"Religion" carries no meaning and freedom of religion is complete bullshit

[Serkat]

Good day, I've thought about this long and hard (not really) and come to the conclusion that the word "religion" is superfluous and the term "freedom of religion" is not only unfair and unneeded, but also dangerous. Now I don't even want to get into debating the definition of religion. I hope we can all agree that being a member of a religion usually includes the following points: (1) Believing something without evidence (2) Doing something on the basis of these beliefs (3) Membership in an organization of like-minded individuals Note how the freedom for all of these things is guaranteed for in a civilized culture. Note how "freedom of religion" is a term without additional meaning. Apply Occam's razor. Note how the following terms are usually listed as a group: - gender - ethnicity, nationality - age - sexual orientation - religion Note how all aspects but religion are not chosen and therefore not subject to personal responsibility. Note how all aspects but religion do not imply any moral, philosophical or psychological identity and no specific world view. Note how only religion is a matter of conscious thought and decision-making. Note how only religion makes objective statements about the nature of the universe while all others are simply subjective properties of a person. One of the reasons for "freedom of religion" is the prevention of "religious persecution", especially violent persecution. Note how it is both illegal and immoral to put someone in a gas chamber because he is Jewish or because he likes 60s rock. Note the complete absence of "freedom to like 60s rock" in a nation's constitution. Now to the dangers. Danger 1: By explicitly supporting "freedom of religion" we take part in the following: - We think it is a good idea to separate humanity into groups - We treat religion in a special way, as opposed to liking 60s rock - We thereby actively shield religion from criticism Danger 2: We think twice before criticizing someone's religion as opposed to criticizing his taste in music. - It is now a debatable issue whether or not it is OK to ridicule a historic person. - It is now a debatable issue whether or not it is justified to abort a batch of cells. These things should not be subject to debate. The answers are very obvious. Danger 3: Whether or not someone is offended is now relevant to what we say. This is a hazard to free speech. We cannot partake in an open-ended debate about the whole of existence. Danger 4: It is implied that every person has to belong to a group of people under the category of "religion". - Atheism is now considered a religious denomination. Atheism is not a religious identity, it is a term without meaning. Danger 5: Whether or not something classifies as "religion" is relevant to our judgment. It should not be. Whether or not something is a religion is of absolutely zero significance, because the term carries no meaning. Criminal organizations like Scientology fight vigorously for being accepted as a "religion" because they know that this tag influences people's opinion. Here in Germany Scientology is on a constant campaign, sending letters to government officials, notifying them that Scientology is considered a religion in other parts of the world. Like this matters. The first thing you will hear someone say when you criticize their beliefs is "freedom of religion". Note how Scientologists make extensive use of this to divert from them killing, abusing and ripping off people and longing for world domination. Note how when you support "freedom of religion" you are supporting extremism purely be making this style of debate possible. The line is drawn very clearly, for everyone to see. Religious moderation is a dead end. If you think it is acceptable for you to believe something without evidence, then this also applies to others. If you believe some parts of a book are true without evidence, then you think it is OK for someone else to believe that other parts of the book are true without evidence. If you shield yourself, you shield others. If you respect someone else's shield, you shield others. Note how religious humility should rather be called religious arrogance. Note how saying "freedom of religion" is equivalent to saying absolutely nothing. Note how when we criticize a scientific theory or a piece of art, we usually go into an open-ended debate about the topic at hand and don't say "I have the constitutional right to believe this and therefore I will not discuss the issue". Note how it is impossible to control someone's thoughts. Note how incredibly stupid it is to even verbalize this. It's still in the constitution. Note how the complete Vatican should be put into jail for violation of human rights and crimes against humanity. To make my point clear: "Freedom of religion" is not a part of but directly opposed to human rights. It is both unjustified and unfair to have such a statement in a nation's constitution. It is unjustified for the above reasons and unfair because it attaches special importance to religion for no reason. Good day.

[Barns]

You make some well-thought out points there.

[NonDualistic]

I was always under the impression that the Freedom of Religion clause in the US Constitution was there so as the state could not set up a state run religion to the exclusion of all others as was the case with the Church of England prior to the American revolution. I personally do not see where religion itself as an entity is supposed to be given protection or special treatment under the US constitution, save only to the extent I metioned above. If society were to let religion die due to neglect or social change , it would not be a state matter to see that it ( any specific type) is preserved. The state would however be obligated to protect the rights of those who follow religion from attacks of violence which would violate established social law.

[skysaw]

What I'd really like to see sometime in my lifetime is freedom from religion. Being Atheist/Agnostic is treated just a half-notch above being an Al Quaeda member.

[Mes Tarrant]

What I'd really like to see sometime in my lifetime is freedom from religion. Being Atheist/Agnostic is treated just a half-notch above being an Al Quaeda member. Seriously. It's demented.

[Universal Mind]

Note how it is both illegal and immoral to put someone in a gas chamber because he is Jewish or because he likes 60s rock. I think them damn hippies need to be gassed, bunch of queers. That ought to learn them a thing or two about how to live in Jesus's territory. But for real, you made a lot of great points in your post.

[Moonbeam]

You do make a lot of good points. It is also annoying that religious organizations are run like business but are exempt from taxes. I too agree that freedom from religion should be the goal. However, because most people are religious, if "freedom of religion" is removed from the list that cannot be discriminated against, I would be afraid that the more powerful religions will begin to take control. We have a preponderance of very aggressive Baptist/Evangelist types in high places; if freedom of religion were taken out of the consitution, they could begin to insert their religious ideas into policies (which they already do, but it would probably get a lot worse). Since religions are often a cause of violence, I'm afraid that would be the end result. Look at Ireland--Protetestants and Catholics killing each other for years; here it could get even worse. The Baptists here would love to have an official state religion here, and that's what would happen if we took that out, I would be afraid. The variety of religions do serve one purpose; some smarter people may realize that they all can't be right, and therefore the likelihood that the particular faith they were born into is most likely not the truth either. In principle I think you are right, but in practice I think it will take a while for everyone to agree that religion is so meaningless that it shouldn't be mentioned.

[psychology student]

Now to the dangers. Danger 1: By explicitly supporting "freedom of religion" we take part in the following: - We think it is a good idea to separate humanity into groups - We treat religion in a special way, as opposed to liking 60s rock - We thereby actively shield religion from criticism Ok, Mr K (Korritke) cowers at the supposed bad implications of accepting freedom of religion into our society, three of which he lists. Apparently "freedom of religion" supports the idea that it is good to seperate humanity into groups, and, Mr K implies that this is a bad thing. Now when he says this, I hardly think he believes that the concept of "freedom of religion" delegates what religion people should follow, but rather people have the freedom to choose the one that they want, (the one that they are drawn to if you like) and as a result of the differences of choice, groups are formed. Call me an idiot but this is a good thing surely, freedom in action, people deciding free of compulsion, which is best for them, what they want to do. "Humanity in groups" thus is synonomous with uniqueness, individuality; the fundamentality in our Western individualistic culture. Nonetheless, Mr K seems to see this as a disadvantage! Would he rather have collectivism, no choice, but compulsion to one ideal, the complete opposite to "humanity in groups"; a lifestyle that is far more correlated with the negativities of religion (Saudi Arabia and Iran are prime examples). So, to sum up humanity in groups is a good thing; as an illustration of free choice and independence from compulsion as founding concepts in our society. His second example is that religion is treated in a special way, while liking 60's rock is not immune from criticism. They both should be independent as independent choices made in a free society. There is no valid logical way of criticising ones choices in music, as music is a leisurable activity that ones chooses to have. One listens to 60's rock as pop and classical music do not offer the same subjective joy to the individual. Perhaps one day a scientist will be able to quantify which music is the best, the most fulfilling. Notwithstanding, the individual as a result will not necessarily change their preferences based on it, as music is leisurable, not scientific or logical; its value is subjective. Likewise, religion is a way that one chooses to live ones life. Even though it may not be scientifically or logically better than atheism, agnosticism or other religions doesn't mean that it should be questioned on these grounds, as it is a persons subjective, non-logical choice or preference that brings fulfilment to them, to their lives in a way that nothing else can, as they percieve it. Mr K's main quarrel with religion is that it is based "without evidence", and is thus illogical. Ok, lets say we eliminate religion, do we assume that the tyrade for logicality will stop here? Hell No. Next it will be dietary habits, then sexual orientation, then lesiurely activities and so on until there is nothing left illogical. This is how I see the world after this logical revolution: there is only one logical choice and a million illogical ones. If we make society 100% logical the concept of choice disappears along with democracy and freedom. The road where activities are questioned for being "without evidence" or otherwise being illogical, is a road that leads to a civilisation of cyborgs where abnormal or different beings are stamped invalid and sent to the furnace, in the unforseeable future at least. In the forseeable future in leads to collectivism, communism, and compulsion; if you don't know what I'm reffering to just take a plane to China or Saudi Arabia where you can see the end of the road for this political ideal of Mr K's.

[ninja9578]

I think them damn hippies need to be gassed, bunch of queers. That ought to learn them a thing or two about how to live in Jesus's territory. I thought you were serious for a moment Saying that someone is of atheist religion is like saying a registered independent. Well thought out points. Freedom of religion is just a dream right now, there is still far to much prejudice (don't be muslim in Alabama ) in the world and there will never be such thing until all religions fade away into nothingness. That might be three or four thousand years from now. Imagine there's no countries, It isn't hard to do; Nothing to kill or die for, and no religion too. - John Lennon