Much of what we call sin are things we inherently know to be wrong. There certainly was a time where there was punishment, but many have moved on beyond that.
Are Freedom and Religion Compatible?
- Thread starter What Would Jesus Do?
- Start date
Much of what we call sin are things we inherently know to be wrong. There certainly was a time where there was punishment, but many have moved on beyond that.
Governments feel its their duty to impose an additional earthly cost on many choices they consider wrong also. Some we agree with and some we don't.
Governments act a lot like religions IMHO.
I agree, religion here in America has gotten less powerful thanks to the government guaranteed freedoms. But that gets to the heart of the question. Where the freedom isn't enforced, religion takes advantage.
They act like an authority. An authority in this country that we can control and change. That's very different from an authority that claims divine rights to impose unchagable rules on people, often inflicting temporal harm purposefully to cleanse a soul that doesn't exist.
only if those that love religion realize that not everybody lives according to their religious beliefs.
I find it amusing that some members of the party that calls for smaller government and personal freedoms like government to limit freedoms because their religion finds something icky
Last edited:
They are also the nation's that mainly side line their religions and put the government in charge. Can you even name a Protestant nation where the church rules? Can you name any nation that gives power to the church where freedom doesn't suffer?
The person who posted it is intellectually lazy and cowardice. I'm pretty sure Patrick Henry belonged to a religious sect. He was a big fan of freedom, last I checked.
An interesting point but at most universities Modern European History begins with the Protestant Reformation. Which contributed greatly to the rationalization of state government. From the early 1500s through the nineteenth century predominantly Protestant areas in what became Germany, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Holland, Great Britain, the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand established the largely ideal Western standard of living that we enjoy today.
Of course the role of the Church in those countries varied greatly but following the Protestant Reformation the lands of central and northern Europe gradually pulled away from the Catholic west, south, and east. Even in colonies, those settled by Protestants in North America and Australasia were generally more prosperous and free than those settled from Catholic host counties.
The type of democratic, socialism practiced in areas of Europe is a fairly recent development. But there has been an enormous amount written about why Protestant northern Europe pulled away from the remainder of the continent.
The same Patrick Henry who owned dozens of slaves? Slaves the bible supports holding. I'm not sure this is a great point.
Like what? Just because he speaks with a smile doesn't mean any rule has changed.
I agree, but the reformation did more than just rationalize the government. It rationalized the church too and reduced its authority. Where the power of the Protestants was invested in the church, you still had tyranny.
Petty blanket statement. For instance Lutheran Churches played an active role in supporting dynasties in Scandinavia and Germany. But those societies had an enormous amount of political and economic freedom. Of the countries I listed nineteenth-century Germany was by far the most authoritarian and had the largest split between Protestants (two-thirds) and Catholics (one-third). But again Germans enjoyed considerable freedoms in a centralized state.
Of course faith is only one the of primary factors that give each Protestant country a unique social, cultural, political, and economic identity. But the main point is true. The less the Church is involved in the state the more prosperous and free those people are.
You seem to be saying the person who is being exploited by his employer and the concentration camp killer are somehow equivalent. To me one is the victim, the other the victimizer. Can you clarify why we should judge them by the same standards?
Since they aren't specifically mentioned in the constitution, yes. There is nothing written in the constitution against women or gays, so they are also entitled to the same rights as anyone else. Really, it's not that difficult to comprehend.
Being "religious" by definition refutes having freedom. It infers obligation to ceremony and tradition and doctrine. Should u choose to be religious u are choosing a belief system over freedom. Even though it is freedom that allows the choice. Thats the dilemma of being a christian american. Christians want to condemn certain "unchristian" concepts and make them illegal despite the fact that the same freedom that allows people to be christian without persecution also allows gays to marry and women to have abortions.
Not exactly; people take advantage and use religion as the means. Religion is one means, government is another. Any sort of system is subject to this with the wrong people.
