Freedom of Religion

[RWStanding]

Freedom of Religion
There may be a fundamental flaw in this ethic as it is presently used.
What we understand by this is that every person has the right to choose his own religion.
But this right must be predicated on the basis that everyone has the right to his own private religion.
For in choosing a religion that is corporate, as with most religion today, in its powerful sects and churches, once any great part of the population chooses the same religious sect, its corporate power is unleashed. And before long all of a given society and country may be under its thrall.
Alternatively, if people have the individual right to choose a religious sect, as if in a current style of parliamentary election, then it is understood that the majority wins power over society.
A country wilth a long established religion, once it opens itself to the ethic of personal autonomy, may well find itself completely fractured. Prior to some new and well organised religion taking hold.
If society is altruistic, as against personal autonomy, and against authoritarianism, then it is so by virtue of this value, and whatever religion it parades under its name.

[Immanuel Can]

Freedom of Religion
There may be a fundamental flaw in this ethic as it is presently used.
What we understand by this is that every person has the right to choose his own religion.
But this right must be predicated on the basis that everyone has the right to his own private religion.

Are you ruling out the idea that people can agree on a religion?

I think you've missed John Locke's argument on this. According to Locke, the basis of the right to choose one's own religion is called "freedom of conscience." Freedom of conscience, says Locke, is inescapable, because God holds all persons accountable for their choices, and does so in what Locke calls, "the Great Day," the Day of Judgment.

Locke even says that to deprive a person of their right of choosing according to conscience is an action against God Himself. And in any case, he says, it is impossible to deprive a person of conscience in actuality, as however you may compel his actions you cannot change his heart -- and God judges by the heart.

So Locke did not think people could make up private religions. He did, however, think they had an unalienable right to choose their religion from among those that exist, or barring that, to live by their consciences and to be judged thereby.

For in choosing a religion that is corporate, as with most religion today, in its powerful sects and churches, once any great part of the population chooses the same religious sect, its corporate power is unleashed. And before long all of a given society and country may be under its thrall.

Not all corporate religions seek political power. The Hassidim, the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Quakers...these are all groups that actively avoid political control. Some forms of Buddhism would emphasize that politics is all maya, illusion, anyway, and that those who focus on it are deluded and led away from enlightenment.

But some institutional religions would be like you say.

Alternatively, if people have the individual right to choose a religious sect, as if in a current style of parliamentary election, then it is understood that the majority wins power over society.

People don't generally "vote" for religions. What you'll find is that some are born into situations in which they adopt one by default, and others choose one themselves or convert as their consciences instruct them. But you're fusing religious affiliation with direct democracy; and the two aren't necessarily linked at all.

A country wilth a long established religion, once it opens itself to the ethic of personal autonomy, may well find itself completely fractured. Prior to some new and well organised religion taking hold.

It may, but it may not. America was founded on religious toleration. They actually referred directly to Locke on that.

If society is altruistic, as against personal autonomy, and against authoritarianism, then it is so by virtue of this value, and whatever religion it parades under its name.

I can't figure out what you mean by this.

"Altruism" refers to one's disposition toward others. "Personal autonomy" refers to the individual, but is necessary in order for any person to be genuinely altruistic. (Otherwise, they're only forced to pretend to be altruistic, but are not.) And as for how "authoritarianism" fits into this...well, it's a governmental arrangement -- a bad one -- and is incompatible with both. So I can't tell what your point is there: can you clear it up?

[A_Seagull]

. According to Locke, the basis of the right to choose one's own religion is called "freedom of conscience." Freedom of conscience, says Locke, is inescapable, because God holds all persons accountable for their choices, and does so in what Locke calls, "the Great Day," the Day of Judgment.

Locke even says that to deprive a person of their right of choosing according to conscience is an action against God Himself. And in any case, he says, it is impossible to deprive a person of conscience in actuality, as however you may compel his actions you cannot change his heart -- and God judges by the heart.

So Locke did not think people could make up private religions. He did, however, think they had an unalienable right to choose their religion from among those that exist, or barring that, to live by their consciences and to be judged thereby.

Locke was living in a time when religion was pervasive.

It is irrelevant in modern enlightenment.

[Impenitent]

the religion of secular enlightenment as the anti-opiate brings utopia everywhere it has been tried...

-Imp

[Immanuel Can]

Locke was living in a time when religion was pervasive.

That is certainly true. He was a Protestant, in fact, though a somewhat unusual one. And he gave us the rationale for human rights, and grounded it solely in that worldview. That is true.

It is irrelevant in modern enlightenment.

All you have to do to prove that true is to show that what you call "modern enlightenment" has a grounding assumption for human rights that is as good as Locke's.

Now, what would that be?

[A_Seagull]

Locke was living in a time when religion was pervasive.

That is certainly true. He was a Protestant, in fact, though a somewhat unusual one. And he gave us the rationale for human rights, and grounded it solely in that worldview. That is true.

It is irrelevant in modern enlightenment.

All you have to do to prove that true is to show that what you call "modern enlightenment" has a grounding assumption for human rights that is as good as Locke's.

No I don't!

Your claim of truth is only a claim to your ignorance of possible alternatives.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

A bit of history for the Americans. The Puritans-- ''English Protestants (those bloody English again) in the 16th and 17th centuries who sought to purify the Church of England of Roman Catholic practices..''-- went to the US to enable themselves the freedom to take way the religious freedom of everyone else, and persecute as many people as possible. Apparently the English in power at the time were too 'tolerant' for them Those 'sweethearts' gave America the Salem witch trials.

[Immanuel Can]

All you have to do to prove that true is to show that what you call "modern enlightenment" has a grounding assumption for human rights that is as good as Locke's.

No I don't!

Your claim of truth is only a claim to your ignorance of possible alternatives.

Then give me the possible alternatives. What alternative, secular basis for human rights would you propose?

[Immanuel Can]

A bit of history for the Americans. The Puritans...

I'm not sure what the Puritans have to do with this topic, but go ahead....maybe you can explain it.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

A bit of history for the Americans. The Puritans...

I'm not sure what the Puritans have to do with this topic, but go ahead....maybe you can explain it.

A lot of people have the misconception that the Puritans went to America to escape religious persection, when the opposite is true. They wanted to be able to persectute to their heart's content.

[A_Seagull]

All you have to do to prove that true is to show that what you call "modern enlightenment" has a grounding assumption for human rights that is as good as Locke's.

No I don't!

Your claim of truth is only a claim to your ignorance of possible alternatives.

Then give me the possible alternatives. What alternative, secular basis for human rights would you propose?

If you do not possess the ability to imagine possible alternatives then nothing I suggest will convince you.

[Immanuel Can]

A bit of history for the Americans. The Puritans...

I'm not sure what the Puritans have to do with this topic, but go ahead....maybe you can explain it.

A lot of people have the misconception that the Puritans went to America to escape religious persection, when the opposite is true. They wanted to be able to persectute to their heart's content.

And this has to do with John Locke...how?

[Immanuel Can]

No I don't!

Your claim of truth is only a claim to your ignorance of possible alternatives.

Then give me the possible alternatives. What alternative, secular basis for human rights would you propose?

If you do not possess the ability to imagine possible alternatives then nothing I suggest will convince you.

Heh. You haven't even given it the first try. Go ahead -- if you've got something.

But in fairness, I should alert you to the fact that you don't, and you won't. Lots of philosophers are working on that problem, but there's been absolutely no progress since Locke on that question.

But this takes us back to Locke. With no possible alternate rationale, what do we do about human rights, once we've thrown out his legitimative rationale for them?

[A_Seagull]

Then give me the possible alternatives. What alternative, secular basis for human rights would you propose?

If you do not possess the ability to imagine possible alternatives then nothing I suggest will convince you.

Heh. You haven't even given it the first try. Go ahead -- if you've got something.

But in fairness, I should alert you to the fact that you don't, and you won't. Lots of philosophers are working on that problem, but there's been absolutely no progress since Locke on that question.

But this takes us back to Locke. With no possible alternate rationale, what do we do about human rights, once we've thrown out his legitimative rationale for them?

Rights don't need a rationale, they are empirical. People claim rights for those things that they want. They do not need any further theoretical justification.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

I'm not sure what the Puritans have to do with this topic, but go ahead....maybe you can explain it.

A lot of people have the misconception that the Puritans went to America to escape religious persection, when the opposite is true. They wanted to be able to persectute to their heart's content.

And this has to do with John Locke...how?

What is the OP heading?