Tumgik
#freedom of conscience
infinitysisters · 1 year
Text
"I have one consistency, which is being against the totalitarian - on the left and on the right. The totalitarian, to me, is the enemy; the one that's absolute, the one that wants control over the inside of your head, not just your actions and your taxes.”
Tumblr media
\\Christopher Hitchens
41 notes · View notes
triadic · 8 months
Quote
But, according to Hoedemaker, the Reformed had always held that there is no permissible coercion of conscience–freedom of religion is something entirely different from freedom of conscience. And here, absolute freedom of religion is impossible if one seeks to have a society. Citizens have individual freedom of religion, subject to what is required from public order, the freedom of others, and the character of the nation and its institutions, but one cannot use religion to overthrow the foundations of society. Some religion will always be recognized as the reference for truth in a given society; such a religion will be distinguished from others.
James Wood, on a contemporary of Kuyper. How Abraham Kuyper Lost the Nation and Sidelined the Church - Ad Fontes
2 notes · View notes
protoslacker · 2 years
Link
It’s worth noting the wide diverstiy of Christians Against Christian Nationalism and in particular Evangelical Christians who endorse opposition to it. The equality of people of different faiths along with non-religious people is bedrok  to democracy and has theological significance.
3 notes · View notes
penguinlover27 · 1 year
Link
It should not be surprising in the least for Christians in the USA that there is a backlash to their never-ending efforts to maintain and expand their privilege to impose their beliefs on the rest of us. In fact, it is about damn time for it.
I strongly support and cherish the freedom to religion, which is not only a civil right enshrined in our Constitution, but is also a core human right: the right to one’s own conscience.
But that right, as with all rights, has limits. It comes down to this: your rights end where mine begin, and vice versa.
To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket for my fellow citizens to hold religious and political beliefs that differ from mine. They should be allowed to practice their religion as they want and live as they choose, but what they cannot and should not be allowed to do is impose those beliefs on the rest of us.
For example, if your religion holds that abortion is wrong or sinful, then don’t abort your own pregnancy. If your religion says that same-sex marriage is forbidden, then don’t marry someone of your same sex.
It does not impose anything on people of faith if the rights to abortion and marriage equality are upheld. They would never be forced to engage on those acts, nor is anyone asking them to celebrate or approve of them. What they are asked, however, is to recognize that those rights exist and are embraced by other people.
With every advance made by minority groups, there have always been Christians there to demand exceptions to maintain their privilege. Case in point, the very person shown in the photo accompanying the article. He, along with others, have successfully convinced SCOTUS that the requirement that they serve all members of the public without discrimination is a violation of their faith. Once again, their faith was held up as being more important than the civil rights of the people against whom they want to discriminate.
In any case, Christians should indeed expect to lose ground and privilege as the Boomer generation dies off and Gen X and younger Americans step up. While I do not want to see Christians persecuted or their right to conscience and worship curtailed, they are going to have to accept the reality that they are but one of many competing faiths and ideologies. They are going to have to find a way to exist in a multi-cultural society. 
It may benefit them to look at how others have handled this in the past, such as the Amish and other groups who choose to live in parallel to mainstream society but still segregate themselves into their own communities. That is certainly one of many options they can take, but the simplest is for them to be a bit more humble and recognize that the rights they enjoy are the same for us all and that all viewpoints are equally valid in the eyes of the law.
0 notes
itsadventageous · 1 year
Text
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
In AD 1888 Senator Henry W Blair (et al.) attempted a religious National Sunday Law (NSL). A. T. (Alonzo Trevier) Jones (et al.) stood up against it's unConstitutionality. The Bill was defeated. There are persons attempting again, this time more subtly. There are several countries already onboard with such a thing, and even at the U.N. level there are plans in place. This will bring about total tyranny, and the final events.
1 note · View note
redshift-13 · 1 year
Link
Humanists International’s research exposes that only 4% of the global population live in societies that are truly secular, where there is a clear separation of religious and political authorities, that do not discriminate against any religion or belief community.
According to the organization’s research, 70% of the world’s population live in countries where the expression of humanist values is severely repressed; where the full realization of one’s right to freedom of religion or belief is impossible. The result: harsh penalties for apostasy; a higher likelihood of the perpetuation of harmful traditional practices; religious nationalism entrenching conservative values within society.
Although I have some issues with the report’s organization and presentation of information, it’s still a unique and essential guide to state and social secularism.
A further criticism is that it misses an opportunity to advance a much broader suite of humanist values.  For example, if the research were available (and if it’s not, here’s where humanist financial resources could be directed), social measures like the following could be generated:
Mind Index: A rich aggregate of measures pertaining to various literacies and capabilities.  Examples: science literacy, geographic literacy, philosophical literacy, health literacy.  What would a country by country comparison look like if we measured a proposed rationality quotient?  Also useful would be getting a grip on population distributions along theorized stages of personality and cognitive development and also moral reasoning.  See here for various perspectives on psychological developmental stage theory.
Environmental Conditions of Creativity Index: Perhaps constructed off of Implications of this chapter - Systems Perspective for the Study of Creativity by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi in Handbook of Creativity (1999), ed. by Robert J. Sternberg.
Foresight Index: A measure assessing the futures orientation, future adaptability and foresight capability of various institutions and social systems.
Translational Knowledge Index: The idea here would be to assess the efficiency of the dissemination and adoption of knowledge from all domains.  If, for example, X is determined to substantially reduce cardiovascular disease, how efficiently does this information reach all health clinics and also the general public?  Or, if some transformative new insight emerges in educational psychology, how quickly does this get adopted by the school system.
Sexual Freedom Index: The extent to which people are: free from sexual coercion and violence, educated with accurate and complete information, able to practice safe sex, free from sexual shame, etc.
There are many other social measures that would be useful to know and have presented under the rubric of a global humanist values report.
1 note · View note
immaculatasknight · 1 year
Link
David vs Goliath
0 notes
ultramontanism · 1 year
Text
Pope Gregory XVI, 1832: Mirari Vos:
14. This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it. “But the death of the soul is worse than freedom of error,” as Augustine was wont to say.[21] When all restraints are removed by which men are kept on the narrow path of truth, their nature, which is already inclined to evil, propels them to ruin. Then truly “the bottomless pit”[22] is open from which John saw smoke ascending which obscured the sun, and out of which locusts flew forth to devastate the earth. Thence comes transformation of minds, corruption of youths, contempt of sacred things and holy laws — in other words, a pestilence more deadly to the state than any other. Experience shows, even from earliest times, that cities renowned for wealth, dominion, and glory perished as a result of this single evil, namely immoderate freedom of opinion, license of free speech, and desire for novelty.
0 notes
sgreffenius · 2 years
Link
The actual genius of Locke was that he took the political ideas of the Puritans and repackaged them for broader consumption. He shifted the weight of their arguments from biblical revelation to reason.
Freedom of conscience was embedded in Protestantism from the beginning when Martin Luther stood before the Imperial Diet of Worms and said,
“Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason—I do not accept the authority of popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other—my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help me.”
 He later followed this up with strong statements against the coercion of belief in state and church.
0 notes
chaiaurchaandni · 5 months
Text
Tumblr media
21 notes · View notes
catoscloves · 2 months
Text
you know in my ap us history/ap government classes something that comes up in the videos they have us watch as homework assignments is how governments & especially fascist regimes will use children's education as a tool to mass-brainwash the impressionable youth into believing in their ideology while cutting off their access to outside information & resources that would contradict and completely disintegrate that line of thinking, and being the thg girlie that i am i immediately thought "hey that sounds familiar, pretty much what happened to the career tributes" and after that i was like "oh. that's literally suzanne's entire point!! right."
8 notes · View notes
tamlinfairchild · 5 months
Text
Always and forever going to stand with people who are opressed and stay by their side when they resort to violence after trying everything else under the sky and coming to the horrifying conclusion that the only language the oppressor understands is violence.
16 notes · View notes
because--palestine · 13 days
Text
youtube
Why Germany is cracking down on free speech
"The violence has seeped into the metropolis”
Anthropologist Ghassan Hage explains why countries like Germany, who enshrined freedom of expression into law, are violently cracking down on pro-Palestinian voices.
On Friday, German police raided a Palestinian conference, arrested a number of activists. They also barred British-Palestinian doctor Ghassan Abu Sittah from entering the country to speak, allegedly threatening him with prosecution if he speaks publicly.
Hage is currently in a legal battle with the Max Planck Society, after they fired him following a media campaign accusing him of ‘antisemitism’.
He says it's part of a wider trend in western nations which are feeling threatened by their immigrant populations and attempting to regain control.
3 notes · View notes
Let us never surrender our judgments or our consciences to be at the disposal and opinions of others, and to be subjected to the sentences and determinations of men.
Samuel Bolton
41 notes · View notes
philosophybitmaps · 8 days
Text
Tumblr media
6 notes · View notes
apenitentialprayer · 11 days
Text
Four Types of Dignity
There is widespread agreement today on the importance and normative scope of human dignity and on the unique and transcendent value of every human being. However, the phrase "the dignity of the human person" risks lending itself to a variety of interpretations that can yield potential ambiguities and "contradictions that lead us to wonder whether the equal dignity of all human beings . . . is truly recognized, respected, protected, and promoted in every situation." This brings us to recognize the possibility of a fourfold distinction in the concept of dignity: ontological dignity, moral dignity, social dignity, and existential dignity. The most important among these is the ontological dignity that belongs to the person as such simply because he or she exists and is willed, created, and loved by God. Ontological dignity is indelible and remains valid beyond any circumstances in which the person may find themselves. When we speak of moral dignity, we refer to how people exercise their freedom. While people are endowed with conscience, they can always act against it. However, were they to do so, they would behave in a way that is "not dignified" with respect to their nature as creatures who are loved by God and called to love others. Yet, this possibility always exists for human freedom, and history illustrates how individuals —when exercising their freedom against the law of love revealed by the Gospel— can commit inestimably profound acts of evil against others. Those who act this way seem to have lost any trace of humanity and dignity. This is where the present distinction can help us discern between the moral dignity that de facto can be "lost" and the ontological dignity that can never be annulled. And it is precisely because of this latter point that we must work with all our might so that all those who have done evil may repent and convert. There are still two other possible aspects of our dignity to consider: social and existential. When we speak of social dignity, we refer to the quality of a person's living conditions. For example, in cases of extreme poverty, where individuals do not even have what is minimally necessary to live according to their ontological dignity, it is said that those poor people are living in an "undignified" manner. This expression does not imply a judgment on those individuals but highlights how the situation in which they are forced to live contradicts their inalienable dignity. The last meaning is that of existential dignity, which is the type of dignity implied in the ever-increasing discussion about a "dignified" life and one that is "not dignified." For instance, while some people may appear to lac nothing essential for life, for various reasons, they may still struggle to live with peace, joy, and hope. In other situations, the presence of serious illnesses, violent family environments, pathological addictions, and other hardships may drive people to experience this life conditions as "undignified" vis-à-vis their perception of that ontological dignity that can never be obscured. These distinctions remind us of the inalienable value of the ontological dignity that is rooted in the very being of the human person in all circumstances.
Dignitas infinita, or "On Human Dignity" (§7-8)
2 notes · View notes