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]

While the debate about whether a specific country, the USA, was founded as a Christian nation or not, may be of some interest, it is not the central point of this debate. My country, for instance, could be called a nominally Christian nation. After all, our ceremonial head of state, the Queen, is also constitutionally the defender of the faith, the head of the Anglican Church and by law cannot be a Roman Catholic.

However, we have similar constitutional protection of freedom of religion.

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

1. freedom of conscience and religion;
2. freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
3. freedom of peaceful assembly; and
4. freedom of association.

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

The question being debated is whether the freedom of religion does imply or should imply a freedom from religion, in general not necessarily in one country's particular constitution.

[Cephus]

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.

Not necessarily. Teaching your child is only a benefit if it helps them down the line. If you teach your kid that left is right and up is down and red is blue, you're only screwing up their life and that's certainly not beneficial. The same is true if you teach them that some invisible boogieman in the sky is going to protect them so they should handle venomous snakes and go walking in traffic with no regard for their own safety.

So yes, try again.

[MagusYanam]

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 guess my answers would depend on what is meant by 'freedom from religion'. If by 'freedom from religion' what is meant is that citizens are free from state-sanctioned religious intimidation and religious pressure or coercion to convert, then yes, I would say that freedom of religion by necessity implies 'freedom from religion'. However, if by 'freedom from religion' what is meant is that religious discourse cannot take place within the public sphere, I would say that such is not the case.

I think that freedom from religious intimidation, pressure and coercion is a very good idea, but naturally I would think that way... having read Anabaptist history it seems like we've been intimidated, pressured and coerced in every possible way by countries where there was an official religion (and even some where there wasn't). It's good for religion that people can be free from intimidation, pressure and coercion by religious groups (or any group).

Because of this, I'm constantly perplexed by the religious right - Christianity is not advanced by its being co-opted by state institutions. I feel safer as a Christian in courts and schools that are fully secular, where I know Jews and Moslems and atheists are as free to express their religious views in the public sphere as I am. If a court was to adopt the Ten Commandments and Levitical law, or if a school were to institute school prayer or oath-taking, I think it would be a terrible thing for Christians and for Christianity - the movements of faith (movements in a person's life which should be regarded as incredibly sacred and private, which no one else can make for them) would be trivialised and institutionalised in such a way that it would make them trite and meaningless.

[McCulloch]

I guess my answers would depend on what is meant by 'freedom from religion'. If by 'freedom from religion' what is meant is that citizens are free from state-sanctioned religious intimidation and religious pressure or coercion to convert, then yes, I would say that freedom of religion by necessity implies 'freedom from religion'. However, if by 'freedom from religion' what is meant is that religious discourse cannot take place within the public sphere, I would say that such is not the case.

Here are some examples [excerpts from earlier posts in this thread] of what I mean by freedom from religion:

• I should be constitutionally free from having any set of religious beliefs or practices imposed upon me.
• I should not be obligated to listen to evangelism in order to participate in government, law or other common public events.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.

Would you agree that these freedoms are included or implied in the freedom of religion?

[MagusYanam]

Thank you, McCulloch, for the clarifications. I guess I should refine my answer in light of these examples.

I should be constitutionally free from having any set of religious beliefs or practices imposed upon me.

Fair enough. I'd consider this to be a freedom from religious coercion - I would consider an imposition by the state of a certain set of religious tenets on a person to be a form of coercion, anyway; it does no service to the religion and it certainly does no service to the one on whom such tenets are imposed.

I should not be obligated to listen to evangelism in order to participate in government, law or other common public events.

Hm. I agree insofar as that someone should not be obligated to listen to evangelism in order to participate in government or law, but I think it depends here as much on who is doing the speaking as anything else. If it is someone in a position of civil authority doing the evangelising, or some other kind of political power, then I would consider it a form of religious intimidation or pressure. But if it were just some wacko who came to 'common public events' to start preaching on the street corner, I'd say he has a right to do that, and you would be free to ignore or listen at your own discretion.

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.

Agreed. That would be a kind of religious pressure. Outright denying someone service because they hold a different religious view than you would be a form of religious coercion (IMHO).

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 agreed.

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 I go to court, I expect the freedom not to have to swear at all, but to be taken at my word that my 'yes' will mean 'yes' and that my 'no' will mean 'no', and I expect the freedom not to have to pledge an oath to anything or anyone (including a flag), since my duties are to God and to whatever civil authorities which have jurisdiction over me.

But yes, I agree that such exclusionary practises in schools and courts and offices do no service to the religion being preached. That would be a form of religious 'indoctrination' at best, coercion at worst.

[4gold]

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 that children ought to be granted a freedom from religion, because they are impressionable and religion in the schools basically amounts to indoctrination, no matter how innocuous you think it may be.

I do not think that adults ought to be granted freedom from religion. We are above the age of indoctrination, and if we can't handle seeing or hearing other religions, perhaps the problem lies with us, and not the government.

[McCulloch]

I think that children ought to be granted a freedom from religion, because they are impressionable and religion in the schools basically amounts to indoctrination, no matter how innocuous you think it may be.

I do not think that adults ought to be granted freedom from religion. We are above the age of indoctrination, and if we can't handle seeing or hearing other religions, perhaps the problem lies with us, and not the government.

You might wish to review some of the previous postings in this thread. Freedom from religion is not defined as being completely insulated from religion. Freedom from religion means:

• I should be constitutionally free from having any set of religious beliefs or practices imposed upon me.
• I should not be obligated to listen to evangelism in order to participate in government, law or other common public events.
• if you are a public employee 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.
• 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.
• 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.

[4gold]

You might wish to review some of the previous postings in this thread. Freedom from religion is not defined as being completely insulated from religion. Freedom from religion means:

• I should be constitutionally free from having any set of religious beliefs or practices imposed upon me.
• I should not be obligated to listen to evangelism in order to participate in government, law or other common public events.
• if you are a public employee 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.
• 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.
• 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.

Thank you. You are correct that I did not read the earlier postings. I agree that adults ought to be insulated from obligatory and mandatory practice of religion. In that sense only, I support freedom from religion.

I do not support it in the sense of Nativity displays, Muslim footbaths, Summum aphorisms, etc. I think adults ought to act like adults and just ignore it if they don't like it.

[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)

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.

The Barbary pirates havent ceased to exist today. Their just called terroist now.

Also as I have said write the entire treaty of tripoli down.


What does it say? It says that the it is not founded on the Christian religion AS IT HAS IN ITSELF NO CHARACTER OF ENMITY--- this is saying in a modern way that America isnt founded on the Christian religion--- in the sense that--- it prohibits or expresses hatred or violence against those who have other religious beleifs. This is NOT saying that America isnt a promoter of Christianity nor wasnt founded on Christianities principles. It is simply saying that America wasnt founded on Christianity religion in the sense that it is a persecuter of your muslim belief. That is the absolute context of the treaty of tripoli statement. which there were many treaties besides this one. Any credible historian knows this.

So you cannot take this one phrase like this and try and turn it into something else as to try and refute the hundreds of staements showing declaring and promoting Christianity. You have to look at its entirety of context.

America has an absolute right to use tax dollars as it has already in the past in schools or wherever in any fasion to express Christianity, because it is Americas cultural founding and sucess ingriedient. It is the guide to the Forefathers and the blueprint to its laws and foundation. And because of this The Government and its citizens have an absolute right to express and promote this. With tax dollars or otherwise. If one doesnt like the founding of America then instead of being quiet and enjoying the freedom America gives in that you dont have to beleive in Christianity if you dont want to. Then dont sit and wollow in your grief, instead pack your bags and get out.


George Washington never even saw the treaty, he was even out of office when it was ratified by Adams, in which you fail to mention that Adams said while disscussing the Barbary conflicts with Jefferson, Adams declared---


The policy of Christendom has made cowards of all their sailors before the standard of Mahomet. It would be heroical and glorious in us to restore courage to ours.

Also Adams the ratifier of the treaty of tripoli said---The general principles on which the Fathers acheived independence were.....CHRISTIANITY!

Go to wall builders.com andyou will learn a great deal concernig the forefathers and their history. I beleive the founder of Wallbuilders is consulted even by the Supreme Court.

The founders were not of just a Christian culture who expressed art with Christian decoration and the down playing rehtoric as you have described.

The forefathers prayed regularly before each session of congress in CHRIST NAME even to this day its done.

The founders mentioned often that the Country was and must be rooted in its Christian principles.

You cannot quote the fraudulent work of Kramnick and Moore and try to make your claims. The non mentionings of Christianity had nothing to do with a secular "so called" beleif that the fore fathers as Kramnick and Moore try to claim.
It had nothing to do with it they even disscussed this in the ratification of the constitution by the forefathers and they decided to leave Christianity mentionings to the state constitutions these matters were already in state constitutions and they didnt want to infringe upon the state juristictions. this wasnt done because they were secularists and didnt beleive in Christian rooted America. Dont get me wrong Im not saying nor were the forefathers that America is an "established Christian nation" but it is a Christian founded nation and upon its roots and foundation are the principles of Christianity, in the which it has absolute right to promote and advertise. You have to remember that state and local governments, noyt the federal regime were considered the vital places to express rule of law, it is a government of the people and by the people the more grass roots you got in those days was the better expression of the nation. To bad it has been badly misconstrude in this day and age.


Your statement of historians being misguided are false to the core as to say that they profess America as a Christian founded Nation. It is absolutly accurate that the Founders and framers were strongly Christian and layed down the principles of this nation on the very principles of Christianity.

[Truth Prevails]

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.

Not necessarily. Teaching your child is only a benefit if it helps them down the line. If you teach your kid that left is right and up is down and red is blue, you're only screwing up their life and that's certainly not beneficial. The same is true if you teach them that some invisible boogieman in the sky is going to protect them so they should handle venomous snakes and go walking in traffic with no regard for their own safety.

So yes, try again.

What boogieman? And to mention that evolution would be teaching your child that red is blue.

Have you truly studied evolution? Well not studying and then teling your kids something as though you did that would be abuse!

Did you know you absolutly cannot add to the genetic code? This a major blow to evolution this alone destroys evolution.

How about the second and first law of thermo dynamics. This absolutly destroys evolution.

How about absolutly no evidence what soever for A bio genesis? This absolutly destroys evolution!

How about the fact that if the univerese was billions of years old the galaxies would have spun out long ago? this absolutly destroys evolution!


I could go on for days with this stuff. And did you know evolutionist will still try and defend themselves. when this is absolute sciences I have mentioned to you here and they will bring a NO evidence rebuttal to everyone of these statement s I just made here. When they in reality have NONE! And they claim to be the ones who are about science. hahaha!

How come when man finds disaster in life i.e. sexual disease you can trace it back to the complete disobedience of what is spoken of in the bible? Wow what a coincidence!

Or how about divorce? And the fact that most men in prison didnt have fathers. Wow what a coincidence!

etc...etc...etc...etc...etc...etc...etc...etc... Peace!