I recall once reading an article in the paper about the debate over prayer in school. In the article a teacher who was for prayer in school was quoted as saying "It says freedom of religion, not freedom from it." As to suggest that we do not have the right to be secular. Do you agree with this teacher?
2006-11-01 05:45:09 · 23 answers · asked by jedi1josh 5 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Naturally. If we have freedom of religious choice, then logically "none of the above" is a valid option.
2006-11-01 06:05:27 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
Hmmm... I like that quote actually. I don't think it suggests the lack of a right to be secular at all. I see it as stating that freedom of means all inclusive, and freedom from means banning. One student can say a prayer and another can choose not to. It means that Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Mormons, New Agers.... can all have "clubs" at the school.
I believe that where the quote is coming from is that the secular world is becoming the new state religion, which is what the constitution clearly prohibits. By banning Christian things from the school, it is taking away Christian's freedom of religion and promoting the secular set of beliefs. True freedom is all inclusive. Everyone should be able to have their religious beliefs. Not be free from encountering other beliefs.
2006-11-01 05:53:51 · answer #2 · answered by BaseballGrrl 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Freedom of Religion is suppose to mean any religion. BUT, because of the main stream religions feel because there are more of them and less of other religions they are more right. Not so. Christianity, Judaism, Al-Islam, Jehovah's Witness, Mormons, and the rest are right in what they believe except one thing, they feel they have the right to judge the other religions. Not only do they judge the other religions, they judge each other. Freedom of religion is all religions and it should be treated that way. Unfortunately, we have bigots among us. Stop judging and start loving. Just advise. Peace be Upon You.
2016-05-23 03:42:00 · answer #3 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Actually, what the First Amendment says is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
Therefore, you do not have "freedom from religion," only freedom from a state established religion.
You cannot force churches, synogogues, temples, or mosques to remove from public view all of the trappings of their particular faith - as a "freedom from religion" might imply you have a right to.
You cannot force me to stop proselytizing in the public square, or whereever I happen to be, as a "freedom from relgion" might imply you could.
You can only take action to make sure that the Government does not favor one religion over another in any way that could be construed as an "establishment" thereof.
2006-11-01 05:53:53 · answer #4 · answered by jbtascam 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I disagree with that teacher completely. In schools education should come first above all else, not religion. I find it highly annoying that people are still wasting precious time debating over that. If they want to pray, they can do it at home. When I was still in school, I had quite a few teachers who tried to have a mandatory time for us all to pray (I went to public schools) and I, not being religious, refused to do so, which caused us all a whole lot of grief and when the final words came in - that they could NOT force me to pray - I was shunted to another teacher's class. I think it only adds to the segregation that goes on within schools and needs to be expunged from them altogether. If any of them want to pray, then they can do it in their own time, but NOT when they should be "opening their textbooks to page whatever".
2006-11-01 05:53:33 · answer #5 · answered by Deus Maxwell 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes. Essentially they are no different.
If you are willing to accept (as you should be) someone believing in a vastly different concept of god as you, you should also accept someone believing in no god. Even more, the definition of atheist also includes those that are just not convinced by the god idea yet (as well as those that don't care, or who are too young or mentally handicapped to grasp the issues).
We are all born atheists. You have to be taught the story of Jesus or Krishnu or Mohammed or whatever before you can believe it. Therefore, before that time you lack belief -- which is the definition of atheist.
To say those kinds of people are unnacceptable in a society means we should stop having babies and wipe out all the mentally handicapped people -- and that isn't smart.
Freedom OF religion includes freedom FROM religion.
2006-11-01 06:05:26 · answer #6 · answered by Michael 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
The idea behind freedom of religion is that each person should be free to follow his conscience in matters of faith or moral philosophy. The founders believed this to be a deeply personal decision that should be free of outside influence, or at least free of compulsion. If one is free to choose what to believe, then one is also free to choose what not to believe. If this were not true, all people would be required to believe in all religions, and this is clearly not what the founders had in mind.
Minister: "No. Freedom OF RELIGION means FREEDOM OF OF OF RELIGION ! We Christians have the RIGHT to be heard in the PUBLIC SQUARE."
I'm sure it hasn't escaped notice that you don't mention that non-Christians also have a right to be heard in the public square. Freedom of religion includes Christians, but it's not just about you.
2006-11-01 05:49:27 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
freedom to practice our own religion not the government prohibiting religion...
Your interpretation is a bit off the mark.
I prayed in school many times and no one had anything to say against --- also read my bible (when I was finished with my class lessons.) I was free to do that... I just couldn't make any one else do it.... that would interfere upon their rights.
2006-11-01 06:00:53 · answer #8 · answered by jaimestar64cross 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Freedom of religion IS freedom from religion. There is no difference between having the freedom to practice your faith and the freedom to NOT practice any faith. After all, by believing in one religion, you are choosing to not believe in others. Nonreligious people simply choose to not believe in one more religion than you.
If you want freedom of religion, then it must be free FROM other religions.
2006-11-01 05:53:54 · answer #9 · answered by phaedra 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
well, the government cannot condone or condemn a religious establishment anywhere. but, separation of church and state isn't necessarily a right, as much as i would want it to be, written in the constitution. the establishment clause does assist in secularism, but not completely.
2006-11-01 05:52:37 · answer #10 · answered by Angel Baby 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋