Looking for a well reasoned definition...

[JBeukema]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-and-justice-system/74758-proposed-amendments-feedback.html

 

[rikules]

it is not freedom from religion, and never has been....

freedom OF religion says enough....

i have the freedom of religion, to practice my own religion in the public square...

i have freedom of religion, which prevents being dictated as to what domination i choose, which prevents the government from choosing for me or mandating my religious beliefs....

freedom FROM religion does not exist in the bill of rights.

1. some cons claim that atheism IS a religion.

2. I found the words "freedom FROM religion" in the constitution.
it was right next to the passage "America IS a christian nation"

3. regardless of whether those words are in the constitution EVERY CITIZEN has a right to FREEDOM FROM RELIGION.

every citizen has the right to NOT believe in god

and NO RELIGION has a right to force its' beliefs on everyone

 

[Agit8r]

Only applies to Congress


Any given member State can make any religion illegal or enforce an official religon

No they can't. US Constitution has precidence

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

​

As I said

actually the 1st Amendment has been incorporated against the states by the 14th Amendment. There is SCOTUS precedent even

Incorporation of the Bill of Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Care4all]

it is not freedom from religion, and never has been....

freedom OF religion says enough....

i have the freedom of religion, to practice my own religion in the public square...

i have freedom of religion, which prevents being dictated as to what domination i choose, which prevents the government from choosing for me or mandating my religious beliefs....

freedom FROM religion does not exist in the bill of rights.

1. some cons claim that atheism IS a religion.

2. I found the words "freedom FROM religion" in the constitution.
it was right next to the passage "America IS a christian nation"

3. regardless of whether those words are in the constitution EVERY CITIZEN has a right to FREEDOM FROM RELIGION.

every citizen has the right to NOT believe in god

and NO RELIGION has a right to force its' beliefs on everyone

the establishment clause guarantees such, with using freedom OF an established church/religion.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment OF religion"

the FROM is simply not the word used....freedom OF religion covers it.

 

[JBeukema]

No they can't. US Constitution has precidence

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

​

As I said

actually the 1st Amendment has been incorporated against the states by the 14th Amendment

Legal scholar Gene Healy has made a powerful argument in favor of abolishing the Fourteenth Amend- ment to the US Constitution. When a fair vote was taken on it in 1865, in the aftermath of the War for Southern Independence, it was rejected by the Southern states and all the border states. Failing to secure the necessary three-fourths of the states, the Republican party, which controlled Congress, passed the Reconstruction Act of 1867 which placed the entire South under military rule.
The purpose of this, according to one Republican congressman, was to coerce Southern legislators to vote for the amendment "at the point of a bayonet." President Andrew Johnson called this tactic "absolute despotism," the likes of which had not been exercised by any British monarch "for more than 500 years." For his outspokenness Johnson was impeached by the Republican Congress.
The South eventually voted to ratify the amendment, after which two Northern states-Ohio and New Jersey-withdrew support because of their disgust with Republican party tyranny. The Republicans just ignored this and declared the amendment valid despite their failure to secure the constitutionally-required three-fourths majority.



http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics%20and%20History/14th_amendment_not_ratified.htm

 

[rikules]

it is not freedom from religion, and never has been....

freedom OF religion says enough....

i have the freedom of religion, to practice my own religion in the public square...

i have freedom of religion, which prevents being dictated as to what domination i choose, which prevents the government from choosing for me or mandating my religious beliefs....

freedom FROM religion does not exist in the bill of rights.

1. some cons claim that atheism IS a religion.

2. I found the words "freedom FROM religion" in the constitution.
it was right next to the passage "America IS a christian nation"

3. regardless of whether those words are in the constitution EVERY CITIZEN has a right to FREEDOM FROM RELIGION.

every citizen has the right to NOT believe in god

and NO RELIGION has a right to force its' beliefs on everyone

the establishment clause guarantees such, with using freedom OF an established church/religion.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment OF religion"

the FROM is simply not the word used....freedom OF religion covers it.

ok

 

[manifold]

Care,

I just checked and couldn't find anything in the Constitution about practicing religion in the 'public square'.

 

[Agit8r]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

​

As I said

actually the 1st Amendment has been incorporated against the states by the 14th Amendment

Legal scholar Gene Healy has made a powerful argument in favor of abolishing the Fourteenth Amend- ment to the US Constitution. When a fair vote was taken on it in 1865, in the aftermath of the War for Southern Independence, it was rejected by the Southern states and all the border states. Failing to secure the necessary three-fourths of the states, the Republican party, which controlled Congress, passed the Reconstruction Act of 1867 which placed the entire South under military rule.
The purpose of this, according to one Republican congressman, was to coerce Southern legislators to vote for the amendment "at the point of a bayonet." President Andrew Johnson called this tactic "absolute despotism," the likes of which had not been exercised by any British monarch "for more than 500 years." For his outspokenness Johnson was impeached by the Republican Congress.
The South eventually voted to ratify the amendment, after which two Northern states-Ohio and New Jersey-withdrew support because of their disgust with Republican party tyranny. The Republicans just ignored this and declared the amendment valid despite their failure to secure the constitutionally-required three-fourths majority.



The 14th Amendment Was NOT Ratified

TFB. it's part of it now. you'll need a supermajority to get rid of it. good luck with that

 

[Sheldon]

I think maybe freedom OF religion is more about practice, and freedom FROM religion is about expression--the argument being that there is no explicit clause in the Constitution that shields one person's religious expression from someone else. This issue seems to come up whenever a ten commandments plaque gets taken down in a courthouse, or something like that. Imao, freedom FROM religion is a distinction without a difference, and is a product of the social conservative victimization campaign that has been going on since Roe. And I think many see atheism as a religion, and so atheists are not actually free from religion but are practicing their own form of.

 

[JBeukema]

So you appeal to the constitution when it suits your ends, but ignore the constitutional requirements for amending it when that suits your ends?

 

[WorldWatcher]

I'm looking for a well reasoned definition of 'Freedom FROM religion'.

I often hear the same talking point repeated over and over, that the 1st Amendment provides for freedom OF religion but not freedom FROM religion. I honestly do not see a well reasoned difference. I've made this request in the past, but nobody has ever been able to supply a reasonable definition of 'freedom FROM religion' that actually qualifies as an individual 'freedom'. Most would agree that the 1st Amendment protects one's right not to practice any religion. And isn't that freedom from religion?

To try to give this a serious answer, first you have to understand the context of each phrase.

Establishment Clause:
This phrase is derived from the 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution, which has already been quoted in this thread. That phrase established originally that the federal government could not establish laws which respected one religion over another. As noted by the principal author of the 14th Amendment (John Bingham) the feeling was that many state actors had violated their oath of office to support and defend the Constitution (which includes the Bill of Rights) and so one intent of the 14th was to make the Bill of Rights (at least the first 8 amendments) binding on the states. This has "incorporated" certain sections of the BOR as applicable to all levels of government.

Freedom of Religion:
As part of the Constitution, individuals (not government entities) are protected from government interference in the observance of their religious beliefs. Such observance of course is guaranteed as long as (a) it doesn't interfere with the rights of others or (b) does not conflict with another valid government interest. For example, a person can claim that human sacrifice is a part of their religion, but since it interferes with another right to life, then that does not permit the person to perform murder or a person can claim that paying taxes is against their religion, but that does not override the governments interest in generating revenue to operate and provide it's valid functions.

Freedom From Religion:
This phrase has no real basis in law and is more like wishful thinking on the part of some individuals. True there is freedom of government imposed religion, but there is no basis in law that says that you will never be exposed to any religion by individuals acting in a private capacity. Let's say that you have to drive buy a Church on the way home, you have no right to expect to not be exposed to a cross because you drive by it. Your desire to not participate in a religion does not preclude your exposure to religion by other private entities.



Basically the government is barred from respecting an establishment of religion and not preventing private individuals from practicing their own religion. There is no such "right" to not be exposed to the religious views of others acting in a private capacity.


Hope that helps.


>>>>

 

[manifold]

I'm looking for a well reasoned definition of 'Freedom FROM religion'.

I often hear the same talking point repeated over and over, that the 1st Amendment provides for freedom OF religion but not freedom FROM religion. I honestly do not see a well reasoned difference. I've made this request in the past, but nobody has ever been able to supply a reasonable definition of 'freedom FROM religion' that actually qualifies as an individual 'freedom'. Most would agree that the 1st Amendment protects one's right not to practice any religion. And isn't that freedom from religion?

To try to give this a serious answer, first you have to understand the context of each phrase.

Establishment Clause:
This phrase is derived from the 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution, which has already been quoted in this thread. That phrase established originally that the federal government could not establish laws which respected one religion over another. As noted by the principal author of the 14th Amendment (John Bingham) the feeling was that many state actors had violated their oath of office to support and defend the Constitution (which includes the Bill of Rights) and so one intent of the 14th was to make the Bill of Rights (at least the first 8 amendments) binding on the states. This has "incorporated" certain sections of the BOR as applicable to all levels of government.

Freedom of Religion:
As part of the Constitution, individuals (not government entities) are protected from government interference in the observance of their religious beliefs. Such observance of course is guaranteed as long as (a) it doesn't interfere with the rights of others or (b) does not conflict with another valid government interest. For example, a person can claim that human sacrifice is a part of their religion, but since it interferes with another right to life, then that does not permit the person to perform murder or a person can claim that paying taxes is against their religion, but that does not override the governments interest in generating revenue to operate and provide it's valid functions.

Freedom From Religion:
This phrase has no real basis in law and is more like wishful thinking on the part of some individuals. True there is freedom of government imposed religion, but there is no basis in law that says that you will never be exposed to any religion by individuals acting in a private capacity. Let's say that you have to drive buy a Church on the way home, you have no right to expect to not be exposed to a cross because you drive by it. You desire to not participate in a religion does not preclude your exposure to religion by other private entities.



Basically the government is barred from respecting an establishment of religion and not preventing private individuals from practicing their own religion. There is no such "right" to not be exposed to the religious views of others acting in a private capacity.


Hope that helps.


>>>>

Thank you. That is also well reasoned and makes perfect sense.

However, I seriously doubt there are very many people (if any at all) that believe, or have ever opined, that there is any such right to not be exposed to the religious views of others acting in a private capacity. So my next question, not necessarily directed toward you, is in what context is the talking point mentioned in the OP actually a valid counter-argument?

 

[Agit8r]

James Madison's amendment to the constitution of VA (1776) explains how preserving the conscience of all equally is a most Christian principal

"That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other."

 

[jillian]

I'm looking for a well reasoned definition of 'Freedom FROM religion'.

I often hear the same talking point repeated over and over, that the 1st Amendment provides for freedom OF religion but not freedom FROM religion. I honestly do not see a well reasoned difference. I've made this request in the past, but nobody has ever been able to supply a reasonable definition of 'freedom FROM religion' that actually qualifies as an individual 'freedom'. Most would agree that the 1st Amendment protects one's right not to practice any religion. And isn't that freedom from religion?

freedom from religion has to be a corollary to freedom of religion. how could it not be and have freedom of religion be effective in any way, shape or form.

 

[manifold]

...the 1st Amendment provides for freedom OF religion but not freedom FROM religion.

Follow up question: In what context is this a valid counter-argument? Or to put it another way, what argument(s) have you ever encountered for which this is a valid rebuttal?

 

[Care4all]

...the 1st Amendment provides for freedom OF religion but not freedom FROM religion.

Follow up question: In what context is this a valid counter-argument? Or to put it another way, what argument(s) have you ever encountered for which this is a valid rebuttal?

semantics....

freedom of religion keeps the government from interfering with ones own religious beliefs or non beliefs...it forces nothing regarding practicing religion on its citizens....it means the same as those that i have seen say it is freedom from religion.

Where another poster pointed out, this does NOT prevent citizens from being exposed to all religions or the religious beliefs of others...which some that use the word from religion have tried to say it does....but...it DOES NOT. It does prevent the government from legislating an established religion as the rule of the land.....

 

[manifold]

...the 1st Amendment provides for freedom OF religion but not freedom FROM religion.

Follow up question: In what context is this a valid counter-argument? Or to put it another way, what argument(s) have you ever encountered for which this is a valid rebuttal?

semantics....

freedom of religion keeps the government from interfering with ones own religious beliefs or non beliefs...it forces nothing regarding practicing religion on its citizens....it means the same as those that i have seen say it is freedom from religion.

Where another poster pointed out, this does NOT prevent citizens from being exposed to all religions or the religious beliefs of others...which some that use the word from religion have tried to say it does....but...it DOES NOT. It does prevent the government from legislating an established religion as the rule of the land.....

With all due respect, why would you quote me if you're not actually adressing what I said?

Specifically, what argument(s) have you ever heard for which this...

...the 1st Amendment provides for freedom OF religion but not freedom FROM religion.

...is a valid rebuttal?

 

[code1211]

I'm looking for a well reasoned definition of 'Freedom FROM religion'.

I often hear the same talking point repeated over and over, that the 1st Amendment provides for freedom OF religion but not freedom FROM religion. I honestly do not see a well reasoned difference. I've made this request in the past, but nobody has ever been able to supply a reasonable definition of 'freedom FROM religion' that actually qualifies as an individual 'freedom'. Most would agree that the 1st Amendment protects one's right not to practice any religion. And isn't that freedom from religion?

Freedom of religion is the right to practice a religion without consequence form the state. It is an individual freedom to allow all to freely worship in the manner that they please.

Freedom from religion is the lunatic nut frnge demanding that they not be subjected to the occassions when they might witness or be exposed to the practice of religion in any form no matter how remote.

Feedom of expands the freedoms of the individual even in the face of a hostile government and freedom from constricts the freedom of the population if even one of the citizens objects.

The result of this lunacy is that the freedom of one nut job to drop a crucifix into a jar of urine and display it in a government funded art display is protected while the freedom of anyone to sing "Silent Night" in a Public School is abolished.

 

[Sheldon]

...the 1st Amendment provides for freedom OF religion but not freedom FROM religion.

Follow up question: In what context is this a valid counter-argument? Or to put it another way, what argument(s) have you ever encountered for which this is a valid rebuttal?

semantics....

freedom of religion keeps the government from interfering with ones own religious beliefs or non beliefs...it forces nothing regarding practicing religion on its citizens....it means the same as those that i have seen say it is freedom from religion.

Where another poster pointed out, this does NOT prevent citizens from being exposed to all religions or the religious beliefs of others...which some that use the word from religion have tried to say it does....but...it DOES NOT. It does prevent the government from legislating an established religion as the rule of the land.....

So maybe a situation where a Muslim mosque put up an HUGE star and moon symbol in their front yard. Then they're sued by Fred Phelps because he thinks they're infringing on his freedom of religion. Obviously there's other major problems with that suit, like serious problems, but whatever. He's a troll. Anyways the mosque people could say there's no clause in the 1st that protects others from seeing our expression of religion--which is what I think the 'theres no freedom from religion' thing is about. Expression versus the ability to practice. Im not a lawyer though, so this could be off base

 

[AmericanFirst]

I'm looking for a well reasoned definition of 'Freedom FROM religion'.

I often hear the same talking point repeated over and over, that the 1st Amendment provides for freedom OF religion but not freedom FROM religion. I honestly do not see a well reasoned difference. I've made this request in the past, but nobody has ever been able to supply a reasonable definition of 'freedom FROM religion' that actually qualifies as an individual 'freedom'. Most would agree that the 1st Amendment protects one's right not to practice any religion. And isn't that freedom from religion?

The first amendment protects your right of freedom of religion or from religion. It is so simple it really confuses people. You can worship they way you want to or not worship, your choice. It says Gov't. can't tell you to worship a certain way.