Freedom of Religion

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
User avatar
Heracleum Persicum
Posts: 11567
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Freedom of Religion

Post by Heracleum Persicum »

.


How the swingers sex club became a church


This swingers sex club has rebranded itself as a church.

Six nights a week, The Social Club in downtown Nashville holds parties for couples and singles to dance, flirt and mingle.

Sometimes they take the festivities upstairs — to the private beds, the love swings, the group play areas, the “Sybian” room or the dungeon.

Yes, people have sex there.

“Remember, we are all strangers until we meet!” is a motto at this private swingers group founded in 1980 for consenting adults to explore their sexual fantasies with and around each other.

The swingers recently decided they were ready to move to the suburbs. The suburbs do not appear ready for the swingers. When the club purchased a building next to a Christian school, residents protested and threw zoning problems in its way.

So the swingers have come up with a new plan to short-circuit the zoning static around their relocation: Their new club, they say, is a church — a church for swingers to meet, to mingle and to engage in the regular practice of their faith.

If the city accuses them of running a sham church, the club’s longtime lawyer Larry Roberts says that the Constitution is on their side.

Is it? And what defines a “religion,” anyway?

The answer to that question is complicated — so complicated, it’s occupied U.S. courts for roughly two centuries now.

“They can sue us and say they want an injunction to stop us from operating, and we can say we have some tenets of the church sort of like the Ten Commandments,” Roberts said over the phone. He listed a few.

“Do not steal. Do not lie. Do not cheat. Do not commit any act that will be harmful to others. Do not commit adultery without the knowledge and consent of your spouse.”

“That one’s a little bit different,” Roberts admitted.

How the swingers sex club became a church

For years, the swingers have been meeting at a nondescript brick building less than a mile south of Music City Center, in an area that once teemed with adult bookstores and gentleman’s clubs hidden in plain sight. Now the neighborhood is gentrifying quickly. Last fall, the group sold their complex for $1.3 million, more than double what they purchased it for in 1998.

They bought an abandoned medical office in a quiet neighborhood north of Nashville called Madison. The 22,000-square-foot space, with private exam rooms that could easily become play rooms, was near perfect — except that it happened to sit between two churches and a posh private Christian academy.

“It’s the biggest bunch of bigots that I would into run into except maybe at a Klu Klux Klan meeting,” Roberts said. “When my clients first began considering this, I said, ‘With this location, you’re going to create a firestorm of controversy.’ ”

They did. Karen Bennett, who represents this neighborhood on the legislative council for Nashville and Davidson County, said that hundreds of parents — more than 400 by her count — came to each of the public hearings a few months ago.

“Madison is a really good, solid, suburban community in Nashville, very family-based,” Bennett said. ”Most people feel like this would be a black eye to have this adult club. It’s not what they want for their community.”

Bennett herself graduated from Goodpasture Christian School, which is across the street from the new club building. She’s concerned about having a club so close to a school. Think of the children, she says.

“[The swingers] seem to think that they would be quiet neighbors, and I don’t think that’s really the case,” she said. “Kids ask questions and they want to know what is going on.”

[This reality show about married swingers is crazy, but not for the reason you think]

The neighbors demanded that something be done. “We’re going to pursue that at the highest level legally,” Goodpasture’s president told a local news broadcast in January. “We’re going to pursue it politically. Our goal is for them to never open their doors at 520 Lentz.”

That meant that the townspeople were going to change the rules. When the swingers bought the old medical office, they had made sure that it was legal to hold events there. But Bennett soon introduced a new ordinance amending the zoning laws in Nashville and Davidson County. The swingers’ new property would no longer be able to host private clubs of any kind.

The Metro Council passed that measure in late March. Soon after, Tennessee’s state legislature also unanimously approved a new law prohibiting private clubs where people can watch or have sex from operating within 1,000 feet of a school.

It goes without saying that religious values animate a good deal of the public discourse in Tennessee, where cities are not allowed to have laws protecting gay people from discrimination, and where lawmakers this year sought to make the Bible the state book.

Religious institutions are so powerful and protected in America, reasoned the swingers’ lawyer, that if the club couldn’t beat them — well, perhaps it would join them.

“What is religion to you may not be to someone else; and what is religion to someone else may not be to you,” Roberts said.

According to the club’s new renovation plans, the game room will become the fellowship hall. The north dungeon will be the choir room. The south dungeon will be the handbell room.

There won’t be any sex at this church, Roberts said, but people could gather here, and take the party off-premises. “It may not be what they call a ‘full service’ club, but I think it will fulfill the function,” he said.

Once the operation is up and running, the city might send inspectors to verify that it is acting as a church. It might issue a warrant asking the courts to adjudicate. (In practice, Nashville zoning administrator Bill Herbert said he’s never heard of a case involving “un-traditional types of churches.”)

Roberts said he was the one who counseled the swingers to become a church. He believed that they needed the strong protections and freedoms that the government affords to religious groups.

“It’s something that the government can’t control,” he said. “After all, isn’t that the reason America was established, or one of them?”

A judge can’t divine which gods are real or false …

The First Amendment says that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” But the Constitution is completely silent on the more fundamental question of what religion actually is.

And centuries of legal debate haven’t resolved matters much. “Courts struggle with this,” said Alan Brownstein, a law professor at UC Davis. “We do not have an accepted working definition of religion in American legal jurisprudence.”

It’s paradoxical, almost. How can a nation so concerned with religious freedom not agree on what constitutes a religion? How can we attach so many protections and privileges to something so legally amorphous?

But religious liberty also implies religious diversity, and religious tolerance. The nation, indeed, was founded in part by refugees of a minority sect. In that spirit, the courts have been incredibly reluctant to rule on whether someone’s religion or religious beliefs are the real deal.

“We’re worried that if we define religion too narrowly, we’ll end up excluding some belief systems that do deserve to be recognized,” Brownstein said. “It’s very hard to come up with a good definition of religion that includes everything we want to be covered and only excludes what we thinks should be excluded.”

On occasions when courts have been forced to render judgement, they often defer to what a person says their religious beliefs are, even if those beliefs are out of the mainstream or idiosyncratic.

“[R]eligious beliefs need not be acceptable, logical, consistent, or comprehensible to others in order to merit First Amendment protection,” Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger famously wrote in the majority opinion for Thomas v. Review Board in 1981.

[Eugene Volokh explains how the Hobby Lobby decision relied on Thomas v. Review Board]

Eddie Thomas was a metal worker and a devout Jehovah’s Witness. In a job application for the Blaw-Knox Foundry and Machinery Co., he listed his hobbies as “Bible study” and “Bible reading.” A year after he joined, the company moved him to a position making tank turrets. Thomas felt this was against his religion. He quit and fought the state of Indiana for unemployment benefits.

Thomas’s case, which ended up at the Supreme Court, hinged on whether his beliefs about pacifism were truly religious in nature. Thomas had struggled to define some of the moral principles of his religion. He admitted in court that his friend, also a Jehovah’s Witness, disagreed that their religion prohibited his employment in the tank turret department. In light of these contradictions, the lower court argued that Thomas’s views were a “personal philosophical choice,” lacking sufficient religious character.

The Supreme Court brushed aside those concerns. “Courts are not arbiters of scriptural interpretation,” Burger wrote, setting a precedent that the legal system would gingerly handle questions of religious validity. So, for instance, the courts have recognized Wiccan covens (there is even one in Memphis); they have ruled in favor of a Santeria group that wanted to sacrifice animals.

In the course of its work, the Internal Revenue Service also has to determine whether religions are valid or not. The IRS gives tax exemptions to churches in part because churches tend to serve the public good through education and charity work. To evaluate a church, it considers a range of criteria: whether the church has a creed, religious services, ordained ministers, religious literature and so forth.

But these are just guidelines, and religious groups will sue if they think they were unfairly snubbed. The Church of Scientology, for instance, battled the IRS for years to gain tax-exempt status. In one famous lawsuit, the Ninth Circuit ruled that Scientology did not deserve tax breaks because it seemed to be organized like a business funneling profits to its founder, L. Ron Hubbard. This violated an IRS rule that says nonprofits need to have some kind of charitable or public service purpose.

That case avoided the much tougher question of whether Scientology was actually a religion — a question that the courts feel ill-equipped to answer. In the end, the matter was not decided in court anyway. As the famous story goes, Scientologists pressured the IRS to the point that it finally changed its mind.

… but can the courts peer into your soul?

And yet, it is also clearly unreasonable for anyone to be able to create a religion or claim newfound religious beliefs just to get special treatment. While courts tend to avoid rendering judgment on anyone’s religion, they are more comfortable ruling on whether someone holds their religious beliefs sincerely.

This is the way that many religion-of-convenience lawsuits are decided, explains James Oleske, a law professor at Lewis and Clark. “In general, courts are very reluctant to question the validity of religious beliefs,” he said. “But they do ask if there really is a good-faith, religious belief that exists — that this isn’t a sham in order for people to get immunity for their secular practices.”

[Supreme Court rules in favor of Arkansas Muslim inmate’s request to grow beard]

There are several examples of courts denying people religious privileges by calling into question whether they actually believe what they say they believe. For instance, Oleske points to a 2010 New Mexico case involving a couple that created a church around sacrament of marijuana. Citing these religious beliefs, in conjunction with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Danuel and Mary Quaintance attempted to defend against criminal marijuana charges.

The Tenth Circuit found theirs to be a flimsy argument. People testified that the Quaintances talked about their marijuana operation as a “business” not as a church. “[T]he record contains additional, overwhelming contrary evidence that the Quaintances were running a commercial marijuana business with a religious front,” judge Neil Gorsuch wrote in the 2010 decision.

At this point, marijuana church arguments are known to be long shots. “We get these fraternities that call us up,” said Eric Rassbach, a lawyer at the Beckett Fund, a religious liberty defense organization. “Some group of guys on a college campus call us up and say: ‘We just invented this new church. Its sacrament is marijuana. Will you defend us?’ ”

“We tell them no, sorry guys, you’re not the first to come up with this idea and you’re going to lose,” Rassbach said.

(Sometimes, though it is rare, such an argument does win. Oleske notes that in 2013, the Minnesota Court of Appeals allowed a Rastafarian to keep his marijuana pipe because it had religious significance to him. The pipe reminded him to “perform what needs to be performed, which is smoking.”)

Some of this may seem bizarre. Judges and juries lack telepathy. How can courts presume to evaluate how deeply someone believes? Who is to say what your intimate relationship to your god is?

The process is difficult, Rassbach concedes, but the courts delve into people’s minds all the time, he said. “Courts cannot decide whether a religious belief is true, but they can decide whether it is truly held. That’s a state of mind question, and courts do that business day in, day out.”

[How religious freedom laws were praised, then hated, then forgotten, then, finally, resurrected]

A murder case, for instance, might depend on proving whether someone had intent to kill. A securities fraud case, Rassbach said, asks whether the defendants intentionally deceived investors.

Courts look at evidence to gauge someone’s sincerity. How does someone behave? Do they make effort to adhere to the tenets of their faith? Have they practiced their religion in this way for a long time? How do they talk about their spirituality to their friends and family? And most importantly, might they have some ulterior motive for professing these religious beliefs?

These questions sometimes get muddy. In the Hobby Lobby case before the Supreme Court, the justices had to look at the beliefs of the companies’ religious owners, who refused to pay for employee health insurance plans that included contraceptive coverage. That would go against their religion, the owners claimed.

No one denied that these bosses were devout people — and yet, did they really believe that paying for this kind of insurance violated their religion? After all, they were not directly funding contraceptives — they were several times removed from the behavior that they found unholy. Did they sincerely believe this would be a stain on their conscience?

But the Supreme Court did not treat this as an issue of religious sincerity; this question was treated as an issue of doctrinal interpretation, which is territory that the court treads lightly upon.

t is not for us to say that their religious beliefs are mistaken or insubstantial,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority. “Instead, our ‘narrow function … in this context is to determine’ whether the line drawn reflects ‘an honest conviction,’ … and there is no dispute that it does.”

What does this mean for the swingers church?

Most of the religious scholars agreed that the swingers church would be in trouble if the city came and sued them for not being a real church. It does not look good that the swingers only started their church in response to being banned from opening their sex club at the same property.

Ira “Chip” Lupu, a constitutional law professor at George Washington University, offered a different, non-religious defense.

Lupu cited what has become known as the “Sister Wives” case. In 2011, the polygamous family featured on the TLC show “Sister Wives” challenged Utah’s anti-polygamy law after facing criminal charges for cohabitating.

In 2013, the Federal District Court for Utah ruled that Utah’s anti-polygamy law was unconstitutional. The state could prevent people from holding two marriage licenses, but it can’t regulate what adults chose to do in private, wrote Judge Clark Waddoup. This was reasoning borrowed from Lawrence v. Texas, the landmark Supreme Court case that struck down anti-sodomy laws in 2003. (The case is being appealed.)

A similar argument might prevail here, Lupu said. The key is that these activities are happening behind closed doors. “They’re a club. They screen members. They could do this in their house, except their house isn’t big enough or whatever.”

Therefore, the swingers could argue that the government violated their right to sexual privacy when it zoned them out of their property. “I think they could make a pretty good case,” Lupu said.

On Tuesday night, I called the main line at the The Social Club, which for now is still operating out of its old location downtown. The person who answered the phone called himself Peter, but declined to give his last name (“What we do — what my wife and I do privately, is between us, you know?”).

Proving the old adage that there is no such thing as bad publicity, Peter said that the controversy had brought in scores of new members who either didn’t know the club existed, or thought it was illegal.

“The parties have been huge since all this has happened,” he said. “It’s been outstanding, standing-room only.”

****

Where is the dividing line between secular beliefs and religious beliefs? Should we treat a Catholic with anti-abortion views differently from an atheist with anti-abortion views? Is that an unfair question to ask?




makes sense

.
User avatar
Nonc Hilaire
Posts: 6168
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:28 am

Re: Freedom of Religion

Post by Nonc Hilaire »

"Will the congregation please kneel? . . . Wait! Stop at the kneeling part!"
“Christ has no body now but yours. Yours are the eyes through which he looks with compassion on this world. Yours are the feet with which he walks among His people to do good. Yours are the hands through which he blesses His creation.”

Teresa of Ávila
User avatar
Parodite
Posts: 5640
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Freedom of Religion

Post by Parodite »

Interesting questions arise indeed. Bit awwwkward and ironic that a swing club has to disguise itself as a religion and church to be accepted.

Rather than laws deciding on such matters where definitions and interpretations quickly go down the slippery slope... it seems to me a democratic local vote in the immediate environment of such as club would be much better. But that would also mean that other clubhouses like Churches and Mosques should be voted on in the same way. There are people who consider consenting adults playing around of a lesser evil than children being exposed to and indoctrinated by adult religious doctrines and traditions.
Deep down I'm very superficial
User avatar
Endovelico
Posts: 3038
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 3:00 pm

Re: Freedom of Religion

Post by Endovelico »

Will we ever enjoy "freedom from religion"?...
User avatar
Heracleum Persicum
Posts: 11567
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Re: Freedom of Religion

Post by Heracleum Persicum »

Endovelico wrote:.

Will we ever enjoy "freedom from religion" ? ...

.

seconded


.
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 12562
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: Freedom of Religion

Post by Doc »

Endovelico wrote:Will we ever enjoy "freedom from religion"?...
Not until we get rid of the big one -- Socialism.
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
manolo
Posts: 1582
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 4:46 pm

Re: Freedom of Religion

Post by manolo »

Doc wrote:
Endovelico wrote:Will we ever enjoy "freedom from religion"?...
Not until we get rid of the big one -- Socialism.
Doc,

You are right to call socialism "the big one". I think socialism has been more influential in world history than any world religion. Whilst in it's neat form socialism is easily recognisable, I am interested in the way that socialism has become quietly influential in all societies, to some extent. Even in the US, socialism is stitched into tax and spend politics at the state level and the federal level.

Socialism is such a basic and natural human need: there is just no getting away from it! :o

Alex.
User avatar
YMix
Posts: 4631
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 4:53 am
Location: Department of Congruity - Report any outliers here

Re: Freedom of Religion

Post by YMix »

Doc wrote:Not until we get rid of the big one -- Socialism.
There's no getting away from this one.
“There are a lot of killers. We’ve got a lot of killers. What, do you think our country’s so innocent? Take a look at what we’ve done, too.” - Donald J. Trump, President of the USA
The Kushner sh*t is greasy - Stevie B.
User avatar
kmich
Posts: 1087
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2014 11:46 am

Re: Freedom of Religion

Post by kmich »

Endovelico wrote:Will we ever enjoy "freedom from religion"?...
Freedom from the “religion” of others with whom we do not identify is easy for the lazy and spiritually complacent.

Freedom from our own “religion:” religious, secular, political, or otherwise is far more difficult. It is more satisfying to be secure in our own identification and sense of righteousness that we can feed by our endless finger pointing and grievances.
Simple Minded

Re: Freedom of Religion

Post by Simple Minded »

kmich wrote:
Endovelico wrote:Will we ever enjoy "freedom from religion"?...
Freedom from the “religion” of others with whom we do not identify is easy for the lazy and spiritually complacent.

Freedom from our own “religion:” religious, secular, political, or otherwise is far more difficult. It is more satisfying to be secure in our own identification and sense of righteousness that we can feed by our endless finger pointing and grievances.
Very well said.

I was going to reply to Endo with a clumsy, inarticulate question. "Freedom from theological religion, or freedom from political religion?"

Then on second thought, I decided, "Nah, someone will express themselves better than I. Better to wait a bit."

Thanks for filling that void.
User avatar
Endovelico
Posts: 3038
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 3:00 pm

Re: Freedom of Religion

Post by Endovelico »

kmich wrote:
Endovelico wrote:Will we ever enjoy "freedom from religion"?...
Freedom from the “religion” of others with whom we do not identify is easy for the lazy and spiritually complacent.
Not so easy when the other guy's religion tells him to behead me, or tells me what to eat and drink or what not to eat and drink, or tries to tell me who I can go to bed with and in what manner, etc., etc., etc....
User avatar
kmich
Posts: 1087
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2014 11:46 am

Re: Freedom of Religion

Post by kmich »

Endovelico wrote:
kmich wrote:
Endovelico wrote:Will we ever enjoy "freedom from religion"?...
Freedom from the “religion” of others with whom we do not identify is easy for the lazy and spiritually complacent.
Not so easy when the other guy's religion tells him to behead me, or tells me what to eat and drink or what not to eat and drink, or tries to tell me who I can go to bed with and in what manner, etc., etc., etc....
Endovelico. Which "other guy" in your real life, inspired by their "religion," has attempted to behead you, to restrict your dietary habits, or to direct your amorous adventures lately? Just curious.
User avatar
Endovelico
Posts: 3038
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 3:00 pm

Re: Freedom of Religion

Post by Endovelico »

kmich wrote:
Endovelico wrote:
kmich wrote:
Endovelico wrote:Will we ever enjoy "freedom from religion"?...
Freedom from the “religion” of others with whom we do not identify is easy for the lazy and spiritually complacent.
Not so easy when the other guy's religion tells him to behead me, or tells me what to eat and drink or what not to eat and drink, or tries to tell me who I can go to bed with and in what manner, etc., etc., etc....
Endovelico. Which "other guy" in your real life, inspired by their "religion," has attempted to behead you, to restrict your dietary habits, or to direct your amorous adventures lately? Just curious.
If they do it to any human being it is as if they do it to me. I can't ignore it.
User avatar
kmich
Posts: 1087
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2014 11:46 am

Re: Freedom of Religion

Post by kmich »

Endovelico wrote:
kmich wrote:
Endovelico wrote:
kmich wrote:
Endovelico wrote:Will we ever enjoy "freedom from religion"?...
Freedom from the “religion” of others with whom we do not identify is easy for the lazy and spiritually complacent.
Not so easy when the other guy's religion tells him to behead me, or tells me what to eat and drink or what not to eat and drink, or tries to tell me who I can go to bed with and in what manner, etc., etc., etc....
Endovelico. Which "other guy" in your real life, inspired by their "religion," has attempted to behead you, to restrict your dietary habits, or to direct your amorous adventures lately? Just curious.
If they do it to any human being it is as if they do it to me. I can't ignore it.
How noble and convenient. So then, when have you actually stopped or interfered with an "other guy" who has attempted to behead someone else, restrict their dietary habits, or to direct their amorous adventures?

Too bad that ethics and freedom are actualized only in action. That's the hard part. What we happen to favor in our thoughts and convictions about other people's beliefs and situations that do not directly effect us is a facile, easy business that just doesn't count.
User avatar
Endovelico
Posts: 3038
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 3:00 pm

Re: Freedom of Religion

Post by Endovelico »

kmich wrote:
Endovelico wrote:
kmich wrote:
Endovelico wrote:
kmich wrote:
Endovelico wrote:Will we ever enjoy "freedom from religion"?...
Freedom from the “religion” of others with whom we do not identify is easy for the lazy and spiritually complacent.
Not so easy when the other guy's religion tells him to behead me, or tells me what to eat and drink or what not to eat and drink, or tries to tell me who I can go to bed with and in what manner, etc., etc., etc....
Endovelico. Which "other guy" in your real life, inspired by their "religion," has attempted to behead you, to restrict your dietary habits, or to direct your amorous adventures lately? Just curious.
If they do it to any human being it is as if they do it to me. I can't ignore it.
How noble and convenient. So then, when have you actually stopped or interfered with an "other guy" who has attempted to behead someone else, restrict their dietary habits, or to direct their amorous adventures?

Too bad that ethics and freedom are actualized only in action. That's the hard part. What we happen to favor in our thoughts and convictions about other people's beliefs and situations that do not directly effect us is a facile, easy business that just doesn't count.
I didn't say I could "do" anything about it. I just stated a wish to be free from religion... Any religion. And then you jumped in with a bogus philosophical statement that "Freedom from the “religion” of others with whom we do not identify is easy for the lazy and spiritually complacent"... Very deep and totally irrelevant...
User avatar
Parodite
Posts: 5640
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Freedom of Religion

Post by Parodite »

It is not easy not to be affected by things that happen far away but that technology brings into your private space. Even mere stories brought to you via hearsay and books can do that. Most religious traditions are the product of the latter. People still cry over and/or are inspired by a man tortured to death 2000 years ago, as-if it happened a minute ago in their own living room. How convenient and cheap.
Deep down I'm very superficial
User avatar
kmich
Posts: 1087
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2014 11:46 am

Re: Freedom of Religion

Post by kmich »

Endovelico wrote: I didn't say I could "do" anything about it. I just stated a wish to be free from religion... Any religion. And then you jumped in with a bogus philosophical statement that "Freedom from the “religion” of others with whom we do not identify is easy for the lazy and spiritually complacent"... Very deep and totally irrelevant...
I suppose “freedom from religion” would be a self-evident good not requiring self reflection for most people, so that my attempts to provoke people to seriously consider what that actually means would be doomed to failure on this board and become “totally irrelevant,” as you say.
Parodite wrote:It is not easy not to be affected by things that happen far away but that technology brings into your private space. Even mere stories brought to you via hearsay and books can do that. Most religious traditions are the product of the latter. People still cry over and/or are inspired by a man tortured to death 2000 years ago, as-if it happened a minute ago in their own living room. How convenient and cheap.
You can hardly have any understanding of a religion that you are totally dismissive of. Being contemptuous of it hardly makes you "free" of it either. Whatever. до свидания
User avatar
Endovelico
Posts: 3038
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 3:00 pm

Re: Freedom of Religion

Post by Endovelico »

kmich wrote:I suppose “freedom from religion” would be a self-evident good not requiring self reflection for most people, so that my attempts to provoke people to seriously consider what that actually means would be doomed to failure on this board and become “totally irrelevant,” as you say.
Yes, because you are a lot smarter than the rest of us, and your thoughts on the matter are a lot deeper... But one doesn't have to be very smart to realize that "freedom from religion" means being free from any attempts by religious people to impose their beliefs, their values and their ways of life on you. As you see, one doesn't need to be "provoked" by you to know what "freedom from religion" means...
noddy
Posts: 11318
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: Freedom of Religion

Post by noddy »

religion seems to really bother some people kmich, apparently its one of those rent-free things.
ultracrepidarian
User avatar
kmich
Posts: 1087
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2014 11:46 am

Re: Freedom of Religion

Post by kmich »

noddy wrote:religion seems to really bother some people kmich, apparently its one of those rent-free things.
True, noddy. Maybe not religion so much as what they happen to think or believe about it and its various manifestations. The problem is that once one gets into discussing anything about "religion," one ends up confronting world views that are so unconsciously presumptive that seriously examining them inevitably becomes contentious and fruitless.

I suppose this is why I always appreciated Søren Kierkegaard whose ironic, distinctly Socratic approach to the Danish State church scandalously challenged the assumptions of religious doctrine and the complacency of the clergy of his day. Unfortunately, this made Kierkegaard an outcast at the end of his life, and his ancient philosophical mentor, Socrates, voluntarily ingested hemlock after being sentenced by the Athenian jury. I do not have Kierkegaard's or Socrates's courage or intellect, so that I suppose these are places I am not willing to go. I have no intention of becoming the "Gadfly" of the OTNOT Forum in spite of myself. It is best that I leave people alone.
noddy
Posts: 11318
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: Freedom of Religion

Post by noddy »

i wouldnt worry about being an oddball, i suspect most of us are to certain extent and those with an idée fixe thats grating are best ignored if possible.

i dont agree with you about very much at all however the little i know of Kierkegaard is extremely interesing - he appears to represent a certain attitude which grabbed many of us on the orginal forum.
ultracrepidarian
User avatar
Endovelico
Posts: 3038
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 3:00 pm

Re: Freedom of Religion

Post by Endovelico »

kmich wrote:(...) Maybe not religion so much as what they happen to think or believe about it and its various manifestations. The problem is that once one gets into discussing anything about "religion," one ends up confronting world views that are so unconsciously presumptive that seriously examining them inevitably becomes contentious and fruitless.
There is indeed a different world view between those who believe in individual freedom, and those who believe in imposing their views on others. Personally I don't mind being "presumptuous" in respect of freedom, because I think that freedom - which implies respect for other people's freedom - is in itself good. I would never dream of discussing "religion" if religious people left non-believers in peace. Your cutting your foreskin, praying five times a day, not drinking alcohol, thinking that marriage is forever, etc., is of no concern to me. But please do not interfere with my life if I happen not to subscribe to all that nonsense... That's what I mean by "freedom from religion"...
User avatar
Parodite
Posts: 5640
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Freedom of Religion

Post by Parodite »

Endovelico wrote:But one doesn't have to be very smart to realize that "freedom from religion" means being free from any attempts by religious people to impose their beliefs, their values and their ways of life on you.
That's how I also understood what you meant to say. A legitimate concern. Scaring kids with a virtual Guantanamo Bay called Hell if they don't do and believe as they are told was rampant and it still exists. And not too long ago people could end up on the fire stack for deviating from official church doctrine. Among themselves they could make war over how to interpret certain bibles verses. In the Meddle East Islam can hardly be called a powerful force of peace as it only fuels political and ethnic divide and conflict. In the West Islamists want anti-blasphemy laws to protect their sensitivities, and in an instance on a British secondary multi-culti school no kids were allowed to go outside watch the solar eclipse of late because it would be offensive to some parents of Muslim children. You can never keep your eyes off those people.
Deep down I'm very superficial
User avatar
Nonc Hilaire
Posts: 6168
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:28 am

Re: Freedom of Religion

Post by Nonc Hilaire »

Religion is more than theology and doctrine. I could come close to agreeing with freedom from doctrine and dogma, but religion has social and psychological aspects that are not avoidable.

Neanderthal man buried their dead with bouquets of flowers and grave goods. Religion is an integrally human concern, and it touches all of the classical psychological defense mechanisms. 'Freedom from religion' is largely reaction formation, intellectualism and denial.
“Christ has no body now but yours. Yours are the eyes through which he looks with compassion on this world. Yours are the feet with which he walks among His people to do good. Yours are the hands through which he blesses His creation.”

Teresa of Ávila
User avatar
Yukon Cornelius
Posts: 280
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2012 9:06 pm

Re: Freedom of Religion

Post by Yukon Cornelius »

Must agree -- "freedom from religion" is self-refuting rhetorical tripe. There is no Intellectual Switzerland that anyone can inhabit.

(Kind of surprised this sort of thing is still in question on this forum.)
Post Reply