Christians: do you even know what freedom FROM religion means?

Question

The only reason someone could possibly be against it is if they had no idea what it acutally entails. Freedom from religion is not a demand that one never encounter religion, religious believers, or religious ideas at all.

What it does entail is that the government never sponser or encourage a particular religion, because doing so would give the idea that belonging to that religion means that you are favored by the government, and that the people who aren't are inferior in some way.

In other words, freedom from religion does not mean being free from seeing churches, but it does mean being free from churches getting governing financing; it doesn't mean being free from encountering people handing out religious tracts on a street corner, but it does mean being free from government-sponsored religious tracts;

We're not trying to take away religious freedom, but we are trying to make it a fair game for everyone else. Get the idea?

Wow, C.L. acutally agreed with an atheist! Better save this question for some other time.

Freedom OF religion and freedom FROM religion are two different concepts, you silly nutters! The former almost everyone can agree on, but the latter is newer and most still don't get it.

Answer 1

I have no problem with seperation of church and state but atheists can and do sometimes take it way way too far.

Do you really think all atheists just want freedom from the gvt sponsoring a particular religion? You dont think any atheists groups would like to see God wiped out of every single possible mention of God?

Suing over the Ten Commandments in a courthouse. Suing because crosses were used on public grounds as a memorial to police officers that have died. Suing because they cant just exclude the word God when saying the pledge at school. Talk about waste of taxpayers money.

Cant some atheists just accept that the overwhelming majority of people in the US believe in God? Do you think it is fair to remove God from society just because a small percentage isnt comfortable with the concept?
It is at the point that even if it is a historical reference to God some atheists demand it be taken away.


There is a street corner where every year at the holidays diff groups display on each corner a manger scene, a menorah, the muslim star symbol thing and santas workshop and a group actually sued saying how dare anyone put any religious reference on public land. Give me a break.

I dont think any groups should be getting govt financing, but if a charity run by atheists applied for public funding and a christian charity applied for funding should the christian charity be denied because they believe in God?

It isnt about fair game for everyone when it comes to many special interest atheists. It is about wiping out any reference to religion in society.

Why can these atheists scream and complain about tolerance for their nonbelief and then turn around and scream and complain about any reference to religion in society? It is such a double standard.

If all displays of religion were removed from any part of public life then atheists get their way 100 percent. Dont you get that. It isnt fair. Removing all references to God equals atheists get everything and the overwhelming majority gets nothing. They got everything they wanted and the rest of the 90 percent of the population has to live with it.


You may be well meaning in what it is you wish for, but I dont believe for a second that extreme atheists have the same tolerance for religion that you seem to.

Answer 2

That is freedom of religion.

"What it does entail is that the government never sponsor or encourage a particular religion"

Is the opposite true? "the government can never debunk, disprove or dis-encourage any particular religion"

Then evolution cannot be taught as a fact right? Evolution can be taught, but it cannot be taught as truth, because it goes against many religious beliefs. To teach it in the schools as truth is the same to say religion is wrong, which goes against the "government can never debunk" part.

Or is that not true? The government cannot give aid to any religion, but it sure as heck can try to disprove them and keep people from joining them....... How is that freedom of religion, then?

You must agree with this or the fiddle is out of tune. If science has discovered something to disprove a certain religion, it cannot be taught as fact or else the government is making a stand on an issue that involves religious conscience. To flip it, just say absolute evidence came out that Jesus was God. Absolute, undeniable evidence. It would still be wrong for the schools to teach Jesus IS God, isn't it? That would be religious establishment. So the schools saying evolution IS true is religious establishment just the same.

Answer 3

Hey, freedom from religion is not a new concept. That's what the separation between church and state is all about. Perhaps the term "freedom from religion" is relatively new, but what you're talking about is what the founding fathers had in mind -- making sure that no religion was supported by the government or shown special governmental favoritism... and that the churches stayed out of politics.

Gumby: look at the "faith-based initiative" program. Lots of Gov't cash going to religious groups, almost all of which are Christian.

Answer 4

What churches in the US get financing from the government? What religion does the US government sponsor or encourage or favor? Where are these so-called government sponsored religious tracts? I have never experienced any of those things in my life.
Freedom from religion and freedom of religion are the same thing. Read the US constitution.

Answer 5

Yep, I already knew all of this.

By the way, some people assume the "free exercise clause" implies that religious faith is allowed to be legislated into secular law, or that participation in specific religious observances may be mandated behavior in public schools. "Free exercise" means “do what you will according to your faith as far as the law permits and as far as it doesn't infringe upon the religious freedom of others.”

If Jewish dietary law was enforceable by law in this country, and even if you didn't mind having to adhere, it would still be unconstitutional compulsory obedience to the dictates of one particular religion.

If I'm not Jewish, if I don't follow that faith, then why should I be forced to adhere to their dietary restrictions? If my child isn't a Christian, why should they be forced to participate in the religious observances of Christianity? And why would the government be able to promote, endorse or favor any one faith over another? What business does a government like ours have in that?

The only way for the government to truly respect our religious liberty is to stay completely neutral, and THAT'S why there is (or ought to be) a separation of church and state (in practice, if not in that EXACT phrasing).

Answer 6

Three points I'd like to make in responding to your statement.

#1- Your deffinition of freedom from religion isn't that bad. My question would be- do others who believe in "freedom from religion" by that name share your deffinition of it? If they do, yay. If they do not, the controversy continues.

#2- The general principle you put fourth sounds alright, my primary concern would be the details of how it would be applied, and how one defines "government". We must not forget that our government is composed of individual people who are themselves protected by the first ammendment. Their first ammendment right should not be terminated upon clocking in at their job. While it's true that, when on the job, they represent the government just like any other employee does their employer, this can only be taken so far, and their individual beliefs ought not be witheld from them. I agree that no government or government official ought to force any religion or lack there-of on any individual. But the right of a government employee or representative to express their oppinion, especially with the explicit consent of those being directly affected, ought not be witheld from them. And the right of a private individual to express their oppinions on or in government property must also never be witheld. The only exception here might be teachers in a public classroom setting, where the students are a captive audience.

#3- The definition of religion is rather hazy, but can basically be summed up as a far-reaching philosophy and worldveiw- a collection of an individuals opinions. But, everyone has opinions of some sort. Opinions are taught in schools, enforced by employers on employees, and passed as legislation by our congress. If groups were refused government funding on the basis of having an opinion, this would actually be a violation of the first ammendment. It would be legally penalizing organizations for having a religion. As good as freedom from religion sounds by your definition, it breaks down at this point, if looked at with pure objectivity. Organizations should recieve government funding based on their track record of the tangible good they have accomplished, a measurable variable which can be used to set fair, mathematically consistant funding. Perhaps, a better answer would be to do away with government funding altogether, except in the case of emergencies. Instead, up the tax credits people recieve for making donations to charities and not-for-profit organizations. Let people make their own decisions on who to fund. Then, atheists don't have to worry about their money going to faith-based initiatives, and Christians don't have to worry about their money going to pro-abortion groups. People get more freedom of choice, and government beaurocracy is reduced, the resources being redirected to more (or less) important things. Everyone wins.

Answer 7

Huh?? I think the operative phrase is "freedom OF religion"... maybe?

Or, are you speaking of "separation of church and state"? You seem to mention the government a lot so I'm corn-fused... LOL. But I'm all for separation of church and state anyway. So there.

Peace be with you.

Answer 8

My understanding of the main difference between liberal and conservative philosophies has to do whether one advocates progress and change or is for maintaining the status quo. Thus, although I'm primarily liberal I do also share some conservative viewpoints. As for Christianity and political parties, I've known liberal Republicans and Christians and conservative Democrats..... Non-religious spiritualist.

Answer 9

What happens when your country is founded on a particular religion?
America's background from the very begining evolves around religion, Christianity in particular. George Washington, our first President RAN this country with the Bible. Why I say that? Well...he was a Christian, wasn't he. Why should we abandon something that works? Makes no sense to me... Just because your mommy and daddy aren't teaching you religion doesn't mean it "don't work."

Answer 10

The correct wording is freedom OF religion, not from it. It means that there will never be a government mandated religion. Study the Constitution before you write questions such as this.