Gauranteed Religious Freedom & Its Cost - Cant Have Our Cake And Eat It To!!

[Bikeemikey]

***This is not meant to be a political topic - please do not make it one.***

Please read and comment:

The permanent protection of religious action, principle & freedom I believe can only be guaranteed if all religious actions, principles & freedoms are equally protected, including those I fundamentally oppose.

Please note this limiting definitional constraint. All religious principles and freedoms must be congruent with the principles of voluntary consent. That is, no religious freedom or principle is tolerated, even within the framework of constitutional protection, unless all parties are engaged of their own free-will and consent. *** I do not want to talk about whether it is possible to have free-will and consent if you are raised in a religious environment. *** Free-will is assumed if there is the absence of obvious coercion or force.

Is this a view that is accepted by LDS here on this board?

[Log]

Why stop at religious freedom? If voluntary consent baptises all, why exclude any voluntary action from protection?

[Bikeemikey]

Why stop at religious freedom? If voluntary consent baptises all, why exclude any voluntary action from protection?

I would think this is a reasonable conclusion, however, this conclusion is more a political one.

I am attempting to keep this topic targeted to the religious component of the question given the sensitivity to political topics on the board.

If we can discuss your comments with out the thread becoming to political then I am happy to do so.

Edited April 8, 2012 by Bikeemikey

[Log]

Oh, I'm thinking beyond politics on this one. All sorts of interesting things, like consensual cannibalism, and others.

[LDS_RM]

I believe that within the D&C is the principle of religious freedom so long as the religious practice does not infringe on the rights of others.

[Bikeemikey]

Oh, I'm thinking beyond politics on this one. All sorts of interesting things, like consensual cannibalism, and others.

This is one of those things that I would like to be able to come up with a reason for the State to oppose it as it just seems so absurd. However, I think it is one of those things that will probably need to be permissible based on my statement above.

Edited April 8, 2012 by Bikeemikey

[wenglund]

The permanent protection of religious action, principle & freedom I believe can only be guaranteed if all religious actions, principles & freedoms are equally protected, including those I fundamentally oppose.

From what are the religious actions and so forth being protected? And, who is doing the protecting?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Bikeemikey]

From what are the religious actions and so forth being protected? And, who is doing the protecting?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Protection in that religions can not be forced to change their practices beliefs actions based on objections from others.

Protected in that the State will uses its capacity to ensure that all religions have equal access to this protection.

Does the "what they are being protected from" and the "who is doing the protecting" impact the veracity of the statement in the OP?

Edited April 8, 2012 by Bikeemikey

[wenglund]

Does the "what they are being protected from" and the "who is doing the protecting" impact the veracity of the statement in the OP?

Not necessarily. I asked the questions so as to show the statement you quoted to be unavoidably political. It is the state, which is a political body, that establishes the so-called protections, and it is the state that is to do the protecting.

My problem with the statement is that I find it to be too extreme and unworkable. Not only would it protect things like human and animal sacrifice, and nonsensically render those practices as "equal" to things like charitable service, but it is conceivable that were such protections put into place, people would be at liberty to do anything and everything since anything and everything can be brought under the penumbra of religion (during the 1970's a number of religion cropped up that included the use of illegal drugs and illicit sexual relations as a part of their religious practices).

What would be the point of this?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Bikeemikey]

Not necessarily. I asked the questions so as to show the statement you quoted to be unavoidably political. It is the state, which is a political body, that establishes the so-called protections, and it is the state that is to do the protecting.

My problem with the statement is that I find it to be too extreme and unworkable. Not only would it protect things like human and animal sacrifice, and nonsensically render those practices as "equal" to things like charitable service, but it is conceivable that were such protections put into place, people would be at liberty to do anything and everything since anything and everything can be brought under the penumbra of religion (during the 1970's a number of religion cropped up that included the use of illegal drugs and illicit sexual relations as a part of their religious practices).

What would be the point of this?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Based on the right to freedom and religious liberty it seems nonsensical to rank the value of religious practices as "equal" to anything. If one religion does x and another does y the ranking of the external value of x and y should be beyond the scope of govt, in as much as x & y are engaged in with willing consent. The only thing that matters is that the state protects those religious freedoms, regardless of what they are. This is partly because the value of the religious expression is often only perceived by those with a pre-exisiting "faith" or "belief". In what context would it make sense for a non-religious affiliate to judge the value of even obvious religious action or ceremony?

The very issue here is that if the State is asked to differentiate between the goods of different religious practice and delineate between good, bad and best in the religious sphere religious freedom will be fundamentally undermined.

Why should illicit sexual practices be a reason to undermine the protection and freedom of consensual religious practices? I would ask the same question for drugs.

As for animals and human sacrifice, it would seem easy to say animals can not grant consent and humans that are willing to grant consent to be either eaten or killed would need to demonstrate mental health (perhaps a psychiatric evaluation) prior to such consent being accepted by the State. That said, I think such anomalous activity should not be used to divert the greater issue of the implementation of religious freedom in its present form today.

[CV75]

This is one of those things that I would like to be able to come up with a reason for the State to oppose it as it just seems so absurd. However, I think it is one of those things that will probably need to be permissible based on my statement above.

Cannibalism is arguably not in the best interests of public health, and there are perhaps other reasons to prevent its consensual practice.

With that in mind, I would rephrase the OP to reflect my view that:

The permanent protection of religious action, principle & freedom can only be guaranteed if all religious action, principles & freedom is equally protected, including those I fundamentally oppose. This excludes any religious action, principle & freedom that erodes or undermines the protection of any other society-defining action, principle and freedom.

[zerinus]

Cannibalism is arguably not in the best interests of public health, and there are perhaps other reasons to prevent its consensual practice.

With that in mind, I would rephrase the OP to reflect my view that:

The permanent protection of religious action, principle & freedom can only be guaranteed if all religious action, principles & freedom is equally protected, including those I fundamentally oppose. This excludes any religious action, principle & freedom that erodes or undermines the protection of any other society-defining action, principle and freedom.

I like the way D&C 134:4 says it better:

"We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others; but we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion; that the civil magistrate should restrain crime, but never control conscience; should punish guilt, but never suppress the freedom of the soul."