"Religious Freedom" what it IS and what it ISN'T

[Igel]

3. What about aspects of my religion that dictate how I act and behave.

Which impact others.

I try to minimize that. I don't compel others to abide by my beliefs. But if they need me to do something that violates my beliefs to be able to enjoy their freedoms, then, no. Their beliefs don't supersede mine.

I typically draw the line at coercing actions. If my refusal to do something makes it impossible for somebody else to do what they want, oh, well. I will not compel them to do what I want. They're free to find other arrangements.

But if their doing what they want requires that I do something I find wrong, *that's* compulsion and letting their (voluntary) activities supersede things I consider obligatory.

Take a camp out, for instance. I was put in the position of cooking dinner. I refused to prepare pork. I reduced my fellow campers' range of actions by my refusal to comply with their plans. Their choices were to eat what I would prepare or to find somebody else to cook their dinner. At another meal when they had prepared pork, I didn't compel them to prepare food especially for me.

There are DUers who would find my actions limiting and a violation of another's religious liberty, but have no problem with the idea that if I'm supposed to prepare dinner I have no say over my own actions or conscious. My religious rights stop at my own body; but their secular rights are to dictate to me. Sometimes they couch it in terms of majority rights--which only work when they're in the majority, then minority rights rule. They're blind hypocrites and deserve no further attention.