Religious freedom

I believe in religious freedom, being free to practice your religious beliefs without external interference. Unless your beliefs run counter to the laws of the land. Because laws are to protect all society & not specific groups.
Separation of church & state is also to protect all society, and not allow one group of believers to dictate to all.
This is in the constitution of the united states, but social conservatives seem to have forgotten this. If I am to believe the current GOP contenders.
When church’s fund political change I believe you lose your religious status and should be taxed like any other business. A church’s congregation is who it should preach to, not the people who don’t attend.
Religious belief is a personal choice. It’s a choice I wish to be free to make without external interference. This includes people who have a different religion, & not just state.
Telling other people how to live their lives is called fascism. But personally I prefer freedom.
Have a wonderful day.

13 thoughts on “Religious freedom”

  1. I too prefer freedom, however above all reason their is power, surly you must realize that laws are the product of the author and as such must be flawed, in addition why should a politician who controls great power not favor certain groups more? Heavens knows some groups get things done faster and every person has their own opinion as to the motives and directives of said groups, just as religion is a freedom to choose so to is the power to change the rules. If the rules said that a certain belief was a threat to others and it was believed and enforced is that really free?

    1. Listening to our law makers always demonstrates the flaws in the system. There is power, recent decisions by the supreme court took lots of power away from the individual vote.
      It’s also why keeping religion out of the equation means we can try and fix the laws, legislation, and power. To give our democracy a chance to represent the people & not just the money.
      Wishful thinking but you never know.

      1. we need a fundamental change in the government, because there is seemingly an ever growing contrast between what people want and receive and because our laws make it fundamentally impossible to in-act said changes it truly depends upon what people want and if they will work passionately towards it.

      2. You know when the government was formed and a long time after, there was no separation of church and state, right or wrong such was the foundation our society was bult on, nowadays we have beourocracy to replace theocracy, no less devoute and far more disliked I think…

        1. The world has changed in the few hundred years since the pilgrims arrived fleeing religious persecution.
          Now we have a multicultural society. And in order to maintain religious freedom all religions should be treated fairly. A theocracy in any form would not allow this. And if the state is to remain neutral it must not allow one religion to dictate.

  2. [A church’s congregation is who it should preach to, not the people who don’t attend.]

    That’s as good an articulation of the case for taxing churches who get political as I’ve seen.

    As for my country, my great fear is that it’s nearly too late to prevent our becoming a corporate state – which of course is fascism by a different name.

    1. We are a corprate state, in practice if not in creed, the reason why is that the government is controlled by very powerful buessnesses and although the people happen to have a considerable measure of freedome, the government has by far the greater influence over our lives than most people want to believe, for example vereous political partys own or greatly influence the press and the networks, insted of working to solve problems, they play one political party against another when elections come around, then they let the networks do as they please, it’s like in the roman empire trying to bribe the people with specticals and free bread and wine, it still works, people believe for the most part what they are told by the media, about politicians they trust even less.

      1. EL: did you know that about six megacorporations own most oof the media in English speaking countries? They’re definitelly intersted in keeping focused on the ‘breada and circuses’ as you say.. But they do that as a distraction – not becaue they’re committed to any political philosophy; they’re committed to power and profit. Period. I’d say that our corporate oligarchy basically uses politicians, who think they’re top dogs, but they aren’t. They’re lackeys.

        1. I agree, in the final analysis power comes more from owning something than controlling. I don’t know the names of the corporations that control the mass Medea.

      2. “Concentration of media ownership (also known as media consolidation or media convergence) is a process whereby progressively fewer individuals or organizations control increasing shares of the mass media.[1] Contemporary research demonstrates increasing levels of consolidation, with many media industries already highly concentrated and dominated by a very small number of firms.[2][3]”

        More here:

Leave a Reply