Freedom of Religion: Fine Until Thine Is Supposed To Become Mine

The other day I walked by a parked car in a parking lot that had the following bumper sticker:  Freedom of Religion Means Any Religion.  Now, I certainly don't know the owner of this car's specific intentions behind posting this bumper sticker.  However, that phrase has been used to justify appeasement and toleration of Islamic extremists and their beliefs within our free nation.  We can see what that type of appeasement has brought to other Western countries...and it's not good.  Islamic women have been murdered in once (mostly) free Western countries all in the name of Shariah Law being upheld.  This should not be happening in free countries.  Incidentally, this is what makes the Left so unbelievable wrong on this entire topic (like they are on most other things). 

The Left complains when the Ten Commandments appear in a courthouse--but they are entirely willing to allow Islamists in our country go ahead and murder their daughters and wives because they looked at them the wrong way.  Ayn Rand once stated in regards to contradictions:

Contradictions do not exist.  Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises.  You will find that one of them is wrong.

As an Objectivist, I'm dedicated to reason and it's application to governance, interpersonal relationships, science, education, etc...basically, any way in which it can help us out from under the collectivist yoke towards which we are slipping.  And I am whole-heartedly dedicated to individual freedom.  For me, that means, not only economic freedom, but freedom of conscience as well.  I have my own particular views on religion and I'm no longer ashamed to admit I've moved beyond them.  I was raised Evangelical Lutheran and later on I studied Paganism and Buddhism.  It is not that I don't ponder God or the possibility of an afterlife, but I have found it to be completely irrelevant in regards to the discussion of maintaining individual freedom.  Politics is contentious to begin with but then when you mix faith into the discussion it becomes ten times worse--and that much more confusing.  Ayn Rand state of religion:

Philosophy is the goal toward which religion was only a helplessly blind groping. The grandeur, the reverence, the exalted purity, the austere dedication to the pursuit of truth, which are commonly associated with religion, should properly belong to the field of philosophy.

And:

Religion is a primitive form of philosophy, the attempt to offer a comprehensive view of reality.

I realize, writing this on a Conservative blog could be construed as offensive.  I don't mean it that way.  However, the truth is, most religions are just that--they are man's attempt at trying to find someway to explain his existence, his role in it, how he deals with others and what his moral guidance should be.  Accept, morality and ethics are the science of how they are applied to the decisions individuals make.  The moment you "collectivize" an ethical system, it no longer supports the individual; it supports a collective ideology. 

If you've ever heard the statement, "The freedom to swing your fist ends where the other guys nose begins," you will understand my point regarding those who are so eager to allow dangerous, extremist, and theocratic ideologies to start dictating to our legal system as Islam has done in other Western countries.  Freedom of the individual is absolutely incompatible with religious doctrine that says, "You must think this, do this, or you are considered an infidel."

The freedom to practice a religion ends where the other guys religion begins--or in the case of atheists--doesn't begin.  I'm an enormous advocate of separation of Church and State--not in the sort of muddled way in which some people promote this notion, but, in an actual separation between Church and State.  As wonderful as our Founding Fathers were, they left some things entirely too open to interpretation.  One only has to ponder the economic mess this country is in to know that is true.

I have seen this bumper sticker as well:

  
 
 
 
 
 
 
I understand the purpose behind this bumper sticker.  But, when you really think about it--I mean really think about it--how ridiculous is this?  Adherents to every one of these faiths believes their faith is superior, their faith is the one and only truth, their faith is the morality to be followed; not only does that breed vast amounts of subjectivism (just what collectivist evil needs to feed off of) but how do you begin to have a discussion when you can't even decide whose is the right one to follow?  Now think about that previous statement of mine above:  their faith is the morality to be followed.  That doesn't exactly smell of individual liberty now does it?  Oh--did I find another contradiction? 
 
If you are a free individual who fully understands all that is supposed to mean--how do you "coexist" with a religion that tells you if you don't follow us you are an infidel and deserve to have your head hacked off?  Putting Islam aside for a moment, how do any of these religions in the coexist bumper sticker even begin to have a conversation as to what's rational?  The Jews don't see Jesus as anything other than a prophet.  The Christians view Jesus as the Son of God.  The Buddhists "live" to deny reality by blanking out their minds to find "bliss" rather than facing reality as it is in order to maintain their life.  The Pagans will find and use any former God or Goddess to suit their particular psychological needs of the moment while claiming the planets and their positions influence our behavior. The Islamists still haven't had a "reformation" which is a nice way of saying Islam hasn't "injected some logic and reason into the faith" so they can do what they have to do as human beings to live and maintain their lives free of oppression!
 
Collectivists live via their emotions, faith is an emotion.  Emotions are barometers which guage your relationship to existence--they can inform you when you are on a good path or a bad path.  But, they don't tell you anything about reality in particular.  "Hope" does not make something true.  "Hate" does not make something wrong--it can make something good if you hate the right thing.  Love does not apply to your abuser--at least not if you have an ounce of self-respect and self-esteem.
 
Buddhists = Hoping violent people don't exist won't make them not exist as something you need to defend against in the here and now.
 
Islamists = Denying half of your populations talent pool (women) from being able to lead normal, creative lives contributing to your existence won't pull your nations out of the Middle Ages muck in which they are currently mired.
 
Pagans = No matter which way the stars are aligned the decision still has to be yours to get your ass out of bed every morning and be productive, get to work, and support yourself--no matter how many spells you cast, circles you dance around, or money trees you create.  It's still ultimately up to you.
 
Christians = Dump the altruism!  This one concept of "sacrifice as the good" has done more damage and spread more evil across the planet than can even be counted!  Learn to promote the notion of trade between peoples instead.  Altruism is evil.  Trade is justice.  There's a reason modern day churches and even the Catholic Church is getting in on the "social justice" bandwagon--because altruism teaches them it's the right thing to do!   
 
If people really want to support individual freedom--then they have to find a means to do it that is consistent in its support of the individual, non-contradictory in it's support of individuals to make their own decisions which support their life, and is a rational basis for understanding and maintaining human freedom.
 
Ultimately, I don't give a damn what you believe privately--but, unfortunately we are now in a position in this country where we have to begin acknowledging that what we may believe privately has been directly contributing to our problems.  Cause and effect.  Ideas have consequences--even ideas we may hold subconsciously.  To end this post:

It has often been noted that a proof of God would be fatal to religion: a God susceptible of proof would have to be finite and limited; He would be one entity among others within the universe, not a mystic omnipotence transcending science and reality. What nourishes the spirit of religion is not proof, but faith, i.e., the undercutting of man’s mind.

...and I would add...man's freedom.