There is no religious freedom anywhere !!

[mistermack]

If you say that my argument has no merit, then you are saying that fifteen years of conditioning has no effect on your freedom to choose.
Just like fifteen years on heroin, wouldn't affect your freedom to choose.

You can rap on as much as you like about how freedom means something else. You're just dodging the question because you can't admit you're wrong.

Addiction takes away your freedom. But you can't see it. You never could.

[Coito ergo sum]

If you say that my argument has no merit, then you are saying that fifteen years of conditioning has no effect on your freedom to choose.

Dude, really? You really don't get it?

I'm saying that freedom of religion does not mean that people won't be conditioned by their parents.

You have freedom of speech, but your parents condition you as to what is appropriate to say and not say.
You have freedom of thought, but your parents condition you as to what is proper morality and ethics, etc.
You have a right to privacy, but your parents can come into your room anytime they want.

Get it? Freedom of speech and religion don't mean freedom from your fucking parents. FFS...

You can rap on as much as you like about how freedom means something else. You're just dodging the question because you can't admit you're wrong.

No, you're just refusing to admit that what you're claiming "freedom of religion" to be, just isn't. So your attempt to saddle the US with a pride in something which doesn't exist, was never claimed by anyone to exist, and which only exists in your mind, is as usual for you, specious.

Addiction takes away your freedom. But you can't see it. You never could.

So does contracting to work for another person during certain hours, answering to a supervisor, etc. So does being brought up by your parents to be a polite person. That doesn't mean we don't have freedom of contract and freedom of speech.

Get it yet?

[Seabass]

There is no freedom of food anywhere because we have all been conditioned to enjoy certain kinds of foods!

I may think I have the freedom to eat these delicious adobada tacos, but it is all just an illusion!


Oh man, I am having a love affair with these tacos. I should have bought five instead of three...

[Svartalf]

THERE IS NO FREEDOM OF FOOD BECAUSE FOOD AIN4T FREE...

I want to eat a poularde demi deuil, and would have wanted to go first class on that Titanic memorial cruise, but I couldn't because it ain't free.

I so hate it when I have to equate freedom and material poverty.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The dogma of TANSTAAFL oppresses all humanity!

[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...

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.

Religious indoctrination is in a rather different category to any form of everyday, fact-based education. A particular brand of morality/ethics, not based on religion, could be placed in that category, I suppose, particularly if it didn't encourage thinking for oneself, but involved a set of rules. Political indoctrination of the young, as happened in communist and nazi regimes would clearly be in that category.

Any system of thought that is intended to lock young people into a particular set of values, which are not to be questioned, is something that potentially reduces their freedom.

[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.

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.

Well my M.O. is not to get a dig in at the U.S. As I said you may bevfree to practice faith in a deity, which is akin to buying a car yes you are free not to buy it or buy it, however once you are contractually bound. Those binding, voluntary or otherwise are imposed by others. When one is bound or obligated in any sense one is not entirely free. Dress codes, prayer regimes, dinner suggestions, sexual behaviour is restriction of free choice. You can only be free from that.

[mistermack]

Addiction takes away your freedom. But you can't see it. You never could.

So does contracting to work for another person during certain hours, answering to a supervisor, etc. So does being brought up by your parents to be a polite person. That doesn't mean we don't have freedom of contract and freedom of speech.

Get it yet?

That's an incredibly dumb comparison, and completely false. Working for someone is something you choose to do, because of things that you want. Being polite is exactly the same. You want a certain reaction from people.

Addiction DECIDES FOR YOU what you WANT. So does religious indoctrination.

Get it yet?

[Svartalf]

Prostituting yourself is not something you choose to do, it's something you do because you starve if you don't; some forms of prostitution simply don't entail you getting literally fucked by the guy paying you.

[mistermack]

I think that the reason people can't see religious indoctrination as a loss of freedom, is the same reason that some people can't get evolution.
It happens bit by tiny bit, incredibly gradually. It's hard for some people to be able to stand back, and look at the bigger picture. They just don't have that ability.

But I'm determined to try to help :

Imagine, instead of the gradual drip-drip of religious indoctrination over the first fifteen years of kids' lives, there was an injection that did the same job.

One single injection, given at age 14, with a 90% effectiveness. 90% of those getting the jab become instantly religious.

So the effect is exactly the same. The only difference is that it all happens at once.

Would being given that jab, take away your freedom to choose?

[Svartalf]

Given the proper exposure, I'd have taken to ancient style polytheism much more easily than to the chretinity I was brought up with.

[Coito ergo sum]

THERE IS NO FREEDOM OF FOOD BECAUSE FOOD AIN4T FREE...

I want to eat a poularde demi deuil, and would have wanted to go first class on that Titanic memorial cruise, but I couldn't because it ain't free.

I so hate it when I have to equate freedom and material poverty.

We have freedom of the press, but printing presses cost money.

I guess "freedom of" must mean something different than "free of charge" or "free from influence."

[Coito ergo sum]

Addiction takes away your freedom. But you can't see it. You never could.

So does contracting to work for another person during certain hours, answering to a supervisor, etc. So does being brought up by your parents to be a polite person. That doesn't mean we don't have freedom of contract and freedom of speech.

Get it yet?

That's an incredibly dumb comparison, and completely false. Working for someone is something you choose to do, because of things that you want. Being polite is exactly the same. You want a certain reaction from people.

Addiction DECIDES FOR YOU what you WANT. So does religious indoctrination.

Get it yet?

I get that you make a distinction without a difference -- parents raising a child with a morality, a work ethic, or etiquette can be as much (or as little) "indoctrination" as parents raising their children with religious beliefs. Until you get that, you're lost.

[mistermack]

I get that you make a distinction without a difference -- parents raising a child with a morality, a work ethic, or etiquette can be as much (or as little) "indoctrination" as parents raising their children with religious beliefs. Until you get that, you're lost.

If you don't see a distinction between indoctrinating kids in religion, and just giving them an upbringing, then it's pointless you even posting on this or any other thread to do with religion.

You're not just lost, you're lost on another planet, in a lost galaxy.

Or you're just trolling. If you are, just keep an eye on Seth. He'll show you how to go about it better.

[Thumpalumpacus]

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?

Actually, this comparison is silly, because opiates are addictive. Religions, while habitual, aren't addictive.