Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Funny how "freedom from" is not mentioned in the constitution.
Where is "freedom of" ???
Quote:
The First and Second Amendments to the U.S. constitution.
1. 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.
2. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Clearly, our Forefathers didn't want any Congress respecting any religious establishments.
Establishment of religion
Originally, the First Amendment applied only to the federal government. A number of the states effectively had established churches when the First Amendment was ratified, with some remaining into the early nineteenth century.
Subsequently, Everson v. Board of Education (1947) incorporated the Establishment Clause (i.e., made it apply against the states). However, it was not until the middle to late twentieth century that the Supreme Court began to interpret the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses in such a manner as to restrict the promotion of religion by the states. In the Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet,[1]Justice David Souter, writing for the majority, concluded that "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion."
Quote:
By George Washington
Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be deprecated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society. [SIZE=2][George Washington, letter to Edward Newenham, October 20, 1792; from George Seldes, ed., The Great Quotations, Secaucus, New Jersey: Citadel Press, 1983, p. 726][/SIZE]
There is nothing which can better deserve our patronage than the promotion of science and literature. Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness. [SIZE=2][George Washington, address to Congress, 8 January, 1790][/SIZE]
Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than thsoe which spring from any other cause. [SIZE=2][George Washington, letter to Sir Edward Newenham, June 22, 1792][/SIZE]
...the path of true piety is so plain as to require but little political direction. [SIZE=2][George Washington, 1789, responding to clergy complaints that the Constitution lacked mention of Jesus Christ, from The Godless Constitution: The Case Against Religious Correctness, Isacc Kramnick and R. Laurence Moore W.W. Norton and Company 101-102][/SIZE]
If they are good workmen, they may be from Asia, Africa or Europe; they may be Mahometans, Jews, Christians of any sect, or they may be Atheists.... [SIZE=2][George Washington, to Tench Tighman, March 24, 1784, when asked what type of workman to get for Mount Vernon, from The Washington papers edited by Saul Padover][/SIZE]
To give opinions unsupported by reasons might appear dogmatical. [SIZE=2][George Washington, to Alexander Spotswood, November 22, 1798, from The Washington papers edited by Saul Padover][/SIZE]
...I beg you be persuaded that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution. [SIZE=2][George Washington, to United Baptists Churches of Virginia, May, 1789 from The Washington papers edited by Saul Padover][/SIZE]
As the contempt of the religion of a country by ridiculing any of its ceremonies, or affronting its ministers or votaries, has ever been deeply resented, you are to be particularly careful to restrain every officer from such imprudence and folly, and to punish every instance of it. On the other hand, as far as lies in your power, you are to protect and support the free exercise of religion of the country, and the undisturbed enjoyment of the rights of conscience in religious matters, with your utmost influence and authority. [SIZE=2][George Washington, to Benedict Arnold, September 14, 1775 from The Washington papers edited by Saul Padover][/SIZE]
The blessed Religion revealed in the word of God will remain an eternal and awful monument to prove that the best Institutions may be abused by human depravity; and that they may even, in some instances, be made subservient to the vilest of purposes.
The objective evidence of conflict and confrontation would say . . . Yes. Freedom OF religion simply guarantees that the government can not prescribe a National religion that we all must adhere to. Those who want freedom FROM religion want all traces of religious expression eliminated from the public square because they do not want to be offended by them. Unfortunately, the First Amendment protects speech in the public square . . . something that has been under attack by the freedom FROM religion advocates.
Spot on MysticPhd!! Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof. That means the US government cannot set up an "official state(federal or local) religion". And having a prayer at a school sporting event or other activity is a far cry from setting up an official state religion. The "separation of church and state" does NOT exist in our constitution but did in the constitution of the former USSR. The wall of separation was mentioned in a letter from Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Church. It shows you how many of our "intellectuals" are schooled today in constitutional law and content. This is scary. We have become the "United States of the Offended".
Sure there is a conflict between "of" and "from". We are currently working that out in our political system.
The example of prayer at a school sporting event is one example of the conflict, but my opinion is opposite that of Dan's.
Lets assume that it is a public, state (county/city) funded school. In this case, having an official prayer requires a government decision at some point. Maybe the principal, maybe the board of ed, maybe the football coach. At some point, one of these people working in their capacity as a government employee has decided that religion will have a presence, and more so has decided which religion and how. This is very clearly a government endorsement of religion, which is unconstitutional.
Neither are airplanes or space ships, yet we still have those.
Freedom of, fine and dandy.
Freedom from is the same as not being forced to join a specific religion. Which is mentioned in the constitution.
but I am endowed by my creator with certain unalienable rights--among them, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. As a result, Congress shall make no Law requiring me to worship in a certain way.
There is no mention of restricting us from worshiping, nor is there any mention of a state government making laws establishing state religions.
Umm, no. Free association is being allowed to hang out with the people you like. Has nothing to do with what society at large is about. You are allowed to hang out with your atheistic friends. No problem. Being protected from the majority who are religious. Nope. Free speech rights can suck at times, but that is the price of living in a free country.
Freedom to associate with whom you will has to include the inverse of not associating with whom you will. But as I said, it takes quite a bit to rise to the level of an imposition. In practice, I can't say that right has been infringed for me just because, say, I see a church on many street corners or because someone occasionally says they'll pray for some need I might have. Not everyone here agrees with me on that, but I think a lot of unbelievers take other people's beliefs in stride for the most part, provided they are not unctuous, impertinent, or in some other way obnoxious about it.
The problem of course is that "obnoxious" is somewhat in the eye of the beholder, plus it's somewhat situational. For some unbelievers, theism is a real quality of life issue. I can imagine how it must be to live in some smallish southern town where everyone is an ardent fundamentalist and you can't have a civil conversation without someone maneuvering you into some litmus test about your beliefs. I recently moved from a conservative town to a more liberal one and rightly or not I felt like the range of "safe" topics where I would not run afoul of any "taboos" is much broader now. I didn't fully realize how confining that was until I'd been away from it for awhile. I can only imagine how much more oppressive it would have been if the area I used to live in had been more given to Bible-thumping as well.
This isn't a religious liberty issue in my view, it's a common courtesy issue. Religion is no excuse to be a rectal sphincter, and it's certainly no excuse for intolerance. And this is a position I'm sure many Christians, at least more liberal ones, would heartily agree with.
"Freedom From Religion" is provided for under the general rubric of "the right to free association" often known in practice as "the right to be left alone". It's one of the most basic human rights. Most objections to religious practice is by people who don't feel they're being left alone. However, being "left alone" can't extend to "not being annoyed". Much of what we see in the world grieves us for various reasons, but that's life.
Being "left alone" from a non-religious person's point of view is not being proselytized (which I view as just a special case of direct marketing); not being discriminated against in the job market or for services based on their lack of faith; and generally feeling about as safe as any other citizen has a right to feel.
Now ... in my decade or so as a declared atheist, I have never had the police assist (or ticket!) me differently than when I was a theist; I've not been turned down for or let go from work because of my unbelief; and while I have been proselytized a bit, just as I've gotten unsolicited marketing phone calls and emails, letting them know their advances are unwanted is generally sufficient to solve the problem. I don't go about my daily business in fear of my life. In the US at least, I don't see a significant problem.
I will be out there agitating with the best of them the minute any of those things change, but I'm not particularly concerned about it. I might feel somewhat differently if I lived in the buckle of the Bible Belt or something, but so far, so good.
All that being said, you do not have the right to have a life completely free from religion just like I don't have a right to have a life completely free from non-religion. This would mean that if I were near you, I couldn't say anything to anyone else concerning my religion.
...any mention of a state government making laws establishing state religions.
Assuming the state's Constitutions don't forbid it, the states CAN make religions of their own. Several states had their own religions well into the 19th century.
Assuming the state's Constitutions don't forbid it, the states CAN make religions of their own. Several states had their own religions well into the 19th century.
Charles Sands
37129
I completely agree with you. Most people today don't realize that the founding fathers didn't envision a huge, powerful Federal gov't that would control all areas of life. They expected the states to govern themselves as separate countries.
but I am endowed by my creator with certain unalienable rights--among them, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. As a result, Congress shall make no Law requiring me to worship in a certain way.
There is no mention of restricting us from worshiping, nor is there any mention of a state government making laws establishing state religions.
You are endowed by your parents? They are the only ones who can truly be considered your creator, any other creator is merely created in your mind.
BTW, do you fully believe everything you read? The constitution was written by men who may or may not have had the reasons you wish to believe in mind, or may have been merely trying to build insurance that what they wrote would be taken to heart.
It is a good attempt, but proof of nothing. Witness that they witheld these unalienable rights from all minorities, who they viewed as inferior.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
