"Freedom of religion, not freedom from religion"

I came across this statement some time ago and am wondering what everyone here thinks of it. In my view, I think that the statement contradicts itself as freedom from religion seems to be implied by freedom of religion. If freedom from religion is not implied by freedom of religion, then how can someone claim the right to practice one religion over another?

Please forgive me if this topic has been brought up already. I wasn't able to find it during a quick search.

It's rather simple when considering this statement as directed at an individual:

1) Freedom of religion should then mean; the individual has the right to religiously believe no matter how silly it is.

..and..

2) Not freedom from religion then means, in the same individual context, an individual should have a religion.

So, the statement seems to be:

it's all good as long as you have a religion

That crappy definition is a simple contradiction in terms.

How is "you have to have one" freedom?

I'd settle for having both freedom of and freedom from religion - I'd rule the world!

Most western countries have a constitution that states citizens have "freedom of religion". It is pretty self explainatory, we have the right to believe whatever we want and the state should not try to influence our decision. That is why secularists use the following terms:

"Separation of Church and State"
"Freedom from religion"
"Freedom of religion"
ect...

Dooshebag fundies who think the government should impose Christianity on everyone then take these statements and twist them to mean the complete opposite of their original context in an attempt to sound smart.

"freedom of religion, not freedom from religion" is basically implying that the government has the right to impose religious dogma on a population. But that defeats the purpose of freedom of religion. You are right, it is self contradictory on a pathetic level.

Also, found this on google: http://atheism.about.com/od/churchstate ... omfrom.htm

Many people don’t realize — or don’t care — that real religious liberty must exist for everyone, not just for themselves. It’s no coincidence that people who object to the principle of “freedom from religion” are adherents of religious groups whose doctrines or standards would be the ones enforced by the state.

What the fundies don't acknowledge is that Freedom of Religion means that Satanism has as much right to the public sphere as has Christianity, and if they don't want equality for Satanism in things that the State does, then they must accept a completely secular state, and that must mean no mention of God anywhere, at state or federal levels. And to be free of religion is certainly implicit in any claim of freedom of religion, just the same as freedom from religion.

chairman bill wrote:

And to be free of religion is certainly implicit in any claim of freedom of religion, just the same as freedom from religion.

Yup.
"Freedom from religion" follows directly from "freedom of religion". Frredom of religion means you can't be forced to join ANY religion.
(Just like "you can't force anyone to be logical", but we can all dream)

mindhack wrote:It's rather simple when considering this statement as directed at an individual:

1) Freedom of religion should then mean; the individual has the right to religiously believe no matter how silly it is.

..and..

2) Not freedom from religion then means, in the same individual context, an individual should have a religion.

So, the statement seems to be:

it's all good as long as you have a religion

This. It always pisses me off when I hear "freedom of religion, not freedom from religion."

"Freedom of religion, not freedom from religion"

People who assert this generally struggle with the concept of freedom of religion for other people

Freedom of religion is meaningless if it doesn't mean freedom from religion.

Nebogipfel wrote:

"Freedom of religion, not freedom from religion"

People who assert this generally struggle with the concept of freedom of religion for other people

Freedom of religion is meaningless if it doesn't mean freedom from religion.

I'd even go a little further, the statement comes across as threatening. I don't like it at all.

I also tend to think, after a bit of research, that the "freedom of religion, not freedom from religion" is sometimes meant to mean we have freedom to our religious beliefs, but we don't have the freedom to not see things of a religious nature. I think this is mainly in response to lawsuits against things like the display of the Ten Commandments in government buildings and all that. The problem with the statement "freedom of religion, not freedom from religion" in this regard is that it is a strawman and disregards other parts of the Constitution in favor of the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment. The reason it is a strawman, in my opinion, is that it characterizes the purpose of these lawsuits as being merely about not wanting to see anything of a religious nature. I think the actual purpose of these lawsuits is more along the lines of protecting the right to not be subjected to religion when it is endorsed by the government. The statement seems to disregard the fact that the Supreme Court has ruled that the Free Exercise clause does not protect all religious practices but is only absolute in protecting religious belief. It also disregards that the Constitution gives us freedom from religion when those practices and acts are in violation of the Establishment clause or generally held laws.

I think the "freedom of religion != freedom from religion" thing is wrong on two levels:

There's the specific level, where people with a particular religious identity say they should be free to practice that religious identity, but are thunderously silent on the issue of whether people with a different religious identity should also be free to practice theirs.

For example, for as long as I can remember, the Roman Catholic idea of "Christian Unity" is that all the non-Catholic Christians become Catholics.

Then there's the more general level of religious people who aren't fussed about the details of your religion, so long as you have one. The implication being that if you don't identify yourself as "religious" in some way, then you're probably up to no good.

I don't know much about the details of the U.S. constitution, but it seems to me that the First Amendment was a determination to learn the lessons of history rather than repeat them; namely the religious conflicts that Europe had gone through not that long before. I think it was one of the best ideas the drafters of the constitution had. We could do with something like that on this side of the pond...

Nebogipfel wrote:Then there's the more general level of religious people who aren't fussed about the details of your religion, so long as you have one. The implication being that if you don't identify yourself as "religious" in some way, then you're probably up to no good.

You partially answered this, but why do you suppose theists get so upset about the existence of "nonbelievers?"

Apparently "freedom OF speech" means you MUST say something.

Nebogipfel wrote:I don't know much about the details of the U.S. constitution, but it seems to me that the First Amendment was a determination to learn the lessons of history rather than repeat them; namely the religious conflicts that Europe had gone through not that long before. I think it was one of the best ideas the drafters of the constitution had. We could do with something like that on this side of the pond...

What many people do not realise about the combination of the US Constitution with the Westward Ho! mentality is that religion is a business in America, just like any other, and that 'freedom from religion' is often taken as 'restraint of trade'. When someone offers the notion that the US is a 'Christian Nation', it's just a marketing slogan.

Caper wrote:Apparently "freedom OF speech" means you MUST say something.

Oh, I always manage somehow to do that.

Tollens wrote:

Nebogipfel wrote:Then there's the more general level of religious people who aren't fussed about the details of your religion, so long as you have one. The implication being that if you don't identify yourself as "religious" in some way, then you're probably up to no good.

You partially answered this, but why do you suppose theists get so upset about the existence of "nonbelievers?"

It's a blemish on the bottom line for the next shareholders' meeting. What religion is to capitalism, nonbelievers are to a 'red menace'. War is just diplomacy carried on by other means.

From Austin Cline with some personal editorials:

The most important thing to remember is that freedom of religion, if it is going to apply to everyone, also requires freedom from religion. Why is that? You do not truly have the freedom to practice your religious beliefs if you are also required to adhere to any of the religious beliefs or rules of other religions.

As an obvious example, could we really say that Jews and Muslims would have freedom of religion if they were required to show same respect to images of Jesus that Christians have? Would Christians and Muslims really have freedom of their religion if they were required to wear yarmulkes? Would Christians and Jews have freedom of religion if they were required to adhere to Muslim dietary restrictions?

Simply pointing out that people have the freedom to pray however they wish is not enough. Forcing people to accept some particular idea or adhere to behavioral standards from someone else’s religion means that their religious freedom is being infringed upon.

Freedom from religion does not mean, as some mistakenly seem to claim, being free from seeing religion in society. No one has the right not to see churches, religious expression, and other examples of religious belief in our nation — and those who advocate freedom of religion do not claim otherwise.

What freedom from religion does mean, however, is the freedom from the rules and dogmas of other people’s religious beliefs so that we can be free to follow the demands of our own conscience, whether they take a religious form or not. Thus, we have both freedom of religion and freedom from religion because they are two sides of the same coin.

Interestingly, the misunderstandings here can be found in many other myths, misconceptions and misunderstandings as well. Many people don’t realize — or don’t care — that real religious liberty must exist for everyone, not just for themselves. It’s no coincidence that people who object to the principle of “freedom from religion” are adherents of religious groups whose doctrines or standards would be the ones enforced by the state.

Since they already voluntarily accept these doctrines or standards, they don’t expect to experience any conflicts with state enforcement or endorsement. What we have, then, is a failure of moral imagination: these people are unable to really imagine themselves in the shoes of religious minorities who don’t voluntarily accept these doctrines or standards and, hence, experience an infringement on their religious liberties through state enforcement or endorsement.

That, or they simply don’t care what religious minorities experience because they think they have the One True Religion. And maybe that's their point?