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?

[McCulloch]

What has to be addressed is the facts that what country are we talking about here?

I disagree. I deliberately avoided specifying any country. I was hoping that the conversation would be more directed at Is freedom from religion a good idea? and Does freedom of religion imply freedom from religion? without necessarily discussing whether this freedom exists in any specific country.

However, in the OP, I also asked, Is freedom from religion guaranteed by the constitutional law of your country? If your country is the USA, then you may address this question in that context.

First we can say that the Separation of Church and State are NOT in the constitution.

Are you an expert in Constitutional Law? If not, are there any experts in the practice of US constitutional law who agree with you?

Well the founding and very ardent roots of the united States is overwhelmingly Christian based. i.e. For Fathers, the constitution itself signing it in the year of our Lord. ... it is undeniable fact that America itself was founded on Christianity and or rooted in it for its founding.

I disagree. The notation for the date is a convention not a statement of faith. There are significant differences between the ideas enshrined in the US Constitution and the US Declaration of Independence which are contrary to the teachings of Biblical Christianity.

[Truth Prevails]

What has to be addressed is the facts that what country are we talking about here?

I disagree. I deliberately avoided specifying any country. I was hoping that the conversation would be more directed at Is freedom from religion a good idea? and Does freedom of religion imply freedom from religion? without necessarily discussing whether this freedom exists in any specific country.

However, in the OP, I also asked, Is freedom from religion guaranteed by the constitutional law of your country? If your country is the USA, then you may address this question in that context.

First we can say that the Separation of Church and State are NOT in the constitution.

Are you an expert in Constitutional Law? If not, are there any experts in the practice of US constitutional law who agree with you?

Well the founding and very ardent roots of the united States is overwhelmingly Christian based. i.e. For Fathers, the constitution itself signing it in the year of our Lord. ... it is undeniable fact that America itself was founded on Christianity and or rooted in it for its founding.

I disagree. The notation for the date is a convention not a statement of faith. There are significant differences between the ideas enshrined in the US Constitution and the US Declaration of Independence which are contrary to the teachings of Biblical Christianity.

Yes many experts on Constitutional law agree with me, also you can overwhelmingly see the evidence.

Examples: The Mayflower Compact

John Adams and John Hanncock--- We recognise no sovereign but God, and no king but Jesus! April 18th 1775

John Quincy Adams--- The law given at Sinai (the ten commandments) was a civil and munincipal as well as a moral and a religious code

Benjimin Franklin--- God Governs in the affairs of man, and if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his knowing is it possible that a nation can rise without His Aid? 1787

In 1749 Benjamin Franklin said that the schools should the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern.

Alexander Hamilton--- The two things that made America great

1 Christianity
2 A constitution formed under Christianity

Patrick Henry--- This is all the inheritence I can give to my dear family, The religion of Christ can give them one which will make them rich indeed.


John Jay--- Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and IT IS THE DUTY, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.

Thomas Jefferson--- I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus.

I mean the stuff here is unendeing! I havent even begun to make a list!

The United States was founded on Christianity and was rooted in the doctrine of Christ and America has been greatly blessed just as it says in the Bible Blessed is the nation whos God is the Lord! There is absolutly no denying the evidence!

Show the evidence of where the for Fathers who wrote the Dec of Independence and the Constitution are against the Bible or Christianity---- And you are making claims that saying the year of our Lord is a convention but where are your facts, you can make the claim but is it a valid one? The evidence says NO!

Also NO you do ot have a freedom from religion that is to say do you have a right for no one to express it to you, NO you dont, Do you have to listen--- NO

Do I have to obey traffic laws, NO but do I have the right to say they cant be enforced NO!

Do I have the right to ride my bike? Yes! Does some one else have the right to say that I interfere with their walking as in that I shouldnt be allowed to ride my bike? NO! One expresses the right to speak and the other expresses the right not to listen. There is no such a thing as one who beleives in nothing, everyones beleif whether atheist or not is a beleif and what you beleive brings consequences and results from the actions or lack of actions brought about by ones beleif whether Atheist or not. And I would say that Atheism produces a poor wretched example of society which gives great credibility to the bible and Christianity.

Atheism never saved someone from drug addiction it never feed the poor, it never called a reason to stand up for what is right (war situations etc...), and it never defended the persecuted. etc...etc...etc... This gives absolutly great evidence to Creation and Christianity That Love isnt founded on evolution but something that is in us and calls us to it (love)! Justice, Company, friendship, kindness, respect, etc...etc..etc... these are not products from evolution. Evolution has no reasons. You simply cant have reasoning or information without a reason an informer. If I was walking in a field and I saw a car, with all due respect would I say this is no reasoning for this to be here and it formed on its own. Ridiculous! And if anyone said so it would be ridiculously UN scientific. But yet those who claim to know science say this everyday lying when the overwhelming evidence shows that there is reason behind a reason and that there has to be a reasoner who brought it. Now lets take that SCIENTIFIC fact and realise also there is a book here on the earth that has been here for the last 4,000 years approx--- being completed just ~approx. 2,007 years ago. And it talks of a reasoner. And then America comes along or a peculiar people called Americans Colonist And the found there hopes of a better place on these principles in the Bible have you, and they are the very things taught in the Bible(as A Commandment, and not a whatever as Most other beleifs do also to boot most other beleifs are undeniable spin offs of the Bible) These things taught are exactly what we cherish and cling to and hope for i the basic forms. (some people are selfish of course and wish these things only for themselves not caring for others and their wellness).

Freedom from religion doesnt exist nor can it.

And if one tries to traunce ones beleif by force while expressing only their own, then they are all together not about freedom but have become a dictator.

[McCulloch]

Also NO you do not have a freedom from religion that is to say do you have a right for no one to express it to you, NO you dont, Do you have to listen--- NO

I am not quite sure what you mean. Let's look at some of the other rights and freedoms for context.

I have freedom of speech guaranteed in my country's constitution. Firstly, this freedom is not absolute. There are circumstances where it is illegal for me to speak certain things. Libel, fraud, lying under oath and uttering a death threat are all forms of restricted speech. Secondly, freedom of speech implies freedom from speech. I am not compelled to speak nor am I compelled to listen to anyone else speaking.

Freedom of the press is also guaranteed in my country's constitution. Again, this freedom is not absolute, there are limits to the freedom of the press. But, like the freedom of speech, it implies freedom from the press. I am not required to subscribe to any newspaper at all. Nor is any newspaper required to print everything that anyone might submit to it.

In the same way, the constitution's protection of the freedom of religion implies freedom from religion. I am not required to adhere to the any religion. I am not required to participate in any religious rites. My lack of religion cannot be used as a test for public office. You cannot have freedom of religion without freedom from religion any more than you can have freedom of speech without freedom from speech.

Do I have to obey traffic laws, NO but do I have the right to say they cant be enforced NO!

I am not quite sure about what point you are making here. Of course my freedom from religion does not give me the right to suppress or deny you your freedom of religion.

Freedom from religion doesnt exist nor can it.

And if one tries to traunce ones beleif by force while expressing only their own, then they are all together not about freedom but have become a dictator.

I find it a bit difficult to determine exactly what you mean from what you say.

Belief is not religion. There are many beliefs which are not religious. There are aspects of religion that go beyond mere belief. We are discussion religion and its relationship to constitutional freedoms.

Freedom of religion implies freedom from religion. We all must be free under the law to practice and adhere to the religion of our own choosing. For this freedom to be real and meaningful it must include the option of none.

However, my right to freedom from religion, must not impede your right to freedom of religion any more than my various rights must not impede your various rights.

[McCulloch]

John Adams and John Hanncock--- We recognise no sovereign but God, and no king but Jesus! April 18th 1775

Would this be the same John Adams who ratified the Treaty of Tripoli?

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

[Truth Prevails]

John Adams and John Hanncock--- We recognise no sovereign but God, and no king but Jesus! April 18th 1775

Would this be the same John Adams who ratified the Treaty of Tripoli?

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Oh that same old cliche anti American treaty of tripoli trick?


First of all the treaty of tripoli is so falsely used and deliberatley misread it has become laughable.

Lets look at the real facts concerning the Treaty of tripoli shall we?

The treaty of tripoli is one of several, it was negotiated during the "barbary powers conflict" which began shortly after the Revolutionary war. And continued through the presidencies of George washington. Adams, Jefferson, and Madison. The Muslim Barbary Powers ( Morroco, tunis, Algiers, AND Tripoli) were waring against what they claimed to be the Christian nations. England, France, Denmark, Spain and the United States. In 1801 Tripoli even declared war against the United states. Through out this conflict the Barbary powers (muslims) attacked United States merchant ships. They were capturing Christian seamen and attacking U S Merchant ships which were un defended. In order to stop this and free merchant sailing and the freeing of Enslaved captured CHRISTIAN seamen.
George Washington dispatched envoys to negotiate.

The Muslim barnary nations would often create unfair terms causing the US to have to pay thousands of dollars in tribute. (extortion)

In this treaty agreement it is stated that---

As the government of the united States of America is not in any sense founded on the zChristian religion as it has in its self no Character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility of musselman (muslims) and as the said states (America) have never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mohoteman nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

So you see the statements concerning the Treaty of Tripoli has to be read in its entirety!!!!

This statement of the treaty of Tripoli is true! There is no establishment of religion as the text describes and also the bill of rights. The treaty of tripoli isnt saying America wasnt founded on Christianity it is saying from a federal Government stand point that there is no establishment as to say it is a Christian only nation.

This is absolute Historical and indisputable fact. No cedible Historian brings this up as a means to discredit the Christian influence and roots of America.


And for your other statement concerning "Freedom from Religion" There is no such a thing. The words BELEIF and RELIGION go hand and hand.

You can define religion as as actions that reflect ones beleifs the word religion is actualy not as good word to describe Christianity because Christianity is NOT religion in the sense of the word. Religion is actins or a bondage of rituals acted on ones beleifs in a sense. So it can be said that ones beliefs reflects their "religion" or actions or bondage. Any person who has a beleif acts on those beleifs and makes decisions on those beleifs whether atheist or not it is their bondage or RELIGION! Peace!

[Truth Prevails]

Also NO you do not have a freedom from religion that is to say do you have a right for no one to express it to you, NO you dont, Do you have to listen--- NO

I am not quite sure what you mean. Let's look at some of the other rights and freedoms for context.

I have freedom of speech guaranteed in my country's constitution. Firstly, this freedom is not absolute. There are circumstances where it is illegal for me to speak certain things. Libel, fraud, lying under oath and uttering a death threat are all forms of restricted speech. Secondly, freedom of speech implies freedom from speech. I am not compelled to speak nor am I compelled to listen to anyone else speaking.

Freedom of the press is also guaranteed in my country's constitution. Again, this freedom is not absolute, there are limits to the freedom of the press. But, like the freedom of speech, it implies freedom from the press. I am not required to subscribe to any newspaper at all. Nor is any newspaper required to print everything that anyone might submit to it.

In the same way, the constitution's protection of the freedom of religion implies freedom from religion. I am not required to adhere to the any religion. I am not required to participate in any religious rites. My lack of religion cannot be used as a test for public office. You cannot have freedom of religion without freedom from religion any more than you can have freedom of speech without freedom from speech.

Do I have to obey traffic laws, NO but do I have the right to say they cant be enforced NO!

I am not quite sure about what point you are making here. Of course my freedom from religion does not give me the right to suppress or deny you your freedom of religion.

Freedom from religion doesnt exist nor can it.

And if one tries to traunce ones beleif by force while expressing only their own, then they are all together not about freedom but have become a dictator.

I find it a bit difficult to determine exactly what you mean from what you say.

Belief is not religion. There are many beliefs which are not religious. There are aspects of religion that go beyond mere belief. We are discussion religion and its relationship to constitutional freedoms.

Freedom of religion implies freedom from religion. We all must be free under the law to practice and adhere to the religion of our own choosing. For this freedom to be real and meaningful it must include the option of none.

However, my right to freedom from religion, must not impede your right to freedom of religion any more than my various rights must not impede your various rights.

The only restrictions on freedoms are when they interfere with the wellbeing or decency of others. This is why it is a crock for the Pornography industry to be able to claim freedom of speech. Obscenity, fraud, libel, underoaths etc...etc... are infringements on others rights and wellness like justice, or the pursuit of happiness or to be secure in ones homes or their properties and decency and well being this is what the rights are shooting for and when this infrnges on others rigts then yes they can be restricted because one would be using their "so called " freedom(fraud or indecency) and inturn disallowing or infringing on anothers REAL freedoms and rights of decency.

[McCulloch]

The only restrictions on freedoms are when they interfere with the wellbeing or decency of others. This is why it is a crock for the Pornography industry to be able to claim freedom of speech.

Sorry, I don't quite follow your reasoning. If the porn industry's claim to freedom of speech is a crock, then you must be able to demonstrate that it interferes somehow with the wellbeing of others. I can think of some specific ways that may be, but it has not been demonstrated in general.

Obscenity, fraud, libel, underoaths etc...etc... are infringements on others rights and wellness like justice, or the pursuit of happiness or to be secure in ones homes or their properties and decency and well being this is what the rights are shooting for and when this infringes on others rights then yes they can be restricted because one would be using their "so called " freedom (fraud or indecency) and in turn disallowing or infringing on another's REAL freedoms and rights of decency.

You have mentioned more than once rights of decency. I have found no evidence in any western constitution that such rights have been defined or protected. I have made the case that your freedom of religion, like your other freedoms, are not and cannot be absolute. You seem to agree. My rights cannot be exercised in such a way to impede your freedoms. This is what I mean by Freedom from.

And for your other statement concerning "Freedom from Religion" There is no such a thing. The words BELIEF and RELIGION go hand and hand.

Belief is an important part of religion, I agree. But not all belief is religion, for instance I believe in irrational numbers. And religion goes beyond belief. What did James say about the demons believing? So, clearly, belief is not equivalent to religion. So, of course, there is no such thing as freedom from belief. But that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about religion.

You can define religion as as actions that reflect ones beliefs the word religion is actually not as good word to describe Christianity because Christianity is NOT religion in the sense of the word.

I would not define religion as actions that reflect one's beliefs.

Religion is actions or a bondage of rituals acted on ones beliefs in a sense. So it can be said that ones beliefs reflects their "religion" or actions or bondage. Any person who has a belief acts on those beliefs and makes decisions on those beliefs whether atheist or not it is their bondage or RELIGION!

I think that this is closer to what is meant by religion in the sense that it is used in our constitutions.
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.

[Truth Prevails]

The only restrictions on freedoms are when they interfere with the wellbeing or decency of others. This is why it is a crock for the Pornography industry to be able to claim freedom of speech.

Sorry, I don't quite follow your reasoning. If the porn industry's claim to freedom of speech is a crock, then you must be able to demonstrate that it interferes somehow with the wellbeing of others. I can think of some specific ways that may be, but it has not been demonstrated in general.

Obscenity, fraud, libel, underoaths etc...etc... are infringements on others rights and wellness like justice, or the pursuit of happiness or to be secure in ones homes or their properties and decency and well being this is what the rights are shooting for and when this infringes on others rights then yes they can be restricted because one would be using their "so called " freedom (fraud or indecency) and in turn disallowing or infringing on another's REAL freedoms and rights of decency.

You have mentioned more than once rights of decency. I have found no evidence in any western constitution that such rights have been defined or protected. I have made the case that your freedom of religion, like your other freedoms, are not and cannot be absolute. You seem to agree. My rights cannot be exercised in such a way to impede your freedoms. This is what I mean by Freedom from.

And for your other statement concerning "Freedom from Religion" There is no such a thing. The words BELIEF and RELIGION go hand and hand.

Belief is an important part of religion, I agree. But not all belief is religion, for instance I believe in irrational numbers. And religion goes beyond belief. What did James say about the demons believing? So, clearly, belief is not equivalent to religion. So, of course, there is no such thing as freedom from belief. But that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about religion.

You can define religion as as actions that reflect ones beliefs the word religion is actually not as good word to describe Christianity because Christianity is NOT religion in the sense of the word.

I would not define religion as actions that reflect one's beliefs.

Religion is actions or a bondage of rituals acted on ones beliefs in a sense. So it can be said that ones beliefs reflects their "religion" or actions or bondage. Any person who has a belief acts on those beliefs and makes decisions on those beliefs whether atheist or not it is their bondage or RELIGION!

I think that this is closer to what is meant by religion in the sense that it is used in our constitutions.
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 beleives in Evolution or who is an atheist/agnostic. Evolutionist try to give a cause, nature, And claim no purpose to the universe---(this is a belief) They have a lack of moral code but yet follow one. (do they not beleive in this moral code that they claim has no purpose????) dont get it! Evolutionist have countless devotionals and rituals peer review which is so biased, etc...etc... Nobel peace prize, media propaganda etc... There are numerous takes on evolution inwhich they all argue over. (sects) Universities, media, phony biased research facilities, etc... etc... It is a religion in the same sense of the word. The word religion actualy in the greek means a bondage or I would say what one is held to. And what ever a person is held to has an affect whether for good or for bad. Peace!


Infringing on ones rights doesnt mean infringing on anything a person wants to do. It means infringing on their CONSTIUTIONAL rights.

If "religion" doesnt reflect ones beleifs then what does it reflect, that you would say you should be free from? What ever a person beleives 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 woukld be a prohibition of religion and it would infringe on freedom of speech. You can not falsly categorise what you want to call religion so it must be kept to ones self and then inturn express ones own self interest and claim that it isnt "religion" so therefore I can express it. This is a cheap way of censoring one while expresssing anothers self centered agenda. By trying to label something as religion and then claiming that your beleif isnt religion. Christianity or evangilising doesnt infringe on anothers CONSTITUTIONAL rights. One has the absolute right to express an Idea of betterment. we have the right to criticise and or express protest peacibly and freedom of speech that all evidence be heard. This is why courts are not held in secret but by jurours and publicly. This is why we have news print, books, speakers etc...etc...etc... What ever a person does and or believs is an input to the environment/society.

[Truth Prevails]

The only restrictions on freedoms are when they interfere with the wellbeing or decency of others. This is why it is a crock for the Pornography industry to be able to claim freedom of speech.

Sorry, I don't quite follow your reasoning. If the porn industry's claim to freedom of speech is a crock, then you must be able to demonstrate that it interferes somehow with the wellbeing of others. I can think of some specific ways that may be, but it has not been demonstrated in general.

Obscenity, fraud, libel, underoaths etc...etc... are infringements on others rights and wellness like justice, or the pursuit of happiness or to be secure in ones homes or their properties and decency and well being this is what the rights are shooting for and when this infringes on others rights then yes they can be restricted because one would be using their "so called " freedom (fraud or indecency) and in turn disallowing or infringing on another's REAL freedoms and rights of decency.

You have mentioned more than once rights of decency. I have found no evidence in any western constitution that such rights have been defined or protected. I have made the case that your freedom of religion, like your other freedoms, are not and cannot be absolute. You seem to agree. My rights cannot be exercised in such a way to impede your freedoms. This is what I mean by Freedom from.

And for your other statement concerning "Freedom from Religion" There is no such a thing. The words BELIEF and RELIGION go hand and hand.

Belief is an important part of religion, I agree. But not all belief is religion, for instance I believe in irrational numbers. And religion goes beyond belief. What did James say about the demons believing? So, clearly, belief is not equivalent to religion. So, of course, there is no such thing as freedom from belief. But that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about religion.

You can define religion as as actions that reflect ones beliefs the word religion is actually not as good word to describe Christianity because Christianity is NOT religion in the sense of the word.

I would not define religion as actions that reflect one's beliefs.

Religion is actions or a bondage of rituals acted on ones beliefs in a sense. So it can be said that ones beliefs reflects their "religion" or actions or bondage. Any person who has a belief acts on those beliefs and makes decisions on those beliefs whether atheist or not it is their bondage or RELIGION!

I think that this is closer to what is meant by religion in the sense that it is used in our constitutions.
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.

There are kazillions of ways that the porn industry has interfered with the well being of society the evidence is countless.

When the constitution is speaking of freedom of speach it is speaking of an expression of ideas and presenting all evidence and the freedom to speak it and present it for the betterment of society. Not to make money and exploitation while at the same time dgreading society for a more worse state than the previous.

[McCulloch]

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.