Freedom of Religion = Freedom FROM Religion

“Freedom of Religion” is a catch phrase; a euphemism for one of the freedoms that flows from the First Amendment of our Constitution. Indeed it does embody freedom from government sponsored religion; particularly from a state religion.

But just as “Freedom of Speech” doesn’t protect us from the guy next to us on the bus who tells us to “Shut the Hell UP,” “Freedom of Religion” doesn’t protect us from religion sponsored by other people around us.

freedom from State Sponsored religion. The article references a state function and underscores some of the difficulties surrounding such.

Thanks for the comment - you’re dead on.

We are all welcome to our own beliefs. Still, you have to wonder if the people running the financial institutions in this country have any moral code higher than their own wallet. Everyone wants something for themself. So much for the humanistic drivel about the innate goodness of man…

I prefer to think that this season is not about Walmart, or the tilting of the planet’s axis. The historic accounts tell us that something hugely significant happened in Bethlehem. I’m sorry that’s offensive to some.

Robert Heinlein once said that we as humans only have one right, the right to be left alone.

I personally believe in God, the Ten Commandments and the teachings of Jesus Christ. But I don’t wan’t nor need Jehovah Witness’ knocking on my door, or being confronted by Hari Kirshnas at the airport.

I do however prefer this all-inclusive approach in the halls of government. It’s like when Donahue and Geraldo put skinheads on, if you don’t like what they believe, and you’re sure that they are wrong then let them “make fools of themselves”. Others will be able to decide for themselves and freely join with you (or not).

I “believe” that atheists are “making fools of themselves”, although I can’t prove this by scientific methods. We just have to “agree to disagree” I suppose. I do hope that they hope I’m right, because if they’re right (and there is no God or even “intelligent design”) then I think a cruel joke has been played on all of us.

Please allow me to clarify a bit:

I am making no statement on religion or belief. I am not judging. I speak solely about legislation of religion. The First Amendment provides for freedom of speech and religion. By the same token, it allows for freedom FROM (state-sponsored) religion.

I stand with the very unpopular organizations that want religion to have no part in government. This includes the Ten Commandments and a Congressional chaplain. Let’s face it - they’re so busy screwing us that it’s amazing they have TIME to get involved with this. Of course it’s a great distraction….

Some of the most staunch opponents to state-sponsored religion are religious practitioners themselves. After all - do you want to risk the possibility of somebody ELSE’s religion being the `official’ religion?

Thanks for the thoughtful comments.

Thinkin: Nobody is offended by what happened in Bethlehem. They are upset because at times it appears to be state-sponsored.

If you firmly believed that little purple squirrels ran the universe, that’s great - no problem. If you insisted that it be taught in schools, that’s another story.

Teaching in schools and placing in gov’t offices constitute Establishment, which is proscribed by the First Amendment. It’s not telling you what to believe or not believe, it’s keeping it out of gov’t. Worship your way - just don’t insist that it be legislated.

Thanks for the comment.

Just a quick note - I’m a Christian, but don’t think I fit into the category of “shove religion through legislation”. I see no problem with this sign. Per several rulings, you can put up Christian displays around December as long as the option is open to put up symbols for other religions as well. Seems like this was followed in this case. I may disagree with their sentiment, but it’s their right. I feel similarly about prayer before football games - don’t do it because you have to open it to everyone. I do think that a moment of silence is not a problem as you’re not telling anyone what to do in that moment.

I do throw out the observation that at the time the US Constitution was written, there were actually “State” religions, just not a federal one. e.g. CT was officially a Baptist state. My only question at the federal level is if we’re taking it so far that atheism is the state religion. I’m definitely not in favor of a government-sponsored religion, but I’m equally against government sponsored anti-religion. The Federal government is supposed to be neutral in this regard and it’s a hard balance to strike at times.

Leftystrat, I guess since you feel (and some others as well) that Christmas is just about religion and anyone who wants to trash this belief (over 90% of the country believes in) is welcome to do it, regardless of who that offends. I for one am offended that a very few want Christmas and the observance of it eliminated from government facilities. Our country was founded by Christians, NOT non-believers or Muslems. If you and others like you (your belief system) want our government to eliminate any display of Christmas, why don’t you have your congressman and senator sponsor legislation to eliminate the holiday from the days off they give government employees. That alone would save LOTS of dollars every year. You could also move out of this country to Cuba, or any other country you choose who do not observe any of these holidays, nor any other observances we as Americans observe. Just a thought.

John: the discussion here centers around constitutionality. You have already provided the typical chestnuts (found by Christians, move to a different country) so let’s get past that.

The Constitution does not guarantee you freedom from offense. Freedom of speech is necessarily going to *cause* offense.

That aside, please understand that there is nothing personal or religious involved here. Most people don’t set out to offend. I respect your right to practice whatever you like, as set forth in our Constitution.

You might find that the problem does not exist with the religion so much as some of its more extreme practitioners.

Remember - we’re only objecting to Establishment of religion, as set forth in the First Amendment.

Thanks for commenting.

Many make the mistake of thinking that the founding fathers of the U.S. were orthodox, church-going Christians. They were not. They were by and large Freemasons (occultists). If you will actually read the writings of the founding fathers you will find they had little patience for religions that forced their beliefs on to others. At the time that the new country was coming together the Church of England was the official, state-sponsored religion in England, in Germany it was the Lutheran Church, and in several other countries in Europe it was the Catholic Church. Often, the state sponsored religion would prevent other religions from practicing to the point of retaliating against those who did not and would not join (remember, the Inquisition was still in effect at that time). The founding fathers did not want the same things happening here. The main religious affiliations of the founding fathers were: 1) Unitarian; 2) Church of England; and 3) Roman Catholic.

Often, an evangelical writing about some point of view of theirs will take out of context a statement by one of the founding fathers claiming it proves what they’re writing about. By reading the complete writing of the founding father you will find that it does nothing of the sort. These evangelicals know that very few people will go to the source consequently their half-truth becomes believed. There’s an old Yiddish proverb: A half-truth is a whole lie.

One of my favorite teaching tales comes from the life of Rabbi Hillel (a 1st century rabbi). It seems the good Rabbi was confronted by a young student who challenged him:
“Rabbi” the young student said, “You know the Torah, is that right?”
“Yes” replied the Rabbi.
The student continued, “You know the Torah backwards and forward.”
“Yes” replied the Rabbi.
Trying to trap the Rabbi, the student said, “Well, Rabbi if you can recite the whole of the Torah while standing on one foot I will study hard and become a scholar.”
The Rabbi took his foot in one hand and while standing on one foot stated, “What you do not want to have happen to yourself do not do to another. That is the whole of the Torah; the rest is all commentary. Now, go and study.”

So often you hear religionists profess that same ideal but not practice it. Therein lies the rub.

John - *YOUR* country was populated by a whole lotta people who weren’t Christians before you were even a thought in your mother’s eyes…not sure where the “founded by Christians” part works…and strangely you don’t see them demanding a sweat lodge in the Congress…and what’s with the Christian Militia in Iraq right now ?( gov’t sanctioned) - will the *new* Iraq be “founded by Christians ” too?

Leftystrat, it’s not the First Amendment that is the problem, we all need to respect the right of everyone to voice their opinions. The problem here is that when a Christmas display is presented, some atheists want to desacrate the scene with their “protest signs” rather than just going their own way and let whomever put up the display enjoy it, as well as others who share their views.

The atheists do not believe in anything, even themselves. That is part of what is wrong with America today; so many do not believe in themselves or others. They have no respect for themselves or others, or any respect for our form of government. They just want to smoke their weed and try to force their views on everyone else, and have succeeded with today’s laws on abortion, but that is another story.

John: The point of the blog entry is Establishment. This is not a debate on what’s wrong with the country or whose religion is better. That’s been done to death and I don’t want to waste the space or time.

Let’s keep this on topic please. If you want to debate sociology or pick on atheists, please find a more appropriate venue.

Thanks.

To clarify a few things I have read in commentary so far. I am not a religionist. I have never smoked weed or anything else. I grew up in a religious family and only late in my life woke up to the fact that religion is indeed merely a tool to control the masses and as the statement says that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.

I have a fairly simple philosophy about religion. Everybody should be able to believe and practice whatever religion they want as long as it does not harm anyone or encroach on the freedoms of others.

It is unfortunate that those who preach love and tolerance are unable to allow different views the same privilege. I have found that the overtly religious are the ones to avoid and that the non-religionists are the most tolerant

John, you paint atheists with a VERY broad brush. I would never think of telling others that what they want to believe is WRONG or RIGHT. Believe what you want, it’s OK with me. Put up what displays you like, I won’t tear them down. I respect anyone who truley believes, and leads thier lives without being a religious hypocrite. Too often atheists are portrayed as being amoral, some are, but not the majority. If we all treat each other as we want to be treated, tolerence will surely follow.

Thinkin’

I would like to point out that most religious scholars agree that nothing happened in Bethlehem on December the 25th. It would have been cold and a Sheppard would not have his sheep in an open barn in that kind of cold, sheep would have been his livelihood, they would have been well kept. If Jesus was real the clues point to a birth closer to June than to December.

The date was chosen by The Christian Emperor Constantine to coincide with the Winter equinox and several other “pagan” religious holidays such as the birth of the Sun God. It was a compromise to allow many people to celebrate and bring everyone together.

There is a lot to learn about the facts surrounding the creation of the holidays and the Bible itself, but I warn you, be careful how much you read, because nothing will make you an atheist faster than reading the bible with clear eyes.