Looking for a well reasoned definition...

[Sheldon]

Okay I've read most of the thread I think.

The First Amendment prohibits the government from allowing any religion or religious group to receive special consideration or favor from the federal government and disallows granting power to any religious group. It also disallows the government from interfering with the religious thought, faith, and practice of any person or religious group EXCEPT when such practice violates basic laws of the land. Sacrificing virgins for any purpose, for instance, would violate the basic laws of the land and the feds could absolutely interfere with a religious ceremony regardless of how much the doctrine of the group required that sacrifice.

Where the First Amendment applies to Mani specifically is that Mani can practice, believe, state his beliefs re religion anywhere he chooses without interference from government EXCEPT when that practice or speech violates the unalienable rights of another. And he can choose to be free of any religious influence on his own property if he chooses that meaning he can order the Jehovah Witnesses to leave and not put up any Christmas lights if he doesn't want to.

It does NOT mean that he never has to hear a Christmas Carol or see a religious symbol or be exposed to another's religious thoughts in the public sector.

I agree. But since I've never heard anyone argue that it DOES mean you never have to hear a Christmas carol or see a relgious symbol I really don't understand the value in trying to make that some huge point in the debate. It's nothing more than a statement of what should be obvious.

It's political value. Victimology sells well. News, pundits, op-eds, they all say it and then it gets parroted around until it becomes an internet fact.

I believe someone on the last page used "silent majority". That pretty much sums up the mindset.

Imao, anyways.

 

[manifold]

what does 'freedom FROM' religion mean to those who wrongly use that term, instead of what is actually in the bill of rights?

I think we can safely conclude that the oft used nutter rebuttal 'We have freedom OF religion not freedom FROM religion' is a non-sequiturial, disingenuous attempt at deflection and obfuscation.

But it does sound good, which is probably why so many tards think it's a valid argument when debating the nuances of the establishment clause.

 

[Care4all]

what does 'freedom FROM' religion mean to those who wrongly use that term, instead of what is actually in the bill of rights?

I think we can safely conclude that the oft used nutter rebuttal 'We have freedom OF religion not freedom FROM religion' is a non-sequiturial, disingenuous attempt at deflection and obfuscation.

But it does sound good, which is probably why so many tards think it's a valid argument when debating the nuances of the establishment clause.

i just think the persons who say: ''freedom FROM religion'' based on the bill of rights first amendment, need to learn how to read....

 

[manifold]

what does 'freedom FROM' religion mean to those who wrongly use that term, instead of what is actually in the bill of rights?

I think we can safely conclude that the oft used nutter rebuttal 'We have freedom OF religion not freedom FROM religion' is a non-sequiturial, disingenuous attempt at deflection and obfuscation.

But it does sound good, which is probably why so many tards think it's a valid argument when debating the nuances of the establishment clause.

i just think the persons who say: ''freedom FROM religion'' based on the bill of rights first amendment, need to learn how to read....

The only people I've ever seen use the phrase in debate are people who don't believe in the separation of church and state... which also doesn't appear in the 1st Amendment.

 

[Foxfyre]

what does 'freedom FROM' religion mean to those who wrongly use that term, instead of what is actually in the bill of rights?

I think we can safely conclude that the oft used nutter rebuttal 'We have freedom OF religion not freedom FROM religion' is a non-sequiturial, disingenuous attempt at deflection and obfuscation.

But it does sound good, which is probably why so many tards think it's a valid argument when debating the nuances of the establishment clause.

i just think the persons who say: ''freedom FROM religion'' based on the bill of rights first amendment, need to learn how to read....

Correct! UNLESS one means that freedom FROM religion simply means I don't have to believe anything religious or any tenet of faith and I won't have to worry about somebody punishing me or withholding rights from me because I don't.

But I have no right to expect that others will refrain from exposing me to THEIR religious beliefs or thoughts or that they should be punished when they do that.

Personally I think the Supreme got it wrong requiring that the Ten Commandments Sculpture be removed from that Courthouse years ago and I still mourn that school children are denied so many of the classics and great masters simply because they contain religious concepts. But that's just my opinion, and I realize that there are those who insist that it is wrong.

 

[Synthaholic]

Manifold, can I say the Lords prayer in any public building? Can a teacher open a class with a passage from the bible? Before the radicalization of our society by communist agitators in the 1960's, I used to be able to do all of those things.

How would you feel about a teacher opening a class with a passage from the Koran?

Now, instead, my grandchildren must pass through metal detectors to get into school. Even then their safety can't be assured. Crime is rampant. The very fabric of our society has been seriously eroded. Have you looked around lately. The silent majority isn't silent any longer. We're going to take our country back.

Where the hell do YOU live? If your grandkids are going through a metal detector to get into school, then she is being raised in a bad neighborhood, and that's on her parents. They should move, for her sake. This doesn't happen where I live or anywhere I've lived.


And crime is not rampant, it's down considerably.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Okay I've read most of the thread I think.

The First Amendment prohibits the government from allowing any religion or religious group to receive special consideration or favor from the federal government and disallows granting power to any religious group. It also disallows the government from interfering with the religious thought, faith, and practice of any person or religious group EXCEPT when such practice violates basic laws of the land. Sacrificing virgins for any purpose, for instance, would violate the basic laws of the land and the feds could absolutely interfere with a religious ceremony regardless of how much the doctrine of the group required that sacrifice.

Where the First Amendment applies to Mani specifically is that Mani can practice, believe, state his beliefs re religion anywhere he chooses without interference from government EXCEPT when that practice or speech violates the unalienable rights of another. And he can choose to be free of any religious influence on his own property if he chooses that meaning he can order the Jehovah Witnesses to leave and not put up any Christmas lights if he doesn't want to.

It does NOT mean that he never has to hear a Christmas Carol or see a religious symbol or be exposed to another's religious thoughts in the public sector.

I agree. But since I've never heard anyone argue that it DOES mean you never have to hear a Christmas carol or see a relgious symbol I really don't understand the value in trying to make that some huge point in the debate. It's nothing more than a statement of what should be obvious.

I showed you someone who is arguing that another person does not have the right to display Christmas lights on their property, and you start talking about songs. Why are we now talking about carols? If I found an effort to ban carols would you start talking about banning snow?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

what does 'freedom FROM' religion mean to those who wrongly use that term, instead of what is actually in the bill of rights?

I think we can safely conclude that the oft used nutter rebuttal 'We have freedom OF religion not freedom FROM religion' is a non-sequiturial, disingenuous attempt at deflection and obfuscation.

But it does sound good, which is probably why so many tards think it's a valid argument when debating the nuances of the establishment clause.

Isn't it funny that SCOTUS disagrees with you, and that you ignore that?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I think we can safely conclude that the oft used nutter rebuttal 'We have freedom OF religion not freedom FROM religion' is a non-sequiturial, disingenuous attempt at deflection and obfuscation.

But it does sound good, which is probably why so many tards think it's a valid argument when debating the nuances of the establishment clause.

i just think the persons who say: ''freedom FROM religion'' based on the bill of rights first amendment, need to learn how to read....

The only people I've ever seen use the phrase in debate are people who don't believe in the separation of church and state... which also doesn't appear in the 1st Amendment.

Again you ignore facts. Did you conveniently forget that I provided a link to an organization that calls itself Freedom From Religion Foundation? Do you think they are secretly people who do not believe in the seperation of church and state?

If this is not moving the goalposts what, exactly, do you call it?

 

[George Costanza]

Here are the goal posts for you once again QW.

They haven't moved a millimeter.

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

Now go ahead and acknowledge that this statement is completely false or prove to everyone watching that you are a disengenuous partisan hack.

The choice is yours.

As long as they are private and not on public property, no public money,etc and do not violate noise, etc types of ordinances I do not believe religious christmas stuff is illegal anywhere in the USA.

You are correct, sir. But, of course, that makes you a "partisan hack," right?

 

[George Costanza]

Freedom of religion means you can practice any religion you choose

Freedom from religion means nobody forces their religious beliefs on you

Well . . . freedom from religion means that THE GOVERNMENT cannot force any religious belief on you. Unfortunately, OTHER CITIZENS are not so limited. ("Good morning. We are from Jehova Witness. May we come in and talk with you for a moment?")

 

[George Costanza]

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.

The 1st Amendment contains two clauses pertaining to religion. The first of these is the Establishment Clause, which prohibits the government from forcing religion or religious viewpoints on citizens. The Establishment Clause provided citizens with freedom FROM (government endorsed) religion.

The second clause is the Free Exercise Clause, which says that the government cannot prohibit citizens from practicing any form of religion they desire. The Free Exercise Clause provides the citizens with freedom OF religion.

So the First Amendment provides BOTH freedom OF religion and freedom FROM religion. The difference is that, in one case, citizens are free FROM having religion forced upon them by the government (The Establishment Clause) while, in the other case, citizens are also free to practice whatever religion they desire, i.e., freedom OF religion (the Free Exercise Clause).

The OP asks for the difference between freedom OF religion and freedom FROM religion. That is all it asks for. It does not ask for a discussion of whether or not these two freedoms are a GOOD IDEA, which, it seems to me, is what the main portion of this thread has evolved into.

Anyway, I have stated the difference between freedom OF religion and freedom FROM religion. If that is not satisfactory, try looking at it this way: one of the freedoms prohibits the government from imposing religion on its citizens. The other freedom prohibits the government from preventing citizens from practicing any type of religion they choose. There is a significant difference between these two freedoms.

 

[Ravi]

Keep flailing skippy, I'm sure I'm not the only one amused by your steaming pile of fail.

No, you aren't.

 

[manifold]

QW,

The only thing you've 'proved' is that you're a dishonest partisan hack.

True story

 

[manifold]

I repeat my challenge, and extend it to anyone willing to accept.

What argument have you ever heard for which 'you don't have freedom FROM relgion' is actually a legitimate rebuttal and not simply an attempt at deflection and obfuscation?

The only time I've ever heard people use that talking point is in defense of relgious displays on 'public property', in which case it's a weak attempt at deflection since arguments against public property displays are based, right or wrong, on the establishment clause and not the free exercise thereof clause.

 

[Care4all]

sorry, you can't have a decision made on this with only using one clause Manifold, both clauses have to be taken in to consideration....you can't separate them, they have to be weighed against eachother? So, bottom line, I have no idea what your "bitch" is regarding this... Maybe this is why none of us have satisfied your concerns....?

 

[manifold]

sorry, you can't have a decision made on this with only using one clause Manifold, both clauses have to be taken in to consideration....you can't separate them, they have to be weighed against eachother? So, bottom line, I have no idea what your "bitch" is regarding this... Maybe this is why none of us have satisfied your concerns....?

My 'bitch' is that when someone says that a relgious display on public property violates the establishment clause, some assclown comes along and says not it doesn't because you don't have freedom FROM religion. And in that context, it's a non-sequiturial, disingenuous attempt at deflection and obfuscation. This thread has more than proved that to me.

 

[Care4all]

no one, can legitimately use the first amendment religion clause, without using BOTH parts of the clause....those on the right or the left that try to use one part of the clause to justify their political standing, without weighing the other religion clause, is on thin ice....

 

[manifold]

no one, can legitimately use the first amendment religion clause, without using BOTH parts of the clause....those on the right or the left that try to use one part of the clause to justify their political standing, without weighing the other religion clause, is on thin ice....

You're entitled to an opinion that runs contrary to SCOTUS rulings if you like.

I have a few of those myself.

 

[Care4all]

no one, can legitimately use the first amendment religion clause, without using BOTH parts of the clause....those on the right or the left that try to use one part of the clause to justify their political standing, without weighing the other religion clause, is on thin ice....

You're entitled to an opinion that runs contrary to SCOTUS rulings if you like.

I have a few of those myself.

i don't think this position runs contrary to the SCOTUS rulings....

you need to prove that it does....