Do I have freedom FROM religion?

"Freedom from" is a game of semantics, a tyrants cloying plea for the world they want to impose on others. As the honorable Redneck correctly and so succinctly pointed out:

Your rights do not trump the rights of others.

You can feign injury all you want on this issue, but your frail sensibilities so prone to being offended do not fairly constitute injury. If hurt feelings were criminal we'd all be criminals, and all be victims.

reply to post by SaturnFX


Saturn, you bring a valid, philosophical and political question to the table. One that we all know has deep roots of faction, vitriol, angst and passion; from all sides. I believe that even an answer given though will not quell a large portion of attitudes and beliefs held on this subject.

To start off, we give the understanding of the limits that are held to the Government -- more specifically Congress -- in terms of "religion".

First Amendment; US Constitution

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

We can see that the following areas are off limits, when it comes to Congress: drafting legislation that would declare a religion to be the religion or that the People and States are to recognize it; and limit the freedom of people to practice religion (and by extension the non-practice of religion) as they see fit.

The first part is usually where this debate comes from. It is what many wonder if Congress cannot make legislation that establishes a religion, how can they coin money with the national motto "In God we Trust" on it; 36 USC § 302 - National motto and the statutes that make it law to coin the money with it; 31 USC § 5112 - Denominations, specifications, and design of coins? What about the pledge; 4 USC § 4 - Pledge of allegiance to the flag?

The Courts, in LYNCH v. DONNELLY, 465 U.S. 668 (1984) gave this opinion in regards to the Establishment Clause:

The Constitution does not require complete separation of church and state; it affirmatively mandates accommodation, not merely tolerance, of all religions, and forbids hostility toward any. Anything less would require the "callous indifference,"...that was never intended by the Establishment Clause.

Also,

Rather than taking an absolutist approach in applying the Establishment Clause and mechanically invalidating all governmental conduct or statutes that confer benefits or give special recognition to religion in general or to one faith, this Court has scrutinized challenged conduct or legislation to determine whether, in reality, it establishes a religion or religious faith or tends to do so.

( emphasis added )

So what then, constitutes as an establishment or endorsement of religion? Shouldn't "In God We Trust" be viewed as Government endorsing religion? If so, which religion? Can we not replace the Christian held view that God is Jesus -- or the Jewish belief that God is Yahweh -- or the atheist view that God is nothing? Merely printing such upon our money or use as a national motto doesn't preclude an endorsement of any religion, but rather the respect towards all walks of life; religious or not; that were the heritage of this nation.

The very same reasoning can be seen, since the founding of the nation, that the First Congress didn't see an endorsement nor establishment of religion by having a chaplain open and close a session of Congress. The very same why the pledge, while voluntary; can be recited by a teacher and not be seen as an establishment of religion.

reply to post by ownbestenemy

So what then, constitutes as an establishment or endorsement of religion? Shouldn't "In God We Trust" be viewed as Government endorsing religion? If so, which religion? Can we not replace the Christian held view that God is Jesus -- or the Jewish belief that God is Yahweh -- or the atheist view that God is nothing? Merely printing such upon our money or use as a national motto doesn't preclude an endorsement of any religion, but rather the respect towards all walks of life; religious or not; that were the heritage of this nation.

I would also suggest that a government acknowledging a higher power, as every single State Constitution also does, is a necessary reminder that there is a limit to what government can grant, and while a government certainly can and does grant "civil rights", there are also unalienable rights, and regardless of ones religiosity or lack thereof, it must be understood that unalienable rights do not come from government. Wherever they do come from, and in God I trust, they preexist government.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Thanks, JPZ.

Just, thank you.

reply to post by SaturnFX


You have the freedom to walk away if you do not want to hear what we have to say, there's your freedom from religion. Stick your fingers in your ears and walk away.

If you obtained "freedom from religion" then all churches, synogogues, mosques, buddhist temples, masonic lodges and well....even soup kitchens and food pantries for the poor would have to be burned down. Not constitutional by any means so, no you do not have freedom from religion.

If we can feed your sorry ass when you're broke and destitute you can at least sit and listen to stories about Jesus, it aint gonna kill you.

reply to post by TheRedneck

No one has a right to force others to be silent!

At this point in time that is true, but if you watch current events within the U.S. you can see it is heading in that direction and pretty fast. The second amendment will be the first right they kill, the first amendment will be right on it's heels and not much long after we lose the right to bear arms.

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

You have the freedom to walk away if you do not want to hear what we have to say, there's your freedom from religion. Stick your fingers in your ears and walk away.

If you obtained "freedom from religion" then all churches, synogogues, mosques, buddhist temples, masonic lodges and well....even soup kitchens and food pantries for the poor would have to be burned down. Not constitutional by any means so, no you do not have freedom from religion.

If we can feed your sorry ass when you're broke and destitute you can at least sit and listen to stories about Jesus, it aint gonna kill you.

edit on 26-5-2012 by lonewolf19792000 because: (no reason given)

Tell that to your kid
If he doesn't want to hear about god, to simply walk away from school.
Can't...can you..because then there are all sorts of legal issues, from cops with guns coming into your home demanding your child go to school and stand there listening to a teacher instructing the class to speak about God.
There goes that theory.

And your second part about removing churches and stuff only shows you have no concept as to what this thread or debate is about at all. Not even worth responding to (again).

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
it must be understood that unalienable rights do not come from government. Wherever they do come from, and in God I trust, they preexist government.

I don't want to go too far down that road.
However
If God gave all humans the right of life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness, then why is the history books filled with the opposite.
It is the establishment of mans enlightenment of the human condition that established these ideals and enforced them..
If God had any concern about government, personal freedom, etc...then why has this not been demonstrated throughout history the second one person decided to collar another against their will?

No, God did not grant me my freedom...mankinds social evolution did.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


I encourage you to read the wiki on the pledge
relevant bits start at the "Changes" part..read that and continue on, to include the scotus dissenting voices.
You will see a few things
1) the whole movement is saturated in christian promotion (knights of colombus to be exact), that the challenges were dismissed due to partisan/unconstitutional reasons, and its constitutionality is in violation, but ultimately its left in because of personal beliefs of the judges over any legal citation.



Since the precidence has been set, then the counter now is no longer getting proper legal understandings of this, but instead to alter it by some. Such as, the term Allah is more universal than the term god..it is therefore more understandable to use the term allah, a more wordly word, than god...same with the money.
These are actual movements that, by using the exact same arguement. The only counter to this is for the states to admit it is in fact speaking of a specific set of deities, which then is a big endorsement of a particular religion (christianity). Otherwise, there is no counter to have this changed.

It is understood by many in the movement that talking sense is not an option since the other side refuses to listen to sense...so, instead, it is time to show by example what the issue is.

I think the tactics are a bit extreme, but if that truely is the only option left, then it perhaps is time to consider such measures in order to demonstrate the issues here to those that refuse to acknowledgement of either the blatant promotion of a specific religion (establishment of), or think somehow only christianity exists on earth..

It is an establishment of religion...you cannot swap that name out with another name spoken by more people on earth with no issues.

reply to post by SaturnFX


It is always the same logical fallacies that those in praise of tyranny rely upon in order to dismiss unalienable rights. You want to point to history to demonstrate all the murder, oppression, and disparagement of rights that preexisted the Age of Enlightenment and then ignore all the murder, oppression, and disparagement of rights that existed during that time, after this time, and today.

"Why..." say's the tyrant; "You cannot possibly have a right to life since I can so easily kill you".

That murder, however, is not evidence of a lack of right, and let's be clear here, showing a lack is no easy task, it is demonstrable evidence of a crime, which leads back to my original post in this thread. All rights, outside of defense, may be determined by the injury that is not caused. That what a person does - outside of defense - that causes no harm is done by right.

People pray in public by right because it causes no harm. If you use force to stop this, that is a demonstrable injury, and is certainly not a defense of life, or property.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
"Freedom from" is a game of semantics, a tyrants cloying plea for the world they want to impose on others. As the honorable Redneck correctly and so succinctly pointed out:

Your rights do not trump the rights of others.

You can feign injury all you want on this issue, but your frail sensibilities so prone to being offended do not fairly constitute injury. If hurt feelings were criminal we'd all be criminals, and all be victims.

Would you be alright with the money being stamped "There is no God"?

If you complained about someone elses opinion being on money everyone must use, may I laugh at your hurt feelings?

It is my right to think there is no god...so, why isn't my right of my opinion stamped on the money of my nation? why is someone elses opinion on it?

Would you support me in altering the message to just that...there is no god.
I mean, if all things are equal, all segments of the population should be able to stamp on official slogans, right?

or...is inequality fine with you so long as its not your particular group that is being treated unjustly.

Maybe we can then stamp on it "White power"...after all..the majority of the states is caucasian..majority rules, the rest whom complain are cry babies...

I see you build your outlook on a house of cards. Not the foundation I would use personally...I prefer principles to hold me up.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
People pray in public by right because it causes no harm. If you use force to stop this, that is a demonstrable injury, and is certainly not a defense of life, or property.

Mmm, yes, this is what I was saying...we need to have the military shoot everyone they see praying or wearing crosses.
Yes..that is exactly what I was saying the whole time...every post I have made so far actually.

(aka, what the hell are you talking about? Who said that?)


I guess if its resorting to bearing false witness in order to progress a discussion..I won this debate
-takes a bow-

Originally posted by blueorder
well I am not "free" from any advertising, I am not a "coca colaist" or a "mcdonaldists", however, as a consequence of a free society they are free to ply their wares and try to convince me of their worth.

You cannot filter religion out of human existence, I believe Pol Pot tried that, and failed, butchering a million along the way- dramatic I know, but you get the drift

No, I don't
That is not what atheists are trying to officially get done.
We don't want government to stop religion..we want them to just get out of the business of...

Government pushing or stomping out religion is a disaster...they need to remain as neutral as humanly possible about what the people do.

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
reply to post by jiggerj

 

here is my experience. atheism is a religion with preachers same as any other. its the one anti god religion we have, and they want to push it upon innocent minds and indoctrinate our children.

hmmm... freedom from religion should be free from anti god religions also!

Then since that isn't coming, lets leave God on the money, but then toss the word anti- in front of it...
see...everyone wins...theists get the god on it...atheists get the anti- word on it.

In anti-god we trust

catchy.

I don't believe in santa clause also...because I am an anti-clausist..its a religion not to believe in santa clause of course...

reply to post by SaturnFX

Would you be alright with the money being stamped "There is no God"?

In your first reply to me, you edited my words in order to speak expressly to what you wanted to, now after editing that assertion to suit your purposes, you disingenuously ask the question above. Here is the full assertion I made:

I would also suggest that a government acknowledging a higher power, as every single State Constitution also does, is a necessary reminder that there is a limit to what government can grant, and while a government certainly can and does grant "civil rights", there are also unalienable rights, and regardless of ones religiosity or lack thereof, it must be understood that unalienable rights do not come from government. Wherever they do come from, and in God I trust, they preexist government.

Perhaps this time you will read it in its entirety...or perhaps not.

If you complained about someone elses opinion being on money everyone must use, may I laugh at your hurt feelings?

Now, replying to my first post in this thread, again you ignore my assertions, and again in order to ask a disingenuous question which is tragically weak.

Are you asking for my permission to exercise a right? Are you unclear on the fact that you have the right to offend others sensibilities and then enjoy the offense you caused? Would you think it criminal to laugh at my hurt feelings? Do you think me so weak that if you did laugh at my hurt feelings I wouldn't laugh with you, but only cry wee-wee-wee all the way home?

You foolishly brag of principles you have, but in the very next post, also in reply to me, you make a ridiculous argument pretending you've won a debate by only more pretense.

If you would have freedom from religion, how would the government stop public worship, if not by force, or threat of force.

Don't let that jerking knee of yours smack you in the nose as you take your bows.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Every so often she will throw out this little Chestnut.

She will argue for 100 pages.

In the end she is a skilled debater.

My experience arguing Religion on ATS is like competing in the Special Olympics.

You might win.....But your still retarded.

Originally posted by SaturnFX
I encourage you to read the wiki on the pledge
relevant bits start at the "Changes" part..read that and continue on, to include the scotus dissenting voices.
You will see a few things
1) the whole movement is saturated in christian promotion (knights of colombus to be exact), that the challenges were dismissed due to partisan/unconstitutional reasons, and its constitutionality is in violation, but ultimately its left in because of personal beliefs of the judges over any legal citation.

I am confused by your interpretation of the "wiki" page. What challenges were dismissed due to partisan reasons? Unconstitutional reasons? Further, how is constitutionality in violation? What judges denied petition because of personal belief?

It is understood by many in the movement that talking sense is not an option since the other side refuses to listen to sense...so, instead, it is time to show by example what the issue is.

And what is the issue? I know there is the question about "from religion", but is that the issue? If it is, how does one operate day to day when they walk down a town's Main Street and encounter clergy of any sort, or pass a church and hear hymns being sung?

...refuse to acknowledgement of either the blatant promotion of a specific religion (establishment of), or think somehow only christianity exists on earth..

What specific religion is established by the Government. This is why all these attempts have failed (regardless of your statement it was because of "judges personal bias") is because there is no establishment of religion, even with printed words upon money or "under God" in a pledge (that has been shown is voluntary and rightly so).

It is an establishment of religion...you cannot swap that name out with another name spoken by more people on earth with no issues.

What is?!

this whole thread is halarious because the "God" on the bill isnt what we think it is....

OP thinks this religion,(pagan or otherwize), is present when its really the opposite of...

Doing research on the Founders and the Bankers would show that this "God" is really Man.....

But what do I know.

the state religion is Atheism.

Originally posted by Keeper of Kheb
the state religion is Atheism.

The state religion is nothing -- even a law respecting the establishment of Atheism would be endorsing a religion; but brings a good question....would the proponents of this thread have any issue if tomorrow the Government came out said "To put to rest the notion that this Nation has somehow established a State sponsored religion with the inclusion of the phrase and motto "In God we Trust" upon the currency, we have declared this nation to be Atheist"