Should freedom of religion be complete and unfettered?

I think each practice should be examined on a case by case basis.

As long as they don't bother other people it's fine by me, although I hate religions and cults.

I don't know

The legality of an action should be decided independently and in ignorance of how it may effect people's religious practices.

Once that has been done, people should be free to practice their religion as long as it does not involve any actions deemed illegal.

There should be some freedom - like you can wear what ever you want to. But those things they do (like cutting out womam't clitoris), that's just absurd. That shouldn't be allowed.

Are you Atheist?

Although it would be nice, in an ideal world, to say "complete and unfettered", one really has to draw the line at human sacrifices if nothing else.

Hypothetical questions: "What if, for religious reasons, an adult wishes to subject themselves to genital mutilation? Does that make it any more acceptable to you? How about genital mutilation which isn't motivated by religious belief? Is this just a genital thing? What if someone wants to mutilate some other part of their body?"

I'm interested in where exactly you draw the line. You seem to be quite outraged at this practice.

What do you want to say by using the word 'outraged'?

Depends on the religion. If it's my religion, that we should rule the world.

A few years ago in Australia we had a referendum about whether to include a "freedom of religion" clause in our constitution. There was a lot of fear surrounding this particular part of the issue, and the referendum failed. That's an oversimplification, but it was one of the reasons why it failed, along with people being scared of strange new religions starting up. There seems to be a big difference between having freedom of religion and legislating freedom of religion.

I guess. People are just being tricked by religions and cults. Just believe more in yourself and not in made up stories.

There should be one fundamental rule, no one may attack another. If a religious practice doesn't involve attacking someone, other people may not attack people practicing that religion.

Of course there should be _some_ limits. I mean, human sacrifice and all.

and to zang: why the discrimination about human sacrifice? I'm not particularly religious, but I have observed a variety of religions, including one which involved human sacrifice and cannibalism. As long as the person being sacrificed =wants= to be, I have no problems with it.

Basically, I do believe in God, but there's no way that could dedicate my whole life to him. I can't stop myself from sins (no one can, but other just don't care). And, also, there's no way that I will go to the priest afterwards, telling him everything.
People just made up that confessing part so they could hear people's secrets.

It depends on whether it infringes on a person's rights as a human being (such as female genital mutilation/female circumcision).

Depends on the religion.

I notice you specify 'female' mutilation, does male mutilation not infringe on someone's rights?

Yes it does. I mentioned FGM because it was the topic of a survey in qual. and was on my mind when I made the reply.

I think that as long as your religious practice does not include harming any non-consenting person or creature (obviously no "creatures" can consent, and children are not at the age of consent), or FORCING your views upon them in a situation wherein they cannot stop you or escape you, it's your business.

As for women raised in cultures where genital mutilation is considered normal ... they might "willingly" submit to it if given the opportunity to decide for themselves, because it is what they have been taught. Same goes for men raised in such conditions, obviously, though I haven't personally researched any cultures in which the mutilation has been performed on men.
My point is - when someone "willingly" submits to something because they have been taught throughout their lives by everyone IN their lives, to submit to it ... is that really free will? They aren't being forced, at the moment before the mutilation, to submit ... they are being "forced" to submit by the teachings that have been ingrained into their heads! If they were not taught, and had never been taught, that they should or must be subjected to such mutilation or that such mutilation should be the cause for celebration, or for "praise" and "prestige," would they freely choose it? I seriously doubt it.

Male genital mutilation is common practice in America.

In my society, people willingly submit to being tied legally to one mate for their entire lives. They have been taught throughout their lives by everyone IN their lives that this is what will happen... is that really free will? They aren't being forced, at the moment before tying the knot, to submit ... they are being "forced" to submit by the teachings that have been ingrained into their heads! If they were not taught, and had never been taught, that they should or must be subjected to such a restriction on their freedom, or that such a relationship should be the cause for celebration, or for "praise" and "prestige," would they freely choose it?

People willingly submit to having to work for money to survive. They have been taught throughout their lives by everyone in their lives that this is what will happen... is that really free will? They aren't being forced, at the moment before accepting the job, to submit ... they are being "forced" to submit by the teachings that have been ingrained into their heads!

People willingly submit to having their children taken from them at age 5 (or thereabouts) and forced to undergo education outside the home at the hands of and surrounded by strangers, coming home only to eat, sleep, and sometimes socialize...

People willingly submit to being disallowed to walk on certain plots of land for the simple reason that they belong to someone else...

Everything is about culture and the teachings of that culture. Things are done the way they are done, often simply for the reason that that is the way they are done! If something is considered normal in a culture, an outsider to that culture can have nothing to say about whether that is right or wrong for people in that culture.

No religion should be permitted to practice anything that goes against local laws. Many religions actually state that their members should obey the laws of the land. Religious practices that break the law should not be permitted under the guise of cultural sensitivity or multicultural laws.

Male genital mutilation as you call it reduces the incidence of AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases. There is some benefit gained from male circumcision. Female circumcision is often detrimental to a womans' health, and causes long term pain.

I am pretty much in favor of complete religious freedom, however, if lets say one religious rite is to sacrifice virgins and feed them to rabid elephants, we have an issue. if a religious practice causes harm, it should be examined

I think the religious status of an act should be irrelevant to its legal status.