Why do liberals misconstrue "freedom from religion" with "freedom of religion"?

Question

Why do liberals hate free speech when God is involved? Why do liberals suppress the free speech that only they disagree with? Last time I heard a liberal talk about Darwin, I didn't feel like it was forcing me to believe in evolution.

Atheists have their own religion, it's called humanism. Why is a religious theory such as the Big Bang theory in our textbooks? What about separation of church and state?

Answer 1

Because Liberals are all vitriol and venom (emotion) and lacking in common sense (logic).

Answer 2

I guess you are talking about Atheists, right? Atheism is not a religion...it is a belief, but not a religion. It's an iffy subject. Atheism is a belief in the non-belief of any God or higher power. They cannot legally be called a religion or church because they do not believe in a religious diety, which is essential in any religion. Therefore, saying the "seperation of church and state" rule applies to Atheists as well is technically incorrect. (Not saying it is what I believe in.)
Athiests (most of them) do not persecute those who practice Christianity. They simply do not want to be persecuted by a lot of the Christian community. It does happen. What do you think when you hear someone say that they don't believe in God? Is it negative? Or is it something like, "Okay, they believe one thing, I believe the opposite. Oh well, let it be." Atheists can be good people just like anyone else who believes in God. You don't recognize them on the street to be Atheist. You just recognize them as a person. Think of yourself being in their shoes. Would you like someone looking down on you for your beliefs? Probably not. That's all they are looking for...not to turn the country into the United Atheist States of America.

By the way...a HUGE flaw with your statement: "Why do liberals hate free speech when God is involved? Why do liberals suppress the free speech that only they disagree with?"
Not all Liberals are Atheists and not all Atheists are Liberals. And we don't suppress any free speech...we disagree with it and challenge it.

Answer 3

Here is my take on the issue:

Seperation of Church and State does not mean the absence of any religion in any government. The seperation was meant to prevent the government from forcing a religion upon its citizens.

Liberals (not all but many) have unfortunately defined seperation as a need for absence. The Cons on the other hand, do go overboard when they seek to intergrate religion into too many areas (including govt).

As for Darwin, as well as the Big Bang, you are getting into a debate over scientific theory verses faith. I look at it this way: If you believe in the faith based origins of life, then the scientific theory of Darwin and the Big Bang should be viewed as tests of your faith. If you side with the science-based theories, then look at the faith-based theories as the one thing keeping your theory from becoming a scientific law.

I define faith as "belief despite the absence of proof". I define theory as "accepted truth due to supporting proof".

Answer 4

You talk big but don't cite any examples...I wonder if that's because you have none or are just afraid of them all being shot down...I'm not aware of any large-scale suppression of free speech out there...nice rhetoric though...

And only people looking for reconciliation talk about the Big Bang as a religious theory...its origins and the way it's taught are based in Physics...

Answer 5

Not all of us do, nor do all of us believe in freedom from religion. There are groups of crazies on both sides of the fence and I can't believe that some of the people answering your question have no knowledge of people.

You've met people in real life. If they don't talk about politics you'll meet them and think that they're nice.. mean.. crazy etc...

No political party is entirely that way. You may have crazy conspiracy-loving liberals and crazy fascist/blind-patriot-conservatives but not ALL are like that.

It's too bad that all you guys see are the bad ones. We're not all bad, just like I know conservatives aren't all bad. A lot of liberals insult all of you, that's not right. Though, its not right when you do it either.

Both sides really have to learn to get their head out of their asses and stop talking about eachother like they're not people but really just an alien group that few understand.

Answer 6

the only ones I see misconstrueing anything are cons. And why do you think that the big-bang theory is religious? Are you one of those who only likes science when it agrees with your theories or do you believe that it's angels that make your automobile run?

Oh yes...Us liberals are pushy, self centered clowns that only fight for social justice, the right for everyone to be free to worship as they please, the right of women to do what they want to with their bodies )though we may disagree), racial equality. Maybe if you stop and think, you'd see that us Liberal minded people aren't as bad as you think. Maybe ywe're not the hypocrites you think us to be. Without us, women wouldn't have gotten the right to vote, blacks would still be slaves, and racism would be the rule, not the exception.

So far I've seen liberals pushing to rein in government spending, getting the government out of persons lives. Cons on the other hand claim to want to control spending but won't make the necessary cuts. Cons claim personal liberty as long as it's okey with big government. Maybe it's the cons who are the hypocrites?
Did you ever stop to think about that?

Answer 7

You obviously have no clue what you're talking about.
The Big Bang theory is science not religion.
On a positive note,I'm glad to see one of you bible huggers standing up for separation of church and state.

Answer 8

Why do conservatives miscontrude a 4 day old frozen embryo on a perti dish left over from IVF as a human life?

Answer 9

Ahhhh....the old debate about why evolution is taught in school, but not creationisn?

When churchs also teach "alternative ideas" then I will agree to allow it in public schools.

There are more churches in this country then public schools. I find it hard to understand why you are unable to get your beliefs out, without forcing them down the throats of students in public schools.

Answer 10

Freedom of religion ought to include freedom from religion, after all, if I have to have a religion, I can hardly be called free to make up my own mind.

Answer 11

I'm not sure all of what you're referring to. The ban against a state sponsored religion was instituted to guarantee freedom of religion and to prevent a state religion (like the church of England or the Catholic church prior to the Reformation and Protestantism). Attempts to use government land or money to further a particular religion--any religion--are a start towards state support of a particular religion which is what many of our European ancestors came here fleeing.

In effect the ban on a state sponsored religion does ensure a degree of "Freedom from Religion." How can you have "Freedom of Religion" without it? Unless of course your "Freedom of Religion" only applies to one religion--in which case it's not actually freedom at all.

I'm not offended by religion. If you believe in Jesus, the Buddha, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster--you're all fine as far as I'm concerned. You can hang crosses or stars of David all over your own house and property--or on any private property where the owner approves. You can tattoo them on your forehead. You can peacefully assemble in public, just like any other group. You have a right to your faith, your speech and your ideas. But if you try and use MY tax dollars to further YOUR faith, or use OUR government property for YOUR faith or otherwise have the government endorse a particular religion over others then we're going to have a problem.

***

Science and religion are distinctly different. You would be correct though in assuming that science as we know it is an outgrowth of critical, humanist thought that insists on rationality over faith--in fact it allows for very little faith. Personally I'm a big fan... I'd rather trust in an engineer's mathematics and critical thought processes than fly in an airplane that's sloppily constructed using faith and prayer to fill in where knowledge was lacking... likewise with surgery, bridges, or anything else where trusting things to faith and belief is a recipe for disaster. My personal belief is that it extends to government as well and that's a belief that our founding fathers shared.

However to get back to science--there's nothing about the theories you've mentioned that discount God.

As far as the big bang goes--no one's sure what the prime mover was. How did all that matter that compacted then blew up come to be? It could have been God. Much the same is true of evolution and the origins of life--evolution is simply a mechanism that makes sense given empirical knowledge we have at our disposal, but nothing about evolution points to a prime mover--the first life.

Evolution presupposes nothing about the origins of life, only the rise of different species and adaptations. God could be the prime mover there too, and evolution could be his mechanism. But as far as development and change are concerned the mechanisms of the Big Bang and Evolution seem to best describe what people find when starting only from the facts and discount supernatural causes--which by definition can't be defined by science.

Similarly these theories weren't created to oppose religion. They weren't political. They originated to describe natural phenomena--which is probably why they make no comment on the existence of God one way or the other. Some religious practitioners--particularly fundamentalists, who take the bible and the lineage outlined in it as a literal history of the world--see these scientific explanations as attacks on religion since they differ on details (like the world being 6000 vs. millions of years old). Because of the popularity of science and critical, rational thought, these believers felt compelled to come up with their own 'scientific' arguments for God to combat them.

Personally if I were religious I would think that trying to find God under a microscope or within a mere human's logical argument would be vaguely blasphemous. Belief in God is about faith, not about empirical proofs. Why cheapen your faith--question it, really--by having to respond to neutral scientific theories with ones that are inherently flawed as they originated to defend your personal idea of God and not the facts? I don't get the entire reflex at scientific justification for God and religion at all.