There is no such thing as Freedom of Religion

He's comparing apples and oranges. Freedom of religion is a secular concept, which has nothing to do with dogma itself, other than allowing the expression of that dogma. That's why he's really not making a point at all.

 

There is no facts to the OP. The entire OP is one giant Begging The Question fallacy. It is running off of a false premise to begin with. It is trying to wrongly conflate a civil concept with a religious one.

 

Maybe that is what you took away from that but there is nothing in the OP or post 3, since you cited it earlier, that indicates that the poster was speaking solely within the confines of religion.

 

There is a major difference between freedom OF religion and freedom FROM religion.
See how that works?

 

There's no such thing as freedom from religion.

 

Dumb argument.
You are allowed to choose the captivity of your choice...

 

Your failure to comprehend the OP is not my problem.

 

He is making the point that nowhere in the dogma of religion will you find the secular concept of freedom of religion.

 

Onus is entirely on YOU to prove that religious dogma contains the secular concept of freedom of religion. If you can't then the OP is correct.

 

You are entitled to your interpretation of what the OP was saying.

Why don't you ask the OP to clarify since neither of us is the OP?

 

Thanks for indirectly making the OP's point!

 

Yes, but only under a secular government that allows freedom of religious choice.

Theocratic governments do not allow for such choices.

 

There's a different between claiming western countries have a strong Christian base and western countries having a large Christian base. My point still stands though. Western countries based their values off of Christianity.

 

Of course there is. Duh.

 

BZZZT Wrong!

Your original point has been thoroughly debunked which is why you were FORCED to move the goalposts.

 

This is a Burden of Proof Reversal fallacy. If the OP makes a claim then it is up to him, or you if you are also making the claim, to prove it.

 

Thank you.

These two concepts are fundamentally at odds. To be free FROM religion, one would need to limit the ability of religious people to preach their religions. Christianity, Mormonism, and Jehovah's Witnesses include preaching to the unconverted as part of their mission. If Christians, Mormons, and JW's are to be free to practice their religion, they have to be free to preach to the unconverted, which means you can't be free FROM religion.

The OP is apparently unaware that most atheists started off in a religious upbringing of some kind, or that many people raised in atheist households adopt some kind of religion as adults. As far as I know, the only religion that specifies death to apostates is Islam, so in that sense, the only religion that is not truly free is Islam.

A complete misstatement of the Founding Fathers' motivations. The religious wars of Europe were much closer in time to the crafters of the Constitution, and two states had competing religious origins, Puritanism in Massachusetts, Catholicism in Maryland, so the freedom of religion clause of the Bill of Rights was designed specifically to keep the federal government from interfering with the states and to prevent the religious wars which racked Europe only a couple centuries earlier.

 

Umm, nope.

 

Not really, try again.

 

Which is wrong. People have free will. People pick and choose what parts of their own dogma they choose to observe all the time. You don't sign a contract when you choose to be partake in religion. There's nothing forcing you to observe every single tenet of that religion, it's on the individual to choose to observe these tenets. This why the OP's point makes no sense.

 

The proof can be found by just asking the following questions of religions.

Does religion X demand that members obey their dogma?

Does religion X allow members to blaspheme?

Does religion X allow members to worship other deities outside of religion X?

Does religion X contain passages ordering members to kill those of other religions?

Does religion X contain passages where their deity killed members of other religions?

Now explain how the answers to the questions above demonstrate that religious dogma upholds the concept freedom of religion?

 

Obviously you don't understand that the concept of freedom FROM religion applies to the GOVERNMENT of We the People.

Studies prove the opposite. Atheism, agnosticism and nontheism are growing at a faster rate than adherents to religions in this nation.

The Christian bible dictates the death penalty for non believers.

Actually you just proved my point about the Founding Fathers motivations for not allowing religious intolerance to cause conflicts in this nation.

 

Your grasp of religious dogma is lacking.

 

Strawman fallacy. You're quite good at the fallacy game. The title is "There is no such thing as Freedom of Religion." The OP, and posts 3 and 5 give no indication of a limitation of context to only within a given religion or religions as a whole. Therefore the concept of Freedom of Religion under discussion would by default encompass all aspects, including civil. There is nothing in any religious dogma which negates the civil concept of Freedom of Religion. So contrary to the title there is indeed such a thing as Freedom of Religion. No evidence has been presented thus far to support the title as is, nor to counter the argument for the existence of Freedom of Religion.

 

Except that people have a choice to participate or not participate in religion.