Redundant freedom: Religion?

[Niflmir]

I will lay out my intent of the bat, so I don't rope you in deceivingly. I feel that freedom of religion is redundant. All of the things that it should represent are already covered by another freedom. That is to say, even if we did not expressly state freedom of religion in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom, it would still exist per se.

Freedom of religion is redundant precisely because we have:

1. Freedom of thought: I can believe whatever I wish.
2. Freedom of association: So long as I am not planning a crime, I can associate with anybody.
3. Freedom of expression: So long as I am not endorsing crime, I can say anything. Also, I can wear and write anything subject to the same stipulation and sometimes safety regulations.

What else does freedom of religion grant? Well, here is the negative aspect: in the current wording of the criminal code, using religious arguments from authoritative texts alone, one is free to endorse discrimination against certain parties. Namely, section 319.3.b:

No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text.

Note of course that this denies usage of the Hadith, to any of you that know anything about Islam. Also, this sterilizes the conception of future religions to a certain extent: you can only be considered a religion if you have some sort of "religious text." That is a very narrow definition of religion, I am sorry Wiccans, you don't really have a Canon yet do you? Also, I am not free to start my own religion, unless I can scribe a document with supposed authority. Good faith is virtually impossible for the prosecution to ever prove, so it is largely irrelevant.

So, freedom of religion gives me the right to incite hatred against any group if I can find an argument for it in the Torah, Quran, Bible, Pseudepigrapha, Rig'Veda or even the Eddas of the Vikings, I suppose. Is that really beneficial? Is that the sort of thing we expect religions to do? incite hatred? Is it really useful to grant specific organizations the right to deny freedom to certain individuals? To me taking rights from individuals and giving them to abstract entities is a disgrace.

That aside, the only other real privilege that religion grants the ability to demand certain holidays. That being said, how many of you have seen your Muslim colleagues take Ramadan off? Is anyone aware of a minimum wage employee successfully demanding that they get such and such a day off and not being fired? Which is atrocious.

No, I will not argue that people should be denied that right, if anything that right needs to be strengthened. Maybe your family got together each year on the 17th to 21st of August to celebrate simply being a family. You should be able to demand that time off. Society should focus on affirming relationships, not affirming occupation. If you come from another culture you will have other holidays as well, which you probably won't be able to take off. But I say this ability of workers should be strengthened so that it is not only for religion and to ensure that people are able to demand such rights. Making freedom of religion redundant by promoting family customs of all sorts.

You are already free to go to the church, the temple or the mosque. You are free to congregate in the woods, in your home or in the park. You are already free to hold whatever moral beliefs but you are not free to incite hatred towards others. We should all be able to put family and personal life first over work, why do we have to look to Venezuela to see a successful economy considering an enforced six hour workday? What more do we need for religion? Is religion defined by the freedom to incite hatred against certain people, or is it a necessary ingredient?

Maybe I am missing something, but taking away freedom of religion doesn't seem like a bad idea. Its only real purpose is to give a false authority to certain, specific religions because they already have the right to congregate, believe, and express.

So what gives? Am I missing something that religions need?

 

[eh1eh]

I agree. The other freedoms you site seem to cover religion and all aspects of practicing religion. It may be that due to unfair presecution in the past, religions have been granted special rights. At this point I would think any religion, in most free countries, should be secure enough to accept that freedom of thought and association gives them all the rights they need to exist and practice. It doesn't metion freedom of aitheism in there but I'm not worried.

 

[Colpy]

You guys have absolutely no understanding of the concept of freeedom......that is made all too obvious by your posts.

your complaint is that freedom of religion might mean that someone has the freedom to condemn certain groups from the pulpit.........

In other words, you see freedom of expression as simply the freedom to express views previously approved by society in general.

Sorry guys, that is NOT liberty.

The only freedom of expression that NEEDS to be defended is that which offends.....by definition. If that expression is NOT defended by the Charter, then you might as well dump the entire concept.

If freedom of religion in some way increases protection for the expression of "non-standard" beliefs...........we BADLY need it.

 

[eh1eh]

I think liberty is more than just having the right to tell someone something they don't want to hear.

 

[Niflmir]

You guys have absolutely no understanding of the concept of freeedom......that is made all too obvious by your posts.

your complaint is that freedom of religion might mean that someone has the freedom to condemn certain groups from the pulpit.........

In other words, you see freedom of expression as simply the freedom to express views previously approved by society in general.

Sorry guys, that is NOT liberty.

The only freedom of expression that NEEDS to be defended is that which offends.....by definition. If that expression is NOT defended by the Charter, then you might as well dump the entire concept.

If freedom of religion in some way increases protection for the expression of "non-standard" beliefs...........we BADLY need it.

If you think that section 319 is trash, you should think that it is utter trash and that everyone should have a way out through freedom of conscience. But right now only freedom of religion is acceptable. Your affirmation of "free speech" should lead to your renunciation of section 319.2, thus making freedom of religion redundant. However, we don't have freedom of speech in Canada, we have freedom of expression.

I clearly understand the nuances that separate expression of an opinion from inciting hatred. I will elucidate them. Inciting hatred is a crime in Canada. If I help plan a robbery, but don't take part, am I a criminal? By a misguided definition of freedom of expression: freedom to say whatever I want, I am not. Motivating people to commit hate crimes through rhetoric is the same thing as motivating people to commit crime through providing information, so long as you came by that information lawfully.

Maybe you really like the freedom to say whatever you want, that's fine by me, if that is what freedom of expression means to you then section 319.2 is an atrocity and section 319.3.b is redundant, which was my point.

Also, please refrain from the immediate insults. I would hate to think you are resorting to Schopenhauer's method 38.

 

[Colpy]

If you think that section 319 is trash, you should think that it is utter trash and that everyone should have a way out through freedom of conscience. But right now only freedom of religion is acceptable. Your affirmation of "free speech" should lead to your renunciation of section 319.2, thus making freedom of religion redundant. However, we don't have freedom of speech in Canada, we have freedom of expression.

I clearly understand the nuances that separate expression of an opinion from inciting hatred. I will elucidate them. Inciting hatred is a crime in Canada. If I help plan a robbery, but don't take part, am I a criminal? By a misguided definition of freedom of expression: freedom to say whatever I want, I am not. Motivating people to commit hate crimes through rhetoric is the same thing as motivating people to commit crime through providing information, so long as you came by that information lawfully.

Maybe you really like the freedom to say whatever you want, that's fine by me, if that is what freedom of expression means to you then section 319.2 is an atrocity and section 319.3.b is redundant, which was my point.

Also, please refrain from the immediate insults. I would hate to think you are resorting to Schopenhauer's method 38.

First of all, when and whom did I insult? Nobody that I know of, certainly not intentionally.

Secondly, your post simply reinforces my original view. If I help someone plan a robbery, that act has absolutely nothing to do with freedom of speech or expression: it is conspiracy, a crime in itself.

If I am condemning homosexuality from the pulpit, is that inciting hatred? There are laws against inciting people to commit felonious acts: why do we need laws that restrict our ability to express an opinion?

Shall we pass laws forbiding the exhibition of artistic expression that resembles hatred (at least in some peoples' minds) like, for example, the Danish cartoons that so upset the Islamic world.

If so, should there not be laws against such expression as the Piss Christ or other "art" that insults Christians?

You are on a very slippery slope when you try to legally sanction the expression of thought and ideas. God knows where it all ends.

 

[gc]

We should all have the freedom to do whatever we want so long as it does not harm anyone else...no more, no less.

 

[Colpy]

We should all have the freedom to do whatever we want so long as it does not harm anyone else...no more, no less.

Yeah.....I wish I could remember which great American jurist used yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theatre as the example of speech not allowed.......short of that, all is okay.

In other words, there must be clear intent to cause physical harm before speech can be sanctioned.

Makes sense to me.

 

[Niflmir]

Secondly, your post simply reinforces my original view. If I help someone plan a robbery, that act has absolutely nothing to do with freedom of speech or expression: it is conspiracy, a crime in itself.

If I am condemning homosexuality from the pulpit, is that inciting hatred? There are laws against inciting people to commit felonious acts: why do we need laws that restrict our ability to express an opinion?

Section 319 of the criminal code is that law Colpy. These are not laws that restrict expression. As I pointed out there is a clear difference between: conspiracy, libel, slander, inciting hatred and expressing an opinion. I am talking about inciting hatred when I mention that religion gets a way out and you seem to think I am talking about expressing an opinion.

As for condemning homosexuality, it depends how you do it. If you say that homosexuals will burn in hell, that God hates them, that they destroy the fabric of society and should be stoned to death, then you are inciting hatred. If you merely state that the stance of the church is that it is morally unacceptable and that individuals should avoid their urges, that is different.

Do you see the clear difference between freedom of expression and freedom of speech yet? Freedom of speech, as in the freedom to say whatever I want, is ludicrous as you agree. Read section 319, then go back and see that I was talking about section 319. Then you will realize what I am talking about, and maybe you will realize that I have a better understanding of freedom of speech than you do. Inciting hatred is not expression. Slander is not expression. Libel is not expression. Conspiracy to commit a crime it not expression. Although all of them are merely speaking or writing words.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Hm... difficult and complex questions I wish I had definitive answers to, but I don't. I've never been sure where to draw the line between freedom of expression and the rights of others who may not agree with you.

I think any group or organization is entitled to exclude from membership anyone who doesn't subscribe to its basic precepts. I'm an atheist, for instance, so it would be unreasonable for me to expect any religious organization to accept me as a member, and by and large they won't, with the possible exception of the United Church, which doesn't seem to require much, if anything, from its members in the way of belief. No Catholic priest, for instance, would give me communion if he knew what I really think, but I could go into any Catholic service as a visitor and get it if I wanted to. The priest isn't going to grill me at the altar rail, he'll assume I'm there in good faith and know what I'm doing. But I won't do that, because it would be deeply dishonest and I feel no need for it.

At the same time, there have to be limits on freedom of expression. That same Catholic priest who'd legitimately refuse me communion if he knew what I think is not entitled to stand up in his pulpit and exhort the congregation to shoot, burn, hang, or whatever treatment he thinks is appropriate, people who think as I do. Nor am I entitled to say something like, "All priests should be shot as liars and deceivers and frauds." I'm entitled to describe them that way if that's what I think (I don't, just in case you're wondering), but I'm not entitled to suggest such a hateful remedy. I can, in other words, think what I like, but this society will not tolerate me publicly being an ignorant idiot. Remember Ernst Zundel? Holocaust denier, Nazi sympathizer, racist, bigot, and he's entitled to think such deluded thoughts if he wants to, but he went public with it, with pamphlets and newspaper articles and web sites, and we threw him out of the country essentially for being an ignorant idiot in public. And we were right to do so. Tolerance has its limits.

I don't know what the general rule should be, or even if it's possible to make one. I do think religion's had a free ride for far too long, I don't accept that religious belief is automatically entitled to respect, and a lot of other people apparently agree. In recent years there have been major bestselling books, by Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, Victor Stenger, and Christopher Hitchens, making essentially that point, and they wouldn't have done so well if they hadn't struck a chord in a lot of people. I think it's outrageous, for instance, that churches don't have to pay taxes on their properties or incomes, and it's equally outrageous that I can choose to pay taxes to support a supposedly secular public school system or a separate (i.e. Catholic) school system, but no other faith has the same access to public funds. That should be an everyone or no one proposition, and I probably don't have to tell any of you that I'd vote for the latter. That arrangement exists, and I think it's a grotesque injustice, because it was one of the compromises necessary to make Canadian confederation happen in the first place.

A quandary: I find myself agreeing with much of what both Colpy and Niflmir have written, even though they don't appear to agree with each other.

One of the curses of a good liberal education is that you can see all sides of an issue...:-?

 

[Unforgiven]

What about funding and charitable status? I know that's not really on the topic but it's a big factor that is all but forgotten until some blatant scandal comes along.

Would it be in the country's interest to do away with public funds for religious schools and the Church's charitable tax free status?

 

[Niflmir]

A quandary: I find myself agreeing with much of what both Colpy and Niflmir have written, even though they don't appear to agree with each other.

I am all for freedom of expression, but I am against inciting hatred. I believe our disagreement stems over a misunderstanding of what inciting hatred is and the purpose of section 319.2 of the Criminal code.

... If I help someone plan a robbery, that act has absolutely nothing to do with freedom of speech or expression: it is conspiracy, a crime in itself.

This shows that we are the same page, Colpy, not that I don't understand freedom of expression. Of course I know that it is a crime, I used it as an example of speech which is criminal. Here are some more speech-crimes, and you probably think they are all crimes:

1. conspiracy
2. slander
3. perjury
4. verbal harassment
5. uttering threats

The reasons they are crimes is because they have absolutely nothing to do with expression. They have everything to do with speech (the only action a criminal takes is to speak in each case). They are crimes because they have negative consequences and they do not involve expressing an opinion. This proves that some speech is criminal.

Now, another one, which may be in contention here, is inciting hatred. For clarity's sake I will post the relevant section of the criminal code:

Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

That does not describe the expression of an opinion. That describes trying to convince people to hate identifiable groups, that is trying to convince others to discriminate. If you publicly provide opinions but you don't endorse hatred and someone is led to discriminate based on your opinions, then you are not guilty under section 319.2. But if you tell people flat out that because of such and such a moral view we all should hate this group and discriminate against them, then you have committed a crime.

There is a small nuance here, expressing an opinion is ok, but rallying people to the banner of hatred is bad. Of course with freedom of speech section 319.2 couldn't exist, but we all agree on the ludicrous nature of that particular form of freedom.

Now, I saw two reasonable possibilities here and you will find them in my opening statement. Maybe promoting hatred is not so bad, but why give it only to specific organizations? It should be given to all individuals and not just some specific abstract entities (the Church for example). Colpy, you seemed to agree that maybe all people should have the same right as religions, no? But I am not sure on what you actually think about section 319.2. Second, I thought that inciting hatred was bad, and that there should be no other excuse but the defenses of natural law and so certain religions shouldn't get a get out of jail free card.

Unless you think that religions do deserve special privileges over individuals you will fall into one of those two camps. In either camp, freedom of religion becomes redundant on this particular issue and if you think religions deserve some extra privileges, I would be curious as to why.

 

[TomG]

Isaiah Berlin distinguished between negative and positive liberty in a 1958 essay. Positive and negative liberties might be called the freedom from things and the freedom to become things. Later philosophers such as MacCallum maintain that Berlin’s two concepts is an artificial dichotomy, and there are many interpretations of freedom but possibly only one underlying source. As a subject, freedom is full of complexities and paradoxes. It is a philosopher’s subject, although ideas of narrow scope are often adapted into the techniques of politics and government and find their way into social conversation.

The concept of freedom applied in the constitutional and related documents of western liberal democracies might be thought somewhat limited. Documents framed in the late 18th Centruy through the 19th Century tend to interpret liberty negatively. Such governments provide the freedom from things to their citizens while the freedom to become something is left ‘catch as catch can’ to the individual (so far as the pursuit of becoming doesn’t impinge on somebody else’s freedom from things of course).

A paper about Berlin’s concepts is here:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/

Berlin presented his essay at Oxford. Something like lecture notes are here:

http://tlrdoc.free.fr/pages/berlin.htm

The freedom to become a member of a particular religion (or profession or citizen) is different than the freedom of members to practice that religion or profession or vote. Khaled Hosseini’s Books ‘The Kite Runner’ and ‘A Thousand Splendid Suns’ might be interesting for western persons to read from the perspective of western freedoms.