Religious freedom, what is your opinion?

[mexx]

I've been following the 2011/2012 Primary's, and as a dutchy there are some things that I found very illogical and frightening. One of the things is the subject of religious freedom.

I simply ''youtube'd'' around (much quicker) and found recent and some controversial statements (only searched for Santorum as I quickly found some examples).
For example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLJYN...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MzGE...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JEDr...eature=related

So I was wondering, what are your opinions about all this? Religious freedom is something politicians around the world claim to enfore/preserve, but based on Santorums statements above and in debates, he doesnt seem to actually believe in it. What are your opinions about religious freedom?
(another optional question ofcourse that immediatly springs to mind, is Religious Freedom actually possible? Is it not a paradox, as ''freedom'' is (or isnt)?)

I hope that this doesnt turn into a ''our religion is better than X'' discussion, that would be the complete opposite of what this topic is about. Also not meant to start a Santorum bashing/defending topic, just interested in YOUR opinion on religious freedom.

Thanks for your time,
mexx

[Dani H]

I believe that before God, we all have the God-given right to choose who we're going to worship, even if the answer is "nobody".

It has to be that way because God makes His own decisions and we are made in His image so we are the same way.

That's my personal opinion on religious freedom.

[GitRDunn]

As to the first video you posted, it is a very short clip and I would need to hear some more of the prior and following discussion in order to get the full meaning. Context is very important.

As to the second video, it has nothing to do with religious freedom. It is about the fact that we are fighting a war against radical Islam. There's nothing to dispute there, it is a fact. We didn't go out picking a fight, the fight was brought to us and we responded. Note that he didn't say we are fighting a war against all of Islam (because we aren't), he said we are fighting against this radical Islam that brings people to do things such as become suicide bombers.

Now we get to the third video. He again was not saying anything about impinging upon religious freedom, so I'm not sure what the point of the video was. Could you clarify why you included that video for this discussion?

[Ceegen]

I don't exactly understand what you mean when you say you want my opinion on religious freedom. What would you say if I said that I think religion is too cold and charged me way too much for that terrible meal? I'm only half-kidding here, you need to be more specific. In general terms though, I think it's great. It means I can worship God without fear of being fed to lions.

And yes, religious freedom is a paradox. By the laws of God, practicing any other religion (I'm using the word "religion" to mean "spiritual truth" in this instance, not a label we associate with a certain sect of Christianity) other than God's is sin and death. There is no freedom in sin and death. But yes, you do have the freedom to still choose death over life. So it is a paradox of sorts, sort of like this sentence:

"This sentence is a lie." - Or is it!?

[Boo]

God gives us the right to choose.

That being said, the end result of our choice determines our destiny.

Man is famous for making wrong choices, and it will continue that way for a long time to come...... or until Jesus comes for those who made the better choice.

[RevLogos]

We generally believe that governments have the power to condone the good and punish the bad, and it can wield the sword (use violence) to do so. Now this presupposes that the government actually know the difference between good and bad doesn't it? In the US and most developed countries the notion of good and bad has developed over centuries based on Judeo-Christian values.

Islamic notions of good and bad are very different and completely incompatible with these developed countries. Let me give some examples:

• In Sharia Law, homosexuals can be stoned or imprisoned, as happens in some Muslim countries.
• In Iraq, teenagers are being stoned to death because of their hairstyle, which is incompatible with Sharia Law. This is being done with the countenance of the government.
• In Saudi Arabia, women are not allowed to drive because according to Sharia Law, women should rarely venture outside of the home.
• In the 3rd video Santorum points out that Sharia Law is not just a religious law but is the law of the land. In an Islamic country run with Sharia Law, the equivalent of a Supreme Court is actually a body of religious clerics. Criticism of Sharia Law is criticism of Islam and considered apostasy. In mainstream Islam, apostasy is punishable by imprisonment or death. In a country run by sharia Law, criticism of the law is criticism of Islam. Something like the first amendment guaranteeing freedom of speech would not extend to criticism of the government.

Santorum says there are both secular laws and concepts of religious morality that are separate. They really aren't. The secular laws are based on centuries of religious values. Other religions may have value systems that are completely opposed to our value system. What we think is right and wrong is not at all self-evident to everyone else.

I think Santorum is not questioning religious freedom so much as he is asking: do we really want Sharia Law to take hold in America? Where do we draw the line?

[Ceegen]

The only reason Obama seemingly supports the Arab nations over Israel, is to rile up the anti-religious here at home. He'll allow us to be attacked by religious fanatics in order to provoke a response from religious institutions, and ultimately suppress religion outright. He's a die-hard Communist, and the Communist goal is to wipe out religion.

Santorum isn't helping the situation. He is only going to inflame anti-religious sentiment here at home by the already increasingly atheistic (or simply the "anyone-but-Christians are okay with me") population. Santorum serves the Communist agenda just as well as Obama does. Don't look to government to save us from Islam's Sharia Law, educate people of the dangers of Islam and keep them informed of current events. Because as soon as we start banning Muslims, Communists will ban all religions, freedom of speech, guns, and personal property. Rest assured, this is going to happen one way or another, right outside your window.

So what I mean is, it doesn't matter if a government says I have freedom of religion or not, I have it anyway. I can be whatever religion I want, no matter who's in charge. Sure, I'd probably be under a repressive government, but render unto Caesar the things that are his, and render unto God what is His. Obey government to the point that it disagrees with what God said. We're not to fight back, but not to participate either. We're to warn, speak out, and seek righteousness, and wake people the hell up because time is running short. Your God-given RIGHT to freedom of religion is the essence of free will, to love God willingly!

Government is just another smoke screen to get in the way of your obedience to God. We'd rather look to government to fix the problem rather than God. Is it purely by chance that governments are frequently opposing God? Government is a ploy of Satan, to divide an conquer us. He'd rather we argue about how best to solve the issue amongst ourselves, rather than look to and ask God for the answer.

[amazzin]

Admin Note:
Please familiarize yourelves with our rules. There is no debating in the Christian Answers forum.

[mexx]

I don't exactly understand what you mean when you say you want my opinion on religious freedom. What would you say if I said that I think religion is too cold and charged me way too much for that terrible meal? I'm only half-kidding here, you need to be more specific. In general terms though, I think it's great. It means I can worship God without fear of being fed to lions.

Well the context I was going after mostly was wether you believe in religious freedom when it doesnt coincide with your beliefs. I too have been raised with Judeo-Christian values. I read the Bible and believe in the teachings of Jezus Christ as portrayed in the Bible (its only his ethic and moral philosphy that i care about, as I view the Bible as a metaphorical book and not a litarary truth [just so you know where im coming from so to say]).
And as i do believe in equality for all humans, I have no choice but to accept that people can have completely different views and opinions than me. That is base of religious freedom is it not?

Santorum says there are both secular laws and concepts of religious morality that are separate. They really aren't. The secular laws are based on centuries of religious values. Other religions may have value systems that are completely opposed to our value system. What we think is right and wrong is not at all self-evident to everyone else.

I think Santorum is not questioning religious freedom so much as he is asking: do we really want Sharia Law to take hold in America? Where do we draw the line?

Well the whole issue im trying to raise is wether you should draw a line at all? If you draw any line, you put a limit to religious freedom..
Is (any) version of secular laws not a more pragmatic answer compared to ''absolute''religious freedom? If you choose absolute religious freedom you will have to give the most extreme version of, lets say Sharia Law (or pick whatever you want that doesnt coincide with modernday western-laws) just as much value and credibility as the here, common, Judeo-Christians laws.
And that is what I found contradictory of Santorum, as he seemed keen to hammer on religious freedom when it benefitted his beliefs, but not others. (Let alone his apparent black and white worldview which frightened me greatly)


And apologies if this is the wrong topic in the wrong forum, though I didnt mean this as a debate of any kind, purely interested in well.. the limits (or not) of ''religious freedom'' according to whoever wants to answer here.