Freedom "from" or freedom "of" religion?

Answer 1

The founder fathers of this country set out to prevent persecution not license it. It is both from and of, we have the right to practice whichever Flying Spaghetti Monster belief we want and we have the right not to have that belief foisted on us.

Edited: Dervish it says "...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" that means freedom of in their vernacular.

Edited again: Those restrictions were in direct violation of the constitution. However, there has always been an argument over "states rights" vs "federal rights" but the supreme court has ruled that it is unlawful to restrict the free practice of religion as long as it doesn't violate others rights even if you want to dance with rattlesnakes. The interpretation comes into what exactly violates a non-believers rights, that is where the issue becomes clouded. In a world of Political Correctness some could argue merely displaying images in public is a violation, and that constitutes persecution. PC is persecution.

Answer 2

The constitution says freedom of religion. That gives you a choice- you have the freedom to worship and you have the freedom not to. There is no freedom of not to be offended at a religious symbol, but modern liberal courts would have us believe that

Answer 3

Both.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

This is interpreted to mean that congress may not establish a state religion and require worship nor may it forbid a religion. So you may worship as you like so long as your worship does not interfere with the rights of others and you may chose to worship nothing at all.
Either one is your right in the United States.
If you live in Saudi Arabia or some other country with a state religion then disregard my post because you have no freedoms regarding religion.

Answer 4

It's difficult to answer this question without invoking the effects of political correctness. It seems that our society is leaning further and further towards an imaginary Utopia that will allegedly offend no one - regardless of the extent or validity of the offense.
Tolerance is no longer the rule - and it should be.
I, personally, could care less what religion a person adheres to, how they celebrate it or what decorations or symbols they display - it's their right to exercise their own preference - and it just doesn't effect me (or any other reasonable person, for that matter) what so ever.
For example, no other religion that I am aware of decorates a tree in celebration of their religion - therefore, it's a Christmas tree - not a "holiday tree" or a "winter tree" or anything else - if that offends someone, I'm sorry, but perhaps their attitude offends me - so we're even.

Answer 5

Clearly the Constitution is requiring Freedom of Religion.
Nobody has the right not to be offended.

Just to go on another point.

The mere existence of Religion on the Public Square does not mean the government is establishing religion... however removing a religious monument simply because it is religious is the prohibition of free excercise.

Answer 6

This is a 200 year old debate

I lean towards "from"

In 1577 a Catholic Army attacked Amsterdam to kill all the protestants. My family fled to England. One generation later in 1616 they Sailed to New Amsterdam / New York.

We have been trying to believe the Bible and separate ourselves from Religious Armies for 13 generations now.
And the NeoCon CUFI types are at it again.

Edit:

It would be a great help to everyone on YA politics if someone would point out the part of the Constitution that says "Freedom of Religion."

Edit part Deux:

Assuming it is "of" then why was Catholicism banned everywhere but Marryland. Until the Louisiana Purchase.

And what about Evangeline? Why were Canadian Catholics forced to relocate to the Louisiana Territory before the purchase was ratified? Everywhere from Champlain Illinois to Beaumont Texas Missions were rapidly built.

Answer 7

It's both. It's all about the freedom to make the choice by yourself.

But remember, as much as you have a right to or not to believe, every American also has the right to stand in the street and tell you why your choice is wrong.

That is both the reason that this country is great and why it annoys the hell out of us sometimes.

Answer 8

FROM. If I need any, I always know where to find some.
There is no religion that has a right to impose its self on me.
Beyond my right to be left alone, I support the rights of others to believe in any creed, doctrine or religion of their choosing. I don't care about displays - except in court rooms. Even if I don't belong to a given faith, I still respect things they hold as sacred - with out believing in them myself.

I do believe that the Pat Robertson / Jerry Falwell Domionists are a danger to the Republic.

That is what the separation between church and state does.
It keeps us safe from theocracies.

And for those of you who cling to the notion of the US being a Christian nation, Show Me where Jesus is mentioned in the Constitution. That would be going too far.

Answer 9

It has always been freedom of religion. there is no debate. It's right there in black and white.

Answer 10

Freedom of,you have a right to choose to worship or dont worship.if it were freedom from you would be forced to worship not a choice.