"Religion" carries no meaning and freedom of religion is complete bullshit
Good day,
I've thought about this long and hard (not really) and come to the conclusion that the word "religion" is superfluous and the term "freedom of religion" is not only unfair and unneeded, but also dangerous.
Now I don't even want to get into debating the definition of religion. I hope we can all agree that being a member of a religion usually includes the following points:
(1) Believing something without evidence
(2) Doing something on the basis of these beliefs
(3) Membership in an organization of like-minded individuals
Note how the freedom for all of these things is guaranteed for in a civilized culture. Note how "freedom of religion" is a term without additional meaning. Apply Occam's razor.
Note how the following terms are usually listed as a group:
- gender
- ethnicity, nationality
- age
- sexual orientation
- religion
Note how all aspects but religion are not chosen and therefore not subject to personal responsibility. Note how all aspects but religion do not imply any moral, philosophical or psychological identity and no specific world view. Note how only religion is a matter of conscious thought and decision-making. Note how only religion makes objective statements about the nature of the universe while all others are simply subjective properties of a person.
One of the reasons for "freedom of religion" is the prevention of "religious persecution", especially violent persecution.
Note how it is both illegal and immoral to put someone in a gas chamber because he is Jewish or because he likes 60s rock.
Note the complete absence of "freedom to like 60s rock" in a nation's constitution.
Now to the dangers.
Danger 1: By explicitly supporting "freedom of religion" we take part in the following:
- We think it is a good idea to separate humanity into groups
- We treat religion in a special way, as opposed to liking 60s rock
- We thereby actively shield religion from criticism
Danger 2: We think twice before criticizing someone's religion as opposed to criticizing his taste in music.
- It is now a debatable issue whether or not it is OK to ridicule a historic person.
- It is now a debatable issue whether or not it is justified to abort a batch of cells.
These things should not be subject to debate. The answers are very obvious.
Danger 3: Whether or not someone is offended is now relevant to what we say.
This is a hazard to free speech.
We cannot partake in an open-ended debate about the whole of existence.
Danger 4: It is implied that every person has to belong to a group of people under the category of "religion".
- Atheism is now considered a religious denomination. Atheism is not a religious identity, it is a term without meaning.
Danger 5: Whether or not something classifies as "religion" is relevant to our judgment. It should not be.
Whether or not something is a religion is of absolutely zero significance, because the term carries no meaning.
Criminal organizations like Scientology fight vigorously for being accepted as a "religion" because they know that this tag influences people's opinion.
Here in Germany Scientology is on a constant campaign, sending letters to government officials, notifying them that Scientology is considered a religion in other parts of the world. Like this matters.
The first thing you will hear someone say when you criticize their beliefs is "freedom of religion". Note how Scientologists make extensive use of this to divert from them killing, abusing and ripping off people and longing for world domination.
Note how when you support "freedom of religion" you are supporting extremism purely be making this style of debate possible. The line is drawn very clearly, for everyone to see. Religious moderation is a dead end. If you think it is acceptable for you to believe something without evidence, then this also applies to others. If you believe some parts of a book are true without evidence, then you think it is OK for someone else to believe that other parts of the book are true without evidence.
If you shield yourself, you shield others. If you respect someone else's shield, you shield others.
Note how religious humility should rather be called religious arrogance.
Note how saying "freedom of religion" is equivalent to saying absolutely nothing.
Note how when we criticize a scientific theory or a piece of art, we usually go into an open-ended debate about the topic at hand and don't say "I have the constitutional right to believe this and therefore I will not discuss the issue".
Note how it is impossible to control someone's thoughts. Note how incredibly stupid it is to even verbalize this. It's still in the constitution.
Note how the complete Vatican should be put into jail for violation of human rights and crimes against humanity.
To make my point clear: "Freedom of religion" is not a part of but directly opposed to human rights. It is both unjustified and unfair to have such a statement in a nation's constitution. It is unjustified for the above reasons and unfair because it attaches special importance to religion for no reason.
Good day.