Social Freedom of religion: Too far or not enough?

[Islam Imamate]

Freedom of religion is a common right in modern liberal democracies but in practice it differs from country to country. On one end you have America where the state is ostensibly secular but the society has broad freedom to express its religiosity and organize along those lines and even influence government to an extent so long as it doesn't violate the Establishment Clause. On the other end there's France which not only has a secular state but also a generally secular public sphere where there exist more restrictions, both legal and social, on expressions of religiosity.

What restrictions on freedom of religion do you think are reasonable? Should expressions of religiosity in the public sphere be restricted, legally or otherwise?

 

[tinker_190]

Where is the "none of the above" button?

 

[Islam Imamate]

Where is the "none of the above" button?

Good catch, added.

 

[BEER]

I think society has been moving towards simply ostracizing religiosity in public spaces, and I think that's just fine.

 

[lsa]

not killing or blowing up stuff in the name of

 

[Islam Imamate]

I think society has been moving towards simply ostracizing religiosity in public spaces, and I think that's just fine.

So you are more or less neutral on that fact? Don't really care either way if the trend continues or reverses?

 

[Islam Imamate]

not killing or blowing up stuff in the name of

Now that's just too far IMO.

 

[lsa]

Now that's just too far IMO.

Oh you are no fun

 

[BEER]

So you are more or less neutral on that fact? Don't really care either way if the trend continues or reverses?

No, I think that's how society SHOULD react to overt displays of religiosity.

But freedom of religion and expression exist. It's the other side of the first amendment, which I ardently support. Even in cases of religious zealots. I don't think there should be any legal restrictions put in place. That would be very explicitly unconstitutional.

But society turning it's back on overt religiosity in public spaces? Good.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

Arbitration would be the only one I can think of. And only when it's with disputes that deal with property, tax collection, depriving of freedom, etc.

 

[The Diplomat]

Religious laws shouldn't override the state. Private practice is fine, but aggressive tactics shouldn't hold water in a secular nation.

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

As long as people aren't infringing on anyone else's rights and religious and/or arbitration laws don't conflict with local/federal laws they can do what they like. Where they conflict we'd have to take on a case by case basis.

 

[Islam Imamate]

No, I think that's how society SHOULD react to overt displays of religiosity.

But freedom of religion and expression exist. It's the other side of the first amendment, which I ardently support. Even in cases of religious zealots. I don't think there should be any legal restrictions put in place. That would be very explicitly unconstitutional.

But society turning it's back on overt religiosity in public spaces? Good.

Ah so you support a secularization of the public sphere then? To what extent is social pressure on overt religiosity in public legitimate? I'm assuming you don't believe people should be legally allowed to discriminate on such a basis so where is the line?

Also forget "constitutional" for a second since I am talking very generally. Consider what your ideal society would look like, not so much what is constitutionally valid.

Arbitration would be the only one I can think of. And only when it's with disputes that deal with property, tax collection, depriving of freedom, etc.

So would religious arbitration on matters of inheritance be illegitimate since that deals with property?

 

[PolishHeadlock2]

Which one should I pick for parents that won't give their kids access to routine healthcare because they think only God can heal? Religious Exemptions?

 

[Social Distance Warrior]

Which one should I pick for parents that won't give their kids access to routine healthcare because they think only God can heal? Religious Exemptions?

that's a good one.

 

[BEER]

Ah so you support a secularization of the public sphere then? To what extent is social pressure on overt religiosity in public legitimate? I'm assuming you don't believe people should be legally allowed to discriminate on such a basis so where is the line?

Also forget "constitutional" for a second since I am talking very generally. Consider what your ideal society would look like, not so much what is constitutionally valid.

Ideally, free speech is a principle I would support, whether or not it was legally protected. So nothing changes there.

And because of that, I would never support legal discrimination against overtly religious folks.

In my mind, "social pressure" mostly just means ignoring the zealots and going about your day. Not engaging with them in religious conversation. Not stopping to yell at dudes on street corners.

Ignoring the zealots makes them disappear over time. I mostly think that society is moving in a secular path, and I'm not even sure that's a conscious move. People just stopped giving air to religion in public.

 

[tinker_190]

What about instances where religious practice and law collide? For example, don't some Native American groups use psychedelics in ritualistic practices? Those would be Schedule 1 but I think they get a pass.

What if my religion states that 'All Men, in the image of Mars, must be armed at all times and maintain martial discipline'?

 

[PubliusVentidius]

Sorry but religion was thoroughly debunked and utterly destroyed by Richard Darwin, Sam Herris and Christopher Hitchslap circa 2010, we have been living in a post-religion era since then.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Which one should I pick for parents that won't give their kids access to routine healthcare because they think only God can heal? Religious Exemptions?

That's a good one, yeah religious exemption might be the best fit. Maybe I should've created a category for religious parenting to cover stuff like that as well as home schooling and whatnot. Don't be too hung up on the poll though, wanted to use it as a launch pad for discussion.

Ideally, free speech is a principle I would support, whether or not it was legally protected. So nothing changes there.

And because of that, I would never support legal discrimination against overtly religious folks.

In my mind, "social pressure" mostly just means ignoring the zealots and going about your day. Not engaging with them in religious conversation. Not stopping to yell at dudes on street corners.

Ignoring the zealots makes them disappear over time. I mostly think that society is moving in a secular path, and I'm not even sure that's a conscious move. People just stopped giving air to religion in public.

So let's say at a hypothetical place of work one of your coworkers, one of many, is overtly religious. They wear a cross and make frequent references to their religion and values and how it informs their way of life. Should this person be actively ignored? Or just ignore them when they speak of religion?

What about instances where religious practice and law collide? For example, don't some Native American groups use psychedelics in ritualistic practices? Those would be Schedule 1 but I think they get a pass.

What if my religion states that 'All Men, in the image of Mars, must be armed at all times and maintain martial discipline'?

That would fall under a religious exemption. Also Sikhs have a belief similar to your hypothetical, something about always carrying a knife.

 

[BEER]

So let's say at a hypothetical place of work one of your coworkers, one of many, is overtly religious. They wear a cross and make frequent references to their religion and values and how it informs their way of life. Should this person be actively ignored? Or just ignore them when they speak of religion?

In this hypothetical, I would make it clear that I don't care to discuss religion.