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?

[Furrowed Brow]

Does freedom of religion imply freedom from religion?

No. If I were to wear a T-shirt emblazoned

[center]And with a man you shall not lie with as a man lies with a woman; it is an abomination.[/center]

Then I would be practising freedom of religion. However there will be members of my community who would not be free from religion.

Is freedom from religion a good idea?

Yes.

Is freedom from religion guaranteed by the constitutional law of your country?

The UK does not have a written constitution. Our laws are a patchwork. But even now daily religious assembly is a legal requirement in our schools. However in practice this means the vast majority of schools for many years hold assemblies with next to no religious content. the law is kind of ignored, and I think regarded as a bit of an embarassement. RE lessons are sociology without religious instruction.

Due to various bits of anti discrimination legislation, if I were to wear that T-shirt in public I’d get arrested.

So basically the law is a bit of a mess, but on the whole the UK is very secular.

[ST_JB]

Freedom of religion is the free exercise of one's belief as long as it does not violate any law of your country...

If your belief is satanic and your belief requires human sacrifice... this is not allowable...

In my opinion freedom of religion is different from freedom from religion... in muslim country like pakistan there is no freedom of religion and there is no freedom from religion... in most muslim country you are require to follow the muslim religion as the fundamental law of the land... in that case you are have no freedom from religion since you are bound to obey muslim practices even if you are not professing the muslim faith.

In my country, the freedon of religion is guaranteed under our constitution. The freedom from religion is also guaranteed by virtue of separation of church and estate. And also the guarantee of the "freedom of expression" to each citizen which includes public profession of religious belief and affiliation.

In my country, no one is obliged to attend or to renounce any religious denomination, lest you are require to have one.

But no religion or religious organization or any of its members is above the law. Also religion or churches are protected by law against defamation, libel or any unlawful attack against its faith, belief or practices.

[Chancellor]

Freedom of religion is the free exercise of one's belief as long as it does not violate any law of your country...

If your belief is satanic and your belief requires human sacrifice... this is not allowable...

In my opinion freedom of religion is different from freedom from religion... in muslim country like pakistan there is no freedom of religion and there is no freedom from religion... in most muslim country you are require to follow the muslim religion as the fundamental law of the land... in that case you are have no freedom from religion since you are bound to obey muslim practices even if you are not professing the muslim faith.

In my country, the freedon of religion is guaranteed under our constitution. The freedom from religion is also guaranteed by virtue of separation of church and estate. And also the guarantee of the "freedom of expression" to each citizen which includes public profession of religious belief and affiliation.

In my country, no one is obliged to attend or to renounce any religious denomination, lest you are require to have one.

But no religion or religious organization or any of its members is above the law. Also religion or churches are protected by law against defamation, libel or any unlawful attack against its faith, belief or practices.

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.

[MikeH]

Does freedom of religion imply freedom from religion?

It depends what you mean by freedom from religion. Freedom of religion implies that nobody can force you to participate in religion if you are non-religious. It does not imply, however, that others cannot practice their religion publicly just because it makes you feel icky, no more than one religion could stop another religion from public practice.

Is freedom from religion a good idea?

Not forcing the non-religious to be, absolutely. Censoring any public display of religion, no.

Is freedom from religion guaranteed by the constitutional law of your country?

All that is guaranteed is the freedom to practice or not to practice.

[micatala]

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?

I think we all need clarification on exactly what McCulloch means by 'freedom from religion.'

[McCulloch]

I think we all need clarification on exactly what McCulloch means by 'freedom from religion.'

Good point. By freedom from religion I mean that I should not be compelled to participate in any religious activities or to support religious organization in order to fully participate in the public sphere.

For instance, if I were an elected official and the legislature opened with a public prayer, that would be a violation of freedom from religion. If my tax dollars were used to support faith-based initiatives, that would violate freedom from religion.

[MikeH]

I think we all need clarification on exactly what McCulloch means by 'freedom from religion.'

Good point. By freedom from religion I mean that I should not be compelled to participate in any religious activities or to support religious organization in order to fully participate in the public sphere.

For instance, if I were an elected official and the legislature opened with a public prayer, that would be a violation of freedom from religion. If my tax dollars were used to support faith-based initiatives, that would violate freedom from religion.

I think your definition needs a little bit of tweaking. How can you legislate by what might or might not compel somebody to do something? What if somebody said that chocolate ice cream compelled them to participate in religion, would it then be stricken from the halls of the grocery stores?

[micatala]

I think we all need clarification on exactly what McCulloch means by 'freedom from religion.'

Good point. By freedom from religion I mean that I should not be compelled to participate in any religious activities or to support religious organization in order to fully participate in the public sphere.

For instance, if I were an elected official and the legislature opened with a public prayer, that would be a violation of freedom from religion. If my tax dollars were used to support faith-based initiatives, that would violate freedom from religion.

I think your definition needs a little bit of tweaking. How can you legislate by what might or might not compel somebody to do something? What if somebody said that chocolate ice cream compelled them to participate in religion, would it then be stricken from the halls of the grocery stores?

I think MikeH has a point. Might a I suggest a division of the definition into a) and b).

Freedom from religion a: I should not be compelled to participate in any religious activities

Freedom from religion b: I should not be compelled to support religious organization, either directly or indirectly, in order to fully participate in the public sphere.

I would say clearly a) IS encompassed in the idea of freedom of religion.

b) however can involve some gray areas, as MikeH's example shows. However, part of this depends on the ending caveat of McCulloch's definition.

in order to fully participate in the public sphere.

How does having one's taxes used for faith-based initiatives, for example, prevent one from fully participating in the public sphere? THe only way I could think of making a case for this is that using the resources for the FBI's (ha, ha, I love acronym abuse) means there may not be resources for some other non FB activity. BUt, is this really preventing fully participation in the public sphere? True, it might mean another organization does not get money, but there is no guarantee they would get money even if the FBI's were not eligible.

It seems to me the 'secular purpose' idea is key. If the FB organization is fulfilling a secular purpose as well or better than a non-FB organization could or would, and the particular funds are not being used for a religious purpose, I am not sure what harm is being done.

[Truth Prevails]

I think we all need clarification on exactly what McCulloch means by 'freedom from religion.'

Good point. By freedom from religion I mean that I should not be compelled to participate in any religious activities or to support religious organization in order to fully participate in the public sphere.

For instance, if I were an elected official and the legislature opened with a public prayer, that would be a violation of freedom from religion. If my tax dollars were used to support faith-based initiatives, that would violate freedom from religion.

I think your definition needs a little bit of tweaking. How can you legislate by what might or might not compel somebody to do something? What if somebody said that chocolate ice cream compelled them to participate in religion, would it then be stricken from the halls of the grocery stores?

I think MikeH has a point. Might a I suggest a division of the definition into a) and b).

Freedom from religion a: I should not be compelled to participate in any religious activities

Freedom from religion b: I should not be compelled to support religious organization, either directly or indirectly, in order to fully participate in the public sphere.

I would say clearly a) IS encompassed in the idea of freedom of religion.

b) however can involve some gray areas, as MikeH's example shows. However, part of this depends on the ending caveat of McCulloch's definition.

in order to fully participate in the public sphere.

How does having one's taxes used for faith-based initiatives, for example, prevent one from fully participating in the public sphere? THe only way I could think of making a case for this is that using the resources for the FBI's (ha, ha, I love acronym abuse) means there may not be resources for some other non FB activity. BUt, is this really preventing fully participation in the public sphere? True, it might mean another organization does not get money, but there is no guarantee they would get money even if the FBI's were not eligible.

It seems to me the 'secular purpose' idea is key. If the FB organization is fulfilling a secular purpose as well or better than a non-FB organization could or would, and the particular funds are not being used for a religious purpose, I am not sure what harm is being done.

What has to be addressed is the facts that what country are we talking about here? The United States? Wll then lets look at what the United States was founded on!

First we can say that the Seperation of Church and State are NOT in the constitution. We can also say that America promotes and has always promoted its roots and that it is NOT a violation of the constitution to do so, why would it be a violation to promote your founding? Well the founding and very aredent roots of the united States is overwhelmingly Christian based. i.e. For Fathers, the constitution itself signig it in the year of our Lord.

This is not a violation. The violation would be prohibiting its promotion efforts.
America is a place where we have established a refuge for all beleifs to have security from persecution, but it is undeniable fact that America itself was founded on Christianity and or rooted in it for its founding. So as no establishment can be enforced this does not mean a promotion of it cant be expressed as even our for Fathers practiced it is our cultural makeup you might say and one has no right to prohibit that free excercise thereof.

Our tax dollars are anti Christian any many realms i.e. Abortion, i.e. Property taxes when one wants to send their child to a private school or home school. And now trying to make tax payers pay for he nonsense no produce embryonic stem cell research in which no research company will touch because they no it is a money loser being that it has produced ZERO benefit.

The better phrase would be Freedom from anti Christianity! When our for Fathers and constitution give us the freedom to express it. to say freedom from religion is a double standard. you cannot prohibit ones promotion while you run free with yours, by running rough shod over the very founding of our Christian rooted nation and Constitution you promote your own philosophy and are making claims that you should have to give place to another expression.