Looking for a well reasoned definition...

[Wry Catcher]

HAHA!!! Thats true Willow.

Every Christmas, liberals try their best to free us from our Christianity. They're liberators I suppose!!!

Nothing that I've read which you've posted would lead me to believe you're a Christian.

 

[AmericanFirst]

Only applies to Congress


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

No they can't. US Constitution has precidence

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.

​

As I said

No state can force a religion on you or make one illegal. Go get an education before you start saying stupid stuff like that.

 

[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?

First, you have to tell me what makes you think people have freedom from religion? Do you also think people have a freedom from offense, because the only plausible way a person could be free from religion is to be free from offense.

 

[Agit8r]

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?

semantics....

freedom of religion keeps the government from interfering with ones own religious beliefs or non beliefs...it forces nothing regarding practicing religion on its citizens....it means the same as those that i have seen say it is freedom from religion.

Where another poster pointed out, this does NOT prevent citizens from being exposed to all religions or the religious beliefs of others...which some that use the word from religion have tried to say it does....but...it DOES NOT. It does prevent the government from legislating an established religion as the rule of the land.....

So maybe a situation where a Muslim mosque put up an HUGE star and moon symbol in their front yard. Then they're sued by Fred Phelps because he thinks they're infringing on his freedom of religion. Obviously there's other major problems with that suit, like serious problems, but whatever. He's a troll. Anyways the mosque people could say there's no clause in the 1st that protects others from seeing our expression of religion--which is what I think the 'theres no freedom from religion' thing is about. Expression versus the ability to practice. Im not a lawyer though, so this could be off base

Right, but if there was a list of Sharia Laws at courthouses etc, that would be a violation though

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Freedom of religion means you can practice any religion you choose

Freedom from religion means nobody forces their religious beliefs on you

How do you figure that anyone is forcing their religious beliefs on you? Aren't you, by insisting that no one has the right to "force" their beliefs on you actually forcing yours on them? Did you suddenly find a right not to be offended lying around in a dusty corner of an old warehouse somewhere?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

freedom FROM religion does not exist in the bill of rights.

are you familiar with the establishment clause?

Only applies to Congress


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

Not according to the 14th Amendment.

 

[AmericanFirst]

it is not freedom from religion, and never has been....

freedom OF religion says enough....

i have the freedom of religion, to practice my own religion in the public square...

i have freedom of religion, which prevents being dictated as to what domination i choose, which prevents the government from choosing for me or mandating my religious beliefs....

freedom FROM religion does not exist in the bill of rights.

1. some cons claim that atheism IS a religion.

2. I found the words "freedom FROM religion" in the constitution.
it was right next to the passage "America IS a christian nation"

3. regardless of whether those words are in the constitution EVERY CITIZEN has a right to FREEDOM FROM RELIGION.

every citizen has the right to NOT believe in god

and NO RELIGION has a right to force its' beliefs on everyone

The Constitution says freedom OF religion, not from stop making shit up. By the way, I have two copies of the Constitution.

 

[Care4all]

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?

semantics....

freedom of religion keeps the government from interfering with ones own religious beliefs or non beliefs...it forces nothing regarding practicing religion on its citizens....it means the same as those that i have seen say it is freedom from religion.

Where another poster pointed out, this does NOT prevent citizens from being exposed to all religions or the religious beliefs of others...which some that use the word from religion have tried to say it does....but...it DOES NOT. It does prevent the government from legislating an established religion as the rule of the land.....

With all due respect, why would you quote me if you're not actually adressing what I said?

Specifically, what argument(s) have you ever heard for which this...

...the 1st Amendment provides for freedom OF religion but not freedom FROM religion.

...is a valid rebuttal?

with all due respect....I answered you.

some of those that use freedom FROM religion, argue that they should never be exposed to another person's religious beliefs or religion in the public square....

This argument falls flat because the first amendment gives everyone the right to practice their religion or religious beliefs, in the Public square....congress can write no law to stop them.... infringe on that "right".....some of those that want freedom FROM religion, think that they should not be exposed in any manner, to someone else's beliefs....there is no guarantee or "right" to such.....NONE, ZIP, ZILCH.

if this is not what you are asking Mani, then reword it, and ask again.

 

[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?

To try to give this a serious answer, first you have to understand the context of each phrase.

Establishment Clause:
This phrase is derived from the 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution, which has already been quoted in this thread. That phrase established originally that the federal government could not establish laws which respected one religion over another. As noted by the principal author of the 14th Amendment (John Bingham) the feeling was that many state actors had violated their oath of office to support and defend the Constitution (which includes the Bill of Rights) and so one intent of the 14th was to make the Bill of Rights (at least the first 8 amendments) binding on the states. This has "incorporated" certain sections of the BOR as applicable to all levels of government.

Freedom of Religion:
As part of the Constitution, individuals (not government entities) are protected from government interference in the observance of their religious beliefs. Such observance of course is guaranteed as long as (a) it doesn't interfere with the rights of others or (b) does not conflict with another valid government interest. For example, a person can claim that human sacrifice is a part of their religion, but since it interferes with another right to life, then that does not permit the person to perform murder or a person can claim that paying taxes is against their religion, but that does not override the governments interest in generating revenue to operate and provide it's valid functions.

Freedom From Religion:
This phrase has no real basis in law and is more like wishful thinking on the part of some individuals. True there is freedom of government imposed religion, but there is no basis in law that says that you will never be exposed to any religion by individuals acting in a private capacity. Let's say that you have to drive buy a Church on the way home, you have no right to expect to not be exposed to a cross because you drive by it. You desire to not participate in a religion does not preclude your exposure to religion by other private entities.



Basically the government is barred from respecting an establishment of religion and not preventing private individuals from practicing their own religion. There is no such "right" to not be exposed to the religious views of others acting in a private capacity.


Hope that helps.


>>>>

Thank you. That is also well reasoned and makes perfect sense.

However, I seriously doubt there are very many people (if any at all) that believe, or have ever opined, that there is any such right to not be exposed to the religious views of others acting in a private capacity. So my next question, not necessarily directed toward you, is in what context is the talking point mentioned in the OP actually a valid counter-argument?

Actually, Rightwinger did it right here in this thread, and you thought he was pretty well reasoned in doing so.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

...the 1st Amendment provides for freedom OF religion but not freedom FROM religion.

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.

 

[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?

The first amendment protects your right of freedom of religion or from religion. It is so simple it really confuses people. You can worship they way you want to or not worship, your choice. It says Gov't. can't tell you to worship a certain way.

It certainly confused you if you think it protects you from anything but the government.

 

[jillian]

it is not freedom from religion, and never has been....

freedom OF religion says enough....

i have the freedom of religion, to practice my own religion in the public square...

i have freedom of religion, which prevents being dictated as to what domination i choose, which prevents the government from choosing for me or mandating my religious beliefs....

freedom FROM religion does not exist in the bill of rights.

1. some cons claim that atheism IS a religion.

2. I found the words "freedom FROM religion" in the constitution.
it was right next to the passage "America IS a christian nation"

3. regardless of whether those words are in the constitution EVERY CITIZEN has a right to FREEDOM FROM RELIGION.

every citizen has the right to NOT believe in god

and NO RELIGION has a right to force its' beliefs on everyone

The Constitution says freedom OF religion, not from stop making shit up. By the way, I have two copies of the Constitution.

have you ever read a supreme court case?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

1. some cons claim that atheism IS a religion.

2. I found the words "freedom FROM religion" in the constitution.
it was right next to the passage "America IS a christian nation"

3. regardless of whether those words are in the constitution EVERY CITIZEN has a right to FREEDOM FROM RELIGION.

every citizen has the right to NOT believe in god

and NO RELIGION has a right to force its' beliefs on everyone

The Constitution says freedom OF religion, not from stop making shit up. By the way, I have two copies of the Constitution.

have you ever read a supreme court case?

He probably did not even read the post he responded to.

 

[manifold]

...the 1st Amendment provides for freedom OF religion but not freedom FROM religion.

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

 

[manifold]

To try to give this a serious answer, first you have to understand the context of each phrase.

Establishment Clause:
This phrase is derived from the 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution, which has already been quoted in this thread. That phrase established originally that the federal government could not establish laws which respected one religion over another. As noted by the principal author of the 14th Amendment (John Bingham) the feeling was that many state actors had violated their oath of office to support and defend the Constitution (which includes the Bill of Rights) and so one intent of the 14th was to make the Bill of Rights (at least the first 8 amendments) binding on the states. This has "incorporated" certain sections of the BOR as applicable to all levels of government.

Freedom of Religion:
As part of the Constitution, individuals (not government entities) are protected from government interference in the observance of their religious beliefs. Such observance of course is guaranteed as long as (a) it doesn't interfere with the rights of others or (b) does not conflict with another valid government interest. For example, a person can claim that human sacrifice is a part of their religion, but since it interferes with another right to life, then that does not permit the person to perform murder or a person can claim that paying taxes is against their religion, but that does not override the governments interest in generating revenue to operate and provide it's valid functions.

Freedom From Religion:
This phrase has no real basis in law and is more like wishful thinking on the part of some individuals. True there is freedom of government imposed religion, but there is no basis in law that says that you will never be exposed to any religion by individuals acting in a private capacity. Let's say that you have to drive buy a Church on the way home, you have no right to expect to not be exposed to a cross because you drive by it. You desire to not participate in a religion does not preclude your exposure to religion by other private entities.



Basically the government is barred from respecting an establishment of religion and not preventing private individuals from practicing their own religion. There is no such "right" to not be exposed to the religious views of others acting in a private capacity.


Hope that helps.


>>>>

Thank you. That is also well reasoned and makes perfect sense.

However, I seriously doubt there are very many people (if any at all) that believe, or have ever opined, that there is any such right to not be exposed to the religious views of others acting in a private capacity. So my next question, not necessarily directed toward you, is in what context is the talking point mentioned in the OP actually a valid counter-argument?

Actually, Rightwinger did it right here in this thread, and you thought he was pretty well reasoned in doing so.

He sure didn't

 

[JBeukema]

are you familiar with the establishment clause?

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

 

[manifold]

some of those that use freedom FROM religion, argue that they should never be exposed to another person's religious beliefs or religion in the public square....

Earlier you got up on your high horse about how the word 'from' isn't in the 1st Amendment. Could you kindly point out where the words 'public square' appear?

When you refute your own stupidity, it kind of takes the fun out of doing so on my end. No offense.

 

[Ravi]

We have freedom of speech, but we don't have freedom from speech.

We have freedom of choice, and that includes freedom from choosing or having someone else choose for you.

As in many areas, this is about as clear as mud in the constitution.

 

[cutter]

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

 

[kaz]

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?