Do You Prioritise Liberty Before Established Religion?

[Raincloud]

I've been thinking about this a lot lately.

A lot of faith can be mixed up with an established group. A religion.

But do you personally preference the freedom of everyone, before your religious/spiritual beliefs?

Does Liberty require a secular governance of a nation, to ensure the freedom of religion?

Or should Liberty take a back seat if it means tolerating things that go against your religion?

[Bro. Hex]

Liberty, definitely.

[Sirius]

Freedom of religion must also include freedom from religion. This would seem to be achieved only through a secular govt

[Brother Kaman]

Freedom of religion must also include freedom from religion. This would seem to be achieved only through a secular govt

Amen!

[Pete]

I see a 15 year old boy in Syria has been shot in the face and killed in front of his parents because he was said to be an atheist. I do not fear the religious but I really fear the extremists whether they be of religion, philosophy or politics and the world seek to create.

I am with Sirius on this one.

[panpareil]

Liberty above all.

Freedom from religion is the absence of freedom of religion.

When a religion claims a single pipeline to God, in the hands of a few, to the exclusion of all others, it aspires to theocracy, and theocracy is totalitarian.

God, if existent, is accessible to all right now. There is no heresy.

Even if you are in a world where everyone does everything you disagree with and is disrespectful of everything you cherish, as long as you are freed to do as you wish with and on your own property, and as long as you can say whatever you want anywhere, and as long as you can always have on your person any weapon necessary to defend yourself, you are free.

Controlling society diminishes freedom, and prosperity. Safety is not in the constitution. Neither is success. Equality is the absence of diversity.

The template for a perfect society is right here. Let everyone do what they think is right. There is no need for centralized direction, nor is there a need for making anything huge.

[Pete]

I maybe wrong but I read Sirius' post as having the right of freedom of religion but also the right not to be of it too.

That is something I agree with.

[Brother Kaman]

"Live free or die" seems to have been replaced by, "Enslave me if you must, just don't let me die." We must live our lives without fear. We can never prevent all things that threaten us. We can, however, approach life without fear.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

I've been thinking about this a lot lately.

A lot of faith can be mixed up with an established group. A religion.

But do you personally preference the freedom of everyone, before your religious/spiritual beliefs?

Does Liberty require a secular governance of a nation, to ensure the freedom of religion?

Or should Liberty take a back seat if it means tolerating things that go against your religion?

Enforcing orthodoxy isn't that great a deal, if you are on the wrong side.

[Bro. Hex]

"Live free or die" seems to have been replaced by, "Enslave me if you must, just don't let me die." We must live our lives without fear. We can never prevent all things that threaten us. We can, however, approach life without fear.

AMEN!

Freedom of religion must also include freedom from religion. This would seem to be achieved only through a secular govt

AMEN!

[Atwater Vitki]

History seems to be screaming out something right now..."Give me Liberty or give me death!"

Yeah, one of those radical long hairs from way back...like even before the '60's maaan!

[cuchulain]

death is the simplest of things, but liberty is much harder for people to agree on.

[mererdog]

"Live free or die" seems to have been replaced by, "Enslave me if you must, just don't let me die." We must live our lives without fear. We can never prevent all things that threaten us. We can, however, approach life without fear.

It seems to me that telling me what I must do is not a very effective way to encourage me to live free. Sometimes, living free tomorrow is only possible if you live in chains today. I see no nobility in discarding the possibility of living free tomorrow simply because you can't stand to wear chains today. "Live free or die" is not a good slogan. I prefer "Live free or keep trying to live free."

Oh, and the original questions don't seem to apply to me, since I don't really have any religious beliefs. At least not of the sort that place limits on what others should and should not do....

Edited June 17, 2013 by mererdog

[gizaap]

But do you personally preference the freedom of everyone, before your religious/spiritual beliefs?

A. I prefer freedom for everyone and their individual religious/spiritual beliefs can remain secondary as long their beliefs do not infringe on my freedom.

Does Liberty require a secular governance of a nation, to ensure the freedom of religion?

B. Yes. However, therein lies the issue of what is meant by secular. I believe that to mean no endorsement of any specific religion in favor of another. However, I'm troubled with what seems to be an almost anti-religion perspective on the term secular since I believe we are all influenced by some form of spiritual perspective.

Or should Liberty take a back seat if it means tolerating things that go against your religion?

Liberty should never take back seat. Although, ensuring liberty for all practically means tolerating things. This answer may appear contradictory to the first answer. I don't think it has to be.

[panpareil]

Secular is without religion. If religion is being injected to a secular activity then keeping it secular will appear to be anti-religious due to resistance to the encroachment of religion.

[gizaap]

Secular is without religion. If religion is being injected to a secular activity then keeping it secular will appear to be anti-religious due to resistance to the encroachment of religion.

Yep.

[emalpaiz]

I also stand for freedom, that is why I do not force my religious values on anyone.

[Youch]

I've been thinking about this a lot lately.

A lot of faith can be mixed up with an established group. A religion.

But do you personally preference the freedom of everyone, before your religious/spiritual beliefs?

Does Liberty require a secular governance of a nation, to ensure the freedom of religion?

Or should Liberty take a back seat if it means tolerating things that go against your religion?

You post/ask as if you've never read and/or understood the United States Constitution.

Why do you propose that liberty and "religion" are separate ideas/protections? Who has advanced such a cleaver prior to you?

[mererdog]

Why do you propose that liberty and "religion" are separate ideas/protections? Who has advanced such a cleaver prior to you?

The existence of oppressive theocracies prove that religion is often at odds with liberty.

Secular is without religion. If religion is being injected to a secular activity then keeping it secular will appear to be anti-religious due to resistance to the encroachment of religion.

"Freedom from religion is the absence of freedom of religion."

[panpareil]

"Freedom from religion is the absence of freedom of religion."

For most, their religious or philosophical perspective is an integral and visible aspect of their personality. It is a part of who they are and a functional part of how they interface with other human beings.

To seek an absence in this expression in others is to seek an absence of their freedom to be who they are. It is comparable to saying "I do not mind the gays as long as they do not express their sexuality, because I have a right to be free from homosexuality."

The only "freedom from" that anyone has is the freedom from others infringing on their "freedom to".

Of course the limit is one "freedom to" conflicting with another "freedom to". This is why law is necessary as well as government. If everyone were evolved enough to peacefully resolve conflict there would be no need for government at all.