Why do religious people hate religious freedom?

[Zero]

Just wondering...every religious person loves their own religious freedom, and at the same time they very often absolutely HATE anyone else having the same freedom they so enjoy. What kind of incredible hypocracy is that?!?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
Just wondering...every religious person loves their own religious freedom, and at the same time they very often absolutely HATE anyone else having the same freedom they so enjoy. What kind of incredible hypocracy is that?!?

Probably because they have the freedom to do so!

Actually the freedom of religion is based upon the freedom of belief, including the freedom of "non-belief." In which case I can see you're no exception to the rule here either.

 

[megashawn]

But if it is supposed to be freedom of belief, then why is it such a struggle to get some religous relic removed from a government building?

Why is it that believers in creationism think this should be taught instead of evolution? Is this not forcing a belief on others?

Things like this seem to oppress people who have no religous beliefs or at the least, different beliefs then the majority.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by megashawn
But if it is supposed to be freedom of belief, then why is it such a struggle to get some religous relic removed from a government building?

Why is it that believers in creationism think this should be taught instead of evolution? Is this not forcing a belief on others?

Things like this seem to oppress people who have no religous beliefs or at the least, different beliefs then the majority.

You have a right to make stink about it don't you? How many other places in the world can you go and do this? Of course it may not be such a big deal now, but I'm sure it was when the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights were first drafted up.

 

[Chemicalsuperfreak]

Originally posted by megashawn
But if it is supposed to be freedom of belief, then why is it such a struggle to get some religous relic removed from a government building?

Why is it that believers in creationism think this should be taught instead of evolution? Is this not forcing a belief on others?

Things like this seem to oppress people who have no religous beliefs or at the least, different beliefs then the majority.

Well, it's obvious that those who have those beliefs are right and everybody else is wrong. So it's OK to abuse other religions freedoms, because they're wrong and they're going to hell anyway.

 

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by Zero
Just wondering...every religious person loves their own religious freedom, and at the same time they very often absolutely HATE anyone else having the same freedom they so enjoy.

I don't believe they actually love religious freedom at all, they just love their religion…and want you to love it too!

What kind of incredible hypocracy is that?!?

The typical kind.

 

[Hurkyl]

Because in modern America, you're not allowed to see any merit in any stance opposing yours on any topic, duh!

 

[LURCH]

Try reversing each of these situations:

Originally posted by megashawn
But if it is supposed to be freedom of belief, then why is it such a struggle to get some religous relic removed from a government building?

Why is it such a struggle to keep it there?

Why is it that believers in creationism think this should be taught instead of evolution? Is this not forcing a belief on others?

Juxtapose the words "creationism" and "evolution", and ask the same question. As to which of these is defended more fanatically, which one imposes more dogma, I leave it to the reader to decide.

Things like this seem to oppress people who have no religous beliefs or at the least, different beliefs then the majority.

Yes, there is great danger that the majority could oppress those with other beliefs.

 

[Shadow]

Just wondering...every religious person loves their own religious freedom, and at the same time they very often absolutely HATE anyone else having the same freedom they so enjoy. What kind of incredible hypocracy is that?!?

Well, for certain religions, although I do not belong to such a religion, I know of the religions you may be talking about-they don't understand why someone would follow what they believe is wrong and they don't think they should be allowed to. It isn't religous freedom that they "hate". I say "hate" because some religions do not believe in hate at all and I know of no religion that supports it so I wouldn't use the word 'hate' loosely and I would most certainly not use 'HATE'

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by LURCH
Try reversing each of these situations:

Why is it such a struggle to keep it there?


Juxtapose the words "creationism" and "evolution", and ask the same question. As to which of these is defended more fanatically, which one imposes more dogma, I leave it to the reader to decide.



Yes, there is great danger that the majority could oppress those with other beliefs.

Too bad that none of your points are anything but propaganda. The government has no power to decide which religious symbols are approved, therefore teh government should stay out of the religion business. The 10 Commandments issue is a clear-cut case of a judge declaring that there is one government recognised religion.

Your feelings about evolution are off-base, and inaccurate. Evolution is science, creationism is religion. One belongs in a scinece class, the other belongs in Sunday school.

As far as oppression, there are many Christiansd and speudo-Christian politicians(mostly Republican) who seek to trample anyone who isn't Christian.

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by LURCH
Try reversing each of these situations:

Yes, let's do reverse the situation. How comfortable would you be in going into a court situation where the adjudicating body had a very strong set of religious beliefs (say Islam), the person sueing you was also muslim, and the court and governmental building was covered with quotations from the Quran?

I'd be uncomfortable as hell. This is the whole point. Religion should be a personal issue, not one foisted on us, no matter how subtly, by the government. That was the point of the religion aspect of the first amendment.

I find the religious right's insistence that their religious views are under attack a little ludicrious. They assume because they cannot plaster their religious symbols and views in government buildings they are under attack. Where does it stop. Will they feel under attack for not having the right to hold prayer services in my living room? No one is stopping them from having prayer services or displaying the 10 commandments in their places of worship or private institutions, why do they feel attacked when they are not allowed to force their views down everyone elses throat?

Juxtapose the words "creationism" and "evolution", and ask the same question. As to which of these is defended more fanatically, which one imposes more dogma, I leave it to the reader to decide.

It is the scientific view of how life came about, in all it's diversity. Creationism isn't. There is no stronger efforts to teach evolution in schools than to teach chemistry, it's the opposition that is the difference. Opposition that is grounded in religion, not science.

Yes, there is great danger that the majority could oppress those with other beliefs.

This is very easy to see when you are not in the Christian majority.

 

[Zero]

Oh, and since when did 'freedom of religion' mean 'freedom for Christians to force their religion on everyone'? Did you know that American Christians think that they are being persecuted, because they are not allowed to turn every public place into an improvised church? Think about it: there are churches in every town, sometimes dozens of them, and yet Christians scream bloody murder about public schools not starting out the day with a brief church service. There are billboards all over proclaiming their faith, but they are persecuted because they cannot place monuments to their(and ONLY their) faith in every spare spot in government buildings.

 

[megashawn]

Why is it such a struggle to keep it there?

Many reasons come to mind. People being brainwashed from birth being high on the list.

Juxtapose the words "creationism" and "evolution", and ask the same question. As to which of these is defended more fanatically, which one imposes more dogma, I leave it to the reader to decide.

See, you can't do that. Evolution is not up for belief. It happens. Do we understand it completely? No. The simple fact of the matter is that evolution is not a belief. It happens. If you decide to remain ingorant to that fact, based on religous motivations, fine, but don't expect to hold the rest of the world back with you.

Seeing as evolution is not a belief system, I don't see where your questions are relevant.