Doesn't the constitution teaches freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion?

Answer 1

For the ignorant, in the section:

"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."

The word "respecting" DOES NOT mean reverence. It means "with regard to", or "referring to". Now read it again:

"Congress shall make no law with regard to an establishment of religion," etc.

It means the government will not make laws establishing a religion. How, unless one is disingenuous, dishonest, and a "liar for jeezus", can this infer that one religion is preferred over another, or that HAVING a religion is preferred to not having one at all?

Additional:

Let me return the favour to "The_Dark_Knight" and say this: To anyone who wants religion in government or schools, you can have it on one condition.

It can be any religion EXCEPT your own. Meaning, christians can't advocate christianity, it has to be something else - hinduism, buddhism, islam, etc.

The problem is, the religious do not have the honesty or courage to say what they really mean. When one says, "We should have religion in schools," what they mean is "We should have MY religion in schools".

The religious live under the delusion - or deliberate lie - that a secular state means an atheist state. Wrong. The most open and advanced countries (socially and scientifically) in history had both a religious population and a secular state.

Answer 2

Amen, Duhan. The constitution DOES teach freedom of religion, so we can worship what, where, and when we may. The reason those people back in the 1600's left England for the New World was mainly because they were being forced to join a certain church, causing much misery and sadness. The founding fathers, of course, didn't want that, so instituted, in the name of God, the freedom of religion in the constitution.

Answer 3

Bill of rights Amendment I

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.

This part "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" means that congress cannot endorse any religion thus the separation of church and state. Any public funding or use of a publicly funded institution for religious activity would constitute use of government to "establish religion" and since all public funding requires Congressional law it is therefore banned.

Answer 4

Freedom of religion implies any religion. I like MC Hummer's arguments. Building on that to take a simple example: lets say you allowed prayer in school. What kind of prayer? Christian? Muslim? Buddhist? Jewish? Hindu? Would your teachers know prayers from each religion, or would you hire different "prayer masters" to assist the children pray according to their respective faiths? Would you celebrate holidays from every religion?
Some faiths/cultures allow polygamy/polyandry. You would have to respect that, since there is freedom OF religion. You already have a hard time with gay/lesbian marriage, can you handle it if your daughter decided to marry into a Tibetan culture and have 6 husbands at the same time. Man what an orgy! Nice daughter you begat!

Answer 5

Freedom of religion gives the right to worship whatever religion a person wants to. It does not give any religion any rights to dictate to non believers.

Does not the US constition guarantee citizens freedoms or is that guarantee only for Christians?

If so it is a very un-christian attitude!

I would go so far as to suggest that he action of some religious sects violates the rite to freedom from persecution!

Answer 6

Yes that's what is SAYS...

But if you're implying that that means there has to be a religion of somekind in the USA, then you are wrong too. Some Aethists would consider Aetheism to be their religion, so would communists, so therefore, no religion would be a religion, so they have the right to practice that as their religion. Make sense?

Answer 7

Sounds like basically the same thing to me. Probably when the wrote the constitution, they couldn't imagine how anyone would not believe in God and worship him in some way. They're probably rolling over in their graves hearing what some have done in "interrupting" the paper they wrote.

Answer 8

Yes - but it also forbids the establishment of a national religion, which is what a lot of people think this country is headed towards.

Answer 9

freedom of religion can be seen as the equivalent of freedom from religion. we all have a right to our own choice of worship, and one of those choices is a lack of worship.

Answer 10

You are absolutely right. However, it also teaches separation of Church and State. It seems that both sides of the argument only focus on one of those teachings and not the other.