• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is religious freedom actually possible

Is religious freedom actually possible?

  • Yes

    Votes: 27 58.7%

  • No

    Votes: 12 26.1%

  • Maybe

    Votes: 5 10.9%

  • I didnt bother reading the post so yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • I didn't bother reading the post so no

    Votes: 2 4.3%
  • Total voters
    46
Ikari said:
You can in fact maintain that belief. No one is going to force your mind different. You do not have to like homosexuality, you do not have to accept it, you can preach against it all you want. It's stupid and dishonest to claim otherwise.
Click to expand...

My point is the OP is being hypocritical from the start. Nevertheless, this thread was about gay rights, not religious rights. I typically try to stay out of the gay rights threads, exist when someone tries to mask it under something like religion.
 
Risky Thicket said:
Bingo! Same, same me. Many people are that way as well. It seems pretty simple to me. Why others can't live that way is a mystery.
Click to expand...



I dunno, but for some reason there are people out there who mind everyone ELSE's business but their own... and they make very unpleasant neighbors...
 
Risky Thicket said:
You beat me to it, my friend. I have never heard of a Buddhist tradition that does not accept gay people. Sexual orientation doesn't matter, and it shouldn't. It has nothing to do with Buddhism.
Click to expand...

Exactly, people assume and stereotype. What is important is the four noble truths and the 8 fold path. Buddhism is all inclusive which includes respect for all other religions. "He becomes a monk in all the different religions of the world so that he might free others from delusion and save them from falling into false views." Vimalakirti Sutra 8. In other words it does not matter what religion one is or believes, as one enters deeply into other religions, devoting his life to helping other through the means of those religions. What matters is being compassionate and not clinging to the idea that we alone know the truth.
 
American said:
Obviously not, because those who believe homosexuality is a sin, cannot be allowed to maintain that belief. You really could have just answered your own question without help. All other beliefs become irrelevant because you have disallowed the belief against homosexuality, thus perfect religious freedom is impossible.

/thread
Click to expand...

"Belief" in homosexuality? They believe it exists, they just believe it's a sin. There is lots of sin and they know it's all around them. It's up to them how they conduct themselves...at least in Christianity, God gave us all free will. AND told us very clearly that he is the ONLY judge.

They dont think homosexuality will disappear if they have freedom of religion.....@_@ They would probably have the right to persecute gays if they had the religious freedom they want tho...that is what I was trying to clarify in my posts.
 
Goshin said:
I dunno, but for some reason there are people out there who mind everyone ELSE's business but their own... and they make very unpleasant neighbors...
Click to expand...
That's what physical violence is for.
 
American said:
Obviously not, because those who believe homosexuality is a sin, cannot be allowed to maintain that belief. You really could have just answered your own question without help. All other beliefs become irrelevant because you have disallowed the belief against homosexuality, thus perfect religious freedom is impossible.

/thread
Click to expand...

People are free to believe whatever they want and to express their opinions. It is only certain actions that are prohibited such as illegal discrimination or expressing discriminatory opinions while working and representing one's employer.
 
Henrin said:
Health insurance is not a right nor is birth control. Comparing human sacrifice to not providing someone a service is idiotic.
Click to expand...

If the government mandates employer provider insurance, then it becomes a right for all employees of businesses covered by the mandate. The employer's opinion is irrelevant, whether it is a corporation or a branch of a religious organization, unless it is a position that requires the employee to model and represent the employer's philosophy. For example it is OK for Catholic Charities to deny insurance coverage for birth control for priests and nuns, but it is not acceptable for the organization to deny deny insurance coverage for birth control for the janitor who may not be Catholic.

Another example, if someone is a lobbyist for a political group it is reasonable for the group to require that the lobbyist hold political views compatible with the group. It is not reasonable for the group to refuse to hire someone with contrary views if their job is to do the books (accounting).
 
Last edited:
Lursa said:
"Belief" in homosexuality? They believe it exists, they just believe it's a sin. There is lots of sin and they know it's all around them. It's up to them how they conduct themselves...at least in Christianity, God gave us all free will. AND told us very clearly that he is the ONLY judge.

They dont think homosexuality will disappear if they have freedom of religion.....@_@ They would probably have the right to persecute gays if they had the religious freedom they want tho...that is what I was trying to clarify in my posts.
Click to expand...
You don't know that.
 
Jetboogieman said:
:doh

Classic Conservative Persecution Complex.

Far Right Wing Christians are slowly be disallowed from using their political power to deny gays rights.

"WE'RE BEING OPPRESSED"

So what do you say to those christian tea partiers that wanted to stop Muslims from building a Mosque?
Click to expand...

Classic example of the logical fallacy of hasty generalization.

Any links to peer reviewed studies that came to those conclusions?
 
brothern said:
If "religious freedom" conflicts with basic human rights - no, it's not possible.
Click to expand...

I don't think that is the problem. The problems seems to be that some seem to want more than just rights, they want societal approval, even from people who would be opposed. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 18, says it best:
"Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance."

That seems to allow an intolerant view toward others as long as you are not interfering with others. And the others have to be tolerant to you as long as they don't interfere with you. A person is allowed to hate me and not serve me or sell to me. I have to go elsewhere. It would be intolerant if I insisted that he conform to my reality and views.
What are "basic human rights"? Is it logical that simply because I have a business I surrender my freedom of thought and conscience? The person can simply go to someone else. It is illogical to demand that I do something simply because I started something that I did not have to start. A person does not become a slave to some "societal standards" simply because he wants to sell a product. It is wrong to force people to do commerce with each other.
 
Last edited:
JJB3333 said:
So ive done some thinking in the time since i last created a thread and this is one of the questions that has come up in my mind often. Now many of you will say yes and not bother to read this and others of you will say no and still not read this. So here is what i am going to do. im going to keep typing and hope someone bothers to read this.

So lets start off with an example. Personally im a supporter of gay/lesbian/bi rights, but consider how many religions exist out there that condemn homosexuality. And no this is not just rapping on Christianity. People groups in Islam,Judaism, im pretty sure Hinduism and Buddhism too, all put it down. And yet, if the gay rights activists are to be believed, then being gay/lesbian/bi is not a choice but a way of life chosen for them like being strait or homophobic is for the rest of us. Now, if all of those religions say put it down, and the government and the rest of the world is saying go screw your religion and let it happen, is religious freedom actually happening?

Again, i personally support gay rights, but i also believe in Christ as my savior. So if someone could clear it up for me without becoming a heated debate over why everyone hates me for bringing this up, it would be much obliged.
Click to expand...

Religious freedom for the "individual" is the right to practice their religion without interference. It has a responsibility component however and that is to allow others to practice their religions without interference as well. IMO it is your right to worship (or not) as you wish so long as your rights do not impede the rights of others. What your rights don't include is reacting to and attempting to prevent the way others worship.

I'm going to assume for arguments sake that since you brought up the word gay you are examining the premise that if a religion does not believe in "gay" as a viable choice that they have a right or even an obligation to prevent others than themselves from doing that. The short answer is no. You wouldn't tolerate a follower of Islam from telling you how to worship so why would you think that you have the ability to demand others do it your way.

Freedom involves tolerance.
 
Eric7216 said:
I don't think that is the problem. The problems seems to be that some seem to want more than just rights, they want societal approval, even from people who would be opposed. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 18, says it best:
"Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance."

That seems to allow an intolerant view toward others as long as you are not interfering with others. And the others have to be tolerant to you as long as they don't interfere with you. A person is allowed to hate me and not serve me or sell to me. I have to go elsewhere. It would be intolerant if I insisted that he conform to my reality and views.
What are "basic human rights"? Is it logical that simply because I have a business I surrender my freedom of thought and conscience? The person can simply go to someone else. It is illogical to demand that I do something simply because I started something that I did not have to start. A person does not become a slave to some "societal standards" simply because he wants to sell a product. It is wrong to force people to do commerce with each other.
Click to expand...
We as a society have decided that specific "freedoms of conscious" do not deserve tolerance.

A business may not refuse service based on a person’s race, religion, sex, or other "protected characteristics."
 
brothern said:
We as a society have decided that specific "freedoms of conscious" do not deserve tolerance.

A business may not refuse service based on a person’s race, religion, sex, or other "protected characteristics."
Click to expand...

So we violate the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? And we declare that a simple majority is more important than a human rights? Sounds wrong to me. I guess when the majority supported the owning of slaves than slavery was not just legal but moral, according to societal values. Seems contrary to some important Constitutional rules that prevent a dictatorship of the majority.
 
Hard Truth said:
If the government mandates employer provider insurance, then it becomes a right for all employees of businesses covered by the mandate.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't. It becomes involuntary servitude. Rights don't take labor or service from others.

The employer's opinion is irrelevant, whether it is a corporation or a branch of a religious organization, unless it is a position that requires the employee to model and represent the employer's philosophy. For example it is OK for Catholic Charities to deny insurance coverage for birth control for priests and nuns, but it is not acceptable for the organization to deny deny insurance coverage for birth control for the janitor who may not be Catholic.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is. They are providing the service and can deny it to whomever they damn well please.
 
brothern said:
We as a society have decided that specific "freedoms of conscious" do not deserve tolerance.

A business may not refuse service based on a person’s race, religion, sex, or other "protected characteristics."
Click to expand...

Sounds like we as society decided to turn other people into slaves to me. I don't tolerate slavery myself.
 
Hard Truth said:
People are free to believe whatever they want and to express their opinions. It is only certain actions that are prohibited such as illegal discrimination or expressing discriminatory opinions while working and representing one's employer.
Click to expand...

Lets name the rights your argument violates.

Property
Association
Labor
Speech
 
Eric7216 said:
brothern said:
We as a society have decided that specific "freedoms of conscious" do not deserve tolerance.

A business may not refuse service based on a person’s race, religion, sex, or other "protected characteristics."
Click to expand...
So we violate the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? And we declare that a simple majority is more important than a human rights? Sounds wrong to me. I guess when the majority supported the owning of slaves than slavery was not just legal but moral, according to societal values. Seems contrary to some important Constitutional rules that prevent a dictatorship of the majority.
Click to expand...
Henrin said:
Sounds like we as society decided to turn other people into slaves to me. I don't tolerate slavery myself.
Click to expand...
You can't discriminate against gays or females or racial minorities. Aww shucks. Such a hard life.
 
brothern said:
You can't discriminate against gays or females or racial minorities. Aww shucks. Such a hard life.
Click to expand...

A libertarian that doesn't believe in voluntary arrangements and property rights is worthless.
 
brothern said:
Or just a white heterosexual male.
Click to expand...

I don't care if you're gay and nor does libertarianism. If you support forcing people into service for others and ignoring the right of property owners to control access and use of their property you're a faux libertarian.
 
Henrin said:
I don't care if you're gay and nor does libertarianism. If you support forcing people into service for others and ignoring the right of property owners to control access and use of their property you're a faux libertarian.
Click to expand...
I stopped believing in abstract ideologies and praising zealous puritanism after the first couple of slurs and threats of physical violence directed towards me.
 
brothern said:
I stopped believing in abstract ideologies and praising zealous puritanism after the first couple of slurs and threats of physical violence directed towards me.
Click to expand...

That's great, but again, I don't care about you being gay. Why you feel it matters one bit to me or the argument in front of you that you're gay is beyond me. What you happen to be doesn't change the argument one bit, nor does it affect it. If it is their service and property you still need their agreement for the business transaction to commence or continue.
 
I think it is possible as long as you keep your belief system to yourself.

Welllllll....uhhhhhhh......probably not that possible.:doh
.
 
Henrin said:
That's great, but again, I don't care about you being gay. Why you feel it matters one bit to me or the argument in front of you that you're gay is beyond me. What you happen to be doesn't change the argument one bit, nor does it affect it. If it is their service and property you still need their agreement for the business transaction to commence or continue.
Click to expand...
That's fine and dandy for you, but it's where libertarianism falters and fails. People do care about trivial things such as race, gender or creed, and many seek to specifically harm those groups.

You may drone on about "self-correction," property rights or how you have never been targeted for pervasive discrimination in your life; but it's wasted words when it came to almost all instances of widespread discrimination that we've faced as a country. However with the benefit of hindsight and extensive empirical research done in the Deep South, we as a free society have outlined specific rules for living here. One of those rules is that business may not refuse service based on a person’s race, religion, sex, or other "protected characteristics."

If you don't like it, move it to North Korea.
 
Last edited:
brothern said:
That's fine and dandy for you, but it's where libertarianism falters and fails. People do care about trivial things such as race, gender or creed, and many seek to specifically harm those groups.
Click to expand...

Your point is what? Being denied service or employment you were never owed in the first place is hardly a harm.

You may drone on about "self-correction," property rights or how you have never been targeted for pervasive discrimination in your life; but it's wasted words when it came to almost all instances of widespread discrimination that we've faced as a country. However with the benefit of hindsight and extensive empirical research done in the Deep South, we as a free society have outlined specific rules for living here. One of those rules is that business may not refuse service based on a person’s race, religion, sex, or other "protected characteristics."
Click to expand...

I didn't even mention self correction, but I find myself interested in how we can be a free society and not protect property rights.

If you don't like it, move it to North Korea.
Click to expand...

Do you guys spin a wheel filled with the names of countries every time you decide to tell me to go to a country?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom