Should freedom of religion be protected?

LUClEN
LUClEN Members Posts: 20,559 ✭✭✭✭✭
Topic for an Essay I'm writing


With only a minority of Citizens now attending a place of worship regularly, is it important to preserve freedom of religion and conscience in our country's increasingly secularized society? Why or why not?



It seems ridiculous to not protect people's freedom of religion now when atheists had their freedom to reject religion protected

Seems like a pretty obvious answer to me

Comments

  • reapin505
    reapin505 Members Posts: 4,009 ✭✭✭✭✭
    As long as every religion is protected and one isn't given higher standing yeah. People should be able to worship who or what they want; government, neighbor, whomever doesn't have any right to deny that person his/her worship because they believe something different. Christians, Muslims, Jew, Atheists etc should just keep it moving and respect what others believe in.
  • The_Jackal
    The_Jackal Members Posts: 3,628 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Pretty ? topic to be honest especially when for anyone who argues against it.
  • soul rattler
    soul rattler Members Posts: 18,852 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Protection as in people should be free to participate in a religion of their choosing without negative consequence? Sure.

    Freedom to project one's religious values onto others and Injecting such ideology into government policy? Hell no.


    The problem with freedom for religion is that people will say their victims of oppression even while oppressing others. Religious people tend to be hypocritical that way.
  • LUClEN
    LUClEN Members Posts: 20,559 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Protection as in people should be free to participate in a religion of their choosing without negative consequence? Sure.

    Freedom to project one's religious values onto others and Injecting such ideology into government policy? Hell no.


    The problem with freedom for religion is that people will say their victims of oppression even while oppressing others. Religious people tend to be hypocritical that way.

    I changed the question a bit, the original essay topic was specific to Canadian law
    In 1970, less than 1 per cent of Canadians identified themselves as having “no religion”. By 2005, this had grown to 22 per cent. While less than one fifth of Canadians attend a religious service at least once a week, the number of Canadians who never attend church at all has increased to include over one third of the population. Section 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms enshrines freedom of religion and conscience as a “fundamental” freedom along with freedom of expression, freedom of association, and freedom of peaceful assembly. Freedom of religion and conscience is also the very first freedom that is listed in the Charter. But with fewer Canadians adhering to any identifiable religion, should freedom of religion and conscience be limited to a right to establish and attend places of worship? If this “fundamental” freedom entails more than merely being able to establish and attend a house of worship, what should the exercise of this freedom look like in practice? Apart from religion, what role should freedom of conscience play in Canada’s free society? These are among the many questions to consider for JCCF’s 2014 Essay Contest, for which the central question is:

    “With only a minority of Canadians attending a place of worship regularly, is it important to preserve freedom of religion and conscience in Canada’s increasingly secularized society? Why or why not?”


    In Canada lately there have been a lot of court battles over religion, ranging from a Sikh victory allowing young Sikh boys to carry a traditional knife on their persons at school, Turbans being permitted for Police officers and other government employees, Christmas trees being banned from government spaces, Turbans being permitted in Canadian soccer leagues, provincial Government funding Catholic education in Quebec and Ontario, and objections to different faiths being taught and not being taught in schools

    If you need context

    A lot of the conflict comes from whites who feel like immigrants are coming here and forcing them to change their lifestyles despite the fact that they were here first
  • zombie
    zombie Members Posts: 13,450 ✭✭✭✭✭
    what a stupid ? thread and question.
  • LUClEN
    LUClEN Members Posts: 20,559 ✭✭✭✭✭
    zombie wrote: »
    what a stupid ? thread and question.

    Not stupid enough to believe an invisible man lives in the sky or think correlation is causation
  • GorillaWitAttitude
    GorillaWitAttitude Members Posts: 3,566
    Trashboat wrote: »
    zombie wrote: »
    what a stupid ? thread and question.

    Not stupid enough to believe an invisible man lives in the sky or think correlation is causation

    Lets not go there.
  • LUClEN
    LUClEN Members Posts: 20,559 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Believe what you want, just don't forcefeed that ? .

    Well often these beliefs come with practices that cross into illegality, like genital mutilation and honor killings. In such instances how can they be protected when they promote activities that infringe on other fundamental rights of citizens?
  • Focal Point
    Focal Point Members Posts: 16,307 ✭✭✭✭✭
    If ? crosses the line and breaks the law than no. Outside of that everyone has a right to believe how they choose as well as to try to convince others to join. The violation is forcing and condemning someone for not agreeing
  • LUClEN
    LUClEN Members Posts: 20,559 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Writing this it seems there is a bit of an argument to say freedom of religion should not be protected.

    Because of how different a lot of religions are if all are honored it creates inequality as some groups will have privileges others do not. One example is that in some places in Canada Sikhs do not have to wear helmets when riding motorcycles even though it's the law. No other group has the right to ride without a helmet, so how is this equal?

    A man in British Columbia, Canada is currently fighting so he can wear a spaghetti strainer on his head in his driver's license photo. His request is being denied, despite his claim that he is a pastafarian and it is his religious Headwear. Hajabs, turbans, yarmulkes and other religious gear are permitted because of religious freedom and freedom of expression, so Logically the pastafarian hat should be allowed too.

    It becomes ridiculous when any religious claim is considered valid, simply because one claims their deity has ordered they do something. Rather than honour all religious demands, which is necessary if any are to be honored as fair and equitable treatment under the law is a Canadian right, as well as part of international law, it is easier to honour none. No one gets holidays because of their religions; no one can be deliberately unsafe because a religious text wills it; no one can write their York University prof for an online course and demand an exemption from an assignment that would have them meet up in person with group members because their religion allegedly forbids men and women from socializing.

    It may seem like this is an all or nothing argument and a false dichotomy fallacy, but because the charter of rights and international law guarantee equal rights it must be that everyone's religion is treated as valid or no one's.
  • leftcoastkev
    leftcoastkev Members Posts: 6,232 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited August 2014
    If freedom of religion isn't protected eventually a group will force it upon you or ? /jail you for not complying.
  • LUClEN
    LUClEN Members Posts: 20,559 ✭✭✭✭✭
    If freedom of religion isn't protected eventually a group will force it upon you or ? /jail you for not complying.

    That would still be illegal as people still have a right to life and security
  • kingblaze84
    kingblaze84 Members Posts: 14,288 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited August 2014
    Trashboat wrote: »
    Believe what you want, just don't forcefeed that ? .

    Well often these beliefs come with practices that cross into illegality, like genital mutilation and honor killings. In such instances how can they be protected when they promote activities that infringe on other fundamental rights of citizens?

    This is an excellent point....I personally think circumcision of any kind should be banned unless the child or adult wants it done. It's wrong to force such a thing upon any child, and Sweden and a few other nations have laws like this already. Honor killings hopefully are banned in most nations, including Muslim ones...
  • kingblaze84
    kingblaze84 Members Posts: 14,288 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited August 2014
    If freedom of religion isn't protected eventually a group will force it upon you or ? /jail you for not complying.

    Yeah this is possibly true but groups eventually have to comply with a nation's laws or they will one way or the other have lives of suffering, ask the minority groups in Saudi Arabia or Islamic State lol....in those places you could be legally amputated for non Islamic practices and even in America freedom of religion doesn't protect slavery or beating one's wife, at least not anymore
  • achewon87
    achewon87 Members Posts: 5,464 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Protected?...

    No...

    You should only be afforded the same rights as everybody else...

    Worshiping something should be left up to the individual, ? I would argue it should be illegal for you to knock on my door or stop me on the street to try and talk and convert me...
  • LUClEN
    LUClEN Members Posts: 20,559 ✭✭✭✭✭
    The thing is when you deny citizens freedom of conscience it's basically like enforcing thought crime. "Your religious beliefs are wrong, stop thinking that".

    Freedom of religion is also part of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations and the foundation of international human rights law.