Freedom from Religion

[McCulloch]

Many democracies have included protection of religion in their constitutions. We enjoy freedom of religion. There are some who claim that there can be freedom of religion without freedom from religion. I don't see how that is possible.

Questions for debate:

1. Does freedom of religion imply freedom from religion?
2. Is freedom from religion a good idea?
3. Is freedom from religion guaranteed by the constitutional law of your country?

[Truth Prevails]

Religion: a specific fundamental set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs, and practices usually involving devotional and ritual observances, generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects.

This segment you have written above and or definition could be applied to one who believes in Evolution or who is an atheist/agnostic. [...]

Notwithstanding that your own court disagrees, it is not relevant to this debate whether evolution is a religion. The debate is whether freedom of religion implies freedom from religion. I expect that by saying that evolution is a religion, you expect that you have the constitutional right to be free from it as I expect to have the constitutional right to be free from the Christian religion.

If "religion" doesn't reflect ones beliefs then what does it reflect, that you would say you should be free from?

You are missing the point. Of course religion reflects one's beliefs. All religions include a fundamental set of beliefs. However, not all sets of beliefs are religions. I should be constitutionally free from having any set of religious beliefs or practices imposed upon me. If evolution is a religion, then everyone should be free from having it imposed on them. If democracy or arithmetic were religions then they also should be not imposed upon anyone. But while democracy and arithmetic are specific sets of fundamental beliefs, they are not religions. Are they?

What ever a person believes brings actions by them. It is what they are held to. If you are trying to say that you should be free from someone being able to evangilise to others, this would be a prohibition of religion and it would infringe on freedom of speech.

Here is where freedoms can come into conflict. You have the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion. That gives you the right to evangelize others. That does not give you the right to do so while supported by government funds or to use publicly financed and organized events to do so. I should not be obligated to listen to your evangelism in order to participate in government, law or other common public events.

Christianity or evangilising doesn't infringe on another's CONSTITUTIONAL rights. One has the absolute right to express an Idea of betterment. We have the right to criticize and or express protest peaceably and freedom of speech that all evidence be heard.

Absolutely. Is someone trying to take that away from you? However, if you are a public employee, a teacher, a judge, a legislator, a police officer, a welfare clerk, a doctor etc, you do not have the right to subject me to your religious view as a condition to providing me with the services that you are being paid to provide out of public money.

Actualy using government money to promote Christianity is not against the constitution. Just because something is promoted or recognised as a founding or a root beleif of the nation does not constitute an establishment of a Religion.

The Government and the for Fathers used money to promote Christianity just as today we use money to promote anti Christian activities, which I would more argue is unconstitutional. i.e. Abortion, safe sex lies, not allowing families to chosose their education (homeschooling, privated schools etc...when these avenues of education far excel public schools) Just because the founding and or roots of a culture are funded recognised and promoted doesnt mena you are etablishing a dictitorial religion. If America was founded on Christian foundations and roots and it is beleived to be its succsessful ingriedient, there is nothing wrong by recognising this and promoting it. NO we should not establish America as a Christian only society for this would promote phony beleif system like forced muslim beleif where people only claim to beleive because they fear gun point. this isa phony beleif when you are forced. So of course not an established religion certainly NOT! But for America to express its founding(Christianity) is not a violation it is a necessity. And a Duty! If Christianity is what made America come to realise that it is this very thing Christianty that encouraged the for Fathers to fight on and create such a place of freedom, which has made it great should and must be promoted and encouraged! It is the Christianity that prompted the for Fathers to try and establish such a place all the way back to the Pilgrims.


Check out--- Wallbuilders.com

the guy who started wallbuilders I beleive is one of the most historicaly educated people today concerning American history, he is even used by the supreme court and others because he is so knowlegeable on the constitution and American history. I beleive this is the guy. regardless the sight is very good and very accurate.

Peace!

[Cephus]

I think you are in error here. There is no freedom from religion: no one has the right not to be exposed in any way whatsoever to someone else's religious expression.

No, you do not have the right not to be exposed to religion, but you most certainly do have the right not to have religion forced upon you. It's funny how many Christians claim people have no right not to be exposed to their religion, then fight their kids being exposed to any religion other than their own. Hypocrisy anyone?

[Truth Prevails]

I think you are in error here. There is no freedom from religion: no one has the right not to be exposed in any way whatsoever to someone else's religious expression.

No, you do not have the right not to be exposed to religion, but you most certainly do have the right not to have religion forced upon you. It's funny how many Christians claim people have no right not to be exposed to their religion, then fight their kids being exposed to any religion other than their own. Hypocrisy anyone?

Do you have any examples of this. Also a parent has an absolute right to raise their own child by their rules. This is not hypocrisy. A parent has a right to protect their child as they see fit. Whent he child becomes of age then they can make their own decisions.

[Cephus]

Do you have any examples of this. Also a parent has an absolute right to raise their own child by their rules. This is not hypocrisy. A parent has a right to protect their child as they see fit. Whent he child becomes of age then they can make their own decisions.

That's absolutely false. You cannot beat your kids, you cannot make them drink poison or handle venomous snakes regardless of your religious beliefs on the subject, you cannot abuse them physically, emotionally or sexually, etc. There are plenty of things that parents cannot do in raising their kids.

Try again.

[McCulloch]

I think you are in error here. There is no freedom from religion: no one has the right not to be exposed in any way whatsoever to someone else's religious expression.

Freedom from religion does not mean the right not to be exposed to others' religions. Freedom from religion is the right not to have to participate or endorse other people's religions.

Also a parent has an absolute right to raise their own child by their rules. This is not hypocrisy. A parent has a right to protect their child as they see fit. When the child becomes of age then they can make their own decisions.

As already pointed out, this is not an absolute right. But then neither is the right of freedom of religion, is it? However, you have the right to raise your children and I have the freedom not to raise your children. You have the right to practice your religion and I have the freedom not to. That is freedom from religion. If I go to court, I have the freedom not to have to swear by on a book held to be holy by some but not me. If I am elected to office, I have the freedom not to have to participate in prayers to a deity I don't believe exists. When I sent my children to publicly funded schools, I have the right to expect that they will not be indoctrinated with the teachings of any religions nor that they will be made to feel excluded for not participating in religious exercises.

[Rathpig]

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;...
- U.S. Treaty with Tripoli 1796-1797 Article 11 (source)

This treaty was unanimously passed by the Senate of the United States.


One can not have freedom of religion unless one has freedom from the compulsion of religion. It is highly improbable that the vast Christian majority of the United States would sit silently by if the variety of the world's religions were given equal time and funding as their precious Christianity. The recent complaints when a Muslim Congressmen deigned to take the pro forma oath with a Koran is indicative of the attitude that many "Christians" have about religious freedom.

It is passed time that those who would stand against "freedom from religion" to realize that this protects each person's chosen faith even their own. The de facto and un-Constitutional rule of Christians in the United States is coming to an end. It is time to accept the reality of the Constitution.

[Truth Prevails]

Do you have any examples of this. Also a parent has an absolute right to raise their own child by their rules. This is not hypocrisy. A parent has a right to protect their child as they see fit. Whent he child becomes of age then they can make their own decisions.

That's absolutely false. You cannot beat your kids, you cannot make them drink poison or handle venomous snakes regardless of your religious beliefs on the subject, you cannot abuse them physically, emotionally or sexually, etc. There are plenty of things that parents cannot do in raising their kids.

Try again.

Try again you say? thats easy! Of course we arent talking of abuse. All you have listed is abuses. Teaching your child is not an abuse it is a benefit.

If you were gonna go mountain climbing and I said there are somethings you should know that are serious. Would you say you have know right to tell me what path I need to take and what gear I should bring. Is that hypocrisy is that abuse????? Nonsense! Its called love! Or else you would DIE!!!!!! So try again! Peace!

[Truth Prevails]

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;...
- U.S. Treaty with Tripoli 1796-1797 Article 11 (source)

This treaty was unanimously passed by the Senate of the United States.


One can not have freedom of religion unless one has freedom from the compulsion of religion. It is highly improbable that the vast Christian majority of the United States would sit silently by if the variety of the world's religions were given equal time and funding as their precious Christianity. The recent complaints when a Muslim Congressmen deigned to take the pro forma oath with a Koran is indicative of the attitude that many "Christians" have about religious freedom.

It is passed time that those who would stand against "freedom from religion" to realize that this protects each person's chosen faith even their own. The de facto and un-Constitutional rule of Christians in the United States is coming to an end. It is time to accept the reality of the Constitution.

You have made serious errors here.

The treaty of tripoli is not saying the United States isnt founded and rooted in Christianity. It is addressing the Barbary pirates, who were attacking the "Christian nations" whic if you were for freedom you should be against the barbary pirates instead of deffending them. Anyways, the treaty of tripoli was adressing these pirate musslim nations and was telling them that the US was not a nation established as a Christian dictatorial nation in that they only allowed Christianity and persecuted any others. this is what the treaty of tripoli was saying i order to appease these pirates. you have to read the entirety of it and look at the context. There is no credible historian who uses this as a refute to Americas Christian roots and founding.


Ifyou had a club that was successful and your club had certain rooted beliefs and these beliefs were a successful ingrieddient to its success. Wouldnt you willing want to express and promote what was the root ingriedient of your success, and wouldnt you as a founder and supporter and founder have the right to express that ingriedient. OF COURSE YOU WOULD!!!!! And so it goes for America. It was founded strongly on Christian principles---it gives freedom for others to worship as they see fit----- But America has the absolute right to express its founding ingriedient. i.e. CHRISTIANITY!


The mayflowr compact

And countless quotes from the fore Fathers. This is absolute historical fact.

American governmental buildings everywhere are covered with Bible vereses the liberty bell the capital etc...etc...etc..

[Truth Prevails]

I think you are in error here. There is no freedom from religion: no one has the right not to be exposed in any way whatsoever to someone else's religious expression.

Freedom from religion does not mean the right not to be exposed to others' religions. Freedom from religion is the right not to have to participate or endorse other people's religions.

Also a parent has an absolute right to raise their own child by their rules. This is not hypocrisy. A parent has a right to protect their child as they see fit. When the child becomes of age then they can make their own decisions.

As already pointed out, this is not an absolute right. But then neither is the right of freedom of religion, is it? However, you have the right to raise your children and I have the freedom not to raise your children. You have the right to practice your religion and I have the freedom not to. That is freedom from religion. If I go to court, I have the freedom not to have to swear by on a book held to be holy by some but not me. If I am elected to office, I have the freedom not to have to participate in prayers to a deity I don't believe exists. When I sent my children to publicly funded schools, I have the right to expect that they will not be indoctrinated with the teachings of any religions nor that they will be made to feel excluded for not participating in religious exercises.

If you have joined yourself to a particular place where such a thing(belief) is expressed(by its citizens/founders) then you have no right to tell the party to not express AND promote its founding ingrieients related to their there expression. But you do have the right not to participate but you dont have the right to silence the founders and citizens in which to mention the complaing party is enjoying the protection of those who are and have expressed Chriatianity in which it is its Christian heritage which was a belief that believes in freedom and gave a place for such a complainer. When you go to someone else home and they give you a place of refuge there, that doesnt mean you have the right to rearrange the furniture. Peace!

[Rathpig]

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;...
- U.S. Treaty with Tripoli 1796-1797 Article 11 (source)

You have made serious errors here.

The treaty of tripoli is not saying the United States isnt founded and rooted in Christianity.

It says it plain as day. I provided the context of the entire document, and it states plain as day that "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion", and yes it goes on to explain that the U.S. is not embattled with Tripoli as a religious war. It give the specific reason why being that the U.S. "is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion".

If the Founders had believed the U.S. was indeed formed as a Christian nation they would have worded their first major foreign treaty a bit differently.

It is addressing the Barbary pirates, who were attacking the "Christian nations" whic if you were for freedom you should be against the barbary pirates instead of deffending them.

I am quite sure that an entity that ceased to exist two centuries ago is beyond defending, but you will notice, for the record, nothing in my post defended them. I merely stated the record.

this is what the treaty of tripoli was saying i order to appease these pirates. you have to read the entirety of it and look at the context.

So the Founders of the United States were willing to deny their Christianity to "appease" pirates? I think you underestimate these men.

There is no credible historian who uses this as a refute to Americas Christian roots and founding.

Historians do not generally "refute" the Christian Nation lie because it is merely a fundamentalist meme that has zero academic credibility. However, the Treaty of Tripoli is one piece of evidence that does appear in the record to show that the Founders were not under any illusion that the United States was specifically "Christian".

The mayflowr compact

And countless quotes from the fore Fathers. This is absolute historical fact.

The Mayflower Compact is not a document of the U.S. founding. The first document of the U.S. founding was the Constitution. This document contains zero mention of "God" or Christianity. No document prior to this point was a foundation document.

This is absolute historical fact.

American governmental buildings everywhere are covered with Bible vereses the liberty bell the capital etc...etc...etc..

No one had claimed that a Christian culture did not exist among the Founders. Freedom of religion guaranteed that this culture was used as architectural decoration and is even recognized in ceremonial public prayer. However, this is vastly different from the false claim that the U.S. is a "Christian Nation". The U.S. is a secular nation that was developed by men who held a nominally Christian culture. That is a big difference.


As I said before, it would behoove those fighting for this "Christian Nation" canard to gain some perspective. They are liable to find everything from Satanism to Asatru being supported from the public purse if they don't reign in their quasi-legal religious governing. They have allowed the proverbial camels nose with the Bush Administration's use of Executive funding. This will require an even distribution.

So I predict in a very few short years, even early in 2009, the Christians may change their minds about government and religion. The salad days are soon over.