Looking for a well reasoned definition...

[L.K.Eder]

QW,

You're trying to squeeze 100 lbs of fail into a 50 lb sack. Seriously, I'm actually starting to feel embarassed for you.

that is his prejoragative.

 

[pinqy]

That is where it gets a little tricky. Why is the National Christmas Tree legal, and a creche in a town square illegal?

Because Christmas, as a Federal Holiday and long tradition in Europe and the Middle East (it is a holiday in many Muslim countries), has many secular aspects to it. The tree, Santa, Frosty the Snowman, etc have no specific religious conotation anymore (despite Santa's origins), and many non-Christians take part in Christamas celebrations without any specifically religious aspect to it. A tree, coming from pagan traditions and adopted by Christians, does not currently have any religous meaning, while a creche is a specific religious statement.

In short, secular or general aspects of a holiday are fine for government support, a specific religious message is not.

 

[Foxfyre]

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

Again, since you ignored it the first time. Many different communities have attempted to pass laws that stop Jehovah's Witnesses from knocking on doors, and they have all failed.

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The lower courts sided with the town, ruling that the ordinance was a valid “content-neutral” regulation that didn’t interfere with anyone’s First Amendment rights.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]But in an opinion handed down on June 17, the U.S. Supreme Court saw it very differently. In a rare display of agreement, eight of the nine justices voted to strike down the Stratton law as an unconstitutional limitation on free speech. As Justice John Paul Stevens explained in the majority opinion:[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]“It is offensive – not only to the values protected by the First Amendment, but to the very notion of a free society – that in the context of everyday public discourse a citizen must first inform the government of her desire to speak to her neighbors and then obtain a permit to do so.” [/FONT]

freedomforum.org: Why Jehovah's Witnesses' victory is a win for all of us

You have freedom of religion, but you do not have freedom from religion, because those JWs can still knock on your door, even if you find it offensive.

QW, it seems to me that you and four or five of my other friends here, are all parsing the hell out of this argument.

Everyone has freedom OF religion, provided that, in exercising that religion, they do not violate the rights of others or commit crimes (we'll slide over the Mormons for a moment).

Freedom FROM religion gets a little dicier. It depends on who is trying to impose it on you. If it's the government, then everyone does have freedom FROM religion. If it is another citizen, trying to impose his or her religion on you, then I'm afraid you do NOT have freedom from religion. You are correct when you say that JW's are free to bug the hell out of people. They are not agents of the government. They are just (very pushy) people, i.e., other (very pushy) citizens.

I noticed on the news this morning that the lowest of the low, that Westboro Baptist church group, was given a green light by SCOTUS to picket military funerals. However cruel and hateful that might be, it is protected free speech just the same. But at the same time, the rest of us can continue to see them for the ugly, unChristian, scumbags that they are.

And yes, the Jehovah Witnesses can knock on my door and the Hari Krishnas can try to offer me flowers at the airport but I don't have to answer the door or be accommodating if I do. I don't have to accept the flowers. The government is not allowed to require me to be accommodating to any religious group or subscribe to their sales pitches. Which to me is freedom of religion and freedom FROM religion at the same time protecting free speech.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

In your example we still have freedom from religion...we are free to not open the door, we are free to not join their religion.

More importantly, in your example, the taxpayer is not paying any portion of the JW's door-to-door proselytizing. Which we would be if they were allowed to set up shop and proselytize at the county court house. Which they aren't.

Actually, the tax payer is paying for it. They had to defend the laws passed by stupid people to try and stop it.

 

[Ravi]

In your example we still have freedom from religion...we are free to not open the door, we are free to not join their religion.

More importantly, in your example, the taxpayer is not paying any portion of the JW's door-to-door proselytizing. Which we would be if they were allowed to set up shop and proselytize at the county court house. Which they aren't.

Actually, the tax payer is paying for it. They had to defend the laws passed by stupid people to try and stop it.

THAT is immaterial.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

In your example we still have freedom from religion...we are free to not open the door, we are free to not join their religion.

More importantly, in your example, the taxpayer is not paying any portion of the JW's door-to-door proselytizing. Which we would be if they were allowed to set up shop and proselytize at the county court house. Which they aren't.

Actually, the tax payer is paying for it. They had to defend the laws passed by stupid people to try and stop it.

THAT is immaterial.

I see,

Wasting public funds to stop people who are attempting to exercising their freedom of religion is legitimate use of public funds, but any use of public to express any religious idea, even if it has historical significance, is wrong. Aren't you one of the people that try to argue there is no concerted effort to attack religion?

 

[Ravi]

Actually, the tax payer is paying for it. They had to defend the laws passed by stupid people to try and stop it.

THAT is immaterial.

I see,

Wasting public funds to stop people who are attempting to exercising their freedom of religion is legitimate use of public funds, but any use of public to express any religious idea, even if it has historical significance, is wrong. Aren't you one of the people that try to argue there is no concerted effort to attack religion?

Are you retarded? Or is English not your first language?

 

[M14 Shooter]

You have freedom of religion, but you do not have freedom from religion, because those JWs can still knock on your door, even if you find it offensive.

Yes. I made this point earlier. He agreed with it and then decided that since it wasn't what he was trolling for, he ran away from it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

THAT is immaterial.

I see,

Wasting public funds to stop people who are attempting to exercising their freedom of religion is legitimate use of public funds, but any use of public to express any religious idea, even if it has historical significance, is wrong. Aren't you one of the people that try to argue there is no concerted effort to attack religion?

Are you retarded? Or is English not your first language?

Just offering a clarification of your position. You apparently think spending public funds to stop and expression of religion is justified, but spending them to support an expression of religion is not. If that is not what you meant, can you explain it in better terms? Why is it not a problem to pass laws that would prevent some people to express their religion?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You have freedom of religion, but you do not have freedom from religion, because those JWs can still knock on your door, even if you find it offensive.

Yes. I made this point earlier. He agreed with it and then decided that since it wasn't what he was trolling for, he ran away from it.

Which is why I want him to explain why he thinks it is not a valid rebuttal.

 

[BenNatuf]

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 your question... no, it's freedom of religion, choosing none is no different than choosing one. Freedom of religion means you can choose one or you can choose none and the government is powerless to tell you which one or none to choose.

Why you don't have "freedom from religion" is because to be free from religion would require that others not practice their religion freely in your presence. As much as that might make you happy, while you have the right to ask it, you have no right to expect it, and even less to expect the government which is precluded from making laws infringing on it to enforce it.

 

[Foxfyre]

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 your question... no, it's freedom of religion, choosing none is no different than choosing one. Freedom of religion means you can choose one or you can choose none and the government is powerless to tell you which one or none to choose.

Why you don't have "freedom from religion" is because to be free from religion would require that others not practice their religion freely in your presence. As much as that might make you happy, while you have the right to ask it, you have no right to expect it, and even less to expect the government which is precluded from making laws infringing on it to enforce it.

Don't you think there is a distinction between being free to not believe anything religious or not participate in anything religious or not support anything religious. . . . . which would be freedom FROM religion. . . .

as opposed to. . . .

Being free from ever having to see or hear anything religious?

The first is what the First amendment guarantees.

But the second is infringement on the First Amendment right of others.

 

[Ravi]

I see,

Wasting public funds to stop people who are attempting to exercising their freedom of religion is legitimate use of public funds, but any use of public to express any religious idea, even if it has historical significance, is wrong. Aren't you one of the people that try to argue there is no concerted effort to attack religion?

Are you retarded? Or is English not your first language?

Just offering a clarification of your position. You apparently think spending public funds to stop and expression of religion is justified, but spending them to support an expression of religion is not. If that is not what you meant, can you explain it in better terms? Why is it not a problem to pass laws that would prevent some people to express their religion?

Again, it is immaterial to the discussion at hand: JW canvassing on private property vs. canvassing at the court house.

As for your strawman, I have no problem with money being spent defending free speech. That it sometimes gets spent trying to limit free speech is the fault of the constitution...the constitution is not a clear document.

 

[BenNatuf]

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 your question... no, it's freedom of religion, choosing none is no different than choosing one. Freedom of religion means you can choose one or you can choose none and the government is powerless to tell you which one or none to choose.

Why you don't have "freedom from religion" is because to be free from religion would require that others not practice their religion freely in your presence. As much as that might make you happy, while you have the right to ask it, you have no right to expect it, and even less to expect the government which is precluded from making laws infringing on it to enforce it.

Don't you think there is a distinction between being free to not believe anything religious or not participate in anything religious or not support anything religious. . . . . which would be freedom FROM religion. . . .

Those would be freedon OF religion, which would include "none". Freedom of religion doesn't mean your free to choose one, it means your free to choose period... which would include none.

Not believing in anything is freedom OF religion, which doesn't require you to believe anything. Just like freedom OF speech is inclusive of choosing NOT to speak which is where the "right to remain silent" is founded (among other places).

Not participating is an exercize of the free practice of religion; which, since no particular practice is specified, includes no practice.

Not supporting any religion is a natural construct of the first two and has no distinction from them.

as opposed to. . . .

Being free from ever having to see or hear anything religious?

The first is what the First amendment guarantees.

But the second is infringement on the First Amendment right of others.

That would be freedom from religion, and yes, it requires an infringment on the free practice rights of others... which is why you don't have that right.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You have freedom of religion, but you do not have freedom from religion, because those JWs can still knock on your door, even if you find it offensive.

Yes. I made this point earlier. He agreed with it and then decided that since it wasn't what he was trolling for, he ran away from it.

Which is why I want him to explain why he thinks it is not a valid rebuttal.

I tried. He questioned my courage, and ran away.
Funny thing that he would not explain how HIS rebuttal was not valid.

 

[manifold]

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

Patently false

Actually, he is pretty accurate.

Preserved for posterity.

 

[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?

5 1/2 years later and still nobody up to the task.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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?

5 1/2 years later and still nobody up to the task.

Yes... because we took so seriously our burden to relieve you of your ignorance.

 

[Treeshepherd]

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?

5 1/2 years later and still nobody up to the task.

I'm not going to read 20 pages to see if this has already been mentioned;

In the 60's there was a case (Engels vs. Vitale) where the plaintiff sued the NYC school system. The schools had instituted a prayer to be recited after the pledge of allegiance. It was like, "Almighty Father don't let bad shit happen to America" or something. Even though the prayer wasn't technically mandatory (like the pledge) the courts ruled 8-1 that the prayer violated the establishment clause of the 1st amendment. Engel won his case, which could be described as freedom from religion.

Even though "under God" is part of the pledge of allegiance I don't think anyone's ever sued against it successfully. Sort of arbitrary.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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?

5 1/2 years later and still nobody up to the task.

I think Rousseau said it best, "man is born free, but he is everywhere in chains,". Taken in the context of today's world and the charlatan's who claim to know God, and use this claim to enslave populations, it seems to describe how the First Estate (the clergy) and the Second Estate (the nobility, aka the one percent) impact legislation on the State and Federal Level to benefit themselves, and keep the rest of our citizens under their control.