In a recent event from the Atlanta Civic Center, Ravi Zacharias answers a tough question about religious freedom- specifically the freedom to disbelieve- in other countries. From the DVD titled “Is America Really Christian.”
Video Rating: 0 / 5
Compulsion in religion and the freedom to disbelieve
Dr. Michael Savage will be the Keynote Speaker at the International Legal Conference on Freedom of Speech and Religion October 27 & 28, 2009
Palm Beach Gardens, FL (PRWEB) September 29, 2009
A Legal Conference on Freedom of Speech and Religion will be presented on October 27 and 28 in the U.S. Congressional Auditorium in Washington D.C. by the International Free Press Society, the Liberty Legal Project International and the Center for Security Policy. Co-sponsoring organizations include the Horowitz Freedom Center, the Florida Security Council and The O’Leary Report. The organizers expect lawyers, legislators, analysts and writers from the United States and the European Union.
Ann Fishman, Founder and Managing Member of The Liberty Legal Project International, LLC has announced that conservative intellectual and radio host Dr. Michael Savage will be the keynote speaker and guest of honor.
The conference will survey freedom of speech and religion under the laws of the U.S., the EU, international conventions and Shari’a as well as emerging threats to these rights around the globe. Panel topics will include hate speech and hate crimes laws, blasphemy laws, bloggers rights, e-speech, outsourcing of censorship to private companies, and childrens’ rights to freedom of speech and belief.
Confirmed speakers include Dr. Michael Savage, attorney and writer Ellis Washington, UK Member of Parliament Lord Malcolm Pearson, writer and American Center for Democracy founder Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld, analyst and Center for Security Policy founder Frank Gaffney, and many others including representatives of the U.S. Congress, the European Union Parliament, Liberty Counsel, Freedom House, the Thomas More Law Center, Liberty Counsel and the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
The conference is accredited in some states for Continuing Legal Education for attorneys but it is open to the public. The cost of the two day conference is $ 400.00 with discounts available for students and members of the press and government.
For more information contact conferences@libertylegalproject.com, call 1-800-989-0021 or go online for details at https://www.regonline.com/custImages/284741/conference_brochure_web.pdf.
###
KRQE News: “Anti Religion” Billboards Surface
November 22, 2009 – ALBUQUERQUE (KRQE) – Messages questioning religion are popping up across the city of Albuquerque just weeks before the biggest religious holidays in the world. The Freedom from Religion group sponsoring the billboards said they are paid through next month. Even if some find them controversial, the group said they arent about to take the billboards down. Many times religion is a crutch that doesn’t do as much good as people think it does, Freedom of Religion member Ron Herman said. We paid for the space, just like people paid for their space in newspapers advertising their services.” The colorful messages are on 10 billboards around Albuquerque. One billboard reads Imagine No Religion and Keep Religion out of Government. via atheistmedia.com –
The University of Notre Dames Tocqueville Program held its inaugural two-day conference Feb. 4-5, 2009: Freedom for, Freedom from, or Freedom of Religion: The Meanings of Religious Freedom in America. Day one of the event, Feb. 4, began with a debate between Nicholas Wolterstorff, Noah Porter Professor Emeritus of Philosophical Theology, Fellow of Berkeley College at Yale University; Mark Lilla, Professor of Humanities, Columbia University; and Bill Galston, Senior Fellow & Ezra K. Zilkha Chair in Governance Studies, The Brookings Institution. The following day, Feb. 5, a panel of Notre Dame faculty responded to points made during the debate. The panel included David Campbell, Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science; Rick Garnett, Professor, Notre Dame Law School; John McGreevy, IA O’Shaughnessy Dean of the College of Arts and Letters; and Mark Noll, Francis A. McAnaney Professor of History. At America’s founding three different and sometimes competing visions of religion in American political life were planted in American soil:freedom of religion, for religion, and from religion. These three distinct conceptions converged at the time of the American founding in the form of the religion clauses of the First Amendment, as well as the many parallel provisions in the state constitutions. Yet Americans do not always agree on the role religion should play in American public life. Should it be excluded from the public sphere or restrictions placed upon its use in …
Video Rating: 0 / 5
Approaches To Religion In Rousseau And Locke
For many people, religion has an indispensable place in society. Regarding its exact place in the society however has largely remained debatable. For some politics and religion are simply incompatible. Regarding religion and politics there are two extremes. One view simply seeks to eliminate religion out of politics. This view has several supporters even today; those who believe that politicians should stay away from religious issues, while pastors should stay away from political issues. It has had several supporters for a long time. John Locke was one of those who sought to draw a line between religion and politics. His is one of those positions that this paper will concern itself with. The other position is that seeks to marry religion with politics. This view as already indicated tends to go to another extreme. It nonetheless has been subject of great discussion within the field of rational thinking. Jean Jacques Rousseau is one philosopher who supported this kind of idea. So what is the point that these two are trying to make in their arguments? Why are their positions totally different?
Locke on Religion
Locke sought to draw a line between the authority concerned with matters of this temporary world and the world that is expected, which is spiritual. The distinction that he offers is quite clear. The persons that are charged with the responsibility of guiding people in as far as the goods of this world are concerned should not claim to have the authority to direct people even in matters of non material eschatological world. This for Locke is informed by quite a number of reasons. First, God has apparently not given anyone power to determine the way of salvation for others, and this includes deciding for anyone which religion to follow. This is informed by the awareness that there is an abounding responsibility in every individual to seek after their own salvation. This is done in the freedom that is inherent in nature. Therefore no one should give up their right to seeking individual salvation to the determination of the leadership of the country, or the judicial officers. One cannot follow any belief whatsoever without fully being convinced mentally that this is the faith that will likely offer them salvation. Resigning one’s right to the whims of the judicial officers then would reduce the individual to a subject of the politicians. This would already take away the liberty that is at the core of human subsistence. Worth mentioning is the fact that even the judicial officers also have the responsibility of saving their own souls. The heart of any religion is actually deeply rooted in the full conviction of the believer that whatever they hold in their mind is exactly what is required of them by God and that that is what they should do. The power of the political leadership is entirely external. This means that it appeals to forces outside in order to govern well. The power of any genuine religion however, is inherent is in the mental conviction that what one is following is the path that leads to their own redemption. This means that no one can force another into a form of religion, because no matter how hard they may try, they cannot force someone to accept mentally what they are convinced is not right for them. The power of the judicial authorities resides in their ability to enforce laws. Taking away from a man all he owns cannot force him to accept a religion that he sees as not leading him anywhere. The judicial power does not go beyond the laws. It is without their mandate to come up with ways of worship, because there is no way they can enforce these ways. It ensues from deep mental convictions. Furthermore, even if the state were able to force people to accept its religion, this does not necessarily mean that they have the salvation of their souls. What would result is a situation where each state dictates its own kind of religion, suitable to the interest of its leader. This only amounts to a blind resignation to the whims of the rulers. It takes away any use of conscience and reason.
These arguments show that the authority inherent in any government to lead the people relates only to the corporeal realities. Locke makes it clear it is imperative that people learn to tolerate each other. Everyone has a right to enjoy their belonging in a particular state, and no one is allowed to take this away on account of religion or lack of it. If someone should go contrary to what is considered as the right way, too bad, but no one should punish them in this world, in the assumption that they will suffer in the next. If the political leadership is to join a particular church, it does not mean that that particular church is identical with the state. The difference must be maintained fully. The judicial officers have also a role to play in as far as toleration is concerned (Locke, 2009). As already indicated, the responsibility of caring for the soul entirely resides in its owner. It often so happens, that certain individuals neglect this responsibility. If this happens, just as in the case of individuals who neglect their wealth, the judge must exercise toleration. The law only protects private property from any external interference, but not against its rightful owner. Moreover, the judge has neither the power to forbid the use of any rites within any particular church, or permit the use of others. This lies without his jurisdiction. Those rites however, ought to be in tandem with the normal functioning of life, not harming anyone or their property, and the judge is not obliged to tolerate those who perform unacceptable rituals (Locke, 2009). All that is acceptable in the state must not be forbidden in religion and vice versa. Ideally, Locke is drawing a line between the state and religion. There should be clear separation of roles because both are concerned with totally different realities (Locke, 2009).
Jean Jacques Rousseau
Unlike Locke, Rousseau considers that religion is totally crucial for the proper functioning of any society. The role of religion for him was to bring unity in the society. Three things were central to the civil religion of Rousseau: the idea of a life after this life, punishment or reward for virtue or lack of it, and tolerance (Rousseau, 2003). Governments were free to uphold such beliefs as eternal life. Rousseau considered that originally, there were no rulers; only gods existed. However, because every state had its own gods, no state would accept the gods of another, and even within a nation, differences brought about worship of many gods. One particularly interesting thing in Rousseau is that despite the fact that several gods existed within nations, a state of peace among the various religions persisted. This is apparently because; there was no border line between the gods and the law. There was no separation as such, between the state and religion (Rousseau, 2003). These gods however were restricted to the borders of the people over whom they lorded. This is seen even with the people of Israel, when they refused to worship alien gods after being exiled. An interesting thing was with the Roman attack on other cities. The solders required that the gods in that particular city leave before the attack, and victory meant that the gods of the defeated people would have to be subject to the gods of the Romans. Rousseau compared between three kinds of religion, which for him were in some way defective (Rousseau, 2003). The first one is that of man, this one is internal, and is not subject to any external factors. It lacks the physical sacramental typical of other religions. It involves the person with God, and the moral demands on the person. The other one relates to the people and the government. The laws and dogmas governing this kind of religion are designed by the law. This is a civil kind of a religion. The last one is a bit difficult to follow. This is because it offers dual codes to those who subscribe to it. Christianity falls into this kind of religion. It preaches a life in a different world, thereby reducing this world into a lesser one. This religion is destructive of unity, because it leaves people confused, between following diligently the faith they profess and the citizenship that they allege. Any kind of a system that is destructive of the bonds of society is totally unacceptable. It is important therefore that people follow the second kind of religion because this religion brings about the marriage between the law and the divine. This consequently means that when the people serve the needs of the state, they are in reality serving the deity. This can be almost comparable to the medieval period when Ceasaropapism was the order of the day. This means that anything that is done on behalf of the state is done in the name of God.
However, this kind of religion needs to be well guarded against any kind of tyrannical tendencies, and possible deception. The state should come up with articles meant to help the citizens become better in their service to the state and each other. The state cannot force anyone to follow the prescriptions in these articles, but it ought to throw out those who do not abide by them. This is because these are enemies of society. Those who knowingly go against the set religion should actually be killed. However, these prescriptions should be few and clear enough for the people to be able to follow them. There should be no difference placed between the theological and civil intolerance. It people go against the state by breaking the law; they are by extension going against God. Therefore they must be punished in the same way that God would. To Rousseau therefore, the mention of the theological presupposes the civil and vice versa.
Conclusion
As already established, these two philosophers have very interesting thoughts regarding the kind of relationship that should exist between the state and religion. The kind of relationship by both of them however, does not necessarily fit within present levels of life. It is absolutely impossible for instance to take religion as totally out of the state, because those who profess that religion are basically the same individuals that form part of the government. It is also impractical to assume the possibility of a marriage between state and religion. As it stands, there is a plurality of religions, and this must be respected if the state of war that Rousseau attempted to address is to be avoided. What should be put in place, however, is a sound constitution that respects the core freedom of people to worship, while at the same time respecting their own responsibilities as citizens of their respective countries. Ceasaropapism, where the pope was Caesar was tried in Rome with severe consequences. There is a very thick line between matter spiritual and matters material, yet the line that separates the two within the individuals that understand them is very thin. This brings a lot of problems. Therefore it would be important that reason be applied in matter of faith, in order to eliminate the possibility of either fundamentalism or Fanatism.
The author Anna Petrescu has academic writing experience of over 5 years. She holds a PHD in education from Cambridge. She has been assisting students in writing professional academic papers including thesis, dissertations, research papers and term papers. bestessayscenter.com
Article from articlesbase.com
Fascist Liberals Suppress Freedom of Religion
Please keep all comments and debates civil, no vulgarities, ECT…
Video Rating: 4 / 5
Scientology Magazine Psychiatry Article Earns Religion Communicators Council Award
Freedom Magazine, a Church of Scientology International publication has been recognized by the Religion Communicators Council (RCC) with the 2009 DeRose-Hinkhouse Memorial Awards Certificate of Merit for writing on the web. The award went to Psychiatric Screening: Destroying Lives for Profit, for its dispassionate look at the facts and figures of this psychiatric experiment and its casualties-our children.
The award-winning article details the case of Aliah Gleason, who was taken from school without her parents’ consent and placed in Austin State Hospital. Aliah was hospitalized simply because her parents refused to place their 11-year-old daughter on dangerous psychiatric drugs that the FDA warns “increase the risk of suicidal thinking and behavior (suicidality) in children and adolescents.” And Aliah was prescribed these drugs based only on her answers to the questions in a school-based psychiatric screening program.
The Freedom feature traces the background of this experiment in human behavior, finding that such programs have ties to multibillion-dollar interests that will profit enormously from their implementation.
Purporting to prevent child suicide, screening programs factually increase its risk, according to Freedom Magazine. The article cites a Duke University study that found that surveys can influence behavior and conduct. Thus, the article notes, “…screening programs have made some health practitioners nervous that peoples’ problems will worsen by being pumped with questions about depression and thoughts of suicide.”
The Religion Communicators Council is an interfaith association of religion communicators at work in print and electronic communication, marketing and in public relations. The DeRose-Hinkhouse Memorial Awards are presented annually to members of the RCC who demonstrate excellence in religion communications and public relations.
Premised on the principles of human rights, Freedom Magazine has been a catalyst for groundbreaking reforms in the public interest and has been broadly hailed as a leading voice for human rights and civil liberties for more than 40 years. Freedom Magazine is published by the Church of Scientology International. Scientology churches publish 20 local and regional editions of the magazine.
To read the award-winning article and for more information on Freedom Magazine, visit its web site at www.freedommag.org or the official Scientology site at www.scientology.org.
Linda Wieland writes for the Scientology Press Office in Los Angeles, CA.
Article from articlesbase.com
Addictions ? Spirituality vs Religion
Without question, addiction freedom does require a spiritual transformation. And while Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) should be credited with uncovering that element, most participants fail to make an authentic spiritual transformation. I believe this can be mainly attributed to the false pretense that spirituality is somehow connected to religion. Spirituality and religion are distinctly and undeniably different practices. Religion is a community or group practice while spirituality is a personal journey. The practice of outward ideals and doctrines is not, nor has it ever been, a substitute for inner righteousness. Can one practice religion and spirituality? Yes, of course! However, one should not assume they are synonymous because they aren’t! Ironically, this is exactly what occurs in the Twelve-Step Program. Alcoholics Anonymous professes its independence from organized religion, but that’s a bit disingenuous since the majority of programming is sponsored by churches and various religious denominations. Moreover, two of the early, influential leaders of (AA) were deeply rooted in religion. Frank Buchman was a Lutheran minister, and Samuel shoemaker was a rector in the Episcopal faith.
While the end goal of both spirituality and religion is to establish a personal relationship with the divine, only spirituality can deliver on that promise. Religion is a community or group based practice, which usually follows a doctrine or set of ideals. When practiced correctly, spirituality is a personal journey that encompasses self-reflection, discovery, growth and a greater connection to ones higher consciousness and the divine. Truthfully, I have nothing against religion if it is practiced authentically. However, when it is not and is passed off as spirituality it becomes a grand facade that is completely counterproductive to addiction recovery. This is why many folks in (AA) trade masks or exhibit a behavioral transference. In other words, they transfer their addiction to (AA) or religion. Four of the steps of (AA) touch on self-discovery and selflessness, however, that valuable guidance is quickly quashed by the concept of powerlessness.
A spiritual practice must be born in the fire of liberation. One’s higher consciousness or spirit doesn’t exist in the realm of anger, resentment, jealousy, envy, judgment or fear. Consequently, to make that connection you must take the necessary action to relinquish your fears and insecurities. To put it bluntly, you must wipe the slate clean. It really boils down to looking your demons squarely in the eye! However, it’s hard to liberate or empower yourself if you’re being told that you are powerless! Think about it! Have you allowed others to usurp your personal power, strip your personal identity, or prevent you from following your true divine purpose? These issues can only be addressed in an authentic spiritual practice. If you’d like to embark on an authentic spiritual path, begin by examining you fears and self-limiting beliefs. Adopt a set of principles and stand firmly – no matter what anyone says or does. Take back your personal power by learning to say what you mean and mean what you say. Say no to others when it’s necessary. And, learn to speak your will in a calm and confident way.
In Summary, religion and spirituality can be practiced together; however, they are vastly different paths. Religion is a community path while spirituality is a personal journey. The path that is most beneficial to addiction freedom is spirituality.
Regards,
David Roppo
The Addiction Freedom Coach
If you’d like more information on overcoming addictions or how to make an authentic spiritual transformation, click on the links below to get a free copy of my E-Course!
Addiction Freedom and Life Transformation expert David Roppo is fiercely committed to helping people everywhere who struggle with addiction, career/ personal life identity crises, life purpose issues and low self-esteem problems. Guiding them with easy to learn tips and empowering pearls of wisdom to create a truly magical existence that’s free from habitual behavior and filled with happiness, love, true purpose and abundance – is his passion and commitment. David is a work-in-the trenches coach, author, speaker and creator of a unique 5-step addiction freedom and life transformation system.
Article from articlesbase.com
Related Freedom Of Religion Articles
Freedom of Religion | Dr. Geoff Tunnicliffe on Religious Tolerance | 423 | 1
www.ListenUpTV.com | Putting North America’s religious freedom onto the global stage. What’s to be done when people die because of their beliefs?
Video Rating: 0 / 5
Julia talks about the burn the Quran day and Islam.
Religion Requires Freedom And Freedom Requires Religion
Science & Reason on Facebook: tinyurl.com Religion Requires Freedom And Freedom Requires Religion (The Atheist Experience #539 with Matt Dillahunty & Mark Loewe). — • www.youtube.com • www.youtube.com • www.youtube.com — What is TheAtheist Experience? The Atheist Experience is a weekly cable access television show in Austin, Texas geared at an atheist and non-atheist audience. The Atheist Experience is produced by the Atheist Community of Austin (ACA), a nonprofit educational corporation to develop and support the atheist community, to provide opportunities for socializing and friendship, to promote secular viewpoints, to encourage positive atheist culture, to defend the first amendment principle of state-church separation, to oppose discrimination against atheists and to work with other organizations in pursuit of common goals. • www.Atheist-Experience.com • http • www.NonProphetsRadio.com Watch The Atheist Experience live (Sundays) • tinyurl.com Support the ACA (donations/membership): • www.Atheist-Community.org • www.Atheist-Community.org • Blog: AtheistExperience.blogspot.com • Wiki www.IronChariots.org • DVDs atheist-community.org • Blip.tv: atheistexperience.blip.tv • Cartoons Atheist-Community.org • E-mail: tv@atheist-community.org .
