Flutterby™! : religious freedom

Next unread comment / Catchup all unread comments User Account Info | Logout | XML/Pilot/etc versions | Long version (with comments) | Weblog archives | Site Map | | Browse Topics

religious freedom

2007-09-04 14:55:23.807932+00 by Dan Lyke 6 comments

[ related topics: Religion Privacy Sexual Culture Civil Liberties ]

comments in ascending chronological order (reverse):

#Comment Re: made: 2007-09-04 17:40:44.627125+00 by: Mark A. Hershberger

I'll simply point out that the first amendment does protect religious freedom and there is nothing in the constitution that is as explicit about sexual freedom.

I don't know anything about the Rutherford Institute, but any constitutionalist organisation would clearly see religious freedom within the scope of their work. Sexual freedom like the OP wants would be the work of those organisations with the broader scope of civil liberties. I'm guessing that the Rutherford Institute has no interest in duplicating the great work of the ACLU.

#Comment Re: made: 2007-09-05 02:28:24.922953+00 by: Dan Lyke

The first amendment might not explicitly protect sexual freedom, but what about "the right of the people to peaceably assmble"?

#Comment Re: made: 2007-09-05 11:47:24.02605+00 by: meuon

Sexual freedom is a major component of my personal religious belief system.. isn't it in yours? - In fact, something I like about Nancy's church crowd is (from personal anecdotes of church members) is a healthy loving sex life. Their founder was married several times, and also seemed to enjoy it.

Any religion that has issues with human sexuality within real world liberal boundaries, is suffering from a disconnect from reality, bad theology and bad religion.

At our core being, sexuality is something that deserves more importance and protection than religion. It's even more of what we are than our religion or lack of it. It's what differentiates us as living beings: Intake (food), Respiration and Procreation. That we can enjoy it: makes us human.

#Comment Re: made: 2007-09-05 18:20:02.473731+00 by: Mark A. Hershberger

I'll go along with Dan's right to peaceably assemble, but point out that most right-wing orgs don't seem to care much about that right (again, I don't know anything about the Rutherford Institute, so I can't say if they're "right wing", "constitutionalist" or only concerned with "religious freedom"). I'm still confused why the OP think finds this worthy of comment. Yes, American fundamentalist Christians tend to be more focused on freedom of religion than sexual freedom. I realize this is Flutterby, but give me a break.

And, no, meuon, sexual freedom isn't a "major component" of anything I'm overly concerned with. Why should it be? Freedom is, but I suspect we defined freedom in radically different ways.

sexuality is something that deserves more importance and protection than religion -- I can't argue with that since I don't know what you mean by "religion". I will say that my initial reading is to assume you have little respect for those who do not share your materialistic point-of-view.

#Comment Re: made: 2007-09-05 18:27:42.364684+00 by: Mark A. Hershberger

So, I checked out the Rutherford Institute's "mission" page and they state "The Institute's mission is twofold: to provide legal services in the defense of religious and civil liberties and to educate the public on important issues affecting their constitutional freedoms."

It is probably significant that they called out "religious" liberties seperate from "civil" liberties. And their history page makes it even clearer that they are focused on religious, specifically what the founder considers Christian, issues.

#Comment Re: made: 2007-09-05 22:00:08.972884+00 by: Mark A. Hershberger [edit history]