed so, at least in the West - and that's extremely wrong!

We, religious people, are here on earth for the sake of practising our religion - not for the sake of participating in this or that society. To hurt our religious freedom is equivalent to hurting your own reason to exist, whatever it may be, including the formation of societies.

<<They cannot claim dispensation from the judgement by reason unless they allow such dispensation for everyone else in society.>>

And indeed I give such dispensation to everyone, gladly.

Note that nobody is acting out of reason anyway. Everything that exists is bound to be destroyed, including all of mankind's achievements, so to foster those, building castles on sand, is simply irrational - yet go ahead and do what you like, I won't stop you because what you do is irrational - but please do not stop me either!
Posted by Yuyutsu, Wednesday, 23 December 2015 12:15:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The complete nonsense that is the “same-sex marriage” debate is evidenced by the following statement:
“One person believes in same sex marriage. Another does not. Their beliefs are equally protected. But only one side of the debate has their actual right to marry discriminated against.”

Imagine instead:
“One person believes in carnivorous vegetarianism. Another does not. Their beliefs are equally protected. But only one side of the debate has their actual right to carnivorous vegetarianism discriminated against.”

There is no such thing as same-sex marriage just as there is no such thing as carnivorous vegetarianism. No one is discriminated against because marriage has one meaning and not another.

Every adult – gay or straight – has the same right to marry; i.e., to form a union with one adult of the opposite sex. Those who instead of marrying want to form a same-sex union are free to do so, but that union is not a “marriage”, just as circle is not a square.

I have never before seen such an issue created out of nothing as “same-sex marriage”.
Posted by Chris C, Wednesday, 23 December 2015 1:32:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes we have witnessed freedom from religion over the last 40-50 years. Freedom for teenagers to sleep with multiple partners, freedom for teenagers them to top themselves, murder the unwanted baby, freedom to inject inhale drugs, freedom to carry on like idiots and not be disciplined, freedom from religion is great! And yet the irreligious still want to send their kids to religious schools.
Posted by runner, Wednesday, 23 December 2015 3:30:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
""Freedom" is a grand and illustrious word, the torchbearer of human rights, and the aspiration upon which nations have been built."
I note the quotation marks but it still seems a reality check is in order regarding the current use of freedom. It comes exclusively from people who are only after their own freedom not freedom shared. It is a sullied word in current context. It is code for selfishness and discrimination. In addition to is use to distort freedom of religious belief, its use in freedom of speech is all about giving those who have more power to exercise their speech the justification to exercise that power over other people. It is coming from those who are already more free. It is never about equality of speech or about each group being heard. People who are genuinely interested in maximising freedom across society talk of equality and other values instead.

Religious freedom claims go much further than denying religious or moral belief. When religious freedom is used to evoke the ban on marriage equality, not only does it steal my freedom of belief but it also robs me of freedom of my innate biology -my attributes that are independent of my beliefs. I did not chose to be gay. I merely chose not to suicide and accept what others had noticed since I was 8 years old. Despite my sexuality or any moral beliefs I might have, I should have the same freedom as everyone else to form a socially recognised relationship. The same thing happens when religious belief sanctions gender or sex discrimination - both freedom of belief and of gender are restricted.

On the other hand, it is equality and fairness that maximises freedom. Calls for freedom are made when equality and fairness do not fit.
Posted by Eric G, Wednesday, 23 December 2015 4:43:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy