Can a society support religious tolerance and freedom for all? Or must it ensure public conformity through laws that ensure outward religious signs (such as distinctive garb or religious symbols) are to be worn only in private areas?
Do we follow the French model? The ideals of the United States? Or some intermediate model?
To ensure a free society, do we draw the ironic conclusion that a pious, Islamic woman may no longer wear the veil in public?
To ensure a free society, do we dictate that any reference to God or a particular religion is barred from public venues?
2006-10-17 10:30:22 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Religious freedom is very much worth pursuing. But it may not look the same in all places.
Reference to God or a particular religion in public venues is not a matter of public safety, and generally speaking, neither is wearing a veil. So why should these practices be constrained by others?
However, I do not believe that a small minority should be able to dictate to or constrain the customs of the majority. For example, there are places where wearing a full face covering would definitely be dangerous to others (such as while driving). Another example is the the Amish in Pennsylvania who drive their horse and carts on the road with cars. But I have never seen them drive their carts on the interstate, because it would be very dangerous to others and themselves. When it's practical, allowances should graciously be made for those who don't fit the general rule of their area. But we have a bad habit in the US of trampling on the customs and religious practices of the general population in a given area in order to satisfy the desires of a very few.
Our constitution does guarantees freedom of religion; it does not grant anyone the right to be free from seeing or hearing others practice their own religion in public places. While no one is constrained to have a religion, there is no freedom FROM religion
Hoping the best for you...
2006-10-17 10:59:57 · answer #1 · answered by Debra N 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It depends on what kind of freedom you're talking about. If by freedom you mean, "anyone is able to do anything they want," then "religious tolerance" and "freedom" are mutually exclusive. The rights of religious people necessarily infringe upon people of a different religion than the first group, and on the non-religious.
If by "freedom for all" you mean freedom from tyranny and want, then yes, those things are worth pursuing as much as anything is worth pursuing.
People have a funny idea of what freedom means. They think it means, "whatever I want to do." It can't work that way, because no matter what you want, somebody else wants something different, and if both are equal members of a society, you've got a problem.
2006-10-17 10:41:26 · answer #2 · answered by RabidBunyip 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Religious freedom and tolerance are a two way street. If one party refuses to play, the entire system falls to pieces.
2006-10-17 10:43:32 · answer #3 · answered by mzJakes 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, this country was founded for this very reason. Not freedom FROM religion, but freedom of religion. There is no sense in limited freedoms, you can have that in any society.
2006-10-17 10:58:44 · answer #4 · answered by Grandma Susie 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I comprehend why you would be torn. in spite of the undeniable fact that, i think of the time is nearing the place a metamorphosis may well be for the greater constructive. as as a results of WGN and the historic Wrigley container, the Cubs have won so plenty greater interest via activities followers interior the previous 30 years. It does not harm that they are interior the third-best industry interior the U.S., the two. i think of they could tear down Wrigley container and make a sparkling stadium noted as Wrigley container that has various the comparable perks (ivy, scoreboard) because of the fact the previous one yet a stadium that has greater convenience for the followers and greater seats. surely, human beings will continually have their memories of Wrigley yet a sparkling stadium is something the Cubs could locate the money for to do for his or her gamers and followers.
2016-12-26 21:47:33 · answer #5 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
so when are the christians gowing to start then thay hate gays that hate the atheists thay are most intolerant on the planet
2006-10-17 10:34:14 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
those freedoms were just taken by the terrorist policy GWB just signed.
2006-10-17 10:33:41 · answer #7 · answered by I-o-d-tiger 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋