Does freedom of religion include freedom FROM religion?

I get told many times that freedom of religion does not include freedom FROM religion.

I have even seen people insinuate that freedom of religion only applies to christians, although that is a very extreme viewpoint.


So, for those of us who are of no faith. ( I am agnostic ). Does freedom of religion apply to me? Does that freedom include living free from what someone else may wish from a religious viewpoint? Such as trying to force creationism into classrooms as one example.

 

Freedom of religion means that you are free to practice what you wish in terms of religion, and the government can't either sponsor it nor take it away from you.

The creationism thing, IMHO, shouldn't be taught in schools, because it is the government sponsoring a religious view. That said, you don't have a right to restrict others' religious expressions, just because you don't want to witness it. Street preachers can preach in the park. I'm allowed to pray in public, even in front of you.

Neither of your poll choices is accurate, IMHO.

 

I agree, you certainly do. And no one should ever have any right to stop you. In you doing that, it doesnt really infringe upon me or my rights. I might find it annoying, but thats my problem.

IT is not those kind of overt actions I am talking about though. But for example, if I am on a city council, and they open each meeting with a distinctly christian prayer that I am forced to sit through before we can get to the buisness at hand. I would find that as a violation of my right to live free from religion. Or my above mentioned creationism being taught in school.

 

Freedom of Religious choice must inherently include the choice to not be religious, otherwise a Muslim cannot be free to be so according to a Christian that sees his religion as false, and vice versa. Religious freedom does not allow one to impose belief upon another...it simply does not interfere with that belief.

 

Only an atheist can have told you such an idiocy ...

 

Merican atheists, agnostics, etc., have no right to freedom from religion. In spite of Obama, Merica is still a democratic republic where the majority rules. Despite the war on Christianity, the majority of Mericans are not atheists (yet). If Murican atheists, agnostics, etc., don't like "In God We Trust" on currency and don't like religious symbols, then that's just tough tacos!

Murican atheists are not real atheists anyway. Real atheists are in socialist, communist and secular countries and are totall indifferent to what others think or believe. For them it's live and let live. But Merican atheists are little, conflicted, confused troublemakers who are hungry for attention and want to be recognized. Pfft!

 

Sorry, Idiocy usually springs from faith. Atheists are more likely to argue that they do have a right to be free from religion and there should be laws protecting them from hearing any mention of a god or Jesus or giving them money but that isn't true. There is no "freedom from religion". The religious folks are free to knock on your door even if you have a sign up telling them not to. And don't think the sign will stop them since they're on a mission, literally, from their god.

It isn't rocket science. It's the 1st Amendment.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;...."

That's it. Congress shall make no law that would establish a religion and congress shall make no laws prohibiting the free exercise thereof. There have been some laws passed that prevent adults out of their religious fervor and insanity from harming children. That's about it for the laws. Churches get away with fraud, elder abuse, tax avoidance all because they're churches.

I think it is totally wrong for schools to prohibit free speech to valedictorians who want to thank their god for their success. That comes from the secular faith of liberalism. Same thing as religion but pretends it isn't.

Check out the Universal Life Church. It was started by Kirby Hensley, who I'm sure his dead, and I admired him for being and total fraud and proud of it. They have over 20,000,000 ministers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Life_Church

 

freedom of religion includes freedom from the government pushing religion on you or your children..

this doesn't mean gov wont try to interfere, try to follow the peyote religion and see how much hassle the gov will give you, you may win in court later, but they will hassle you


.

 

A person that does not believe in any religion is not automatically an atheist or agnostic, etc. Political labels are part of the hidden religion in the world, ideology (which comes from the minds of persons who are trying to dominate over the masses)
A political label will force a person to defend itself, that's the purpose of a political label (they all work in the same way) A political label is a revolutionary weapon (a weapon of 'war' for the mind)

 

whats a Murican\Merican, is that a Mexican American?

so your saying Buddhists should not have freedom of religion, only Christians?

.

 

Why sorry? You're entitled to express your opinion [don't feel sorry for what you think ...].

No freedom from religion ... it depends how you perceive the persons "advertising" religion ... are they different from who advertises a TV set or a computer or a phone contract?

If you change your paradigm and you see religion as an ideological product you won't note differences from a religion and a political party or an ideological movement or similar ...

 

Man you're really pissed off...Have you accepted Jesus into your heart as your personal lord and savior?

 

I have notice that people that support pushing their religion on other peoples children in public schools, never seem to be the "nice" Christians

I wonder how they would feel if a Muslim pushed their region on their child?

.

 

Nope, you're an agnostic. Now if you HAD a religion of the acceptable variety, the freedom part would apply. It does not mean that you are free to have NO religion. At least that's how I parse that sentence.

 

I was only sorry because being wrong so often must be wearing on you.

"No freedom from religion ... it depends how you perceive the persons "advertising" religion ... are they different from who advertises a TV set or a computer or a phone contract?"
Gee, do you have people knocking on your door and disturbing you to sell you a television? I don't. The city I lived in prohibited that. But, they could not prohibit religious fanatics or political fanatics.

I agree that the liberals are essentially a religion that gets taught in school. They're also the political fanatics who disturb you at home. They have a lot of similarities and one is their willingness to lie for their Lord.

 

Eh, you live in a great city ... in my home town there are two main risks:

*Jeowha's Witnesses [so religious preachers]
*Sellers of items for your home [overall the sellers of vacuum cleaner, they are tremendous ...]

 

My answer to that is, right of association.

Also in the first amendment.

 

Yes in as much as government cannot force religion on the citizens or require citizens participate in religious ceremony or require a religious test for voting or holding office, IOW government which represents us all should give no respect to any religious establishments. OTOH government cannot control religious faith, unless is breaking a law like animal sacrifice, and has to leave the citizens who choose to engage in religious faith alone in that practice.

Always amazes me how some conservatives WANT to have government involved in their religious faith.

 

If the observe the "civil liberties clause" of the first amendment of the US constitution:

'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances'.

The first sentence clearly outlines the government's policy of non-interference in matter of religion. It highlights that the state cannot restrict the right to freely practice your faith, nor introduce any laws resulting in the establishment of a national church hence limiting its interference in faith related matters. While the clause shows that the freedom of practicing a faith is accorded to all citizens it seems to suggest nothing about whether the same principles apply to atheists. However the phrase "free-exercise" can be interpreted as meaning abstaining from religion as "free" exercise surely means there are no barriers to how you wish to exercise your faith including not doing so.

An analysis of the fourteenth amendment brings us to the same conclusion:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction there of, are citizens of the United States and of the State where in they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The phrase of particular importance here is "no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges", note that this taken together the first amendment clearly demonstrates the "equal protection" accorded to all citizens in the face of the law suggesting that even atheists or those of a non-religious nature are granted the liberties first laid out in the first amendment.

 

Na, mostly christians.

- - - Updated - - -

This has to be a poe.

 

It applies to other " rights " not just religion. You have the right to freedom of the press and speech but also the right to freedom from the press and speech.

Yes clearly one cannot have one without the other. If you choose not to listen or pay attention to what another says or wirtes you have excercised freedom from speech and press. Each individual has that right and by extension the entire population does.

It is not merely christians who wish to impose on others based on their twisted interpretation of freedom. I have seen and heard of various left wing political groups invoking a " right to be heard ". This is clearly a violation of ones right to be free from the views and voices of others. If someone has a right to be heard then by definition it absolutely requires that someone somewhere is obligated or mandated to listen or even to provide a means of disseminating anothers views.

The only caveat is that ultimately the choice is yours and the burden is on you alone. What this means is that if you choose to ignore religious views and ideas that is fine but you have no right to demand that the other person expressing those views re locate or be silent. If you wish to be around other people you may just have to put up with their religion and it's expressions or just leave. The same is true with free speech.

Also christians, like anyone else, has the right to TRY and lobby to impose laws on others and to vote or campaign as they see fit. It is up to others to work to stop them and to ensure that their efforts to impose christian ( or any other religions laws ) on us fail.

 

Secularism ,applies or should ,Religion is a Question for Individuals .And that's where it should stay .State sponsorship of Religion is Anti-Democracy!

Atheists and agnostics have the greater right ,not to have their SCIETIFIC IDEAS suppressed.

And as far as the Question of Organised religion in Politics .well, Israel ,ISIS, Tea Party ,get the drift to the FAR fascist Right-wing .

 

You have the right to get up and leave or put in ear buds and crank up George Jones. If creationism rather and better Intelligent design ever gets together and comes up with a standard theory I would consider it a violation of MY rights if its NOT taught in school! See? There are two sides (at least) to this thing!

reva

 

Freedom of Religion means Freedom of Religion. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

Freedom of religion entails the right to believe in the metaphysical as one wishes. Pick a deity, any deity (or 2 or 50 or 1000, whatever), or don't. Your choice. Either way the government shall establish no laws based upon religious grounds. Therefore any law that has a justification of "because we're a christian nation and jesus said X then Y" is null and void. Doesn't mean you can't have a law that some religions have adopted before (like no theft for example) just that you cannot couch it in religious justification. It must stand upon itself.

- - - Updated - - -

when creationism or intelligent design can be developed the same way evolution has been, then you can teach it in science class, sure. Until then it stays in philosphy class with all the other metaphysical theorums.