Do I have freedom FROM religion?

Well many countries have religious rules built into their justice systems, Judaism / Christian principles that are basic in progressive countries like don't steal and murder are condemned in the bible and you can be convicted for these, if caught in most countries. While drunkenness is condemned in the bible, it seems you only get convicted if your drunk and driving.

But most other rules and principles have been abandoned completely, so I would say most people, at least in the western world have 90% freedom from religion now. But in a free and open society those that still adhere to bible principles are allowed to reminded people what they are, who then have the freedom to totally ignore them, and carry on however they please.

So to answer the OP question, basically yes.

Originally posted by FaceLikeTheSun

Originally posted by Innerlight
The state forces it's religious morality down your throat with such laws as "thou shall not steal" and "thou shall not kill". So even if you are an anti-theist who opposes such morality, you're apparantly out of luck in this oppressive theocracy.

do you think we should have the right to murder or steal if we wanted to?

Those laws would've come into being without religion, because they make sense. Hey, I won't steal from you if you don't steal from me.

A very abbreviated US history lesson:

Imagine not holding to the state religion and having to pay taxes to support it anyway. This was reality for people in various colonies before the Revolution.

Jamestown wasn't founded for religion- it was founded by the Virginia Company to make money. The Anglican Church was/is connected with the government as far as they were concerned. Heaven help you if you were caught with a rosary in Jamestown, VA! You'd have been executed as a Spanish spy.

Plymouth was founded by people seeking to practice their own religion without harassment. Heaven help you if you moved there and didn't hold their beliefs though. They were not tolerant in the least when it came to any faith other than their own.

After the Revolutionary War- Thomas Jefferson had the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom passed. People no longer had to pay taxes to support a state church. Anyone who wasn't Anglican was frequently persecuted for their differing faith before (including Baptists, btw). This piece of legislation became the inspiration for the first amendment.

The Founding Fathers of this nation were a diverse group of men who held differing religious views. Even those who allegedly were part of the same group (Anglican, for example) were all over the place over the course of their lives. Some were deist, some refused to take communion their whole lives, some only became religious as they were older, some became much less religious, and they even disagreed with each other, etcetera.

The first amendment was specifically passed so people would absolutely know that they would never again pay taxes to a specific national church- and Congress would never tax them for such a thing. People were free to practice whatever faith they wanted without fear of government stipulation.

However, this ONLY applied at the federal level. Individual states could and did have a state religion. If you didn't like it, you could move elsewhere. The SCOTUS made that a thing of the past in the early 20th century, IIRC.

OP: You're not taxed for a state or national religion. You're free to believe as you please. That most people allegedly (I'm not at all convinced that atheists are some minority these days) hold differing beliefs from you and express their opinions openly isn't infringing on your own freedoms. The money you use isn't printed by the US government anyway. It's from the Federal Reserve, which isn't part of our government.

reply to post by jiggerj


the argument is not pro-religion

it is pro-God

objective moral values that are independent and binding to culture, society, etc.

If morals in general were just a product of cultures or society, then what if one nation said stealing was ok and another nation said it wasn't. Whose right? Neither are. And therefore being right or wrong become irrelevant.

Originally posted by jiggerj
Religion is SICK SICK SICK!

The war of "atheists" against "religion" in America is actually a war of plebs against plebs. On one side you have uneducated lower class "fundamentalists" peddling their unenlightened talk and on the other side you have lower/working class socialist-atheists peddling their unenlightened talk.

You seek to "shut down Religion" and likewise, the fundamentalist seeks to "shut down atheism". As you climb the social latter to more sophisticated and refined thinking, you meet more educated religious folk...such as Episcopalians and Catholics. The same pretty much goes for all other religions and cultures.

Originally posted by putnamcrab
reply to post by FaceLikeTheSun

 

Absolutely!!! You should have the free will to do what ever you want... Good people choose not to do those things! Good people do not have too be told not to do them.

edit on 27-5-2012 by putnamcrab because: (no reason given)

therein lies the issue...where does a standard of "good" come from? You are simply saying that there is such a thing as objective moral values. Stealing in your opinion, would be a violation of a basic principle which you call "good" Now without objective or absolute moral values, you can't have a violation of it

My personal view is if a religion requires a government to push it, then the religions message is lacking... My public view is, keep religion out of public policy.

reply to post by SaturnFX


Secular humanism is an increasingly popular religion. Maybe you disagree with that. Perhaps religion boils down to the issue of who or what you choose to worship.
You can be your own GOD. Does that help with the issue of currency that has 'In GOD we trust' printed on it?
Surely in all good conscience, you can still use that cash?
If, as you say, the majority of people (I think you were specifically referring to the US,) believe in GOD in some respect or another, then the democratic prinicipal of 'majority rules' comes into place and the logo stays on the money, surely?
Or do we start introducing mixed/ relative currencies that people are more comfortable to use?

Just a thought.

I would say you have both freedom OF religion and freedom FROM religion. You see...religion is not the belief in God. God is an entity (if you believe in that) and religion is the worship (and organizing structure) of that entity. You "should" be shielded from religion, but the United States was founded upon a belief in a God. Granted...this can be the God of your choosing. Obviously, you also have the option of not believing in a God, but my understanding is that there is no "right" to be excluded from, or "right" to not be subjected to other's belief in a God.

Now in my opinion...if there is such a thing as "God"...I think he/she/it would be pretty pissed off about religion. Religion has bastardized "God", used "God" to create war and killing, used "God" to profit and gain power...etc. Pretty much the opposite of what "God" would want. You could fairly accurately state that religion is evil.

But of course...that is just my opinion.

In a word. NO. No you do not. Religion is the monkey wrench of which the religious nutters use to konk you over the head. Keep you dazed & confused as to the real world. It's a tool of controll for the mass's. allways has been. allways will be. Other poster early in thread gave you some great advice, The Freedom From Religon Foundation.

I'm a member, will be till I die. I really like their news letter. They have a section called "The Black Collar Crime Bulletin" Goes across the country exposing gross mis-conduct and criminal activity of the " Religous Leaders" acoss the nation. Keeps you up to date on any lawsuits brought about by the Foundation, and there numerous.

Check it out, it will help you decide if you truly have"Freedom From Religion".

Originally posted by openyourmind1262
In a word. NO. No you do not. Religion is the monkey wrench of which the religious nutters use to konk you over the head. Keep you dazed & confused as to the real world. It's a tool of controll for the mass's. allways has been. allways will be. Other poster early in thread gave you some great advice, The Freedom From Religon Foundation.

I'm a member, will be till I die. I really like their news letter. They have a section called "The Black Collar Crime Bulletin" Goes across the country exposing gross mis-conduct and criminal activity of the " Religous Leaders" acoss the nation. Keeps you up to date on any lawsuits brought about by the Foundation, and there numerous.

Check it out, it will help you decide if you truly have"Freedom From Religion".

I keep reiterating this question to posters of your elk. On what grounds do you consider what is good, what is right?

I think you will find that the folks who are part of a religion, be it any religion are in total agreement with you as far as the terrible misconduct of the religious leaders. But again I ask, what objective moral grounds are being violated when you say that religion is bad?

Originally posted by Jagermeister
All I see is contradiction. I do not see the "word of God" when I look at mainstream religion.

That is all you will EVER see as long as you keep looking at mainstream religion...

"Organized religion is THE deception that keeps us in fear of God and rejecting his grace. Religion keeps you from knowing God and keeps you blind as to what God is really like! Sadly, some confuse religion with Jesus, and walk away from them both, God and religion are separate entities that get intertwined together by man. ALL pagan religions are controlled by Satan! The elite created religion as a tool for control with a hidden agenda that aims to blind and misguide you away from the truth."

Religion was manufactured long ago by men who wished to control the masses. Different religions were created in different places to suit the needs and beliefs of the area, and it was intended to serve as a crutch. The leaders of these regions used religion to enslave their people, and religion continues to be such an evil. In essence, religion was the first form of mind control.

The gods that are relative to each religion are continually manufactured in the minds of those that are enslaved. The indoctrination of the masses by religion has led to a brainwashed society that is easy for the Illuminati to take control of. Every major religion in the world has been infiltrated by the Illuminati. A group that calls themselves Light Feet has installed Illuminati members in every major religion of the world. The purpose of these Light Feet is to ensure that the masses are controlled by their respective religion. Source

Originally posted by Lucius Driftwood

My personal view is if a religion requires a government to push it, then the religions message is lacking... My public view is, keep religion out of public policy.

reply to post by SaturnFX

 

Secular humanism is an increasingly popular religion. Maybe you disagree with that. Perhaps religion boils down to the issue of who or what you choose to worship.
You can be your own GOD. Does that help with the issue of currency that has 'In GOD we trust' printed on it?
Surely in all good conscience, you can still use that cash?
If, as you say, the majority of people (I think you were specifically referring to the US,) believe in GOD in some respect or another, then the democratic prinicipal of 'majority rules' comes into place and the logo stays on the money, surely?
Or do we start introducing mixed/ relative currencies that people are more comfortable to use?

Just a thought.

I think the deeper mistake is that somehow people equate "In God We Trust" on the dollar bill as referring to the Christian God.

Study some facts about who runs the country and you will quickly see that the word "God" on the dollar bill is not talking about a judeo-Christian God.

reply to post by SaturnFX

Can I go to public places and not have my children or I indoctrinated into any form?

Can I go to a public place with my children and not have them see two gay guy's kissing....NO! There is your answer.

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by Jagermeister

I work part-time as a math tutor at the local college. Every day I am there I watch people who look at the lessons set in front of them with this blank expression. They do not understand. Yet, the laws of physics, based on mathematical principles, still work for them. Their cars still run; their phones still work; gravity still keeps them in their seats.

My job, of course, is to help them to understand. I think I do that pretty well. I cannot, however, help those who do not wish to be helped.

A student can come in, watch the videos, read the books, ask questions, and try to understand. That student will almost always make a good grade and leave at the end of the semester with a deeper understanding of the world around them. A student can come in, twiddle with the mouse, talk to their friends, text, and ignore the material in front of them. That student will fail, without exception, and leave at the end of the semester knowing no more than they did the first day.

Both these students can walk out to their car, turn the key, make contact between the connections, send electrical current through a circuit to energize a solenoid coil in the starter, connect more contacts, send a huge surge of electricity through the windings in the electric starter motor, induce motion from the newly-created magnetic fields, induce inertial forces from the sudden motion to move the starter gear into contact with the flywheel, transfer the rotary motion to the engine itself, create vertical motion in the pistons while operating the valve train, instigate fuel combustion inside the cylinders, and start the car.

Either one can do that. Physics still works for both.

But the former student can understand why the car starts. He/she can possibly repair the car should something go wrong and it not crank properly sometime. He/she can dream of and develop new and better ways to make a car start. He/she can communicate at a higher plane with a mechanic when the car needs repair. The latter student cannot.

The former student saw information to be considered and learned. The latter saw a boring book.

I know you see a boring 2000-year-old book. That's fine; just as in the case of the latter student above, that is your prerogative. That prerogative, however, does not mean that because you see it as such, it really is such, no more than the student seeing the book as irrelevant makes it irrelevant. It can be irrelevant to you, because you are free to choose your path, but it can at the same time be very relevant for others.

And just as I can tell when a student tells me math is boring and irrelevant that they will not get the lesson and will not pass, so I can tell when anyone mentions a "2000-year-old fairy-tale book" that they not only have not bothered to actually read it, but they have no understanding of what is inside it. They have made a choice, as is their right, to ignore information; everything said past that point must be taken knowing that.

Your description may be "cool" and politically popular and make you feel good about the situation, but understand what it shows to others.

TheRedneck

I think you mistake the intention of my posts in this thread or you simply have not read them. Either way, let me explain. Understanding the subject while disputing the meaning or definition of it is different than thinking the subject is boring or irrelevant. I can sit there in your class room and listen to you educate and ask you a question on the material and that would be acceptable, yet if I did the same when it comes to religion I'm labeled as an athiest, insane, or worse. In math, the educator could be wrong. In religion, the preacher is always right. See the difference? So when I claim that stories mentioned in this 2000 year old book were taken directly from previous stories throughout our history and altered, or even make the claim that modern religion was created to control the population, it's not because I have a lack of interest or knowledge in the subject, it's just me sitting in the back of your class room asking a question. Now which would you rather have? A student that walks into your class room with a passion to learn and ask questions or one that will simply do what's needed to earn a passing grade? In this discussion there is no 3rd option because the guy that doesn't care about the subject isn't even going to post.

reply to post by Jagermeister


The reason is that if the Bible is true, you should be able to see the effects before you, and that's one thing that an atheist has yet to see or comprehend if its literally a Living Word. If the Bible says

1 Corinthians
But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit with.

Daniel 5:23
But hast lifted up thyself against the Lord of heaven; and they have brought the vessels of his house before thee, and thou, and thy lords, thy wives, and thy concubines, have drunk wine in them; and thou hast praised the gods of silver, and gold, of brass, iron, wood, and stone, which see not, nor hear, nor know: and the God in whose hand thy breath is, and whose are all thy ways, hast thou not glorified:


Who gives you that free right to exist, who gives you that initial discernment between what is right, and what is wrong. Everything exists seemingly out of nothing. The thing with religion is you are choosing what knowledge of things that, are unseen you choose what you choose to increase your knowledge, but for what reason, why is there any reason to better yourself as a person if there is no reason to, why does a righteous person seek the truth where the unrighteous deny it because they cant see, that any of that is true, but all the while they seek after the "truth" if there Is no repercussions for any actions you take since you are simply existing without purpose.

What becomes of the cup, whether it be full or empty and what works are contained within. And concerning the Bible and the God of Isreal, the whole purpose, to show man and the principalities, that God is sovereign through the spirit, that through the definitive things his will becomes known.

Matthew 13:15
For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

reply to post by SaturnFX


Dear op this is my first post in years of trooling,Usually I look wanting to comment but never an expert on anything I tend to enjoy the conversation more.However this is my topic to comment if none else.To answer your question do we have freedom from religon the answer is YES and this comes from a man who worships Christopher Hitchens...symbolism is not forcing religon you are not held at gun point and told to worship anything yet...I am a super hard core anti theist I am also offended when I see god written some where but no more then when i walk down the street and see a falice spraypainted on my daughters school.Its bad taste more then a violation of freedom of religon.You are not being deined anything as the grown up in the room why not let the people belive what they want and leave them alone like we are asking to be.Religon is loosing argument from a scientific standpoint theres nothing more useless then eye witness testamomny in a scientific experament.the only thing that counts are resaults that can be seen and measured,Untill anyone can claim that they can show us god why not look at them as they are a scared unsure person looking for help and us being the ones with answers we should engage in conversation about things like why is god written there inseatd of attacking something we know better then to believe in the first place...Thats just how I see things I could be wrong...

reply to post by SaturnFX

Originally posted by Greatest I am

But, do I have freedom from religion? Can I go to public places and not have my children or I indoctrinated into any form? ….

….So, your thoughts...do we have freedom from religion?

To have freedom from Religion, wouldn’t be freedom at all!

You can only have freedom, when everyone has a right to their own beliefs.

And similarly, people are bombarded with all manner of things outside of religion, on a daily basis, and they don’t have the kind of freedom your suggesting, whereby they can just have it stopped somehow; We just have to accept that people have differences, and learn to get along.


As for people infringing their beliefs onto others, well, people have a right to ignore it, and believe whatever they want.

For example, if someone gets up on a soapbox, and starts, ranting about abortion rights, and you completely disagree with their viewpoint. And lets just say, that these views continue to be discussed, debated and talked about, for some 20 plus years, then you don’t have freedom not to listen to it, or even be affected by it. But you do have freedom to ignore it, disagree with it, or even get up on your own soapbox and get into a dialogue with the reasons, why you disagree with it.

This is how we progress…its slow, but it’s the only way…


- JC

Originally posted by lucid eyes

Originally posted by PurpleChiten
In God We Trust wasn't put on our money until 1956, did you realize that? It wasn't on there from the very beginning, it's only been on there for the past 56 years. Now, I trust in God and it gives me some comfort in seeing it on there, but the guy standing next to me may not even believe in God. That's an example of the Government forcing religion onto him.

You'd have to be oversensitive to the point of emotional illness to feel offended or "forced upon" by mere words, such as "in God we trust". Thats the whole problem with your side of the table. You believe that mere thoughts and words voiced by someone else imposes on you or that you are "forced" to Religion by others words. Thats why your attitude would ultimately end in thought-police / totalitarianism. Wait...it already has in some countries.

You're not getting it sweetie. If it's done by a private party, fine. If it's done by the Government, NOT fine.
10 or 20 years from now when Islam is the religion of the majority instead of Christianity, do you want the government putting "In Allah We Trust" on the money? Would you feel offended, as a Christian? I bet you would. I don't want that on our money, I don't want the Koran read from every morning at schools, I don't it posted in our courthouses and unless I'm willing to demand a separation of church and state when I'm in the majority, I'll have no right to do it when I'm in the minority.
NO RELIGION from the government. PERIOD. Free religion to all citizens. I'm not going to have my Christian beliefs infringed upon by the government in 10 years just because the majority of the population is no longer Christian. Understand?

Originally posted by PurpleChiten

Originally posted by lucid eyes

Originally posted by PurpleChiten
In God We Trust wasn't put on our money until 1956, did you realize that? It wasn't on there from the very beginning, it's only been on there for the past 56 years. Now, I trust in God and it gives me some comfort in seeing it on there, but the guy standing next to me may not even believe in God. That's an example of the Government forcing religion onto him.

You'd have to be oversensitive to the point of emotional illness to feel offended or "forced upon" by mere words, such as "in God we trust". Thats the whole problem with your side of the table. You believe that mere thoughts and words voiced by someone else imposes on you or that you are "forced" to Religion by others words. Thats why your attitude would ultimately end in thought-police / totalitarianism. Wait...it already has in some countries.

You're not getting it sweetie. If it's done by a private party, fine. If it's done by the Government, NOT fine.
10 or 20 years from now when Islam is the religion of the majority instead of Christianity, do you want the government putting "In Allah We Trust" on the money? Would you feel offended, as a Christian? I bet you would. I don't want that on our money, I don't want the Koran read from every morning at schools, I don't it posted in our courthouses and unless I'm willing to demand a separation of church and state when I'm in the majority, I'll have no right to do it when I'm in the minority.
NO RELIGION from the government. PERIOD. Free religion to all citizens. I'm not going to have my Christian beliefs infringed upon by the government in 10 years just because the majority of the population is no longer Christian. Understand?

Oddly enough, it's okay to do all the things you've listed as long as it's Christian based and then, in the very same sentence, type in all caps "NO RELIGION from the government". Interesting that it is okay to infringe on another's belief as long as your belief is currently more popular.

Originally posted by PurpleChiten

You're not getting it sweetie. If it's done by a private party, fine. If it's done by the Government, NOT fine.
10 or 20 years from now when Islam is the religion of the majority instead of Christianity, do you want the government putting "In Allah We Trust" on the money? Would you feel offended, as a Christian? I bet you would. I don't want that on our money, I don't want the Koran read from every morning at schools, I don't it posted in our courthouses and unless I'm willing to demand a separation of church and state when I'm in the majority, I'll have no right to do it when I'm in the minority.
NO RELIGION from the government. PERIOD. Free religion to all citizens. I'm not going to have my Christian beliefs infringed upon by the government in 10 years just because the majority of the population is no longer Christian. Understand?

I don't think either of you get it (sorry if that sounds rude). Our money isn't printed by our government. It's printed by the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve isn't part of the government.