Trigger Warning: Freedom Of Religion Is Obsolete, Superseded, And Harmful

[Eris]

Rick Falkvinge July 3rd 2014

Freedom of religion was intended to guarantee freedom from governmental persecution because of private beliefs. Today, that freedom has been twisted and perverted into instead creating persecution against individuals, backed up by governmental force. It is time to abolish it as archaic and obsolete, and let the modern freedoms of opinion and speech take its place.

The recent case in the reactionary United States, where the corporation Hobby Lobby was allowed to deny healthcare to its (female) employees based on a reactionary superstitious idea that such healthcare for women should not exist at all, shows how freedom of religion is now used to create governmentally-enforced persecution and oppression, rather than freedom from such persecution and oppression.

Full Article at:

http://falkvinge.net/2014/07/03/freedom-of-religion-is-obsolete-superseded-and-harmful/

[Colleen M]

I really do have mixed emotions on the Hobby Lobby case.  On the one hand, "I've decided that God doesn't want you to have it," is never really a compelling argument.  From anybody.  On the other hand, "My health care is a personal thing between me and my doctor and nobody should ever be able to come between me and my health care provider and how dare they tell me what I need?" is not exactly to be taken seriously when it is championed by the people who destroyed my ability to choose a health care plan without substance abuse treatment. 

At the end of the day, we're just going to have to accept that courts and legislatures reflect (occasionally slowly, but they manage it eventually) the societies they literally represent.  As a people, everybody gets the history they deserve.  It's nice when it happens faster, but the needle on religious freedom is moving in the right direction.     

[mac1]

FREEDOM OF RELIGEON, as guaranteed by the Constitution, is that the government will not force a national belief (either one state religeon or the lack of one). Recent laws and interpretations have been making certain Christian beliefs illegal and prescribing one single national belief for everybody.

In Dearborn Michigan and other muslim dominated areas the trend is toward mandating the muslim religeon and sharia law for everybody.  If the courts and the legislature continue to allow such activity it will soon become the law of the land. That is against our Constitutional guarantee - is that what we want?

[Eris]

Personally, I think E pluribus unum was a better motto than in god we trust

[Colleen M]

Personally, I think E pluribus unum was a better motto than in god we trust

Agreed, but the melting pot has been replaced by the salad bowl.  I'd care less about what we were saying if we were actually practicing e pluribus unum rather than in god we trust.   

[Eris]

Agreed, but the melting pot has been replaced by the salad bowl.  I'd care less about what we were saying if we were actually practicing e pluribus unum rather than in god we trust.   

Actually I don't have any ground to stand on when it comes to religious national mottoes.

The Scottish one is still "In my defens God me defend" which I think basically means "save me god!" 

[ZoeM]

This is the kind of article that makes me wonder if the authors want to live in America, or turn America into something entirely different.

It's also very disturbing seeing my identity treated as "obsolete" or "harmful", and deserves a Trigger Warning.

[Xenguy]

I may not have a religion, but I believe freedom of religion is a right. As long as those beliefs are not affecting another person or group negatively, or taking away another's rights. I don't care, I support letting people believe what they wish

[Eris]

Sorry about the lack of Trigger Warning Zoe, there's one now.

This is the kind of article that makes me wonder if the authors want to live in America, or turn America into something entirely different.

Whilst this article mentioned the recent Hobby Lobby case in America it was written by a Swede and meant in a global context.
So you're probably right, if he wanted to live in America he could move. I suspect that they likely want to change the entire world so that discrimination based upon religious beliefs is no longer permitted. I know I do.

It's also very disturbing seeing my identity treated as "obsolete" or "harmful"

Ummmm... I'm not sure where you got this impression from, this wasn't an attack on individuals possessing religious beliefs.

The author was trying to make the point that the freedom to defend or speak out against the religion is now covered under the freedoms of opinion and speech.

The article was to show that a specific freedom of religion is being abused as an excuse to persecute others and circumvent a country's laws which the author felt was wrong.

They give a list of examples illustrating their point so I'm not certain how you arrived at the conclusion that this was a personal attack on you unless you were covered under one of the aformentioned examples:

- The abovementioned case where an employer denies healthcare to female employees, using governmental force to back that denial up
- Employees who refuse to shake hands with female customers (yes, these exist)
- Abortion nurses who refuse to perform abortions "for beliefs", including when lives are at risk
- People who refuse to work with X (lotteries, pork, hot dogs, whatever) because of "beliefs" and demand to stay on unemployment benefits instead (note: refusing a job offer while on unemployment insurance normally ends your right to further unemployment benefits)
- Refusal to follow hygiene procedures in food/healthcare because of "beliefs"
- Teachers who refuse to allow students (citizens!) to critically examine the information they've been given
- Parents who do the same to their children (also citizens!)
- ...and don't get me started on infant/toddler genital mutilation, male and female alike. Your right to believe whatever crazyf**kery you want will never, ever, extend to any insane right to cut into the flesh of another citizen and deliberately remove functional tissue, regardless of DNA similarity.

I'm sorry if you were offended by the article, would you mind explaining so that I can understand why you were perturbed?

On a personal note, I feel that people need to be defended from religion, not the other way round. Religion doesn't bleed...

[ZoeM]

I've seen way too much anger and distaste directed at religion recently, is all. It's like we're the new acceptable targets.

I may have been a bit quick on the trigger there.

[Eris]

I'm sorry I was responsible for bringing that up again for you 

[mac1]

This is the kind of article that makes me wonder if the authors want to live in America, or turn America into something entirely different.

It's also very disturbing seeing my identity treated as "obsolete" or "harmful", and deserves a Trigger Warning.

Remember: "I am going to change America as you know it" and "This is the first time in my life that I have been proud to be an American".

[Olivia P]

It's also very disturbing seeing my identity treated as "obsolete" or "harmful", and deserves a Trigger Warning.

The problem with the topic of organized religon is that all of the bad is lumped in together with all of the good, there is no clear distinction between pro equality Christians and those that go around calling people abominations telling them their going to hell.

This situation has happened over so many topics over the last 2000 years, some cases even as bad as burning people for owning a bible in english, that there is now a growing trend of distrust of the whole thing.

And while yes, there are important parts to it, yes many people have nothing to do with all the bad stuff, and yes there is most likely substance to be found at the core of all religions, as long as there is no distinction between the good and bad this problem will only get worse.

This particular article in a way mirrors the same argument those make that are anti lgbt christian groups. I think the important thing to remember in this situation is everyone has the right to their own opinion and in extension the right to express their own opinion so long as they are not harassing anyone in the process or forcing views on people.

[Eris]

I think that the bard may have said it best.

"And thus I clothe my naked villainy
With odd old ends stol'n out of Holy Writ,
And seem a saint when most I play the devil."

[Jess42]

I may not have a religion, but I believe freedom of religion is a right. As long as those beliefs are not affecting another person or group negatively, or taking away another's rights. I don't care, I support letting people believe what they wish

That pretty much sums up the whole Freedom of Religion deal in a nutshell. Yes it is to stop a state sanctioned religion but more importantly that we have the right to choose what we believe without fear of persecution. Whether verbal or physical. I believe that the Hobby Lobby case sets a dangerous precedent because the owners can believe what they want and practice what they want but others that work for them have the right to choose to believe how they want to believe from Satanism to Catholicism to New Age to Atheism. But the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a corporation and the Freedom of Religion is a personal Freedom, not a coporate freedom because many people with differing beliefs work for them.

"In God We Trust". Its a powerful statement and unfortunately too many people don't see or comprehened the significance of that statement and therefore try to force other's to see things their way and trust them instead of God. I myself put my trust in God in my own way and my own thoughts. All my sins I will definately have to pay for. But a couple I will never have to pay for is judging others or forcing others to believe the way I do. There is too much other stuff I have to make up for so every little bit of positivity may help in the end.

[mac1]

That pretty much sums up the whole Freedom of Religion deal in a nutshell. Yes it is to stop a state sanctioned religion but more importantly that we have the right to choose what we believe without fear of persecution. Whether verbal or physical. I believe that the Hobby Lobby case sets a dangerous precedent because the owners can believe what they want and practice what they want but others that work for them have the right to choose to believe how they want to believe from Satanism to Catholicism to New Age to Atheism. But the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a corporation and the Freedom of Religion is a personal Freedom, not a coporate freedom because many people with differing beliefs work for them.
.....................................

The Hobby Lobby case had nothing to do with mandating how anybody believed. They never said that a woman could not take abortion drugs. They only said that those drugs would not be covered in their company provided medical coverage.

[Eris]

mac1, please read what has actually been written before responding.

Jess did not say that the Hobby Lobby Case was about mandating the beliefs of others.
She said that she felt it set a dangerous precedent where the beliefs of employers are valued over those of employees.

The problem is that they sought to be able to exempt themselves from the law in order discriminate against a group, in this case women.

If the law doesn't apply to everyone then it isn't law, it's privilege.

The idea that a company can make decisions for religious reasons as an individual is surely predicated on that company being of one mind on religious issues.
If that was the case then Hobby Lobby wouldn't have to get an exemption as none of the employees there would wish to take the medication in the first place.

If members of that company do not share the same beliefs, then management is merely using freedom of a religion as an excuse to impose their own beliefs onto others. Not to exercise their own beliefs in their own lives, but telling their employees that their own belief that they should be able to decide what to do with their own bodies is invalid.

It should not be up to your employer to make decisions about your personal life.


As for setting a dangerous precedent we have already seen how "religious" businesses are attempting to use this in order to avoid having to treat transpeople like actual human beings, subject to the same hiring laws as other citizens.

It's not insignificant, it's a precident. President Obama has already received a letter from conservative Christian business men saying that they should be exempt from his executive order requiring them to not discriminate against, among others, us, because it infringes upon their religious liberties.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/religious-groups-lgbt-hiring-hobby-lobby

NOTHING the Supreme Court ever does is "insignificant".

From your responses here and in this thread https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,168393.0.html it seems as though you are wilfully misunderstanding the nature of the discussion and attempting to close down any discourse relating to the implications of the abuse of freedom of religion.

[Jess42]

Thanks Falconer. You got me.

Definately a corporation is not an idividual but a group of individuals from the one that signs the checks to the one that picks up the trash out of the parking lot or collects the buggies. No matter who owns it. And they all have that right to Freedom of Religion or even no religion at all (that is the whole thing that we have the freedom to choose). But a corporation is not an individual and those individual rights should pertain to individuals only. The dangerous precedent is that the Supreme Court sided with one belief system when all the individuals that work for that corporation should have been considered.

The danger part is will religious beliefs be considered as a job requirement? 

[Xenguy]

Mac, here's another article that shows what kind precedent the Hobby Lobby case has set. So much that now other "religious" organizations are already fighting to be exempt from other areas of the law. Including, the LGBT hiring and discrimination order.

Post-Hobby Lobby, Religious Orgs Want Exemption From LGBT Hiring Order
DYLAN SCOTT – JULY 2, 2014

"The day after the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby ruling, a group of religious leaders sent a letter to President Barack Obama asking that he exempt them from a forthcoming executive order that would prohibit federal contractors from discriminating against LGBT people.

The letter, first reported by The Atlantic, was sent on Tuesday by 14 representatives, including the president of Gordon College, an Erie County, Pa., executive and the national faith vote director for Obama for America 2012, of the faith community."

More: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/religious-groups-lgbt-hiring-hobby-lobby

----------------------------------------------

[mac1]

How about this for a solution? Let there be multiple benefit plans available from which you may choose (medical, dental, optical, legal, etc: multiple choices for each) and the company provides a standard dollar amount which they will provide toward your premiums. Then the employee will be responsible for any premium amount which exceeds the company provided contribution. If you desire greater coverage you will pay more and if you want lesser coverage you will pay less.

For instance everybody does not desire birth control or abortion coverage so they will be able to select a plan which does not cover that. Why should any person be required to pay for benefits they do not desire just because somebody else wants them? Let them use their benefit dollars for something which is more appropriate for them.