Christian Faith and Demonology

[MoonlessNight]

The real problem with the issue is that many who support religious freedom do so for no reason other than tradition. They have no idea why religious freedom came about, why it might be desirable, or what religions it might apply to. So they simply take it to mean that anything called "religion" must be allowed to do what it will, with absolutely no care for the content of that "religion" (beyond perhaps saying that it shouldn't rape, murder, etc.)

This viewpoint is almost identical to that of the people who say that religions are useless and outdated and that as such the state should not aid them in any way whatsoever (a position taken by many militant atheists). The only way the lackadaisical supporters of "religious freedom" differ is that they say despite there being no point to religions (in their view), we should continue granting them freedoms, because that's the way it's always been done.

(Though note, their care for tradition does not extend to worrying about whether Satanism ever had been benefited previously, in truth their interest in religious freedom is quite shallow.)

 

[LoAmmi]

The real problem with the issue is that many who support religious freedom do so for no reason other than tradition. They have no idea why religious freedom came about, why it might be desirable, or what religions it might apply to. So they simply take it to mean that anything called "religion" must be allowed to do what it will, with absolutely no care for the content of that "religion" (beyond perhaps saying that it shouldn't rape, murder, etc.)

This viewpoint is almost identical to that of the people who say that religions are useless and outdated and that as such the state should not aid them in any way whatsoever (a position taken by many militant atheists). The only way the lackadaisical supporters of "religious freedom" differ is that they say despite there being no point to religions (in their view), we should continue granting them freedoms, because that's the way it's always been done.

(Though note, their care for tradition does not extend to worrying about whether Satanism ever had been benefited previously, in truth their interest in religious freedom is quite shallow.)

I worry about being discriminated myself and having my religion and my religious practices made illegal. There's precedent of this happening in the world. For that reason, I refuse to discriminate against other religions, regardless of their content, so long as their practices don't cause harm. It has nothing to do with religions being useless or outdated or anything like that. It's more like self-interest.

 

[MoonlessNight]

I worry about being discriminated myself and having my religion and my religious practices made illegal. There's precedent of this happening in the world. For that reason, I refuse to discriminate against other religions, regardless of their content, so long as their practices don't cause harm. It has nothing to do with religions being useless or outdated or anything like that. It's more like self-interest.

Note that religious practice is distinguished from other forms of speech currently. In fact, there can be problems if religions get into political speech, which means that we have a clear distinction between those two types of speech. On a lesser matter, an armchair philosophy discussion group won't receive any benefits from the government, but an armchair Bible discussion Church could.

I imagine, based on your past statements, that you would be equally worried about losing the right political speech, or speech about academic subjects such as philosophy. But organizations dedicated to those subjects do not get the same sorts of consideration on organizations dedicated to religion do. How do you explain this difference in your worldview, considering that you put no restrictions on the nature of "religion" other than what it calls itself and that it does not "directly harm others"? Is the word "religion" just magic enough that anyone who uses it deserves special treatment?

 

[LoAmmi]

Note that religious practice is distinguished from other forms of speech currently. In fact, there can be problems if religions get into political speech, which means that we have a clear distinction between those two types of speech. On a lesser matter, an armchair philosophy discussion group won't receive any benefits from the government, but an armchair Bible discussion Church could.

I imagine, based on your past statements, that you would be equally worried about losing the right political speech, or speech about academic subjects such as philosophy. But organizations dedicated to those subjects do not get the same sorts of consideration on organizations dedicated to religion do. How do you explain this difference in your worldview, considering that you put no restrictions on the nature of "religion" other than what it calls itself and that it does not "directly harm others"? Is the word "religion" just magic enough that anyone who uses it deserves special treatment?

I think the US courts have ways to determine what qualifies as a real religion. I would have to look up those methods. I don't think religion is a magic word, no. I couldn't create the religion of LoAmmi that gets every second Tuesday off work and then claim religious discrimination. But I'd want people above my pay grade to make those decisions.

 

[MoonlessNight]

I think the US courts have ways to determine what qualifies as a real religion. I would have to look up those methods. I don't think religion is a magic word, no. I couldn't create the religion of LoAmmi that gets every second Tuesday off work and then claim religious discrimination. But I'd want people above my pay grade to make those decisions.

If what religion is is "above your pay grade" then knowing why it has any value (from a civil point of view) is also beyond your reach. This makes me question what value your opinions on religious freedom laws would be.

That's okay. No one knows the reason for every bit of culture or law, but we go along with them anyway. That is the nature of human society: it goes on even when we only understand a small part of it. But when you don't understand why something is there in the first place, your ideas about whether it should be kept, removed or changed aren't particularly useful or enlightening.

 

[LoAmmi]

If what religion is is "above your pay grade" then knowing why it has any value (from a civil point of view) is also beyond your reach. This makes me question what value your opinions on religious freedom laws would be.

That's okay. No one knows the reason for every bit of culture or law, but we go along with them anyway. That is the nature of human society: it goes on even when we only understand a small part of it. But when you don't understand why something is there in the first place, your ideas about whether it should be kept, removed or changed aren't particularly useful or enlightening.

No, not what religion is. What qualifies as a religion for protections in the United States. That would involve looking through a bunch of court cases where such things were determined. While I've done similar things before, I have not looked for these specific rulings. If I did, I could take the information gained and see what has historically been ruled as a religion in the past in terms of receiving protection as an organization. Remember that freedom of religion doesn't actually mean the protections given to certain organizations such as tax benefits. Nothing on the Constitution conveys tax statuses to religious organizations.

I'll just say openly that I think what Locke said on the subject is outdated and those types of notions are outdated. Perhaps it originally was all about Christianity, but that is not how the US uses it today and I see no benefit to looking back to those ideas to see how the world works. I don't think all religions have value. Heck, on a bad day I could argue that Christianity has no value. But I don't make my determination on freedom of religion if I see value in something but rather if it allows those who have sincere beliefs to practice what they believe.

 

[benedictaoo]

I think the US courts have ways to determine what qualifies as a real religion. I would have to look up those methods. I don't think religion is a magic word, no. I couldn't create the religion of LoAmmi that gets every second Tuesday off work and then claim religious discrimination. But I'd want people above my pay grade to make those decisions.

You mean secularist to make this decision? Really? Why? What makes you think irreligious people are qualified to make this decision? Look, I know you think (and why you do baffles me because you are a person of faith) that this is all subjective but it's not. We can not be for something in private but against it in public. It just does not work that way. You can not take something that is purely objective, like, we can not take God out the public square and have peace. You know what it is to invite evil in but yet, you advocate we do this? Huh?? How does that even make sense, LoAmmi?

 

[LoAmmi]

You mean secularist to make this decision? Really? Why? What makes you think irreligious people are qualified to make this decision? Look, I know you think (and why you do baffles me because you are a person of faith) that this is all subjective but it's not. We can not be for something in private but against it in public. It just does not work that way. You can not take something that is purely objective, like, we can not take God out the public square and have peace. You know what it is to invite evil in but yet, you advocate we do this? Huh?? How does that even make sense, LoAmmi?

I think you might just have to accept that we're going to disagree on this. We don't even agree on the nature of evil and all that.

 

[benedictaoo]

I said from the get go, I do not know how the Jew believe when it comes to this.

 

[MoonlessNight]

I'll just say openly that I think what Locke said on the subject is outdated and those types of notions are outdated. Perhaps it originally was all about Christianity, but that is not how the US uses it today and I see no benefit to looking back to those ideas to see how the world works. I don't think all religions have value. Heck, on a bad day I could argue that Christianity has no value. But I don't make my determination on freedom of religion if I see value in something but rather if it allows those who have sincere beliefs to practice what they believe.

What value are "sincere beliefs" abstractly? Sincere beliefs can be for good or evil. What benefit to them is there when they embrace evil?

You don't know. You don't really know why there is religious freedom around, but you are absolutely sure that the reason that it is around now has little to nothing to do with why it was originally instituted.

 

[LoAmmi]

What value are "sincere beliefs" abstractly? Sincere beliefs can be for good or evil. What benefit to them is there when they embrace evil?

You don't know. You don't really know why there is religious freedom around, but you are absolutely sure that the reason that it is around now has little to nothing to do with why it was originally instituted.

Who judges what is evil? What's the measuring stick?

 

[MoonlessNight]

Who judges what is evil? What's the measuring stick?

Are you asking because you don't know what evil is, or because you are unaware of how evil is discouraged in society?

I'm not sure with you at this point.

 

[LoAmmi]

Are you asking because you don't know what evil is, or because you are unaware of how evil is discouraged in society?

I'm not sure with you at this point.

I know what I believe evil is. I don't know how to apply that to the government of the United States.

 

[benedictaoo]

Who judges what is evil? What's the measuring stick?

???????????????? This why we can not, it just doesn't work to take God out. We need Him to tell us what is right and what is wrong. We take Him out (which we have) and look what we get? We don't even know if we are males or females anymore. We took God out and now it's being advocated we put the devil in?? Am I even having this conversation? This is the end times for sure.

 

[benedictaoo]

I know what I believe evil is. I don't know how to apply that to the government of the United States.

which is why we need the 10 commandments and up until not too long ago our society was based on them.

 

[MoonlessNight]

I know what I believe evil is. I don't know how to apply that to the government of the United States.

It is the nature of human law to discourage evil and encourage good to the extent that it is able.

Human law is of course fallible and subject to corruption, in contrast to natural and divine law. Beyond that, humans are fallible themselves and even without corruption can be mistaken about what is good.

A system of government, if it is enacted for the common good, will be structured in a way which is deemed to most effectively determine the good and evil that the government is able to regulate, and to best act in accordance with that understanding.

When discussing issues of law and politics there are always two levels: what is the aim of law and what is the current status of law. All laws (or at least all laws not enacted by a tyrant) aim at encouraging good or discouraging evil, though many fail in practice too this.

In this nation we have come to the agreement that a democratically appointed set of representatives will most effectively enact laws for the common good. However they can fail and often do. When this happens it is necessary to discuss whether the laws promote actual good and evil, which is prior to human law.

If society did not recognize good and evil in some form, there would be no laws to encourage or discourage anything.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

A civil law that is paralyzed by absolute subjectivitism, acting as though it can not know what is good or what is evil, will inevitably end up promoting the evil and calling it good.

 

[benedictaoo]

A civil law that is paralyzed by absolute subjectivitism, acting as though it can not know what is good or what is evil, will inevitably end up promoting the evil and calling it good.

yep