What Does Religious Liberty Mean ?

Ktoyou

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
I was thinking, hearing politicians on TV talk about preserving religious liberally and it seems to me this means forcing some folks to practice religion in indirect ways. We have always had laws for not selling alcohol on Sunday, yet now that I think about it, these laws infringe on all those who believe religious liberty includes the right not to follow any religion.

It seems to me, it would be best to allow each individual the right to choose how to live within the law, rather than forcing some to indirectly participate another to practice their religion by such simple matters as not allowing the sales of alcohol on days where there is no other reason than because some religions restrict alcohol sales.

Personally I do not really care about drinking at any time, but I think someone who whats to purchase alcohol at regular hours should be able to purchase it on any day, no matter if most think it is a special religious day.

The idea is don't force your religious practices on other, as that is religious liberty.
 

Rusha

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I was thinking, hearing politicians on TV talk about preserving religious liberally and it seems to me this means forcing some folks to practice religion in indirect ways. We have always had laws for not selling alcohol on Sunday, yet now that I think about it, these laws infringe on all those who believe religious liberty includes the right not to follow any religion.

It seems to me, it would be best to allow each individual the right to choose how to live within the law, rather than forcing some to indirectly participate another to practice their religion by such simple matters as not allowing the sales of alcohol on days where there is no other reason than because some religions restrict alcohol sales.

Personally I do not really care about drinking at any time, but I think someone who whats to purchase alcohol at regular hours should be able to purchase it on any day, no matter if most think it is a special religious day.

The idea is don't force your religious practices on other, as that is religious liberty.

^ This.
 

Danoh

New member
Yeah, and don't force your irreligious practices on others.

Doesn't work that way.

Whether K knows it or not, yours is in fact a version of the very thing K's OP rightly spoke out against.

Of the "Kingdom Now" nonsense that even those who assert they do not hold to that, often prove otherwise by their words and actions.

Nowhere in Scripture is the Body expected to expect the world to kow tow to the values, beliefs and or expectations of the Body for itself.

Most, if not all of the Apostles themselves, including Paul, supposedly met the same fate at the hands of "this world" as the Lord Himself.

Perhaps you have still not resolved that this world is presently the realm of "the god of this world."

:chuckle:

Rom. 5:6-8.i
 
Last edited:

nikolai_42

Well-known member
I was thinking, hearing politicians on TV talk about preserving religious liberally and it seems to me this means forcing some folks to practice religion in indirect ways. We have always had laws for not selling alcohol on Sunday, yet now that I think about it, these laws infringe on all those who believe religious liberty includes the right not to follow any religion.

It seems to me, it would be best to allow each individual the right to choose how to live within the law, rather than forcing some to indirectly participate another to practice their religion by such simple matters as not allowing the sales of alcohol on days where there is no other reason than because some religions restrict alcohol sales.

Personally I do not really care about drinking at any time, but I think someone who whats to purchase alcohol at regular hours should be able to purchase it on any day, no matter if most think it is a special religious day.

The idea is don't force your religious practices on other, as that is religious liberty.

The very idea of religious liberty conjures up all manner of ideas - and in today's pluralistic society, it has come to mean essentially the freedom to do whatever "I" want within the bounds of law. So as the bounds of the law move, so moves the perception of what liberty is. But when that becomes enshrined in society, the term "religion" is vetted of some of its most important features. Significantly, religion provides a degree of moral restraint on its adherents. It regulates behavior, but from the standpoint of Divine mandate rather than the will of the government. This does not promote one religion over another, but is a basic recognition that people need to be restrained by some sort of law. Every religion recognizes that. Thus, any government that governs will need a philosophy by which they govern - and if it isn't religious in source, it will be humanistic.

Since not all religions have the same priorities or foundational beliefs, they will inevitably clash at certain points. The secular humanist echoes John Lennon and proceeds to call absence of conflict the highest good (this being his own religious view) and wishes to do away with religion all together as a solution to the perceived root problem. So it is even more inevitable that you will have a clash between religionists and anti-religionists. Freedom, in that context, becomes the freedom to reject everything about a religion and enshrine in law the liberty from its constraints. It ultimately contradicts itself by telling everyone they should be able to do what they want - when that's what makes religion necessary to begin with (I make that statement as though from an agnostic viewpoint). So the anarchy that religion tries to prevent is the very thing secular humanism leads to in an attempt to overturn religion.

So whence religious liberty? It doesn't have anything to do with my right or your right to buy alcohol or engage in any practice in private - because ultimately, that is a degradation of the rule of law. Here, though, is where I think the genius of the American Founders comes in. They recognized that there is a Creator. They recognize that without acknowledging that basic fact, the foundation of any real rule of law is on shaky ground (if it is on any real ground at all). And when the Creator is seen to fundamentally endow every human with certain inalienable rights, then government is restrained to its proper function and scope of authority. When it is asserted that Congress shall make no law concerning religion, it asserts no rule of the government over the conscience of men and women to worship in the way they see fit. It does NOT, however, do away with the foundation of the law that must bind all citizens and residents of the nation. Rather, it establishes that the populace needs to be governed by God's laws for the sake of order and justice. And as a people are identified in large part by their values - and those values irretrievably bound to a religious system (formally acknowledged or not), there MUST be some religious basis for government or else anarchy will rule. That doesn't guarantee that the religion is good or right - but since nature abhors a vacuum, those that seek to do what is right only in their own eyes and seek to enshrine it in law will soon find that they will be forced into subjection under tyranny. It is inevitable.

Therefore, liberty and license cannot coexist. And the only effective moral restraint is one which appeals to the morality of man. Thus, for government to enact certain laws that limit - in some degree - such things as sexual and economic freedoms, is not an undue infringement upon liberty (religious or otherwise). It is (or the goal for it is to be) rather conducive to public order. Therein lies freedom. Not in being bound to one's own particular proclivities and whims. The United States was founded clearly upon Christian principles and so it should rule upon those principles. It was reiterated over and over again by different notables that the Republic would only last as long as men could govern themselves - and many indicated that the only way to do that was with the bible. So it was used in schools. No one was forced to convert to Christianity, but they were taught its principles.

While this is a political venue, I can't help but notice that as the supposed restraints of the Christian faith have been cast off from public life (over the last couple of generations), the tendency has been towards more violent crime and moral chaos. Mankind has become his own sort of God in doing what he wants as he defines it to be right. In rejecting God, he has replaced God.

Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

2 Thessalonians 2:3-4

Nature does abhor a vacuum...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lon

annabenedetti

like marbles on glass
So it is even more inevitable that you will have a clash between religionists and anti-religionists.

It would be more accurately described (using your term) as religionists and non-religionists. A non-religionist doesn't have to be labeled anti-religionist just by virtue of their choosing not to adhere to a religion.


Freedom, in that context, becomes the freedom to reject everything about a religion and enshrine in law the liberty from its constraints.

Absolutely right.

It ultimately contradicts itself by telling everyone they should be able to do what they want - when that's what makes religion necessary to begin with (I make that statement as though from an agnostic viewpoint). So the anarchy that religion tries to prevent is the very thing secular humanism leads to in an attempt to overturn religion.

No, it allows all freedoms that don't impinge on the rights of others, and that don't break established law.


So whence religious liberty? It doesn't have anything to do with my right or your right to buy alcohol

Actually, it does. Christian temperance laws limit the right of citizens to buy alcohol when they want to.

or engage in any practice in private

Sodomy laws?

Rather, it establishes that the populace needs to be governed by God's laws for the sake of order and justice.

No, that would be theonomy/theocracy, not a democratic republic.

And as a people are identified in large part by their values - and those values irretrievably bound to a religious system

No, they're not. There's an argument for natural law, and people can hold values that aren't "irretrievably bound to a religious system."

there MUST be some religious basis for government or else anarchy will rule.

Again, you're talking theonomy/theocracy. Are you a dominionist, by any chance?

Therefore, liberty and license cannot coexist.

Yes it can.
 
Last edited:

quip

BANNED
Banned
Freedom, in that context (secular humanism), becomes the freedom to reject everything about a religion and enshrine in law the liberty from its constraints. It ultimately contradicts itself by telling everyone they should be able to do what they want - when that's what makes religion necessary to begin with....

This straw-man seems to be the crux of your position. What you describe is not secular humanism but rather a moral diatribe against hedonism. Likewise, this "necessity" of religion you purport is entirely wrought from this key misrepresentation.

Humanism doesn't espouse doing "whatever one wants" any more or less than religion that's performed in the name and self-serving approbation of God! The key component here - or rather lack thereof - is compassion. Compassion at allowing each individual to peacefully seek, sans legal/parochial restraint, their own method of spirituality; compassion in our non-religious day-to-day interactions; compassion in the management of our buisinesses, homes, schools and communities.

Secular humanism is far from perfect, yet it has recognized that, by the very nature of its rigid dogma, religion has not only failed to embrace universal compassion but rather it actively opposes such outside its provincial influence.

Secular law is the only legislative means which remains compatable and comparable to universal, nonsectarian liberty.
 

The Horn

BANNED
Banned
Yeah, and don't force your irreligious practices on others.
Glorydaz , which secularists are trying to force "their irreligious practices " on Christians or others in America ? And what exactly are "irreligious practices "? Like not going to a church, synagogue or mosque because you aren't religious ?
 

Lon

Well-known member
No, it allows all freedoms that don't impinge on the rights of others, and that don't break established law.
No freedom that I know of doesn't somehow interfere with another. I'm not sure this 'autonomous' non-socially conscious egocentrism is understood by those who espouse it. Most of us older folks embrace sociology norms. It tends to be those who are out of the loop in social connections that are the most socially awkward with over-the-top individual demands. Again, I think those more social conscious are better at making fairer laws than those who are simply wanting what 'they' want. We've seen awkward college kids. For me, the awkward adults who praise them are worse for not knowing better and for fostering those self-interested agendas. Society is an extension, ideally, of family values where the ebb and flow of individual needs vs. everyone's is always weighed. This, btw, was the problem of Obama's eras - He was very interested in the minority and individual, and fairly clueless of the greater needs of society. It is why Trump is in office. You cannot foster individual selfishness over and above the real needs of families, for instance. It shows, imho, a lack of Sociological education that every president needs. Obama lacked it to a large degree "If you don't like it, beat us." Regan had it conversely.
 

annabenedetti

like marbles on glass
No freedom that I know of doesn't somehow interfere with another.

I said "impinge on the rights." Surely you can think of something ?

I'm not sure this 'autonomous' non-socially conscious egocentrism is understood by those who espouse it. Most of us older folks embrace sociology norms. It tends to be those who are out of the loop in social connections that are the most socially awkward with over-the-top individual demands. Again, I think those more social conscious are better at making fairer laws than those who are simply wanting what 'they' want. We've seen awkward college kids. For me, the awkward adults who praise them are worse for not knowing better and for fostering those self-interested agendas.


I'm not sure what you're talking about. How does that relate to the quote of mine you're responding to?

Society is an extension, ideally, of family values where the ebb and flow of individual needs vs. everyone's is always weighed.

Whose family values? Yours?

This, btw, was the problem of Obama's eras - He was very interested in the minority and individual, and fairly clueless of the greater needs of society.

I'd have to see some support for your opinion, because I don't think that you've accurately defined Obama's presidency.


It is why Trump is in office. You cannot foster individual selfishness over and above the real needs of families, for instance. It shows, imho, a lack of Sociological education that every president needs. Obama lacked it to a large degree "If you don't like it, beat us." Regan had it conversely.

Trump's election is the result of Obama's lack of a "sociological education?" You really believe that? (Although with that as your litmus I'm interested in your evaluation of Trump's "sociological education.")
 

glorydaz

Well-known member
Glorydaz , which secularists are trying to force "their irreligious practices " on Christians or others in America ? And what exactly are "irreligious practices "? Like not going to a church, synagogue or mosque because you aren't religious ?

No, like having our girls have to compete with transgender boys, and bake cakes for gay couples, etc.
 

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
To my mind religious liberty is simply the right to believe and worship as our faith and conscience require, within the necessary limitation that our exercise not deprive another of his/her right.

So while it isn't about the atheist, except in the caveat, it preserves the peace and peace of mind between atheist, deist, theist, and even a few folks around here who appear to be meists. :think:
 

Idolater

"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
Religious liberty means the right to believe in Christ's Resurrection.
 

Lon

Well-known member
I said "impinge on the rights." Surely you can think of something ?




I'm not sure what you're talking about. How does that relate to the quote of mine you're responding to?



Whose family values? Yours?
A little too far removed. The essential statement was that sociological norms tend to be the same as family values.

I'd have to see some support for your opinion, because I don't think that you've accurately defined Obama's presidency.
Trump is your strong evidence. Christians were concerned that families were ignored while individuals nor really representing family values but their own desires were getting lawsuits passed for cakes. It was a fiasco for 8 years. On top of that? Obama said clearly "if you don't like it, beat us." That's plenty of support and documentation. TOL has a ton more. I don't really feel I need to substantiate what is already common discussion items about Obama's presidency.




Trump's election is the result of Obama's lack of a "sociological education?" You really believe that? (Although with that as your litmus I'm interested in your evaluation of Trump's "sociological education.")
I didn't say Trump did. I said Obama didn't.
 
Top