Looking for a well reasoned definition...

[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?

I don't really get your question. Or maybe you don't get your question. Freedom from religion is not being forced to practice a religion. You have no freedom from hearing about religion. If you want that, it's a free country and they have the right to express their views. In your word, deal. How exactly are you not free from religion?

Read on.

 

[manifold]

What we've learned so far...

A) If freedom from religion means the freedom to not practice religion, it is certainly protected by the 1st Amendment.

B) If freedom from religion means you can force your next door neighbor to take down his nativity scene because it offends you, then it is certainly not protected by the 1st Amendment.

With respect to 'B', I've never heard anyone argue that the 1st Amendment gives them the right to force their neighbor to take down a nativity scene. So those arguing that it means B, are arguing in an academic vacuum against a ficticious strawman. For some I suppose that's the only kind of debate in which they stand any chance of holding their own.

 

[kaz]

What we've learned so far...

A) If freedom from religion means the freedom to not practice religion, it is certainly protected by the 1st Amendment.

B) If freedom from religion means you can force your next door neighbor to take down his nativity scene because it offends you, then it is certainly not protected by the 1st Amendment.

With respect to 'B', I've never heard anyone argue that the 1st Amendment gives them the right to force their neighbor to take down a nativity scene. So those arguing that it means B, are arguing in an academic vacuum against a ficticious strawman. For some I suppose that's the only kind of debate in which they stand any chance of holding their own.

B is a violation of free speech, which is also in the first Amendment. You asked the question. I'm asking you what your cause of action is. In what way do "you" feel you are not free "from" religion? Your saying liberals say their right to not practice a religion is somehow violated by free speech isn't an answer to that.

 

[JoReba]

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?

You do, right now, have Freedom From Religion.

Nobody is forcing you to think about God or to do anything about God.

 

[manifold]

What we've learned so far...

A) If freedom from religion means the freedom to not practice religion, it is certainly protected by the 1st Amendment.

B) If freedom from religion means you can force your next door neighbor to take down his nativity scene because it offends you, then it is certainly not protected by the 1st Amendment.

With respect to 'B', I've never heard anyone argue that the 1st Amendment gives them the right to force their neighbor to take down a nativity scene. So those arguing that it means B, are arguing in an academic vacuum against a ficticious strawman. For some I suppose that's the only kind of debate in which they stand any chance of holding their own.

B is a violation of free speech, which is also in the first Amendment. You asked the question. I'm asking you what your cause of action is. In what way do "you" feel you are not free "from" religion? Your saying liberals say their right to not practice a religion is somehow violated by free speech isn't an answer to that.

I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say.

I'm inclined to subscribe to definition A. And as such, I feel as free as I choose from religion.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

If you had freedom "from" religion I would not be able to stand on a street corner and preach because you, and anyone else walking by, would be exposed to my religion. Since I obviously can do that, you do not have freedom from religion.

So what you're saying is that it's a valid rebuttal to a strawman argument that only exists in your mind. I've certainly never seen or heard even the most radical of leftwingers argue that street corner preachers infringe upon their religious freedom.

True story

Who is throwing up a straw man now? I did not say people were making that argument, i was pointing out that if you did have freedom from religion that argument would be valid. Since it is not, neither is the argument that anyone has freedom from religion.

Now, just to illustrate that I am not making this up completely, I will point out that in the UK, where they apparently do have freedom from religion, at least one street preacher was arrested for preaching. Specifically, he was arrested for telling someone that homosexuality is a sin.

Christian preacher arrested for saying homosexuality is a sin - Telegraph

I do not make up straw men that only exist in my mind.

 

[manifold]

If you had freedom "from" religion I would not be able to stand on a street corner and preach because you, and anyone else walking by, would be exposed to my religion. Since I obviously can do that, you do not have freedom from religion.

So what you're saying is that it's a valid rebuttal to a strawman argument that only exists in your mind. I've certainly never seen or heard even the most radical of leftwingers argue that street corner preachers infringe upon their religious freedom.

True story

Who is throwing up a straw man now? I did not say people were making that argument, i was pointing out that if you did have freedom from religion that argument would be valid. Since it is not, neither is the argument that anyone has freedom from religion.

Now, just to illustrate that I am not making this up completely, I will point out that in the UK, where they apparently do have freedom from religion, at least one street preacher was arrested for preaching. Specifically, he was arrested for telling someone that homosexuality is a sin.

Christian preacher arrested for saying homosexuality is a sin - Telegraph

I do not make up straw men that only exist in my mind.

I guess you misunderstood my question that you quoted then. I asked for an argument you've heard for which it is a valid rebuttal. If you haven't heard any then no harm no foul.

Carry on.

 

[jillian]

Only applies to Congress


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

Not according to the 14th Amendment.

Never ratified

boy, your posts get more absurd on a daily basis.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Only applies to Congress


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

Not according to the 14th Amendment.

Never ratified

And income tax is unconstitutional.

You should find better sources for your stupid theories.

All 37 states that were in the union at the time the 14th was proposed eventually ratified it.

SSRN-Beyond the Super-Majority: Post-Adoption Ratification of the Equality Amendments by Gabriel Chin, Anjali Abraham

SCOTUS has accepted it as part of the Constitution, and no conspiracy theory is ever going to change that.

 

[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?

I don't really get your question. Or maybe you don't get your question. Freedom from religion is not being forced to practice a religion. You have no freedom from hearing about religion. If you want that, it's a free country and they have the right to express their views. In your word, deal. How exactly are you not free from religion?

you have freedom from GOVERNMENT telling you about religion. You have freedom to believe in nothing at all. THAT freedom IS protected constitutionally.

i think you're confusing two separate concepts.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What we've learned so far...

A) If freedom from religion means the freedom to not practice religion, it is certainly protected by the 1st Amendment.

B) If freedom from religion means you can force your next door neighbor to take down his nativity scene because it offends you, then it is certainly not protected by the 1st Amendment.

With respect to 'B', I've never heard anyone argue that the 1st Amendment gives them the right to force their neighbor to take down a nativity scene. So those arguing that it means B, are arguing in an academic vacuum against a ficticious strawman. For some I suppose that's the only kind of debate in which they stand any chance of holding their own.

Let me ask you something.

How do you know that nativity scenes on private property are legal if the courts did not have to rule on the issue? Doesn't that imply that someone tried to sue someone over it?

Just a thought.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

You do, right now, have Freedom From Religion.

Nobody is forcing you to think about God or to do anything about God.

No, that is freedom of religion, not from it.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

The first amendment assures your right to be an Episcopalian, a Global Warming Cultist or an Atheist... or whatever. It's all good and that's all you need.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

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?

You do, right now, have Freedom From Religion.

Nobody is forcing you to think about God or to do anything about God.

No, that is freedom of religion, not from it.

I dunno how they dream this shit up.

 

[code1211]

The Constitution doesn't guarantee you freedom FROM religion so why do we really care what it means.

Because courts are using this to support the practice of sending children home from school when they wear Christian symbols but allowing Muslim children to wear signage of their religion in the same venue.

Religious symbols are being systematically removed from public property and celebratory religious signs of Christmas are now illegal in most communities.

I have never understood why the display of any symbol, in and of itself, is a danger to anything. Those that find a threat in a Cross or a Creche are just a tad over sensitive.

If it does not hurt you and it makes most feel better and act better, what is the harm?

 

[manifold]

Because courts are using this to support the practice of sending children home from school when they wear Christian symbols

Link?

...celebratory religious signs of Christmas are now illegal in most communities.

Patently false


As an alleged Christian, I'd expect you to understand that you go to the same place for lying that you do for stealing.

 

[midcan5]

"... Christians have already lost their independence when they attempt to find political solutions for problems that are essentially cultural and prepolitical — in other words, when they ask politics to do what politics cannot do..." Os Guinness


James Madison provides some insight into the reasons and the times in which the idea began, even if today many seem confused.

"Toleration was certainly the term of choice in matters of religious liberty before American independence. It had been made popular by writings such as John Locke's A Letter Concerning Toleration and copied into the first draft of the Virginia Declaration of Rights in 1776 by George Mason. Young James Madison objected, however, and when he succeeded in changing the word tolerance to the words free exercise, he advanced the cause of religious liberty by light-years. Tolerance is too condescending and uncertain. It is the gesture of the strong toward the weak, the government toward the citizenry, and the majority toward the minority. Free exercise, by contrast, is inalienable because it is the inalienable right of everyone, the minority no less than the majority, the weak as well as the poor, and the citizens just as much as the government." Os Guinness

See here: On Religious Freedom and Rights of Conscience | Papers @ Afterall.net

 

[hortysir]

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?

I'm jumping in cold, Mani. I haven't read any other replies.

As I'm sure you know, religion is very different from faith.
Jesus, himself, was against organized religion.
I love the story of Him overturning the peddler's tables at the Temple.

To me that is true freedom; to worship in faith without the confines of an organized religion dictating how I communicate with my my Father.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Because courts are using this to support the practice of sending children home from school when they wear Christian symbols

Link?

...celebratory religious signs of Christmas are now illegal in most communities.

Patently false


As an alleged Christian, I'd expect you to understand that you go to the same place for lying that you do for stealing.

Actually, he is pretty accurate, even if you miss his point. There is an organization that dedicates itself to eliminating all public displays of religion, and has sued many communities over private displays that have been going on for years.

Legal Challenges - Legal

There are actually people out there who want to eliminate all mention of religion.

 

[manifold]

Because courts are using this to support the practice of sending children home from school when they wear Christian symbols

Link?

...celebratory religious signs of Christmas are now illegal in most communities.

Patently false


As an alleged Christian, I'd expect you to understand that you go to the same place for lying that you do for stealing.

Actually, he is pretty accurate, even if you miss his point. There is an organization that dedicates itself to eliminating all public displays of religion, and has sued many communities over private displays that have been going on for years.

Legal Challenges - Legal

There are actually people out there who want to eliminate all mention of religion.

You use public and private as if they're interchangeable. They're not.

I would expect you to know the difference, as well as be honest enough to acknowledge that this statement is pure fabrication:

celebratory religious signs of Christmas are now illegal in most communities

Unless you're just another disingenuous partisan hack...