As I mentioned in passing yesterday, there has been quite a row here in the UK about what the Pope said about British equal rights laws. Meanwhile from quite a different angle I was challenged about the limits of freedom of religion in a comment at Debunking Christianity, from Gandolf who is an atheist or at least an agnostic from New Zealand. He or she wrote (in part):
At which case Peter i ask you do you feel laws of religious “freedom of faith” is so fair? or (HONESTLY completely inline in keeping with the genral golden rule?)
Because right at this very moment somewhere in Africa today EVEN in the year 2010!,somebodys likely even being hunted down to be WRONGFULLY killed!! as a witch.
Simply because humans worldwide still support and even promote,the (willy nilly)! promotion of laws of “freedom of faith”.
So should something that CAN often effect all our lives so very serriously,be promoted to be allowed to be run so willy nilly Peter?.
In reply to this I wrote:
Gandolf, I certainly believe in freedom of religion, even for those whose “religion” is witchcraft. But there must be limits to that religion, e.g. that religion must not be used to harm others – so no Christians hunting down witches, and no witches making spells (regardless of their effectiveness) to harm others.
On that “regardless of their effectiveness” point, even from an atheistic world view (according to which spells are ineffective) African witchcraft cannot be considered harmless, because it often involves intimidating people with spells which they believe to work, and intimidating people is harming them.
Yes, there must be a limit to the freedom of religion when the freedom is claimed to harm others. But who is to define what might be called harm? The Pope is probably concerned about the proposed legislation here in Britain which would, among other things, force churches to offer equal employment rights to practising homosexuals – to extend to youth workers, if not to clergy. (This proposed clause has been rejected by the House of Lords, but may be reintroduced in the Commons.)
Now it is surely fundamental to freedom of religion that a church, or other religious organisation, can select those who uphold its own teaching to work with its own young people. But does this harm gay and lesbian youth workers by limiting their employment prospects? Maybe. I can hardly imagine them wanting to take a job in which they could be required, by the clergy or church board, to teach that homosexual practice is wrong.
But how small an inconvenience can be called “harm”? Some people in this country have tried to have churches closed down on the grounds that they can hear worship music in the street outside, or because of the traffic generated on an otherwise quiet Sunday morning. Clearly some perspective is needed here. If the great British tradition of tolerance and human rights is to be maintained, we must allow that some people will sometimes be inconvenienced by this. But we need to draw a line between inconvenience and harm. The problem is, where do we draw that line?
>African witchcraft cannot be considered harmless, because it often involves intimidating people with spells which they believe to work, and intimidating people is harming them.(HONESTLY completely inline in keeping with the genral golden rule?)<
Suggestion of hell can be considdered as a type of spell,and its very correct these suggestions is very intimidating disturbing and harmful to many people.Maybe questions need to be asked how helpful or harmful the shunning segregation type mentality of faith is for society.While people allow faith to cause harm its correct its not >(HONESTLY completely inline in keeping with the genral golden rule?)<
Its fine having a version of the golden rule included within the text of faith books.But doesnt really mean anything much if its not even being followed and adhered to.
Brent, I agree with you that threatening people with hell is intimidation and is wrong. I know some Christians do this, but I consider it to be wrong. However, I don’t think this should be illegal if done to consenting adults, those who are voluntarily attending a church service. Doing it openly to the general public is another matter, but at least here in the UK it is only fringe sects that do that. And I entirely agree that all Christians, and those of other religions, ought actually to obey the Golden Rule.
It is not just abuse which only effects adults thought Peter, a matter of which has also been discussed on that Debunking Christianity thread.I cant see how this abuse should be supported by christian churches whether it be between consenting adults or not.And whether it only be fringe sects that do it or not the abuse still exists,and what are christians like yourself doing about doing something to stop it happening.Children worldwide continue to quietly suffer every day because other christian folk are not prepared to do anything to stop them being abused.
Consenting adults are involved in bully tactics and intimidation within the secular world.This is not a good role model for children so the secular world does not support or allow this abuse, by inventing special laws that make it quite legal.Why then should this abuse be legal and supported by laws of faith freedom, by people claiming to be christians who are following Jesus
Brent, proper laws on freedom of religion do not sanction “bully tactics and intimidation”. I made in clear in my original post that this goes beyond the limits of freedom of religion, and so should be treated exactly as it would be in the secular world. If anyone has been able to hide behind any country’s freedom of religion laws to get away with “bully tactics and intimidation”, then those laws should be changed.