Freedom of Religion also = Freedom from Religion?

[OSUViking 505]

In my various religion courses, my teachers have taught that to truly be moral we must follow God's will. They've also said that they, personally, believe the United States should listen to the moral lessons preached by the Vatican and form our social structure and justice around their message. I adamantly disagree. While at the end of the day I do believe the Vatican is well-intending (well, nowadays), I don't think the United States government should even give them a little bit of consideration while considering laws with moral gray areas. My reasoning for this is that there is a significant portion of the United States population that doesn't adhere to Catholicism, let alone Christianity or any organized religion that believes in a higher being/calling. I don't think we should ostracize these individuals in the pursuit of a moralistic society. In short, I believe that people should be free from religious influence if they so choose, and that means I don't think it is right to call on the government to listen to the religious authorities of the world.

 

What are your thoughts? Counter-arguments?

[Thanatos 2,847]

I have no problem with someone exercising freedom from religion, in theory. However, foundations such as the Freedom From Religion one, (I think its actually called that), take it way too far. Freedom from religion does not mean you can tell everyone else to keep religion out of the public sphere. The recent trend in our courts to interpret the establishment clause as giving them the right to get rid of a nativity scene next to a highway because it might offend someone is going way overboard from what was originally intended, and reading into that particular clause something that never should be.

 

Live and let live. That's why I believe the feds should allow gay marriage. It doesn't hurt me, let them get married. I may believe this is morally wrong, (I do believe homosexuality is a sin), but this is my personal opinion and should not affect how someone else is legally allowed to live their lives. Politicians who try to put their own moral opinions into legislation are some of the worst people we have up there as far as abuse of power goes. I freely admit that I may be entirely wrong on the issue, and regardless of whether or not I am, it is not my place to use morality to legislate my religion on someone else. Someone asks me my opinion, I will give it. Otherwise, as I said, live and let live.

 

But this swings both ways. It means that if the city wants to put up a nativity scene on, yes, public property- their own public property, of course- this should be allowed. Is it hurting anyone? No. Is it establishing a religion? Hell no. The establishment clause A) only applied to the Federal government and B) was meant to prevent a single religion from being mandated- ala the Anglican church back in England. It was never meant to prevent the free expression of religion.

 

It gets more gray if you ask whether the Federal government should be able to do so, but a local city should sure as hell be able to do so, and the ACLU's many, many lawsuits trying to stop towns from doing this really pisses a lot of people off.

 

As far as listening to the Vatican to express our laws, that's a dangerous road to travel down. You certainly hear their views on things, simply because they are human beings and may have something that is a good idea. But to just accept what they say because they're Catholic? Or any religion, for that matter? Hell no. If the only reason you're doing what some organization wants you to do is because of their religious affiliation, we have a problem.

Edited February 1, 2013 by Thanatos19

[OSUViking 505]

I agree with you. While I believing people should have the right to be free of religious affiliation and doctrine if they so choose, it really seems like we are letting that belief go overboard with local things. Similar to my point on freedom from religion, people still get to express their religious views as they so choose. Those who are religious do not get to take the right to privacy and opinion away from those who aren't religious, and vice versa.

[WindyCitySports 407]

The first amendment makes it a personal decision. No one can legislate their religion on others, nor can anyone stop others from practicing their religion. Anyone who thinks differently isn't seeing it clearly.

[OSUViking 505]

Alright, then let me bring up this next point.

 

If morality is largely based on personal religious doctrine, is it fair (let alone constitutional?) to legislate things such as gay marriage, abortion, and stem cell research based on moral views, or should people have the right to either of those things (or their benefits in the case of stem cell research)?

 

EDIT: I feel like I should clarify that this post isn't directed to anyone on this site. It's a general question that is directed at the environment that I have grown up in, which is almost universally (and radically) anti-gay, abortion, and stem cell research (among other issues).

Edited February 1, 2013 by Vikingfan465

[DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241]

In my various religion courses, my teachers have taught that to truly be moral we must follow God's will. They've also said that they, personally, believe the United States should listen to the moral lessons preached by the Vatican and form our social structure and justice around their message. I adamantly disagree. While at the end of the day I do believe the Vatican is well-intending (well, nowadays), I don't think the United States government should even give them a little bit of consideration while considering laws with moral gray areas. My reasoning for this is that there is a significant portion of the United States population that doesn't adhere to Catholicism, let alone Christianity or any organized religion that believes in a higher being/calling. I don't think we should ostracize these individuals in the pursuit of a moralistic society. In short, I believe that people should be free from religious influence if they so choose, and that means I don't think it is right to call on the government to listen to the religious authorities of the world.

 

 

I'll abstain from stating my opinion cause I already said it a million times. lol.

 

I will say this though. If they are religious teachers, regardless of whether they believe it or not, they kinda have to teach that... If they are teaching the Bible...

[Thanatos 2,847]

I perfectly understand why many people wish to be free from religion. It is caused by people who call themselves Christians, (and I certainly would doubt that claim- you shall know them by their works), and yet spew some of the most hateful language I have ever seen. And it doesn't seem to be limited to a small minority anymore, such as Westboro Baptist.

 

Take, for example, the case of Jessica Ahlquist in Rhode Island, who wished her school to remove a banner that had a prayer on it. It's a public school that receives money from the Federal government. Does it violate the Establishment clause then? I would say no.

 

The judge, however, disagreed with my view and ordered the school to take it down, (after a lawsuit that was initiated by the ACLU when the school council decided to keep the banner up). The school is currently deciding whether or not to challenge the judge's ruling.

 

My reaction would be mild annoyance. I am also commanded to follow the government's orders so long as it doesn't tell me to do something that would cause me to sin. Thus, despite my mild annoyance, I would comply with the order. The way to reach people isn't to challenge this one legally, the precedent has clearly been set.

 

The reaction of the "Christians" in this town, however. Well. http://jesusfetusfajitafishsticks.blogspot.com/2012/01/ahlquist-screenshots-if-by-christian.html

 

How in the name of all that is holy can someone call themselves a Christian and spew the vitriolic rhetoric those people do? How can you wish someone to go to hell for all eternity over a BANNER. I am simply flabbergasted. And yet, more and more, with the internet being what it is, I am seeing this all over the place. It may not be the majority of Christians, but that doesn't matter. It's what the world sees. The church is failing miserably here. Who on earth would want to be part of an organization whose members react with such hatred over such a trivial thing? I sure wouldn't.

[Thanatos 2,847]

I'll abstain from stating my opinion cause I already said it a million times. lol.

 

I will say this though. If they are religious teachers, regardless of whether they believe it or not, they kinda have to teach that... If they are teaching the Bible...

 

The Bible does not teach us to form our governmental principles around what the Vatican says. You'd have to twist the words so badly they wouldn't be recognizable any longer.

 

Alright, then let me bring up this next point.

 

If morality is largely based on personal religious doctrine, is it fair (let alone constitutional?) to legislate things such as gay marriage, abortion, and stem cell research based on moral views, or should people have the right to either of those things (or their benefits in the case of stem cell research)?

 

EDIT: I feel like I should clarify that this post isn't directed to anyone on this site. It's a general question that is directed at the environment that I have grown up in, which is almost universally (and radically) anti-gay, abortion, and stem cell research (among other issues).

 

It is not fair to legislate something into law if your reasoning for it is solely based on your morality. I believe there are arguments against abortion that transcend personal morality and that are based on things that are non-religious, (the fact that a fetus is a human, for example), and thus abortion could be legislated against on those grounds.

 

There is no secular argument against gay marriage, at least not one that survives any sort of scrutiny, and thus it should be allowed.

 

Stem cell research is one hell of a grey area, in my opinion. I would far prefer it if we used adult stem cells to do the research.

Edited February 1, 2013 by Thanatos19

[DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241]

The Bible does not teach us to form our governmental principles around what the Vatican says. You'd have to twist the words so badly they wouldn't be recognizable any longer.

 

 

Not necessarily what "The Vatican" says, I'm no Catholic so IDK what their Bible says about that. I do know that both Bibles talk about how the government is at its worst when it gets away from the teachings and the morals of the Bible... One would think if that's the case then a religious teacher would probably be teaching somewhat of a same message...

 

Every Church I've been to, a lot of emphasis on preaches have been based on how we are doing much worse as the years go on because we are getting further from the Bible, preaching that is pretty universal..

[Thanatos 2,847]

Not necessarily what "The Vatican" says, I'm no Catholic so IDK what their Bible says about that. I do know that both Bibles talk about how the government is at its worst when it gets away from the teachings and the morals of the Bible... One would think if that's the case then a religious teacher would probably be teaching somewhat of a same message...

 

Every Church I've been to, a lot of emphasis on preaches have been based on how we are doing much worse as the years go on because we are getting further from the Bible, preaching that is pretty universal..

 

They aren't preaching from the Bible. They're preaching what they want to hear. The Bible explicitly states that the government is only responsible for three things: protection of the innocent, bearing of the sword, (interpreted as war and capital punishment), and taxes in order to fund what it needs to do.

 

The idea that we should use the Bible to form our governmental laws is not only dangerous, (whose interpretation are you going to go with), it is also firmly anti-Biblical. Look at every government in the history of mankind who has used the Bible for its laws and tell me that its a good idea.

[DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241]

Call it what you want. The Bible has instances of God having his own people almost completely destroyed because they were falling too far on the wayside from his laws.

 

I mean, it's pretty straightforward. If the Bible wanted kings who were Christians to abide by the moral codes of the Bible, why would a teacher who teaches the word not tell their students that the government should abide by the moral codes of the Bible?

[Thanatos 2,847]

Call it what you want. The Bible has instances of God having his own people almost completely destroyed because they were falling too far on the wayside from his laws.

 

I mean, it's pretty straightforward. If the Bible wanted kings who were Christians to abide by the moral codes of the Bible, why would a teacher who teaches the word not tell their students that the government should abide by the moral codes of the Bible?

 

"Text quoted out of context is nothing but a pretext."

 

That is exactly what you are doing here, Dmac. They are entirely different instances. God directly spoke to Israel. It was set up as a theocracy. The king wasn't the one in command, God was. This is clearly no longer the case, and in the NT, the new guidelines for a government are laid out, and none of it is using the Bible to create laws.

 

The fact that every single government that has tried to create a legal system that is based solely on the Bible has utterly and completely failed, and said governments are responsible for some of the worst atrocities in the entirety of human existence, should tell you that it is not a good idea. Man is fallen, and giving men in power the ability to say, "This should be the law not because of any logical reasoning but because I believe God said so" is tantamount to committing national suicide.

Edited February 1, 2013 by Thanatos19

[56AceInDaPlace 110]

I don't mind religion, its the people that bug me however. Its one thing to be a Christian, and say your opinions and beliefs. Its another to force it on others, like churches do nowadays. Make u feel guilty that your not into god, and that you live a bad life, etc etc.

 

Im free of religion, but growing up in a very religious house without choice sucked. Eventually I told my folks, your wasting your time with me and this church. So I haven't gone since. ( 6 years now ) My Dad's side is heavy to religion. Christians as they say, but very hypocritical.. I find that among most "Christians" nowadays.

 

I don't care what people believe in, its their choice. If you want to believe in god and the Christian ways, more power to you. I don't diss anybody on their religion. I don't do it to them and I expect it in return. I look at it like this. We were born into free will, and choices. If someone is gay, then that's just how it is. Who is anybody in life to tell them otherwise? Opinions on it is one thing, but to FORCE it to where gay couples cant get married, that's stupid. That's basically taking rights away.

 

Religion and government don't mix. Point blank. Free will exists for a reason. I guess the question is, with religion or not, wheres the line in it all? I mean all we could give really is opinions right?

[blotsfan 2,112]

Basically, the first amendment makes it clear that the government can't endorse a religion or make decisions based off of religion. So I don't think a prayer banner should be allowed at a public school. And that nativity scene is not ok unless it was private property. Pretty simple to me.

[WindyCitySports 407]

Call it what you want. The Bible has instances of God having his own people almost completely destroyed because they were falling too far on the wayside from his laws.

 

For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present or the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord. Romans 8:38-39

 

Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned, forgive, and ye shall be forgiven. Luke 6:37

 

And He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. John 2:2

 

But God commendeth His love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Romans 5:8

 

But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ; by grace you have been saved. Ephesians 2:4-5

 

But You, O Lord, are a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness. Psalm 86:15

 

We must not be studying the same book, because it is made clear that God is merciful and loves all of His people. He does not wish to destroy them.

Edited February 1, 2013 by WindyCitySports

[DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241]

"Text quoted out of context is nothing but a pretext."

 

That is exactly what you are doing here, Dmac. They are entirely different instances. God directly spoke to Israel. It was set up as a theocracy. The king wasn't the one in command, God was. This is clearly no longer the case, and in the NT, the new guidelines for a government are laid out, and none of it is using the Bible to create laws.

 

The fact that every single government that has tried to create a legal system that is based solely on the Bible has utterly and completely failed, and said governments are responsible for some of the worst atrocities in the entirety of human existence, should tell you that it is not a good idea. Man is fallen, and giving men in power the ability to say, "This should be the law not because of any logical reasoning but because I believe God said so" is tantamount to committing national suicide.

 

So in the book of Romans where Paul writes about following God's appointed leaders because they are terror to "evil", we are assuming that "evil" isn't what's considered "evil" by the Bible?

 

And in Timothy where it mentions that the people in authority should do what they do so that we may live in "Godliness and holiness", and even further, "This is good and pleases God" doesn't refer to morality according to God's word?

[DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241]

For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present or the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord. Romans 8:38-39

 

Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned, forgive, and ye shall be forgiven. Luke 6:37

 

And He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. John 2:2

 

But God commendeth His love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Romans 5:8

 

But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ; by grace you have been saved. Ephesians 2:4-5

 

But You, O Lord, are a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness. Psalm 86:15

 

We must not be studying the same book, because it is made clear that God is merciful and loves all of His people. He does not wish to destroy them.

 

God does destroy "his own people" (depending on what you refer to as his "people"), he sent an angel that almost wiped out all of Jerusalem. Read Chronicles 21. He made the flood to rid the earth of people who were falling off the path. Things changed after the OT though, and as he did with promising to never end the world again with a flood, as he did in Noah's time, Jesus coming changed everything.

 

And yea. God loves all his peoples. All the verses you made were relevent to Christians. Only.

 

God loves all his creations, but he hates the sins in all of us. People who sin and chose to live on it are not considered his people. Luke 13:27.

[Thanatos 2,847]

So in the book of Romans where Paul writes about following God's appointed leaders because they are terror to "evil", we are assuming that "evil" isn't what's considered "evil" by the Bible?

 

And in Timothy where it mentions that the people in authority should do what they do so that we may live in "Godliness and holiness", and even further, "This is good and pleases God" doesn't refer to morality according to God's word?

 

I have no idea how you are getting that we should have a theocracy from those verses. Care to enlighten me?

 

Your response to Windy is also incorrect. It is basic Calvinist theology, but it ignores a lot of Scripture. God loves all people and came to die for all people:

 

1 Timoty 4:10: That is why we labor and strive, because we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all people, and especially of those who believe.

 

John 3:16: For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son...

 

Basically, the first amendment makes it clear that the government can't endorse a religion or make decisions based off of religion. So I don't think a prayer banner should be allowed at a public school. And that nativity scene is not ok unless it was private property. Pretty simple to me.

 

How does having a nativity scene on public property establish a religion? The First Amendment was designed to make it so that what happened in England, where one religion was mandated, did not happen here. This idea that the Founders wanted all religious references out of government and off of public property is just completely insane, given what symbols they put on public property.

Edited February 1, 2013 by Thanatos19

[DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241]

I have no idea how you are getting that we should have a theocracy from those verses. Care to enlighten me?

 

The verses are written in the assumption that the government is doing right by God. How are they doing right by God if they aren't following the moral standards set in his book?

 

Your response to Windy is also incorrect. It is basic Calvinist theology, but it ignores a lot of Scripture. God loves all people and came to die for all people

 

John 3:16 is my verse, and it's the one I point back to whenever I tell my story.

 

Not really sure what that has to do with "Calvinist theology" whatever that means, but I even said in my response to Windy that God does love everyone. But he loves the ones who believe differently. The love he presents in John 3:16 to the world is that of mercy in that he wants us all to go to heaven (hence "he hates the sin us"), the one he presents to Christians in the sense that we believe in his word so therefore have his grace, and eternal love.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

I think you are confusing people by saying He loves His people. And the passages quoted to you are pointed towards Christians only.

 

 

I understand what you are saying to a degree though, it's just you said it in a kind of... crappy way, lol. God loves Christians in the way that he is promising us eternal glory in His kingdom. But that doesn't mean that he doesn't love everyone else... If he didn't we would all be struck down for our sins on the spot. He gives everyone the chance to repent and gave us (everyone) His son to wipe away the sins of the world.

 

God loves all people. Period.

Edited February 1, 2013 by Favre4Ever

[Thanatos 2,847]

The verses are written in the assumption that the government is doing right by God. How are they doing right by God if they aren't following the moral standards set in his book?

 

By following the outlines given in his book as to what the government should do?

 

1. Wield the sword correctly- only for just war and for deserved capital punishment.

2. Protect the innocent.

3. Collect taxes to subsidize what is needed, but do not overuse it.

 

That's what he is saying governments should do. This is quite easily seen when you look at the surrounding history. Was the Roman Empire following the Bible's OT rules as to what a government should look like? Certainly not.

 

John 3:16 is my verse, and it's the one I point back to whenever I tell my story.

 

Not really sure what that has to do with "Calvinist theology" whatever that means, but I even said in my response to Windy that God does love everyone. But he loves the ones who believe differently. The love he presents in John 3:16 to the world is that of mercy in that he wants us all to go to heaven (hence "he hates the sin us"), the one he presents to Christians in the sense that we believe in his word so therefore have his grace, and eternal love.

 

Misunderstood you then. I agree with this.

Edited February 1, 2013 by Thanatos19

[OSUViking 505]

I don't understand your point, DMac. Are you defending the teachers' line of thought or are you agreeing that we should adhere to the moral lessons of the Bible?

[Duck Fallas 209]

I personally think that morals are based as much on societal rules as they are in religion. How else do you explain why someone who has never heard of "god" knows that it is wrong to steal and/or kill?

 

I am a Christian and I do beleive that all people should follow the word of God, however, I also believe that we are all children of God and have been given the ability to choose whether or not to follow him/her/it.

 

I have always, even in my atheist days abided by a "live and let live" philosophy. Just because something is right for me does not mean that it is right for everyone. I believe that the Mormon church is the one true church of Jesus Christ. That does not mean that I hate all other beliefs, even though I feel they are wrong. I also believe that shaving my head is the right move for me and looks good. That does not mean that everyone should shave their head. ( FTR: Shaving my head is a personal, NOT religious choice)

[blotsfan 2,112]

How does having a nativity scene on public property establish a religion? The First Amendment was designed to make it so that what happened in England, where one religion was mandated, did not happen here. This idea that the Founders wanted all religious references out of government and off of public property is just completely insane, given what symbols they put on public property.

Because a nativity scene is christian. If the government puts up a nativity scene, that implies government religious endorsement. Now to clarify, if the government had this park where any citizen was allowed to put up something and there was a nativity scene, that'd be ok by me.

[Thanatos 2,847]

Because a nativity scene is christian. If the government puts up a nativity scene, that implies government religious endorsement. Now to clarify, if the government had this park where any citizen was allowed to put up something and there was a nativity scene, that'd be ok by me.

 

But the Constitution says nothing about a local city endorsing a religion.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

How do we get "Thou shalt not put up a nativity scene on a park in a local city" from that? The Founders quite obviously did not intend for the 1st Amendment to be interpreted in this manner- just look at all the religious symbols they had, (some are still there), that are on government property. This is born from the 50's and 60's liberal courts that suddenly decided to interpret it in this manner.

 

So long as the city isn't prohibiting the free exercise thereof, I really don't get how this would be against the Constitution.

 

Not to mention, this is talking about *Congress*, as in, the Federal Congress. It says nothing about a local city. If a city got together and wanted to put an Islamic symbol on their street or something, I'd be fine with that.

 

My reaction would be "Huh, this town must be predominantly Moslem. Okay, good to know."

 

There's just this huge disconnect between me and someone who would think, "Huh, this town must have voted to put up that symbol, but by *insert religious deity here* that offends me so I'm going to sue them to take it down."

 

Just totally cannot see the other side on this one. If it offends you, keep driving.

Edited February 1, 2013 by Thanatos19