Should freedom of religion also include freedom FROM religon too?

Question

After all, the right of people to worship the way they want, is at least as important, as the right for people to not be subjected to religious symbols and rhetoric.
Agree?

Jim, I don't have to reject what doesn't exist.
Understand now?

Ah Monica,
Such a fine example of the "love" and "forgiveness" of the typical christian.

eyeloves,
And yet I am forced to look at crucifixes whenever I drive past a church. My right not to have to do that has been trampled on hasn't it?
As for people putting up crosses in their yard, I've had 4 taken down by the city, despite their owner's protests.
Keep it inside where I don't have to look at it buddy...

Eyeloves,
So, you fully agree that religious symbology is just another form of advertizing? Good, on that we agree 100%.
After all, advertizing is just another way of making more money, and that after all is the object of religion. In the immortal words of Rev. Lovejoy (simpsons) "Ching! Ching!"

Answer 1

MOST DEFINITELY!!!!! That was understood by the founding fathers of America. In the Pledge to the Flag, the words "under God" were not inserted until the 1950s. The "In God We Trust" on the money was not decided during or immediately after the American Revolution, either. That came about much later. Unfortunately, though, religious people are the most bigotted and judgemental of people and just can't stand anyone not believing as they do.

Answer 2

I believe in separation of church and state, but not separation of state and God. This country was founded on people coming here to worship God free from government coersion. The early documents of the Mayflower Compact and then our Constitution reveal indisputable evidence that at minimum they were theists (as opposed to atheists or agnostics). I'm a Christian, but I do not get offended when I see a Jewish or some other religious symbol. I think most people who play the "rights" game are not at all concerned with their rights being violated as much as they are not sure of what they believe and cannot defend what they believe and are running scared when they see a world view which contradicts theirs. All of a sudden beliefs aren't relative anymore. A true moral relativist places all systems of thought on an equal plane with none being any better or worse than the others. So, people who want to ban religious rhetoric better realize that they are placing their ideology over other people's. In other words, athesim and theism are not equally true, let's suppress theism to atheism and call that tolerant. Isn't that hypocritical?

Answer 3

There is no force or duress or persecution or prejudice or harrassment or attack on those who do not choose to follow a religion. So I'm not sure what your concept is about.
If religion annoys you, you are free to ignore it. You are not forcd to follow or listen . If you have some sort of personal phobia you might look at how you can free yourself From that emotional response I suppose, but suppressing religious expression or the presence of religion in a society to resolve your problem with it is going to end up violating religious freedoms......... if you follow it through to it's ultimate or "final" solution. And so it continues.
So my answer is... no ... religious freedom isn't a play on words,
it's a hard fought and hard won battle to maintain.It either exists or it doesn't, and it most definitely is not universal internationally.

Answer 4

Yes, and it seems to today. However, if you're implying that Atheists shouldn't have to be subjected to religious imagery in their day to day life that's a different piglet altogether. They should be free to display their beliefs, and practice their beliefs. If they believe anyone who thinks its okay to have blood transfusions is going to spend another life after they die in an eternally unpleasant existence it's their prerogative to try and save them from that perceived 'danger'.

Yet where does advertisement end and indoctrination begin? We have to allow racist and fascist messages to be spoken because we can't simply supress viewpoints we disagree with but what is intolerable is when they convert others to their false and freedom-restricting faith. Or even dangerous set of beliefs.

I don't think humankind can survive the next century, or maybe even quarter-century, if religion continues to exert the force over people it does today. Religion, (and you can look at the Religion and Spirituality questions from certain religious users to evidence this) is frequently opposed to the concepts of self-government, science, law and freedom.

Answer 5

No body is forcing you to practice any religion. If viewing religious symbols is distasteful to you, you could always move to North Korea. You'll be safe there.

Contrary to the actions of our politicians, the First Amendment does not guarantee freedom from religion. The First Amendment gives American the right to pray, anytime, anywhere they wish. They cannot be compelled to pray.

And for the record, the Supreme Court is full of s***.

Answer 6

The founding fathers inserted the clause, "seperation of church and state" reffering to the right of the states to have their own religion rather than the country enforcing a religion across all of the states. Some states were Lutheran, a few Baptist, some Catholic, ect. That's what it's reffering to. That doesn't mean that people need to not be exposed at all to religion. School prayer and stuff is fine. Also, atheists are bad.

Answer 7

I DISAGREE!!! What you are talking about is a blatant disregard for freedom of expression: the government would have to completely eliminate all religious expression to provide the kind of insulation you seem to desire. Once that kind of power has been taken, what else will be threatened?

Simple: freedom of thought, speach of any kind, and any kind of expression. This formula has already been tried in the Communist Soviet Union, and it was a disaster! Sterilizing their country of ANY reference to religion even led to banning certain shapes of TV antennas (they couldn't be in the shape of a cross!), lest they seem to advertise a belief in God.

The first amendment prohibits the federal government from establishing a state religion, AND from prohibiting the free exercise of any religion. If people belong to a faith that encourages evangelism, they have the right to their religious advertisement. If a person is an athiest, they have the right to NOT BUY that advertised product, or to change the channel, or NOT LOOK at the Jesus T-shirt, if they wish!

People of faith have to deal with hostile art forms and anti-faith expressions all the time. It is part of living here. You can't eliminate expression, without eliminating your own freedom at the same time.

"I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Remember that?

Answer 8

Depends. I have a problem with religious symbolism in public schools and on courthouse lawns because it suggests a preference and/or indoctrination. But I don't have a problem with memorials, graveyards, or private property displaying religious symbolism suggesting a preference. In many ways I think freedom from religion attempts to do the same thing that Christians trying to get prayer in school does. It attempts to force people into one way of thinking rather than allowing free thought and freedom to believe as you wish. It's just as important to not be forced to believe like it's important to be able to believe what you want. At the same time I see Freedom From Religion as a response to Christians attempting to force their beliefs into government, law, and public (taxpayer funded) institutions so I can see why that may seem appealing to some.

Answer 9

Yes

Answer 10

I think it should be freedom of religion with tolerance.

We as Christians should respect that there are people in our country who are Atheists, Deists, Jews, and Muslims. We should respect that they have the right to believe as they choose, but not have to say we're sorry for being Christians.

There seems to be a growing intolerance towards Christians and I don't think that's what America's forefathers had in mind.