The decision is a victory for the rights of religious groups to uphold standards for membership based on their own religious beliefs and to be free to resolve purely ecclesiastical matters for themselves.
I’ve heard people speak of organized religion rather distastefully. Organized government takeover or organized guerrilla warfare might seem lighter, more acceptable subjects today.
This situation has gotten so bad that there are now law firms that specialize in defending churches’ rights against suppressive government zoning boards, and these law firms make enough to stay in business just combating government suppression of religion.
How well I remember that morning in 1985 when I awoke to see a piece produced by a local Portland, Oregon TV news show marveling at the fact that Scientologists, like other humans, eat salad.
This year, on the last night of the holiday, as the candles in our menorah flickered out with puffs of smoke, I thought of the meaning of Hanukkah. We celebrate a long ago victory in a fight for religious freedom.
I recently read an article in which the author asserted that the purpose of freedom of religion and “separation of church and state” is to protect religion from government (not the other way around).
How do we reconcile the fact that religious freedom for one person could violate the basic human rights of another? If someone doesn’t want to bake you a cake for your wedding because they don’t support you getting married based on their personal religious conviction, where is the middle ground (if it even exists)?
In Malaysia this week the heads of its different states (collectively called “the Rulers”) issued a joint statement calling for unity and harmony among its different ethnic and religious groups.
“Religious studies” should, in my view, be just that—a comparative study of a whole array of religions, giving an overview of spirituality in the world.