Argumentative Essay for English

[no1tovote4]

If "Freedom of Religion" actually did mean "Freedom from Religion" then Freedom of Speech must actually mean Freedom from Speech, therefore all public officials could not be allowed to speak their opinion in any form in the public theater....

There is a reason why they didn't include the "from" orginally, one cannot have freedom "of" religion at the same time as another has freedom "from" religion. The two cannot exist together as the Freedom "from" right would necessarily exclude the Right of Free Expression...

 

[MissileMan]

If "Freedom of Religion" actually did mean "Freedom from Religion" then Freedom of Speech must actually mean Freedom from Speech, therefore all public officials could not be allowed to speak their opinion in any form in the public theater....

There is a reason why they didn't include the "from" orginally, one cannot have freedom "of" religion at the same time as another has freedom "from" religion. The two cannot exist together as the Freedom "from" right would necessarily exclude the Right of Free Expression...

What it all boils down to though is that keeping religion out of public schools and public places in no way infringes on any individual's freedom of religion. That individual is very much free to worship the deity of their choice. There may be restrictions on when/where, but there are restrictions placed on us in almost every facet of life. I don't believe the founding fathers intended any rights to be unrestricted.

 

[5stringJeff]

What it all boils down to though is that keeping religion out of public schools and public places in no way infringes on any individual's freedom of religion. That individual is very much free to worship the deity of their choice. There may be restrictions on when/where, but there are restrictions placed on us in almost every facet of life. I don't believe the founding fathers intended any rights to be unrestricted.

I bolded that phrase because it can be interpreted many different ways. Just wht exactly is "keeping religion out of public schools?" If a child decides to pray before eating lunch, is that allowed? What about teaching a comparative religion class? What about non-secretarian prayers at graduation? What about bringing up a religious experience (like church camp) in relevant conversation during class? There are lots of places where religion might be "brought in" to public schools without the government favoring one over another.

 

[MissileMan]

I bolded that phrase because it can be interpreted many different ways. Just wht exactly is "keeping religion out of public schools?" If a child decides to pray before eating lunch, is that allowed? What about teaching a comparative religion class? What about non-secretarian prayers at graduation? What about bringing up a religious experience (like church camp) in relevant conversation during class? There are lots of places where religion might be "brought in" to public schools without the government favoring one over another.

I'm not talking about individual expressions of religion. The wearing of religious symbols or silent praying are perfectly acceptable. (you couldn't stop someone from offering a silent prayer even if you wanted to) I'm specifically talking about the public schools and public funding being used to further the spread of any single religion.

 

[5stringJeff]

I'm specifically talking about the public schools and public funding being used to further the spread of any single religion.

I agree with you. In fact something like this happened in CA a while ago that comes to mind. For a period of study on Islam, seventh graders were encouraged to read the Koran, take on a Muslim name, and defend the practices of Islamic terrorists with the parts of the Koran they had read. I think something like that falls right in line with what you're talking about.

 

[no1tovote4]

What it all boils down to though is that keeping religion out of public schools and public places in no way infringes on any individual's freedom of religion. That individual is very much free to worship the deity of their choice. There may be restrictions on when/where, but there are restrictions placed on us in almost every facet of life. I don't believe the founding fathers intended any rights to be unrestricted.

There is a difference between teaching religion as unalterable fact or allowing others to express their religion even while in office, or as a teacher.

In France, where secularism is the rule of the day they make laws that disallow people to express their religion in the classroom feeling it is a disrespect to the Nationalism that they want them to feel. Each of us has a right to free expression including officials in the government.

 

[IControlThePast]

If "Freedom of Religion" actually did mean "Freedom from Religion" then Freedom of Speech must actually mean Freedom from Speech, therefore all public officials could not be allowed to speak their opinion in any form in the public theater....

There is a reason why they didn't include the "from" orginally, one cannot have freedom "of" religion at the same time as another has freedom "from" religion. The two cannot exist together as the Freedom "from" right would necessarily exclude the Right of Free Expression...

The phrasing is different for Speech. "Congress shall make no law...abriding the freedom of speech." This is different from "Conress shall make no law respecting an establishment of Religion," which means the state can't really show preference to one establishment.

So I'm fine with Comparitive Religion classes, and in fact wish I had one in high school. We had to read The Gospel According to Mark for English in my public high school, but we compared it with other Religions, and people could chose to do an alternate non-Religious assignment if they objected.

 

[no1tovote4]

The phrasing is different for Speech. "Congress shall make no law...abriding the freedom of speech." This is different from "Conress shall make no law respecting an establishment of Religion," which means the state can't really show preference to one establishment.

So I'm fine with Comparitive Religion classes, and in fact wish I had one in high school. We had to read The Gospel According to Mark for English in my public high school, but we compared it with other Religions, and people could chose to do an alternate non-Religious assignment if they objected.

You forget the "Congress shall make no law... ...prohibiting the free exercise thereof" part like most people when they attempt to make some sort of pretend separation. Once again, this does not give anybody at all freedom "from" religion any more than freedom of speech gives you freedom from the free speech of others.

 

[IControlThePast]

You forget the Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Once again, this does not give anybody at all freedom "from" religion any more than freedom of speech gives you freedom from the free speech of others.

The free exersize clause is not particularly important to this debate so I omitted it. That is the "freedom of religion" part, and if only that were included in the Constitution you would obviously be right, but there is the Establishment Clause.

"Respecting" differs from "abridging." Respecting means that you can't show preference to one of the establishments. Abridging means "to withhold something from." Respecting means "to have reference to." If the state can't refer to Religion, then how is Religion supposed to influence the state?

Both of these definitions are taken from Merriam-Webster Dictionary, www.m-w.com

 

[no1tovote4]

The free exersize clause is not particularly important to this debate so I omitted it. That is the "freedom of religion" part, and if only that were included in the Constitution you would obviously be right, but there is the Establishment Clause.

"Respecting" differs from "abridging." Respecting means that you can't show preference to one of the establishments. Abridging means "to withhold something from." Respecting means "to have reference to." If the state can't refer to Religion, then how is Religion supposed to influence the state?

Both of these definitions are taken from Merriam-Webster Dictionary, www.m-w.com

I understand that, but the Free Exercise clause is the one that allows you to have the Freedom of Religion, the part we are actually speaking about....

Since your post was in answer to my post of the difference between the Freedom 'of' over the Freedom 'from', you should at least stick to the part that actually is salient to the originating point.

There is nothing in the Constitution that gives you freedom from another's free exercise of religion. Those in Government, and those who work for institutions created by government, have just as much right to their freedom of expression as you do. The Government as a whole cannot make any laws respecting the establishment of religion, we all understand that, but it still does not give one "Freedom 'from' Religion" as we so often hear nor does it mean that our leaders have suddenly lost their right to Free Expression.

 

[IControlThePast]

I understand that, but the Free Exercise clause is the one that allows you to have the Freedom of Religion, the part we are actually speaking about....

Since your post was in answer to my post of the difference between the Freedom 'of' over the Freedom 'from', you should at least stick to the part that actually is salient to the originating point.

There is nothing in the Constitution that gives you freedom from another's free exercise of religion. Those in Government, and those who work for institutions created by government, have just as much right to their freedom of expression as you do. The Government as a whole cannot make any laws respecting the establishment of religion, we all understand that, but it still does not give one "Freedom 'from' Religion" as we so often hear nor does it mean that our leaders have suddenly lost their right to Free Expression.

Well you could understand the freedom of Religion, but not "freedom from Religion," which is the Establishment Clause.

They have all the personal rights of free exersize of Religion, but not when they are representing more than themselves by acting as the Government. They do not have the authority to speak or express the religion through the means of the State, unless explicitly given the power to do so, but it is forbidden the Government grant them that power because they shall not make laws respecting the establishment of Religion. Although I have freedom of expression, I am not free to express your opinions instead of you, because you then lose your freedom of expression. The same goes for individuals when acting as the Government in these cases. How is the Government to incorporate Religion, not be "free from Religion," while not doing anything to respect the establishment of Religion.

 

[Annie]

Well you could understand the freedom of Religion, but not "freedom from Religion," which is the Establishment Clause.

They have all the personal rights of free exersize of Religion, but not when they are representing more than themselves by acting as the Government. They do not have the authority to speak or express the religion through the means of the State, unless explicitly given the power to do so, but it is forbidden the Government grant them that power because they shall not make laws respecting the establishment of Religion. Although I have freedom of expression, I am not free to express your opinions instead of you, because you then lose your freedom of expression. The same goes for individuals when acting as the Government in these cases. How is the Government to incorporate Religion, not be "free from Religion," while not doing anything to respect the establishment of Religion.

Actually I do think the churches have the right, some would say the duty to preach what they see as politics in churches. Certainly the Black Churches in the South felt that was ok for John Kerry's appearances this summer/fall.

There might be an issue with 'tax exempt' status or monies for 'community based projects' from this, that would be determined by the courts. They do have the RIGHT to do it though. Every bit as much as ACLU or League of Women Voters.

What is prohibited is Congress passing laws to establish any religion. Thus if a state legislature should pass a law requiring the teaching of Koran in the interests of 'enlightening' students-it would and should be struck down, same if the Bible were to be taught for that reason.

Use of either or other religious documents to inform the children of comparative religious studies has been upheld.

 

[IControlThePast]

Actually I do think the churches have the right, some would say the duty to preach what they see as politics in churches. Certainly the Black Churches in the South felt that was ok for John Kerry's appearances this summer/fall.

There might be an issue with 'tax exempt' status or monies for 'community based projects' from this, that would be determined by the courts. They do have the RIGHT to do it though. Every bit as much as ACLU or League of Women Voters.

What is prohibited is Congress passing laws to establish any religion. Thus if a state legislature should pass a law requiring the teaching of Koran in the interests of 'enlightening' students-it would and should be struck down, same if the Bible were to be taught for that reason.

Use of either or other religious documents to inform the children of comparative religious studies has been upheld.

I agree with all of these. In another thread I previously talked about the Churches and tax exempt status, and argued they had the right to organize:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=21260&page=1&pp=15

However, I don't quite know how Church candidates would be able pass any special legislation besides what a normal Conservative of Liberal could, unless there was a drastic change in court decisions or a change in the Constitution.

I am for comparitive religious studies too, because it does not give preference.

 

[no1tovote4]

Well you could understand the freedom of Religion, but not "freedom from Religion," which is the Establishment Clause.

They have all the personal rights of free exersize of Religion, but not when they are representing more than themselves by acting as the Government. They do not have the authority to speak or express the religion through the means of the State, unless explicitly given the power to do so, but it is forbidden the Government grant them that power because they shall not make laws respecting the establishment of Religion. Although I have freedom of expression, I am not free to express your opinions instead of you, because you then lose your freedom of expression. The same goes for individuals when acting as the Government in these cases. How is the Government to incorporate Religion, not be "free from Religion," while not doing anything to respect the establishment of Religion.

Regarding the Establishment does not give one freedeom "from" religion. It gives one freedom from the government proselytizing not from all religion at all times especially when individuals, including those in government, have the right to free expression, which we clearly do. My point is there is absolutely no part of the Constitution that gaurantees one Freedom "from" relgion. Thus if somebody attempted to make a law such as they did in France making it illegal to wear religious symbolism in school, everybody would be all over them like stink on rot and they would lose in court, and rightly so.

You keep attempting to make Establishment mean freedom "from" but no matter how you state it you cannot they are not inclusive statements. If they meant freedom "from" they would have written it, those men were extremely precise in their language. You can make no law that would strangle the free expression of an individual, even if they do work for the government.

I begins to seem that you think that I believe this means a teacher can preach in school or something, if so you read "beliefs" and "opinions" into my posts that are not there...

If you reread my posts, there is nothing of the sort in them at all. Nor did I ever say that the Government can express your opinion for you, nor argue anything of the sort, in fact quite the opposite. My original post was for the "Freedom from Religion" crowd, to inform them there is no such right in the US. To specify, they cannot take the right of expression from any individual. You seem to have read far more into that simple statement than was there in order to attempt to make me into some religious nut, and then make some point that there is a right that does not exist and cannot as long as others have the right to free expression as individuals.

I simply gave you the difference between freedom 'of' as opposed to freedom 'from', which we do not have in the US.... If you want freedom 'from' religion go to France where they can make laws against your individual free expression in order to more solidly nationalize the country, as they have done.

 

[Annie]

However, I don't quite know how Church candidates would be able pass any special legislation besides what a normal Conservative of Liberal could, unless there was a drastic change in court decisions or a change in the Constitution.

I am for comparitive religious studies too, because it does not give preference.

I'm assuming you mean above, "...conservative or liberal..."

They can't, unless of course they have the numbers, which would go 'up' if conservatives join them. I think there is ample evidence that many here believe it was the "Christian Conservatives" that elected GW. While I am Christian and consider myself 'Conservative' I do not put myself in that group. Yet I voted for GW, for foreign affairs/national security reasons. Other than tax relief, I find myself unpersuaded by most of his other domestic arguments-I agree with him about abortion-but it seems that the administrations is unable to control their majorities, so that will be for nought.

 

[IControlThePast]

Regarding the Establishment does not give one freedeom "from" religion. It gives one freedom from the government proselytizing not from all religion at all times especially when individuals, including those in government, have the right to free expression, which we clearly do. My point is there is absolutely no part of the Constitution that gaurantees one Freedom "from" relgion. Thus if somebody attempted to make a law such as they did in France making it illegal to wear religious symbolism in school, everybody would be all over them like stink on rot and they would lose in court, and rightly so.

You keep attempting to make Establishment mean freedom "from" but no matter how you state it you cannot they are not inclusive statements. If they meant freedom "from" they would have written it, those men were extremely precise in their language. You can make no law that would strangle the free expression of an individual, even if they do work for the government.

I begins to seem that you think that I believe this means a teacher can preach in school or something, if so you read "beliefs" and "opinions" into my posts that are not there...

If you reread my posts, there is nothing of the sort in them at all. Nor did I ever say that the Government can express your opinion for you, nor argue anything of the sort, in fact quite the opposite. My original post was for the "Freedom from Religion" crowd, to inform them there is no such right in the US. To specify, they cannot take the right of expression from any individual. You seem to have read far more into that simple statement than was there in order to attempt to make me into some religious nut, and then make some point that there is a right that does not exist and cannot as long as others have the right to free expression as individuals.

I simply gave you the difference between freedom 'of' as opposed to freedom 'from', which we do not have in the US.... If you want freedom 'from' religion go to France where they can make laws against your individual free expression in order to more solidly nationalize the country, as they have done.

The Government does have freedom from Religion. Therefore, when people are acting as the Government they are "religion free" too, but not when expressing their own beliefs. There is the reciprocal "the government can't infringe on individual's right of expression and individuals can't infringe on the government's right of expression." I know you're a Buddhist, and I've read your posts and don't think you're a Religious nut.

 

[no1tovote4]

The Government does have freedom from Religion. Therefore, when people are acting as the Government they are "religion free" too, but not when expressing their own beliefs. There is the reciprocal "the government can't infringe on individual's right of expression and individuals can't infringe on the government's right of expression." I know you're a Buddhist, and I've read your posts and don't think you're a Religious nut.

Once again, it does not. JFK in his inaugural address mentioned God, even while being the President. He had the right, not the Executive Branch, but him personally.

He simply could not make his religion an official or the official religion of the US. However, nobody has the right to make him or any other individual stop mentioning God simply because he is the President or because one works for the President. His individual right to express his beliefs superceded any Freedom 'from' Right that you might be able to squeeze out of the fact that Congress can make no laws respecting an establishment of...

My point is, there is not a freedom 'from' religion. There cannot be while we all have the right of Free Expression as individuals. We made it so that the Government cannot tell you which religion in which to believe, but that they cannot make a law taking away your right to express your religion, even in the aspect of Public Servants. Hence there is no actual freedom 'from' religion, only from being forced by law to believe in a specific religion.

I can agree that there can be assumed a trucated version of the right as the government itself cannot express a relgion, but individuals right of Free Expression simply makes an actual 'Freedom From Religion' right impossible.

 

[IControlThePast]

My point is, there is not a freedom 'from' religion. There cannot be while we all have the right of Free Expression as individuals. We made it so that the Government cannot tell you which religion in which to believe, but that they cannot make a law taking away your right to express your religion, even in the aspect of Public Servants. Hence there is no actual freedom 'from' religion, only from being forced by law to believe in a specific religion.

I've never argued contrary.

I can agree that there can be assumed a trucated version of the right as the government itself cannot express a relgion

Exactly what I've been saying the whole time