# 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:** 4
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2015, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/freedoms-based-on-religion-should-not-exist/717899/61 "2015-04-17T16:16:38Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > The thing about this (and similar points made by other posters) is that it suggests that if atheists ever became a majority, their attitudes about religious freedom might change. Religious groups should have the same rights as any other groups of LARPers-the right to congregate, play their games, and believe whatever they want to believe, as long as they don’t bother others. ---
**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, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/freedoms-based-on-religion-should-not-exist/717899/62 "2015-04-17T16:19:57Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > The thing about this (and similar points made by other posters) is that it suggests that if atheists ever became a majority, their attitudes about religious freedom might change. Sure, why not? Majorities often mistreat minorities, whether it’s a matter of religion, race, national origin, ideology, sexual orientation, gender, etc. I don’t think atheists are some special breed of human that wouldn’t succumb to similar impulses, we’re just people like anyone else. Certainly I’ve spoken to atheists that hold religious people in contempt, and would like religious proselytizing, or even practice, prohibited by law. That said, the presence of strong cultural values of tolerance and freedom, and a legal framework expressing them, can mitigate a lot of potential harm. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2015, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/freedoms-based-on-religion-should-not-exist/717899/63 "2015-04-17T16:29:00Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > No. I’m talking about two(or more) groups of people following different “gods”. Already asked and answered - allow them to follow the tenets of their religion as long as it doesn’t overly burden the common good. Why would it matter which god the person believes in? ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2015, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/freedoms-based-on-religion-should-not-exist/717899/64 "2015-04-17T16:40:45Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Why do we grant this freedom, anyways? Why do we consider a person’s baseless beliefs to be worthy of such protection? Religious beliefs are deemed worthy of special protection only because a lot of people deem them worthy. This is neither a criticism nor an endorsement, but a statement of fact. And they need special protection precisely because they are baseless, and not supportable on the basis of secular reason. This doesn’t diminish the fact that historically, religions have been the object of persecution and discrimination. I would argue, however, that the meaningful aspects of all such cases have been examples of racism, genocide, and flagrant cultural discrimination that would be illegal under reasonable secular laws without requiring special protection of superstitions. > [@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. I agree. > [@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. Neither of those are logically persuasive arguments. Governments in the past have supported lots of very stupid things that were “important to many people” – see below. The restriction on religious freedom by authoritarian regimes was politics, not anti-theism – see below. You have cause and effect reversed. > [@Human\_Action](#): > > At one point, you could find [two Catholic churches in the entire Soviet Union.](http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/archives/anti.html) One religion suppressing another is more common, but it’s not unheard of for churches to be closed due to state antitheism. Religions have sometimes been restricted in some authoritatian regimes because such regimes banned all forms of opposition and dissent, and they feared organized religion as a political power and an organizational and philosophical basis of dissent, nothing more. The idea that failure to afford religions extraordinary special protection “causes” tyranny is absurd – more typically, the opposite is true – see “theocracy”. And I’m not just talking about Islamic theocracies and Shariah law – there are Christian fundamentalists wanting to drag the Bible into the Constitution. > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Government exists to serve the people. People don’t exist to serve the government. If religion is important to people then the government needs to respect religion. That’s just a self-evident truism. In the past government also arrested homosexuals, condoned slavery, withheld the vote from women and blacks, and actively discriminated against blacks, because that’s what people wanted. Perhaps in the future we might wonder why government ever condoned irrational superstition as a justification for discrimination and for potentially violating important secular laws, much as we are today in almost shocked disbelief that it ever condoned those other things. > [@Human\_Action](#): > > I would like to note that I am an atheist, with no particular fondness for religion. However, as a religious minority, I recognize that my best chance at being left alone is for the law to protect religious minorities, which means protecting religious practice. If there were no such protections, the result wouldn’t be a secular wonderland, but instead a Christian state. Not if the principle of a secular state was a firmly established constitutional principle. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2015, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/freedoms-based-on-religion-should-not-exist/717899/65 "2015-04-17T16:44:47Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > Already asked and answered - allow them to follow the tenets of their religion as long as it doesn’t overly burden the common good. Why would it matter which god the person believes in? Your exact words were > [@Smapti](#): > > If the government says to do one thing, and God says to do something else, most people are probably going to do what they believe God wants them to do. > > If appeasing that belief is easier and serves the common good better than provoking mass civil unrest, then it’s in the government’s best interest to do so. There are _many_ gods out there, and many beliefs, and such an approach would lead to a crapload of appeasing going on. Also, why should only the religionists have this privilege? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2015, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/freedoms-based-on-religion-should-not-exist/717899/66 "2015-04-17T16:53:10Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > … why should only the religionists have this privilege? They don’t. That’s why conscientious objectors and anti-vaxxers don’t have to be religious. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2015, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/freedoms-based-on-religion-should-not-exist/717899/67 "2015-04-17T16:54:27Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > There are _many_ gods out there, and many beliefs, and such an approach would lead to a crapload of appeasing going on. So, in other words, the status quo. What’s so problematic about the current system that a severe crackdown on religious freedom is the only way to fix it? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2015, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/freedoms-based-on-religion-should-not-exist/717899/68 "2015-04-17T17:00:19Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > They don’t. That’s why conscientious objectors and anti-vaxxers don’t have to be religious. Anti-vaxxers aren’t exactly the best example for such an argument. By fucking with the herd immunity effect they do definite harm to the general public. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2015, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/freedoms-based-on-religion-should-not-exist/717899/69 "2015-04-17T17:01:57Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > So, in other words, the status quo. What’s so problematic about the current system that a severe crackdown on religious freedom is the only way to fix it? What severe crackdown? ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2015, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/freedoms-based-on-religion-should-not-exist/717899/70 "2015-04-17T17:03:11Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > What severe crackdown? The one you’re suggesting when you say that the status quo is unworkable because it’s too hard to deal with people believing in more than one religion. ---
**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, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/freedoms-based-on-religion-should-not-exist/717899/71 "2015-04-17T17:08:32Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > Religions have sometimes been restricted in some authoritatian regimes because such regimes banned all forms of opposition and dissent, and they feared organized religion as a political power and an organizational and philosophical basis of dissent, nothing more. I want to make sure I understand you before I respond to this portion: you are claiming that there has never been an anti-theist state? > [@wolfpup](#): > > The idea that failure to afford religions extraordinary special protection “causes” tyranny is absurd – more typically, the opposite is true – see “theocracy”. And I’m not just talking about Islamic theocracies and Shariah law – there are Christian fundamentalists wanting to drag the Bible into the Constitution. I agree. > [@wolfpup](#): > > Not if the principle of a secular state was a firmly established constitutional principle. I disagree. If you make it easy to persecute minority religions, then the government will persecute minority religions. More so than it already does, I mean. France has already been mentioned as an example, it has a firmly-established principle of a secular state, and still passes laws to screw with religious minorities. It’s not a coincidence that landmark Supreme Court decisions on religious freedom typically concern minority faiths (Native Americans, [Jehovah’s Witnesses](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantwell_v._Connecticut) (many times, in their case), [LDS](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davis_v._Beason), the Amish, [Santeria](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Lukumi_Babalu_Aye_v._City_of_Hialeah), [atheists](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCollum_v._Board_of_Education), etc), [or efforts to impose Christianity](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abington_School_District_v._Schempp) - laws in America aren’t written to antagonize mainstream Christianity, but rather to accommodate it. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2015, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/freedoms-based-on-religion-should-not-exist/717899/72 "2015-04-17T17:08:59Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > The one you’re suggesting when you say that the status quo is unworkable because it’s too hard to deal with people believing in more than one religion. Please don’t put words in my mouth-I haven’t suggested any “severe crackdowns”. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2015, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/freedoms-based-on-religion-should-not-exist/717899/73 "2015-04-17T17:26:35Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Religious groups should have the same rights as any other groups of LARPers-the right to congregate, play their games, and believe whatever they want to believe, as long as they don’t bother others. The problem will be when two individuals want to do something and their desires can’t be reconciled. Al owns a bakery and sells cakes. Bob wants to buy a cake from Al. But Al doesn’t want to sell a cake to Bob. You can’t say “Each of you can do what you want as long as you don’t interfere with what the other wants to do.” Society has to decide whose right to do what he wants takes precedence over the other’s. ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2015, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/freedoms-based-on-religion-should-not-exist/717899/74 "2015-04-17T17:30:11Z")
It’s understandable OP, we’ve all wanted to do peyote at one point or another. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2015, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/freedoms-based-on-religion-should-not-exist/717899/75 "2015-04-17T17:37:11Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > I want to make sure I understand you before I respond to this portion: you are claiming that there has never been an anti-theist state? That wasn’t exactly my claim, though I’d be interested to know what state you had in mind. My claim was that in the authoritarian regimes that I can think of, such as the example of the former Soviet Union that you cited, the primary motivation for the suppression of religion was political and was directed against institutions, not belief systems. Conversely, one of the most repressive regimes on earth, North Korea, permits Christian missionaries to run schools for some of their most valued elite youth being groomed as future leaders, because they don’t perceive it as a threat. > [@Human\_Action](#): > > I disagree. If you make it easy to persecute minority religions, then the government will persecute minority religions. More so than it already does, I mean. > > France has already been mentioned as an example, it has a firmly-established principle of a secular state, and still passes laws to screw with religious minorities. Religious persecution _per se_ isn’t the problem in France, the problem is cultural and racial discrimination and the marginalization of many minorities. You could strengthen their religious-freedom laws all you wanted, and they’d still relegate African immigrant minorities to ghettos and exclude them from mainstream society. The appearance of religious discrimination is only a symptom of a larger cultural problem that religious protections aren’t going to fix. ---
**Author:** ![Dinsdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/97f17d/32.png) [@Dinsdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dinsdale)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2015, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/freedoms-based-on-religion-should-not-exist/717899/76 "2015-04-17T17:45:11Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > So, in other words, the status quo. What’s so problematic about the current system that a severe crackdown on religious freedom is the only way to fix it? Well, I see at least a couple of different questions here: what is likely to actually occur at any time in the forseeable future, vs what would be desireable in setting up a government. As far as the second is concerned, I’d be very comfortable in suggesting that it would be prefereble not to accord special status to one specific set of irrational beliefs, especially when one (of many) aspects of such belief systems has historically been to discriminate against folk who believe differently, and to attempt to force their beliefs upon society as a whole. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2015, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/freedoms-based-on-religion-should-not-exist/717899/77 "2015-04-17T17:52:42Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > … why should only the religionists have this privilege? > > They don’t. That’s why conscientious objectors and anti-vaxxers don’t have to be religious. Anti-vaxers are exercising freedom of speech, nothing to do with the religion argument at all. The conscientious objector example is a self-defeating argument. The principle of conscientious objection is historically [deeply rooted in religion](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_on_Conscience_%26_War) and would require extensive and persuasive evidence to justify without reference to religion. That’s the whole problem with religious rights – they’re a free pass to exercise what may be the most irrational, lunatic beliefs with no evidence required whatsoever except to show that one is a member of the relevant nutcase religion. And only religionists have that extraordinary privilege. ---
**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, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/freedoms-based-on-religion-should-not-exist/717899/78 "2015-04-17T18:09:27Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > That wasn’t exactly my claim, though I’d be interested to know what state you had in mind. Several, but I’ll offer one of the most clear-cut: [Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge_rule_of_Cambodia#Religious_communities) > [@wolfpup](#): > > My claim was that in the authoritarian regimes that I can think of, such as the example of the former Soviet Union that you cited, the primary motivation for the suppression of religion was political and was directed against institutions, not belief systems. Conversely, one of the most repressive regimes on earth, North Korea, permits Christian missionaries to run schools for some of their most valued elite youth being groomed as future leaders, because they don’t perceive it as a threat. Anti-religious instruction [began in the first grade](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USSR_anti-religious_campaign_(1928%E2%80%9341)) (circa 1928). I don’t know how much more directed against belief systems a practice can be than that. Meanwhile, [anti-religious propaganda was churned out](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USSR_anti-religious_campaign_(1921%E2%80%9328)#Anti-Religious_Propaganda), with an eye to discrediting religious belief itself. If you look at what [Soviet leaders were writing and saying](https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1909/may/13.htm), their hostility to religion is quite clear. It is true that the Soviet leaders, particularly pre-World War II, were ideologically opposed to religion, _and_ that they saw social organizations other than the state (trade unions, for instance) as a threat to their power and goals. > [@wolfpup](#): > > Religious persecution _per se_ isn’t the problem in France, the problem is cultural and racial discrimination and the marginalization of many minorities. You could strengthen their religious-freedom laws all you wanted, and they’d still relegate African immigrant minorities to ghettos and exclude them from mainstream society. The appearance of religious discrimination is only a symptom of a larger cultural problem that religious protections aren’t going to fix. The harder it is to discriminate, the less harm the discrimination will do. If headscarves weren’t banned, would France’s issues with its Muslim population disappear? Of course not. But they’d be lessened by some non-zero degree. And the example still stands, of a secular government, with a long tradition of being that way, engaging in religious discrimination. So we plainly can’t trust such traditions alone. ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2015, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/freedoms-based-on-religion-should-not-exist/717899/79 "2015-04-17T18:16:00Z")
> [@Tom\_Tildrum](#): > > As others have noted, this was precisely the motivation for the enactment of the RFRA. A Native American tribe insisted that its religion required them to take peyote in certain ceremonies. Oregon found out that a couple of tribe members had been using peyote and cut off their unemployment benefits. They sued under the First Amendment, saying that even though the peyote law was a prohibition applied to the general public, the state was impermissibly burdening their religion by essentially forcing them to choose between their religious practice and their participation in critical elements of public life. > > Justice Scalia wrote for the Court and took **BPC** ’s position, that the Free Exercise Clause of the 1st Am. did not protect them from the applicability of a general prohibition. This decision was widely viewed by many as an outrage, which led Congress to enact the RFRA. The law was championed from the left, introduced in the House by Chuck Schumer and in the Senate by Teddy Kennedy, but it was passed almost unanimously. > > It does not overrule the 1st Am. It is simply Congress restricting its own lawmaking powers so as to create protection beyond the 1st Am. > > As others have also noted, it was popular on the left when the causes invoked were favorable to the left. Now, of course, it popular on the right because it serves interests favored by the right. The simple solution would have been to simply legalize peyote use for everyone, and not make it a religious issue. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2015, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/freedoms-based-on-religion-should-not-exist/717899/80 "2015-04-17T18:59:31Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > This is why you can’t find a church anywhere in Denmark, Sweden or Iceland. Considering that all three countries have official sytate religions that’s an extremely silly argument. In fact until recently all children born in Sweden were automatically enrolled in the church or Sweden. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/freedoms-based-on-religion-should-not-exist/717899.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/freedoms-based-on-religion-should-not-exist/717899.md?page=5)