The libertarian in me says that even if a religion disenfranchises some of its members based on criteria that I find repugnant, that's not the government's business. (Of course, it's not clear to me why granting religious institutions tax-privileged status or zoning exemptions is appropriate, even though I benefit from those laws. Keep government out of religion and religion out of government, that's my motto.)
I support freedom of religion, until people who are not part of that religion (or who are forced to be part of it) begin to be affected negatively by that religion's principles. If someone chooses to follow a religion that affects them negatively, that's their business. They're free to love and hate whatever they want.
For no low-income priests-- is it inherently bad if no one honestly minds? When people do start minding, then sometimes the religion changes. (There are now female ministers in my denomination, because people started minding.)
For shunning a different race-- that's affecting people outside the religion, but it gets into the tricky area of "do people have a right to avoid other people whom they don't like?" And I really can't answer that for sure.
I'm not quite clear what "support the freedom of that religion" means. If it's merely a matter of allowing them to exist, certainly.
I have some additional thoughts, but I suspect this is the first part of a two-part survey (i.e., I think I know what you might be up to) and I don't want to bias part 2 if I'm right.
Well, for the last two questions I was inclined to read "homosexuals" for "low-income people" and "sexual orientation" for "race". I figured the eventual point would have something to do with how discrimination against blacks or the poor is no longer socially acceptable, but discrimination against gays is still considered okay.
If "freedom of religion" doesn't mean "freedom of a religion to be a bunch of dickwads", it doesn't mean anything at all.
After all, every established religion--right down to Osama bin-Laden and the Spanish Inquisition--has favored some freedom of religion. Their position has always been, "We support complete freedom of religion unless, you know, it'll get someone hurt. Like causing someone to go to Hell, which would hurt a whole lot. We can't support freedom for that."
So... if a religion supports actually hurting people of a particular race, I could see cracking down on the religion (though even there, I'd prefer to punish adherents who took the action, rather than taking action against the religion itself). But if the religion teaches that Swedes are a bunch of filthy meatball-eating degenerates, or bars all left-handed people from the diaconate, I think that falls well within the American understanding of "people are free to practice their religion, however stupid it might be".
Well, I wouldn't like the religion, and I certainly would never join it, but banning people who wear green hats from entering the treehouse isn't really a valid reason to tear down the treehouse (or all treehouses).
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
For no low-income priests-- is it inherently bad if no one honestly minds? When people do start minding, then sometimes the religion changes. (There are now female ministers in my denomination, because people started minding.)
For shunning a different race-- that's affecting people outside the religion, but it gets into the tricky area of "do people have a right to avoid other people whom they don't like?" And I really can't answer that for sure.
I'm curious what the theory is.
no subject
I have some additional thoughts, but I suspect this is the first part of a two-part survey (i.e., I think I know what you might be up to) and I don't want to bias part 2 if I'm right.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
After all, every established religion--right down to Osama bin-Laden and the Spanish Inquisition--has favored some freedom of religion. Their position has always been, "We support complete freedom of religion unless, you know, it'll get someone hurt. Like causing someone to go to Hell, which would hurt a whole lot. We can't support freedom for that."
So... if a religion supports actually hurting people of a particular race, I could see cracking down on the religion (though even there, I'd prefer to punish adherents who took the action, rather than taking action against the religion itself). But if the religion teaches that Swedes are a bunch of filthy meatball-eating degenerates, or bars all left-handed people from the diaconate, I think that falls well within the American understanding of "people are free to practice their religion, however stupid it might be".
no subject
yes but
no subject