I saw someone on Facebook say "ya can’t love Freedom and Religion. too." I started to dismiss that out of hand, but then thought a little more.
Are Freedom and Religion Compatible?
- Thread starter What Would Jesus Do?
- Start date
Hasn't this already been hashed out on this board? Here's how it's going to go. I'm going to say that you can be religious and not push your faith on other people. Then you're going to disagree. You won't give a good reason for your disagreement, but your zealotry towards your own religion clashes with other forms of collectivism and therefore you can't let this "false religion" go unattacked.
The liberty to believe whatever you want to believe, and express that belief publicly, is integral to freedom.
If you're non-religious, imagine a world where you were required to publicly subscribe to some sort of faith.
Conversely, if you're religious, imagine a world where you were required to hide your faith.
Clearly, you can't have freedom without freedom of religion.
If you're non-religious, imagine a world where you were required to publicly subscribe to some sort of faith.
Conversely, if you're religious, imagine a world where you were required to hide your faith.
Clearly, you can't have freedom without freedom of religion.
Last edited:
freedom is absolutely not possible without a belief in a higher power, or god. freedom from government, freedom as a human, look to a higher power. the problem with liberals is they think government is the higher power, thus they do not look to god, they look to the feds. for freedom. wrong answer. and not the one the founders came up with.
St. Thomas Aquinas says: "I answer that, Man has free will: otherwise counsels, exhortations, commands, prohibitions, rewards, and punishments would be in vain. In order to make this evident, we must observe that some things act without judgment; as a stone moves downwards; and in like manner all things which lack knowledge. And someact from judgment, but not a free judgment; as brute animals. For the sheep, seeing the wolf, judges it a thing to be shunned, from a natural and not a free judgment, because it judges, not from reason, but from natural instinct. And the same thing is to be said of any judgment of brute animals. But man acts from judgment, because by his apprehensive power he judges that something should be avoided or sought. But because this judgment, in the case of some particular act, is not from a natural instinct, but from some act of comparison in the reason, therefore he acts from free judgment and retains the power of being inclined to various things. For reason in contingent matters may follow opposite courses, as we see in dialectic syllogisms and rhetorical arguments. Now particular operations are contingent, and therefore in such matters the judgment of reason may follow opposite courses, and is not determinate to one. And for as much as man is rational is it necessary that man have a free will."
Slaves have the "freedom" to disobey their owners, too. Does that make them free?
If your religion requires you to behave certain ways and you decide to sin, does that mean you are free?
Of course you could make the same argument about following laws in a so-called free society like ours. But is it really the same argument?
Man has freedom of choice. You might see some Prot denominations that believe otherwise. The whole predesination thing, which I never understood really.
Even if we don't, we should act as if we do.
But freedom to defy authority doesn't mean you aren't controlled by authority. Even if you sometimes get away with it.
If your culture circumscribes your freedom of thought - say through indoctrination and propaganda - to the extent that some questions can't even be imagined, much less asked, how free are you? If your culture has mechanisms of enforcement that restrict your thoughts, words and behavior, how free are you?
Viewed that way, some societies/governments have been fairly repressive. But how does that compare with religion? The OP question is not a question of whether religion is more freedom-sapping than government but whether you can be religious and be free. Nevertheless, it's someplace to start.
There are plenty of social structures where most of us would agree we are pretty free. We can think what we want, and educate ourselves broadly, even if we are less free to act. But is that true for most religions?
You can, for example, have all the fantasies you want about underage Jodie Foster in Taxi Driver, but you can't shoot Reagan in an effort to impress her - or kidnap and sexually assault her. That's where our society draws the line. But religion draws the line even earlier by threatening to punish even fantasies with hellfire and damnation. And theocracies will even punish mere wrong thoughts in the here and now.
It's religion that wants to prevent gays and women from the freedoms they're guaranteed under the constitution. As a liberal I believe the government has a duty to do what's best for the general welfare of all the people. I want clean water and clean air and for the general welfare of the people it's the government's job to provide that. I want protection from reckless capitalism, from a system that values money over the good of the people. I don't know anyone who believes the government to be a higher power, that's absurd.
I guess it largely depends on how fully you define "freedom."
If the Catholic Church, for example, threatens eternal damnation for using a rubber, you aren't really "free" to do what you want (rubber up), at least not any more free than being arrested for murder.
I don't think "freedom" needs to go that deep though. Yes, people can have freedom and excercise religion.
If the Catholic Church, for example, threatens eternal damnation for using a rubber, you aren't really "free" to do what you want (rubber up), at least not any more free than being arrested for murder.
I don't think "freedom" needs to go that deep though. Yes, people can have freedom and excercise religion.
It isn't religion as a concept doing that, it is specific religions led by specific people. Not unlike non-religious acts of the same thing, specific states run by specific people outlawing the same things.
It isn't a "religion" problem in my book. At least not as a concept.
But what about people whose religion tells them evolution is a lie? And because they are in that deluded group, they are also swimming with a lot of people who are wrong on other issues - so many become unable to think clearly on those issues, as well.
I consider that a serious infringement on freedom. Arguably even more deleterious than being force to do work at the point of a gun because it's an assault on the mind.
Sure, we all have blind spots in our thinking that we don't recognize - and may go through our whole lives without recognizing. And that is a constraint on our freedom, too. But religion imposes and enforces blind spots, and wrong thinking. Which seems an order of magnitude worse, to me.
What do you think about that?
You've confused me, but let me give it a shot. As I said it depends how "freedom" is defined. Have you seen the Unbreakable Kimmy? Guy tricks her in to a bunker and tells her the world is destroyed...she chooses not to leave. Does she have freedom? I don't know, but that's how I read what you are posting. A religion deludes its followers in to choosing paths that seem to prevent freedom.
My point is that we do that in everything we do, from the schools we attend, to our parents, to our employment, to our government. If religion is incompatible with freedom, I think many of those things are as well.
I learned from science class that if I jump in lava I will be burned and die (also from Star Wars). Does that mean my freedom is curtailed by my choosing, perhaps ignorantly, not to jump in a volcano?
I don't think the definition of freedom needs to go that far, nor specifically disparage religion. Our choices are "controlled" externally in all sorts of ways, yet we still get to choose which route we take.
As a concept I agree with you, but today the concept is in chaos thanks to politics.
Good discussion.
My sense is that if you believe falsehoods, your freedom is more constrained than if you know facts. And arguably more constrained than merely being uninformed - on the theory that it's probably easier to learn facts than to unlearn falsehoods that you are invested in believing.
Religion isn't the only way people are seduced into believing falsehoods, of course. But it's a doozy.
As you point out, our knowledge and beliefs can restrict the range of things we are willing or able to do. But I would argue that restrictions imposed by true beliefs are less freedom-sapping than those imposed by false beliefs. The belief that it's impossible to breathe under water without appropriate gear will keep you from exercising the freedom to try to breathe under water. Is that really a loss of freedom? The belief that you can't breathe in elevators means that most believers can never view NYC from the top of the Empire State Building.
Consider the freedoms constrained by the beliefs of the Amish, for example. To me that looks like a lot of freedom lost.
How does that compare with the freedoms constrained by those who believe in vegetarianism?
Does it matter if our ignorance or delusion is voluntary? Am I less free (or more free) because I choose to study alchemy or astrology of my own free will than if those beliefs are pounded into my head by misguided parents and teachers? Or is the resulting belief in nonsense all that matters?
Fair point, but it's it true of most things we call religion. Some more extreme in their indoctrination than others, of course.
It may be hard to tell the difference on the indoctrination measure across radical Islam, evangelical Christianity, Nazism, Stalinism and so on. Reverence of state, god, king.... How much does it matter what the object is when the reverence becomes extreme enough that ones own thoughts are supplanted by doctrine and dogma? Yet, when that is said, it still looks like religion is the champ at supplanting rational thought.
Six billion religious people in the world. Six billion people who, to different degrees, have abdicated some rationality - and therefore some freedom - to religious dogma.
Interesting species.
Doesn't this mean that you agree that religion leads to forcing it on others?
Its a problem inherent to a supergod concept. If you make god all knowing and all powerful, then he already knew every choice you would make, hence god is responsible for everything. He knew the devil would rebel, he knew the killer would kill, he could have stopped it, but didn't. Essentially a supergod removes free will.
So . . . when our libertarians say that taxes violate their freedom - when they could just not pay - they are wrong?
More seriously, is that what we mean by "freedom"? When a worker is being exploited he could quit, even though that would mean his children would starve, but does that mean he freely accepts the exploitation?
If the choice is accept or die, that is a choice - but is it freedom? Is freedom nothing more than having choices - even if they are constrained and unacceptable?
Even that is a problem. Can an evil thing be perfect? If an all powerful thing can't be evil, is it all powerful. The supergod concept has a lot of problems but if you take God down a few pegs, then is it still a god? I think I've read your post before that a thing we would call God can't logically exist in our reality and a thing that could exist would not be what we popularly call God.
Those fire and brimstone, wrathful god fearing types might have been closer to a logical point.
So . . . when our libertarians say that taxes violate their freedom - when they could just not pay - they are wrong?
More seriously, is that what we mean by "freedom"? When a worker is being exploited he could quit, even though that would mean his children would starve, but does that mean he freely accepts the exploitation?
If the choice is accept or die, that is a choice - but is it freedom? Is freedom nothing more than having choices - even if they are constrained and unacceptable?
If freedom isn't having choices, but instead is not facing consequences for those choices, then you should restart this thread but replace religion with government.
Just as pragmatism isn't pragmatism without decent choices, freedom isn't freedom without meaningful choices.
Choices may be a necessary component of freedom. But merely having some choices isn't the same as being free.
Then if you want to define freedom as unrestrained choice (which isn't unreasonable) then you should be much more worried about government than religion, considering the government has a coercive influence over every part of our lives, whereas religion only has an influence of those who choose it (thanks 1st amendment!).
I'd be interested to hear your opinions on several of the Nuremberg rulings since that is your view, btw.
Please elaborate on the Nuremberg question.
I'm not requiring totally unrestrained choice, but what we might agree on as reasonably unrestrained choice. Meaningful choices. Especially in a democracy, I'm perfectly willing to haggle over the "reasonableness" of restraints.
With some interesting exceptions, modern religions aren't noted for offering much choice to adherents. More along the lines of "Do this or die, heretic!"
Lots more bargaining in more primitive, magical religions. So arguably more freedom, I guess.
Right, you must be free to live with your choices. If you are persecuted for a choice, it isn't one free to make. It's a choice with a cost attached.
The defense that "I was just following orders" was rejected, even though the cost of not following orders included torture and death.
That is true regardless of believing in God or not. We make choices and live with the consequences.
Women and gays? In the Constitution?
We needed an amendment in order for women to vote.
Where's the gay marriage amendment?
The distinction is between costs inherent to the choice, like if I travel east, I can't go west. And an artificial cost like being arrested by the authorities for going east. I wouldn't expect you would need this basic truth explained.
True, but many (most?) religions feel its their duty to impose an additional earthly cost on many choices they consider wrong.
