# Should Freedom of Religion include Freedom from Religion?

Discussion in 'Religion' started by Goldtop, Dec 13, 2017.

1. ### DaveC426913Valued Senior Member

Messages:
9,428
What??

It's like saying has the government enforced laws against muggings and murder recently? Yes. The penalties are the deterrent. And they are effective.

If the penalties were not in-place - acting to deter would-be muggings and murders - we would be living as savage tribes, pillaging the surrounding villages, stealing their food and women. And I don't say that with hyperbole. That is what civilized law prevents.

Do you think the rate of crime would not increase if law were removed?
Do you think discrimination would go away if there were no laws to keep it in check?

Did the big guy at the office desk next to you knock you down and steal your watch? No. It's illegal, and he knows it.

The fact that we don't see every Tom, Dick and Harry mugging or murdering (or discriminating against someone) every single day is not a sign that the government is not enforcing the laws, it's the sign that they are. Every day in every way.

Do you think the country just runs itself?

Last edited: Dec 16, 2017

3. ### DaveC426913Valued Senior Member

Messages:
9,428
No. Every day in every way. The fact that an incident makes the news is the tiniest tip of the iceberg of what doesn't make the news. And that is just hte tiny ti of a hugfe ugly iceberg that would eixst if the laws were not there in the first place.

5. ### JeevesValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,979
Then why are you spending \$billions on Homeland Security? And quite a lot less on vaccinations? In fact, that's the very definition of prevention.
Of what? You said:
That presupposes prevention of conflict of beliefs, which nobody knows will happen in time to stop them swearing the oath - in the first place.

Do, please, stop going around in circles!

7. ### Write4UValued Senior Member

Messages:
7,844
While the original doctor's oath rests on religion, the modern version is "first do no harm" (to the patient).

IMO, if a woman is about to give birth, she is the doctor's primary patient, not the unborn child.
If there is a risk that proceeding with delivery of the baby endangers the mother's life, the doctor's first responsibility is to "do no harm" to the mother, she is his/her patient.

8. ### Michael 345Bali in Nov closerValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,370
Agree. Was forgetting the law being obeyed is the law being enforced

9. ### Write4UValued Senior Member

Messages:
7,844
The original Hippocratic oath;
The language was modified in 1960;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath#Modern_versions_and_relevance

10. ### DaveC426913Valued Senior Member

Messages:
9,428
Deterrence is a form of prevention. Which is what the threat of having one's license removed is.

I think, perhaps, the initial argument has been overlaid with too many 'yeah but's to make sense any more. I'm gonna just drop it.

11. ### GoldtopRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
147
I was never referring to murders, muggings, whatever... I was referring to enforcing discrimination laws. One of more publicized acts of discrimination was the baker and the gay cake issues. Did that get enforced in any way? Or, any other acts of discrimination?

12. ### DaveC426913Valued Senior Member

Messages:
9,428
So let me get this straight. You think the the visible tip of the iceberg is the iceberg? That what gets on the news stories is the whole of reality?

You don't think that the reason the iceberg tip sticks a hundred feet out of the ice is because it is resting on the other 9/10s?
You don't think that perhaps these case are in the news because they are topical, relevant and a big problem?

13. ### BowserRight Here, Right NowValued Senior Member

Messages:
7,539
That's a scary thought, isn't it? If the government could impose itself on the confessional, what's to stop them from sitting at your dinner table?

14. ### Write4UValued Senior Member

Messages:
7,844
They already have in the medical and political world:

15. ### DaveC426913Valued Senior Member

Messages:
9,428
Orwell is pounding on the lid of his box, saying "I told you so. Double plus ungood."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak

16. ### BowserRight Here, Right NowValued Senior Member

Messages:
7,539
So that justifies more government intrusion on your personal life? Do we really want to have to look over our shoulder before we speak?

17. ### billvonValued Senior Member

Messages:
14,300
?? In the case of Dahmer he explicitly said that he had no morality because he was an atheist. “If a person doesn’t think that there is a God to be accountable to, then what’s the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges?" So the accused said specifically that it was his lack of religion that enabled his immoral acts.

Should we take this as proof that atheists have no morality, and no sense of social responsibility?

18. ### billvonValued Senior Member

Messages:
14,300
Depends on the issue, of course. If they intrude on your personal life to protect the life, liberty and property of others, then generally that's a good tradeoff (and a tradeoff that the Constitution specifically enables.)
Maybe, if you are prone to yelling "FIRE!" in crowded theaters.

19. ### Write4UValued Senior Member

Messages:
7,844
Can't use that as evidence anymore
"Your honor our case is based on evidence from 300 witnesses"
"Sorry, the term "evidence based" does no longer exist, so your case is dimissed.

Last edited: Dec 16, 2017
20. ### Michael 345Bali in Nov closerValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,370
Nooooo
Welcome to my table anytime and hope they bring suitable wine
Sting operations are conducted when there is a suspicion of a crime being committed

If it becomes law that confessions of committing a crime must be reported (it should never have not been a crime) the police bug the box, hear the confession, allow some time for the priest to report, if he does not, arrest him

If the confession was about child abuse he should be charged with child abuse, put on the sex offenders register, and when released from a lengthy prison sentence be required to report daily to police, no passport etc etc

21. ### BowserRight Here, Right NowValued Senior Member

Messages:
7,539
If that's the excuse to listen in on private conversations, it could very well be your own in the future. In the U.S. we have so many laws that no one knows exactly how many there are. It's hard to imagine a person can go through life without breaking a few.

22. ### Michael 345Bali in Nov closerValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,370
As soon as a conversation becomes planing a crime no longer private