Religious Freedom - Explain it to me like I'm 5

[sjdawg]

I hear a lot of talk about eroding religious freedom.   Can someone explain to me exactly how religious freedom is being reduced?   I don't see it.   What freedoms are being lost?  Is someone preventing you from worshiping how you choose?   Is someone making Christianity illegal?  Is someone forcing you to live Sharia law?

Please explain because I don't understand.

[Glenn101]

46 minutes ago, sjdawg said:

I hear a lot of talk about eroding religious freedom.   Can someone explain to me exactly how religious freedom is being reduced?   I don't see it.   What freedoms are being lost?  Is someone preventing you from worshiping how you choose?   Is someone making Christianity illegal?  Is someone forcing you to live Sharia law?

Please explain because I don't understand.

When a person is forced to do something that violates a religious belief.

[sjdawg]

6 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

When a person is forced to do something that violates a religious belief.

Who is being forced to do something in violation of a religious belief?  I understand some conflicts with selling cakes to gay people etc but to me that isn't an issue of religious freedom.

 

Edited February 29, 2016 by sjdawg

[Rivers]

Good question. 

[Sanpitch]

When I read of Religious Freedom, I often think, religious freedom to have tax free religious establishments and all the other tax free perks.  If someone belongs to a golf club and pays dues they are not tax free, if someone belongs to a religious organization, dues and expenses are tax free. 

Also, maybe not religious related, but if someone does not want children, they pay for it with a higher tax load.  If someone has many children they pay no or lower taxes.

[CV75]

3 hours ago, sjdawg said:

I hear a lot of talk about eroding religious freedom.   Can someone explain to me exactly how religious freedom is being reduced?   I don't see it.   What freedoms are being lost?  Is someone preventing you from worshiping how you choose?   Is someone making Christianity illegal?  Is someone forcing you to live Sharia law?

Please explain because I don't understand.

For the five-year old (who asks): We have to use our freedom or lose it. If you want to pray with someone who fell down at recess, you can. And don’t be afraid to talk about it!

The idea is that we are free to manifest our religion by teaching, practicing, worshiping, and observing it in all aspects of private and public life, individually and as part of a faith community. This freedom is reduced when such expression is discouraged (socially or by regulation), because like anything else, when not nurtured it is diminished. Whatever the basis for complaint, as with any principle of freedom, it is important to keep it alive through public discussion.

Some examples which are currently being debated are requiring employers / health care professionals to provide services against the dictates of their faith, and disallowing the sharing religious viewpoints with others in school and public.

[Glenn101]

2 hours ago, sjdawg said:

Who is being forced to do something in violation of a religious belief?  I understand some conflicts with selling cakes to gay people etc but to me that isn't an issue of religious freedom.

 

Those who are on that end of the stick tend to disagree with you. (Not just cakes, but wedding cakes.) Then there is the issue of mandated free birth control that must be provided by health organizations. Some of those organizations are run by religious orders with strong religious beliefs against birth control. Some courts have ruled that those organizations must comply while at least one other has ruled that the mandate violates the religious freedom of organizations that are faith based and are against birth control.

 

Glenn

[stemelbow]

A five year old wouldn't get this at all.

You simply can't explain it well to a 5 year old.  But I get your point.  I don't know that challenging religious freedom is a problem. It certainly doesn't feel as big of a problem as some make it out to be.  It makes me wonder if those who are religious and complain about it often think they should be privileged because they believe and are religious. 

[The Nehor]

[strappinglad]

Can a person who is a Jehovah's Witness enter the medical profession? If they do, they must forgo the right to practice their belief that blood transfusions are wrong. We of course see that belief as silly so we are perfectly content with treading on that belief for the greater good of society. What about abortion? We LDS are told not to seek one (generally) and not to provide one and the law so far has found a way to accommodate that belief but it could change and force doctors to perform abortions no matter the personal belief. What do we do then? We are discussing euthanasia here now. Many doctors are reluctant if not very opposed to the act. Can the law adjust or not?

The law has found it impossible to adjust for beliefs about homosexuality. Oh, you can hold your belief but just don't speak about it in the public square or heaven forbid actually act on it. Societal beliefs have changed a lot over the last 50 years and the law has changed with it. Few would argue that such is a bad thing.

The whole nonsense about some places wanting employees to say happy holidays instead of Merry Christmas was a red flag to some Christians as a way to remove Christ from the holiday and go fully secular . Imagine the  same stores

telling employees to avoid the name Ramadan or Hannuka. Or imagine a major grocery chain not offering pork because it offends Muslims to even walk by it. Let's face it. The claims of a loss of freedom of religion is mostly about the freedom of Christians to practice their long held beliefs in public.

[Gray]

The catch phrase is freedom, but usually what's under discussion is actually privilege. 

[thesometimesaint]

It is pretty simple even for a 5 year old to understand. My religious right to swing my righteous fist ends at your unrighteous nose.

[gclayjr]

I am amazed that there is any question about this. I did a small experiment. I Googled "Fired for Praying" 

and below are just a few top results

 

http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/05/03/high-school-principal-fired-after-praying-reading-bible-students

 

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/09/17/football-coach-claims-he-was-fired-for-refusing-to-tell-players-they-had-to-stop-praying-on-the-field/

 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/07/praying-bus-driver-fired_n_4234315.html

 

I'm sure I could find similar results for vocally opposing abortion, speaking out against gay marriage etc.

 

Those who claim that we are free to practice our religion base it upon 2 concepts 

1) you only get ostracized, lose you job and business, but not go to jail. I guess you are free as long as the punished doesn't include jail time (Although there is a clerk in Kentucky that might not agree)

2) you can still say what you want (as long as you don't endorse a political candidate) inside the closed doors of you church, but don't dare take it outside.

 

Do I guess if you at least don't go to Jail, and can still say what you believe as long as it is only inside of closed church doors, then I guess we still have   freedom of  religion

 

Regards,

George Clay

 

[Mars]

29 minutes ago, Gray said:

The catch phrase is freedom, but usually what's under discussion is actually privilege. 

i had a huge reply written up that touched on this particular point, but ultimately decided it wasn't worth the bandwidth and deleted it.  now that i see you brought it up, i feel like chiming in after all.  i'll go with the following instead.

i agree that privilege plays a part.  telling principles to stop praying with students is not a loss of religious freedom in my mind.

however.

i also think there is some truth the potential risk to the Church and its members when they espouse (pun intended) or even teach certain things about marriage.  brendan eich was asked to step down as CTO of, and then ultimately quit from, mozilla altogether, for the simple fact that he donated to yes on prop 8.  in the subsequent years that followed, not a single instance of his actions or words could be pinned against him.  voting on something that was his civic right to participate in was deemed Evil by some employees who made enough of a stink and mozilla acted on it.  this signifies, in my mind at least, risk that public opinion could create space for new policy and law to make things bad for religious folks who disagree with gay marriage.  i think this is why you see Elder Oaks talking about religious freedom in the face of new policy.

was that just an isolated incident by a vindictive person?  does it signify risk to someone who holds unpopular views on gay marriage?  how much of that risk is credible?  how far will it go?  your mileage may vary.

 

Edited February 29, 2016 by Mars

[TheSkepticChristian]

6 hours ago, sjdawg said:

I hear a lot of talk about eroding religious freedom.   Can someone explain to me exactly how religious freedom is being reduced?   I don't see it.  

It is, liberal secularists are trying to transform our nation to an Atheist dictatorship, and are trying to replace Bibles with Science textbooks. 

They are also trying to make everyone gay. 

Edited February 29, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Sanpitch said:

 

Also, maybe not religious related, but if someone does not want children, they pay for it with a higher tax load.  If someone has many children they pay no or lower taxes.

It is a benefit to most countries for people to have children, otherwise known as future tax payers, and thus the various incentives

http://national.deseretnews.com/article/1769/can-government-incentives-reverse-falling-birth-rates.html

It makes sense for those not having children to pay more into the system since they are not contributing to the care and feeding of future tax payers in the same way as parents do (they do in part through property taxes etc).  These children will be paying for their support through their taxes as adults.

Edited February 29, 2016 by Calm

[TheSkepticChristian]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

It is a benefit to most countries for people to have children

What about overpopulation and climate change? More cars, energy, electricity, more CO2 is needed with more people. 

Edited February 29, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[Walden]

53 minutes ago, gclayjr said:

I am amazed that there is any question about this. I did a small experiment. I Googled "Fired for Praying" 

and below are just a few top results

 

http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/05/03/high-school-principal-fired-after-praying-reading-bible-students

 

 

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/09/17/football-coach-claims-he-was-fired-for-refusing-to-tell-players-they-had-to-stop-praying-on-the-field/

 

 

 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/07/praying-bus-driver-fired_n_4234315.html

 

I'm sure I could find similar results for vocally opposing abortion, speaking out against gay marriage etc.

 

Those who claim that we are free to practice our religion base it upon 2 concepts 

1) you only get ostracized, lose you job and business, but not go to jail. I guess you are free as long as the punished doesn't include jail time (Although there is a clerk in Kentucky that might not agree)

2) you can still say what you want (as long as you don't endorse a political candidate) inside the closed doors of you church, but don't dare take it outside.

 

Do I guess if you at least don't go to Jail, and can still say what you believe as long as it is only inside of closed church doors, then I guess we still have   freedom of  religion

 

Regards,

George Clay

 

 

I can guarantee you that if I did a similar search on "fired for atheism" I would get twice the number of results.

Anyway, in all of the stories that you linked, the issue was not with simple prayer, per se, but with principals, teachers or school bus drivers, all public employees who are in a position of authority, actively facilitating and organizing school prayers.

Just as I don't want my kids's teachers organizing and facilitating Wiccan chanting sessions, devil worship activities, etc., I do not want them organizing and facilitating Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, etc. prayers either. 

One of the trade-off's of working for the public schools as an authority figure in a government-paid capacity is that you must surrender espousing your personal religious views to students, in favor of neutrality. Are teachers and principals not made aware of this little caveat before taking their jobs?

Regarding the argument about bakers being forced to make cakes for gay weddings that offend their religious sensibilities, does this extend to all religious beliefs? If I belong to a religion that espouses racist beliefs, can I refuse service to blacks and hispanics? My religion considers divorce to be sinful, can I then refuse services to single mother's?   

[thesometimesaint]

4 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

What about overpopulation and climate change? More cars, energy, electricity, more CO2 is needed with more people. 

Overpopulation per say isn't a problem. It is that the lifestyle that they want to have is the problem. IE; If every American wanted to live like a rural peasant farmer in India we could probably support 2-3 billion people in this country. I don't know too many Americans that would want to live that way though.

We'll not do away with our electrical requirements voluntarily. What we can do, and many many are, is decreasing our demand for electrical devices that require more electricity. IE Energy Star appliances.  Plus many are producing their own electricity by solar electric panels. Even some industrial processes are getting onto the band wagon. IE; Sun Chips http://tonyseba.com/sunchips-are-now-made-with-the-sun/

[Sanpitch]

30 minutes ago, Calm said:

It is a benefit to most countries for people to have children, otherwise known as future tax payers, and thus the various incentives

http://national.deseretnews.com/article/1769/can-government-incentives-reverse-falling-birth-rates.html

It makes sense for those not having children to pay more into the system since they are not contributing to the care and feeding of future tax payers in the same way as parents do (they do in part through property taxes etc).  These children will be paying for their support through their taxes as adults.

Why does this remind me of a Ponzi scheme, more and more children to pay for the more and more people that will exist and need to be supported.  Someday it has to stop or slow down.

[Mars]

1 minute ago, Walden said:

I can guarantee you that if I did a similar search on "fired for atheism" I would get twice the number of results.

ooh - just for tickles and grins:

'fired for christianity' - 2 990 000 results

'fired for christian beliefs' - 5 390 000 results

'fired for atheism' - 426 000 results

'fired for atheist beliefs' - 496 000 results

 

all this does is prove who is talking about it the most.  iow, it proves nothing substantial.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

It is pretty simple even for a 5 year old to understand. My religious right to swing my righteous fist ends at your unrighteous nose.

LOL a nose is only unrighteous when it sticks itself where the fist is already exercising!

[TheSkepticChristian]

24 minutes ago, Mars said:

ooh - just for tickles and grins:

'fired for christianity' - 2 990 000 results

'fired for christian beliefs' - 5 390 000 results

'fired for atheism' - 426 000 results

'fired for atheist beliefs' - 496 000 results

 

all this does is prove who is talking about it the most.  iow, it proves nothing substantial.

CFR, and please prove the Atheists managers are firing the Christians for their beliefs.   

How do you know it is not the Christians firing the other Christians? 

Edited February 29, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[Mars]

6 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

CFR, and please prove the Atheists managers are firing the Christians for their beliefs.   

How do you know it is not the Christians firing the other Christians? 

CFR on what?  i just responded to Walden about total number of search results for each topic and then said that it proves nothing beyond illustrating who is talking about which subject more.

Edited February 29, 2016 by Mars

[Gray]

1 hour ago, Mars said:

i had a huge reply written up that touched on this particular point, but ultimately decided it wasn't worth the bandwidth and deleted it.  now that i see you brought it up, i feel like chiming in after all.  i'll go with the following instead.

i agree that privilege plays a part.  telling principles to stop praying with students is not a loss of religious freedom in my mind.

however.

i also think there is some truth the potential risk to the Church and its members when they espouse (pun intended) or even teach certain things about marriage.  brendan eich was asked to step down as CTO of, and then ultimately quit from, mozilla altogether, for the simple fact that he donated to yes on prop 8.  in the subsequent years that followed, not a single instance of his actions or words could be pinned against him.  voting on something that was his civic right to participate in was deemed Evil by some employees who made enough of a stink and mozilla acted on it.  this signifies, in my mind at least, risk that public opinion could create space for new policy and law to make things bad for religious folks who disagree with gay marriage.  i think this is why you see Elder Oaks talking about religious freedom in the face of new policy.

was that just an isolated incident by a vindictive person?  does it signify risk to someone who holds unpopular views on gay marriage?  how much of that risk is credible?  how far will it go?  your mileage may vary.

 

All C-level employees are under the magnifying glass. They are face of the companies they work for. Having religious beliefs has never given anyone blanket protections to express opinions based on those beliefs without consequence, right?