4 ms·

I don't understand your argument. The church members individually have the right to practice their religion however they want so long as it doesn't impinge on

I don't understand your argument. The church members individually have the right to practice their religion however they want so long as it doesn't impinge on others' rights or laws. The group aspect really doesn't come into play at all. In the same way, those same individuals can contribute as individuals to whatever cause they choose. The problem is when resources get pooled and an organization rather than its individuals decides where to allocate those resources politically. That's where the parent comment thinks the line should be drawn.

rayiner 6y ago
Very few religious people would consider allowing the practice of religion “without the group aspect” to be “freedom of religion.” That freedom, especially in the United States, necessarily encompasses groups of religious people pooling resources to build houses of worship, educate their children, participate in the community, and advocate for causes.
- freeone3000 6y ago
  None of that actually requires specific religious protection. Protection of the freedom of religion is necessary when the beliefs of religious groups clash with the values of the community at large - for instance, Christian Scientists do not vaccinate as they avoid modern medicine in general. This is a carve-out to mandatory vaccination programs, in favor of religious freedom. The group version of this right would be the Church of Christ, Scientist not needing to provide healthcare to its workers (not all of whom may be Christian Scientists themselves), in order to protect their deeply-held beliefs.
  - Thorrez 6y ago
    > None of that actually requires specific religious protection. It requires specific religious protection if you're afraid of countries that persecute specific religions and want to take every measure to avoid becoming one. The Pilgrims came to America because of religious persecution. England still has a state church to this day. I guess what I'm saying sort of agrees with you, but that I'm seeing how "clash with the values of the community at large" could refer to "have any religion except the official one" or even "have a religion". There's a possibility that the community at large could become hostile to many or even all religions in the future.
jtbayly 6y ago
> The problem is when resources get pooled and an organization rather than its individuals decides where to allocate those resources politically. Like unions?
Thorrez 6y ago
Yeah, I wasn't talking about money or political activism, but about freedom of religion.

rayiner 6y ago

Very few religious people would consider allowing the practice of religion “without the group aspect” to be “freedom of religion.” That freedom, especially in the United States, necessarily encompasses groups of religious people pooling resources to build houses of worship, educate their children, participate in the community, and advocate for causes.

freeone3000 6y ago
None of that actually requires specific religious protection. Protection of the freedom of religion is necessary when the beliefs of religious groups clash with the values of the community at large - for instance, Christian Scientists do not vaccinate as they avoid modern medicine in general. This is a carve-out to mandatory vaccination programs, in favor of religious freedom. The group version of this right would be the Church of Christ, Scientist not needing to provide healthcare to its workers (not all of whom may be Christian Scientists themselves), in order to protect their deeply-held beliefs.
- Thorrez 6y ago
  > None of that actually requires specific religious protection. It requires specific religious protection if you're afraid of countries that persecute specific religions and want to take every measure to avoid becoming one. The Pilgrims came to America because of religious persecution. England still has a state church to this day. I guess what I'm saying sort of agrees with you, but that I'm seeing how "clash with the values of the community at large" could refer to "have any religion except the official one" or even "have a religion". There's a possibility that the community at large could become hostile to many or even all religions in the future.

jtbayly 6y ago

> The problem is when resources get pooled and an organization rather than its individuals decides where to allocate those resources politically. Like unions?

Thorrez 6y ago

Yeah, I wasn't talking about money or political activism, but about freedom of religion.