Religious freedom necessarily means that it should have no say on how the state is run nor on the content of any law (no say whatever). If religion does have a say it removes the religious freedom of adherents to other religions. It must also necessarily include the right to be free from religion, for the reason above and to allow those of no religion to be free of its effects. I submit that no religion (as a whole) actually believes in religious freedom for vividly apparent reasons.
@tfrenn There should be no law which restricts (actual) religious freedom, and in westernised countries there are none of which I am aware. If you mean the right of a religion to tell other people what to do, in the case of: abortion, gay (civil) marriage, scientific research, education and so on - then no it should not have a say. By having any say, it necessarily removes the religious freedom of others by, imposing their 'religious content' on everyone and religious freedom is not maintained.
@tfrenn The only place any religion should have a say is in the workings of their own internal policy. It may be the case that a certain establishment chooses not to perform same sex marriages: I think that's fine. A line must be drawn though, where abuse or exclusion from a law is concerned. It is not the right for example for a civil registrar to refuse to carry out a (civil) same sex marriage on their own religious grounds (their job is secular). Do you see my point?
@TheMogulmonster Yes, I see your point. However "The ACLU has again asked the Obama administration to force Catholic and other religiously-affiliated hospitals to do abortions" LifeNews.com. What say you ?
@tfrenn I'm not sure how healthcare works in America. I would say that if the hospital is funded or subsidised from the public purse, or if they have any kind of monopoly or licence/ privilege to operate from the state; then they should probably provide them. If they're funded solely by religious people, who all agree, and if there's an alternative provider for those who do not - then perhaps the hospital should be able to make it's own policy on the matter.
@TheMogulmonster What country do you reside in ? In any event, In the US we have what is known at the "free exercise clause which states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...". If the ACLU gets its way then...... free exercise is finished.
@tfrenn I'm in London, England. Yeah, I'm aware of the clause and its meaning. I'm not sure what the ACLU's argument is in this regard. The only sources I can find are ones about opposing special exemption from laws on religious grounds; pertaining to public services. I can't see anything that seems to remove free exercise of religion anywhere. I find it unlikely that they're asking for anything that would remove this right. I can't really have an opinion on it really I don't yet know enough.
@tfrenn (excuse repetitions) i was typing as I thought. IF it's that there's public funding of the hospitals, then it should provide abortions in order to preserve the rights of people who don't believe. Where to we draw the line otherwise: maternity units refusing to deliver babies who won't be circumcised, or hospitals that won't do organ transplants or blood transfusions. If they're in the business of public healthcare, then perhaps they must. If it's a private hospital, fair enough. No?
Do you mind if I use few clips from this video in my project? If I win, it will go on television.
What editing software did you use?
ShoutForJesus 1 month ago
Remember everyone "An unjust law is no law at all." August;ine of Hippo
Source : On Free Choice Of The Will, Book 1, § 5
Remember this the next time some govt bureaucrat trys to shove something
down our throats in the name of justice for all.
tfrenn 3 months ago
Religious freedom necessarily means that it should have no say on how the state is run nor on the content of any law (no say whatever). If religion does have a say it removes the religious freedom of adherents to other religions. It must also necessarily include the right to be free from religion, for the reason above and to allow those of no religion to be free of its effects. I submit that no religion (as a whole) actually believes in religious freedom for vividly apparent reasons.
TheMogulmonster 5 months ago
@TheMogulmonster :You say " nor on the content of any law (no say whatever" What about laws that affect religious freedom ?
tfrenn 3 months ago
@tfrenn There should be no law which restricts (actual) religious freedom, and in westernised countries there are none of which I am aware. If you mean the right of a religion to tell other people what to do, in the case of: abortion, gay (civil) marriage, scientific research, education and so on - then no it should not have a say. By having any say, it necessarily removes the religious freedom of others by, imposing their 'religious content' on everyone and religious freedom is not maintained.
TheMogulmonster 3 months ago
@tfrenn The only place any religion should have a say is in the workings of their own internal policy. It may be the case that a certain establishment chooses not to perform same sex marriages: I think that's fine. A line must be drawn though, where abuse or exclusion from a law is concerned. It is not the right for example for a civil registrar to refuse to carry out a (civil) same sex marriage on their own religious grounds (their job is secular). Do you see my point?
TheMogulmonster 3 months ago
@TheMogulmonster Yes, I see your point. However "The ACLU has again asked the Obama administration to force Catholic and other religiously-affiliated hospitals to do abortions" LifeNews.com. What say you ?
tfrenn 3 months ago
@tfrenn I'm not sure how healthcare works in America. I would say that if the hospital is funded or subsidised from the public purse, or if they have any kind of monopoly or licence/ privilege to operate from the state; then they should probably provide them. If they're funded solely by religious people, who all agree, and if there's an alternative provider for those who do not - then perhaps the hospital should be able to make it's own policy on the matter.
TheMogulmonster 3 months ago
@TheMogulmonster What country do you reside in ? In any event, In the US we have what is known at the "free exercise clause which states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...". If the ACLU gets its way then...... free exercise is finished.
tfrenn 3 months ago
@tfrenn I'm in London, England. Yeah, I'm aware of the clause and its meaning. I'm not sure what the ACLU's argument is in this regard. The only sources I can find are ones about opposing special exemption from laws on religious grounds; pertaining to public services. I can't see anything that seems to remove free exercise of religion anywhere. I find it unlikely that they're asking for anything that would remove this right. I can't really have an opinion on it really I don't yet know enough.
TheMogulmonster 3 months ago
@tfrenn (excuse repetitions) i was typing as I thought. IF it's that there's public funding of the hospitals, then it should provide abortions in order to preserve the rights of people who don't believe. Where to we draw the line otherwise: maternity units refusing to deliver babies who won't be circumcised, or hospitals that won't do organ transplants or blood transfusions. If they're in the business of public healthcare, then perhaps they must. If it's a private hospital, fair enough. No?
TheMogulmonster 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
PLEASE SEE MY CHANNEL IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN DOING SOMETHING ABOUT THIS.
LibertyTeamsUnited 1 year ago
Thank God for "Religious Freedom"
nethabug 1 year ago