Now the economic rise of China can be understood - it's due to the
protection of religious freedom, not the exploitation of labour or the huge
'investment' in the wealth/income gap.
@CI --"Also you have the right to be free from religious
persecution - but the religious have the right to be free from persecution too.
"But expecting someone to follow the laws of the land is NOT
religious persecution.If your religion doesn't allow you to
fulfill the legal requirements of a business license, then don't get a
business license. It's really very simple.
daehder1While you are certainly free to not belong or be forced to
participate in religion - you do not have freedom FROM religion any more than
the religious have freedom from atheism - you are expected to tolerate others if
you expect them to tolerate you. Indeed the statement is as offensive as saying
I have the right to be free from Jews: NO you don't.Also you
have the right to be free from religious persecution - but the religious have
the right to be free from persecution too. One of the first steps toward that
is merely acknowledging religious persecution exists - which many on these posts
are completely loath to do because to do so would be tolerant, which is what the
politically correct demand but its not what they DO
Freedom of religion is also the right to be free from religion and freedom from
persecution by the religious, which we have never yet achieved in this country.
The problem I have with the gist of this article is that religious freedom does
not by real definition mean a belief in God or any set(s) of Doctrines.
Religious freedom as promised us in the Second Amendment is simply a freedom to
believe what we want in regard to our religious preferences as long as we
don't infringe on the religious freedoms of others.This Amendment is one of
the finest Amendments found in our Constitution but today it is being maligned
to mean just what is being implied in this article. Only the religious have the
right to profess their religion freely, to the exclusion of all others. This is
a false premise. Those who need to use the State Legislatures to cement their
religious freedom are violating the meaning of the Second Amendment. One has the
right under the Second Amendment to worship a door handle if one wants. And of
course to couple the religious freedom issue with the capitalistic goal is the
very bulwark of modern evangelicals. Instead of praying your way into heaven you
can just pay your way.
@CI;If a gay (or straight) owned bookstore doesn't sell certain
books, that is one thing. But if a business ALREADY provides a product or
service to the general public, but then says to a particular segment of the
public "WE DON'T SERVE YOUR KIND HERE". That is another thing
entirely. If a feminist baker bakes porno cakes for all other
groups, then she CAN'T tell the bacherlors no. If she does not bake porno
cakes for anybody then she CAN.You aren't helping yourself with
your strawman arguments.Stalin and Mao suppressed religion because
it was competition for the people's loyalty.
@Counter Intelligence --"But it is naive to think that there is
an inverse relationship"I don't believe anyone here said
there WAS an inverse relationship."pluralism (religious freedom)
is the only viable alternative."Religious freedom is good. Just
don't forget that the least religious persecution is often found in the
least religious countries."if a gay owned bookstore wont special
order traditional marriage literature..."A gay-owned bookstore
is unlikely to advertise that it sells traditional marriage literature
(it's also unlikely to *object* to ordering it)."wants the
company to pay for his ex-gay therapy via government mental health
mandate..."There is no state in which "ex-gay therapy"
is a standard part of health insurance coverage, and it's actually illegal
in some states and some circumstances."difference between a
feminist baker refusing to bake a porno cake for a bachelor party and simply
refusing to sell to men."There IS a difference. Unless she
advertises that she bakes porno cakes, she can't be expected to bake one
for anyone. But it would NOT be legal for her to refuse to sell one of her
"regular" cakes to men.See how simple that is?
Contrariuser and RanchHandStalin and Mao were militant atheists who
followed Marx's belief that religion was the opium of the masses. They
viscously suppressed religion and each were responsible for more deaths than
Hitler. Yes it is true that modern China and Russia are not as bad as they once
were and that many theocracies don't do much better. But it is naïve
to think that there is an inverse relationship - both can stink. Which is why
pluralism (religious freedom) is the only viable alternative.According to Ranchhand logic, if a gay owned bookstore wont special order
traditional marriage literature - then anyone who want it can claim the mantle
of victimhood and if an employee of the Advocate (a gay business) wants the
company to pay for his ex-gay therapy via government mental health mandate, then
they must be a hateful bigots if they refuse.However, logical people
can see that there is a difference between a feminist baker refusing to bake a
porno cake for a bachelor party and simply refusing to sell to men. A nuance
beyond the capabilities of the fashionably intolerant who simply mirror what
they despise.Thanks for proving my point
@Counter Intelligence;"Forcing someone to do something against
their religious beliefs is NOT religious freedom ..."--- Baking
a cake for an LGBT marriage and providing other services is NOT against your
"religious beliefs". MARRYING someone of the same gender is. So,
unless you are marrying someone of your own gender your "religious
beliefs" are intact.Furthermore, those people who refuse to bake
for an LGBT wedding, happiliy bake for the weddings of fornicators, adulterers,
Sabbath breakers, thieves and murderers. So much for their "sincerely held
religious beliefs". All they're doing is discriminating against only
one class of "sinners". As for "intolerance", Who
voted to restrict the religious freedom of LGBT Americans? You did.The worst countries for religious freedom are religious countries.
@ Westy Sheboygan, WI"God economically blesses nations that
embrace religious principles. Athhiest nations, like the Soviet Union and Cuba
fail economically"Your comment can't even be taking into
consideration. There are many other nations out there doing pretty well
economically that have a high number of atheists or don't believe in the
@Counter Intelligence --"Throughout the twentieth century the
countries with the least religious freedom have been militantly secular
countries"I doubt that claim.Vladimir Putin, for
instance, is quite cozy with the Russian Orthodox church. And about 70% of
Cubans identify as Catholic. But Muslim theocracies are the ones where
denominations are slaughtering each other."Forcing someone to do
something against their religious beliefs is NOT religious freedom - yet the
intolerant left does so with wild abandon; complaining that they are somehow the
"victim" when others refuse to tolerate their overt
perpetration."I always have to laugh at this sort of hyperbolic
pronouncement.The LGBT population has routinely been bullied,
beaten, and killed just for being gay. In many US states they can still be fired
or thrown out of their own homes for being gay -- and in many countries they can
still be thrown in jail and sometimes even EXECUTED just for being gay. Yet
somehow you feel entitled to call pro-equality people intolerant??
@RanchHandYour allegations are quantifiably the exact opposite of
the truth. Throughout the twentieth century the countries with the least
religious freedom have been militantly secular countries such as the Soviet
Union, China, Cuba, eastern European countries, southeast Asian regimes. Agreed
that theocracies are not healthy, but neither are atheocracies. Jumping from
one extreme to another may be politically correct - but it is NOT tolerant. @ordinaryfolksReligious freedom does include
the freedom to not believeHowever the opposite of theocracy is NOT
atheocracy - it is pluralismWhat is it about this concept that you, Furry,
Ranchhand, Laura Bilington, 1aggie,Tyler D and Hutterite simply refuse to
understand. Forcing someone to do something against
their religious beliefs is NOT religious freedom - yet the intolerant left does
so with wild abandon; complaining that they are somehow the "victim"
when others refuse to tolerate their overt perpetration.I do not
belong to any religious faith and am homosexual, but ironically, this myopic
reactionary extremism is precisely why I have so little regard for the
fashionably intolerant left and end up in the conservative camp almost entirely
by default. Conservatives seem to be so much more intellectually liberal and
open minded than political liberals.
Countries with the least religious freedom usually have a strong
government/religion connection favoring one particular religion.Its
going to be a tough sell to get those countries to renounce their religious
power in favor of more religious freedom. Secular countries have the most
religious freedom.@gmlewis;You are proud to live in a
country that has religious freedom, yet you WORK to deny relgious freedom to
some Americans. Isn't that the very definition of hypocrisy?
People should watch Brian J. Grimm's TED Talk, as referenced in the
article, before commenting. Brian J. Grimm noted that research
shows when a government favors one religion over others it is associated with
high social hostilities.
@Contrariusester,I have studied long term economic growth and religious
freedom. I have attempted to quantify some of the results as it relates to the
growth of the Mormon church. I believe that you hit the nail on the head in
suggesting an unnamed third variable. That variable is political freedom. In
Western Europe, it is fairly clear that political and economic freedom were
intertwined. Wealth is caused by political and economic freedom. I believe
that religious freedom was causal as well but I don't have statistically
testable data and I don't know anyone else that does. As I read history,
it seems that the Catholic church gets more blame for religious intolerance and
the rising secular states to little during the Protestant Reformation. I
believe that it wasn't until the rights of kings was politically diminished
that religious tolerance became a reality.
@Wilf 55,I strenuously disagree with your definition of religious freedom.
Imagine if we applied the same rule to political freedom or economic freedom.
Everybody can belong to any party they wish so long as nobody attempts to
persuade them to join another party or vote for a person in another party. You
are free to hold any job that you wish so long as you do not try to improve your
economic position. The authors of the paper draw very modest
conclusions that do not include religious freedom leading to economic growth.
They conclude that religious freedom is correlated to economic growth. @Tyler D.We agree with the importance of a secular state, if that
state is simultaneously democratic, in the provision of religious freedom. I am
less convinced by your statement that "religion has a long history of being
antithetical towards freedom..." Elites who are not subject to the rule of
law are antithetical towards freedom be they religious or non religious elites.
@Cats --"Have you read the entire study?"Dear
Cats:I clearly said "may very well be". The article and
quotes show no evidence to the contrary. I'm quite sure that *you*
haven't read the study. ;-)"Are you an expert on this
subject?"I spent years of my life doing scientific research, so
you might consider me one -- relative to John Q. Public, anyway."Once again, those who are made uncomfortable by this study and its
conclusion have to try to find a way to make it invalid. It's really
sad...really sad."Once again, those who wilfully ignore
scientific realities and realistic alternate theories in their drive to ignore
the real world are really sad... really sad. (Please note that I'm NOT
referring to Grim here.)Nobody is trying to make this study invalid.
Religious freedom is a good thing, after all. But remember -- "religious
freedom" doesn't mean "lots of religious people" or "people
all agreeing on the same religion". In fact, religious persecution most
often happens in highly religious communities -- so Grim's study may
actually be indicating that highly religious societies in general drag down
GDPs. Yet another possible interpretation of his results.
Dear Contrariusester:Have you read the entire study? Are you an
expert on this subject? What makes you think this guy is a rookie? He sounds
like a pretty experienced person to me. He's been with Pew for a long
time.Once again, those who are made uncomfortable by this study and
its conclusion have to try to find a way to make it invalid. It's really
@Cats --"His conclusions, after many years of study, are that
economic wellbeing correlates with religious freedom."CORRELATE
being the operative term here.As Wilf 55 mentioned earlier, this guy
may very well being confusing correlation with causation. That's a rookie
mistake that many researchers fall victim to.Which actually comes
first -- the religious freedom, or the healthy economy? Which one actually
enables the other? Or are they both made possible by some unnamed third element?
He has made no effort to eliminate the tangle.
Some people never miss a chance to go on the attack. I can't believe how
twisted some people have tried to make this information. The article states
that this man has spent many years as a Pew researcher. His conclusions, after
many years of study, are that economic wellbeing correlates with religious
freedom. Haters never miss a chance to twist and proclaim whatever fits their
agenda to be a fact. Studies like this make some people really uncomfortable.
@West Sheboygen"God economically blesses nations that embrace
religious principles."The nations with the highest standard of
living are frequently those nations that generally are near the top for highest
percentage of non-religious. Incidentally, a lot of the nations that are near
the top in non-religiosity are also near the top for religious freedom, which is
the thing compared to economic indicators in this article.
@Westy SheboyganSo then how do you explain the numerous countries in
Africa, Latin America, Europe and the Middle East that all have higher levels of
religious devotion then the US and are far more poor then Russia or China.BTW I
don't know if you know to many Russian people but most of the Russian be I
have meet are actually religious.
Ultimately, religious freedom entails the freedom to worship according to your
own conscience. You can have religious freedom even if you lack freedom of
speech to proclaim your beliefs. Freedom of the press allows
scriptures to be published and available. Without access to the scriptures, you
can still believe what you want.Freedom of assembly allows common
believers to meet in common worship, but without it we can still worship in our
hearts.I am deeply grateful that I live in a country where freedom
of religion, speech, the press, and assembly are provided and protected.Freedom to act is also different. The choices and actions we make can
be legally circumscribed for lots of non-religious reasons. I can be against
abortion for convenience and not feel privy to God's will in every
instance. I can be against war without proclaiming that a real devil rejoices
at this madness.
God economically blesses nations that embrace religious principles. Athhiest
nations, like the Soviet Union and Cuba fail economically
"Not all is positive on the religious freedom front, as many tragic events
in 2014 bear witness."Yes, there certainly were. A dozen states
had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into complying with the Constitution
and dropping their religiously based gay marriage bans. Texas, in a
pretend showing of concern for the safety of its citizens, passed a law which
had the effect of shutting down half of the abortion clinics in the state. The
law was passed to pander to the beliefs of the religious right there. At least
a majority of the SCOTUS judges had the integrity to vote that one out. Some religions have the idea that religious freedom gives them the right
to impose THEIR beliefs on the rest of us.
Religious freedom is what ISIS seeks.
So with Utah's economy as good as it is we can assume according to your
article that we are religiously free here. Perfect.
Yes, and religious freedom is the freedom to believe or not.And
religious freedom means that no sect dominates the political and social
fabric.And therefore, calls that essentially put us into a
theocratic mode (No same sex marriage...it's against my religion!) go
against this freedom.What about this concept don't some people
Religious freedom is incidental to the real rink; namely freedom of thought
& expression and country’s prosperity.Further, religious
freedom is only ever guaranteed under a secular and wholly neutral (when it
comes to religion) government. Religion has a long history of being antithetical
towards freedom and whenever it gains control of state power, freedom is usually
the first thing to go.
@Mountanman 7:56 a.m. Dec. 26, 2014@ Furry: How could you possibly
get interpretation that from this article? Blinded by your own ideology are
you?------------------You have to be blinded by YOUR ideology
to miss it.
@ Furry: How could you possibly get interpretation that from this article?
Blinded by your own ideology are you?
Cause and consequence seem to be twisted here in the way the links are
presented. It is not religious freedom that leads to economic growth, but the
type of government that fosters democracy and initiative. In that realm there is
also religious freedom. Also, one item that is often missing in such
a discussion, is a definition of religious freedom. Basically, religious freedom
is the right to live one's religion openly and respect the religion of
others. It does not automatically include the right to try to convince others of
the wrongness of their religion and convert them to another one. In some
countries conversion attempts cause such disruptions in families and communities
that they undermine economic growth. Correlation studies should be more refined
to include such nuances.
Wow! The DesNews again tries to argue in favor of prejudice and discrimination
asedon claims of religious freedom. This is truly sad.