2006-12-21 03:41:01 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
It's both freedom OF and FROM religion.
Myth:
You have freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.
Response:
This claim is common, but it rests on a misunderstanding of what real freedom of religion entails. The most important thing to remember is that freedom of religion, if it is going to apply to everyone, also requires freedom from religion. Why is that? You do not truly have the freedom to practice your religious beliefs if you are also required to adhere to any of the religious beliefs or rules of other religions.
As an obvious example, could we really say that Jews and Muslims would have freedom of religion if they were required to show same respect to images of Jesus that Christians have? Would Christians and Muslims really have freedom of their religion if they were required to wear yarmulkes? Would Christians and Jews have freedom of religion if they were required to adhere to Muslim dietary restrictions?
Simply pointing out that people have the freedom to pray however they wish is not enough.
Forcing people to accept some particular idea or adhere to behavioral standards from someone else’s religion means that their religious freedom is being infringed upon.
2006-12-21 03:43:25 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Yes. Freedom of Religion logically implies Freedom from Religion.
2006-12-21 03:42:51 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
As a Christian, I even have some severe concerns in regards to the undertaking in the way it quite is worded in this question. i wish that faster or later, people will understand that sexual identity and the determination of beautiful in sexual intercourse with yet another guy or woman are relatively 2 separate subjects. it style of feels that maximum of persons opt to think approximately the two subjects one and the comparable. That if someone says something against sexual intercourse, that they seem to be a hateful person? What saddens me the main are people who decry any style morals standards being made via the Christians, outdoors of the church we are additionally being instructed via activist communities that to set ethical standards is incorrect. That if we don't say stay and permit stay, we are hateful? yet, it quite is acceptable for others to talk approximately ethical standards? How is that this no longer a double commonplace to objective to place regulations on what's declared interior a church construction? So, if we pass the form to assert that a team can censor what's declared interior the church partitions, are we no longer putting a double commonplace in terms of loose speech? there are a number of communities that are constitutionally risk-free that maximum folk might sense are particularly offensive. in spite of the shown fact that, i do no longer see a flow proscribing those communities, that could positioned on hoods and burn crosses, in spite of the shown fact that, maximum folk might say that they do have the the suitable option to freedom of speech, even nonetheless their team is unacceptable to maximum folk. So, why is there a flow without notice to violate the form on 2 of our rights: the the suitable option to loose speech, and the the suitable option to freedom of religion. Is it through fact some people do no longer in basic terms like the assumption of a team saying something approximately sexual intercourse? .
2016-10-15 09:16:41 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
You have a right to not believe in anything if that's what you choose, but other people have a right to express their beliefts. I completely agree with the freedom OF religion and not freedom FROM it, because freedom from it would take away someone else's right to have their religion.
2006-12-21 04:36:10 · answer #4 · answered by Hope B 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Naturally. It doesn't have to spell it out, it's logical. If one, for example, chooses to be a Baptist, then one is also choosing NOT to be a Catholic, Methodist, atheist, Buddhist, etc. Any choice involves accepting one thing and rejecting others. So, naturally, one who has freedom of religion has the right to choose no religion.
2006-12-21 03:44:15 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes. Belief in nothing is a religion as well as belief in something or someone.
Another definition for religion is - an objective pursued with conscientious devotion or fervor.
Belief in nothing can be pursued just as enthusiastically as belief in something or someone.
Everyone has a religion but not everyone's religion is the same.
Show N Tell
2006-12-21 03:47:33 · answer #6 · answered by ccttct l 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely. Many founding fathers weren't religious themselves. That's the whole point of the first amendment - freedome FROM religion if necessary.
2006-12-21 03:44:09 · answer #7 · answered by eri 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It should, but reality isn't always as it is written now is it. Sometimes you find you have to put up a big stink just to keep what should be yours in the first place.
2006-12-21 03:58:57 · answer #8 · answered by Stephen 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes, religion, yours, is actually the summation of what you believe/and your practice of it, its not , nor does it have anything to do with the known popular/larger organized religions,,,,,,,, so even not believing in organized religion, is your personal religion
2006-12-21 03:46:44 · answer #9 · answered by dlin333 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes, freedom of speech also protects your rights of silence, doesn't it?
2006-12-21 03:43:30 · answer #10 · answered by some teenager 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋