RE: Freedom from religion
November 21, 2017 at 1:49 pm
(This post was last modified: November 21, 2017 at 1:51 pm by Neo-Scholastic.)
And so to specifically reply to the OP:
You position seems to be that people should not be allowed to practice their religion in accordance with its dictates. As pointed out above, a church wedding is a religious ceremony that establishes a sacramental union. The state incidentally chooses to recognize the performance of a sacramental marriage rite as sufficient to establish a civil marriage. The state could choose not to do so. In that case, there would be no conflict or state encroachment on religious practice. Advocates for "same-sex marriage" could have gone that route and there would be no conflict. They did not.
These are totally different issues. Your question is really this. "Why should religions be allowed to decide what sacramental rites they will perform in accordance with their spiritual traditions?" Properly rephrased the question answers itself. Because a free society does not allow the state to dictate the religious beliefs and practices of its citizens. As Sartre correctly pointed out, the ultimate freedom is the ability to say no.
(November 21, 2017 at 3:23 am)Bow Before Zeus Wrote: They have now decided to debate a bill which ensures "freedom of religion". Which basically means religions will have the right to discriminate against a section of the community. If it is against the religion to marry gay couples, they will have the right to decline!!! So what the majority voted for is going to be rejected at the pulpit!!! We still are not getting what we voted for.
You position seems to be that people should not be allowed to practice their religion in accordance with its dictates. As pointed out above, a church wedding is a religious ceremony that establishes a sacramental union. The state incidentally chooses to recognize the performance of a sacramental marriage rite as sufficient to establish a civil marriage. The state could choose not to do so. In that case, there would be no conflict or state encroachment on religious practice. Advocates for "same-sex marriage" could have gone that route and there would be no conflict. They did not.
(November 21, 2017 at 3:23 am)Bow Before Zeus Wrote: Why should religions be allowed to discriminate when the person in the street isn't allowed to? What if the section of the community they were allowed to discriminate against is blacks/hispanics/asians? Would that be fair?
These are totally different issues. Your question is really this. "Why should religions be allowed to decide what sacramental rites they will perform in accordance with their spiritual traditions?" Properly rephrased the question answers itself. Because a free society does not allow the state to dictate the religious beliefs and practices of its citizens. As Sartre correctly pointed out, the ultimate freedom is the ability to say no.
