There is no religious freedom anywhere !!

[mistermack]

Well congratulations. You get the gold medal for pedance, before the Olympics even start.

I made it clear what I thought religious freedom should mean in post 1. It's clearly stating my opinion, which you are perfectly free to disagree with.
But you seem to be pushing the notion that there is one set meaning of the phrase, ( yours ) and no other is valid.

Wrong.

[Coito ergo sum]

Not at all. I'm suggesting that your proposed definition is yours and yours alone, and that it is not among any common usages of the English language. That is a far cry from saying that "my" definition is the only valid one. I'm not relying on "my" definition. I'm relying on what the term has meant for hundreds of years. You are advancing a strange notion that "relgious freedom" means something it has never meant, and means what amounts to "free from any and all suggestion or influence or education or parental influence."

So, what you do is this:

A. Invent your own definition which conveniently for you results in it being impossible for there to be any religious freedom in the real world, since we all have parents who bring us up to teach us right from wrong, morality, and appropriate behaviors.

And, then,

B. Ask who could ever think that anyone has any "religious freedom" according to my invented definition which nobody else uses.

And, then,

C. Take another of your usual sanctimonious pokes at the United States, claiming that the US prides itself on the the idea of the so called "religious freedom" that you have defined in a ridiculous manner.

Sure - it's your opinion - but, calling it your opinion doesn't make your argument any less ludicrous. I mean, it's like saying: Does any country really have a Monarch? And, then going ahead defining a Monarch as an all powerful ruler with absolutely no legal or practical restrictions on their power and authority. And, then saying "see - no country has a monarch." That's exactly what you're doing with your "no religious freedom anywhere" argument, and if you can see why the "monarch" example is specious then you'll know why your "religious freedom" argument is likewise specious.

That's not pedantry, either. It's pointing out fundamental flaws in your argument.

[mistermack]

You're obviously just trolling for an argument.

I gave my opinion, as an invitation for people to look again at the usual use of the phrase "religious freedom" . Nobody but you would miss that. It's perfectly obvious.

I'm inviting people to look at my argument, that the widely used phrase is not accurate in reality.
Nobody has to agree with it. It's for debate.

How the fuck can you not get your head around that perfectly simple concept?

[Audley Strange]

There is a difference between free to practice a faith and religious freedom, which is, as I said, oxymoronic. By being part of a religion, either through being raised or choosing, one voluntarily or otherwise surrenders one's personal faith to the ideals of the religion in order to be saved or one of the gang or grand wizard or whatever pish they're peddling. One can only be free to choose to walk away from that and choose personal devotion or all manner of variant beliefs or disbeliefs but IIRC correctly the word religion is etymologically similar to that of Fascism, a binding together a triumph of group will over individual will.

One has to differentiate the individuals right to have faith in a deity and the human organization of religion. One is none of anyone elses business, the others are anachronistic control systems that got out of hand and are increasingly pernicious.

God, existent or not, is not the problem.

[Seth]

Well congratulations. You get the gold medal for pedance, before the Olympics even start.

I made it clear what I thought religious freedom should mean in post 1. It's clearly stating my opinion, which you are perfectly free to disagree with.

I think he (and I) disagree with you.

But you seem to be pushing the notion that there is one set meaning of the phrase, ( yours ) and no other is valid.

Wrong.

And you seem to think that any shite you choose to make up is a valid meaning of the phrase and that challenging your definition is somehow improper.

Wrong.

[mistermack]

Well congratulations. You get the gold medal for pedance, before the Olympics even start.

I made it clear what I thought religious freedom should mean in post 1. It's clearly stating my opinion, which you are perfectly free to disagree with.

I think he (and I) disagree with you.

But you seem to be pushing the notion that there is one set meaning of the phrase, ( yours ) and no other is valid.

Wrong.

And you seem to think that any shite you choose to make up is a valid meaning of the phrase and that challenging your definition is somehow improper.

Wrong.

Not talking to trolls today. Waste of space.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Elohim bless the thin blue line.

[Thumpalumpacus]

You're not free to speak whatever language you desire, either. Your native tongue has an influence on your thought patterns. Just as you have the opportunity to learn another language, so do you have the opportunity to learn another outlook. Is it difficult? Sure. But nothing worthwhile is easy, and few things which are easy are also worthwhile.

[Svartalf]

Elohim bless the thin blue line.

So he too is on your list? given he doesn't talk to himself, I guess he's on his own too.

[JimC]

I do understand your point, mistermack, even though I think you have overstated it. Essentially, all children brought up in religious households are starting with a background of indoctrination. Many can shake this off, of course, particularly if it's the modern tame version of religion, but it's not a level playing field...

[Coito ergo sum]

You're obviously just trolling for an argument.

I gave my opinion, as an invitation for people to look again at the usual use of the phrase "religious freedom" . Nobody but you would miss that. It's perfectly obvious.

I'm inviting people to look at my argument, that the widely used phrase is not accurate in reality.
Nobody has to agree with it. It's for debate.

How the fuck can you not get your head around that perfectly simple concept?

Look - you invited people to look at your argument. I looked at it.

The widely used phrase IS accurate, if you use it with its correct meaning. It's only inaccurate if you create a silly, nonsensical meaning.,

I notice you just blew past the idea that your argument means not only "no religious freedom anywhere," but no "freedom" anywhere. By your same logic, because we have parents that bring us up in many different ways, religion being only one of the facets of childhood upbringing, your argument must mean that there just is no freedom anywhere - of any kind - religious or otherwise. Right?

And you invited debate -- I'm fucking debating. How can you not get your head around the concept that debating means taking a contrary position and arguing it. Yet you bitch and moan, and YOU refuse to debate. You just say "oh, you're a troll" and then you refuse to interact or defend your position.

Your argument was your opinion and you opened it up for debate. I've shown it to be a shallow, specious, nonsensical undertaking.

There is no "religious freedom anywhere!!" There is no "freedom of expression anywhere!!!" Right? Because we have parents who teach us how to govern our tongues -- that means there is no such thing as free speech or free expression. Because parents educate us and raise us with moral and ethical values inculcated into us from an early age, that means there is no such thing as freedom of thought and freedom of belief. Right? That is PRECISELY your argument, and if you can't "wrap your arms" around that then maybe opening up these kinds of debates is beyond your ken.

[Coito ergo sum]

I do understand your point, mistermack, even though I think you have overstated it. Essentially, all children brought up in religious households are starting with a background of indoctrination. Many can shake this off, of course, particularly if it's the modern tame version of religion, but it's not a level playing field...

And, doesn't this apply to anything? Morality? Ethics? Politics? Philosophy? Education? Skepticism? Science? If the logic holds, then there is no such thing as freedom of any kind anywhere.

[Coito ergo sum]

There is a difference between free to practice a faith and religious freedom, which is, as I said, oxymoronic. By being part of a religion, either through being raised or choosing, one voluntarily or otherwise surrenders one's personal faith to the ideals of the religion in order to be saved or one of the gang or grand wizard or whatever pish they're peddling. One can only be free to choose to walk away from that and choose personal devotion or all manner of variant beliefs or disbeliefs but IIRC correctly the word religion is etymologically similar to that of Fascism, a binding together a triumph of group will over individual will.

One has to differentiate the individuals right to have faith in a deity and the human organization of religion. One is none of anyone elses business, the others are anachronistic control systems that got out of hand and are increasingly pernicious.

God, existent or not, is not the problem.

Religious freedom is not an oxymoron any more than freedom of contract is an oxymoron. You are free to contract to buy a new car, or not. However, if you contract to buy a new car on payments, then you bind yourself to the terms of the contract. The mere fact that contracts are binding doesn't make freedom of contract oxymoronic. Same thing with religion. You are free to follow a religion or not. If you do, then some religions have greater strictures than others. One advantage of freedom of religion over freedom of contract, however, is that you can't be held to a religion (legally) against you're will. Once you enter into a contract, however, you can be sued to fulfill that contract, or pay resulting damages.

But, we do have freedom of religion, and freedom of contract. Some places have more than others. These terms are not moral absolutes or legal absolutes. The fact that they aren't absolutes does not mean that there is no religious [or other] freedom anywhere, and it doesn't justify a jab at the US because for some reason, implied in the OP, the US "takes pride in" some notion that we have freedoms that are not subject to parental influence.

[mistermack]

Coito, you have no excuse for not getting it.
I made it perfectly clear, right from the start, by giving the comparison with drugs.

According to your "logic" then, you can give your child heroin for fifteen years, then send him on his way, and he's perfectly free to stop, or keep taking heroin whichever he fancies . That's how stupid your argument is. UNLESS you claim that religion isn't addictive. If you do, start a thread, why don't you?

[Coito ergo sum]

Coito, you have no excuse for not getting it.
I made it perfectly clear, right from the start, by giving the comparison with drugs.

It's not that I don't understand what you're saying. It's that what you're saying is painfully specious.

And, again, as you said, you invited debate. Now you refuse to debate. Anyone who doesn't agree is just told they "don't get it."

According to your "logic" then, you can give your child heroin for fifteen years, then send him on his way, and he's perfectly free to stop, or keep taking heroin whichever he fancies . That's how stupid your argument is. UNLESS you claim that religion isn't addictive. If you do, start a thread, why don't you?

That just illustrates the fact that you "don't get" what it means to have freedom of religion or any other freedom.

Let's use your drug example. Let's assume heroin was legal, and that everyone had "freedom of heroin." Analogizing that to "freedom of religion" or "freedom of expression" it is a freedom from State or governmental interference. Not parental interference. To have such freedoms does not mean that one is free from all influence or the upbringing of one's parents.

Yes, one can have "freedom of heroin" or "freedom of religion" and be subject to the influences of daily life, peer pressure, parental pressure, etc.

It's laying saying "we have freedom of thought." We do, of course, have that in western countries. But, that doesn't mean or imply that our parents don't drum things into our heads as children.