1 edit
People talk about freedom of religion and it seems to make good sense to me as a right and principle underpinning a healthy society and state. No controversy there, I think.
But some people also talk about freedom FROM Religion. What would such a freedom entail exactly in a society or state, and what rights [and responsibilities] and principles would need to apply?
@fmf saidGenerally speaking the fact the word "freedom" is used in papers like the U.S. constitution is extremely fortunate.
People talk about freedom of religion and it seems to make good sense to me as a right and principle underpinning a healthy society and state. No controversy there, I think.
But some people also talk about freedom FROM Religion. What would such a freedom entail exactly in a society or state, and what rights [and responsibilities] and principles would need to apply?
As to your exact question I will decline to answer specifically because of the many misunderstandings that may ensue
@karoly-aczel saidOr, you could just step up and own any misunderstandings you cause! 😀
As to your exact question I will decline to answer specifically because of the many misunderstandings that may ensue
@fmf saidThis is really a good topic.
People talk about freedom of religion and it seems to make good sense to me as a right and principle underpinning a healthy society and state. No controversy there, I think.
But some people also talk about freedom FROM Religion. What would such a freedom entail exactly in a society or state, and what rights [and responsibilities] and principles would need to apply?
Certainly freedom must be one of the highest ideals or goals one can achieve, if done lawfully I would think.
Like the three laws of robotics, which I can't exactly remember, one should indeed pursue freedom as long as what they think they are free to do doesn't cause harm to another.
Being free shouldn't infringe on the freedom of others.
In the realm of belief one can believe whatever they want to believe, and should be free to express verbally those beliefs in a public setting as long as they abide by the proverbial guideline of not yelling "fire" in a crowded place, or using offensive language, or threatenings.
A person's private home, and the exercise of freedom therein, should never be infringed upon except when it is discovered that another human being is being harmed in any way.
My two cents.
@fmf saidFreedom of religion is contingent on freedom from religion.
People talk about freedom of religion and it seems to make good sense to me as a right and principle underpinning a healthy society and state. No controversy there, I think.
But some people also talk about freedom FROM Religion. What would such a freedom entail exactly in a society or state, and what rights [and responsibilities] and principles would need to apply?
I cannot choose my own path if the state can force me down a different one.
@fmf saidI don’t think you can have both.
People talk about freedom of religion and it seems to make good sense to me as a right and principle underpinning a healthy society and state. No controversy there, I think.
But some people also talk about freedom FROM Religion. What would such a freedom entail exactly in a society or state, and what rights [and responsibilities] and principles would need to apply?
What if a Christian wants to rent billboard space next to a highway that says “God is Great - John 3:16” and an atheist who drives on that highway every day objects.
How do you thread that needle, between a Christian’s freedom to express himself and what he believes and an atheist’s freedom from that Christian’s expression?
@bigdogg saidHowever, freedom from religion is not infringed, ever. Someone comes to your door to proselytize their religion, tell them no, you're not interested in what they have to say and 99% of the time, they will be on their way.
Freedom of religion is contingent on freedom from religion.
I cannot choose my own path if the state can force me down a different one.
The people whining about wanting freedom from religion want the freedom to never be bothered by anything they disagree with, in their case, specifically religion. That's not the way society works. In the US we have the First Amendment. People will say things you don't agree with, and they have every right to hold that position. If they violate your space with their opinion, tell them to get out of your space and they will. If they don't, law enforcement will usually back you up.
If your government has a state religion and you don't like it, petition them to abandon it, and vote for representatives that will support what you want. The US government is prevented by the US Constitution from having a state religion.
@suzianne saidI'm fine with other opinions, even the ones I disagree with. So long as no one forces me to participate, I'm good.
However, freedom from religion is not infringed, ever. Someone comes to your door to proselytize their religion, tell them no, you're not interested in what they have to say and 99% of the time, they will be on their way.
The people whining about wanting freedom from religion want the freedom to never be bothered by anything they disagree with, in their case, specificall ...[text shortened]... what you want. The US government is prevented by the US Constitution from having a state religion.
I think we need to remain cautious about preventing state officials from endorsing a religion in their official capacity. (What they do in their private lives is their business.)
@pb1022 saidThis is the slippery slope that many (in the US anyway) don't understand.
I don’t think you can have both.
What if a Christian wants to rent billboard space next to a highway that says “God is Great - John 3:16” and an atheist who drives on that highway every day objects.
How do you thread that needle, between a Christian’s freedom to express himself and what he believes and an atheist’s freedom from that Christian’s expression?
If you outlaw people saying something you don't agree with, then the next thing to be outlawed is you saying something they don't agree with.
Of course, this might work in a society that doesn't value freedom of speech.
This is why the Establishment Clause (banning a state religion) is in the First Amendment to the US Constitution, as the first casualty of making a state religion is the freedom of speech. Freedom of speech necessitates no state religion.
@suzianne saidThat is some fine analysis, suzianne.
This is the slippery slope that many (in the US anyway) don't understand.
If you outlaw people saying something you don't agree with, then the next thing to be outlawed is you saying something they don't agree with.
Of course, this might work in a society that doesn't value freedom of speech.
This is why the Establishment Clause (banning a state religion) is in the ...[text shortened]... making a state religion is the freedom of speech. Freedom of speech necessitates no state religion.
@fmf saidIsnt "freedom from religion" sounds like another religion. Anti-religion.those who want no religion are not immune from stupidity and finding points of agreement that sound good but are an actual distortion , much many religions distort the truth🙃🙃
People talk about freedom of religion and it seems to make good sense to me as a right and principle underpinning a healthy society and state. No controversy there, I think.
But some people also talk about freedom FROM Religion. What would such a freedom entail exactly in a society or state, and what rights [and responsibilities] and principles would need to apply?