Freedom of Religion vs. Freedom of Worship and Belief (or non-belief)

by EdenOne 9 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  EdenOne

  I was just wondering about this:

  The laws of the different western countries offer robust protection to religious practice. But what is the best term to describe it and why? "Freedom of Religion" versus "Freedom of Worship and Belief (or non-belief)". What should be more protected by the law?

  I am in favor of a robust protection of the right to belief and worship, but, in view of the fact that many religious organizations act as if they were exempt from obeying the laws of the land, I'm not so strongly in favor of such robust protection of "freedom of religion". What do you think?
• 

  Island Man

  "Freedom of religion" should not be absolute. Freedom of religion should end where religious practice encourages physical and psychological harm or discrimination against, others. Muslims should not have the right to murder apostates on religious grounds. Nor should JWs have the right to instruct or encourage the shunning of former members on religious grounds.
• 

  Sanchy

  Nor should JWs have the right instruct or encourage the shunning of former members on religious grounds.

  I disagree. Freedom to worship a deity as one deems appropriate and as per their conscience is an absolute necessity in a free society. When the gov steps in to prevent or limit this, as has happened many times in the past, a tyranny inevitably forms. Allowing unfortunate ideologies like that of shunning former members is a small price to pay to preserve universal rights and a free society.

  Religious rights stops when crime is committed as in the case of "Muslims murdering apostates".
  
• 

  millie210

  I agree Sanchy.

  I do think however that with freedom of religion there should come some reviewing of the tax laws.

  People can still be free to worship whatever they want but when you slow down the money you cripple the more unpopular religions. Then they have to please their contributors to survive.
• 

  Sanchy

  I think there is some potential with tax laws; however, it could be disastrous if a government were to start deciding which religion gets taxed and which does not. The only fair way me thinks is an all or none situation in that case.

  No way around it. Best solution to bad religion is education. The internet continues to do mighty well in this dept.
  
• 

  sparky1

  FREEDOM OF RELIGION should somehow be balanced with FREEDOM FROM RELIGION, so that those who wish not to practice any religion at all, can be protected from religious fanatics that think that their religion should be adopted by all mankind.
  
• 

  redvip2000

  I think there is some potential with tax laws; however, it could be disastrous if a government were to start deciding which religion gets taxed and which does not. The only fair way me thinks is an all or none situation in that case.

  Yes, and it should be all cross the board. There is no reason why they should not be taxed. Pastors living luxuriously using un-taxed money. I saw tax it all across the board.
  
• 

  Giordano

  "Nor should JWs have the right instruct or encourage the shunning of former members on religious grounds."

  They have that right as do the Mormons, Amish, etc. However do they have the right to coerce family, friends etc. by threatening that they will be punished even DFed in turn if they don't shun?

  In law, coercion is codified as a duress crime. Such actions are used as leverage, to force the victim to act in a way contrary to their own interests. Coercion may involve the actual infliction of physical pain/injury or psychological harm in order to enhance the credibility of a threat.

  So it is a a duress crime. The WTBTS is an active criminal association that counts on duress to keep control of it's followers.

  Going back to the Freedom from religion issue the following statement says it best:

  Marian Guinn vs Church of Christ Collinsville is an important case where the courts were definitive, "No real freedom to choose religion would exist in this land if under the shield of the First Amendment religious institutions could impose their will on the unwilling and claim immunity from secular judicature for their torturous acts."

  The Organization of American States is even more explicit:

  1. Everyone has the right to freedom of conscience and of religion. This right includes freedom to maintain or to change one's religion or beliefs, and freedom to profess or disseminate one's religion or beliefs, either individually or together with others, in public or in private.

  
  

  2. No one shall be subject to restrictions that might impair his freedom to maintain or to change his religion or beliefs. (American Convention on Human Rights, Article 12)

  So it would seem that there is law that could be applied to a case where a family member could prove that they were punished for not shunning a child or family member. That they were under duress to shun a family member and in fact suffered accordingly when they didn't.

  Seems like a trial about coerced shunning would be a second legal front.

  Or put another way 'opening up another can of whoop ass'.
  
  
• 

  millie210

  Yes, an across the board tax would be best.

  Wouldnt it be great if the government would tax only religions that shun?

  Then watch how fast JWs would change!

  It would be like the beard policy!
• 

  EdenOne

  It would be a simple matter of having a commission to study if religious groups were offending human rights. Those who would have policies that violate human rights would have their tax exemption status suspended for a period of 5 years. If no changes were brought forth, then the next step would be to strip that religious organization of their official recognition as a religion.

  Eden