# Freedoms Based on Religion Should Not Exist **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 17, 2015, 10:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/freedoms-based-on-religion-should-not-exist/717899 "2015-04-17T10:27:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2015, 10:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/freedoms-based-on-religion-should-not-exist/717899/1 "2015-04-17T10:27:19Z")
More accurately, “freedoms established on the basis of religion should not exist”. Or, to put it another way: if you want to do X, what your religion has to say about X should have absolutely no bearing. If it’s illegal to do X, your religion demanding it of you should not matter. If it is mandatory to do Y, your religion forbidding it should not matter. Why do we grant this freedom, anyways? Why do we consider a person’s baseless beliefs to be worthy of such protection? In the Hobby Lobby case, for example. In what universe is it rational to say, “Sure, the law says X, but your invisible friend says not X, so you’re exempt from the law”? Why is this even a thing? Why are we explicitly privileging these sorts of faith-based statuses? Your religious beliefs should have exactly zero bearing on your legal status. You are free to believe what you want to believe, but the moment you expect those beliefs to have any effect on anything, you should be ready to justify them. And religious people who base their beliefs on faith cannot. This feels like it should be a “DUH” moment, but for some reason it’s enshrined into the US constitution _wrong_. ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2015, 10:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/freedoms-based-on-religion-should-not-exist/717899/2 "2015-04-17T10:49:03Z")
you mean i cant stone my neighbor to death for adultery?!?!?! ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2015, 10:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/freedoms-based-on-religion-should-not-exist/717899/3 "2015-04-17T10:51:39Z")
For what it’s worth, the U.S. Constitution’s current jurisprudence doesn’t support Hobby Lobby’s view: under a First Amendment claim, Hobby Lobby loses. They won because of a separate federal law: the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Your overall point is still valid: why do we have such a law? I’m just writing to remind readers that it’s the RFRA and not the First Amendment in play here. ---
**Author:** ![nani](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/58956e/32.png) [@nani](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nani)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2015, 11:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/freedoms-based-on-religion-should-not-exist/717899/4 "2015-04-17T11:02:50Z")
We extend freedom of religion because religion is important to many people and because historically, severe restrictions of religious freedom have accompanied authoritarianism and tyranny. Laws do not exist outside of the people who make them, and freedom of religion extended in the US Constitution has actually worked pretty well for us over time, and if anything, has caused more trouble when it hasn’t been honored. (ETA: I realize this is a debatable point, religious freedom excuses for racism, sexism and homophobia weighed against discrimination and attacks on Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Atheists etc. at least in part out of their perceived religious beliefs/identity) American freedom of religion is not absolute; appeals to freedom of religion might get someone out of a draft but won’t be much help for Aztec human sacrifice revivalists. Where that line is is naturally shifting. Moving aside from practicality into idealism, ‘you can believe what you want, but you can’t act on it without justifying it (to me)’ isn’t real freedom. ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2015, 11:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/freedoms-based-on-religion-should-not-exist/717899/5 "2015-04-17T11:03:48Z")
> [@nani](#): > > We extend freedom of religion because religion is important to many people so??? ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2015, 11:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/freedoms-based-on-religion-should-not-exist/717899/6 "2015-04-17T11:12:34Z")
> [@nani](#): > > We extend freedom of religion because religion is important to many people and because historically, severe restrictions of religious freedom have accompanied authoritarianism and tyranny. This is a pair of very silly arguments. Religion is important to people; so what? If you cannot come up with a decent secular justification for the law you’re making, you probably can’t come up with a decent non-secular justification. As for restrictions of religious freedom accompanying authoritarianism, so what? It was not a cause, it was a symptom, and curtailing religious _privilege_ (because let’s be clear, that’s what we’re talking about here) is not the same thing as saying “you cannot believe in your god” and certainly is not authoritarian. > [@](#): > > American freedom of religion is not absolute; appeals to freedom of religion might get someone out of a draft but won’t be much help for Aztec human sacrifice revivalists. Where that line is is naturally shifting. Yeah, see, I have a problem with that. Why should someone with faith be able to avoid the draft, but just because I don’t share those baseless beliefs, I have no excuse? This is exactly the kind of privilege I’d like to see go away, as it has no basis. > [@](#): > > Moving aside from practicality into idealism, ‘you can believe what you want, but you can’t act on it without justifying it (to me)’ isn’t real freedom. What, so we shouldn’t demand a decent rational basis for our lawmaking? “We firmly believe this” is good enough? I’m talking specifically about laws here; person-to-person behavior is, of course, another issue. > [@Bricker](#): > > For what it’s worth, the U.S. Constitution’s current jurisprudence doesn’t support Hobby Lobby’s view: under a First Amendment claim, Hobby Lobby loses. > > They won because of a separate federal law: the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. > > Your overall point is still valid: why do we have such a law? I’m just writing to remind readers that it’s the RFRA and not the First Amendment in play here. Thanks for the reminder. Man, fuck _that_ law. ---
**Author:** ![Rune](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e68b1a/32.png) [@Rune](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rune)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2015, 11:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/freedoms-based-on-religion-should-not-exist/717899/7 "2015-04-17T11:13:48Z")
Like Muslims being allowed to wear scarfs/Sikhs wearing turban/etc. or Muslims/Jews getting day off on their various holy days. Yes, the world will absolutely be a better place if we made no concessions on such. Or not. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2015, 11:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/freedoms-based-on-religion-should-not-exist/717899/8 "2015-04-17T11:15:01Z")
Freedom of religion doesn’t extend that far. Any freedom can be infringed if the government has a compelling enough interest. Rather than wonder why religion gets that kind of deference, what we should be asking is why ALL laws shouldn’t require a compelling government interest. Then religion gets no preference. ---
**Author:** ![nani](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/58956e/32.png) [@nani](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nani)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2015, 11:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/freedoms-based-on-religion-should-not-exist/717899/9 "2015-04-17T11:16:59Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > so??? Laws are made and followed by people according to what they value. Eliminating religious freedom in the US would not be an easy thing to accomplish. ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2015, 11:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/freedoms-based-on-religion-should-not-exist/717899/10 "2015-04-17T11:20:58Z")
> [@nani](#): > > Laws are made and followed by people according to what they value. Eliminating religious freedom in the US would not be an easy thing to accomplish. yes, but if you can’t find a secular/logical justification for what you value, it has no place being part of public policy ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2015, 11:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/freedoms-based-on-religion-should-not-exist/717899/11 "2015-04-17T11:26:21Z")
> [@nani](#): > > Eliminating religious freedom in the US would not be an easy thing to accomplish. Declining an invitation to a gay wedding is religious freedom. Declining to cater a gay wedding is religious discrimination. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2015, 11:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/freedoms-based-on-religion-should-not-exist/717899/12 "2015-04-17T11:31:06Z")
Religious authority (and freedom) is a check on governmental authority, Governmental authority is a check on religious authority. Both are set up by God to give greater freedom to the people in the interplay between the two. ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2015, 11:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/freedoms-based-on-religion-should-not-exist/717899/13 "2015-04-17T11:32:46Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > Both are set up by God to give greater freedom to the people in the interplay between the two. thats an opinion ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2015, 11:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/freedoms-based-on-religion-should-not-exist/717899/14 "2015-04-17T11:33:09Z")
> [@Rune](#): > > Like Muslims being allowed to wear scarfs/Sikhs wearing turban/etc. or Muslims/Jews getting day off on their various holy days. Yes, the world will absolutely be a better place if we made no concessions on such. Or not. I’m curious what the argument is here, because I can’t find it. Is there a legitimate secular reason for not allowing Muslims to wear headscarves, or Sikhs to wear turbans? There’s actually no reason to set the holidays the way we do, or make it mandatory to give people days off during their religion’s holy day, and I don’t see why it would make our society worse to do away with that. ---
**Author:** ![nani](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/58956e/32.png) [@nani](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nani)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2015, 11:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/freedoms-based-on-religion-should-not-exist/717899/15 "2015-04-17T11:51:11Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > This is a pair of very silly arguments. Religion is important to people; so what? If you cannot come up with a decent secular justification for the law you’re making, you probably can’t come up with a decent non-secular justification. As for restrictions of religious freedom accompanying authoritarianism, so what? It was not a cause, it was a symptom, and curtailing religious _privilege_ (because let’s be clear, that’s what we’re talking about here) is not the same thing as saying “you cannot believe in your god” and certainly is not authoritarian. I consider pragmatism to be a reasonable justification for making laws. Severe restrictions of religious practice will make it harder for society to accomplish other things that people might care about more. > [@](#): > > Yeah, see, I have a problem with that. Why should someone with faith be able to avoid the draft, but just because I don’t share those baseless beliefs, I have no excuse? This is exactly the kind of privilege I’d like to see go away, as it has no basis. Part of this is pragmatism and part of this is that the ideal of freedom of religion is in general part of the ideal that we are free to think and do what we want. Since I think American society’s definition of religion is limited and hopelessly arbitrary, I can understand why this kind of thing is irritating to you. But in a case like this, I’d go for “Don’t have a draft that doesn’t allow non-violent participation” rather than “make them all go”. > [@](#): > > What, so we shouldn’t demand a decent rational basis for our lawmaking? “We firmly believe this” is good enough? I’m talking specifically about laws here; person-to-person behavior is, of course, another issue. “A bunch of society firmly believes this, and rather than force them to submit, let’s see if we can work something out” is more of what I was thinking. [QUOTE=Robert163] yes, but if you can’t find a secular/logical justification for what you value, it has no place being part of public policy [/QUOTE] Unfortunately, since I generally subscribe to the idea that every decision we make about what to value is ultimately arbitrary, we might just have to agree to disagree about this. > [@](#): > > Declining an invitation to a gay wedding is religious freedom. Declining to cater a gay wedding is religious discrimination. It’s discrimination caused by religion, and we as a society right now are deciding whether that is discrimination that we are going to allow as a result of our understanding of the caterer’s religious freedom. Personally I would favor, in the US context, making GLBTQ identities a protected class in such a way that would address this issue. ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2015, 11:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/freedoms-based-on-religion-should-not-exist/717899/16 "2015-04-17T11:54:11Z")
> [@nani](#): > > Unfortunately, since I generally subscribe to the idea that every decision we make about what to value is ultimately arbitrary, we might just have to agree to disagree about this. There is no objective morality. But if you agree to the tenet, thou shall not harm another, reason and logic are the best way to build a moral framework, not religion and preference ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2015, 12:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/freedoms-based-on-religion-should-not-exist/717899/17 "2015-04-17T12:13:53Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > More accurately, “freedoms established on the basis of religion should not exist”. Or, to put it another way: if you want to do X, what your religion has to say about X should have absolutely no bearing. If it’s illegal to do X, your religion demanding it of you should not matter. If it is mandatory to do Y, your religion forbidding it should not matter. > > Why do we grant this freedom, anyways? Why do we consider a person’s baseless beliefs to be worthy of such protection? In the Hobby Lobby case, for example. In what universe is it rational to say, “Sure, the law says X, but your invisible friend says not X, so you’re exempt from the law”? Why is this even a thing? Why are we explicitly privileging these sorts of faith-based statuses? Doesn’t this permit the outright banning, or at least legal harassment, of a (presumably minority) religious group? Say there was a religion that required its adherents to wear black armbands. If Congress, as a screw-you to that group, made it a crime to wear black armbands, under your conception of religious freedom, what recourse would they have? > [@Budget Player Cadet](#): > > Your religious beliefs should have exactly zero bearing on your legal status. You are free to believe what you want to believe, but the moment you expect those beliefs to have any effect on anything, you should be ready to justify them. And religious people who base their beliefs on faith cannot. This feels like it should be a “DUH” moment, but for some reason it’s enshrined into the US constitution _wrong_. Even under the RFRA, beliefs must be justified: they must be shown to be sincere. What other justification did you have in mind? A mind-reading device? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2015, 12:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/freedoms-based-on-religion-should-not-exist/717899/18 "2015-04-17T12:27:19Z")
That’s the crux of the problem. Governments don’t have to justify themselves unless they are infringing on a right. They can be as arbitrary as they want otherwise. So if there’s no religious freedom, a government of Richard Hawkins types could very well pass laws making it say, impossible to open places of worship. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2015, 12:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/freedoms-based-on-religion-should-not-exist/717899/19 "2015-04-17T12:29:42Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > That’s the crux of the problem. Governments don’t have to justify themselves unless they are infringing on a right. They can be as arbitrary as they want otherwise. So if there’s no religious freedom, a government of Richard Hawkins types could very well pass laws making it say, impossible to open places of worship. Bear in mind that at a certain point of having to justify every law, the court systems become a second, and superior, legislature. Separation of powers requires giving the legislature some freedom to be arbitrary. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2015, 12:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/freedoms-based-on-religion-should-not-exist/717899/20 "2015-04-17T12:32:58Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > That’s the crux of the problem. Governments don’t have to justify themselves unless they are infringing on a right. They can be as arbitrary as they want otherwise. So if there’s no religious freedom, a government of Richard Hawkins types could very well pass laws making it say, impossible to open places of worship. If you mean “Richard Dawkins”, I’m unaware that he has promoted banning religion or religious buildings – do you have a cite for that? I was unaware of any recent prominent atheist promoting making religion (or churches) illegal. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/freedoms-based-on-religion-should-not-exist/717899.md?page=2)