Does Freedom of Religion also mean Freedom from Religion?
 

In this thead Willravel stated that While this one of the few times that I agree with him...does it? Does it really? Read the 1st Amendment...
Specifically...read "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

Way back when, in this thread I quoted an individual that had written into the Omaha World Herald the following.
So...this individual sees (saw) it as not only his Christian duty, but as his right to cram his religion down my throat.

Is that his constitutional right? Does freedom of religion preclude freedom from religion?

There is no such provision for the freedom from religion.

What is freedom from religion, exactly? Does it mean you can tell the Muslim man praying in public to stop? I don't think so. This is quite close to an infringement on the right of freedom of speech in addition to the religious right.

There should be no special status for religion in this respect.

I cannot really comment more until I have a clearer view of what people view as a right to "freedom from religion." It's pretty murky to me at the moment.

Well, the Constitution doesn't grant you any right not to have to hear things you disagree with, or find distasteful or even offensive. In fact, the sentiment "I may not agree with it but I defend your right to say it" is central to the interpretation of the First Amendment.

Regarding religion, the First Amendment says two things:
- There will be no established religion of the US. So, no "official religion" like the Church of England, and no we're NOT "a Christian nation".
- There will be no prohibition on the free exercise of religion. So if a person's religion calls for them to proselytize, they have the right to do that. Which is why Mormons and Jehova's Witnesses can go door to door like vacuum salesmen, and why people can preach on the sidewalk. No governmental agency (including police) may silence them for what they say.

...sniff... what happened to us?
Freedom from religion: I (a citizen of the United States) can't be forced to take part in or believe in religion.

It's essentially allowing for the right of disbelief to be equal to the right to belief.

If THAT is the definition of freedom from religion, then yes, you have that right. If it's BOR's definition, that you are free from having to ever hear about religious practices, then no, you do not have that right, unless you are lucky enough to dodge the bible thumpers. Good luck with that. :p

I'm sure there are people posting here far more knowledgeable regarding constitutional law than me, so take this for what it's worth.

From my understanding of history, the idea behind the first amendment came about because of the Church of England. The founding fathers did not want their leaders, i.e. government, to dictate their beliefs to them. I am under the impression that the founding fathers were very much adherent to the idea of personal freedom.

I wonder if the founding fathers could envision the prevalence and saturation of media in today's world and what they would have said about it. Especially when it comes to claims that only the federal government is restricted from censorship and preferential treatment of religion.

I tend to look at the idea behind why they included the separation clause in the first amendment and I have to believe that their intent was to prevent religion from being used as a tool of control. I have to wonder if their ideas of freedom would have included the ability for corporations, states, and individuals to use the absence of them in the first amendment as a means to justify their actions.

As an aside, I have to say I'm growing a little tired of Christians complaining about being the only group left in America that it's okay to persecute. Give me a fucking break.

I finally get to use my graphic!
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...0646092989.gif

Edit: Nom nom.

Okay, that reframes my own view on this a bit. Thanks. Of course one shouldn't be force to believe something.

I know. That complaint should be the entitlement of white males in general....

That's the problem with debating law and policy based upon pithy phrases. 'Freedom of religion' and 'Freedom from religion' are such ambigious statements that the question is meaningless until you define your terms better. Of course, as others have pointed out, in the US we have what most people think of as freedom of religion - the freedom to worship (or not) as we please. We don't have freedom *from* religion in the sense that we have the right not to hear about other people's religion, or see them practicing their faith...within reasonable limits, of course.

The interesting questions are those on the fringes - does "In God we trust" on the dollar bill, the official currency of the US, constitute establishment of religion? What about religious references in other official documents, religious iconography on public buildings (moses and the ten commandments on the supreme court building, for instance).

I agree with groups like the ACLU in almost every instance, but I think they often go too far with regards to displays like these - at some point, you have to accept a 'live and let live' philosophy. You often hear about the ACLU suing to remove this or that religious display. I don't think merely having a religious display, even on government property, is establishment of religion.

Interesting fact: a major group fighting for the first amendment when these things were being discussed? The evangelicals.

The first amendment not only protects the state from the church, but also protects the church from the state. For a lot of "founding fathers," they saw the first amendment as a way to maintain the purity of their religion without corruption from the political sphere.

Just goes to show how core ideas can change drastically over time.

Actually, the first amendment does protect freedom from religion, in the sense that the government can't force you to adopt any religion. What it doesn't protect is freedom from exposure to religion, meaning that if your fellow citizens want to flaunt their religion in your presence there's not a damn thing you can do about it - pretty much the same as you can't do a damn thing about people doing all sorts of other things in your presence. Those are often protected by the other clauses of the first amendment (speech, press and assembly).

Within reason, of course.

I am, alas, not allowed to flaunt my penis in everyone's direction.




Sorry, ladies. It's the law.

yeah.

mostly, loquitor said what i think is the only response to the thread-bind.
but it is strange that xtians seem to want to change people to their bizarre-o way of thinking.
i like this quote, because i think it explains something of it:

the idea of an "objective" world, given in one way only, is a consequence of this strange assumption that there is a god-character and nothing else.

I'm surprised nobody mentioned this guy's selective reading of the bible.

Luke 9:5-6 "When you visit a home and stay there, and go out from there, if people don't welcome you, when you leave that city, shake its dust off your feet as a testimony against them.”

In effect, as a Christian, if he is forcing people to turn, then he is not following the will of his God.

QM, if a missionary wants to approach you on the street, s/he has a right to try, just as you have a right to say you're not interested and walk away. The fallacy of the person who put up that post is that he is confusing individual rights with societal organization. He has the right to missionize, minister or what have you, all without interference from the govt, and subject to reasonable time, place and manner restrictions (standard first amendment boilerplate that applies to freedom of speech). What he does not have the right to do is demand that the government, with its power to compel people, support his mission. That's not a violation of his right to missionize in the slightest.

Atheist soldier sues Army for 'unconstitutional' discrimination

Has the American military become a Christian organization?

I saw that this morning and was going to post it as it's own thread. There's lots of interpretation to be guessed at why the individual didn't get any promotions. Sometimes, you don't get promotions because it's not you. Just because you think it's your time, doesn't mean that it is.

That's a whole other thread.

I thought of that but realized the context fits well here. I don't have the chops to set a thread up about this.

After you?

The question as to it's constitutionality would fit in this thread nicely, but as to whether the US military is Christian? Nah. That's a different thread.

From the article:

He also said he missed out on promotions because he is an atheist.

"I was told because I can't put my personal beliefs aside and pray with troops I wouldn't make a good leader," Hall said.

What are the Constitutional implications of that? Does he have a case?

Again, there's lots to be inferred here. If I look at the quote as it is, it's about praying. But let's remove the word pray and use the word participate for the rest of the example I will use.

If the troops do not find him an acceptable leader because he won't participate in the social constructs that are important to them, then how effective would he be as a leader?

This means from the simplest participations of breaking beer, bread, football, joking, whore hunting, fraternizing, whatever the construct is for bonding the group.

But why remove the word pray? That's what he was told. Maybe he has no problem playing football and drinking beer and partaking in the occasional whore (or other effective team-building exercise). But that wasn't what was raised as an issue. He was essentially told he would be a crappy leader because he doesn't pray (or, if you like, he isn't a Christian).

Given the issues of STI I don't think he should have to partake in the occasional whore if he doesn't want to either. Whether or not he gets promoted should be based on his job performance, not his religion, or his whore-mongering or non-whore-mongering. Whether or not he excells in athletics such as football, or even has an interest in football should not matter either, the military's job is to kill our enemies and break their stuff, not to know the latest NFL standings or to be able to know the basic fundamentals of the sport. (I happen to love football, though I'm not much of an athlete)

because the activity was pray, so in effect if the team requirement was to pray, be it as it may, even pull out the carpet and bow to Mecca at the precise times, then it should have the same impact, no?

so putting it in perspective of activity which is the crux of the leadership aspect, which is why I framed it as such.

People won't dispense with such kinds of sentences in corporate america, I have a hard time beleiving that the words came out exactly in that manner. I'd go with, praying was cited as an example. If they can't ask or can't tell about homosexuality logic seems to me that subjugating someone to prayer also isn't logical.

again, the article leaves lots of opportunity for perspective jiggering.

very true, but in the tests of leadership, if it's sensed that he cannot lead because he doesn't garner the respect of the team, then it doesn't matter what the reasons are or his performance. Just because you think you should be promoted doesn't mean you are.

I consider religion an illness that causes one to stop thinking for themself. For example, I don't need medicine, god will heal me. In addition, when a nation embraces religion, it will commit atrocities, i.e. Iraq.

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
--Blaise Pascal

"Religion is poison."
--Chairman Mao Zedong

Unfortunately, this doesn't apply to everything. Buddhism, for example, is about empowering your mind though consciousness. It is essential to think for yourself. Also, there are many active Christians who would disagree with this sentiment on the basis of their active faith and the belief that God doesn't do things for you, he merely helps.

The violence thing is another issue. Religion is not the only culprit.

I agree with most of that, except Buddhism isn't a religion. It's a system of Philosophy based on a teacher's lessons, much like Taoism or Platonic practice (Plato, by the way, believed many were too stupid to make it on their own and should be slaves under their mental and social betters).

But the idea that religion allows people to excuse the thought process is just wrong. Listen to Jewish Sanhedrin argue over the Talmud as they seek a way to live with the Law. Like Ned Flanders said, they have to figure out how to obey the parts that contradict the other parts.

The idea that all wars were fought over religion is also a moldy canard. All wars were fought over riches, frequently in the guise of religious conversion.

It's alternatively a religion and a philosophy. Tibetan Buddhism, for example, is a religion. The difference being the religious Buddhism has practices and symbols outside what the Buddha taught. They are materialistic "tools" for reinforcing the teachings. But this is more or less a religion. The philosophy more or less describes the states attained by Buddhas and the path on which they travelled to get there. Monks aren't just philosophers; they're religious members.

Excuse the interruption, but I think the Mao quote, or any quote from any 20th century communist/socialist leader, whether it be Stalin, Hitler, Tito, Hussein, is entirely false and bogus.

Religion is poison? No it is not. People act of their own volition. I don't recall Jesus calling for war or genocide, and not that he is the only religious figure, but Christians get knocked alot, so I am bringing it to that.

Look at those aforementioned dickheads I mentioned, where the beloved state or government outlawed religion, or better yet became the religion, millions upon millions died in the name of no god.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.