https://hesedyahu.wordpress.com/2019/09/10/incompatible-with-freedom-of-religion/The prohibition within the seven laws against idolatry is incompatible with the concept or legal principle of “freedom of religion.”
Various governments and societies have created something called “rights.” Across the world, there is a concept that is spread called “human rights” or “fundamental human rights.” But what is a right? In slightly convoluted terms, a right is something that someone claims for oneself that is morally just or legally provided as due to someone. For me personally, that’s a bit of a confusing description. So, in a simpler form, if someone says “this is my right,” they are saying it is right and just that he should get what he’s claiming.
Let me put that into practice to make sure I have it right. When someone says “I have a right to this house,” they are saying “it is right for me to have this house” or “my claim over this house is just.” If someone says “I have a right to own a weapon,” they are saying “it’s right and just for me to be able to own a weapon.” Another example: the right of free speech means it is right and just for me to be able to say what I want without retaliation (I know, isn’t that unrealistic?). When the territorial mafia called government puts it in their opinions called “law,” then when someone says “I have a legal/civil right to own a weapon,” that means that the territorial gang provides that person with the privilege, the protected ability, to possess a weapon. And yes, I said it correctly: it’s a provided privilege and allowance given by the territorial gang. For all their written opinions and views, it is only on the whim of the gang called government that such privileges are given or not given. This can be easily observed by the difference in the lists of so-called “rights” recognised throughout the world. Humanly speaking, “rights” are only opinions that a certain territorial gang accepts. Even if “rights” are accepted by all the territorial gangs in the world, since all governmental systems are secular, meaning they try to divorce themselves from divine edicts and rely on man’s claim to having authority, then it is still only a subjective opinion, a personally accepted concept. Again, this is shown by the fact that, although people claim to have some real “right,” even a real legal right, the state and its thugs can choose to have a different opinion and ignore the claim. That’s why, in America, people say they have the legal right to film in public, meaning the act of filming in public should be protected by the state thugs, but those same state thugs (the cops) will still stop them, question them, demand compliance, or arrest them for filming (while making up a red herring story to justify it). So in reality, where the gang should protect a person doing a privileged activity, the same gang still hurts the person for doing the privileged activity. That’s why the British version of the state-gang, in effect, removed the “human right” to defend oneself or others by means of a gun, effectively banning gun ownership. Such is the fickle and unreal nature of “rights.”
I know, I know. Someone’s gonna say that their “rights” are guaranteed by some constitution or legal declaration. There’s a fact for you: the effect is always lesser than its cause. If rights are granted by people, then they are limited to the power and will of those people. So if those people change their will, their choice, the “unalienable right” is non-existent. If you’re out of their reach and influence, the “fundamental right” is gone. Those rights aren’t divine or heaven sent, and their source was not heavenly, only people writing opinions that are hinged on the promulgation and acceptance of the statist faith by people.
Here are some nice recent examples.
It’s even worse to hear people claim insanely that these rights come from God (I wonder whose list of rights they’re accepting).
Anyway, where was I?
Oh yeah, this is all about the belief people have that they have a “civil right” to practice any religion they want. That means it is allowed and protected by the state for a person to practice any religion they want. Add to that the fact that a lot of people conflate and mix up legal “rights” with things that are right morally, so they think it’s morally right for people to practice any religion they want. I think the term “human right”, as opposed to “civil right” aids in the delusional conflation, making it seem like these imagined “rights” are part and parcel with simply being human.
Firstly, just to correct something, the state-mafia only allows people to practice religions that don’t go against the state or its edicts. So even the “right” itself is limited. No one is gonna be protected by the state-gang if their religious acts include breaking state-gang decrees … well at least the common man won’t … at least, that’s if he gets caught. Remember, human laws only have the strength and reach and sight/perception of man. Go where man cannot see or reach, befuddle his ability to perceive, and, in effect, maybe in reality, the threats of the state-gang are nothing, the “laws” are nothing.
So, with that correction, the modern state-gang will overlook, allow and protect the worship of stone idols, of mountains, of any god that does not visibly and actively bring defiance to the gang. The nature worshippers and pantheists can frolick amongst the trees or practice their conjurings and incantations and chants in subservience to “mother nature.” Vishnu can be visited and given homage by his devotees. Jesus can be prayed to and knees can bow to him publicly, shouting his name aloud.
Then comes God. What about his standards for humanity? What about his universal laws? No, what about those who claim to treasure those laws and their source most dear? What do the laws dictate?
The seven laws, to their fullest extent, are not simply personal moral guides. To claim that the seven laws are merely “religious,” something that the godless, God-rejecting, secular societies beat down into private and personal convictions to be divorced from the laws that govern community behaviour, is to preach a lie.
We now see that, unlike Israel’s Covenant at Sinai, the Noahide Covenant is not a religion that one must convert to, a people one must be accepted into. It is the Divinely-ordained legal, social, moral, and spiritual framework that non-Jewish human beings are born into — just as we are all born into a natural framework of physical laws and limitations. (the chapter, “A Torah Tradition and a Birthright; Not a Religion”, in Part I of Guide for the Noahide by rabbi Michael Shelomoh bar-Ron)
At this dispensation, the sons of Noah (a name including all nations) were, by infinite wisdom of God, provided with seven precepts sufficient for their social organisation, and for directing their individual conduct … (page 116, Faith of Israel, by rabbi Tobias Goodman)
Personal conduct is only one aspect of the seven laws. But intrinsic to the seven laws is community governance, “social organisation.” Instead of simply political opinion, the divine laws are meant to be “the law of the land” or, at very least, the basis of it. Infractions of these laws are meant to be brought to court, which should inform a person that these are meant to be “secular” law. This means that, because they are divine laws for society, the seven laws are still the standard against which political opinions in the form of “laws” should be judged.
Focusing specifically on the prohibition against idolatry, the standard rejected by the nations, a standard that should be of higher priority to those who uphold the divine law for humanity, it states that the active worship of gods other than the First Cause is wrong, is truly and objective illegal. Immediately, this should shove a lovely, immutable spanner in the “right to freedom of religion.”
Let me attack the legal-moral conflation and focus on some supposed moral right to freedom of religion. So some would claim that is morally right and just for a person to practice any religion they want, including idolatrous religions. This is a humanly crafted moral system, and, because “all flesh is like grass,”
All flesh is grass, and all its kindness is as the flower of the field: The grass dries up, the flower wilts because a wind of God blows upon it: truly the people is grass. The grass dries up, the flower wilts: but the word of our God shall stand for ever. (Yeshayah [Isaiah] 40:6-8)
The “kindnesses,” morality (and legality), we humans dream up and prop up to appear everlastingly solid, it’s all vapour. It’s God’s word, his law and morality, that will stand the test of time.
Wow, I don’t quote the Jewish Bible enough. It may be theirs, the Jews’, but there’s lots of universal truths there.
People who say that it is a moral right, that it’s right morally to practice any religion you want have no concept of truth, objective morality or God. Think about it. All religions can’t be correct as they conflict and contradict one another. So either some or all of them are wrong, are lies passed down through generations. Yet the claim is that it is morally right to practice any religion, some or all of which must be false. That it be morally just to practice a lie, to remain in a falsehood, is moral nonsense.
Think of it another way. Just what is the basis of this claim that it is morally right to practice, to be able to practice any religion that you want? What’s the grounding of such an idea? Well, the source is human. It’s just a human opinion that it’s morally right. But what if another human has a different opinion? There’s nothing in that human-to-human comparison objectively to make one opinion better than another. And what is a human opinion in comparison to the Foundation of reality, the One who started and sustains everything? We’re back to “all flesh is grass … all its [morality] is like a flower that wilts and fades.” If … no, since God said that idolatry is wrong, forbidden, being the basis for objective morality, then in light of that, the human opinion that it is a moral good, just thing, right thing that anyone is able to worship what they want is worth less than … no, it’s simply worthless.
What about the legality?
So man’s flimsy legal construct states,
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise of it …
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.
Those are parts of US and UK law, the first amendment of the American constitution and the Human Rights Act.
Now before I carry on, let me say, that I understand. Sure, I do. I understand that we’re not living in a Torah keeping world. Heck, there isn’t even a Torah keeping “Israel.” I know that for the owners/rulers of countries to shove seven laws justice down the throat of the unwilling majority would be a tyranny soon to be ended by bloody rebellion before a more “tolerant” idol/state is erected to accept falsehood and truth mishmashed together. I know. That isn’t happening now.
But just because the people are unwilling, that doesn’t mean the standard disappears, that God’s law goes away. Just because a person ignores the principle that things heavier than air tend to fall, it doesn’t mean they will fly after jumping from the top of a building. God’s moral laws are just as “omnipresent” as his laws of nature. And I, as a person espousing and embracing those moral laws, will still strike human laws on the invincible anvil of God’s truth and see if it survives. And if the human concepts contradict the divine law, then I may have to live with them around me if they are popular, but I’ll never embrace them.
So the law says, no, what am I saying? The “law” is just some dude’s opinion. Let me start again. So some person, some politician, says that the state-gang can’t impinge on the freedom to actively worship [certain] falsehoods (wait, and people are allowed to have faith in the state-gang … hmmm, guess it makes sense), that, in effect, it is right for people to bow to idols if they want to. And, because of this, the enforcers hired by the state-gang should protect that right. “should” … isn’t that a wonderful word? I know a few christian preachers would wonder about this “protection.” Another sign of the privilege easily given or taken away.
The divine law of idolatry forbids the active worship of falsehoods, and demands, according to the law of Justice, that courts enforce that. Of course, it should be blatantly obvious that there is an incompatibility, a fundamental incongruency, between the legal statements of man and the moral and legal standards of God. And it’s not that either the common plebs or the ruling class want to enact such change but can’t. I believe the vast majority of people like the system, want these acts to be right and protected, but only craft or nudge the “laws” (gang-threats) to suit themselves, e.g., freedom of religion as long as it doesn’t offend the homosexuals or Muslims, or doesn’t go against the hyper-equality doctrine feminists rant about where men and women are so equal, every single role in society should be gender-interchangeable.
Look, the plain fact is that the seven laws are not compatible with some of the fictional “rights” created by men who wanted to control people like a shepherd controls herds of sheep, “rights” that are still being used by the ruling class to still control the sheep. But those “rights” are transitory, manmade, as fickle as the whims of the individual people who made them up, who claim to uphold them, that is until you do something they don’t like. “But the word of our God stands forever.”
“But our rights make us free.” Hahahahaha! Yes, keep telling yourself that.
Topic: Incompatible with freedom of religion (Read 1602 times)