There is no religious freedom anywhere !!

[mistermack]

So we can ignore "no" and "anywhere"?

I've always said, it's always wrong to generalise, and the people who do so haven't got a clue about anything.

[Rum]

I was surprised and encouraged when attending a funeral on Friday at a crematorium that humanist funerals were on offer and 'advertised' by prominently displayed leaflets in the entrance area.

It was the first CofE funeral I have been to since I became what one might call an 'active' atheist and the religious angle, especially the constant reference to death being the beginning of something wonderful grated enormously and felt simply silly too.

I was in the front row as close family, but I felt very comfortable in simply looking ahead, bowing where appropriate to show respect for the deceased and such, but not to participate with prayers or the hymn in any way at all.

[BrettA]

All perfectly true, but you're one of the exceptions, and Northern Europe is very much the exception.
Go anywhere else, and the story is very different.

One place I did wonder about is China though. I haven't seen much info on religious views there, although the ruling commies are obviously very against it.

But I haven't seen much on what the people actually think or do.

Tibet is heavily superstitious I guess, but don't know anything about the majority.

Well, I think you're unrealistically simplifying the scenario where atheism is a relatively 'new' thing but more to the point, atheists haven't been even remotely active or even vocal... so why would you expect change beyond where that's occurring given that the religious 'forces' (if you will) always have been vastly more active and vocal than we have? I'd expect the still very recent changes in Europe - along with the Harris', Dawkins', Dennet's and Hirtch's of the world - to effect a profound change in the coming decades. And people/events like Krauss and the Kittzmiller trial and a thousand other things like AAI conventions. These are generally pretty new, but the rapidity of items like recent books, conferences and more was completely unheard of even a couple of decades ago. Patience, Grasshopper.

[mistermack]

Well, the point was never the current state of play, or the present trend.

I was pointing out the difference between the CLAIMED position in many countries, of religious freedom, and the reality. Just saying that in many countries that would strongly claim to ensure religious freedom for all, it's only a theoretical freedom. People are not free in practice.

Freedom in practice means freedom to make up your own mind, without being indoctrinated for the first fifteen extremely impressionable years of your life.

[Seth]

I was surprised and encouraged when attending a funeral on Friday at a crematorium that humanist funerals were on offer and 'advertised' by prominently displayed leaflets in the entrance area.

It was the first CofE funeral I have been to since I became what one might call an 'active' atheist and the religious angle, especially the constant reference to death being the beginning of something wonderful grated enormously and felt simply silly too.

I was in the front row as close family, but I felt very comfortable in simply looking ahead, bowing where appropriate to show respect for the deceased and such, but not to participate with prayers or the hymn in any way at all.

Good on you, Rum, and my condolences.

[Santa_Claus]

I was surprised and encouraged when attending a funeral on Friday at a crematorium that humanist funerals were on offer and 'advertised' by prominently displayed leaflets in the entrance area.

I think you will find that as the Crematorium is owned (and run) by the Council (or privately?) that it has to be neutral on religion. In practice given that having a Woo peddler involved does have an extra cost, my bet is that the leaflets you saw were not provided by any Atheists but by the Undertakers touting for business - and an Atheist funeral is either cheaper or more profitable for the undertaker as can fulfil the role of the master of ceremonies that the Woo peddler traditionally has done (for a fee - if family don't want to do that).

For me having a cost motivation (and an ability to be more flexible on what can be said at a funeral!) is a good thing - as it is based on real things that people want (to have and to sell) which gives it an advantage over someone simply peddling an idea - whether that idea be Woo or Atheism!

It was the first CofE funeral I have been to since I became what one might call an 'active' atheist and the religious angle, especially the constant reference to death being the beginning of something wonderful grated enormously and felt simply silly too.

Yeah, "simply silly" does for me sum it up pretty nicely Not to say that a funeral can not still be moving etc, but that in spite of the Woo - not because of it.

Just thank Christ you were not at a Catholic Funeral - you'd still be there!

[Rum]

The whole thing took 20 minutes in this case! Five that day and all posted on a board outside.

Dieing to get in there they were!

[BrettA]

Well, the point was never the current state of play, or the present trend.

I was pointing out the difference between the CLAIMED position in many countries, of religious freedom, and the reality. Just saying that in many countries that would strongly claim to ensure religious freedom for all, it's only a theoretical freedom. People are not free in practice.

Freedom in practice means freedom to make up your own mind, without being indoctrinated for the first fifteen extremely impressionable years of your life.

Don't blame that one on a country - that's your parents' fault/issue/problem... at least as I see it without knowing your full story. In my case - since you are specifying "your" life - had that happened I would very clearly feel it was my parents. But because they never pushed anything, of the 3 boys in the family, I and another are strong atheists and one's a strong Xian. So what lack of freedom do you see, please?

[mistermack]

Well, the point was never the current state of play, or the present trend.

I was pointing out the difference between the CLAIMED position in many countries, of religious freedom, and the reality. Just saying that in many countries that would strongly claim to ensure religious freedom for all, it's only a theoretical freedom. People are not free in practice.

Freedom in practice means freedom to make up your own mind, without being indoctrinated for the first fifteen extremely impressionable years of your life.

Don't blame that one on a country - that's your parents' fault/issue/problem... at least as I see it without knowing your full story. In my case - since you are specifying "your" life - had that happened I would very clearly feel it was my parents. But because they never pushed anything, of the 3 boys in the family, I and another are strong atheists and one's a strong Xian. So what lack of freedom do you see, please?

I'm not particularly blaming it on the countries. I'm really saying that people who claim that there is complete religious freedom in their country are making a false claim.
The freedom is certainly there in theory, but not in practice.
I gave my own example just to illustrate the point I was making, not for any other reason.
Your family may have had complete freedom, I have no point to make about that.

The lack of freedom I see, is there in nearly all countries. The USA for example, prides itself on religious freedom, and yet the majority of the population have been indoctrinated by their parents from birth.

This indoctrination works. We all know that. All religions know that. That's why they want religion in schools, and want to get at the kids as early as possible, and to control what they are taught.
This is religious freedom for the parents, who have already been made into addicts forcibly by their own parents. But it's not freedom for the kids.

I'm not saying that there is any easy answer. I'm not saying it's someone's fault. I'm just saying that religious freedom is a false claim to make for a country, unless there is no indoctrination taking place.

[BrettA]

Don't blame that one on a country - that's your parents' fault/issue/problem... at least as I see it without knowing your full story. In my case - since you are specifying "your" life - had that happened I would very clearly feel it was my parents. But because they never pushed anything, of the 3 boys in the family, I and another are strong atheists and one's a strong Xian. So what lack of freedom do you see, please?

I'm not particularly blaming it on the countries. I'm really saying that people who claim that there is complete religious freedom in their country are making a false claim.

and earlier: "Countries that pride themselves on..."

Ahhh... With my usual use of the language when someone talks "Countries", I tend to think that .gov, the country itself or something similar is at play....

"Countries go to war", "some countries are theocracies", "how many countries are there in Africa?" or similar was how I read the use of country(ies) in your posts.

[mistermack]

Don't blame that one on a country - that's your parents' fault/issue/problem... at least as I see it without knowing your full story. In my case - since you are specifying "your" life - had that happened I would very clearly feel it was my parents. But because they never pushed anything, of the 3 boys in the family, I and another are strong atheists and one's a strong Xian. So what lack of freedom do you see, please?

I'm not particularly blaming it on the countries. I'm really saying that people who claim that there is complete religious freedom in their country are making a false claim.

and earlier: "Countries that pride themselves on..."

Ahhh... With my usual use of the language when someone talks "Countries", I tend to think that .gov, the country itself or something similar is at play....

"Countries go to war", "some countries are theocracies", "how many countries are there in Africa?" or similar was how I read the use of country(ies) in your posts.

Well I can't make it any clearer. If you insist on missing the point, there's nothing I can do.

I can only repeat that I'm pointing to the fact that "religious freedom" is a false claim. Not that it's the fault of a particular person, or country.

I honestly don't see why that's so difficult to grasp. It's there in black and white.

[Coito ergo sum]

I think, though, that nobody claims that there is "complete religious freedom" anywhere. However, to say that there isn't "complete" religious freedom is not the same as there not being any religious freedom anywhere.

Sure, religions can't fall back on religious beliefs to violate religiously neutral criminal laws. Like, the Church of Satan can't claim freedom of religion to rape and murder virgins to their Satanic deity.

However, here in the US, the State can't enact a state religion or appoint an official religion. It cannot prefer one religion over other religions, and it cannot prefer religion over irreligion. It has to strive for neutrality in the realm of religious belief or nonbelief. There is no bright line, mathematical rule for how this is done, but the bottom line is that there is pretty near absolute religious freedom in terms of religious belief and advocacy of religious belief. I can't think of anything that can't be believed or advocated, including most criminal acts, as long as it is not the immediate incitement of violence. One can believe that drugs are a sacrament, and advocate their use, for example.

Sure, one can't rely on religion to back up beating people up, insider trading on stocks, speeding on the freeway, rape, murder, mayhem, bank robbery, racketeering, fishing without a license, hunting without a license, shoplifting, check kiting and whatnot, but other than those kinds of things, I am really not clear on just what it is you are claiming about there being no religious freedom.

Are you trying to create a false equivalency? Like -- there are no places where religious freedom is absolute, so therefore all places are equal? Like we can't criticize Saudi Arabia because we don't have absolute liberty to claim religion as a basis for any conduct we would like to engage in? In other words, what is your point?

[mistermack]

In other words, what is your point?

My point remains what I wrote on page 1, post 1.
I think it's clear enough, even if you disagree with it.

Actually, the long list of people who followed that by saying that THEY weren't indoctrinated actually supports the point.
They are now here, posting on an atheist forum.

[Audley Strange]

religious freedom is oxymoronic

[Coito ergo sum]

Ok - post 1 page 1 -- title -- There is no religious freedom anywhere." --- response -- well, there is. There is religious freedom in the United States and there is religious freedom in Europe, among other places. Some places have more religious freedom than others. Some have very little, like extreme Islamic regimes. Some have a lot, like the US and Europe. Nobody has "absolute" freedom of action free from any and an all influences whether parental, peer pressure, cultural or otherwise.

Substance of the post -- you say: "Countries that pride themselves on safeguarding religious freedom are just pushing a fiction.

Who really has had religious freedom in their lives? Not me.

I was brought up a catholic, and had no religious freedom for the first fifteen years of my life.
I was told, you are a catholic. You believe in god. This is how it happened, god did this, god did that.

Can anybody claim that that is religious freedom? It's like giving a child heroin for fifteen years, and then saying, "you're an adult now, you're free to stop if you like".

What proportion of people in the US for example, REALLY have had religious freedom?
Not that other countries are any different. It's just that the US take so much pride in so-called religious freedom."

In response to this, the following points are important:

1. Religious freedom has nothing to do with how you're brought up by one's parents. That's not what religious freedom means. The US does not take any pride in any suggestion that children are free from parental influence on religious matters. As with any information, ideas, concepts, education, etc., parents play a pivotal role in the upbringing of children. It is impossible to raise children as blank slates, free from all influence and suggestion, until they are adults and then say "o.k. - figure stuff out from here." But, of course, the concept of "religious freedom" in the philosophic and political arena, as used by pretty much everyone using the term, is freedom from STATE intervention. Freedom from State restriction and meddling in that area. It doesn't mean that friends won't try to influence you, or parents won't take you to church or synagogue.

2. You cite as proof of the complete absence of any and all religious freedom the fact that you were brought up Catholic. That doesn't follow. First, because of point 1 in the previous paragraph, religious freedom as a concept has fuck all to do with your parents choices in raising you. Second, you are free to disregard your parents wishes and instruction, and certainly free from State interference in doing so (at least in the US, and most places in Europe). Third, just as a matter of logic, it does not follow that "my parents told me I was Catholic and there was a god and this is how it happened" and therefore there is no religious freedom anywhere - at most you've cited a limitation on absolute isolation free from all suggestion and influence. There is freedom of religion even in your portrayal, just not complete and absolute isolation from influence. Nobody ever suggested that there would be complete isolation from influence, however.

3. Can anyone call that religious freedom? Sure. To the same extent as we have any other freedom, like freedom of though and belief or speech. Our parents bring us up, for example, with certain manners and etiquette. Don't say this. Do say that. Say please. Say thank you. Don't say fuck off. Don't call people fat. They tell us their political views and we often accept them, etc. Does that mean there is "no freedom of any kind anywhere?" Because based on your logic, you would have to conclude exactly that. Our parents indoctrinate us politically as we are educated, too. Does that mean there is no political freedom anywhere?

4. What portion of the US "really" had religious freedom? Almost all of them, provided religious freedom is understood by what it means in the English language, which is freedom from government or State interference. If one thinks religious freedom means "freedom from all influences or suggestions of any kind," then, well, of course, such a state of affairs is simply contrary to reality and of course that kind of freedom doesn't exist. But, as noted, nobody ever said it did. The US doesn't take pride in pretending that it has such an impossible state of affairs.

It's not merely that I don't "agree" with what you've argued. It's that your argument is patently internally inconsistent and illogical, and is foundationally specious because you rely on a spurious definition of the term "religious freedom."

End thread.