Freedom of Religion, and/or Freedom from Religion? Your thoughts please?

Answer 1

Freedom of religion
i feel that there are many aspects of religion that are a great source of help and encouragement through life
and that it makes sense to some people due to other situations surrounding them
that should not be taken away from people
but when i say freedom of religion .... i mean all religion

Answer 2

The establishment clause in the First Amendment in the Constitution can and has been interpreted to mean that the government cannot display scripture from a particular religion and that prayers cannot be mandatory in school. These rulings give those who are of different faiths and people of no faith the right to feel comfortable and not intimidated by religion or a particular religion.

However, we still have to see what the courts say on the placement of the word "God" on coins and "God" in the Pledge. I know that the 9th District Court struck down the Pledge of Allegience with "under God" in it, but I believe they were overturned. I do not know if the SCOTUS has agreed to hear the case or not. I have not heard of any court cases pending on the use of "God" on coinage.

My thoughts are that simply using "God" may be considered by the courts as being more generic, in that it doesn't specify the religion. I don't know if the concept of freedom from religion has ever been argued before the court, or if any court has found merit in the argument.

Answer 3

What is freedom of Religion? What is Freedom from Religion?

I will answer this from a US perspective:

Religion will always spread and there can be no freedom from religion.

Judaism spread while Jews were slaves. Christianity spread while Christians were fed to lions. Islam spread while Muslims were tortured and murdered. Religion will be spread from the rooftops or from the basements. As the government of the USSR and China have found, Religion cannot be contained.

There can be no freedom of religion so long as the idea exists that the state has the right to prevent people from worshiping.

Your question probably comes from the idea of separation of church and state and the debate surrounding that ideology.

This idea of a separation of church and state as it exists in the US today started about 1947, after World War 2 at the beginning of the cold war between communism and capitalism. There are reasons for this, Keynesian economics, etc.

The founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson in particular, all had a strong belief in a "generic" monotheistic God. As evidenced by their writings this belief translated into a belief that everyone had the right to worship as they choose and that worship cannot be restricted by law.

The Supreme Court ruled in 1947 (Everson vs the school board and separately, McCollum vs the school board) that Article VI and the First amendment constituted a constitutional separation of Church and State, a term originally coined by Thomas Jefferson in the Danbury Baptist letter where Thomas Jefferson points out that the first amendment prevents any particular sect of Christianity from gaining control of the government.

The key here is the use of the word sect as opposed to religion. Thomas Jefferson closed the letter with blessings from a generic Christian God.

The SCOTUS ruled in split decisions that prayer in schools can be restricted. These SCOTUS decisions created a kind of defacto legislation against worship, in direct opposition to the Constitution.

Another document used by the court in their decisions and by advocates in favor of the decisions is the Treaty with Tripoli, common called the treaty with the Barbary Pirates where in section 11 the treaty states that the United States is not founded on Christianity.

If all "buildings" were composed only of their foundations the argument may have a point, however a building is composed of much more than its foundation and so is a government.

The reason that this "separation" was not an issue prior to the beginning of the Cold War was that after WW2 communists developed a plan designed to use democracy and propaganda to convert the United States from capitalism to communism.

The real issue has become the embracing of atheism as the religion of the state with the idea that the state must be intolerant of religion, very similar to the views held by the communist party in the USSR (as developed by Karl Marx) and in direct opposition to the ideology of Freedom of Religion as written about by the founding fathers.

We are currently arguing a problem developed through the spread of communist ideology during the cold war.

The idea we cannot worship as we choose and the dissolution of the family are fundamental communist goals still advocated today under the guise of "liberalism".

If the goals are the same, does it really matter what it is called? "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.:

Answer 4

I see that freedom of religion necessarily involves freedom from religion for those who would rather not, thank you. After all, being forced to pick one is not really freedom.

But then, I sit in a unique position here. My view of religion is very individualistic and eclectic. I figure there are insights of a spiritual nature all over the place, if I only pay attention. I learn from practically everyone I meet . . . even if it's only what to avoid. I can't see myself being bound to a particular creed, but I definitely respect those who do. People I like are of so many different beliefs that I cannot but see freedom of soul as what we are really talking about; freedom of spirit, of thought, of those internal things which is what freedom of speech and of religion are really about.

Answer 5

Best goal is freedom of thought.

No one should tell you what to think or believe and you should not be persecuted for your own thoughts or forced into a specific belief pattern. Religion is not a term that is present or important to a great many peoples and neither are concepts of spirituality or whatever terms YOU deem important. As long as people to not espouse their beliefs (on the pretext of freedom of thought) in a manner so as to encourage HARM to another person, freedom of thought should be encouraged. Freedom from religion does not make sense because what you are really saying is, should people BE ALLOWED to not have the concept of religion forced upon them or be subjected to others espousing their religion. Well of course! The concepts of FREEDOM and ALLOWED are opposing terms.

Answer 6

Both.

Freedom of religion includes being able to practice whatever religion you choose to, if any, in the way that you choose to SO LONG AS IT DOES NOT INFRINGE ON OTHERS' RIGHTS. When it crosses personal boundaries, it becomes unlawful and unconstitutional. If someone's religion teaches intolerance toward people who are different in one way or another, s/he is entitled to believe that and think that, but acting on it would be an infringement upon others' rights.

Freedom of/from religion also validates a person's right to choose no religion. Every single person, regardless of his/her religious preferences, are both bound AND protected by the same laws as every other person.

So, freedom OF religion INCLUDES freedom FROM religion.

Unfortunately, these fundamentally important (in my opinion) luxuries are not available for everyone - but they should be.

Answer 7

I think the thing that a lot of Christians don't get is that freedom from and of religion is there to protect them from one another as its first priority. The way separation of church and state...and indeed this entire Government...came to be was that a bunch of people with different geographic, religious, economic, and political interests and ideas all decided that the best way to go would be a Government that had a lot of checks and balances to prevent any one group from having too much power or influence.

Different Christian groups..and indeed non-christians...all realized that the issue wasn;t whether or not to be a Christian nation...but what TYPE of Christian nation it would be. It was decided that the best way to protect everyone was to take everyone out of the governing equation. And it's WORKED. The separation of curch and state has served to PROMOTE religion in this nation. Countries throughout Europe, that do have state sponsored religions, are far less religious as a group then Americans.

If the fundamentalist extremists were to get their way...and instill prayer in school...it would only be a matter of time before the fight began over WHICH prayer book to use. It's better for everyone to pray in your church and leave it out of the political/public arena.

Answer 8

Both. Freedom of religion, including the freedom not to have one.

Answer 9

Freedom of religion inherently includes the freedom to choose no religion. I'd prefer the greater array of choices afforded by freedom of religion than being told that I was to have none - (was "free" from religion).

Answer 10

I choose freedom from religion; however, I do believe in America the sad religious folk should maintain their right to worship whatever nonsense they choose to.

I cannot stress enough my desire to fight back against those religious jerks that are trying to seize political power. Too long have we tolerated the intolerant. There is a line between letting them have their freedom, and them trying to use that freedom to take ours away. That is a weakness of liberals. We cannot appease these people, they are dangerous, and a threat to our way of life. We need to dismiss them and put them in their place.