Freedom from Religion

[Original Freak]

I've heard this argument against Atheist before and I was wondering about your thoughts on it.

"Freedom OF religion doesn't mean freedom FROM religion."

It's probably pretty obvious how bunk I think this is...anyone here think it holds any water?

 

[Engyo]

Freedom of Religion seems to me to imply the freedom to choose no religion. It also implies the freedom from any laws which favor one religion, or religious viewpoint, over any other.

What it does not do, IMHO, is imply that no religious words or images can be posted/displayed in any public place.

I believe that the actual wording is something to the effect that "Congress shall establish no religion" or some such. The "freedom of religion" comes from this.

 

[CaptainXeroid]

..."Freedom OF religion doesn't mean freedom FROM religion."...

I think many people use this argument to counter the efforts by a few fanatical and intolerant atheists who seem to be opposed to any expression of religion. I also think more often than not it's used in a rude disparaging manner towards atheists who aren't trying to 'force' their atheism on anyone else. As with many issues, the response to a vocal minority is not applicable to the majority.

 

[jonny]

As long as I am free to practice my religion as I see fit I have "freedom of religion." As soon as the government starts to regulate any religious expression they are favoring one religion over another. I have not really made up my mind on things like letting Christmas programs in schools or 10 Commandments in the courthouse. Part of me says that maybe they shouldn't be there, but another part says get over it and spend your money on something more important. Isn't removing all references to God from the government promoting atheism as the official religion?

 

[Original Freak]

Isn't removing all references to God from the government promoting atheism as the official religion?

Not in the slightest. Putting up a sign that says...don't believe in god, or No Gods No Masters would be supporting atheism. Simply not putting up a religious sign in no way promotes atheism.

 

[Original Freak]

What it does not do, IMHO, is imply that no religious words or images can be posted/displayed in any public place.

Placing something on private property is different than public property. On public property, something paid for by tax payers you either post not religious images or one for EVERY religion, and good luck with that.

 

[retrorich]

As an atheist, I enjoy freedom from religion, except when theocrats like George W. Bush and his disciples try to impose their religion on me.

 

[michel]

As an atheist, I enjoy freedom from religion, except when theocrats like George W. Bush and his disciples try to impose their religion on me.

I can unbderstand that Rich - as far as I am concerned though, it is GW that is the problem, not the Religion.

 

[DreamQuickBook]

I can unbderstand that Rich - as far as I am concerned though, it is GW that is the problem, not the Religion.

People will always say this and it is often times true. But eventually, I begin to question it. Eventually, when enough people within a religion are doing something wrong... it isn't just the people anymore. A religion doesn't get an eternal get out of jail free card.

 

[michel]

People will always say this and it is often times true. But eventually, I begin to question it. Eventually, when enough people within a religion are doing something wrong... it isn't just the people anymore. A religion doesn't get an eternal get out of jail free card.

I don't live in the States; all I can tell you is that here, in England, we do not have troops of Christians, armed with big bibles going around telling everybody that they will burn in Hell - so I maintain what I say, irrespective of your cinycism, and I reaffirm what I said before.