What is freedom "from" religion anyway?

[Si modo]

Consider the actual text of the 1st Amendment:

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.


Neither the phrase "Freedom of religion" nor "Freedom from religion" is contained in the text.

So why do churches have to follow labor laws?

They are exempt from most of them, as you know since we discussed this in another thread.

 

[manifold]

Exactly, yet one's right to freely exercise their own religion is guaranteed.

Or exercise no religion at all, right?

If that's their individual choice, absolutely.

So if someone does make that choice, isn't it accurate to say they are exercising their constitutional right to freedom from religion?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

hmm I will try.


Freedom from religion means non discrimination of those who believe in a different religion than you do or even no religion at all.
Just try letting a prospective employer in the south know you are an atheist.

So it basically means the same thing as freedom of religion.

Yes. I think so.

 

[Ravi]

Consider the actual text of the 1st Amendment:

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.


Neither the phrase "Freedom of religion" nor "Freedom from religion" is contained in the text.

So why do churches have to follow labor laws?

They are exempt from most of them, as you know since we discussed this in another thread.

I know...but why aren't they exempt from all of them? It seems to me as an employer they are bound to follow laws that govern employers and yet they only have to follow some of them.

 

[Si modo]

Or exercise no religion at all, right?

If that's their individual choice, absolutely.

So if someone does make that choice, isn't it accurate to say they are exercising their constitutional right to freedom from religion?

"Freedom from religion" is too ambiguous of a phrase.

 

[manifold]

If that's their individual choice, absolutely.

So if someone does make that choice, isn't it accurate to say they are exercising their constitutional right to freedom from religion?

"Freedom from religion" is too ambiguous of a phrase.

What is ambiguous about it?

 

[Si modo]

So why do churches have to follow labor laws?

They are exempt from most of them, as you know since we discussed this in another thread.

I know...but why aren't they exempt from all of them? It seems to me as an employer they are bound to follow laws that govern employers and yet they only have to follow some of them.

As we all know, or at least suspect, the laws are made to take into consideration and balance the rights being protected with those being infringed. As enforcing child labor laws, for example, with a consequence of government interference in religious rights seems balanced, that is likely the reason.

 

[Si modo]

So if someone does make that choice, isn't it accurate to say they are exercising their constitutional right to freedom from religion?

"Freedom from religion" is too ambiguous of a phrase.

What is ambiguous about it?

For example, one could argue that having Jehovah's Witnesses ring their doorbell means that they are not free from religion. Another interpretation is yours - one is free to have no religion - with which I agree.

 

[manifold]

"Freedom from religion" is too ambiguous of a phrase.

What is ambiguous about it?

For example, one could argue that having Jehovah's Witnesses ring their doorbell means that they are not free from religion. Another interpretation is yours - one is free to have no religion - with which I agree.

As long as I'm free to slam the door in their face, my freedom from religion is intact.

 

[nospamsam]

One is also free not to answer the door.

 

[Si modo]

What is ambiguous about it?

For example, one could argue that having Jehovah's Witnesses ring their doorbell means that they are not free from religion. Another interpretation is yours - one is free to have no religion - with which I agree.

As long as I'm free to slam the door in their face, my freedom from religion is intact.

Yup. It's rather satisfying, too.

 

[Ravi]

They are exempt from most of them, as you know since we discussed this in another thread.

I know...but why aren't they exempt from all of them? It seems to me as an employer they are bound to follow laws that govern employers and yet they only have to follow some of them.

As we all know, or at least suspect, the laws are made to take into consideration and balance the rights being protected with those being infringed. As enforcing child labor laws, for example, with a consequence of government interference in religious rights seems balanced, that is likely the reason.

That's too ambiguous, no offense. Laws are more concrete than what "seems" balanced.

 

[Annie]

Consider the actual text of the 1st Amendment:

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.


Neither the phrase "Freedom of religion" nor "Freedom from religion" is contained in the text.

Yep, means the government stays the hell out of religion. No favoring one over another. Not allowing religion as citizenship testing.

It doesn't mean that people are prohibited from speaking of their religion. It doesn't mean that schools are 'religious free' zones, but does mean that taxpayer financed schools will not favor one religion or religion in general over others or none. A lot of the 'speeches' that have been canned, could be won under appeal, as long as it was a student giving the speech. Doesn't do a lot for your college admissions though...

 

[Ravi]

One is also free not to answer the door.

I think in my state you can actually shoot them, IF you feel threatened.

 

[Si modo]

I know...but why aren't they exempt from all of them? It seems to me as an employer they are bound to follow laws that govern employers and yet they only have to follow some of them.

As we all know, or at least suspect, the laws are made to take into consideration and balance the rights being protected with those being infringed. As enforcing child labor laws, for example, with a consequence of government interference in religious rights seems balanced, that is likely the reason.

That's too ambiguous, no offense. Laws are more concrete than what "seems" balanced.

No offense taken. I doubt if our laws were so easily interpreted, as concrete laws would be, that we would have pages and pages of attorneys in the yellow book and that we would even need a SCOTUS.

 

[nospamsam]

One is also free not to answer the door.

I think in my state you can actually shoot them, IF you feel threatened.

I think for the most part they are harmless. It is the Mafia Jehovah's Witness you need to worry about. They will make you an offer you can't refuse.. lol