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?

[Confused]

Without getting into too much detail about the constitution of one particular country, is it really possible to have freedom of religion without freedom from religion? If religious rites and rituals are sponsored by the government of the day, does that not impede the freedom of those who do not subscribe to the particular practice being promoted by the state?

I am not sure it is possible to have your cake and eat it to. If any particular government grants its people the freedom to practice whatever religion they believe, then if that religious person opts to say a prayer aloud in a restaurant to bless their meal, everyone in the restaurant is exposed to this religious rite. As such, the right to freedom from religion is impinged upon because barring plugging ones ears, they are forced to listen to such prayer and even if they plug their ears, they are made to be inconvenienced so that a religious rite can be performed.

It is possible to have freedom of religion, but not freedom from religion unless you become a hermit, never leaving your home, watching tv, listening to the radio, or even surfing the web.

[Rathpig]

This doesn't include wiping religion from the public and government sectors. The Constitution says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Congress! That didn't mean the individual states were prohibited from exercising their own laws regarding the subject.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporat ... of_Rights)

I think you need to read up on incorporation of specific rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. Because the First was incorporated under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth then the Establishment Clause applies to the States. That is the law of the United States. Any individual state in violation of the Establishment Clause, such as Roy Moore in Alabama, becomes actionable under Federal jurisdiction.

That is the law as it stands now.

If you want to argue States' Rights at Foundation then you are correct (including slavery and all the other baggage of Dominionist Christianity), but that is not an argument for a "Christian Nation". You are merely making the same argument I made previously: The U.S. Federal government was intentionally secular.

....Obviously, their understanding of the issue was much different than today's ACLU crowd.

That is because the civil liberty arguments being made today are under the precedent of Constitutional incorporation.

I don't think anyone has argued that the Founders were not practitioners of various religious beliefs. Many were cultural Christians and a few were devout Christians. I have explained previously that this was their primary motivation for creating a secular nation. Jefferson is the best example of a person who did not think government should become entangled with religion.

Second, regarding the Treaty of Tripoli: "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..."
--From Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli,

please note that:

Article 11 merely says that the government of America is not founded on the Christian religion, as in a theocracy. This does not mean that the majority of Americans were not of the Christian faith, and it certainly doesn't address the numerous Judeo-Christian principles upon which our country was founded. In those respects, it falls short of accurately describing America.

If you read Jefferson especially, then the Treaty of Tripoli very accurately describes the U.S. Foundation. They didn't mince words. The United States was not a Christian Nation, nor could it by law become one. It is this last part that so bothers the current crop of Dominionists. The Supreme Court incorporation of the Fourteenth Amendment is exactly why the U.S. set up a Secular system. Religion could not become a forced issue because the law, as the SCOTUS correctly interpreted was secular.

It doesn't matter if everyone in the Foundation U.S. was a Christian, the law specifically forbids a Christian Nation.

And if you actually read the words of the Founders you will understand that their religious beliefs were the exact reason for this creation. Both freedom for and freedom from religion were necessary then, and are necessary now, for any nation founded upon liberty. It protects the Christians much more than it protects the atheists.

Any Christian that ever finds themselves in a majority non-Christian school district which is pushing another religion, will be citing Jefferson and agreeing with the historically correct position in an instance. Dominionist Christians continue to push the false meme of a "Christian Nation" because it rallies their troops to vote for their proto-theocratic quasi-fascist candidates such Reagan and the Bush dynasty. it is much more about politics than religion, and it always has been about politics. The Founders knew this fact well.

[McCulloch]

Without getting into too much detail about the constitution of one particular country, is it really possible to have freedom of religion without freedom from religion? If religious rites and rituals are sponsored by the government of the day, does that not impede the freedom of those who do not subscribe to the particular practice being promoted by the state?

I am not sure it is possible to have your cake and eat it to. If any particular government grants its people the freedom to practice whatever religion they believe, then if that religious person opts to say a prayer aloud in a restaurant to bless their meal, everyone in the restaurant is exposed to this religious rite. As such, the right to freedom from religion is impinged upon because barring plugging ones ears, they are forced to listen to such prayer and even if they plug their ears, they are made to be inconvenienced so that a religious rite can be performed.

It is possible to have freedom of religion, but not freedom from religion unless you become a hermit, never leaving your home, watching tv, listening to the radio, or even surfing the web.

That's not what I mean by freedom from religion. Of course my freedom from religion should not impair someone else's freedom to practice their own religion. If I sit down in a restaurant, and someone at the next table wishes to pray, I must allow that. If I sit down in a restaurant and someone at the next table insists that I not eat pork because he has religious objections, I should be free from his religion. If I am invited to a meal, sponsored by a government agency, I should not have to be subject to a collective prayer to a God I do not believe in, before we eat.

Freedom of religion and freedom from religion do NOT go hand in hand!

Simply asserting your position does not prove the point.

If I were a bicycle maker and I made bicycles a certain way, I have that right but I give you the right to modify the bicycle if you wish---this is your freedom of religion---but you do not have the right to tell the bicycle maker that he has to or not to make it his way since he is the founder, maker and producer of the bike. So you don't have a freedom from my style of bicycle but you do have the freedom to do what you wish with the bicycle you were given. i.e. freedom of religion but not a freedom from religion.

I think that we are in agreement. Just because you are a bicycle maker, does not grant you the right to make me into a bicycle rider. Freedom of bicycles, I can purchase and modify any bicycle I want. Freedom from bicycles, I can walk.
Not allowed -- I cannot tell you to walk, you cannot tell me to ride.

Tax dollars for supporting the founding principles of America whats wrong with it? The real beef would be tax dollars that fight against Christianity and America's founding principles i.e. Abortion funded by tax dollars.

There is nothing holy about the founding principles of the USA or any other country. Fighting for an ideal, simply because it was a founding principle of your country is misguided.

Public funding of abortion should not be fought on religious grounds. Oppose public funding of abortion because you can show that it is murder. Oppose public funding of abortion because you can show that there are health risks. But do not oppose public funding of abortion because your religion says that it is wrong. Someone else thinks that eating pork is wrong. My Methodist grandmother opposed card playing on religious grounds. There should be a law against playing cards.

[Truth Prevails]

Soprry thatys a ridiculous rebuttal friend everyone knows that Judges in court orders can be biased. A judge isnt gonna make a scientific judgement on such a matter in some court room thats plain nonsense. Sory but you have to bring more than that ! Cause thats nothing! A judge can be nothing more than a politician with an agenda. it just depends on the judges credibility and i know there is no judge that sorted through the science to make his claim in some court room, thats just plain ridiculous! Peace!

Considering Judge Jones was a very conservative Judge, appointed by a republican President who rejects evolution, I would say that your reaction, while very predictable,is also very unjustified.

Let's see if you go to the science section and defend your claims.

I could care less what the president is whether Republican or not what I care about is facts and consrvitism. So you are the predictable one! Judge Jones isnt that conservitive or else he wouldnt have made such an hastily decision and he wopuld have known that he couldnt possibly make the correct decision from one court decision. Especiasly when he himself isnt a scientist.


There are many scientists who use to be evolutionist and are now creationists.
They have PhDs and are known for there work. So evolution is NOT cut and dried its not even a good fairytale.

NO evidence for A bio genesis--- so tell me what is the evidence that life can come from non life?

There is and has never been any evidence for an ort cloud, so why is it preached by evolutionists as factual science?


How about adressin g the mathmatical ridiculous of even one protein forming withh all its amino acids in the absolute one and only configuration ley alone th am,athmatical impossibilities for mutations to occur enough and beneficial ones to boot? Please adress these for me, becuase just this small list I have listed destroys evolution all by itself!

Irreducible complexity. Please explain!


No global flood where did the marine fossils come from all ove the world on tops of mountains? Please explain and not with a hypothetical response I want lab tested docunmentation on this questions!


I want absolutly lab tested research showing there is an ort cloud or A bio genesis! And I want you to adress the issue of Irreducible complexity with bonafied lab tested science documentation. NO stories or hypotheticals, documentation and test results and research showing it to absolutly un disputable!


I didnt think so! And evolutionists say they are all about science, ha ha ha ha !
They are story book writers just like Asimov. Quackery science!

Check out the debates on youtube with evolutionists and creationists the evolutionists lose everytime! Try Laurence Tisdall on the micheal Coren show---youtube. this is one of many evolutionists made to look pretty ridiculous nationaly. Peace!

[McCulloch]

Moderator Caution

There are many scientists who use to be evolutionist and are now creationists.
They have PhDs and are known for there work. So evolution is NOT cut and dried its not even a good fairytale.

NO evidence for A bio genesis--- so tell me what is the evidence that life can come from non life?

[...]

I didnt think so! And evolutionists say they are all about science, ha ha ha ha !
They are story book writers just like Asimov. Quackery science!

Check out the debates on youtube with evolutionists and creationists the evolutionists lose everytime! Try Laurence Tisdall on the micheal Coren show---youtube. this is one of many evolutionists made to look pretty ridiculous nationaly. Peace!

4. Stay on the topic of debate. If a topic brings up another issue, start another thread.

This debate is not about evolution or science. There are many threads in the Science and Religion forum where you may defend your particular views of science.

[Confused]

Without getting into too much detail about the constitution of one particular country, is it really possible to have freedom of religion without freedom from religion? If religious rites and rituals are sponsored by the government of the day, does that not impede the freedom of those who do not subscribe to the particular practice being promoted by the state?

I am not sure it is possible to have your cake and eat it to. If any particular government grants its people the freedom to practice whatever religion they believe, then if that religious person opts to say a prayer aloud in a restaurant to bless their meal, everyone in the restaurant is exposed to this religious rite. As such, the right to freedom from religion is impinged upon because barring plugging ones ears, they are forced to listen to such prayer and even if they plug their ears, they are made to be inconvenienced so that a religious rite can be performed.

It is possible to have freedom of religion, but not freedom from religion unless you become a hermit, never leaving your home, watching tv, listening to the radio, or even surfing the web.

That's not what I mean by freedom from religion. Of course my freedom from religion should not impair someone else's freedom to practice their own religion. If I sit down in a restaurant, and someone at the next table wishes to pray, I must allow that. If I sit down in a restaurant and someone at the next table insists that I not eat pork because he has religious objections, I should be free from his religion. If I am invited to a meal, sponsored by a government agency, I should not have to be subject to a collective prayer to a God I do not believe in, before we eat.

Sorry, I should have read the previous posts a bit more closely before I responded here.
Perhaps what we should be aiming for isn't so much freedom from religion but tolerance from religion. Many religious organizations claim to have tolerance to other religious doctrines/organizations, but none claim tolerance for non-religious affiliates.

So can we have freedom of religion without freedom from religion. Yes, we can have freedom of religion if we have tolerance from religion. But somehow, I don't see that in our futures anytime soon.

[Easyrider]

Article 11 (Treaty of Tripoli) merely says that the government of America is not founded on the Christian religion, as in a theocracy. This does not mean that the majority of Americans were not of the Christian faith, and it certainly doesn't address the numerous Judeo-Christian principles upon which our country was founded. In those respects, it falls short of accurately describing America.

If you read Jefferson especially, then the Treaty of Tripoli very accurately describes the U.S. Foundation. They didn't mince words. The United States was not a Christian Nation, nor could it by law become one. It is this last part that so bothers the current crop of Dominionists. The Supreme Court incorporation of the Fourteenth Amendment is exactly why the U.S. set up a Secular system. Religion could not become a forced issue because the law, as the SCOTUS correctly interpreted was secular.

It doesn't matter if everyone in the Foundation U.S. was a Christian, the law specifically forbids a Christian Nation.

That sounds like an oxymoron. If the citizens are predominately Christian they will elect representatives to vote and pass laws according to Godly principles. Now these principles (no gay marriage, for instance) will ultimately show up in a secular-worded format, but the principles themselves will be seen. And that's pretty much what we've seen in numerous laws and customs throughout the past few centuries here.

[zepper899]

That sounds like an oxymoron. If the citizens are predominately Christian they will elect representatives to vote and pass laws according to Godly principles. Now these principles (no gay marriage, for instance) will ultimately show up in a secular-worded format, but the principles themselves will be seen. And that's pretty much what we've seen in numerous laws and customs throughout the past few centuries here.

And having a seperate, secular government allows us to change these principles, as we've seen in numerous laws and customs throughout the las few years here.

[McCulloch]

If the citizens are predominately Christian they will elect representatives to vote and pass laws according to Godly principles. Now these principles (no gay marriage, for instance) will ultimately show up in a secular-worded format, but the principles themselves will be seen. And that's pretty much what we've seen in numerous laws and customs throughout the past few centuries here.

Yes, but unless they change the constitution and the courts reading of the constitution, the legislators will not justify any law that they pass solely on their religious faith.

[Rathpig]

.....Yes, but unless they change the constitution and the courts reading of the constitution, the legislators will not justify any law that they pass solely on their religious faith.

Even though I grew up under the proto-fascist manipulations of Reagan, I used to believe this was the basis of law in the United States. I am no longer sure if this is the case. The recent Bush Administration has violated the Constitution in innumerable ways with very little, none actually, interference form either the Judiciary or the Legislative. Checks and Balances no longer seem to exist, and many candidates are emboldened to wield their religion as a hammer.

As an atheist, it appears necessary to fight against these illegal manipulations of the political and legal climate in the U.S. because far too many people are attempting to edge the country closer to theocracy.

As a nation the U.S. is at a pivotal point. Freethought and secular humanism has never been more widely accepted, yet a totalitarian Dominionist Christianity has also gained strong political ground over the past several decades.