At Ask Me Help Desk you can ask questions in any topic and have them
answered for free by our experts. To ask questions or participate in
answering them you must register for a free account. By registering you
will be able to:
Get free answers from experts in any of our 300+
topics.
The real meaning of freedom can mean different things to different people. For example: Have you ever been judged by others, just because of the religion you belong to or choose to worship? Do some judge you even before they know anything about you? Look below and see if manybe you might fall into one of these catagories. Be honest with yourself.
Some feel that others can have their freedom as long as it does not go against what they believe.
Some feel freedom is what helps them look superior to those who are different then them.
Some allow others to have their freedom as long as they don't push their beliefs on others.
Some seem to allow other the freedom of religion as long as they don't hate that religion or what that religion believes.
Some say they allow others their freedom and yet without even knowing who they are or what they truly belive in their hearts, judge them because of a group or a religion they choose to worship.
Which of these scenerios do you think you fall into? If you don't feel you fall into any of the above, what do you thing true freedom is for you as well as others?
If your post is in regard to the America idea of religious freedom here is my opinion of it.
America was founded as a Christian nation, but with the right of any other religion to practice without government interference. The government was not to place any restrictions on the free practice of relgion. ( of course they broke this long ago, they still pretend to follow it, but there are many laws restriciting all sorts of religion even to the registering of ministers in some states. Plus of course the control of religion though tax exmpt status.
The idea today of a seperation of church and state is not a constitutional issue but merely a defining of it, not stated in the actional constitution.
But there is no real and true complete freedom, no person can do any action without it having some involvement of another person thus because of this interaction between more than one person, an overall issue is that if your expressed freedom contacts another, and interferes with his freedom, then a level of whose freedom has priority.
Seems like a lot of concepts of mixed up here: freedom, prejudice and tolerance. Too much of a jumbled mass to answer.
Simplification of concepts that have been in the public arena for as long as "Freedon," "Prejudice," and "tolerance," have robs them of real meaning.
Far fropm being 'mixed up' they are inescapably intertwined and interdependant, as the most basic study of the history of any nation will show.
It is both telling and tragic that a nation founded on the notion of freedom of religion should turn into one of the worst countries in the world for religious prejudice and intolerance.
Freedom is not the question. The question is do our libreties allow us the right to discredit religions other than our own. And with most questions regrading religion any answer is subjective. Strickly speaking any civil debate is OK as long as it is in the context of explaining our own beliefs. Most people would welcome an opportunity to educate an interested person concerning their religios practices.
However in that forum there is no room for making comparsions to justify the superiority of one belief over another. Very few people take the time and effort to know what other religions offer to their followers. Too often a few selected 'facts' will be taken out of context in order to discredit another belief system.
As bad is that may be, it is more out of ignorance than malice. Anyone that resorts to name calling or outlandish claims is not interested in the learning process and should be ignored.
Of course the irony of all this is that we for the most part believe in the same God. It is the path taken that causes the disputes. But whatever path one may take to God, it sure would make things a lot easier if we saw each other as fellow pilgrams on our separate journeys.
Freedom is not the question. The question is do our libreties allow us the right to discredit religions other than our own. And with most questions regrading religion any answer is subjective. Strickly speaking any civil debate is OK as long as it is in the context of explaining our own beliefs. Most people would welcome an opportunity to educate an interested person concerning their religios practices.
However in that forum there is no room for making comparsions to justify the superiority of one belief over another. Very few people take the time and effort to know what other religions offer to their followers. Too often a few selected 'facts' will be taken out of context in order to discredit another belief system.
As bad is that may be, it is more out of ignorance than malice. Anyone that resorts to name calling or outlandish claims is not interested in the learning process and should be ignored.
Of course the irony of all this is that we for the most part believe in the same God. It is the path taken that causes the disputes. But whatever path one may take to God, it sure would make things a lot easier if we saw each other as fellow pilgrams on our separate journeys.
...If you don't feel you fall into any of the above, what do you think true freedom is for you as well as others?
Take care,
Hope12
God granted man freedom, but it was not unrestrained. Unrestrained freedom leads to anarchy and lawlessness. So for man's own good rules were given. Abiding by these rules results in freedom from sin with its attendant death.
Romans 8:2
For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
Ecclesiastes 12
13. Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.
BTW
Every human being has certain recognized rights--or freedoms by virtue of his humanity. Such freedoms or rights were officially formulated and enunciated during the European Enlightenment and were subsequently incorporated into the USA Constitution where they are outlined in the Bill of Rights. However, since humans have a tendency to interpret for self convenience, these freedoms are sometimes abused. The sad part about it is that the same individuals who ignore and disrespect their own Constitution are the very ones who tout themselves as model citizens.
I seem to fall into the third scenario. My philosophy is everyone should be able to what they want, up to, but not including interfering with the right of someone else to do what they want.
However I defnitely do not fall into any of the others.
Ergo there is no such thing as true or absolute freedom. Freedom comes with responsibility. And that responisbility has to be exercised wisely.
I seem to fall into the third scenario. My philosophy is everyone should be able to what they want, up to, but not including interfering with the right of someone else to do what they want.
However I defnitely do not fall into any of the others.
Ergo there is no such thing as true or absolute freedom. Freedom comes with responsibility. And that responisbility has to be exercised wisely.
Sensible people will understand that freedom, within the law is the perfect freedom. If we speak of absolute freedom, then it must be admitted that only one person at a time can have such power of freedom, because only one person can subjugate others without himself being subjugated.
No sensible person will object to the principle that "Your freedom to swing your fist stops just short of my nose!"
RGANITE
Linear Mode
