What are the limits of "freedom of religion"?

[GracieRuth]

This question is on my mind because of an ongoing problem in the suburb of Beit Shemesh between the modern Orthodox community at large, and a small extremist sect of Lev Tahor, sometimes called the Jewish Taliban. Lev Tahor is so extremist that even ultra orthodox haredi jews think they are nuts. They are best known for requiring their women to wear burkas, even though the Rabbinate declared this practice sexually perverse. Recently, a couple tried to send their two daughters to the core Lev Tahor community in Canada (they left Israel, and then got kicked out of the USA as well). The uncle got Canadian officials to stop the girls in the airport based on the idea that their inclusion in this group would be abusive. The girls have been returned to Israel. A court decision is pending whether this cult should even be legal in Israel.

I am VERY big on the dignity of the individual, and freedom of conscience. But are their limits? After all, Hitler thought he was doing good by preventing contamination of the aryan race by jews, his actions make perfect sense in light of his religious beliefs that Germans are descended from the gods. If we were to allow people to do ANYTHING they want in the name of religious freedom, we are okaying things like Auschwitz.

So if there is a line, where is it? I personally think the line has to do with the idea of "dignity of the individual" itself. The moral dilemma appears when the rights of one person are at odds with the rights of another. Like someone said to me once, your right to express your anger ends where my nose begins. But can we get more specific than this?

 

[Lerxst]

Harm to others. No religion so be so free as to pose an immediate danger/threat/or even physical discomfort to others.

 

[GracieRuth]

Can you be more specific about "harm"? Do you mean only physical violence? Does preventing education count as harm? How about being 15 and pressured into marriage? What the Israeli court has to decide is whether to remove these two girls from their parents, and as far as I know there has been no physical violence.

 

[Faye]

I think that religion should be pushed out of the way when it is trampling on the rights of individuals, especially when it comes to the systematic abuse and control of women.

 

[gps]

So if there is a line, where is it?

The line between Thought and action, emotion and action, belief and action.
What people actually DO should be regulated by secular law.
The line should be drawn between Overt Behavior and covert thought-emotion-belief ... otherwise religion becomes an excuse for psychotics and neurotics.
Deeds trump mere beliefs in my book.

 

[Air]

I think that as long as everyone involved in the religion is over 18 and agrees to whatever the religion says and isn't harming anyone else that people should be allowed to do whatever they like. I don't see anything wrong with burkas or polygamy if that's what those women want to do. It's not something I personally would ever be comfortable with for me, but who am I to judge?

 

[GracieRuth]

I notice you said "over 18." What about kids being raised in a religion?

 

[Feelings]

The limits on freedom of religion is expressed through law. A person can believe anything they want, but laws restrict which beliefs they can act on. No violence, of course, no employment discrimination, no child abuse, stuff like that. In the western world, these are pretty much a given.

Does preventing education count as harm?

Yes. That's a fine example of where the line is drawn between freedom of religion, and a child's right to what OTHER people widely believe is education they should have. In the end, what it all comes down to, is 'I am more powerful than you, therefore I shall impose my beliefs upon you'. We may believe that we are in the right, that our beliefs make the most sense, but in the end, where push comes to shove is the power to impose those beliefs.

How about being 15 and pressured into marriage

I think the western world would have a consensus on this that it's wrong.

 

[gps]

I notice you said "over 18." What about kids being raised in a religion?

I'll field that one, if you don't mind.
Religion -- or religious belief, might be a better term -- is the unreasonable clap trap that is pumped into a person BEFORE the age of reason which results in them behaving unreasonably once they DO reach the age of reason.
Of course `culture' and `tradition' also pump unreasonable, superstitious, and traditional clap trap, biases, and viral memes replicating themselves through the individual.

And let's not forget `common sense' either.
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." -- Albert Einstein

Personally, I've found `common sense' more common than sens(ible) ... as well as religious `sense'/belief/bias/tradition.

 

[AzulSoul]

Harm to others. No religion so be so free as to pose an immediate danger/threat/or even physical discomfort to others.

That sums it up, though I would limit 'harm' to physical harm. Why? There are often religion that offend each other because they have directly opposing views. Other than that I don't think that there should be limits on spiritual and religious freedom. Let us all remember that the only official difference between 'religion' and 'cult' is that a 'cult' has fewer than ten thousand registered followers (according to national census). All religions are really just cult that have more than said number of followers. In any case, who are to decide what 'right', 'acceptable' and 'true' are when we don't even know ourselves?