There is no such thing as Freedom of Religion

Because religion is social captivity.

 

Religion being social captivity has nothing to do with whether or not there is such a thing as "Freedom of Religion".

 

Well I agree. But my claim isn't that freedom of religion makes religion social captivity, it's that freedom of religion is a bunk concept because religion doesn't allow freedom of belief.

 

'Freedom of Religion' being at odds with individual-focused liberty doesn't debunk 'Freedom of Religion' as a concept.

 

I said 'religion'. Being in direct contradiction with the fundamental nature of religion, the concept of "freedom of religion" is as much an oxymoron as "a free slave" and "a fair tax". But you replaced 'religion' with "individual-focused liberty" and now I don't know what we're talking about.

 

Most people who are religious are trapped into it by childhood indoctrination, so in that sense there's no freedom of religion.

 

It's funny because in reality the idea of separation of church and state is far less constitutionally justifiable than freedom of religion.

 

The OP seems confused about what the constitution says on this topic.

It is designed so Goverment must never impose any religion on the public.

As to your choice of church? I would judge that most who hate the church of the parents manage to do other things.

My own daughter was not raised in my faith, she was raised in her moms faith. And she no longer follows her mom's faith. Since she lost her mom, she seems unconcerned about religion.

 

Freedom of religion means that I can join any religion that I want, and while religion is dogmatic, those who enter it have the right to leave ergo they are not captive. Religion can hold children captive through parents making them go to Church, but by 18 they can choose to leave or stay. As an American I limit my remarks to religion in America.

 

Freedom of religion is indeed counter to the dogma taught in Church. But not sure why that matters?

 

No state religion. A good idea. One that the Founding Fathers had because they knew what had happened in England/Britain after Henry VIII created his own church. Catholics were oppressed for hundreds of years. It was a smart move. As for the OP. A person's religion is very much of themselves. Someone who is free to practise their religion is free to be themselves and that is important. It's as important as freedom of expression. And having no state religion means that no-one can have the power of the state brought upon them if they practise or don't choose to practise a religion.

 

Meh, failure of education.

 

I didn't replace religion with anything, you just seem to believe that freedom is something that can only ever apply to individuals and not groups or organizations. Police departments can be free to do certain things. States can be free in certain ways. Countries can be free or in servitude. Etc.
Religious groups, defined by their religions, can also be free, and not free.

 

Jefferson Constitutionally justified it in his letter to the Danbury Baptists!

https://www.billofrightsinstitute.org/founding-documents/primary-source-documents/danburybaptists/

 

However it's religion that gave us western values.

 

Please name these "western values" and provide the relevant religious texts for them.

TYIA

 

Forgiveness and mercy. It's human nature to want to seek revenge.

 

And where exactly is this "forgiveness and mercy" actually being practised in western nations like the USA?

 

Charities, the justice system, debt forgiveness, etc.

 

Charities and justice systems exist in ALL cultures.

Debt forgiveness is an economic/political strategy that has nothing whatsoever to do with religion.

 

The freedom to worship within a group of one's choosing, and to not have the state dictate one's worship and associations, is neither an oxymoron nor is it particularly difficult to grasp.

Yes. And these days, both notions are twisted into unrecognizable forms in order justify attacks on religion. For instance, many attempt to transform freedom of religion into freedom from religion. Not what the founders intended.

Exactly. A very good freedom to have.

Exactly. And I would remind folks that most of the founders were very deeply religious people. They were not interested in preventing religion, they were interested in preventing a government imposed religion. Big difference.

 

That's like saying that there is no right to private property because locking your door is social captivity.

In short, please stick to intelligent OPs.

 

You are free to believe in any religion or no religion. How much more "freedom" do you want?

There is no freedom FROM religion.

 

However the more charitable and just countries also have a strong religious base.

 

Political ideologies now days are much of "captivity" than any religion